[ExI] competition markshumanship

[William Flynn Wallace]

It is likely that a great marksperson has great vision and that is
genetic.  In baseball to be a great hitter you need great vision.  Ted
Williams had 20/10 vision.  But baseball is a combination:  you need the
eyes and the years of skill training (to, for example, recognize a curve
ball from a slider from a fast ball and so on).  As vision gets worse with
age, so does the baseballer's batting average.  Pitchers don't need great
vision - the only position that doesn't require hitting.

I assume that it does not take long to judge the effect of the wind on a
bullet.

Details, details Spike

bill w

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:42 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Keith, regarding women's marksmanship, in 2016 the first Olympic gold was
> awarded to Ginny Thrasher, a West Virginian and distant cousin to me.  When
> you commented about marksmanship being largely a talent rather than a skill
> honed over years of practice, I was reminded that Ginny had only taken up
> the sport about a year before.
>
>
>
> Your comment about marksmanship being as much an innate talent as an
> acquired skill has the ring of truth.  Supporting detail available.
>
>
>
> Think about this: every sport has men's and women's divisions, even stuff
> you would not think would need them, such as chess.  But top level chess is
> dominated by men.  Currently there are no women in the among the highest
> ranking players.  I don't know why: perhaps evolutionary psychology could
> offer insight.
>
>
>
> If one speculates that every sport is dominated by men, there is one
> puzzling exception: marksmanship.  I know the debate drones on to this day,
> but I also know that marksmanship competitions have been mixed gender in
> the past, including at the Olympics.  If there is a single sport that men
> have the lowest inherent advantage, it would be that one.
>
>
>
> I have some fun details on that last comment if you want them.
>
>
>
> I speculate that in the foreseeable, women will dominate the sport in the
> USA, because of Title IX.  Reasoning: the insurance costs of collegiate
> sports is going up.  Title IX requires colleges to offer scholarships to
> men and women, regardless of the fact that more spectators pay more money
> to see men's sports.  If insurance becomes the dominant cost, it emphasizes
> the economic viability of the lower risk sports.  Marksmanship is the
> second-safest collegiate sport, behind chess.  Those are two sports where
> you can't hurt yourself.  So... the insurance is cheap.  It doesn't cost
> much to do either sport, so both are attractive as ways to spend Title IX
> dollars.  This would bring more women into competitive shooting, allowing
> us to discover inherent talent in the sport, eventually resulting in women
> dominating even the mixed-gender competitions.
>
>
>
> Fun detail available on request for that too.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200629/d8f7ba7e/attachment.htm>