Personally I think not having karma limits is nice currently! I understand why they were used but grinding karma as a lurker on reddit was frustrating.

  • oldindianmonk
    1•1 year ago

    Okay.

    Ellyse Perry, the fastest bowler in women’s cricket is 176cm at 60kg (amazing athlete, represented Australia at both Cricket and Football world cups!). Her fastest ball was 130.1kph

    Shoaib Akthar, the fastst bowler in men’s cricket is 180cm at 80kg. His fastest was 161kph

    Laws of cricket dictate that women should use a ball that is between 415⁄16 and 55⁄16 ounces (139.98 and 150.61 grams); which could be up to 13⁄16 ounces (23.03 grams) lighter than the ball used by the men.

    Also made me think, the whole height-weight distinction will only work in purely physical sports like boxing (maybe even some american sports like baseball and nfl). It is not going to work in global sports like Cricket and Football. Think about the greatest footballers of our generation. Cristiano was 183cm (6ft) and Messi 169cm (5ft 6in).

    • Bernie Ecclestoned
      1•1 year ago

      So his mass is 33% more and the ball goes 23% faster? Momentum is mass x velocity iirc.

      • oldindianmonk
        3•1 year ago

        I only pointed out the difference between the fastest. There’s plenty of shorter, leaner bowlers in men’s cricket who bowl faster than Perry. Kemar Roach for instance is in the same height and weight category as Perry and regularly bowls 150kph

        Tbf it’s expected. You know women going below 16-18% body fat is completely unhealthy while top male athletes are perfectly healthy at 6% or so

        Edit: wtf mate? Momentum is not mass of propeller times velocity. By your logic a sumo wrestler would easily be the fastest cricket bowler!

        • Bernie Ecclestoned
          1•1 year ago

          Momentum is mass x velocity. Google it.

          Would you rather get hit by a featherweight or heavyweight? Mass matters

          I’d say the difference between men and women’s cricket will reduce as women get more training and money, I don’t see any reason why not

          • oldindianmonk
            2•1 year ago

            Yes dear friend, momentum is indeed mass x velocity. But we’re not talking about the speed at which the bowler runs. It’s the speed at which the bowl is propelled.

            (to be clear, the lower mass of cricket ball in women’s cricket is a factor in reducing momentum. But we’re talking purely speed here)

            Some women cricketers (outside Pakistan) earn more than Pakistani male cricketers already. And I must say, I’m a huge supporter. Unlike the WNBA in the US, women’s cricket is way more popular in rest of the world.

            It’s a biological factor that women, generally, aren’t as physically strong as men and as a supporter of female athletes, abolishing gender boundaries is practically killing women’s sports. Here’s some more data you could’ve found out by googling: https://boysvswomen.com/#/

            • Bernie Ecclestoned
              1•1 year ago

              I’m not so sure. Women’s football is doing very well now that it’s getting more money and attention, as are motor sports.

            • Bernie Ecclestoned
              1•1 year ago

              Thanks, done a little googling, I’m not very au fait with the subject

              I found this article that reinforces most of what you say, but also makes the comment:

              Many of the limits for women’s sport will be determined by broader cultural change. That much was revealed by a remarkable study of throwing by boys and girls across the world. Aboriginal Australian girls threw the ball harder than those from anywhere else, and the gap with boys was smaller. One can infer that the way girls are raised elsewhere in the world impedes their physical development, and that a considerable portion of girls’ athletic inferiority elsewhere in the world owes to culture, not biology.

              https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1104475/how-far-can-women-s-cricket-go

      • oldindianmonk
        2•1 year ago
        • his mass is 33% more and the ball goes 23% faster? Momentum is mass x velocity iirc.

        Do you understand why this statement is wrong?

        You’re mixing the mass of the person throwing the ball with the mass of the ball.

        • his mass is 33% more

        This would matter if he was flying himself at the batsman.

        • Bernie Ecclestoned
          1•1 year ago

          I’m not trying to be difficult, I just probably don’t understand. It’s been at least 30 years since I did physics.

          There’s only 3 things in the equation?

          Velocity = Momentum/Mass

          momentum is the product of the mass and velocity. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction

          The ball gets its momentum from the mass and velocity, so size and speed of the bowler?

          Add in levers from long whippy limbs and you get the fastest ball for the size of bowler?

          Do biological males have longer whippier limbs? If not, then I don’t understand how a bowler of the same size and weight of either sex would have an advantage, assuming identical levels of access to playing and coaching from a young age.