Mass- Again, you are vastly overrating the women. The most athletic woman in the WNBA would get outrun, outjumped, and outquicked by almost every player on the 5A boys team.

And I don't know where you got the idea of a 5A boys team just being a bunch of 6'6" dunkers who have no other skills. We're talking about a typical 5A boys team. A team that has played together for a a couple months and runs a system and is in shape. Dunking keeps getting brought up simply to show the enormous chasm between the caliber of athlete when comparing men to women. 5A boys scrubs who never play can often get above the rim. Whereas any time a woman does it while wide open (and does it very unimpressively), it's big news.

The boys would win. I have played against some very "good" D1 girls. It's no contest.

The biggest problem for women is that they simply have no hope of guarding male perimeter players off the dribble. Even the best WNBA defender would get destroyed by your average HS varsity point guard.

I don't know where you guys played high school but there's no way an "average" PG is going to take a WNBA player off the dribble very often. That's just stupid.

Women are not very good at basketball, relatively speaking. It isnt through any fault of their own, their bodies just arent built to be able to compete with men at something that requires as much coordination and athleticism as basketball. Any half-decent high school guard would torch a WNBA defender. Hell, most WNBA players have trouble guarding their peers on the pertimeter.

Seriously, I promise

Holy &$%@, you may be the biggest troll on TA.

quote:

---

And I don't know where you got the idea of a 5A boys team just being a bunch of 6'6" dunkers who have no other skills.

---

I didn't say that. The OP as well as several other posters have now stated that the proof of male 5A superiority is the fact that they can dunk and most WNBA women can't. My point was that dunking skills probably don't even correlate significantly with overall basketball skills.

quote:

---

Women are not very good at basketball, relatively speaking. It isnt through any fault of their own, their bodies just arent built to be able to compete with men at something that requires as much coordination and athleticism as basketball.

---

Grow an inkling of self confidence and maybe you won't need to use this kind of sardonic language. Yes, there is no question that, all other things being equal, men are better than women at most sports. That's a vastly different thing than saying that the top 0.01% of women's basketball players in the world would get beat by a 5A high school boy.

You guys don't know how silly and insecure you sound.

But you're still wrong, FYI.

Really not sure how it would play out.

The average team would not beat the women. Maybe the 2 teams in the championship would make it competitive, possibly winning. Would probably be a good game. The defense women at that level play would give the guys fits. It would be swarming.

In a sport such as soccer, it wouldn't be close. The best boys team at the high school level would not compete with a professional womens team. Sorry, not happening. Speed may be there, but slower teams can win in soccer with accuracy, which women posses. Best college team however would probably beat a pro womens team.

No other sports can really draw a comparison. Volleyball theoretically could in other states, but I don't think high school boys in California could play with the top notch girls that have played 4 years of extremely competitive college ball.

Lacrosse and hockey are fundamentally different games between the men and the women, couldn't really draw a good comparison. Fundamentally being the use of checking that is not in the womens game but a big part of the mens game.

Baseball and softball are extremely different sports. I hate it when they make a big deal about a softball pitcher striking out major leaguers. Not even close to the same type of pitching these guys are used to. Put a top female hitter against a closer, it would be laughable. Think Bobby Hill striking out looking in a t-ball game.

The only other major team sport in this country would be water polo, and well, we won't go there.

How am I insecure? I'm a VERY, VERY average 5'10" white basketball player who averaged 8 PPG as a high school senior and who fully acknowledges that the best women's basketball players would school me.

However, when you consider that most varsity basketball starters are much better and taller than me, you begin to understand how difficult it would be for women to hang with them.

quote:

---

The same people who think dunking and athleticism are key to the game are the people that thought James White was going to be an NBA superstar. When are you people going to get it through your thick skulls that the ability to dunk has nothing to do with how good you are in basketball?

---

Once again, nobody is claiming that being able to dunk makes you a better bball player than someone who cant dunk. Watty did a good job of explaining this. A guy who can dunk, like a James white, is far more athletic on average than a woman that can't. In terms of James white becoming an NBA superstar, he was put into a league where everyone else also had that same athleticism as him. Only difference was that there were far more polished basketball players, who had both the athleticism and fundamentals.

If a WNBA team played a good high school boys team, you would be surprised to learn that a good high school boys team could match, or at the very least come close to matching, the women's team in terms of fundamentals. Add the substantial difference in athleticism and you have a team with a clear cut advantage.(This is also assuming since it is a decent team that have at least decent coaching).

quote:

---

Given that thinking, it is my suspicion that the people arguing that a 5A boys team could beat a WNBA team have never played on a decent basketball team in their lives. If they had, they'd know that a team that can make crisp, smart passes, can penetrate with the dribble effectively, and can hit outside shots consistently is ALWAYS better than a team of 6'6"+ dunkers.

---

Or, it could mean that my high school team was pretty good.(at least FR and SOPH years) one that could make crisp, smart passes, can penetrate with the dribble effictively, can hit outside shots consistently, AND was full of some 6'6-6'8 dunkers. The two things together will always beat a team that can only do one.

Not to mention the fact that this statement was completely false. When we played more athletic teams,(my JR and SR years) we usually had much better coaching, much better fundamentals, and even had a few guys that had some great athleticism in their own right. However, the other team who had far better athletes typically beat us.

quote:

---

When I was a freshman at A&M, we always used to play at the Northside courts over by Walton. There were 5 of us that typically played together, none of us could dunk (or even come close) but we played sound basketball, set picks, passed the ball well, and all of us could shoot. One day a group of guys came out there and were dunking and swinging on the rims, slapping the backboards, etc. We beat the tar out of them because none of them could shoot and they had no clue how to position themselves to use their athleticism against us.

---

Typically a high school team with this kind of athleticism would also have some better shooters. With decent coaching that put these guys in the right position, surrounded by a few shooters(considering most good high school teams have a few guys that can shoot), they would have beat the ever living tar out of you.

quote:

---

My point was that dunking skills probably don't even correlate significantly with overall basketball skills.

---

It actually does correlate pretty damn well. You ever wonder why every player in the NBA(outside of mugsey boughes a few years back), can dunk??? While close to all D1 college players can dunk(but not all), and probably only half of your high school team can. That is a correlation.

Of course for an individual it doesn't mean anything, but with proper technique and fundamentals taught to them, a more athletic player can always become a better basketball player given the right coaching.

quote:

---

Really not sure how it would play out.

The average team would not beat the women.

---

You can't say these two sentences back to back. You just said you really don't know how it would play out, then you said something that would not happen. That is implying that you do, in fact, know how it would play out.

Oh yeah, one last thing. My high school team had a 6-8 guy who shot 44% from 3 pt range, a 6-5 guy who shot about 40%, and another 6-6 guys in the starting lineup who could shoot pretty decent from mid range. Tell me how any WNBA team could realistically alter the shot of all three of these guys on the floor at once.

[This message has been edited by beerad12man (edited 6/8/2009 12:12p).]

The 5A team's defense would be absolutely smothering. All 5 male players would be taller, faster, and stronger than their female counterparts. With this being the case, I don't see the chicks being particularly successful moving the ball around to get open shots either. On the other end of the court, the woman couldn't play defense. They're shorter and can't jump as high so jump shots are nigh unguardable unless you start moving bigger players out which leaves the male center in a great position to hurt them badly.

Obviously this doesn't apply to every team 5A scrub team, but I think a top 20-30% team would roll the WNBA.

It's really not even fair to compare. I remember after my freshman year of college I tried to get back into playing basketball, and that summer I played with one of my old high school friends, who was a McD All American nominee. She plays D2 basketball and is pretty decent there.

Anyway, I hadn't played much in like 2 years, but even then I was able to take it to her pretty easily. I could drive and score on her every time, even though we had comparable height (6' to 5'11".

On the other hand, her post moves just weren't cutting it. If I didn't bite on a pumpfake, she couldn't do jack on me.

That was after a year of college coaching, versus an ******* (me) who hadn't seen a gym to play basketball in like 2 years. I thought it was pretty funny.

High School guys roll in that match up. Sorry ladies.

if it's the WNBA team with Candace Parker they would roll the high school team.

There are somewhere around 250 5A high schools in Texas, and I think the top 10% would school a WNBA team and another 20-25% that would either beat them or play a competitive game, if not more.

[This message has been edited by moorehead01 (edited 6/8/2009 12:34p).]

quote:

---

You can't say these two sentences back to back.

---

Read the original question genius. A GOOD TEAM, not an average team. The run of the mill 5A team that maybe makes the playoffs once every 3 years and gets bounced early would probably not do it.

A good team, consistently in the playoffs, making at least regional semis, might be able to do something. A team that makes the championship would make it competitive and probably win, as clearly, they have down a lot of things that would give the women an advantage over a weaker team (fundamentals).

Well an elite level 5A team is probably going to have a big time prospect that could take 3 average WNBA players. If it's just a bunch of "pretty good" high schoolers they'd get rolled. If their big time prospect is a shorter guard (say if they were playing Bryan High School) it would probably be a pretty close game. If the boy's teams best player is a big wing or a center/forward the WNBA team would be doomed just because that players size would make him unguardable. Even Candace Parker would get destroyed by some giant high school phenom (like Greg Oden a few years ago or even DeAndre Jordan.)

DeAndre Jordan is a freak of nature. When he schools LeBron the next 10 years you will understand.

quote:

---

You ever wonder why every player in the NBA(outside of mugsey boughes a few years back), can dunk???

---

Funny how John Stockton and Mark Price were two of the best at their position for about 10 years straight, but never once did either of them dunk a basketball.

Also funny that one of the most (if not THE most) unathletic teams in the NBA (the Spurs) over the past 10 years has won 4 titles.

Being able to jump high is a helpful skill to have in basketball, but it is nowhere near being the most important.

But you guys go ahead and continue to reach at this.

Let's not forget the Spurs lone season of missing the playoffs (also the reason for them now having Duncan) was the season they were without the dominant big man.

quote:

---

Read the original question genius. A GOOD TEAM, not an average team. The run of the mill 5A team that maybe makes the playoffs once every 3 years and gets bounced early would probably not do it.

---

Why do people have to respond with smart ass comments like "genious". Why couldn't you just respond by saying you meant that you wouldn't know how the good team would play out, and that the average team would not win. No need for sarcasm there.

Not to mention the fact that you originally said they would not win, then you just recently changed your stance to saying they probably would not win. So in reality, I was right. You still don't know how it would play out, so you can't say that they wouldn't win.

quote:

---

Funny how John Stockton and Mark Price were two of the best at their position for about 10 years straight, but never once did either of them dunk a basketball.

---

For every player you can name in the NBA, I could name 100 that can dunk. About 1% of the league can't dunk. In college, that grows to say 5-10%. In high school, it grows to 25+%. Its pretty damn obvious that there is a direct correlation between how athletic someone is and how good they can be at basketball. Correlation doesn't mean that there is an exact science behind it, it just means that if you graphed it, you could see a trend. There is an obvious trend here, a pretty strong one at that.

quote:

---

Also funny that one of the most (if not THE most) unathletic teams in the NBA (the Spurs) over the past 10 years has won 4 titles.

---

I don't argue this, but that lack of athleticism is what is now causing our first round exits. Amazing, that the teams in the finals now are two of the more athletic teams in the league. Guys like Bryant, Bynum, Howard for example. There will always be exceptions like the spurs, but it is no where near the norm. My biggest peeve with regards to arguments is when people throw out exceptions to the rules, and don't stick by the norm. kind of like the "recruiting doesn't matter" arguments in using the likes of us/tech. That is the exception, not the norm.

As you can imagine, the norm is for the more athletic team to be better, but that doesn't mean it will be the case every single time.

quote:

---

Being able to jump high is a helpful skill to have in basketball, but it is nowhere near being the most important.

---

Not one single person has said this. We are just saying the substantial advantage the boys team would have over the girls. You'd be hard pressed to find one single area in which the girls have this big of an advantage to counter it. And don't say fundamentals, because that is wrong.

quote:

---

But you guys go ahead and continue to reach at this.

---

It is not a reach to say that the more athletic you are, the better your potential is. That is my main stance.

if you think the spurs with tony parker, manu ginobli, and tim duncan are unathletic, then maybe you are the one who lacks basketball knowlegde.

I guess the point I'm making (that most of you are missing) is that footwork, basketball IQ, court awareness, outside shooting ability, and dribbling skills are better in a team of professionally coached, cream-of-the-crop female players who eat, drink and breath basketball, than they are in a group of high school boys with little discipline that are coached by a health teacher.

Sure, the boys might be a little taller and jump a little higher, but I'd rather have all those other things on my team.

quote:

---

It is not a reach to say that the more athletic you are, the better your potential is. That is my main stance.

---

I get it. And I have conceded this point. See above. It also isn't a reach to say that all of the other skills required to play basketball are more ingrained and well-honed in a professional women's player than they are in a high school boy.

quote:

---

if you think the spurs with tony parker, manu ginobli, and tim duncan are unathletic, then maybe you are the one who lacks basketball knowlegde.

---

I was speaking relatively. Start a poll thread of NBA teams with the least athleticism and see if the Spurs don't end up at the top of most people's lists. The Spurs have been extremely good at a lot of things over the years, but athleticism is not one of them. Tim Duncan is tall, he has great footwork, great court awareness and an indefinite basketball IQ, but he can barely jump over a phone book.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 6/8/2009 2:08p).]

quote:

---

I guess the point I'm making (that most of you are missing) is that footwork, basketball IQ, court awareness, outside shooting ability, and dribbling skills are better in a team of professionally coached, cream-of-the-crop female players who eat, drink and breath basketball, than they are in a group of high school boys with little discipline that are coached by a health teacher.

---

Please tell me you don't actually think that they have health teachers coaching boys 5A basketball. Every single 5A school in the state has a highly qualified basketball coach. And I'd argue that the high school boys are just as fundamentally sound if not more so than the women. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually watched a 5A game and a WNBA game.

We all completely understand your point. There is more to basketball than just pure athleticism, blah blah blah. I get it. But if we are talking about a good high school team, what makes you think that they don't have some of those same skills that the girls have?( footwork, basketball IQ, court awareness, outside shooting ability, and dribbling skills are better in a team of professionally coached, cream-of-the-crop female players who eat, drink and breath basketball).

I just find it hard to believe that a good high school boys basketball team doesn't have more than just athleticism. The difference is that the difference in skills that they may lack compared to the girls isn't near as great as the athleticism that the girls will lack. In my personal opinion, that will be far too great for the girls to overcome, even if they are better at the other stuff.

Mass- At what level do you think guys could finally beat those awesome women?

[This message has been edited by watty (edited 6/8/2009 2:26p).]

The top half of D-1 would beat WNBA. No questions.

The 3rd quarter would probably beat WNBA.

Bottom quarter would play it close, call it a toss up.

Top D-2 teams could probably beat bottom D-1 teams, and also probably beat WNBA.

You seriously think some D1 teams would lose to WNBA players? WOW.

so, you're saying our 0-16 or 3-13 era melvin watkins teams would lose or be a "toss up" against an NBA team?
seriously?

Even our Melvin Watkins teams weren't bottom quarter.

record and performance wise, they certainly were.
are you saying we were too talented under melvin?
because i thought the whole point of this convo was that these scrappy WNBA players would hustly and pass so well that it would overcome the talent edge.

We had the talent under Melvin. Last time I checked, 0-16 happened with 2 current NBA players on the roster. Talent was there. How many total D-1 programs are there? It's not like in football where there are a 3rd of the programs as in basketball. (1-aa is not d-1)

1 (maybe 2) of those 2 NBA players on that 0-16 team never sniff the league if melvin stays around.