Scoop, Meet Logic; Logic, Meet Scoop

SPORTING GOODS

Scoop Jackson, obviously just trying to stir up angry and sexist emails, asserts today that "women are more dominant in sports than men," and makes the (sometimes sound, sometimes not) argument that is represented by the assertion that someone like Mia Hamm was more dominant in soccer than someone like Ronaldinho. Substitute Lisa Fernandez/Roger Clemens, Pat Summitt/John Wooden, Cynthia Cooper/Michael Jordan, and repeat.

His claim is not that they are necessarily better, but that they were more dominant.

Sure, on its face that actually might be true, but in supporting his (pointless) closing statement that maybe women should be the namesakes for all 4 (pointless) brackets in ESPN's (pointless) "Who's Now?" competition, he misses a major point. And I'll give it its own line:

It is easier to dominate a sport when the level of competition is lower and less mature.

Mia Hamm is the most dominant women's soccer player ever and anywhere. But ever and anywhere truly covers about 20 years and 7-8 countries that take it seriously. And to varying degrees the same type of assessment can be made for women's golf, women's boxing, women's basketball, etc.

The same phenomenon can be applied to baseball throughout history. Looking back in time, you find decreasing numbers of players who truly dominate the sport as you go forward through the history of the game. In the early days there were pitchers and hitters who really owned the sport. As the game became more popular, it became harder for someone to dominate as a larger talent pool and the continuing evolution of best practices made the gap between the best players and the average players smaller and smaller. This is similar to why a guy can hit .600 in high school baseball, .450 in college, .330 in the minors, and then .300 in the majors.

As competition increases, it becomes harder to dominate. So, good for Laila Ali for being undefeated and Cynthia Cooper for winning a bunch of MVPs. They will go down some day in their respective hall of fames or whatever, but their sports right now are 1920s baseball or 1950s basketball. A higher level of dominance does not equate to a higher level of greatness.

(And that doesn't even address the issue that "Who's Now?" is about marketing combined with greatness, not dominance, but discussing that would validate the whole existence of "Who's Now?")