162%
Guardian lede omits the crucial point of the very story it’s reporting on:
The International Olympic Committee has confirmed that two boxers who were disqualified from last year’s world championships for failing gender eligibility tests will be allowed to fight in Paris.
Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) both start their Olympic campaigns this week, with Khelif meeting the Italian Angela Carini in the 66kg category and Yu-ting expected to face an unnamed opponent in the 55kg category on Friday.
Just look at the Graun carefully not saying that these are men who will be allowed to beat up women in Paris. If you’re familiar with the pattern then the mention of Angela Carini tells you where you are, but even that is in the second paragraph. Two male boxers who failed gender eligibility tests last year will be allowed to fight women in Paris. How chickenshit of the Guardian to go out of its way not to say that.
The IOC’s decision will be controversial, with the former world champion Barry McGuigan expressing his unease. In a post on X, he wrote: “It’s shocking that they were actually allowed to get this far, what is going on?”.
Why is it controversial? Why did the former world champion express his unease? Why does he say it’s shocking they were allowed to get this far?
…the boxing in Paris is now being run under the auspices of the IOC’s Paris 2024 Boxing Unit, which has more relaxed rules than IBA.
Oh more relaxed are they. Is that what you call it. It’s more relaxed to let men beat up women for public entertainment. I don’t suppose the women find it more relaxed.
Rules regarding who should compete in the female category have been hotly contested in recent years. However there has been less debate about combat sports, where the risk of serious injury and even death is far higher.
Scientific research has also found that the average punching power is 162% greater in those who have gone through male puberty compared to females.
Too bad that clarity comes at the very end of the story.
From the linked paper:
Uncomfortable for whom? No, really. To whom is this new information? I swear, Genderist Lysenkoism has to have been spreading for a longer time than I thought.
Also,
Lemme fix that: “… adult males …” or just “… men …”
Ah, so much clearer. But why say in one or two words what can be danced around in seven, amirite?
Shocking, of course. On a broader note watching MEN beatup on MEN for entertainment is pretty suspect as well?
Oh yes. I hate blood sports.
This question embarrasses me, but what woman in her right mind would even get in the ring with one of these blokes?
Is hitting below the belt prohibited in those contests? Could be a handy move, equality-wise. And it adds a new dimension to the concept of ‘having the balls’ to do X.
What’s a “gender eligibility test”? Do they have to match lipstick colours to skin tones, and walk down a flight of stairs in heels to prove that they know how to woman?
(Mitchell and Webb’s “Woman Test” sketch comes fo mind. Alas, it’s from the radio show rather than the TV show and not easily found with a quick google before rushing off to work!)
Hi all,
I just read the referenced paper to check if they actually meant “162% greater” (i.e. 2.62:1) or “162% of” (1.62:1). The wording is correct: 2.62:1.
Some caveats: the experiment measured power (in watts) accelerating a flywheel with a similar-to-a-punch arm movement over 3-4 seconds; candidates who did lots of weight-training or martial arts were excluded; the test was done seated with the torso restrained to measure arm power specifically, excluding shoulder or upper body contribution.
So actual punches using the whole body by elite boxers could be substantially different. This isn’t a diss at the experimenters for asking the question they asked, but “boxing punch power women” is not that hard a search term to type in! What little I’ve found so far seems to imply that the male advantage (for elite boxers) is much less than 2.6:1, more like 1.2-1.5:1, which is honestly less than I expected.
It could be because the 2.62:1 number came from relatively normal people – maybe a cultural gender athleticism difference on top of the expected sexual dimorphism one?
Still, even the low end 1.2:1 is not exactly a “fair” fight…
Lurker, doing the same search, I found quite a range of things, including, of course, the study cited in the column. Also, I found several at 152%, and some showing that women punch at 50%-60% less power than men. Any of those is damning.
I also saw a couple of other interesting statistics in my search. Although some studies show that the strongest woman is stronger than about 2.5% of all men, there are other things that show that the weakest man in boxing is stronger than the strongest woman.
We need to remember that the men in the boxing ring are not going to be ‘average’ men, all of whom are stronger than a woman, anyway. These are going to be men trained in boxing, who do strength training. The relevant statistics may not be available, but the reality is that on average, men are stronger than women, and men who do strength training are almost certainly stronger than women who do strength training. Why? Musculature.
Yeah, the 162% may not apply in the ring, but as you state, even the low end is not a fair fight. And that doesn’t include the fact that men tend toward more aggression, and those trained in pugilistic sports (or other contact sports, like football) tend to be trained to be even more aggressive.