[from an RSD discussion, Fall of 2005]
It comes down, I think, to one variable: speed.
The average male player is faster than the average female player. Right?
If you can accept that theory, keep reading.
In a 4/3 game, whenever a woman has the disc, there are 4 males and 2
females running around on D. When a man has the disc, there are 3 males
and 3 females. Purely based on speed, there is going to be better
defensive coverage of the field, on average, when a woman has the disc.
(I am assuming that the male and female mark, which aren't based on speed,
are similar relative to the thrower in terms of field coverage).
Add to this that in any given throw, a man v. woman matchup is tilted
purely based on speed, at least marginally.
Translation: Men in general poach onto women's throws more often/effectively
than women poach onto men's throws.
Conclusion: If everything else is totally equivalent, you are better off
with male players touching the disc relatively more often.
Problems with this logic: Obviously, if only men touch the disc, you are
more predictable, which a D can exploit. This difference in minimized by
good throwing, which tends to exploit poaching. Poaching is also more
difficult if the other team can recognize switches well, and has the
organization to work together to exploit them.
Also, it neglects what I think is a general trend in the differences
between female and male cutters (also based on speed):
[Begin tangent]
Men get 'open' by larger distances, but also give up these separations
often. Women, generally, get less separation from a defender, but give it
back less often. As the players in general get faster, better, and have
better marks, the field starts to effectively shrink. In this case, it
becomes more beneficial to have players that can reliably get open in less
space (See Team USA for an example of a team with so much speed that it
became hard to find open spots on the field until they learned to adapt.
Players that reliably get open in small acreage, like Deb, Dom, Miranda
and Zip, become incrementally more valuable)
[Ok, back from the tangent.]
Why is this difference important at all? I can think of 2 reasons:
1) There is a legitimate reason for why it can be a dominant strategy to
not use women as much or more than men...and why the best teams typically
use their women well. Male touches have a benefit in terms of defensive
field coverage. As the average skill in marking, throwing, cutting
and reading the field increases, the benefit in riding the men decreases,
until it starts to hurt you.
2) The legitimate reason for this strategy is NOT a difference in skill.
Many people have tried to use this "difference in average skill" argument
to explain why there are, in general, more turnovers in women's ultimate
than in coed, and more in coed than in men's. The real reason is that, for
women, the field is effectively larger.
Making up a random number here...but say the average woman is 80% as fast
as the average man (Average Guy runs a 8 second 60-yard-dash, Average
gal runs a 10 second 60-yard-dash? I have no idea.) If this is true, then
to compare skill, the men's field needs to be more like 95 yards long. Add
another 25 yards of playing field and tell me that men will score at a
higher rate than women.
When every 1-2-huck-goal play becomes a
1-2-huck-swing-swing-gainer-dump-gainer-goal...how many men's teams would
keep their high success rates?
While female athletes are not encouraged (in most sports) as well as male
athletes are...if there is a difference in skill due to this...then this
is surely (hopefully) a temporary situation, and will correct itself eventually.
So I conclude; the only real difference in male and female players is
speed. The higher the level of play, the less this advantage makes
men-only offenses a dominant strategy in co-ed. The best way to even out
the genders in terms of touches, In The Long Term, is not to change the
rules, but rather to increase the level of skill in all players.
