Alienangel

LOL...yeah that's what I figured, amazing what happens to a guy when he gets too close to a hot woman doing a 21+... Bring it on I reckon

Not necesarily, however I do not think their equal status in terms of individual skydiving strength has been proven yet (we are largely a team sport so it is harder to quantify at this stage in the sport's growth) and therefore I continue to support a female category. You do not. Yes. And this is a small, growing sport in its infancy. If the sport had many more participants such as ALL the other sports I've mentioned, then I think it would be more easy to tell if there are genuinely differences in individual male and female capabilities. Until then, no reason to abandon the Female Category, our field of reference is too small to say with clarity that male and female capabiltiy is 100% on par. As yet all-female teams under-achieve compared to males. Period. And getting rid of the Female class is going to make this situation even worse. Yes I know who you are, I also know a little about 4-way and disagree with you. I have also jumped on both 75% male and 100% female teams and have an additional insight you might be lacking. (Oh, and 'I could drag my grandmother through a 15, and she's been dead 10 years' - Mark Kirkby, June 2006) Women are less physically strong than men, but I don't hold it against 'them', I applaud the drive and ambition of chicks who do take it to the top despite this. However I also fully support the Female Category for all the reasons stated which you have pretty much chosen to ignore. I think women are equal in value but I would be silly if I thought 'they' were equally as physically strong as men. Therefore there is a case for the continuation of the Women's Event. That is all I am saying. Nearly every other sport in the world recognises this fact and I don't think skydiving should be particularly different. However it is a newer sport than most and evolving very rapidly - this has given rise to a specific set of circumstances (such as women being on the top open teams, which is indeed a great thing. Would it last if the sport quadrupled its intake? Maybe. Maybe not.). Gender differences do exist, especially in the context of an aggressive, physical sport, and ignoring them doesn't make you a feminist, just mistaken. And by the way I also love Natasha. And Eliana. Alright?

Ok since you want to split hairs...I should have added, 'Complaining that the women's category should not exist because women are just as capable as men'. Since the rest of the post was written in that context I thought it was understood...but then I forgot it was you, Ron 1 - Yes all women on the 20+ teams get stronger, they work out a lot harder than the men to get a similar result. Men build muscle more easily than women, this is an incontrovertible fact. Remember what Arianne looks like? And have you seen Eliana's biceps lately? They are carrying significantly more muscle than most women and they worked out damn hard to get it. 2 - There are no top teams with more than 1 woman. Perhaps a 20+ team can have one physically weaker member but until I see a full 4-way team at a 20+ comprised only of females I will stick by what I say. And I still think they would be highly unlikely to win a World Championship in an Open Class. A 20 alone is not winning World Meets any more. 3 - I have said I BELIEVE it could be possible (let's face it, it's a nice idea and I'm all for those) to see an all- women's team post a 20+. And unlike you, I don't think you should scrap the female category because of something I simply believe. However my comments about the differences in muscle-building capabilities bewteen sexes are factual and so I think this supports having the Female Class, at least until it is proven that muscle is not a factor - which may never happen. Look, I understand you are in love with Natasha, and that is very sweet. Yes, she could skydive rings around you. But she has also spent a lot more $$$ on training in the last 4 years than you have. And, no offense, but were I to use this theory as an argument to prove gender superiority I would choose another 20+ competitor, maybe even a small point flyer like Johnny Eagle. Would she 'skydive circles' around him? How about Gary Smith? Jack Jeffries? What about Thomas Hughes? Fire are doing a higher average than most teams out there but that doesn't mean another player on the point would not make the team even stronger. So if it doesn't make any difference (and you seem to be suggesting all slots require the same characteristics or skills, which is naive at best, defensive at worst) then why are most of the top chicks in the point slot? Coincidence? Especially when you consider WERE IT NOT FOR THE STRENGTH ISSUE it would probably make more sense to have the typically shorter female player in the centre? The point slot is typically more of a precision solo-flying slot (see 2, 3, 4, 13, 20, 22) and generally requires less piece-move work. Much of the piece-flying (especially on the back) requires more strength than on the front and definitely in point. If you contradict that you are basically contradicting commonly accepted knowledge in competitive skydiving, but you are entitled to make your comments. Re these blocks which are supposedly 'harder' for point (1,6,8,16,19). 1 - Relatively easy moves for everyone, not much strength required in the centres and tail does the same job as point. 6 - Not especially harder for point than anyone else, single arm grips for point and OC, big deal. 8 - I think tail would argue with you over who has the hardest job on that. Flying a cat just shy of 360 is easier than the front piece move where you are basically just flying your own move? You've got to be kidding! 16 - Everyone is spinning a compress, I don't see why it is any 'harder' for point. 19 - Again a lot harder physical work for the tail (or IC if they are switching to avoid mirrors). The point is really doing very little on the front, flying a double gripped piece like that is nothing compared to spinning a side-body (or a cat). As far as slot-switching goes, there are 4 in the dive pool meaning in general most of any slot's work is done in their regular slot, as you know. Frankly I'm surprised you came up with these suggestions Ron. However I do appreciate your defense of the point, as it is my slot, and I like it. Except that if you took the World's top 4 male skydivers and put them against the World's top 4 female skydivers, the males might win? Why wouldn't this prove a thing? Because you don't like the suggestion? As skydivers we often lament the lack of external support for our sport in terms of media interest (beyond the usual 'skydiver plummets to death' etc) and sponsorship. We demand to be taken seriously AS A SPORT. And yet people like you simultaneously argue that, although we are a sport, we are NOT LIKE OTHER SPORTS. It doesn't make sense. Skydiving is 'just pushing air'? Let's remember that 'just pushing' is a physical action that requires muscle to perform. Is swimming 'just pushing water'? They have female-only events. How about surfing? 'Just manipulating water' too? Snowboarding is 'just sliding over snow'? How easy it all sounds. What about gymnastics? After all these guys are 'just' moving their own bodies, and look at how small the female gymnasts are. Why don't they compete next to the men? What about runners? Again, 'just' pushing themselves away from the track? Footballers, 'just kicking balls'? Discus throwers, 'just throwing stuff'? A rock face 'doesn't care' what's between a climber's legs but they still have separate categories for males and females. Why? As a competitor, I think your simplistic analysis of what is involved in the sport at the top level is insulting and out-dated. Yes, many female skydivers are as good as many men. And many of the world's top females in running, surfing, ski-ing etc could out-perform many men in the same sport. BUT NOT THE MEN WHO ARE ALSO AT THE TOP OF THE GAME. Hence the existence of female categories. Do we want to be seen as a 'real' sport or should we perpetuate the common misconception held by the general public that skydiving competitions involve jumping out of a plane yelling 'Yippee!' and are won by the person who lands nearest the cross, alive? We are a young sport and we are evolving. Having a female category is a step in the right direction, not the wrong one, as you claim. Indeed. They had ONE woman on each team. Two of whom were in the point slot. And these 3 teams are not the top 3 teams in the world, they are the top 3 who did this meet. Find me an all-female team doing a 20+ on a medium-paced draw and let's continue the conversation. Until then it remains a nice idea.

That's not my argument so don't put words in my mouth. I said skydiving at a 21+ has a lot to do with muscle. Men have more of that than women. Or do you also dispute this? Obviously that is also not what I said. Some people like to complain about the existence of the Women's class (sometimes on threads that have nothing to do with the subject), people like you, Ron. I happen to think women are 'equal' to men in many ways. However laws of nature dictate they are not equally as strong as men. This is not a value judgement, simply a fact. Until women-only teams are doing 20+ averages (I hope to see this and happen to believe it is possible, although as yet is is NOT proven, no matter what people like to foresee or assume) I don't see any reason to believe this is an insignificant fact. Perhaps. But I still dispute that women are as physically strong as men and I believe a 21+ demands very high levels of muscular strength and power. As far as this comment goes...please, let's not be silly. Vaginas may be made of muscle but you know full well this is not the type of muscle my post refers to. To GQ-Jumper: Yes true, but strength in order to move others around at speed is also an issue. If speed was all about size, women would be the fastest runners and hurdlers in the world. They aren't. We are a young sport, our top level competitors have not yet got close to maximising personal performances. As it stands women's teams consistently under-perform compared to men's - let's make a judgement call on binning categories when we have a little more data to go on. And one last thing. On this little matter of Ron's: Yes, they would kick male ass. But would they kick top level competitor male ass? If you took the world's top male skydivers and matched them against this fantasy team of top chicks of yours, I know who the smart money would be on. Eliana, Natasha and Ditta all fly point I believe, a typically fast, precision-oriented slot which generally requires less physical strength in piece-moves. Natasha is a great skydiver but she is also on a player-coach team as well as being a point flyer. That means the others guys are paid in one way or another to be on her team (awesome as it is). Yes, Ditta did a 20 average recently, which is great, but which was also at 'the fastest draw I have ever seen' (your quote I think, Ron?). Arianna rocks and so does Lise but if you put a combo of these guys up against Mark Kirkby, Kirk Verner, Craig Girard, Johnny Eagle, Gary Smith or some other set of 4 of the top males... Well, it would certainly be interesting, but I know where I'd put my cash. AA

No offence to the British Open team but if they have 21 potential this year it'll be the biggest leap in the history of the sport. In reply to HeatherB: The crux here is the use of the word 'besides'. Strength. For blocks. Correct. What do you think people are doing up there at a 20+? It is a hard, physical sport, not a soft game of sky-tag. Women are typically less muscular and less strong than men, which is why nearly every other sport in the world has a female category. To push 'physical strength' to one side as if it is irrelevant to the sport of competitive formation skydiving denigrates the athleticism of every top level 4- and 8-way competitor in the world. They are fit, strong, powerful athletes who work on building muscle to a high level outside other traning. Doing a 21, 22, 23 average is NOT the same as doing a 15, 16, 17 - which is where the top women's teams are right now. No women's team has yet even hit 18, and the only women who have seen and felt an 18+ did it with men strengthening the overall team. Anything that gets more people into the sport, more exposure for more individual skydivers, a greater range of goals for teams to target, more people on podiums, IMHO, is good for skydiving. Our sport is small and underfunded as it is. Why make it smaller? If you want a Men's class as well as Open and Women's then maybe that might be a better option. I'd also like to see a Non-Pro class at World Meets as we do at SSL meets - everything like this encourages more teams to train, and brings more money and people into the sport. Women in the Women's Class are aware they are 'only' in the Women's Class - but I don't think this detracts from what it means to medal in Open, or in the Female Class. It is, as yet, what it is - a different league - and there is nothing to stop individual women moving up and out of that league if they have the talent. Eliana and Ditta, both top class skydivers, have done just that and I think the Women's Class might have had something to do with it. Maybe you think they did it the 'wrong' way? I often hear people who haven't hit even a 17+ in their own teams complaining that 'women are just as capable as men'...I think perhaps not many people who have been at a 20+ would agree with you. Women at this level are the exception, not the rule. It is a tough job being a chick on an all-male team (see Ditta's post elsewhere on this forum) and as yet it has not been proven that all-female teams can compete on equal level with mixed or all-male teams. That is not to say it won't happen. But as yet we do not know empirically that it is possible - so perhaps we shouldn't scoff at 'strength for blocks' as if it were nothing. Top level male and female competitors are not pansying around like fairies as they turn a 21 average, they are using a significant amount of muscle and strength - something men, in general, have more abundantly than women. Until that changes or we DO see an all-female team at a 20+ (something I hope to see), talk of the abolition of the Women's Class is nothing but a bunch of hot air used in misplaced self-righteousness by people who, let's face it, just wanna skydive with hot chicks. Damn I knew I was gonna lose my thread like everyone else on here did... AA

nothing but pain and misery....

I'll ignore that juveline taunt and assume perhaps there's a little bit of a troll in all of us - or at least, in you? You don't seriously expect me to rise to your so-called 'challenge'? You innocence is laughably sweet. I have communicated with so-called 'trolls' in the past and have found a firm stand to be the only thing they respect. They are scum, and should be treated as such. Yes - threads ARE precious. As we all are, as precious members of this precious sport. DZ.com is a precious history of our communications as skydivers of the world through the years a memory box, as it were - to taint what we say to one another, as equals, is akin to daubing spray paint grafitti on a Monet. People - we need to think this through. Or perhaps you would care to elaborate on this so-called 'box' you believe trolls help you 'think outside'? Insult and rudery have the same place in my heart as do trolls - they do not belong on dz.com, as those of us who go way back know. AA

Perhaps you haven't seen the hurt and pain that I have? If self-gratification and ego-wanking is a so-called 'purpose' then I suppose you have a point. As useful as the genuine and serious discussion of real dot-commers who are unafraid to stand by their words and don't need to hide behind the shroud of anonymity like these cowardly trolls? Trolls conceal what's real...and we should all be worried about that.

Wake up and smell the coffee, kiddo. So-called 'heavy' hands are all these bastards understand. The forums are no place for meaningless drivel.

To condone outright deception in a place we have come to trust - in our beautiful, warm, and loving online community of sky-people - feeds mistrust, fear and fragmentation. How many people must be let down, tricked, made to feel foolish before we see the truth? We must fight against it if we are to protect what we have here. Let's all try and think of those 'facts' next time we turn a blind eye to these cyber-vandals. AA

Flyangel - little lady - don't you realise the damage that can be done by these idiots? The internet was surely created for something better than this?! You may laugh as the forums become riddled with pathetic attempts to 'entertain', to arouse, the provoke... but shouldn't we be asking - at what cost? DZ.com is no place for the so-called 'humor' of this type. It is our home - and we should keep our house clean, and safe. These idiots make me sick. AA

Your naivety is breath-taking. It is precisely these forums that attract new-comers. Trolls confuse people and disrupt topics of discussion, leaving us all wondering, 'What is real?' Tolerance is weakness, people - alligning yourself with these twisted miscreants is a shallow and thinly-veiled attempt to gild yourself with the associated 'cool' of the rebel 'troll'. It's pathetic. Think before you post. Trolls cause more harm than any amount of 'amusement' could make up for. AA

So-called 'trolling' should be seen as the pathetic attempt to attract attention that it so-clearly is. I am a serious skydiver and I come to these forums to analyse and discuss a sport that I am honored to be a part of. So-called 'trolling' denigrates us as participants in this magical game of the skies, and pollutes the wonderful cleanliness of both our community, and our website. Trolls should be ashamed of themselves. This so-called 'humor' is nothing more than mindless, juvenile drivel which both repulses me and puts off potential entrants to our rare playground, the skies. Treat trolls with the disrespect and contempt they deserve. To do otherwise is to become part of and encourage a puerile facade of lies and self-indulgence, and that has no place in this great country, or sport, of ours. Let's all try and remember that, people. Play safe, and keep it real. Aa

hello Remster, always the flatterer I see... see you in Az some time I hope! and your foxy wife

I believe I qualify as old sckool... I was there in the days when Freaksis would send you a pic of her pierced clit as you sat having lunch. My my, those really were the days... Skreamer is still around and a freaky as ever. One day I hope he'll give himself to me as a complete man..until then, I shall lurk...

Well, I thought it sounded like a jokey comment even before the corporate apology. Then again I am a sick bastard. I thought the references to God made it clear he was being humorous....I guess not. And a point of interest ...the Brit sense of humour is often perceived as sick/ cynical/ sarcastic, or close to the bone, as compared to the Septics'. Case in point?

And I remember you, you big hunk. Ah, those were the days... You know, some of my friends are STILL banned from this forum. Scandalous.

Hello. I got banned for so long I bet none of you even remember me now.... But now I seem to be back. How nice.

It's ME. You don't say 'between they', 'between we' or 'between I'. 'I' is the subject and 'me' is the object in the sentence. If in doubt take out the other pronoun, as someone above said. Although it would be better to say, 'To confirm our previous conversation...'.

This is the biggest load of ignorant, racist, obtuse shit I have read for a very long time. I wonder if the world is a more, or less, scary place when viewed in black and white?

Wahay, even better! I'll be there from 24th May, staying at Maurici, can I meet you somewhere? I will probably be on my own unless I can get someone to have the balls to take time off before then! AA

Sure thing Skylark, where'll I meet you and how I know you da man?

Hmm. Sometimes gravy too, but only in the north and it's grim up there.

Everyone in the UK, I understand. My point, to clarify, is that people who prefer to work on improving their skydiving as opposed to goofing around all the time are not necessarily assholes. I think that was the word you used. I didn't take it personally by the way, as I don't consider myself to be on of these 'greats' to whom you refer. I am, however, an asshole, in case you weren't aware. Ciao AA

Hi Tribal, Wow, I think you have some inverted snobbery going on here. Hmm. The skydivers I've found to be 'the best' and already (or aiming to be) 'numbah one' could be considered an inspiration to fledgling skydivers. You seem to have taken out a copyright on the word 'fun'. Some people actually find trying to improve their skydiving skills to be fun. I don't think it's up to you to denigrate people who are actually trying to achieve something. I mean, yeah, those World Champion skydiving teams...What a bunch of miserable wankers. They hate skydiving really, they're just masochists. This attitude is as rare as rocking horse shit and you know it. Wants some tomato sauce with those chips on your shoulder, Tribal? Chill out a bit, be friendly, and soon it won't seem like such a horrible, badass world full of asshole masochistic skygods. Unless you prefer to see it that way, of course. AA