LovedbyGod wrote:We need more people to see this! I just want her to be uber-popular. Hehe, yes...that race was very exciting! My dad is talking about how it was unfair because she was lighter...he doesn't like a woman racing at all. It's annoying that he can't even recognize how well she did just because she's a woman.
I think you may be too hard on your dad here. There can be differences of opinion on this, of course, but claiming unfair advantage does not necessarily imply antagonism toward women in sports.
I have no interest in racing of any kind, so you'll have to forgive any inaccuracies or imprecision, but clearly, weight matters in racing. That is why all cars have to meet a minimum weight requirement to enter such a race. I read some coverage of Ms. Patrick and the surrounding controversy, and if I recall correctly, she weighs precisely 100 pounds. It was a generalization, but I also recall it being stated that about 40 lbs of added weight slows a vehicle such as that down by a mile per hour.
Let's presume, for sake of argument, that the average male race car driver weighs 165 pounds. I readily admit that this is a rough guess obtained merely by looking up the weights of four drivers with whom I am familiar (at least in name) and averaging them, so no, it is not necessarily the precise average weight of a stock car driver, but for our purposes, I believe it will do. Returning to the rough estimate given earlier, 40 lbs slows a car by about 1 mph. We can therefore guess that Danica Patrick's car is capable of going about 1.625 mph faster than a similarly equipped vehicle.
A quick search showed the average speed of finishing cars in the Indy 500 to be ~227 mph. Ms. Patrick finished with an average of 227.004. This means, of course, that her race time was 2 hours, 12 minutes and 13.5 seconds. Given her presumed speed advantage, this means that she had what would be the equivalent of a 3.59 mile head-start over the average male driver. I don't know much about auto racing, but I'm fairly sure that most of the end times are rather similar. I'm guessing that giving any half-decent driver 3.59 miles over his or her competition in a 500 mile race would be quite significant.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that this has the literal equivalence of a 3.59 mile advantage, per se, as she still had to contend with the driving of the others and the limited maneuverability in the race. I do not mean in any way to belittle what was obviously a rather good race for Danica Patrick. I do mean to say, though, that the advantage gained by being so significantly lighter is not trivial, insignificant or irrelevant.
What is less clear is what should be done about it, if anything. The key is the race, not the participants, and certainly, gender characteristics in some other sports tend to skew the other way without corrections being made to benefit women. I think that in general, our society dislikes handicapping athletes. It doesn't seem fair to us for different standards to be set in order to equalize gender participation and success in sporting events, and therefore I suppose one could argue that this is a case of men finally being on the losing end of one such sport and whining about it. However, one could also say that in racing, one can easily institute a fair way of equalization that has nothing to do with gender, something not easily accomplished in other sports: instead of setting minimum car weights, the racing organization could set car and driver weights.
From what I've heard, this is already done in NASCAR racing. Horse and jockey weight standards are used in horse racing and weighted saddles and saddlebags are used to bring all animals and riders to the same weight. It has long been recognized that weight matters in racing, and while in track-style events, that may be inherent, for indeed the race is about the physical fitness and endurance of the runner, the aspect of auto (and horse) racing is probably not the athletic training of the driver (or jockey). Most would prefer that to be an insignificant point, I imagine.
Again, one can think of counterarguments. The weight of an offensive linemen makes a difference, too, but no one is suggesting doing anything to them to give them some sort of an on-field handicap. But again, I offer up a difference: football, like track events, is largely about the physical abilities and training of the players. We watch those fighting it out on the gridiron, not something they are controlling. Weight, training and other advantages seem "fair" to us because they are, ipso facto, a part of the game. However, race car driving is, presumably, more about driving skill, decision-making and such than pure athleticism. While it is abundantly clear that we cannot do anything to counteract a more heavily-built offensive lineman, the option in racing is much clearer and seemingly rather fair.
Besides, as mentioned before, it has precedent. It's been a rule in NASCAR racing for quite a while, from what I hear -- dating back before there were any female drivers of note, so the rule clearly does not have its basis in keeping women out of the winner's circle.
I guess my question is this: why
not adopt a weighing system that takes into consideration the combined weight of car and driver? If Danica Patrick is as good as her supporters allege, she'll overcome it. If, as some (not here) have rather absurdly argued, additional weight doesn't change anything, then I guess they should have no complaint if some weight is added to the cars of lighter drivers -- after all, it doesn't change anything, right? And if it does make a difference, then it seems that the sport has taken out a variable that has nothing to do with racing ability to make way for a more equitable system of competition. I, for one, think that makes sense.
I have no real interest in racing; I shall not be devastated if the IRL or whomever it is in charge of the Indianapolis 500 does not make the change I advocate above. I don't care who wins or loses. I write this simply to suggest that there is nothing sexist about wanting to eliminate what can be considered by quite objective standards an unfair advantage.
Now, none of this is Danica Patrick's fault. She raced by the rules and by all accounts raced well. Still, I don't think there can be much doubt that had she been working with a similar car and driver weight as the others involved in the race, she would not have finished quite as well as she did. That might not matter to most of us, but I imagine the drivers who placed behind her might care. Why not make the sport more purely about skill? If Danica Patrick is as good as some of you think, then surely she'll rise above it without difficulty. And if not, then I'm sure some other will come after her. I can see no reason that women could not do as well as men in stock car racing. If Ms. Patrick is the one to break through, then presumably she can do it even under a system where weight is accounted for more fairly. But if she's not? No one is guaranteed anything in the world of sports.