To avoid writing 17 paragraphs like I normally do, I put in parenthesis (this is not absolute because some girls do too) with the implied notion, and I can see how it got missed, to try to avoid a broad brush with everything that I was saying.

 

This was pretty much commentary on my part, in general, why girls are more fundamentally sound.

 

I agree that boys have much better instruction early on in today's world than when I was a kid. Still think that in some ways boys tend to think that basketball is their game, and that girls are just playing it too, so in their sense of entitlement, they can at times think that they are above the need to listen as closely to the coach then girls might, and follow instruction as closely as girls might (Again the possibility for me to earn the "Broad Brush Award).

 

It appears that quite often boys can tend to get ate up with trying to be the best 3 point shooters around that they don't have time to mess with free throws etc... The coach can have a harder time with "know-it-alls". Not sure that lots of little girls learning the game approach it with the same "know-it-all" attitude.

 

In my example of Elijah Pittman. Tall dude that needed to spend more time in the paint typically spent most of his time jacking or trying to jack up threes, and lots of times at ill-advised times in a game as if he didn't understand the time for one, and the time not for one, and obviously looked like practicing free throws was beneath him. Nothing against big guys with shooting capabilities, for I really dig seeing the well rounded big guy.

 

Ultimately I'm stating generalities in my defense that "In general" girls tend to be more fundamental. This is not to say that boys can't be, or are not.

 

And in the case of the "Burbs" kid, I included them in my initial comment about this by saying "Driveway"

 

I guess I'm not completely understanding. In the previous post, when the question was asked "why do people assume women have better fundamentals ", your response was "because they do". To me you're saying guys can get by on athletic ability alone and girls can't. You mention that boys are more apt to not work on things like free throw shooting. Consequently, I'm guessing you believe girls are better free throw shooters (I could be wrong). Statistically, in the NCAA, it's a draw. The average for men and women in the NCAA is right at about 70%. And as far as ego's, I've seen plenty of ego's and sense of entitlement in the women's game. And your example of Elijah Pittman isn't exactly representative of ALL male basketball players, or even a large percentage of them. I've watched plenty of men's and women's ball. From what I've seen, I just don't see how you can make the characterization that women "tend" to be more fundamentally sound than men. I've seen enough to know that it's a draw at best, especially at the higher levels.

This wouldn't even be close. Take a kid like Jabari Parker last year, he would score at will. The women wouldn't even be able to affect his shot at all.

I remember Doron Lamb saying the 2012 UK men's team could beat the 2012 UK women's team by 100 points if they wanted. I think they would win by more than that.

Why is it assumed that women have better fundamentals?

 

Because they can't run, jump, dunk, etc.

I guess I'm not completely understanding. In the previous post, when the question was asked "why do people assume women have better fundamentals ", your response was "because they do". To me you're saying guys can get by on athletic ability alone and girls can't. You mention that boys are more apt to not work on things like free throw shooting. Consequently, I'm guessing you believe girls are better free throw shooters (I could be wrong). Statistically, in the NCAA, it's a draw. The average for men and women in the NCAA is right at about 70%. And as far as ego's, I've seen plenty of ego's and sense of entitlement in the women's game. And your example of Elijah Pittman isn't exactly representative of ALL male basketball players, or even a large percentage of them. I've watched plenty of men's and women's ball. From what I've seen, I just don't see how you can make the characterization that women "tend" to be more fundamentally sound than men. I've seen enough to know that it's a draw at best, especially at the higher levels.

 

I completely agree that at the collegiate level most guys are fundamentally sound as I don't believe they'd ever see any minutes if they weren't.

 

At the high school level it varies from team to team and player to player. In general when watching a Girls High School game, they tend to display text book solid passing and even a somewhat more robotic following of fundamentals than you might see from looser playing guys.

 

Still "In General" I think that girls can typically display a sound fundamental approach and stick to it the majority of the time, and some guys, not all, can go back and forth on their focus between fundamentals and free balling it.

 

Not saying that basketball from the male gender sucks in anyway. High School Boys and College Men's is tops on my list for my B-Ball buck.

Perhaps I missed the observation, but would the high school boys play the WNBA team with the smaller women's ball or the larger men's? Think the guys playing with the smaller ball would quickly increase their shooting accuracy, abilities to dunk, and overall control of the floor game. IMO, probably the top 5or 6 teams in each Ky Region would give the lady pros more game than they could compete.