Is rugby just mma?

[SportCapital]

50/50 is a ratio
It's not raw numbers is it .
It's a ratio of 50% male 50% female
& it was blatantly wrong
As was your bullshit that no other league comes close to this'll .

Lol
Go back & look at what you posted & see the self ownage .
My guess is you're too dumb to see it .

Quick lesson.
50/50 as I put it expressed as an actual ratio is 1:1.

[Fred]

Ahhhh the old percentage / ratio debate. Go ahead I will watch.

[AFLcrap1]

Correct 1:1
Which is equal to 50/50
Or 1,000,000/ 1,000,000

No matter you were wrong .
& you
Still can't see your self ownage .
Lol

[SportCapital]

You said close to 50/50
That is blatantly wrong .

That's right. I said that, and proved it.
I consider anything within 10% is close.
It's only wrong to you.
You obviously don't consider within 10% close.
That's your entire argument.
Fucking compelling! Truely!
I'm curious, what do you consider close?

And when your ready, just point out which league had close to 3,000,000 women attend their games. Other than the AFL of course.

Hang on a minute, how many in total attended NRL games?
Wasn't it "close" to 3,000,000?

There's no debate Fred.
The factors in a ratio are seperated by a colon.
This was clearly a percentage breakdown.
Even my grade 4 niece knows the difference.

Now, Crap, what do you consider close?
And what other league had close to 3,000,000 women attend their matches?
You seem to be avoiding these questions....

[Fred]

He will wait for someone else to comment ... find a minor point of contention and make the thread about that.

[SportCapital]

He will wait for someone else to comment ... find a minor point of contention and make the thread about that.

That's exactly what they did here.
Turned out well.........

[Fred]

Or you’ll start getting the following responses

1. “ sure you did” or variants thereof
2. “Whoosh”
3. The ever popular accusation of being jealous

[SportCapital]

Or you’ll start getting the following responses

1. “ sure you did” or variants thereof
2. “Whoosh”
3. The ever popular accusation of being jealous

Yeah, had a couple of those.
I "whooshed" him back once.(not appreciated)
It seems he's lost his wing man too.

[AFLcrap1]

Im still waiting for sports bullshitter to admit the self ownage .

I'll give him a hint .
Within 10% is close

[AFLcrap1]

You said close to 50/50
That is blatantly wrong .

That's right. I said that, and proved it.
I consider anything within 10% is close.
It's only wrong to you.
You obviously don't consider within 10% close.
That's your entire argument.
Fucking compelling! Truely!
I'm curious, what do you consider close?

And when your ready, just point out which league had close to 3,000,000 women attend their games. Other than the AFL of course.

Hang on a minute, how many in total attended NRL games?
Wasn't it "close" to 3,000,000?

There's no debate Fred.
The factors in a ratio are seperated by a colon.
This was clearly a percentage breakdown.
Even my grade 4 niece knows the difference.

Now, Crap, what do you consider close?
And what other league had close to 3,000,000 women attend their matches?
You seem to be avoiding these questions....

Oh my .
Your original claim never mentioned that .

It was
Close to 50/50
Which was wrong
& no other league comes close to that .

Which was also wrong .

[Fred]

10 percent ... close ? Hmmm

[AFLcrap1]

10 percent ... close ? Hmmm

You are too dumb to see it .

If you use the 10% is close rule
Then that. Makes his second statement absolute bullshit .
Go check his source for % of females for each sport

[King-Eliagh]

Aflcrap seems to be on the money here. I've been to many AFL games in Melbourne and I can tell ya, the crowds are nowhere near 50/50. Just look at the images of crowds and you'll see. Then there's the article sportscapital provudes. It's vague, doesn't come from a reputable org or tell us where the figures come from and I recall Australia's leading market research org Roy Morgan citing something like 30% of Aussie rules supporters were women and that this number was declining.

Sportscapital - he tries hard, we must give him that

One last whack on this one for you two knuckle heads.

Now, I'm not discounting Roy Morgan, they seem reputable enough. But their sample sizes seem to vary a bit.
And in the case of the survey you cited KE it was a smidge over 3000 from what I can tell.
Hard to call that comprehensive.
And you two aren't even on the same page. One cites a RM survey, the other has slammed them on other topics.
(Silly move Crap. Once you discount a data source you can never use that source to back your opinion ever again. You'd look like a flog)
This prompted me to call out to the author of the piece I put up.
And the good Doctor informed me the data set he used for his story was from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. With a sample set over 38000. (He also suggested I buy one of his books on the history of Sport)
Yes, he wrote book on the history of Sport.
And I want to add. If you wanted to become a professional researcher and study at Melbourne Uni. Guess who'd conduct some of your lectures.
He teaches where Roy Morgan's CEO completed her studies. Total professionals.
Anyway, from the data he extrapolated the figures stated in his story. Average footy match has 40% women.
Somewhat higher for AFL. 41.38%
Slightly lower for NRL. 37.5%
Within 10% that's fucking close.
Then apply these figures to attendance numbers and you have more than any other league in the country.

Now 38000 still isn't a comprehensive amount but it is shit loads more than yours.
As to all the pictures. We could sling a thousand photos back and forth to back any story. Gets ya nowhere.

Like calling me out on this one. Got you nowhere but on your arse.

is this guy for real?

1. Lookup what statistical significance vis a vis 1,000 + sample size actually means.
2. Lookup what individual crackpot academic Uni Ph.D. Grad means against recognised Australian polling authority means.

Then get back to me ... K Champ?

[King-Eliagh]

Let's get back to the pictures now shall we ?

[King-Eliagh]

50/50 in Melbourne