Impressive. She hit six 180s. A 180 (or "Ton-80") is three darts in the treble ring of the 20 "slice" of the board. (The top slice, above the bulls-eye).
So, she placed 18 darts (3-at-a-time) in the treble ring. While larger than the bulls-eye, the triple 20 is worth more (60 points) than the 50 points of a bullseye.
The world record for Ton-80s is 22 in a single match.
I've gotten ONE triple-sixty years ago, and was quite proud at the time. The biggest challenges for me were "bounce-back" when hitting the wire and "dart-splitting" (Robin-hood style).
yeah, skill shines through luck in consistency and performance under pressure. I'm rooting for her, I hope she stays focused and goes all the way.
I use to play golf and was pretty good at it but it was just never a passion. I could hit amazing shots every now and then but it was the people who hit above average shots every.single.time that won.
At one point I played a lot and also got a single 180. Probably several dozen bounce-backs from the wire but not a single split dart. Always found it strange that people say this happens often.
Interesting... I never thought about that. I guess if the bristles board were very tight packed, the force of the incoming dart wouldn't be enough to move the dart out of the way?
I had a good bristle board, but I recall spending much more on darts (weighted, various shaft materials, and an uncountable number of flights, etc.)
It happened often enough that I had to purchase new back shafts (the part that holds the flights). The aluminum proved to be the best, as I could bend them back into place and still get some use out of them. My first few were plastic, and were effectively useless afterwards.
The valley created by the two fins of the flight basically made a path right to the join point. Of course, maybe it was my throwing style that caused it to happen more to me than others?
Only had a few that actually stayed stuck into the already landed dart, but it was quite funny when it happened the first few times. After that it was just a bother. Probably happened ~10-15 times IIRC. (It was ~30 years ago).
I keep hearing about this, and must be missing something. Why is a woman beating a man of such significance? Isn't it just one talented player beating another? No one was interested in darts before; why ought the sex of the winner to change that?
No, I don't, and I believe there's a site guideline about assuming good faith. The best rationale I've heard is from your sibling comment by simion314, but he himself qualified that specific cases are useless with respect to averages.
Hm... your first inclination was to think you "must be missing something".
Why not follow up on that thread?
What you're missing is all of the context around this, both historical and current, which advance the idea that women ought not to even have the opportunity to compete in darts with men. More generally, women have very often been denied opportunities afforded to men across the board, based simply on their gender.
(Personally, I don't have a special interest in women's issues, but I do have an interest in fairness and justice and basic human rights. From that perspective, breaking down a bullshit barrier keeping a group down based on superficial traits is awesome.)
> What you're missing is all of the context around this, both historical and current, which advance the idea that women ought not to even have the opportunity to compete in darts with men.
Oof. If I ever write a book about logical fallacies, I'll put these words right next to the strawman one.
When I came into this thread, prior to reading the comments, my first thought was to be curious as to why women wouldn't be just as good at darts as men are. After all, no physical advantage typical of men is needed to win at darts.
Strength is irrelevant here. So is reaction time.
Have women in particular been denied the opportunity to play competitive darts? Don't generalize it, just think about the darts field. If that is true, then you can say you've made an argument in good faith.
Context is just a set of commonly understood facts and arguments that aren’t stated under the assumption the audience is either already aware or can become so without too much trouble.
It could help with stereotypes and bad understood statistics. There are some claims(I am not sure how significant those are) that men are better at spatial stuff and women are better at something else on average, the issue I see people do not understand that if this is true is just an average and it would be meaningless to apply it to individual cases like when hiring somebody.
This is a very confused comment. Yes, people should be evaluated as individuals, especially where doing so is very easy (such as figuring out how accurate you are at throwing darts). No, surprise at an elite member from population x outperforming an elite member from population y if both have similar standard deviations but widely different means (with x worse) is not indicative of badly understood statistics. You might want to try plotting some Gaussians and ponder the exponential in them, and how it affects the size of the pool past some threshold.
What I mean is if you have a man and a woman candidate for a designer position and say you think they are equal you are an idiot if you don't hire the man because statistically men have in average larger chance to be color blind , you should test the individual in front of you for his/her skills and not try to use statistics that refer to a group to an individual.
About your plot related comment you probably won't get in from you the elite of the elite of programmers/designers/whatever. But if you still want to make a point try to formulate a mathematical statement so we don;t debate language or assumptions.
Sure, but mind explaining how the fact that a woman beat a man in the World Darts championship (which probably has the world's top 0.01% of darts players) will make people less likely to mistakenly not hire a male designer over a female one because it helps to correct some supposed statistical confusion in their head?
My initial comment was referring about "mythbusting" spacial and orientation biases in most cultures. The design examples was unrelated. Similarlly if you are from US and you were indoctrinated that women are bad at math then you go to a different country Math university and discover a lot of women there some better then you, this would slap your biases out of you.
It's a historically male-dominated sport, and this win is a marker of a broader social movement around gender and gender equality. I don't view this any differently than recognizing racial breakthroughs in sports. One could question whether "firsts" should be cared about at all in any context, but I think that is a different problem.
It's rare for mixed matches to be permitted. Many sports have a gender split where none is warranted through physical advantages. It's significant then not because it is unusual, but because the match itself is unusual.
It's nice to see some semblance of equality finally arrive where, unlike athletics or boxing, there is no reasonable basis to separate genders.
More than that, the standard in the women's game suffered because the top female players were not allowed to compete against the men.
If nothing else, her results are a useful data point; that making a sport mixed really does equalise the standard for both genders (assuming it's not a sport dependent on physical size and strength.)
This should encourage similar sports to do the same.
Personal attacks will get you banned here regardless of how bad the comment you're replying to is. Please review the site guidelines. Your post has broken several.
Right. It frankly seems kind of sexist to be making such a big deal out of this. Like are expectations for female competitors really so low that two wins (and hopefully more to come) in the world championships create so much fuss?
Thanks, that's the answer I was looking for. I'm American, not English, so wasn't aware of the "baggage" attached to darts there. I first learned darts from my grandmother, and knew of them in a different context.
Please don't take HN threads into gender flamewar. Nothing new or interesting will come of it—only a nasty slide into tedium.
This is in the site guidelines: "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
42 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 99.9 ms ] threadSo, she placed 18 darts (3-at-a-time) in the treble ring. While larger than the bulls-eye, the triple 20 is worth more (60 points) than the 50 points of a bullseye.
The world record for Ton-80s is 22 in a single match.
I've gotten ONE triple-sixty years ago, and was quite proud at the time. The biggest challenges for me were "bounce-back" when hitting the wire and "dart-splitting" (Robin-hood style).
I use to play golf and was pretty good at it but it was just never a passion. I could hit amazing shots every now and then but it was the people who hit above average shots every.single.time that won.
I had a good bristle board, but I recall spending much more on darts (weighted, various shaft materials, and an uncountable number of flights, etc.)
The valley created by the two fins of the flight basically made a path right to the join point. Of course, maybe it was my throwing style that caused it to happen more to me than others?
Only had a few that actually stayed stuck into the already landed dart, but it was quite funny when it happened the first few times. After that it was just a bother. Probably happened ~10-15 times IIRC. (It was ~30 years ago).
Why not follow up on that thread?
What you're missing is all of the context around this, both historical and current, which advance the idea that women ought not to even have the opportunity to compete in darts with men. More generally, women have very often been denied opportunities afforded to men across the board, based simply on their gender.
(Personally, I don't have a special interest in women's issues, but I do have an interest in fairness and justice and basic human rights. From that perspective, breaking down a bullshit barrier keeping a group down based on superficial traits is awesome.)
Oof. If I ever write a book about logical fallacies, I'll put these words right next to the strawman one.
When I came into this thread, prior to reading the comments, my first thought was to be curious as to why women wouldn't be just as good at darts as men are. After all, no physical advantage typical of men is needed to win at darts. Strength is irrelevant here. So is reaction time.
Have women in particular been denied the opportunity to play competitive darts? Don't generalize it, just think about the darts field. If that is true, then you can say you've made an argument in good faith.
Context is just a set of commonly understood facts and arguments that aren’t stated under the assumption the audience is either already aware or can become so without too much trouble.
I'm not sure how I can be more clear.
... so, you are trying to game the system by taking advantage of site guidelines?
About your plot related comment you probably won't get in from you the elite of the elite of programmers/designers/whatever. But if you still want to make a point try to formulate a mathematical statement so we don;t debate language or assumptions.
I can't parse this sentence.
Nah it's not. It's someone winning at a sport.
It's nice to see some semblance of equality finally arrive where, unlike athletics or boxing, there is no reasonable basis to separate genders.
If nothing else, her results are a useful data point; that making a sport mixed really does equalise the standard for both genders (assuming it's not a sport dependent on physical size and strength.)
This should encourage similar sports to do the same.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Professional darts historically is a sport for beer-bellied balding blokes. Not just men, but generally a specific category of men.
Imagine you're watching the football World Cup, and suddenly there's this fat bloke in his 50's, and he's actually _good_.
It's that. The whole world turning upside down. A completely different type of character.
This is in the site guidelines: "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html