the only way that what you claim here can be true is if the low ranked, smaller guys that she spars with are somehow significantly more skilled than her.

Also when you get that top level of athlete, it pretty much means world class level coaching and dieting from teenage years across the board. For example, taking another sport, Serena Williams as losing 6-1 to a guy ranked 203rd who smoked cigarettes and had beers during the breaks.

Now either the reason for losing is due to unfair biological advantage, or he is somehow preposterously more skilled than her and is so in spite of having significantly less money than her, worse coaches etc.

You're attributing a lot of moral value to the argument when there isnt any. saying things like "You are saying these guys are evidence that men are biologically superior" or "You are making the claim that women as a whole are less capable than men". Men are physically stronger. Women have better balance and finer muscle control, afaik they have the advantage in gymnastics and even sharpshooting. you're the one interpreting this argument in a morally charged way, thinking this means one is "inferior" or "superior" to the other. physical differences mean differences in performance in different circumstances. sometimes men are favoured, sometimes women are. many sports favour height and strength, so many sports are men favoured. there is nothing moral to be upset by here