women procycling ...

northernneil

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 9415390204

just thinking that in a sport which is all about physical prowess does anyone think that people will seriously watch the girls race ? in fact IS there a sport where the women have just as much coverage/'respect' as the men ?

this is not meant to be an offensive comment by the way, just a comment prompting debate

top_bhoy

Womens tennis is about the only sport I can think of where women and mens coverage, prize money, prestige, etc is similar so there is a precedent for women to go out and market their particular sport better.

Cumulonimbus

Of the big sports yes, there is tennis and also there is athletics where women are on a similar playing field. Ok though, the women's 100 metres is never going to be as big a billing as the men's 100 metres.

Those two sports both have men's and women's events taking place at the same time and the same place. Maybe that is the thing that makes them relatively equal. Thinking about it i would have said that the Olympics generally is more equal and that has men and women taking part at the same time (swimming, rowing, sailing...)

Actually thinking about it, the track cycling has relatively more focus on the women than the road i think (although fewer events than the men at the Olympics), and those events take place in the same arena at roughly the same time.

BikingBernie

northernneil wrote:

IS there a sport where the women have just as much coverage/'respect' as the men?

There aren't many differences in the sport of competition climbing. Then again, the differences in ability between the men and the women in that sport tend to be very small as the lighter build of the women gives them a big advantage. (See link below). However, when it comes to 'fall and die' trad climbing, the gap between the men and women, with few exceptions, is huge and again all the kudos goes to the men.

http://www.tvmountain.com/index.php?opt ... eo_id=1361

Perhaps if Nicole Cooke could ride as fast and as far as the male pros, rather than the average UK second cat, she and her fellow competitors might get more respect.

top_bhoy

BikingBernie wrote:

Perhaps if Nicole Cooke could ride as fast and as far as the male pros, rather than the average UK second cat, she and her fellow competitors might get more respect.

An unfair comparison, elite women are never going to compete with elite men. I think more competitive fields with greater strength in depth could help matters for womens cycling in general.

gsk82

the standard of the women's road race last week was terrible, it doesn't deserve equal billing/pay despite what some silly people think.

the women at wimbleodn shouldn't get paid the same as the men. they don't play as many sets and people don't go there to watch the women.

i think cyclings got it right. let them run as 2 seperate events and see who attracts the sponsors/crowds and base prize money on that

BikingBernie

Top_Bhoy wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Perhaps if Nicole Cooke could ride as fast and as far as the male pros, rather than the average UK second cat, she and her fellow competitors might get more respect.

An unfair comparison, elite women are never going to compete with elite men. I think more competitive fields with greater strength in depth could help matters for womens cycling in general.

But isn't sport supposed to be about superlatives? Why should the largely male supporters of pro cycling get all excited about watching women's racing when many of them could go as fast themselves? In comparison, in competition climbing the women's routes might be just one or at most 2 grades 'easier' than the male routes, and the vast majority of male climbers would have absolutely no chance of getting up them. I have also seen competitions where they only competitors to get to the top of their routes were the women!

Creating separate competitions for women because they can't compete at the level set by Elite men is similar to setting up different categories for juniors, the talentless and disabled athletes. In all such categories there is scope for good competitive racing, but most people would much rather watch a competitive Pro RR than a competitive 2/3rd cat, disabled or women’s RR.

To say that women should get different treatment to juniors, non-elite males and so on simply because they are women is patronising and frankly discriminatory, especially when the difference in the standard of female as opposed to male cyclists is so vast.

BikingBernie

P.s on the subject of climbers, this is Alain Robert, the 'French spiderman'. He makes most pro cyclists look fat and weedy!

northernneil

why is it that women cant seem to match men even in non physical sports like darts or snooker ?

BikingBernie

northernneil wrote:

why is it that women cant seem to match men even in non physical sports like darts or snooker ?

Because so few women lack the sort of obsessive personality disorder that leads men to think that playing darts or snooker 12 hours a day is a constructive use of time?

teagar

How most of you get laid is completely beyond me.


Cycling, espeically road racing, is totally relative. It doesn't actually matter how fast you go, just how the race plans out. If everyone is racing at their limit at 40kph instead of 50kph, it doesn't detract from the specticle. It is how the race unfolds, how the tactics and strategies develop.

It's the same argument people make against doping and slower peletons. I think it's applicable here too.

I found the women's road race just as interesting as the men's. Last year the women's world's was a marginally more exciting race than the men's.

Art Vandelay

I think women's beach volley ball gets a bigger crowd. As for other sports, more women need to get involved at lower levels.

afx237vi

northernneil wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Nicole-Cook-Tells-Sky-News-She-Wants-Sexual-Equality-In-Cycling/Article/200909415390204

just thinking that in a sport which is all about physical prowess does anyone think that people will seriously watch the girls race ?

Is it though? In track cycling, maybe, but as a TV spectator of road cycling, I couldn't really care less how fast a race is going.

Slower races, particularly in hilly or mountain stages, tend to be more tactical and produce more attacks in the end.

Kléber

Faster, Stronger, Higher is the motto of the Olympics and it represents what sports is about to many. We all want to watch the longest, hardest races, with the most cobbles or the highest mountain passes.

As an endurance sport, cycling will always find the men's events are the most attractive. Succesful women's sports like tennis rely a lot on feminine appeal - the short skirts - and in tennis the men's game can at times be almost too fast and hard to watch, and dominated by the serve as well.

This isn't to say the sport can't try. The Olympics should award equal medals and the UCI should ensure it promotes equality where it can, for example equal contract terms and rules. But we'll never see equal TV audiences.

Chrissz

Top_Bhoy wrote:

Womens tennis is about the only sport I can think of where women and mens coverage, prize money, prestige, etc is similar so there is a precedent for women to go out and market their particular sport better.

Beach Volleyball? Gymnastics? Sync Swimming?

BikingBernie

teagar wrote:

Cycling, espeically road racing, is totally relative. It doesn't actually matter how fast you go, just how the race plans out. If everyone is racing at their limit at 40kph instead of 50kph, it doesn't detract from the specticle. It is how the race unfolds, how the tactics and strategies develop.

So, do you think that people would be just as interested in watching 2nd/3rd cat RR's, junior and disabled events as they are Pro events, as long as the racing was tactical and competitive?

Unfortunately, in my experience 'competitive' is not a term I would apply to most women's RR's that I have watched...

Art Vandelay wrote:

I think women's beach volley ball gets a bigger crowd.

I wonder why...

http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=beach+volleyball&gbv=2&aq=6&oq=beach

BikingBernie

teagar wrote:

How most of you get laid is completely beyond me.

Because most real women like real men, not pussy-whipped nerds why try to attract women by being 'politically correct'?

andyxm

Separate events for women have developed because they aren't as good as men at most sports and when it comes down to it people want to see the best in the world competing, not the best woman/amputee/child/transplantee or whatever categorisation is used.

Victoria Pendleton bleats on about lack of equality in terms of sponsorship opportunities and number of events at the Olympics, but the fact of the matter is that Chris Hoy is the fastest sprinter in the world whereas she is probably not in the top 20 therefore there is naturally more interest in him.

Dgh

northernneil wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Nicole-Cook-Tells-Sky-News-She-Wants-Sexual-Equality-In-Cycling/Article/200909415390204

just thinking that in a sport which is all about physical prowess does anyone think that people will seriously watch the girls race ? in fact IS there a sport where the women have just as much coverage/'respect' as the men ?

this is not meant to be an offensive comment by the way, just a comment prompting debate

Yes, I'll watch the women race, and respect them as much as I do the men.

With the likes of Victoria Pendleton, Nicole Cooke, Rebecca Romero & Shenaze Reade from this country, I'd say women's racing desrves some coverage.

If you didn;t mean to be offensive you did a pretty good impression of it.

Dgh

andyxm wrote:

Separate events for women have developed because they aren't as good as men at most sports and when it comes down to it people want to see the best in the world competing, not the best woman/amputee/child/transplantee or whatever categorisation is used.

Victoria Pendleton bleats on about lack of equality in terms of sponsorship opportunities and number of events at the Olympics, but the fact of the matter is that Chris Hoy is the fastest sprinter in the world whereas she is probably not in the top 20 therefore there is naturally more interest in him.

Your comparison is just plain stupid. It's a bit like saying that Sir Chris can't go as fast as Jenson Button 'cos the latter is in a car. Humans are divided into two sexes, male and female, and there are obvious physical differences between one. Queen Victoria would be at least as big a star as Sir Chris if there had been equality of events in Beijing. To say that she's not as good as him is daft - she's in different events!

BikingBernie

Dgh wrote:

To say that she's not as good as him is daft - she's in different events!

Eh? I had thought that they both rode the 200m Sprint. And I think Hoy's best time is rather faster than Pendleton's...

Perhaps if they were to ride a match sprint it would be possible to determine who was the 'best'. (I.e fastest).

Dgh wrote:

Humans are divided into two sexes, male and female, and there are obvious physical differences between one.

Humans are also divided into the fast and the slow, but no one seems to be much bothered about praising those who lack ability through a lack of talent, rather than a lack of testicles!

stagehopper

teagar wrote:

I found the women's road race just as interesting as the men's. Last year the women's world's was a marginally more exciting race than the men's.

It could be strongly argued that last years women's race was the best of the season from either sex.

andyxm

Dgh wrote:

andyxm wrote:

Separate events for women have developed because they aren't as good as men at most sports and when it comes down to it people want to see the best in the world competing, not the best woman/amputee/child/transplantee or whatever categorisation is used.

Victoria Pendleton bleats on about lack of equality in terms of sponsorship opportunities and number of events at the Olympics, but the fact of the matter is that Chris Hoy is the fastest sprinter in the world whereas she is probably not in the top 20 therefore there is naturally more interest in him.

Your comparison is just plain stupid. It's a bit like saying that Sir Chris can't go as fast as Jenson Button 'cos the latter is in a car. Humans are divided into two sexes, male and female, and there are obvious physical differences between one. Queen Victoria would be at least as big a star as Sir Chris if there had been equality of events in Beijing. To say that she's not as good as him is daft - she's in different events!

You're right, the differences between a man and a woman are comparable to those between a man and a car.

Humans can be divided in a myriad of ways, not just male and female, for example there are clear physiological differences between different races that manifest themselves in sporting performance, that doesn't necessarily mean that they should compete in separate events.

BikingBernie

stagehopper wrote:

It could be strongly argued that last years women's race was the best of the season from either sex.

I suppose it could be 'strongly argued' that the Earth is flat...

secretsqirrel

The only sport I can think of where women and men compete on equal terms is 3 Day Eventing, and Show Jumping. Nobody bats an eyelid at that. Except where the competitor is not your typical upper-class twit, that is.

No reason why men and women shouldn't compete at target sports, such as shooting and archery etc. But they don't get the oportunity at the highest level.

Women have far more cultural hang-ups to get over before they can be seriously competitive. Those that do deserve equal respect?

Murr X

teagar wrote:

Cycling, espeically road racing, is totally relative. It doesn't actually matter how fast you go, just how the race plans out. If everyone is racing at their limit at 40kph instead of 50kph, it doesn't detract from the specticle. It is how the race unfolds, how the tactics and strategies develop.

It's the same argument people make against doping and slower peletons. I think it's applicable here too.

I found the women's road race just as interesting as the men's. Last year the women's world's was a marginally more exciting race than the men's.

Personally I totally disagree with you on this. I much prefer to watch pros racing as apposed to Joes, its much more exciting to me watching the best and I appreciate the physical side of the sport at least as much as the tactical side. A bit like with a totally physical sport say athletics, who wants to see mediocre athletes run the 100meters? Most would agree much more exciting to see world class runners running as fast as humans possibly can, and the same goes for cycling with me anyway (please don't bring up the topic of doping into this).

As for womens racing I feel the same way, however if you enjoy watching womens racing then good for you.

If much fewer are interested in watching womens cycling then why put the same amount of money and resources as goes into the mens into something not many people are or likely will ever be interested in? If this happens its is madness and could very easily be a detriment to mens cycling and the entire sport on the whole.

I feel quite strongly about this and sometimes people like Nicole Cook who I very much respect as an athlete really need to grasp reality. Afterall sport is supposed to be enjoyable to watch and you cannot easily make the sport (in this case womens cycling) as popular as the mens cycling when so many fewer people want to watch it, which is the reality.

OffTheBackAdam

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Except where the competitor is not your typical upper-class twit, that is.

As against your typical lower-class oik is that? :roll:

frenchfighter

Kléber wrote:

Faster, Stronger, Higher

I agree with this and I think it applies to many sports but in particular cycling (it was originally literally survival of the fittest, with an huge attrition rate). Pro sports people perform on a level most of us could only dream about, so we want to be impressed.

I would watch woman's cycling if it was on tv or streamed and there is a good argument for it to be shown purely on the basis some people have mentioned for sports like beach volleyball. Woman in fancy lycra would no-doubt attract some people who wouldn't watch the men's cycling.

To be realistic, the people who are financially involved in sports are there to make money. They cannot show more coverage, pay more prize money, etc, just because it may be 'morally correct' or because a few people call for it. They would however do it most certainly if they could make enough money from it.

Murr X

frenchfighter wrote:

Kléber wrote:

Faster, Stronger, Higher

To be realistic, the people who are financially involved in sports are there to make money. They cannot show more coverage, pay more prize money, etc, just because it may be 'morally correct' or because a few people call for it. They would however do it most certainly if they could make enough money from it.

Yep you hit the nail on the head and summed it up perfectly.You just can't run these things at a loss but where is money to be made - bingo they will thrive.

teagar

Murr X wrote:

Personally I totally disagree with you on this. I much prefer to watch pros racing as apposed to Joes, its much more exciting to me watching the best and I appreciate the physical side of the sport at least as much as the tactical side. A bit like with a totally physical sport say athletics, who wants to see mediocre athletes run the 100meters? Most would agree much more exciting to see world class runners running as fast as humans possibly can, and the same goes for cycling with me anyway (please don't bring up the topic of doping into this).

As for womens racing I feel the same way, however if you enjoy watching womens racing then good for you.

If much fewer are interested in watching womens cycling then why put the same amount of money and resources as goes into the mens into something not many people are or likely will ever be interested in? If this happens its is madness and could very easily be a detriment to mens cycling and the entire sport on the whole.

I feel quite strongly about this and sometimes people like Nicole Cook who I very much respect as an athlete really need to grasp reality. Afterall sport is supposed to be enjoyable to watch and you cannot easily make the sport (in this case womens cycling) as popular as the mens cycling when so many fewer people want to watch it, which is the reality.

That you compare female athletes to amateur or junior male athletes is quite absurd. Female athletes are just as extreme in their athleticness as their male counterparts, since they are as good as a female can be in that discipline! I don't know how you can compare them to amateur males, given that amateur males are some way off the peak of their gender.

Females who compete in athletics are not "medicore". They are the pinnicle of female athleticism.

As for road cycling, as I have said before, it is the quality of the road racing, not the speed, that makes it exciting.

That female sport is less popular is probably indicative of wider gender issues and discrimination. I'd imagine that to be the case if world class female athletes are considered "medicore" on grounds of their gender.

stagehopper

BikingBernie wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

It could be strongly argued that last years women's race was the best of the season from either sex.

I suppose it could be 'strongly argued' that the Earth is flat...

For someone who espouses and displays such admirable socialist and humanist principles in a large proportion of your posts, you don't half come across as Talibanesque in your attitudes towards women in sport.