Womens race distances
Comments
-
Well, I'm flattered but far from elite. I think the Ras is slightly higher than the average domestic 2nd cat race, both because it's a 5-day stage race in hilly Wales (thus attracts a particular type of rider) and because a lot of locals out that way would probably be 1st cat at least in London where points are given out like candy. Cooke finished top 5 was it in 2008? As Olympic training so presumably in the middle of a training block, not rested, not taking stupid risks in bunch sprints, etc.BikingBernie wrote:Which seems to fit right in with what I have said about elite women's racing being comparable with domestic second cat events such as the Ras.
Out the back of the bunch or simply not in the break that the "big guns" are in? Pretty sure they could hang in the bunch if they were smartly positioned. Not in the break though.BikingBernie wrote:
Until they take on the challenge, we will never know. Personally I think they would be out of the back as soon as the big guns really stretched their legs, much like even a good second cat would be.maryka wrote:for bigger riders like Cooke or Storey, I think hanging in the bunch in a Premier Calendar would not be that hard at all.
31st of 55 according to this link, in the bunch.BikingBernie wrote:
What position did she come in?maryka wrote:my teammate did the 135km Barry Elcome race last year as he was chasing his Elite license and Dani King was in that race and did fine according to him.
Nobody was pretending anything like that. The comment was made that women's racing was or is or could be just as exciting as mens racing, which is entirely different from saying that they are as physically strong and fast as men. Your comment that elite women were no better than "middling" male 2nd cats is a real apples to oranges thing, the kind of comparison I would have expected to hear from a person who knew nothing about cycling. Aren't you a cycling journalist or something?BikingBernie wrote:Of course, it's great to see women racing. I just don't understand why some think it is necessary to pretend that the elite women are even in the same ball park as the elite men. Given the huge differences between second cat, first cat, domestic elite, premier calendar, international and professional male racing, it seems ridiculous to claim that riders who can't win a 2/3/4 RR like the Ras, such as Nicole Cooke, nonetheless are on a par with premier calendar riders, or even higher.0 -
Just did a quick comaprison of the winning times for the Dalby WC mtb round earlier this year and the winning time for mens and womens races is almost identical, however the men rode one more lap of ~6km length.0
-
Steve2020 wrote:To use another athletics comparison, say Nicole Cooke has an equivalent level of talent to Mara Yamauichi. Not sure if this is a fair comparison, but Yamauchi was 6th in the Olympic Marathon in 2008, but athletics is a much more global sport than cycling (then again the distance running talent gets spread between 5,000, 10,000 etc).
Yamauchi's marathon best is 2:23:12, a time achieved by only 13 British men in 2009. So that would suggest that only a relatively few male cyclists in the UK could win the women's Olympic road race.
Not quite a fair comparison - I'd put Cooke more at the level of a 2:18 marathon runner at her peak. Pooley similar given her stellar last 18 months.
On a couple of BikingBernie's points have heard women racers complain about the lack of distance in their road races - most of the elite riders train over far longer distances. And why the differences in distances on the tarck and in TTs? The same inherent sexism displayed by some in this thread that the UCI clings so dearly to.0 -
eh wrote:Just did a quick comaprison of the winning times for the Dalby WC mtb round earlier this year and the winning time for mens and womens races is almost identical, however the men rode one more lap of ~6km length.
I don't think you are going to have problems finding evidence that women are slower than men. The point is that, in sports like swimming and athletics, it doesn't stop women getting equal billing (more or less, neither are perfect). Which to me suggests the problems with women's cycling are more to do with sexism (of fans, the governing body, the media etc) than anything to do with excitement etc.0 -
stagehopper wrote:Not quite a fair comparison - I'd put Cooke more at the level of a 2:18 marathon runner at her peak. Pooley similar given her stellar last 18 months.
It's off topic but I'm not sure about that. The talent pool in cycling is much smaller (both mens and womens) than in athletics (both in terms of number of countries competing and number of people within each country (except in the core cycling nations) competing), so I don't think that to shine you need an equivalent level of talent. Britain has only ever produced one female sub 2:20 marathon runner so it would be surprising if it had produced two cyclists at that level in the last few years.0 -
Agreed on this, especially on the track and TTs. Road races I can understand to a point as the teams are much smaller, but even then most of the road races I do here in the UK are no more than 50 miles or 2.5 hours at best. In domestic racing there's been no real separation between elite and cat 4 women (99% of races are all-cats) so I suppose that's why -- and fair enough, there just aren't that many of us to warrant lots of 3hr+ races. But it's a shame that the female pros have an Olympic road race distance that's less than half the men's. The National Champs this year were a disgrace in that regard.stagehopper wrote:On a couple of BikingBernie's points have heard women racers complain about the lack of distance in their road races - most of the elite riders train over far longer distances. And why the differences in distances on the tarck and in TTs? The same inherent sexism displayed by some in this thread that the UCI clings so dearly to.0 -
No one apart from DaveyL, Kléber, jibberjim, Steve2020...maryka wrote:
Nobody was pretending anything like that.BikingBernie wrote:Of course, it's great to see women racing. I just don't understand why some think it is necessary to pretend that the elite women are even in the same ball park as the elite men. Given the huge differences between second cat, first cat, domestic elite, premier calendar, international and professional male racing, it seems ridiculous to claim that riders who can't win a 2/3/4 RR like the Ras, such as Nicole Cooke, nonetheless are on a par with premier calendar riders, or even higher.
Whatever, it seems that everybody is in agreement that the credibility of women's cycling would be greatly enhanced if the women rode the same distances as the men. I guess it is up to women themselves to campaign for this, starting with events where 'easy wins' seem likely, as with the Rudy Project Time Trial Series and local road races. People like Pooley and Cooke could also campaign for a four-woman team to be accepted into the Premier Calendar Series. The hardest nut to crack would probably be the UCI, in terms of convincing them to scrap the 500m TT in favour of the full kilo and so forth.
Then again, many women might well prefer to see things remain as they are...0 -
BikingBernie wrote:No one apart from DaveyL, Kléber, jibberjim, Steve2020...
Can you direct me to wherer I made such a claim? Perhaps it was "Do I think the top women pros are as fast as the males? No, of course not. "Le Blaireau (1)0 -
BikingBernie wrote:[Whatever, it seems that everybody is in agreement that the credibility of women's cycling would be greatly enhanced if the women rode the same distances as the men. I guess it is up to women themselves to campaign for this, starting with events where 'easy wins' seem likely, as with the Rudy Project Time Trial Series and local road races. People like Pooley and Cooke could also campaign for a four-woman team to be accepted into the Premier Calendar Series. The hardest nut to crack would probably be the UCI, in terms of convincing them to scrap the 500m TT in favour of the full kilo and so forth.
Then again, many women might well prefer to see things remain as they are...
I think in your obsession with the Premier Calendar races you're missing a pretty important point, so I will explain it to you. Women race men's races for training. Women race women's races to win. A win for a woman in a high-level men's race is pretty unlikely. This is pretty much true for any sport. So there's no good reason why any pro female cyclist should want to do a Premier Calendar unless it happens to fit in with her training schedule -- which it likely won't. The highest elite riders like Pooley, Laws, Cooke, Armitstead race professionally with teams that pay them to race women's races. They generally live on the continent and train there. Coming to the UK to race a Premier Calendar to prove to you that they can or can't stay with the bunch is probably low on their list of priorities.
Most women racing today want to see women's racing grow and improve separate to men's. We have no need to prove ourselves in men's races. Men's races exist for us as merely training. Not sure why you keep insisting we try to measure ourselves up against men or try to do what they are doing. Are you really that out of touch with women's racing or women's sport in general?0 -
Good point maryka. The women's races should focus on their own events, these events need encouragement and could perhaps do with a boost to the distance.
The men's side is reliant on history, tradition and legend, a dimension that doesn't exist with the women. I think the men's version will always be head and shoulders above everything else, but it's good to see women's racing professionalise and improve.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:... it seems ridiculous to claim that riders who can't win a 2/3/4 RR like the Ras, such as Nicole Cooke, nonetheless are on a par with premier calendar riders, or even higher.maryka wrote:Nobody was pretending anything like that.BikingBernie wrote:No one apart from DaveyL, Kléber, jibberjim, Steve2020...
To quote you in full...DaveyL wrote:Can you direct me to where I made such a claim? Perhaps it was "Do I think the top women pros are as fast as the males? No, of course not. "
One, what I actually said was that those who win elite women's races ride at a level comparable to that of an above average 2nd cat. (Quote: "Perhaps it would now be more accurate to say that most elite women's races could be won by a 'better than average' second cat male."). I would also say that it is reasonable to say that the Premier Calendar constitutes a level 'well above' this level, but you seem to disagree with this as well. So, how do you think elite women compare to domestic males riders?DaveyL wrote:Do I think the top women pros are as fast as the males? No, of course not. Are they at the level of "middling" male 2nd cats? I think they are well above that.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:So, how do you think elite women compare to domestic males riders?
I've already answered that - see if you can find it.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Why is it necessary to compare the genders?
If it's to make a point about gender differences, then you're treading on thin ice.0 -
And what better way for elite women to train than to ride a really high quality race that will draw them out, such as a Premier calendar event, rather than some chipper where they can comfortably hide in the bunch all day.maryka wrote:I think in your obsession with the Premier Calendar races you're missing a pretty important point, so I will explain it to you. Women race men's races for training.
Because if they did so and performed well, say by regularly winning quality races, this would boost the credibility of women's racing.maryka wrote:Not sure why you keep insisting we try to measure ourselves up against men or try to do what they are doing.
Then again, and I seem to have hit a raw nerve here, it could well be that allowing more direct comparisons to be made between male and female competitions is exactly what women don't want to happen. This is because deep down they know that if this is done their relatively low level of performance as compared to the men will undermine the credibility of their sport even more than having races over 'girls distances' does.
So what do women want? To have their performances evaluated on the same terms as male competitors, or to race in restricted, female-only events over shorter distances, avoiding having their performances compared with those of men wherever possible?0 -
Perhaps this question should be put to someone like Nicole Cooke who always seems to be doing this. For example by complaining that she gets less financial reward from her racing than a big fish in the male professional pond. If male and female racing is really a case of 'Comparing apples and pears', then this cuts both ways. Some, to use another colloquialism, seem to want to 'Have their cake and eat it'.Rick Chasey wrote:Why is it necessary to compare the genders?
I would say that the claim that there are many intrinsic differences between males and females, rooted in their biology and half a million years of evolution, constitutes pretty thick ice, despite what the social constructivists and rad fems would have people believe.Rick Chasey wrote:If it's to make a point about gender differences, then you're treading on thin ice. 0 -
Like I said, if a men's race fits in with a woman's training schedule, then by all means she can do it and get something out of it. If it doesn't she won't. The elite women in this country capable of riding at a Premier Calendar level are not in this country... they are on the continent either racing with their pro team or chasing pro contracts. They are not going to come home to race in a Premier Calendar just for the sake of it. Why would they!BikingBernie wrote:And what better way for elite women to train than to ride a really high quality race that will draw them out, such as a Premier calendar event, rather than some chipper where they can comfortably hide in the bunch all day.
Those elite women have enough racing of their own to do without having to resort to chippers. I resort to chippers because I live in the UK, am not at the PC level and don't have a whole lot to choose from in women's road races because there just aren't enough of them. So local chippers are good training for me, but if I could ride a women's 50 mile RR every week in a field of 50 other cat 1/2 women I'd do those instead.
Relatively low level of performance, what does that mean? I guess you'd better call up Paula Radcliffe and inform her of her relatively low level of performance because her world record marathon only ranked her something like 1100th fastest in the world the year she did it. :roll: I think this is getting into troll territory now, or might I even say misogynism.BikingBernie wrote:Then again, and I seem to have hit a raw nerve here, it could well be that allowing more direct comparisons to be made between male and female competitions is exactly what women don't want to happen. This is because deep down they know that if this is done their relatively low level of performance as compared to the men will undermine the credibility of their sport even more than having races over 'girls distances' does.
How many pro female tennis players or golf players play against men? Cricket, football, field hockey, rugby? 800m runners? Do they need to in order to get credibility in their sports? Does anyone other than you really think women need to cycle race with men to be considered worthy? Every other sport in the world has male and female divisions. Women's sports are "evaluated on the same terms" as you say, which means something different to "competing directly with and against men".BikingBernie wrote:So what do women want? To have their performances evaluated on the same terms as male competitors, or to race in restricted, female-only events over shorter distances, avoiding having their performances compared with those of men wherever possible?
With regard to cycle racing, the UCI for whatever reason has decided that women need to race shorter distances, and I think that's misguided. That doesn't mean women should have to race with men, just that the distances should be more comparable, at least more comparable by time (what is approx a one-hour TT for men should be the same for women, with the distance is slightly shorter).0 -
+1, Well said Maryka..biking bernie has a problem with various people- usually anyone who's won too much e.g. Cav, Armstrong. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bigot behind the keyboard judging by biking bernie's latest dig at womenmaryka wrote:
Like I said, if a men's race fits in with a woman's training schedule, then by all means she can do it and get something out of it. If it doesn't she won't. The elite women in this country capable of riding at a Premier Calendar level are not in this country... they are on the continent either racing with their pro team or chasing pro contracts. They are not going to come home to race in a Premier Calendar just for the sake of it. Why would they!BikingBernie wrote:And what better way for elite women to train than to ride a really high quality race that will draw them out, such as a Premier calendar event, rather than some chipper where they can comfortably hide in the bunch all day.
Those elite women have enough racing of their own to do without having to resort to chippers. I resort to chippers because I live in the UK, am not at the PC level and don't have a whole lot to choose from in women's road races because there just aren't enough of them. So local chippers are good training for me, but if I could ride a women's 50 mile RR every week in a field of 50 other cat 1/2 women I'd do those instead.
Relatively low level of performance, what does that mean? I guess you'd better call up Paula Radcliffe and inform her of her relatively low level of performance because her world record marathon only ranked her something like 1100th fastest in the world the year she did it. :roll: I think this is getting into troll territory now, or might I even say misogynism.BikingBernie wrote:Then again, and I seem to have hit a raw nerve here, it could well be that allowing more direct comparisons to be made between male and female competitions is exactly what women don't want to happen. This is because deep down they know that if this is done their relatively low level of performance as compared to the men will undermine the credibility of their sport even more than having races over 'girls distances' does.
How many pro female tennis players or golf players play against men? Cricket, football, field hockey, rugby? 800m runners? Do they need to in order to get credibility in their sports? Does anyone other than you really think women need to cycle race with men to be considered worthy? Every other sport in the world has male and female divisions. Women's sports are "evaluated on the same terms" as you say, which means something different to "competing directly with and against men".BikingBernie wrote:So what do women want? To have their performances evaluated on the same terms as male competitors, or to race in restricted, female-only events over shorter distances, avoiding having their performances compared with those of men wherever possible?
With regard to cycle racing, the UCI for whatever reason has decided that women need to race shorter distances, and I think that's misguided. That doesn't mean women should have to race with men, just that the distances should be more comparable, at least more comparable by time (what is approx a one-hour TT for men should be the same for women, with the distance is slightly shorter).0 -
And I thought were were talking about bike racing. I know that in some sports the women compete on a level that is very close to that of the men, such as competition climbing, but the gap does seem to be much wider in cycling, be this due a lack of depth in the sport or because of the importance of repeated 'maximal power' efforts in road racing and which suits male competitors more than female ones.maryka wrote:Relatively low level of performance, what does that mean? I guess you'd better call up Paula Radcliffe and inform her of her relatively low level of performance because her world record marathon only ranked her something like 1100th fastest in the world the year she did it.
Oh yes, anyone who suggest that there intrinsic differences between males and females is obviously a 'woman hater'. :roll:maryka wrote:I think this is getting into troll territory now, or might I even say misogynism.
And I think that you will find that in most sports the women's game is regarded as being of lesser importance than the male game, which is to be expected when sport is supposed to be about superlatives, not 'the fasted in a restricted category that the best are not allowed to compete in'.BikingBernie wrote:How many pro female tennis players or golf players play against men? Cricket, football, field hockey, rugby? 800m runners?...Women's sports are "evaluated on the same terms" as you say, which means something different to "competing directly with and against men". 0 -
I was just pointing out that the same type of gap exists in running too. I think you'll find it in most sports... Fwiw I don't think it's the repeated maximal power efforts themselves that are the difference between men and women, but the power at which those efforts are done. The power curve for women is a flatter line than for men which is where the gap occurs in races, whether that's the first surge or the 10th.BikingBernie wrote:
And I thought were were talking about bike racing. I know that in some sports the women compete on a level that is very close to that of the men, such as competition climbing, but the gap does seem to be much wider in cycling, be this due a lack of depth in the sport or because of the importance of repeated 'maximal power' efforts in road racing and which suits male competitors more than female ones.maryka wrote:Relatively low level of performance, what does that mean? I guess you'd better call up Paula Radcliffe and inform her of her relatively low level of performance because her world record marathon only ranked her something like 1100th fastest in the world the year she did it.
Never said that, but the stuff you were saying about low level of performance came off so stupid and ridiculous that I had to assume the worst. From now on I'll just assume you're ignorant instead.BikingBernie wrote:
Oh yes, anyone who suggest that there intrinsic differences between males and females is obviously a 'woman hater'. :roll:maryka wrote:I think this is getting into troll territory now, or might I even say misogynism.
I wish that women could compete with men on even terms but that's just biology. Some sports make no designation between men and women (equestrian), some sports shouldn't but do (bowling), some sports can toe the line from time to time (cycling) and some sports would be a farce if they did (rugby). Since the Olympics is making an effort for gender parity, I do think women's sports should be given the same respect as men's, at least at the amateur level.BikingBernie wrote:
And I think that you will find that in most sports the women's game is regarded as being of lesser importance than the male game, which is to be expected when sport is supposed to be about superlatives, not 'the fasted in a restricted category that the best are not allowed to compete in'.maryka wrote:How many pro female tennis players or golf players play against men? Cricket, football, field hockey, rugby? 800m runners?...Women's sports are "evaluated on the same terms" as you say, which means something different to "competing directly with and against men".
But I understand that with men making up the majority of sports watchers and fans, men's sports will always be considered at a higher level. If it's about absolute superlative performances, then fine. But if it's about exciting competition then your argument runs a bit thin. As other posters have said, women's cycle racing is often just as exciting as men's. When was the last time you watched a race?0 -
I am not having a 'dig at women', merely playing with the contradiction that arises when one social group simultaneously argues that they want to be treated on equal terms (as with Nicole Cooke's complaints that she earns less than a top male pro) and want to be treated as being a special case (as with women having their own race category from which the best riders - i.e. men - are barred from competing in).Dave_1 wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bigot behind the keyboard judging by biking bernie's latest dig at women
Bottom line is that if you evaluate male and female sport 'on the same terms' - and this surely must include the criteria of 'Faster, higher, stronger' - women's sport will tend to be regarded less highly than male sport, Largely because, for the most part, a female competitor will not actually be the fastest but rather the 'fastest woman'.0 -
The National Champs this year were a disgrace in that regard.
I think you'll find that was a slightly odd situation in that a load of rider hit the deck.
Surely the biggest problem with womens racing is that it is poorly supported by women, both in terms of racers and spectating. Advertisers, promoters, money etc. will go to where the market is at the end of the day.
Or failing that give up road riding and move to offroad racing where women are treat much more equally.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Perhaps this question should be put to someone like Nicole Cooke who always seems to be doing this. For example by complaining that she gets less financial reward from her racing than a big fish in the male professional pond. If male and female racing is really a case of 'Comparing apples and pears', then this cuts both ways. Some, to use another colloquialism, seem to want to 'Have their cake and eat it'.Rick Chasey wrote:Why is it necessary to compare the genders?
I would say that the claim that there are many intrinsic differences between males and females, rooted in their biology and half a million years of evolution, constitutes pretty thick ice, despite what the social constructivists and rad fems would have people believe.Rick Chasey wrote:If it's to make a point about gender differences, then you're treading on thin ice.
Mysogyne is not an attractive trait in anyone.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Bottom line is that if you evaluate male and female sport 'on the same terms' - and this surely must include the criteria of 'Faster, higher, stronger' - women's sport will tend to be regarded less highly than male sport, Largely because, for the most part, a female competitor will not actually be the fastest but rather the 'fastest woman'.
This may be the case for spectator sports. However, cycling is not a spectator sport.
Julia Shaw - the outstanding most highly regarded non-pro domestic cyclist of the year?0 -
Kléber wrote:Because in a men's race you can do this
But for the women's race you can't line the route with portaloos.
these work apparently so I think that explannation is becoming redundant..thou women would need to wear low cuts"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Biking Bernie wrote:I would say that the claim that there are many intrinsic differences between males and females, rooted in their biology and half a million years of evolution, constitutes pretty thick ice, despite what the social constructivists and rad fems would have people believe.
I think you mean 'misogyny'.Rick Chasey wrote:Mysogyne is not an attractive trait in anyone.
Anyhow, do you find that coming across like PC, pussy-whipped androgynous being gets you laid more? In my experience most women actually prefer their partners to be rather more stereotypically ‘male’ no matter how much they might like to pretend otherwise.
0 -
You are joking, right?wjws wrote:
This may be the case for spectator sports. However, cycling is not a spectator sport.BikingBernie wrote:Bottom line is that if you evaluate male and female sport 'on the same terms' - and this surely must include the criteria of 'Faster, higher, stronger' - women's sport will tend to be regarded less highly than male sport, Largely because, for the most part, a female competitor will not actually be the fastest but rather the 'fastest woman'.
0 -
Yes, Rick. You need to go to one of the roadman's reviews "Bernie" so enjoys, then you'll find out what womens' true place in cycling should be...Le Blaireau (1)0
-
It's a long time since I went to a roadman's review, 25 years at least, but as I recall non of the ladies performing there were cyclists and the assembled sportsmen conducted themselves with a damn sigh more decorum that the ladies at a typical male stripper night. (Misandrists all, no doubt. :roll: )DaveyL wrote:Yes, Rick. You need to go to one of the roadman's reviews "Bernie" so enjoys, then you'll find out what womens' true place in cycling should be...0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Anyhow, do you find that coming across like PC, pussy-whipped androgynous being gets you laid more? In my experience most women actually prefer their partners to be rather more stereotypically ‘male’ no matter how much they might like to pretend otherwise.
hold on a minute...is this thread about getting laid?
perhaps that is the real problem here
is the women's perceived role as a sexual object (rightly or not?) anything to do with how womens' cycling should be structured or appreciated...
I would guess that it is!
does that need to be addressed?
is there a separation of unreconstructed alpha male behaviour that gets one laid and a rational appreciation of womens' cycle sport?
I think inadvertently you have strayed into the heart of the issue"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0
