Womens race distances
Comments
-
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.
I used to know a Australian guy who did exactly that. He would earnestly put forward a feminist point of view in the company of women, but away from them he was quite the sexist. He got laid a lot. The quality was a little lacking, but there was no doubting the quantity.Twitter: @RichN950 -
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.Rick Chasey wrote:Why is it necessary to compare the genders?
I don't think I've ever seen her ask for the same financial reward as the top male competitors. What she did "constantly complain" about was the lack of support from the UCI for women's racing in terms of the events laid on, publicity etc. A point backed up by virtually any articulate female rider who has spoken on the subject.0 -
Honestly?BikingBernie wrote: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.
I'm surprised your experience goes beyond a long suffering relationship with a crusty sock.0 -
You claim to have left the UK 'cos of its intolerant, right wing attitude, to hate the Daily Mail & to be left wing?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.
You also claim to prioritise intellectual rigour?
Others have criticised this far better than I ever will. You're either trolling & attempting irony or being profoundly misogynistic. Either way, by repeating the arguments, you endorse them (you must have studied some basic social psychology, so you must know this) & are being profoundly misogynistic.
For someone who claims to hate "francophobia," that's laughably stupid.
You do make some interesting posts on this board, then you post such arrant, offensive stupidity. It kind of undermines all of the interesting stuff, really. Which is a real shame, since you profoundly limit its impact.0 -
RichN95 wrote: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.
I used to know a Australian guy who did exactly that. He would earnestly put forward a feminist point of view in the company of women, but away from them he was quite the sexist. He got laid a lot. The quality was a little lacking, but there was no doubting the quantity.
He's obviously some kind of sociopath, able to hold contrary views with equal conviction in order to get what he wants. 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.
What 'arguments'? The 'argument' that, in general, women prefer men who are, Er, somewhat 'masculine'? Wow, now saying things like that really is the mark of someone who hates women! :roll:Richrd2205 wrote:You're either trolling & attempting irony or being profoundly misogynistic. Either way, by repeating the arguments, you endorse them (you must have studied some basic social psychology, so you must know this) & are being profoundly misogynistic.
I have been around long enough to learn that what women say they want, and what they really want are often two very different things. I first realised this years ago at univerisity when I encountered many women who railed against the 'shallowness' of men who put a high value on the way a woman looks and saw themselves as being radical feminists and yet for some reason all the good looking ones would only seem to consider similarly good looking men when looking for a relationship. The best joke of all was one girl who claimed to hate 'macho' male culture who, and I only exaggerate slightly, it turned out would only consider 'dating' a bloke if he had a criminal record for GBH!
I wonder, have you ever had a woman ever say to you 'You are a nice guy, but...'? 0 -
BikingBernie wrote: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.
What 'arguments'? The 'argument' that, in general, women prefer men who are, Er, somewhat 'masculine'? Wow, now saying things like that really is the mark of someone who hates women! :roll:Richrd2205 wrote:You're either trolling & attempting irony or being profoundly misogynistic. Either way, by repeating the arguments, you endorse them (you must have studied some basic social psychology, so you must know this) & are being profoundly misogynistic.
I have been around long enough to learn that what women say they want, and what they really want are often two very different things. I first realised this years ago at univerisity when I encountered many women who railed against the 'shallowness' of men who put a high value on the way a woman looks and saw themselves as being radical feminists and yet for some reason all the good looking ones would only seem to consider similarly good looking men when looking for a relationship. The best joke of all was one girl who claimed to hate 'macho' male culture who, and I only exaggerate slightly, it turned out would only consider 'dating' a bloke if he had a criminal record for GBH!
I wonder, have you ever had a woman ever say to you 'You are a nice guy, but...'?
Once bitten twice shy eh?
So that's how you got to date someone!it turned out would only consider 'dating' a bloke if he had a criminal record for GBH!0 -
I'm going to weigh in with my opinions on this.
1. The debates earlier on in this thread as to whether the top women are cat 1 or 2 is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that they can't compete with the top men. It's not misogynistic - just simple biology.
2. Next we come to why women's cycling doesn't attract the money. Money in sport comes from three sources - paying spectators, sponsors and TV revenue. The first of these doesn't apply to cycling. And sponsorship follows TV ratings.
The TV ratings for stand alone women's events (in all sports) are never going to get close to the men's events. The majority of sports fans are men, but of the women sports fans I know of separated sports (eg cycling, football), they are still more interested in the men.
So now to the men. Men will certainly be interested in an exciting event in women's sport on it's own merits and enjoy it, and once they've invested in it can be rewarding. But the problem is bringing them to the event and getting the initial interest.
What women's sport lacks for men is the 'wow factor'. Men watch men playing sport and they see what they can't even dream of doing. It's fantasy. But when they watch women's sport many think 'I could do that'. A lot of them are deluding themselves, but a lot are absolutely right. I know that I was (in my youth) better than most of the top female performers in two sports (not cycling, I'm rubbish at that. Could have made a good track sprinter though).
3. So how do women attract the publicity? As some have pointed out, some sports - notably athletics, swimming and tennis - the ladies approach parity with the men. In all of these sports they, at least partially, share events with the men, with races or matches mixed up. If they had to survive on a purely female tour, then they would suffer. While track cycling, due to the UCI, has been a bit backward in equality, Pendleton and Romero are probably higher profile with the general population than Cooke and Pooley.
4. Women's cycling really doesn't help itself though. The biggest stage race is the Giro Donne. When is it held? The same time as the Tour de France. Why not June or August when the media may want something to report?
My suggestion would be to align the women's events, particularly the World Cup, with men's races. This happens at Fleche, but not really elsewhere. Take Milan-San Remo. For five to six hours that's really boring. Let's have a shorter women's race an hour or two ahead of the men going over the Poggio and Cipressa. TV coverage is now digital, so embrace the red button. Maybe ask the world's most innovative sports broadcaster for advice. I suspect they may have an interest in cycling. When I first saw a Tour finish live (Morzine 1988), Jeanie Longo won a stage ahead of the caravan. More of that.
5. As to the reason as to why women's races are shorter. Apart from the bladder issues, there's no reason to make them longer. There are few bunch sprints, so the course is selective enough. Making them longer just increases the gaps and event expenses. The team ethos and tactics are completely different to men's racing. I'd ask the question, do some men's races have to be as long as they are (eg Milan-San Remo)?Twitter: @RichN950 -
BikingBernie wrote: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.
What 'arguments'? The 'argument' that, in general, women prefer men who are, Er, somewhat 'masculine'? Wow, now saying things like that really is the mark of someone who hates women! :roll:Richrd2205 wrote:You're either trolling & attempting irony or being profoundly misogynistic. Either way, by repeating the arguments, you endorse them (you must have studied some basic social psychology, so you must know this) & are being profoundly misogynistic.
I have been around long enough to learn that what women say they want, and what they really want are often two very different things. I first realised this years ago at univerisity when I encountered many women who railed against the 'shallowness' of men who put a high value on the way a woman looks and saw themselves as being radical feminists and yet for some reason all the good looking ones would only seem to consider similarly good looking men when looking for a relationship. The best joke of all was one girl who claimed to hate 'macho' male culture who, and I only exaggerate slightly, it turned out would only consider 'dating' a bloke if he had a criminal record for GBH!
I wonder, have you ever had a woman ever say to you 'You are a nice guy, but...'?
OK, I'll try to answer point by point & not cherry pick....
Saying that women don't like to be demeaned is sexist?!? You'll have to explain that to me a little bit further. If you're telling me that finding a socially accepted stereo-type attractive is somehow analogous to a political acceptance of misogyny, then I'll point you back to the comment where I enquired about your study of social psychology.
What women say & what they want is different, is it? When did I last hear that? Oh, I remember.
Then you go on to back up your argument with some stunning research studies you did at uni. Have you heard about "inductive inference"?
If we're going to be particularly accurate about it, what any of us say & what we want are different things, but that's kind of dependent on how we construct "want," isn't it? There is no gender difference in that at all: it's a human thing. The suggestion, however, that women don't know what they want to such a degree that men can feel free to disregard significant parts of what's said might need a little more evidence than stories about folk who wouldn't sleep with you at uni before I consider it a hypothesis.
In response to your final question: not since I was 15; over 20 years ago & a good while before I was sexually active.
For the record, my comment about your apparent misogyny was really in reference to your use of language & your apparent disregard for what women say & the assumption that men know better.
I also find it fascinating that of all the above posts you decided to answer the one that said, "Others have criticised this far better than I ever will."0 -
Where did I say that? Come to that where did I 'demean' women. If you read the comments I made asking whether being a 'pussy whipped' PC, androgynous being was attractive to women they were clearly directed at men.Richrd2205 wrote:Saying that women don't like to be demeaned is sexist?!? You'll have to explain that to me a little bit further.
Whilst we are on this topic are you aware of the subject matter of an ancient Greek play called Lysistrata?
So, I suggest that for many women the radical feminist agenda does not fit in with their personal values and preferences, and this means I am no better than an apologist for rape? That is a new low, even for this forum.Richrd2205 wrote:What women say & what they want is different, is it? When did I last hear that? Oh, I remember.
Nothing I said implies that I 'disregard what women say' (your implication of course being all women, all of the time). Nor do I assume that 'men know better'. In my experience men are just as likely to assert that they believe in one set of values and then live their lives by a totally different set. Perhaps that is just human nature...Richrd2205 wrote:...my comment about your apparent misogyny was really in reference to your use of language & your apparent disregard for what women say & the assumption that men know better.0 -
Sorry if I repeat anyone else's points but I didn't have time to read the whole thread. In relation to the original query regarding distance, surely the point of a long race is to help break up the field and make it tougher? Women's races tend to get well broken up, possibly due to a greater variation in ability but also as many of the races are hilly so making them longer won't necessarily make them 'better' - look at the respective nationals this year and the reduced length women's race still split the field and gave a competetive finish. The men's race could have been half it's length and still produced pretty much the same result.
On the subject of how much harder women's pro racing is than men's amateur races I will have a chat with a club mate when she returns from a UCI 2.1 stage race and see how it compares with the men's races she has been riding locally this season (her first in the sport) 0 -
BB the other day I suggested that in the past you had expressed views indicating that you were dismissive of Women's racing in toto because women were not as strong as men and your position was such that, as a consequence, there was no entertainment value in women doing any sport at all. At the time you stated that this was not your stand point. I think the above recent post matches quite closely with my stated perception of your views. BB just face it, you just don't like the idea of women doing "YOUR" sport.BikingBernie wrote:Because if they did so and performed well, say by regularly winning quality races, this would boost the credibility of women's racing.
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.0 -
It seems that you are intent on 'interpreting' what I have said in any way that fits your own agenda, irrespective of whether this is justified or not. Why not join in with the mob and try to argue that what you have quoted somehow 'proves' that I think that women who cycle in lycra as 'Asking for it'? :roll:hotoph88 wrote:...the other day I suggested that in the past you had expressed views indicating that you were dismissive of Women's racing in toto because women were not as strong as men and your position was such that, as a consequence, there was no entertainment value in women doing any sport at all. At the time you stated that this was not your stand point. I think the above recent post matches quite closely with my stated perception of your views.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
It seems that you are intent on 'interpreting' what I have said in any way that fits your own agenda, irrespective of whether this is justified or not. Why not join in with the mob and try to argue that what you have quoted somehow 'proves' that I think that women who cycle in lycra as 'Asking for it'? :roll:hotoph88 wrote:...the other day I suggested that in the past you had expressed views indicating that you were dismissive of Women's racing in toto because women were not as strong as men and your position was such that, as a consequence, there was no entertainment value in women doing any sport at all. At the time you stated that this was not your stand point. I think the above recent post matches quite closely with my stated perception of your views.
what is your position
your right that women in general terms can not cycle as well as men... but your posting leaves one wondering
your initial post is essentially a rather weird double take on womens cyclingBecause, given the huge gap in the ability of the elite men and women, if you made women's events 250 km long rather than 100 they would be about as fast, and about as exciting to watch, as the average sportive? As things stand elite women's RR's are already slower than elite male events, even with the reduced distance.
snip...
At times, I think that having different distances for male and female events (as with the womens' 500m track TT versus the mens' kilo) is actually motivated by a desire to make comparisons difficult, so obscuring the fact that most elite female competitions could be won by the average second cat amateur male. Wink
ie womens races are shorter because they are sh!t "wink wink"
IE: its a conspiracy to make them (women) look better than they really are?
if thats the case you should be in favour of bringing womens' race distances up somewhat
no?
but then if your saying that would make the racing cr4p..something you imply is already the case.. its hard to conclude that you are dismissive of womens' racing to the extent you feel they should be left to run their races at a lower distances so it can be demeaned more easily..ie your in favour inadvertently of supporting the conspiracy of avoiding comparisons
you can't have it both ways"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 -
Your logic seems a bit muddled here. For example, I don't see why, if it is true that one reason womens' events are shorter is to make comparisons with men more difficult, that this means I 'should' be in favour of equalising race distances. Whatever, I was not trying to 'have it both ways'. Rather, I was pointing out an already existing conundrum, leaving the question of which course of action would be in the best interests of women's cycle racing open for others to answer.mididoctors wrote:what is your position... your right that women in general terms can not cycle as well as men... but your posting leaves one wondering
... womens races are shorter because they ... Ie: its a conspiracy to make them (women) look better than they really are? if thats the case you should be in favour of bringing womens' race distances up somewhat
... if your saying that would make the racing cr4p... its hard to conclude that you are dismissive of womens' racing to the extent you feel they should be left to run their races at a lower distances...
you can't have it both ways
When it comes to female competitors racing over 'girls distances' in short distance events I said that I thought 'it is about time such distinctions were got rid of on the track and in time-trials'. Whether this would be good for women's cycling still appears to be an open question, but when it comes to road racing there seems to be some sort of general agreement that having the women racing 250kms would achieve nothing and perhaps mens' racing would be more exciting if the distances were cut.
In reality it is not me who 'wants things both ways'. Everyone seems to agree that top-level sport is, at least in part, about watching the ultimate in human performance, about seeing others do what you could not. Further, the physical limitations of female competitors mean that they cannot win on a 'level playing field' and so are given their own restricted-category events which men are barred from competing in. The principle is the same as is applied to juniors, or veterans, or disabled athletes. Now in all of these categories there is the potential for exciting, competitive racing which as such has merit. However, to claim that women's racing (or other restricted entry events) should get the same coverage, have the same kudos and so on as 'open' (i.e elite male) racing does seems to be a case of 'wanting things both ways'. What's more, if it is argued that this principle should be applied only to women's racing, for effectively no other reason that they are female, then this is to do something that in most other situations would be called 'patronising' and 'sexist'.
Doubtless, instead of acknowledging the contradiction that I point out, some on here will instead resort to further ad hominem attacks instead. It will be interesting to see what they come out with, seeing they have already accused me of being a 'misogynist' and an apologist for rape. :roll:0 -
BikingBernie wrote:[In reality it is not me who 'wants things both ways'. Everyone seems to agree that top-level sport is, at least in part, about watching the ultimate in human performance, about seeing others do what you could not. Further, the physical limitations of female competitors mean that they cannot win on a 'level playing field' and so are given their own restricted-category events which men are barred from competing in. The principle is the same as is applied to juniors, or veterans, or disable athletes. Now in all of these categories there is the potential for exciting, competitive racing which as such has merit. However, to claim that women's racing (or other restricted entry events) should get the same coverage, have the same kudos and so on as 'open' (i.e elite male) racing does seems to be a case of 'wanting things both ways'. What's more, if it is argued that this principle should be applied only to women's racing, for effectively no other reason that they are female, then this is to do something that in most other situations would be called 'patronising' and 'sexist'.
As a sports fan, I just want to watch more high-level and competitive and exciting sports, period. So yeah, I would like to see more women's sports on TV, as I'd like to see more Paralympics coverage and anything else that's exciting to watch. Why do all the kudos and coverage have to be directly tied to so-called superlative performances anyway?
Maybe you should contact the TV broadcasters and let them know that they needn't carry women's tennis anymore as it's so clearly inferior and doesn't deserve the same coverage as men's. Not to mention Olympic coverage -- better get rid of all the women's sports coverage there, too. Oh wait, I'm sure beach volleyball will be allowed to stay, as surely that's superlative to you in some way. 0 -
P.s. Perhaps the 'logic' at work here is that whilst the contradiction I note might be real, only a 'misogynist' would point it out. ...Much like only someone who is rabidly 'anti-American' would point out the inequalities in American society, only an 'anti-Semite' would criticise the behaviour of the Israelis in the occupied territories, and of course only some who 'Hates' Armstrong and 'loves cancer' would argue that he was a doper. :roll:BikingBernie wrote:Doubtless, instead of acknowledging the contradiction that I point out, some on here will instead resort to further ad hominem attacks instead. It will be interesting to see what they come out with, seeing they have already accused me of being a 'misogynist' and an apologist for rape. :roll:0 -
Good point. I am sure that many 2nd, 3rd and 4th cats would love it if their events were televised and were furnished with multi-thousand pound prize lists.maryka wrote:Why do all the kudos and coverage have to be directly tied to so-called superlative performances anyway? 0 -
maryka wrote:As a sports fan, I just want to watch more high-level and competitive and exciting sports, period. So yeah, I would like to see more women's sports on TV, as I'd like to see more Paralympics coverage and anything else that's exciting to watch. Why do all the kudos and coverage have to be directly tied to so-called superlative performances anyway?
Maybe you should contact the TV broadcasters and let them know that they needn't carry women's tennis anymore as it's so clearly inferior and doesn't deserve the same coverage as men's. Not to mention Olympic coverage -- better get rid of all the women's sports coverage there, too. Oh wait, I'm sure beach volleyball will be allowed to stay, as surely that's superlative to you in some way.
'Deserve' doesn't have anything to do with. Ratings do. You can put loads of women's events on TV, promote them heavily, but you can't force people to watch and be interested. Stand alone women's events consistently get far worse viewing figures than their male equivalents. A large part of this is because of superlative performances that none of the viewers can match themselves. The more superlative the better. Viewing figures for tennis, golf and athletics all go up considerably if Federer, Woods or Bolt is competing.
Whether this 'should' be the situation is irrelevant. The fact is it is the situation.
I personally play hockey. Despite having high levels of participation it is hardly ever on TV. This is because history has shown that there isn't much interest in it as a spectator sport. I'm not moaning about inequality and prejudice though.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Hockey's crap on telly - the thing that makes it so good to play - speed, close stick control skill and way the game can switch in seconds, makes it a nightmare to televise.
See also squash.http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
-
Yet ice hockey is the same and is an awesome televised sport. I guess because field hockey has a bigger playing area that's harder to cover?RichN95 wrote:mroli wrote:Hockey's crap on telly - the thing that makes it so good to play - speed, close stick control skill and way the game can switch in seconds, makes it a nightmare to televise.
Oh, I agree completely. One of the reasons it's never managed to catch on as a TV sport.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Your logic seems a bit muddled here. For example, I don't see why, if it is true that one reason womens' events are shorter is to make comparisons with men more difficult, that this means I 'should' be in favour of equalising race distances. Whatever, I was not trying to 'have it both ways'. Rather, I was pointing out an already existing conundrum, leaving the question of which course of action would be in the best interests of women's cycle racing open for others to answer.mididoctors wrote:what is your position... your right that women in general terms can not cycle as well as men... but your posting leaves one wondering
... womens races are shorter because they ... Ie: its a conspiracy to make them (women) look better than they really are? if thats the case you should be in favour of bringing womens' race distances up somewhat
... if your saying that would make the racing cr4p... its hard to conclude that you are dismissive of womens' racing to the extent you feel they should be left to run their races at a lower distances...
you can't have it both ways
When it comes to female competitors racing over 'girls distances' in short distance events I said that I thought 'it is about time such distinctions were got rid of on the track and in time-trials'. Whether this would be good for women's cycling still appears to be an open question, but when it comes to road racing there seems to be some sort of general agreement that having the women racing 250kms would achieve nothing and perhaps mens' racing would be more exciting if the distances were cut.
In reality it is not me who 'wants things both ways'. Everyone seems to agree that top-level sport is, at least in part, about watching the ultimate in human performance, about seeing others do what you could not. Further, the physical limitations of female competitors mean that they cannot win on a 'level playing field' and so are given their own restricted-category events which men are barred from competing in. The principle is the same as is applied to juniors, or veterans, or disable athletes. Now in all of these categories there is the potential for exciting, competitive racing which as such has merit. However, to claim that women's racing (or other restricted entry events) should get the same coverage, have the same kudos and so on as 'open' (i.e elite male) racing does seems to be a case of 'wanting things both ways'. What's more, if it is argued that this principle should be applied only to women's racing, for effectively no other reason that they are female, then this is to do something that in most other situations would be called 'patronising' and 'sexist'.
Doubtless, instead of acknowledging the contradiction that I point out, some on here will instead resort to further ad hominem attacks instead. It will be interesting to see what they come out with, seeing they have already accused me of being a 'misogynist' and an apologist for rape. :roll:
you just done it again no?
on one hand you state that you just want to see good sport
and on the other womens cycle is worse to watch because or what exactly? they are slower....and whats your point?
your making a subjective judgement that womens racing is cr4p
it doesn't deserve the same kudos.... your words..
why not?
because they are women is your explanation
ATEOTD you dont think women's cycle racing is worth watching..
if you don't think that then what is it you are trying to say?"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 -
There isn't much point actually quoting all of what you have said as you fail to address the points I make and instead just sort of ramble on without focus or apparent purpose.mididoctors wrote:Not a lot of any significance
Some of what you say blithely ignores what I have actually said, such as your claim that I 'think that women's cycle racing is not worth watching'. This is despite me saying in the post you were replying to that womens' cycle racing, along with juniors and vets racing, has the potential for 'exciting, competitive racing' and as such has merit. This suggests to me that the reason you don't understand what I am 'trying to say' is that you haven't actually read what I have posted!
As to 'Kudos'. Consider the events in cycling which have the greater Kudos, such as the Tour and Paris-Roubaix. Ok, so tradition and history plays a part, but their Kudos arises largely because they are the hardest events in the sport. This is why a win in Paris-Roubaix has more Kudos than a win in a 100km kermesse. In this sense gender has nothing to do with, other than the fact that due to evolutionary biology women just don't happen to have the physiology needed in order to win these events.0 -
I never bother watching the UK domestic racing they show on Eurosport. I'm sure a lot of the racing may be very exciting, but ultimately I don't really know who the riders are and I know that the riders are of a lower standard than the races I do watch, so I'm just not interested.
I wonder if this makes me anti-British.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:I never bother watching the UK domestic racing they show on Eurosport. I'm sure a lot of the racing may be very exciting, but ultimately I don't really know who the riders are and I know that the riders are of a lower standard than the races I do watch, so I'm just not interested.
I wonder if this makes me anti-British.
I don't watch it either, but that's more down to the presentation than the level of competition. Cycling is just not a sport that lends itself well to be shown in a highlights package. Not many sports are, actually.
If it was live, or at least presented better, I would probably watch it. Same goes for women's racing. I think any given competition can be exciting, regardless of the level. Many would argue that lower league football is a more appealing prospect than the Premier League.0 -
afx237vi wrote:RichN95 wrote:I never bother watching the UK domestic racing they show on Eurosport. I'm sure a lot of the racing may be very exciting, but ultimately I don't really know who the riders are and I know that the riders are of a lower standard than the races I do watch, so I'm just not interested.
I wonder if this makes me anti-British.
I don't watch it either, but that's more down to the presentation than the level of competition. Cycling is just not a sport that lends itself well to be shown in a highlights package. Not many sports are, actually.
If it was live, or at least presented better, I would probably watch it. Same goes for women's racing. I think any given competition can be exciting, regardless of the level. Many would argue that lower league football is a more appealing prospect than the Premier League.
This just goes to show how opinions differ. I far prefer watching a highlights package unless it's a stage with mountains from the start. Watching live cycling is like watching live cricket, unless it happens to be at a point when a crucial attack occurs, which will usually be caught on camera. The ITV TdeF highlights were superb every day.Dan0 -
I don't think women's cycle racing is necessarily less exciting than the mens. Yes I admit I do find it generally less of a good watch - partly for some of the reasons mentioned - the events lack the history, the riders are generally less well known (to me), the support is generally less. The coverage is also generally lower budget.
Despite that Nicole Cooke's Olympic and Worlds double win was some of the best racing I saw that year. Being the Worlds and Olympics it had the kudos which the mens scene gets from its history, I knew the main protagonists, I knew the history of Cooke trying to win against nations with stronger teams and the coverage was not low budget. In other words when it competes on an equal footing with the mens side of things it can be just as exciting. For me the fact it is generally not such a good watch is not something intrinsic in the fact women are generally less powerful but contingent on things which in are external to the riders themselves. Had womens cycling developed differently it might now find itself on an equal footing in the same way womens tennis or athletics which pretty much has equal billing to the men.
When it comes to matching up women and men riders though I do tend a bit more towards BBs point of view. I think even our top pro women would get destroyed if they entered Premier Calendars - but then again so do most of the men.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
flattythehurdler wrote:
This just goes to show how opinions differ. I far prefer watching a highlights package unless it's a stage with mountains from the start. Watching live cycling is like watching live cricket, unless it happens to be at a point when a crucial attack occurs, which will usually be caught on camera. The ITV TdeF highlights were superb every day.
Fair enough, but for me the anticipation of something about to happen is part of the fun. Whenever I watch a recording, I can't get away from the feeling that I could either just skip to the final 5 km or just look at who won online. It's not the same...0 -
With regard to highlights:
You can't honestly say Paris-Roubaix or the Ronde are better watched as highlights?
C'mon!0
