Pooley. Binda. Again

frenchfighter

Solo win. From 70km out. In the rain. Champion.

Bettini Photos / WomensCycling.net

inkyfingers

Completely agree with you Frenchie, she really is something else!

inkyfingers

Forgot to mention, I just started reading this....

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/i ... y-paradox/

frenchfighter

Thanks, good article. Doing a PhD also!

Le Commentateur

Well that's something to keep her occupied during the off-season.

The pity is that this day's racing will never be seen on TV here or get much mention in the press. Just these few photos and a bit of a report on a couple of websites.

fish156

Le Commentateur wrote:

The pity is that this day's racing will never be seen on TV here or get much mention in the press. Just these few photos and a bit of a report on a couple of websites.

+1

OffTheBackAdam

Top lass!
Win and win with style.

Tusher

Isn't she just fab? And we can't see more of her because some TV muppet deems women's cycling to be 'less interesting'.


PS Emma, it's completely normal to have all your CDs in alphabetical order. People who don't do this are just weird.

blazing_saddles

It'll be on Rai Sport 2 on Thursday night, so I'll see it. 8)

Kléber

Great to watch. She looks so small on the bike, like a kid whose parents have bought a larger sized frame knowing she'll grow into it!

Bronzie

Lightweight

jp1985

Another good interview here


http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7931/Emma-Pooley-Interview-You-increase-your-luck-by-doing-more-attacks.aspx

graeme_s-2

Emma Pooley wrote:

you increase your luck by doing more attacks

Does this make her the female Jens Voigt?

TMR

Graeme_S wrote:

Does this make her the female Jens Voigt?

Has she got a big 'engine'?

LangerDan

Graeme_S wrote:

Emma Pooley wrote:

you increase your luck by doing more attacks

Does this make her the female Jens Voigt?

I'd hope not. She seems far less demented than Jens, plus she's tidy on a bike - Jens "attack mode" looks like someone trying to wrestle an octopus.

dougzz

I'm prepared for the flack, so here goes. It's not on TV because there is much less interest. Women's sport is not as good, simple fact. It's like having competitions for people under 1.6 metres, or 60 kilos or whatever. Exactly the same reason why lesser weight boxers will never generate the interest of heavyweights, yes I know there are exceptions, but if Pacman was a lot heavier he'd be an even bigger star. Women's tennis is probably the biggest lady sport, and that's based as much on looks and glamour as it is on ability, how much press did Kournikova get? Ivanivic and Sharapova, was their fame generated by their looks or their talent?
I'm applaud anyone that wants to have a go regardless of gender, but I don't want to watch second rate sport.

andyp

Have you ever watched a women's road race on TV?

At the 2008 World Championships, the final two laps of the women's road race was the best racing on offer all weekend.

dougzz

andyp wrote:

Have you ever watched a women's road race on TV?

At the 2008 World Championships, the final two laps of the women's road race was the best racing on offer all weekend.

Maybe, but that's not the point I made is it? Lots of sport can be exciting and competitive, but for a real edge you need to be watching the best, not some category of contestant that artificially limits things. Olympic Road Race for people born on a Tuesday anyone?

jonginge

andyp wrote:

Have you ever watched a women's road race on TV?

At the 2008 World Championships, the final two laps of the women's road race was the best racing on offer all weekend.

This.

I think the racing's great. A pretty high proportion of the races don't end in a field sprint \o/

dougzz

JonGinge wrote:

andyp wrote:

Have you ever watched a women's road race on TV?

At the 2008 World Championships, the final two laps of the women's road race was the best racing on offer all weekend.

This.

I think the racing's great. A pretty high proportion of the races don't end in a field sprint \o/

OK, so with all this demand it'll be on TV soon and you'll have what you want :twisted:

Pross

Racing at any level can be exciting, it depends more on the style of racing than the quality of the competitors. If you've got the top female cyclists in the world going at it hammer and tongs (which the shorter race distances encourage) then it is better to watch than some of the processions you get in the Pro Tour races. Given the same level of TV coverage there is no reason why women's racing shouldn't be every bit as watchable as men's. A good example of this would be the nationals last year - similar coverage on TV (both poor!) and the women's race was a far better one to watch.

graeme_s-2

Due to the nature of track racing the men's and women's events are contested as part of the same schedule and therefore get equal coverage. The women's events are every bit as entertaining to watch as the men's.

dougzz

RvV not for you lot then, you'll all be out watching some completive and exciting (because it doesn't finish in a dull sprint) local amateur race :roll:

andyp

Oh dear, someone challenges your sweeping generalisation and you resort to the eye rolling emoticon.

I'll watch RvV because it's one of the most important races in the season. I'd also love to watch the women's RvV but doubt I'll get the opportunity as too many broadcasters have the same attitude as you. Which I find disappointing.

dougzz

andyp wrote:

Oh dear, someone challenges your sweeping generalisation and you resort to the eye rolling emoticon.

I'll watch RvV because it's one of the most important races in the season. I'd also love to watch the women's RvV but doubt I'll get the opportunity as too many broadcasters have the same attitude as you. Which I find disappointing.

Emoticon aside I don't think you've made your case. My point is two fold.
1. There is less interest in women's cycling (and more broadly women's sport) so there is less TV coverage.
2. Women's sport is not as good, because it's not at the level of men's sport.

Yes you can throw up odd examples of great races or events as exeptions, but generally I think both those points are valid. :P

Pross

dougzz wrote:

RvV not for you lot then, you'll all be out watching some completive and exciting (because it doesn't finish in a dull sprint) local amateur race :roll:

A televised live amateur race could be more exciting to watch. Live, however, is a completely different thing as the crowds and circus that go with the race make it an event even if you only see them pass once. Your initial comment was about TV coverage. Comments such as it being a 'category to artificially limit things' are absurd - there would hardly be any sport for women if they had to compete on an even footing with men. They are still the best in the world making allowance for the natural differences in the sexes.

LittleB0b

cycling’s most destructive waif

We love you Emma!

greasedscotsman

Pross wrote:

A televised live amateur race could be more exciting to watch. Live, however, is a completely different thing as the crowds and circus that go with the race make it an event even if you only see them pass once.

Last time I went to see Flanders I saw more of the women's race than the men's! I think they're both just as good to watch, both on the TV and the roadside. I'd quite like to see more women's racing and less tennis!

thegibdog

dougzz wrote:

Emoticon aside I don't think you've made your case. My point is two fold.
1. There is less interest in women's cycling (and more broadly women's sport) so there is less TV coverage.
2. Women's sport is not as good, because it's not at the level of men's sport.

Yes you can throw up odd examples of great races or events as exeptions, but generally I think both those points are valid. :P

I think it's fair to say that the level of interest in women's road cycling is lower in general than for men's road cycling. The majority of professional sports are male dominated as fewer women take part or spectate.

The main exception to this are "olympic" sports. It's interesting to note that in sports such as athletics and track cycling, where the pinnacle of the sport is considered to be the olympics, the male and the female events are on a much more equal footing. I would suggest that this is due to the rewards being similar.

I think your second point largely depends on what you mean by "good" and "at the level". If you mean that it's inherently inferior because men run faster and jump higher than women then I think that is quite a disparaging and ignorant remark.

It could be argued that because fewer women take part then the quality could potentially be lower as there is less competition - but then you argue the same thing when comparing football to cycling and so on.

The fact remains that women such as Emma become the best in their field through a combination of talent and hard work and their achievements are not intrinsically of lesser value simply because they are female

dougzz

thegibdog wrote:

I think it's fair to say that the level of interest in women's road cycling is lower in general than for men's road cycling. The majority of professional sports are male dominated as fewer women take part or spectate.

The main exception to this are "olympic" sports. It's interesting to note that in sports such as athletics and track cycling, where the pinnacle of the sport is considered to be the olympics, the male and the female events are on a much more equal footing. I would suggest that this is due to the rewards being similar.

I think your second point largely depends on what you mean by "good" and "at the level". If you mean that it's inherently inferior because men run faster and jump higher than women then I think that is quite a disparaging and ignorant remark.

It could be argued that because fewer women take part then the quality could potentially be lower as there is less competition - but then you argue the same thing when comparing football to cycling and so on.

The fact remains that women such as Emma become the best in their field through a combination of talent and hard work and their achievements are not intrinsically of lesser value simply because they are female

I appreciate this can go on forever. But,

"If you mean that it's inherently inferior because men run faster and jump higher than women then I think that is quite a disparaging and ignorant remark"

I think it's a fact. Sport is by it's very nature a measure of speed and power. Take two people of equal talent and I can't think of a single sport where the faster stronger one won't win.

The rewards in Tennis, which is a sport where women can make a lot of money playing sport are identical, and women's tennis is so inferior as to be almost a different sport, that would seem to totally contradict your point that where rewards are similar so is the level the sport is played at.

Swifter, Higher, Stronger - where did I hear that?

thegibdog

dougzz wrote:

"If you mean that it's inherently inferior because men run faster and jump higher than women then I think that is quite a disparaging and ignorant remark"

I think it's a fact.

That's pretty much what would be defined as an opinion. Not to be confused with a fact.

If a horse can run faster than a man does that make horse racing the superior sport?