Pooley. Binda. Again

dougzz

Please name all the sports that are timed or measured, rather than judged, where the performance of women is superior to men. Big list is it? So I think it's a fact that men run faster and jump higher.

I think horses are a different species.

AidanR

So should we encourage doping as it makes athletes faster and stronger?

thegibdog

dougzz wrote:

Please name all the sports that are timed or measured, rather than judged, where the performance of women is superior to men. Big list is it? So I think it's a fact that men run faster and jump higher.

I think horses are a different species.

I wasn't arguing that women run faster and jump higher than men; I assumed that was pretty clear.

You are correct, horses are indeed a different species. Men and women are different sexes.

greasedscotsman

And also a great ride from Marianne Vos in the scratch race at the world track champs at the weekend. How many titles does she have now, on the road, track and in cross?

rebs

I think it's more scientific fact that the strongest/fastest man is in a different league to the strongest fastest woman.

Woman's cycling can be just as entertaining. But the feild of competitive woman is far less to the "stable" of men. When people want to watch sport, alot of the time it must fall in with wanting to see the best of the best slug it out in whatever arena it is. This as a rule will often the mens competition dominates.

I'd be interested to see how races pan out with Men & Woman doing the exact same race. No many sports cater to this. Motor racing appears to be one which has no gender barriers. but saying that F1 is arguabley one of the most physical demand sports around (and yet so understated)

Didnt the Men & Woman run the same World TT course in Australia this year? Anyone able to grab the time for both to see how they compare for the top 10 in each? Any first across the line sport I fear that woman events will always play 2nd fiddle men.

But I would like to watch more woman racing but I can never be bothered to watch net streams of these events. Like I can never be bothered to watch the streams for men. gimme a nice easy Eurosport time slots and I'll happily watch!

moray_gub

dougzz wrote:

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

I think for certain sports you may have a point if you have ever watched Womans football you know what i mean its absolutely dreadful with poor skill level and minimal tactical nous.Sean Kelly if pushed may agree with you on womans cycling i dont think he is too impressed with the tactical nous in womans cycling as he has alluded too on several occasions, personally i find womans cycling watchable but generally i dont find it as enjoyable as mens and i think most posters would agree with that if they were being totally honest.

stevec205gti

So there you are Emma - well done on a great win, but as dougzz points out, as you're female you are a far less interesting and duller than any male just because of your gender, and if you want more publicity for you and your sport then you'll just have to start pumping out the same performance as the blokes or we spectators are just not bothered.

You sir are an arse.

step-hent

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.

Thing is, your own case isnt that convincing:

1. It is entirely possible that there is less interest in women's cycling because there is less coverage - it is self-perpetuating. A sport can't get a good following if it is starved of media attention - if women's cycling got more coverage i'd bet it got more popular very quickly.
2. This is nonsense. Women may not be as strong or as fast, but the excitement of road racing (for most, but apparently not you) on tv is affected very little if they are going a few kph slower - its about the story of the race and the effort of the athletes. The few women's races that are covered seem to be cracking races - no, they arent as fast, but they are much more open that makes them exciting. Not necessarily better than the men's events - just different, and therefore interesting for it.

If you dont enjoy women's racing, that's fair enough - but to suggest it is inherently not as 'good' is just daft, since how 'good' it is is not measured by the things you say set men's racing apart.

gmb

I agree with Dougzz.

Women are slower and weaker than men.

I think all the blokes on this forum should race against Emma and show her how poor she is.

I've done four hours of Sufferfest over the winter and about 120 miles on the road but I think that will suffice.

frenchfighter

http://www.youtube.com/user/girdon2009#p/u

You can see the Giro Donne on that link too. Stage 9, Abbott and Pooley up the Stelvio.

dougzz

stevec205gti wrote:

You sir are an ars*.

Entirely possible, you've certainly shredded my case with this thoughtful response.

step-hent wrote:

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.

Thing is, your own case isnt that convincing:

1. It is entirely possible that there is less interest in women's cycling because there is less coverage - it is self-perpetuating. A sport can't get a good following if it is starved of media attention - if women's cycling got more coverage i'd bet it got more popular very quickly.
2. This is nonsense. Women may not be as strong or as fast, but the excitement of road racing (for most, but apparently not you) on tv is affected very little if they are going a few kph slower - its about the story of the race and the effort of the athletes. The few women's races that are covered seem to be cracking races - no, they arent as fast, but they are much more open that makes them exciting. Not necessarily better than the men's events - just different, and therefore interesting for it.

If you dont enjoy women's racing, that's fair enough - but to suggest it is inherently not as 'good' is just daft, since how 'good' it is is not measured by the things you say set men's racing apart.

So for 1. you've just offered an alternate possibility, doesn't mean I'm wrong, like most things there's probably no absolute, it'll be a combination of factors.

For 2. I disagree it's nonsense. You offer the factor of excitement, which is entirely subjective. How many people here refer to 'another boring sprint' whilst others love the HTC train followed by a Cav burst to the line. In a strength endurance sport women are not the equal of men, since it's a race I think it's therefore reasonable to say it's not as good. Say you had a special series of races for the (male) riders ranked 300 to 400 in the world. It could possibly be quite exciting, and many people may enjoy it. But it wouldn't be as good as the the races between the top guys for reasons that should be obvious.

I don't have an issue with Emma Pooley, good luck to her, I hope she has fun and makes some money. With the right marketing and some luck you can sell women's sport, just look at tennis

AidanR

This is a fairly daft argument. I can see where Dougzz is coming from. People are attracted to the fastest, most high profile events. Just look at F1 - compared to other motorsport it's like watching paint dry, but more people watch it because it is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport, with the quickest drivers.

Men's cycling is quicker than women's, inevitably. Whether it is more entertaining is another matter. Personally I like to watch women's sport because it is often just as skillful but muuuuucccchhhh cheaper - the women's version of the Calcutta Cup in the recent 6 Nations was at Twickenham and completely free

blazing_saddles

Seems to me that Doug would advocate doped to the eyeballs racing, simply because it offers the highest performance levels inhumanly possible.
I would agree with Moray on the women's tactical nous angle, but this also can often result exciting, unpredictable racing.

To me, they are just different and I enjoy both.

step-hent

dougzz wrote:

step-hent wrote:

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.

Thing is, your own case isnt that convincing:

1. It is entirely possible that there is less interest in women's cycling because there is less coverage - it is self-perpetuating. A sport can't get a good following if it is starved of media attention - if women's cycling got more coverage i'd bet it got more popular very quickly.
2. This is nonsense. Women may not be as strong or as fast, but the excitement of road racing (for most, but apparently not you) on tv is affected very little if they are going a few kph slower - its about the story of the race and the effort of the athletes. The few women's races that are covered seem to be cracking races - no, they arent as fast, but they are much more open that makes them exciting. Not necessarily better than the men's events - just different, and therefore interesting for it.

If you dont enjoy women's racing, that's fair enough - but to suggest it is inherently not as 'good' is just daft, since how 'good' it is is not measured by the things you say set men's racing apart.

So for 1. you've just offered an alternate possibility, doesn't mean I'm wrong, like most things there's probably no absolute, it'll be a combination of factors.

For 2. I disagree it's nonsense. You offer the factor of excitement, which is entirely subjective. How many people here refer to 'another boring sprint' whilst others love the HTC train followed by a Cav burst to the line. In a strength endurance sport women are not the equal of men, since it's a race I think it's therefore reasonable to say it's not as good. Say you had a special series of races for the (male) riders ranked 300 to 400 in the world. It could possibly be quite exciting, and many people may enjoy it. But it wouldn't be as good as the the races between the top guys for reasons that should be obvious.

1. No, it doesnt mean you are wrong - it means you have failed to prove that you must be right, since there is an alternative, equally valid possibility. You implied that your case was convincing, .

2. You discredit subjective criteria and then make an argument based on what is 'good'. Thing is, good doesn't mean anything in isolation - it needs criteria to measured against, and those criteria are, in the end, just based on what people like. You seem to suggest that speed and strength make something good, but that is just because those are the things you enjoy about the sport. Others enjoy different things, like close racing, suspense, the spirit shown by the athletes etc etc. These are all just criteria for assessing what is 'good' - so your argument that subjective criteria are invalid criteria is also nonsense, since the measurement of what is 'good' is inherently subjective.

To be clear, I'm not saying your opinion is nonsense - if you find women's cycling less enjoyable to watch, then fair enough. But that opinion doesn't become a fact just because you claim that is.

Tusher

So..................the Marathon. Pray tell me, which is the more exciting race- men or women?

More TV coverage will result in more appreciating women's cycling. That's one part of the root of the problem. And greater TV would bring higher financial rewards. And sponsorship. Team Tampax v Team Mooncup? They just need the TV coverage.
And, IMHO, this could be achieved by scheduling women's racing on the same day as the men's. Roads are closed for most elite racing, the crowds are there, the media are there.....I can't understand why this can't be achieved. Just like a marathon.

Part 2 is the fault of our favourite fall-guys, the UCI.
They have the power to, for example, require any pro-team registering with them to create a women's team (junior and paralympics as well- why not?) Garmin and HTC spring to mind as paragons here, but, as noted in the article, their teams are shadows of the male teams.

dougzz

@Step-hent.
By not as good I should perhaps have said not as fast, I thought that was implied, since bike races are determined by the fastest time. Yes I think Cancellara won E3 last week because he crossed the line first, in the fastest time. Now maybe those judging the race subjectively felt that Mark Cassidy won, sure he didn't finish but he had a nice green kit. I suggest that speed and strength make you good at sports that require those attributes. Now if it was Table Tennis I'd suggest that skill with the bat makes you good, good being defined as able to accumulate more points than your opponent in suitable groups, I believe called games, such that the rules determine that person the winner.

@Tusher
I believe the marathon is an example of where women's times are as a percentage closer to men than other events? To be honest I'd like to watch neither, paint drying appeals greater than watching someone run for over two hours. Does athletics get equal coverage? I don't know know. But I bet if your offered 50 tickets for the 100 metres (or 800 or whatever) final you'd need 45 for the men's and 5 for the lady's. Why? Because despite that both races will be over in no time and are likely to be equally enthralling to people that care, that little thought nagging at you that the men will run it quicker makes it more appealing.

dougzz

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Seems to me that Doug would advocate doped to the eyeballs racing, simply because it offers the highest performance levels inhumanly possible.
I would agree with Moray on the women's tactical nous angle, but this also can often result exciting, unpredictable racing.

To me, they are just different and I enjoy both.

Absolute crap. Point to one post where I've endorsed doping.

Tom Butcher

Where women's sport has had pretty much equal status and equal coverage as the mens game for some time - tennis, athletics, swimming - it is just as good to watch and I don't ever see it argued that the women are just inherently less exciting.

It's about the story and the competition rather than the watts they are putting out or how hard they hit the ball or whatever. The story isn't just what happens at the time - it's the history of the event, of the athletes, their personalities, failures, triumphs etc. When Wiggins got 4th in the Tour the achievements of Simpson and Millar put some context on it and allowed us to appreciate it all the more.

The women have so little coverage, their events so little history - that as spectators most of us are missing parts of the jigsaw that make watching sport enjoyable. It's not a necessary thing and if women's racing got a few years of decent coverage I think it'd become much more appealing in the way women's tennis and athletics doesn't suffer in comparison with the men's. It's a Catch 22 situation but I do agree with whoever said the UCI should make some moves to change things - however gradually - after all they are responsible for the sport not just the sport for the men.

BarryBonds

Agree with dougzz

But if it were on TV at least wed get a chance to letch before they roll slowly past............

thegibdog

dougzz wrote:

Absolute crap. Point to one post where I've endorsed doping.

It's a logical extension from your "faster is better" argument, i.e. if races allowed doping they would be faster than races where doping is banned and therefore superior.

But then your argument doesn't have much grounding in logic anyway.

greasedscotsman

So who's going to bother watching the Giro then? Surely a second rate copy of the Tour!

dougzz

greasedscotsman wrote:

So who's going to bother watching the Giro then? Surely a second rate copy of the Tour!

Well I'll just compare the average speeds of the two races after and let you know which is the best

Le Commentateur

dougzz 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.

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?

Sounds like the argument of a banker at a corporate hospitality event.... but anyway, I think the 'edge' comes from an awareness of who the protagonists are, their relative strengths & weaknesses, and so the rareness of coverage for the women further works against them. Sports where there is good coverage of the women's side (e.g. tennis, biathlon) seem to generate good support from sponsors and fans because proior coverage has ensured there is a background knowledge about the competitors that is informing what they are watching.

Pross

I think Tom has hit the nail on the head - best post on this thread.

Pross

dougzz wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

So who's going to bother watching the Giro then? Surely a second rate copy of the Tour!

Well I'll just compare the average speeds of the two races after and let you know which is the best

Not that simple - you'll need a clever equation to take account of the fact that the Giro is a harder course (My definition of 'harder' is the one that I would have most trouble riding round i.e. hillier!)

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

dougzz wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

So who's going to bother watching the Giro then? Surely a second rate copy of the Tour!

Well I'll just compare the average speeds of the two races after and let you know which is the best

Not that simple - you'll need a clever equation to take account of the fact that the Giro is a harder course (My definition of 'harder' is the one that I would have most trouble riding round i.e. hillier!)

I always say mine's harder.

Then again, who wouldn't.

step-hent

dougzz wrote:

@Step-hent.
By not as good I should perhaps have said not as fast, I thought that was implied, since bike races are determined by the fastest time. Yes I think Cancellara won E3 last week because he crossed the line first, in the fastest time. Now maybe those judging the race subjectively felt that Mark Cassidy won, sure he didn't finish but he had a nice green kit. I suggest that speed and strength make you good at sports that require those attributes. Now if it was Table Tennis I'd suggest that skill with the bat makes you good, good being defined as able to accumulate more points than your opponent in suitable groups, I believe called games, such that the rules determine that person the winner.

Isn't there a difference between a good racer and a good race though? The best racer in a race is measured by who crosses the line first/wins the competition (if we're talking grand tour jerseys). But having the fastest racers doesn't make it inherently a good race. By your reckoning the best race of all time is just the fastest - which is not a definition very many people would apply, and therefore not one that would be used to decide which races get tv coverage if we started afresh (which I think is how this discussion got started). Anyway, as has been pointed out above, Tom Butcher's post pretty much says it all. I'll stop posting now then...

ynyswen24

dougzz wrote:

I don't have an issue with Emma Pooley, good luck to her, I hope she has fun and makes some money. With the right marketing and some luck you can sell women's sport, just look at tennis

you bloody fool

dougzz

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/dieta ... -free.html

Maybe of interest.

blazing_saddles

Anyhow.....................Rai Sport 2 did have 5 minutes of the race, last night.
Saw Pooley's lethal attack from way back in the group. A couple tried in vain to bridge but were shut down by team mates. After that, it was celebration time. The only thing dull was the weather. Pound for pound, Pooley is a phenomenon. Certainly impressed Paolo Savoldelli, Rai's regular new presenter/expert.