Women's Elite RR - Spoiler, probably, eventually.
Comments
-
If she finished 5th then that suggests that with a season of racing she'd make first cat - that is hardly being walked all over by a decent 2nd cat.
It's irrelevant though - the point is your argument is based on a premise - that the attraction of sport is necessarily seeing what the human body is capable of - which is false. But if you insist on sticking with that why can't the attraction equally be to see what the female half of the population is capable of ? You then responded why not make a number of other arbitrary distinctions if we are going to discriminate in favour of women - what about small people etc etc - why not indeed - the fact is we do in some sports such as boxing which has weight limits - these things are socially constructed and not intrinsic.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
I didn't think Cooke finished the Ras and only entered to ride a few stages or was that a different year?
We have a 1st cat female rider who has done well at national level and who can easily sit in on locale 2/3/4 races although lacks the power to finish high up in the sprints. However, the Ras is a tough race and she got dropped from the main group on several stages. Not sure what this proves though but I do know she's a better rider than I'll ever manage to be!0 -
She still couldn't win what was 'only' a second/ third cat RR though, and one of those who finished in front of her was just a third category rider to boot. Sure, she might scrape enough points in second/third cat events to get a first category licence, but like many a second category rider she would then find herself totally out of her depth. When one considers the huge jumps from second/ third category racing, to first category, to Premier calendar, to professional, to being a winner at the pro level, it is clear that the level of elite women's competition is light years behind that of the elite men.Tom Butcher wrote:If she finished 5th then that suggests that with a season of racing she'd make first cat - that is hardly being walked all over by a decent 2nd cat.
By your inclusion of the word 'necessarily' here are you trying to set up a straw man? I would argue that seeing people do the extraordinary is a large part of the reason why people watch events like the Tour, but that is obviously not the only reason to take part in or watch sport. However, take away the attraction of watching people do the extraordinary and, for most people, the appeal will be less. That difference is probably exactly the difference between the appeal of watching a mountain stage of the Tour and watching a competitive second cat, or come to that ladies, RR...Tom Butcher wrote:the point is your argument is based on a premise - that the attraction of sport is necessarily seeing what the human body is capable of - which is false.
Yes, why not indeed? Probably because most people would rather watch a mountain stage of the Tour or a 'Monument', fought out by the most powerful bike riders on the planet going at each other hammer and tongs, than see any ladies or disabled or second cat RR.Tom Butcher wrote:why can't the attraction equally be to see what the female half of the population is capable of ? You then responded why not make a number of other arbitrary distinctions if we are going to discriminate in favour of women - what about small people etc etc - why not indeed - the fact is we do in some sports such as boxing which has weight limits - these things are socially constructed and not intrinsic.
Even in boxing it always seemed to be the heavyweight titles that carried the most kudos.
0 -
This was just before she won her Olympic RR tite, and so was at the top of her game. She may well have pulled out in more recent versions.Pross wrote:I didn't think Cooke finished the Ras and only entered to ride a few stages or was that a different year?0 -
I wouldnt be so dismissive of some of the top women and certainly dont agree that the average second cat male rider in the Uk but but kicking the ass of the top women.... A few years ago maybe... but I think the standard in the last few years is pretty good.
I know the Alpenbrevet isnt a race, but a lot of very serious top level first and second cat riders do the event. In 2011 Emma Pooley killed almost all the field!**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
Yes, you can't really compare a sportive, in which Pooley reportedly averaged 15.2 Mph, with a race. True enough, the Alpenbrevet is ideally suited to someone like Pooley, but then again the 'hard core' sportive riders would have ridden the main event, not the middle distance one that Pooley rode.emadden wrote:I wouldnt be so dismissive of some of the top women and certainly dont agree that the average second cat male rider in the Uk but but kicking the ass of the top women.... A few years ago maybe... but I think the standard in the last few years is pretty good. I know the Alpenbrevet isnt a race, but a lot of very serious top level first and second cat riders do the event. In 2011 Emma Pooley killed almost all the field!
It's very much a matter of 'horses for courses' and all that, and I don't doubt that Pooley would have the edge over most second category riders on a long climb. However, I feel that on the flat even I would have given Pooley a run for her money. In a 'ten' on a standard road bike with tri-bars I regularly used to go under 21 minutes, averaging about 29.5 Mph. When Pooley came second in the 14.6 mile Olympic TT she averaged just 24.8 Mph and when she won the Grand Boucle Feminin TT, which was 11.25 miles, she averaged 26.8 Mph, even when fully kitted out with all the technology Cervello could muster. Again those times tie in very well with an estimated threshold power output for Pooley of 260-280W.
What does Cancellera put out at threshold? 450 Watts plus? Apparently in a prologue type TT Cancellera can average about 630 Watts!0 -
Berine - what's the agenda you have here?
We get it, women pro-cyclists, unsurprisingly, are slower than male pros.0 -
Fair enough Bernie... good points. ...I'll continue watching female racing though as I like the tight lycra shorts ..... although the first three in the women's worlds caused me to question that motivation
**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
And, on the flat at least, most decent second category riders.Rick Chasey wrote:Berine - what's the agenda you have here?
We get it, women pro-cyclists, unsurprisingly, are slower than male pros.
P.s. No agenda, just trying to bring some logic and hard facts and figures to the table in relation to hotoph88's claims that those who don't treat women's racing as seriously as they do that of the elite men are 'macho', 'offensive' 'cavemen'. :roll:0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
And, on the flat at least, most decent second category riders.Rick Chasey wrote:Berine - what's the agenda you have here?
We get it, women pro-cyclists, unsurprisingly, are slower than male pros.
Why does this fact matter, at all?0 -
As an aside to the (main) discussion now going on here, from the continental sportives I’ve done, if by ‘hard core’ you mean the faster higher quality riders, as opposed to those with lots of endurance and stamina but less pace, I would say the above statement was arguable.BikingBernie wrote:[the 'hard core' sportive riders would have ridden the main event, not the middle distance one that Pooley rode.
In sportives with two distances, if the longer distance has considerably more climbing compared to the additional kms involved (esp if the climbing isn't particularly 'glamorous'), it’s often the shorter distance which gets the higher quality field, while in sportives with three distances, it’s nearly always the middle distance in which most higher quality riders compete, for a variety of reasons.0 -
Evidence? I live in France and in my experience the shorter distances are very much seen as a supplement to the 'main event' for those riders who are less able.knedlicky wrote:
As an aside to the (main) discussion now going on here, from the continental sportives I’ve done, if by ‘hard core’ you mean the faster higher quality riders, as opposed to those with lots of endurance and stamina but less pace, I would say the above statement was arguable.BikingBernie wrote:[the 'hard core' sportive riders would have ridden the main event, not the middle distance one that Pooley rode.
In sportives with two distances, if the longer distance has considerably more climbing compared to the additional kms involved (esp if the climbing isn't particularly 'glamorous'), it’s often the shorter distance which gets the higher quality field, while in sportives with three distances, it’s nearly always the middle distance in which most higher quality riders compete, for a variety of reasons.
In any case, however well Pooley managed to get around a mountainous sportive, it has no real bearing on her ability to time trial, or to win a typical UK second category RR!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
And, on the flat at least, most decent second category riders.Rick Chasey wrote:Berine - what's the agenda you have here?
We get it, women pro-cyclists, unsurprisingly, are slower than male pros.
Why does this fact matter, at all?
Well?0 -
Because way back I was arguing that a large part of the attraction of events like the Tour for the typical male cyclist is seeing riders do things that they never could. In comparison watching women's elite racing when you know you could be up there yourself does not have the same 'wow' factor. Hence the 'caveman' like failure to take women's racing as seriously as that of the elite men.Rick Chasey wrote:
Why does this fact matter, at all?BikingBernie wrote:
And, on the flat at least, most decent second category riders.Rick Chasey wrote:We get it, women pro-cyclists, unsurprisingly, are slower than male pros.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Because way back I was arguing that a large part of the attraction of events like the Tour for the typical male cyclist is seeing riders do things that they never could. In comparison watching women's elite racing when you know you could be up there yourself does not have the same 'wow' factor. Hence the 'caveman' like failure to take women's racing as seriously as that of the elite men.Rick Chasey wrote:
Why does this fact matter, at all?BikingBernie wrote:
And, on the flat at least, most decent second category riders.Rick Chasey wrote:We get it, women pro-cyclists, unsurprisingly, are slower than male pros.
You're watching stuff no other woman could do.
I presume you take this attitude with all athletic-based sports?0 -
Sarah Storey once breezed past me on a hill as if I wasn't there. I'm rubbish, but I regularly cycle with 2nd Cats and don't think they're "that" much stronger than me...http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
The rare womens road racing I have watched has been generally unexciting; I could just be watching the wrong races but it doesn't come into the 'must see' category. On the other hand, womens swimming, although I am not the greatest swimmer myself, is often a 'must see'. Their times are slower than the mens but in general, the swimming across all the events is aggresive and competitive, in turn making it exciting. Maybe a lesson there for womens cycling!!0
-
Facts - Last 4 years (I couldn't be bothered to go back further). Sports illustrated do a listing of the top 50 best paid sports stars in the states.
2010 - highest paid boxer - Floyd Mayweather - boxes at lightweight to super welterweight
2009 - no boxer in the top 50
2008 - highest paid boxer - Floyd Mayweather - boxes at lightweight to super welterweight
2007 - highest paid boxer - Osca de la Hoya - boxes at middlewight.
e.g see
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/s ... te50/2008/
or http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/specia ... index.html
Now I see this has come up on cyclingnews and as somebody said there - the fact that the best lightweight in the World would get flattened by middle ranking heavyweight takes the "I only watch men because they are faster" argument out back and shoots it in the head.
But if you want to believe that is why you hold such a prejudiced view, then nobody is going to take it from you. Just try not to pretend that watching welterweights must be unworthy of any viewing time because they cannot punch as hard as the heavy-weights.0 -
I have never said that only the 'heavyweights' (that is elite males) were 'worthy of any viewing time', merely pointing out some reasons why many would prefer to watch a mountain stage of the Tour to a second category / ladies RR.hotoph88 wrote:try not to pretend that watching welterweights must be unworthy of any viewing time because they cannot punch as hard as the heavy-weights.
As to boxing, I did use the past tense when I referred to it, thinking back to the days of Ali, Forman, Liston, Marciano, Patterson and so forth. Given the mess that boxing is in today it is hard to draw any real conclusions about it. With regards to who is paid the most, I would say that the fact that Mayweather is an American, whilst the dominant heavyweights of recent years have been of Eastern European origin and can't attract the purses American fighters get, has a lot more to do with their relative earnings than anything else. If a dominant American heavyweight came along who did not have the image problems of someone like Tyson, I am sure they would also be able to attract big money and capture the public's imagination as some of the older heavyweights did.
As to being 'prejudiced', that is rich from someone who goes around calling others 'cavemen'. Your own particular prejudices are pretty obvious. :roll:0 -
Following hotoph88's reasoning, as well as some others on here, that would be sufficient reason to give air time to such races in preference to elite women's events. After all, the level of racing is all but immaterial.ozzzyosborn206 wrote:the local under 14 crit races are more exciting than this 0 -
That is 1st cat as a lady, not a 1st cat in general mixed.Pross wrote:I didn't think Cooke finished the Ras and only entered to ride a few stages or was that a different year?
We have a 1st cat female rider who has done well at national level and who can easily sit in on locale 2/3/4 races although lacks the power to finish high up in the sprints. However, the Ras is a tough race and she got dropped from the main group on several stages. Not sure what this proves though but I do know she's a better rider than I'll ever manage to be!
In the welsh champs (women/masters) recently there were only two women rode and the winner got 35 points so it is not difficult to get a 1st cat woman's license due too number of riders.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Following hotoph88's reasoning, as well as some others on here, that would be sufficient reason to give air time to such races in preference to elite women's events. After all, the level of racing is all but immaterial.ozzzyosborn206 wrote:the local under 14 crit races are more exciting than this
Can you not see your argument for boxing is the exact example of the opposite to your point of view. The American public do not have a Heavyweight, to watch, so surprise surprise they watch something else. Fact. The weight of the punch is not the determinant. What is on the box and in the media has a far more complicated dynamic, with many dimensions, far more than you appear to wish to contemplate. It is why the marketing/advertising budget in many corporations is as great as the product development budget, in many cases larger.
One looks at the profile to a Tour transition stage. It is flat. A child of 8, after watching 10 of them could tell you. 5 hours comprising - Waffle. Watch bunch dawdle. Modest action. Break of riders forms, absolutely none of whom are any threat to the GC. Break go up the road. They try hard. Break leads gets to 10 minutes. Oh - bite my nails, why don't I, the suspense is killing, will they make it ? The finish is close - they are so brave. No, darn it. Caught with 15km to go. Bunch sprint. Oh well let's see what happens tomorrow.
The fact that it is so formulaic will not prevent it from being broadcast throughout the globe and to continue to be so promoted. I have seen many an U14 event that is way more interesting than 5 hours of a borefest that could be condensed to 30 seconds of the break, and 60 seconds of the sprint.
What gets to be in the media or broadcast, is way more complicated than simply the "fastest", "highest", "strongest". The other week, I was sat after dinner, back from a ride, tired. I am in front of the box recovering (well that is my excuse for being bone idle). And there it was, U14's riding motorbikes around Donnington. Complete with interviews and the rest. The commentary, was just as stilted and irrelevant as in a rarely transmitted women's road race. They had no idea who they were watching and could only make a trivial comment 5 seconds after they had a clear view of a race number and could then look up the name on their start list. Why was it on Eurosport? Well we can all speculate and probably most of the suggestions are going to be quite base. How about - "a senior exec has his son racing" for starters. We could all go on.
BB the view you cling to serves to justify your "rightness" and subsequently the "wrongness" of others. It also serves to protect yourself from contemplating that maybe your view is not clear and allows you the comforting self perception that there is something wrong with yet another section of the World. Often - what appears in the sporting media has only a passing connection with quality of entertainment. You are confusing that argument with a very different argument - that of discriminating against one section of the population on their condition at birth. You are attempting to justify a discrimination with a pretext which is not soundly based. A discrimination that is legislated out of developed society. I am fully aware that there are societies which take a very different view.0 -
I agree. But going by your reasoning there is no reason why elite women's racing should be given more coverage than, for example, a bunch of schoolkids racing around Donnington.hotoph88 wrote:What gets to be in the media or broadcast, is way more complicated than simply the "fastest", "highest", "strongest".
OK, so some elite male events lack animation, but people still watch them because they still want to see the extraordinary. Sometimes that isn't delivered, but the hope of seeing that keeps people coming back. With women's racing, not only is 'the extraordinary' rather less extraordinary, far too often women's racing is even more boring that even the most lacklustre elite male event, with the recent world RR championships being a perfect example.
Anyhow, here is an article you might like post some comments on.hotoph88 wrote:Lots of self-rightious, judemental waffle....
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/i ... abes-319120 -
BikingBernie wrote:
I agree. But going by your reasoning there is no reason why elite women's racing should be given more coverage than, for example, a bunch of schoolkids racing around Donnington.hotoph88 wrote:What gets to be in the media or broadcast, is way more complicated than simply the "fastest", "highest", "strongest".
OK, so some elite male events lack animation, but people still watch them because they still want to see the extraordinary. Sometimes that isn't delivered, but the hope of seeing that keeps people coming back. With women's racing, not only is 'the extraordinary' rather less extraordinary, far too often women's racing is even more boring that even the most lacklustre elite male event, with the recent world RR championships being a perfect example.
But as has already been pointed out people do watch sport that isn't the pinnacle of human capability. The boat race is an example, weight categories in boxing another, the fact female tennis is as big as male tennis another, people who would rather watch their local non-league side than Barcelona another - there are lots of examples which prove your point just plain wrong. The reasons people watch sport are multiple - the pinnacle of human achievement being only one of them and not always a major one. Your whole argument is based on that false premise.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
But I have never argued that 'watching the extraordinary' is the only reason people watch sporting events. What I am saying is that for events like the Tour and so forth, seeing people push the limits of the human performance is one of the attractions, and a major one. In turn other events, whilst having their own attractions and merits, lack this important dimension.Tom Butcher wrote:The reasons people watch sport are multiple - the pinnacle of human achievement being only one of them and not always a major one. Your whole argument is based on that false premise.
Rather than me trying to base my argument on a false premise, it seems to be you who are doing this by attempting to argue that 'watching the extraordinary' or 'the pinnacle of human achievement' is of, at best, of only minor significance, which is simply not the case in the grand Tours, the Classics and so forth. In fact, the whole purpose of creating events like the Tour was to provide the public with races that demonstrated the limits of human physical ability and were ‘extraordinary’ in every way, even down to the idealised extent of being so hard that only one man could finish.
Ok, so the sort of ethos that led to the creation of cycling's 'monuments' might be somewhat outdated in today's climate of 'political correctness' and forced, sham equality, but to some fossilised old ‘cavemen’ like me, it still represents something noble and important. For much the same reason I have never been able to get into games like golf, or bowling. 0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
But I have never argued that 'watching the extraordinary' is the only reason people watch sporting events. What I am saying is that for events like the Tour and so forth, seeing people push the limits of the human performance is one of the attractions, and a major one. In turn other events, whilst having their own attractions and merits, lack this important dimension.Tom Butcher wrote:The reasons people watch sport are multiple - the pinnacle of human achievement being only one of them and not always a major one. Your whole argument is based on that false premise.
Rather than me trying to base my argument on a false premise, it seems to be you who are doing this by attempting to argue that 'watching the extraordinary' or 'the pinnacle of human achievement' is of, at best, of only minor significance, which is simply not the case in the grand Tours, the Classics and so forth. In fact, the whole purpose of creating events like the Tour was to provide the public with races that demonstrated the limits of human physical ability and were ‘extraordinary’ in every way, even down to the idealised extent of being so hard that only one man could finish.
Ok, so the sort of ethos that led to the creation of cycling's 'monuments' might be somewhat outdated in today's climate of 'political correctness' and forced, sham equality, but to some fossilised old ‘cavemen’ like me, it still represents something noble and important. For much the same reason I have never been able to get into games like golf, or bowling.
Whether you are arguing it is the only reason for watching sport or "a major one" it doesn't really change the fact that there are lots of examples to prove you wrong. I think it is rather than people want to watch events that are considered "important" - and what makes an event important is determined by a mix of historical and social factors.
Of course when you get an important event it tends to be that the best in that field take part - but that isn't the motivation of people watching. Take this example - arguably Contador on form is better than Evans - so the pinnacle of Grand Tour cycling this year was the Giro - everyone wanted to watch the Giro rather than the Tour yes ? Did they bollocks because the Tour has established itself as the premier cycling event in the world. Similarly Cav can go and ride the Tour of California but people would rather watch a Giro bunch sprint even though they know the best sprinter in the world is not there.
Invent a new sport based on power, strength or something and not many people will care because it lacks the history - it isn't considered "important" - it's a catch 22 - without the fans the event isn't considered important - without being important it wont get the fans. For me this is the dilemma for women's cycling - it's not really to do with them being less powerful than the men.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
I would only be wrong, persay, if I was arguing that the level of competition was the only important factor, which I am not. The sort of exceptions you mention do not disprove what I say: Affirmation of the Consequent and all that.Tom Butcher wrote:Whether you are arguing it is the only reason for watching sport or "a major one" it doesn't really change the fact that there are lots of examples to prove you wrong. 0 -
I'm only judging you on what you've written in this thread and previously - a selection of your views - unless you are now disowning them - shows pretty clearly you do think that being the ultimate in human performance is necessary for sport to be attractive. You say that is what top level sport is supposed to be about and the fact women aren't as powerful as men is the main problem here - what else did you mean by that ?
Main problem here is that any decent second cat road racer in the UK could walk over just about any 'elite' female road racer.
Because way back I was arguing that a large part of the attraction of events like the Tour for the typical male cyclist is seeing riders do things that they never could.
Because way back I was arguing that a large part of the attraction of events like the Tour for the typical male cyclist is seeing riders do things that they never could. In comparison watching women's elite racing when you know you could be up there yourself does not have the same 'wow' factor. Hence the 'caveman' like failure to take women's racing as seriously as that of the elite men.
However, top level sport is supposed to be about the ultimate in performance, not the most credible performance that is possible for those who do not have the genetics needed to succeed at the highest possible level. (Which just so happens to mean elite male competition).
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
OK so now, I along with Tom am confused, but none the less, taking your position as you so clearly describe it above "....Push the limits of human performance...." on the basis that there are correctly events for women and men, who are each half of the human race and neither is more worthy than the other, but both have different performance envelopesBikingBernie wrote:
But I have never argued that 'watching the extraordinary' is the only reason people watch sporting events. What I am saying is that for events like the Tour and so forth, seeing people push the limits of the human performance is one of the attractions, and a major one. In turn other events, whilst having their own attractions and merits, lack this important dimension.Tom Butcher wrote:The reasons people watch sport are multiple - the pinnacle of human achievement being only one of them and not always a major one. Your whole argument is based on that false premise.
(- e.g even a Flo Jo allegedly drugged up to the eyelids, could not go as fast as a male athlete who gets knocked out of the 1st round of the Men's Olympic 100m)
then surely females can "push the(ir) limits of human performance" just in the same way than males can "push the(ir) limits of human performance". Or by human performance do you mean huMAN performance. ie only that by males - because they are faster.
If the later were to be the case, then once again you are at the same point you started - female sport is to be consigned to the dustbin for ever because they are female - "faster" equals "more worthy". And to some of us - there is so much more to an event than just "faster".
As to the justified criticism that the women's World Champ RR was rubbish this year- you are entirely right. But then the identical criticism can be leveled at the men's road race. Nobody was going to say that the event of the final lap - Voeckler on his own trying to hold off GB and the peloton - was anything other than an exercise in futility. Indeed no team ever did the basic sums. To get anything other than a sprint, a group had to be up the road with enough horsepower to be able to hold off the combined team time trial capability of GB/GER. The closest we got to that was 2 Belgians, and a few other hangers on, some left over from the main "forlorn hope", trying to wear down GB/GER for the main Belgian attack (which never materialised) to follow ! (ok well there was about 17 seconds of Belgian counter!)
The amount team GB held in reserve was evidenced by the fact that Cav was able to win with his final man, Thomas, making no meaningful contribution to that win. GB had a whole top rank rider in excess of what was mustered against them ! The men's race was never in doubt, provided Cav remained upright - there wasn't a sprinter close to him in terms of wins or performance all year and no team ever made the finale of a sprint anything other than a dead cert. Team GB were outstanding and Cav had to do a damned sight more than ever Cippolini did at Zolder and he made himself the more worthy winner, by those efforts.
To those who aren't conversant with the current women's scene - there was an almighty upset. Bronzini hasn't beaten Vos all year in a square run in. The Dutch female team actually ran out of steam in the last 400m and provided the source of the upset. Arndt and Becker did a one two and took just enough out of the Dutch to leave Vos in a quandary as her final lead out rider "died". There was no up set in the men's race. Both were dire races only the most avid fan could love. Only one provided a sting in the tail.0 -
oldwelshman wrote:
That is 1st cat as a lady, not a 1st cat in general mixed.Pross wrote:I didn't think Cooke finished the Ras and only entered to ride a few stages or was that a different year?
We have a 1st cat female rider who has done well at national level and who can easily sit in on locale 2/3/4 races although lacks the power to finish high up in the sprints. However, the Ras is a tough race and she got dropped from the main group on several stages. Not sure what this proves though but I do know she's a better rider than I'll ever manage to be!
In the welsh champs (women/masters) recently there were only two women rode and the winner got 35 points so it is not difficult to get a 1st cat woman's license due too number of riders.
Possibly but the winner was right up there in the bunch sprint from what I heard. The rider I'm talking about has picked up pretty much all her points in large national women's competitions with fields of 60 plus so they haven't been easy points.0
