Are you a cycling 'caveman'?

BikingBernie

There has been some debate on here following on from the snorefest that was ladies world RR championships, with some trying to argue that the level of the racing is immaterial, and all that really matters is seeing people compete, be they elite men, women, school kids, the disabled or even 3rd cats. As such all such groups deserve the same airtime and rewards as the elite men.

Apparently, to regard elite male events as being the pinnacle of the sport is to reveal one's self as being 'prejudiced', 'confused', 'discriminatory' and as having the outlook of a 'caveman'. :roll:

(I seemingly fit in this category because what I enjoy seeing most of all is riders doing things I never could, which in essence means watching the elite men going at it hammer and tongs in a mountain stage of the Tour, Paris-Roubaix and so on. Of course, I will watch most bike racing, from a schoolboy criterium upwards, and enjoy doing so, but in my Neanderthal brain, the level of performance and general 'balls' on display in the best of the elite male events means that they have something special.)

So, are there any other 'cavemen' out there, or are you the sort of 'reconstructed man' who would be just as likely to watch a ladies or schoolboy RR when Paris-Roubaix was showing live on the next channel?

BikingBernie

BikingBernie wrote:

There has been some debate on here following on from the snorefest that was ladies world RR championships, with some trying to argue that the level of the racing is immaterial, and all that really matters is seeing people compete, be they elite men, women, school kids, the disabled or even 3rd cats. As such all such groups deserve the same airtime and rewards as the elite men.

A slight correction, forget the juniors, lower categories, disabled and so on, it's only the ladies who think they should get the same rewards as the elite men.

Women racers say the time has come for the UCI to treat them the same as their male counterparts when it comes to earning a living.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/09/ ... tee_193399

top_bhoy

There needs to be a root and branch change of how womens cycling currently exists. Just because a sport exists doesn't necessarily mean that it should support a full-time career/salary. There are many other sports where women (and men) are involved in which it does not make strict financial sense to compete yet many still do. Minimum wages alone for women cyclists will do little I think to help progression in the longer term. A longer term plan and goal is what is required.

One trend is that top teams are adding a women’s division to their squads, something that McQuaid says the UCI encourages, but cannot force the top pro men’s teams to do.

“We cannot make them invest money, but we do encourage them to have a development team, either younger men or women’s teams,” McQuaid said. “We will continue them to have such teams, including women’s teams.”

For me, McQuaids quotes from that article sum up matters. He is no more than paying lip service to womens cycling. If he really wanted to improve matters, the UCI as an organisation, could do a lot more. I'm not sure how womens cycling is structured but I suspect there is no UCI full-time womens race tour director - that would be my starting point.

Tusher

And ensuring that every team which has to pay a licence to the UCI must have a women's team would go a long way to correcting the balance as would increased TV coverage.

This year's women's RR was unfortunately a very poor example of women's racing.



I'm not taking part in your poll, Bernie, because you don't mention cycling cavewomen.

RichN95.

Tusher wrote:

And ensuring that every team which has to pay a licence to the UCI must have a women's team would go a long way to correcting the balance

That would be disastrous if you ask me. Women's cycling (or any sport) needs to be supported by sponsors who enthusiastically want to be involved, not those who have been contractually forced to be. Teams would most likely be given the absolute bare miniumum and neglected.

Anonymous

Tusher wrote:

And ensuring that every team which has to pay a licence to the UCI must have a women's team would go a long way to correcting the balance as would increased TV coverage.

This year's women's RR was unfortunately a very poor example of women's racing.



I'm not taking part in your poll, Bernie, because you don't mention cycling cavewomen.

I'm all for equality. Full equality. Same money and same structure to the competition. Wimbledon should give the same money but also make it 5 sets for both men & women. Similarly, same prize money in cycling, but same course (& number if laps)

Tusher

Point taken, Richard, but I believe that if there's sufficient TV coverage, the sponsorship for women's cycling is there. Team Tampax versus Team Mooncup?
More women than ever are buying bikes.

Giorgia Bronzini must be a natural for L'Oreal.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

Tusher wrote:

And ensuring that every team which has to pay a licence to the UCI must have a women's team would go a long way to correcting the balance

That would be disastrous if you ask me. Women's cycling (or any sport) needs to be supported by sponsors who enthusiastically want to be involved, not those who have been contractually forced to be. Teams would most likely be given the absolute bare miniumum and neglected.

Agreed, and like all 'positive' discrimination / 'affirmative action' policies (to use the classic 'New Speak' terms) in the long run it would be counter-productive as everyone would tend to think that any successes gained were based not on merit, but favour. To assume that women's sport can only succeed with such forced 'help' is also rather patronising.

B3rnieMac

Choppered wrote:

I'm all for equality. Full equality. Same money and same structure to the competition. Wimbledon should give the same money but also make it 5 sets for both men & women. Similarly, same prize money in cycling, but same course (& number if laps)

A fair point. Paula Radcliffe doesn't have to run a woman's version of a marathon, she does the same distance as the blokes. Don't see any decent reason as to why the woman's course for the world championships was only 140km as opposed to 266? Maybe the UCI thinks we would all commit Seppuku before the end out of sheer boredom?

iainf72

As I recall, the Olympic RR in Beijing was a very good race for both the men and woman. Same as Copenhagen, it was a boring load of tosh for both men and woman.

BikingBernie

There is certainly a strong argument for having equal distances in track events, time trials and so on. For example, the women's 500m TT is in no way comparable to riding a full Kilo. I have a feeling that this 'different distance' policy has been a deliberate one designed to mask the large differences in the level of women's versus men's racing.

afx237vi

Look at sports like tennis and golf - both are split down the middle with governing bodies representing both sexes. OK, the LPGA and the WTA aren't quite on equal terms with their male counterparts, but at least they have strong representatives trying to promote better tournaments and higher prize money. What does women's cycling have? Pat McQuaid, who clearly doesn't give a crap about that side of the sport.

Maybe the women should do what the men have been threatening to do over the last few years - ditch the UCI and do it themselves.

+1 to Iain, too. The women's Wch might have been a dud, but so were all the other races.

andrew_s

Tusher wrote:

And ensuring that every team which has to pay a licence to the UCI must have a women's team would go a long way to correcting the balance as would increased TV coverage.

+1

Also race organisers should put on a womens race to get ProTour ranking (RVV, Fleche and Plouay already do).

LeicesterLad

Women are allowed to ride bikes? Competitively? :shock:

Keith1983

Surely whatever the sport being discussed it is a simple fact that men generally generate more sponsorship, higher viewing figures etc and so bring in the money. Footballers ridiculous wages are only supported by the millions generated by the TV deals etc, if the women generated that interest then they would have call to campaign for the same kind of wages.

squired

The problem is that most people who watch sport are men. If you had female cycling on regularly the viewers would probably be predominently male too. That is the real problem. OK, in some countries women are interested in sport, but in others (like England) most aren't.

As to the original question, I don't think the level of racing matters to me, but the course does. I enjoyed watching each of the road races (U23, women, men), but would have enjoyed them more if the route was more selective in some way.

Often at the very top level sport can become boring, whereas slightly below the top level it can be more unpredictable. Male pro cycling is so controlled that the unexpected rarely happens. Thankfully route designers have started to create races/stages to counteract this (the best examples being the Giro and Vuelta).

I think that forcing race organisers to also put on female events would be counterproductive. How many races manage to break even with the costs of hosting 20 male teams? Add in hotel and other costs for female teams too and many races would simply die.

Tusher

Marathons cope.
Not only do they have elite races for men and women, but thousands of amateurs as well.

And the amateurs pay dearly for the privilege, which would help with the costs.

top_bhoy

Tusher wrote:

And the amateurs pay dearly for the privilege, which would help with the costs.

Thats not a correct manner to address the women

BikingBernie

squired wrote:

I think that forcing race organisers to also put on female events would be counterproductive. How many races manage to break even with the costs of hosting 20 male teams? Add in hotel and other costs for female teams too and many races would simply die.

Apparently this is exactly what happened with the major Pro event they used to run In Toronto every year, with many of the big names like Kelly, Moser and Fignon riding it. Someone called Laura Robinson, who writes extensively on sport from a feminist angle, got the local authority to insist that the organisers both run a women's event, and pay them the same as the male pros were paid. Of course, this meant paying out big money, and this made the race uneconomic so it simply wasn't run any more...

Things are a bit different where big money is not involved, and I think that the tendency to have supporting women's and schoolboy racing, and even a sportive, in conjunction with major amateur races is a good thing. However, it does seem madness offering the same prize lists for the women's and the men in events where you might have 100 blokes and a handful of women. I have ridden many events like this, some with only one female entry, where all she had to do was ride around, finish laps down and then get as much as the guy who came in 3rd, or even won!

Tusher wrote:

Marathons cope.
Not only do they have elite races for men and women, but thousands of amateurs as well. And the amateurs pay dearly for the privilege, which would help with the costs.

Apparently, in some events such as triathlons, the men pay dearly for the privilage to race, largely so that the relative handful of women who take part can enjoy a prize list equal to that paid out to the hundreds of men in the race

mididoctors

perhaps its a form of false dichotomy argument driven by the notion that equality only manifests itself by some market choice

ie popularity is the morality of this state of affairs.

the arguments very base premise is that people only deserve equal treatment as the result of commercial impact to sponsors/viewers


while hardly surprising that mens cycling pays more and attracts more viewers is that merit for higher pay

or in any other field of human effort?

all the debate here so far is unwilling to address anything outside of a market model... which is hardly surprising but at the same time is very very boring and unimaginative

Tom Butcher

What most people who argued against you objected to Bernie was your insistence that women's cycling was necessarily less exciting and less worthy of watching than men's because women are slower than the men.

You can drag the argument out with a lot of obfuscating padding if you want but it doesn't disguise the naivety of your core argument.

andrewjoseph

women racing cyclists are exposed to the same risks and suffer the same injuries as men, so should get the same pay.

As for expecting women to tackle the mens courses, lets be sensible, you wouldn't expect a 16yr old male rider to tackle an elite course.

I'm not comparing elite women to 16 yr old men (boys?), but there is enough physiological difference to make it unsafe for elite women to tackle the same course as the elite men.

Yes, I know there are large women and there are small men, I know I could not compete with any serious female rider, but an elite woman cannot compete with an elite man of the same stature in the long term.

If you make the women ride the full mens course, you will get so many dropping out it will be a mockery of what women can actually do.

Oh, I'll watch any cycle racing, even juniors and 5 year olds.

BikingBernie

mididoctors wrote:

all the debate here so far is unwilling to address anything outside of a market model...

It struck me that in demanding equal rewards for their efforts, it was the ladies who were thinking in terms of the 'market model'.

BikingBernie

Tom Butcher wrote:

What most people who argued against you objected to Bernie was your insistence that women's cycling was necessarily less exciting and less worthy of watching than men's because women are slower than the men. .

You are still twisting what I said / trying to attack a straw man, given that I have repeatedly agreed that there is no 'necessity' at work here. Obviously, just because a race if full of elite men does not guarantee that it will be animated, and visa versa. However, when they are going at it hammer and tongs, I do feel that elite male racing is more exciting, in part due to the extra speed involved which makes it a much more impressive spectacle. A classic example of this was the way Tchmil, Moncassin and Museeuw attacked each other back in 1997 Paris-Roubaix, here the sheer speed really added to the spectacle.

Then again, not everyone is impressed by the same thing. I guess that you might be one of those who would find 'Superbike' racing just as exciting if they were all on mopeds, rather than 180 BPH Ducatis.

stanislav

womens cycling should recruit the champion of equal rights,Harriet Harperson.Its not about the winning, its the competing.

Caveman and proud of it.

Anonymous

andrewjoseph wrote:

women racing cyclists are exposed to the same risks and suffer the same injuries as men, so should get the same pay.
It's not the same risks if it's about half the distance! (although if there are lots of women on the road, maybe it's more dangerous??!!!) ;-)

As for expecting women to tackle the mens courses, lets be sensible, you wouldn't expect a 16yr old male rider to tackle an elite course.
Has anyone, anywhere, suggested 16yo should do same parcours as elites? Or is this just you twisting an argument?

I'm not comparing elite women to 16 yr old men (boys?), Why mention it, then? but there is enough physiological difference to make it unsafe for elite women to tackle the same course as the elite men.
Really? What evidence have you got, and why does this not impact marathon running and Ironman triathlons?

Yes, I know there are large women and there are small men, I know I could not compete with any serious female rider, but an elite woman cannot compete with an elite man of the same stature in the long term.
I don't think anyone is saying they should compete side by side. Is this another argument you've created to "support" yourself?


If you make the women ride the full mens course, you will get so many dropping out it will be a mockery of what women can actually do.

I don't think you would. It might take a little longer than the men's race, but I'm not convinced there'd be a massive number of withdrawals. If it was suddenly sprung, then maybe - but if the length of the course is clear well in advancer, then training schedules will be adjusted accordingly


Oh, I'll watch any cycle racing, even juniors and 5 year olds.

Tom Butcher

BikingBernie wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

What most people who argued against you objected to Bernie was your insistence that women's cycling was necessarily less exciting and less worthy of watching than men's because women are slower than the men. .

You are still twisting what I said / trying to attack a straw man, given that I have repeatedly agreed that there is no 'necessity' at work here. Obviously, just because a race if full of elite men does not guarantee that it will be animated, and visa versa. However, when they are going at it hammer and tongs, I do feel that elite male racing is more exciting, in part due to the extra speed involved which makes it a much more impressive spectacle. A classic example of this was the way Tchmil, Moncassin and Museew attacked each other back in 1997 Paris-Roubaix, here the sheer speed really added to the spectacle.

Your words:
"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)."


There are other quotes in the other thread for those that can be bothered.

The point is that you were clearly arguing women's cycling - and the female side of any sport where strength or power is involved or where women couldn't compete against men as equals - is intrinsically less attractive as a spectacle.

Now in the case of female cycling for a number of reasons the racing may generally have less appeal than the men's - my point is that that is not intrinsic to it being women doing the racing and that examples such as tennis and athletics suggest that to be the case. You need to look at social and historical factors in the way women's sport and women's pro cycling has developed to explain why it's stuck in the rut it is obviously in when compared to the men's.

BikingBernie

Tom Butcher wrote:

"But this goes up to eleven."

Anyhow, for the 'cavemen' out there, highlights from the 1997 Paris-Roubaix


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fwSe9xT_k0

shinyhelmut

andrewjoseph wrote:

As for expecting women to tackle the mens courses, lets be sensible, you wouldn't expect a 16yr old male rider to tackle an elite course.

I'm not comparing elite women to 16 yr old men (boys?), but there is enough physiological difference to make it unsafe for elite women to tackle the same course as the elite men.

Yes, I know there are large women and there are small men, I know I could not compete with any serious female rider, but an elite woman cannot compete with an elite man of the same stature in the long term.

If you make the women ride the full mens course, you will get so many dropping out it will be a mockery of what women can actually do.

This weekend Chrissie Wellington and Miranda Carfrae will race over exactly the same 140.6 mile course as Marino Vanhoenecker and Andreas Raelert at the ironman world championships in Hawaii. There is no physiological reason for women not to race over the same distances as the men. 2 weeks ago Lizzie Hawker won the commonwealth 24 hour road running championships covering 3KM more than the winning man.

Admittedly in the ironman the biggest disparity between the men and the ladies is on the bike.

Women's racing can be as exciting as men's racing, the problem is the depth of the fields. Bring in the sponsors and the money and more women will race and the standards will improve and racing will get more exciting. Unfortunately we're in a catch 22 situation and some kind of catalyst is needed to kick start ladies racing.

shinyhelmut

BikingBernie wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

"But this goes up to eleven."

Anyhow, for the 'cavemen' out there, highlights from the 1997 Paris-Roubaix


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fwSe9xT_k0

What a race, thanks for that BB, brings back memories. I was a big fan of Moncassin.

mididoctors

BikingBernie wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

all the debate here so far is unwilling to address anything outside of a market model...

It struck me that in demanding equal rewards for their efforts, it was the ladies who were thinking in terms of the 'market model'.

teh market is not built om perceived effort otherwise manual labor would pay more...

fruit pickers would be on more money than bankers

the market is "in theory" only interested in end user demand

which is you