Are you a cycling 'caveman'?

RichN95.

One question that hasn't been asked yet:

"Do Cavemen deserve their poor reputation?"

I have studied Cavemen fairly extensively and to my mind Fred and Barney seem pretty decent blokes and the ladies seem to love Captain Cavemen.

LeicesterLad

RichN95 wrote:

One question that hasn't been asked yet:

"Do Cavemen deserve their poor reputation?"

I have studied Cavemen fairly extensively and to my mind Fred and Barney seem pretty decent blokes and the ladies seem to love Captain Cavemen.

The only issue i do have, is considering they live on a diet of fresh chicken legs, Neither of them look capable of riding the Tour...

dougzz

I don't particularly like any women's sport. But then there a re a whole lot of men's sports I can't be bothered with too. Positions on this are fairly entrenched and I don't see anyone having their opinions changed by anything written here.
I don't feel in any way that there's a responsibility of any sport (which is in essence a business) to provide for another section of the sport. Not just gender based, but also discipline based, why should RR prop up other forms of cycling, because the UCI like a wider power base? Sure they'll talk about responsibility and equality, but it's all about a few people having power and liking it. You can argue that a sport should support financially junior levels of the same sport, since that's it's investment in the future, and that makes sense to me.
If you look at Tennis, which must be best paying women's sport by some distance, they operate entirely independently of the men's game, and women's tennis is a very successful sport, certainly for the top 50 or players. Women's cycling doesn't pay much because no one much cares about it. Does that mean that men's cycling should have to help promote it and prop it up? In my opinion no.

RichN95.

LeicesterLad wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

One question that hasn't been asked yet:

"Do Cavemen deserve their poor reputation?"

I have studied Cavemen fairly extensively and to my mind Fred and Barney seem pretty decent blokes and the ladies seem to love Captain Cavemen.

The only issue i do have, is considering they live on a diet of fresh chicken legs, Neither of them look capable of riding the Tour...

Neither would Cadel Evans if his wheels were made out of granite.

LeicesterLad

RichN95 wrote:

LeicesterLad wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

One question that hasn't been asked yet:

"Do Cavemen deserve their poor reputation?"

I have studied Cavemen fairly extensively and to my mind Fred and Barney seem pretty decent blokes and the ladies seem to love Captain Cavemen.

The only issue i do have, is considering they live on a diet of fresh chicken legs, Neither of them look capable of riding the Tour...

Neither would Cadel Evans if his wheels were made out of granite.

Fred and Barney ride these:



Looks and i imagine feels, a bit like my old Raleigh equipe.

Daz555

Doesn't matter if it is men or women - it is about the relative quality on show.

In recent years I was more interested in watching the womens marathons that the mens because Britain had the awesome Radcliffe demolishing world records all over the place. It was clear, man or woman that she was an incredible athlete in the form of her life. Same goes for other greats over the years like Sally Gunnell (greatest British female athlete ever imo).

Athletics seems to be a more mature sport from a female perspective than cycling.

So it depends on the sport and it depends on the individuals in that sport at the time - from athletics to tiddlywinks.

andrewjoseph

[quote="Choppered"}
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??!!!) ;-) [/quote}

What's distance got to do with it? A fast descent, a loose/slippery surface, someone else falling off, a dog running out, a stupid driver. A greater distance MAY increase risk, but a shorter distance does not eliminate them.

[quote
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?
[/quote]

Not twisting anything, just giving an example.

I'm not comparing elite women to 16 yr old men (boys?), Why mention it, then?

You've heard of examples..... haven't you?

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?
[/quote]

Do some reading on physiological differences between men and women.

marathon and ironman/women triathlons don't last for 6 hours a day for three weeks.

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?

No one has said 'side by side' but some have said to do the same course and same distance.

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

Why do you think Womens races are shorter than mens, both in distance and time, i.e. 10 days instead of 2 weeks, 2 weeks (or whatever the womens TDF is) instead of three weeks?

If women have to work at too high an intensity for long periods, it causes changes that can be damaging, short and long term. This is not true to the same extent in men.

Physically, women are different to men.

andrewjoseph

ShinyHelmut wrote:

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.

This is not a 3 week race covering thousands of miles.

I'm not disputing that women can race the same distance as men, I'm saying that it is unsafe for women to do it day in day out for weeks or months on end. That is why sport governing bodies put on the limits they do.

shinyhelmut

Until 1984 there was no women's marathon in the Olympics because it was dangerous for women to race over the distance. Nowadays they seem to be competing just fine. In fact female marathon runners seem to have longer top level careers than their male counterparts.

I would like to see some physiological proof of what you are claiming.

shinyhelmut

Some lovely pics in your gallery btw Andrew.

morstar

Apologies haven't read the whole thread but I will when I've got a bit more time as it's a very interesting topic.

I referee ice hockey at all age groups in the UK where we do not exactly have an elite sport (think UK cycling 10 years ago). A good game is a good game regardless of the age group but it is always a thrill to witness the true skill of the worlds best players in the NHL or world championships.

Cycling is the same, a good race is a good race whoever takes part but there is always a little bit extra interest when you know the competitors are at the very pinnacle of human ability.

Unfortunately, much as I wish the sport well and will gladly watch a womens bike race, there simply is not the strength in depth to convince me that I am watching an elite sport.

I can't stand tennis myself, but I think it is one of the sports where the women are genuinely playing in a well developed sport and there is true elite competition. Womens skiing is another good discipline although sometimes the courses are not challenging enough. Don't get me started on womens football....

allen.coulson

Cavemane. Give me a cave rather than any dilletante blx that I may have inferred from some distinctly dubious comments seen in the sample of this thread I've been bothered to read.

I'm sorry for you. I ride a bike.

RichN95.

andrewjoseph

ShinyHelmut wrote:

Some lovely pics in your gallery btw Andrew.

thank you.

andrewjoseph

ShinyHelmut wrote:

Until 1984 there was no women's marathon in the Olympics because it was dangerous for women to race over the distance. Nowadays they seem to be competing just fine. In fact female marathon runners seem to have longer top level careers than their male counterparts.

I would like to see some physiological proof of what you are claiming.

Do a search for exercise induced or exercise associated amenorrhea.

this one is quite detailed:
http://www.fertilepanda.com/downloads/TheEffectsOfIntenseExerciseOnTheFemaleReproductiveSystem.pdf

this one gives an overview:
http://www.aeron.com/volume_3_number_4.htm

There is lots of info out there and it has been known for years.

Daz555

One thing to consider about course distances is time. Females can of course complete the same course as any male, it will just take longer. This however means more time in the saddle, more time stressing the body, and less time spend in recovery - so this must be taken into account when we are dealing with very long distances.

top_bhoy

Daz555 wrote:

One thing to consider about course distances is time. Females can of course complete the same course as any male, it will just take longer. This however means more time in the saddle, more time stressing the body, and less time spend in recovery - so this must be taken into account when we are dealing with very long distances.

...well in that case, don't forget the longer road closures. No wonder womens cycling isn't popular!!! :twisted:

hotoph88

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 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.

Absolutely spot on and the rest of the waflle is yet more attempt at obfuscuation. The basic opening sentence set it up - the snorefest that was the women's road race - yes it was - as was the men's race but whilst the cavemen pile into the girls because on a poor course they came up with a poor race - there is no mention that the sole challenge to the combined team time trial might of GB and GER on the final lap was a lone Frenchman - Voekler - I was really on the edge of my seat - would he hold all those red white and blue jersies off and win - it was so touch and go ? I watched it from 8.30 in the morning for that !

As to extrapolating that out to all women's racing - what the hell do you see ? There isn't anything else on the box !

BikingBernie

hotoph88 wrote:

the rest of the waflle is yet more attempt at obfuscuation.

Perhaps your refusal to engage with what I have actually said is because you are one of those who tends to see the world in a very 'black and white' way and cannot tolerate amibuity or appreciate the complexities of an argument. Perhaps you are letting your own obviously highly-charged emotional reaction to this issue and clear prejudices over-ride your rationality. Perhaps dismissing almost all I have said as 'an attempt at obfuscation' is just a rhetorical ploy. Whatever, this debate is going nowhere as long as you either blatently ignore what I am saying or blankly answer 'But these go up to eleven'.

Perhaps you are just hard of understanding. Take the following:

hotoph88 wrote:

The basic opening sentence set it up - the snorefest that was the women's road race .. As to extrapolating that out to all women's racing - what the hell do you see ? !

What I actually said was:

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,

That is, the debate I was introducing was about whether the level of competition is important or not. My reference to the women's road 'race' merely gave to context as to where this debate arose!

In that same paragraph I also wrote:

I will watch most bike racing, from a schoolboy criterium upwards, and enjoy doing so

Perhaps the reason you have failed to engage with my arguments is because you haven't actually bothered to read what I said!

luckao

I'll watch women's racing if it happens to be on. Whilst not quite the level of men's racing in terms of the numbers, that doesn't dictate the level of entertainment. I wouldn't watch any level, but I know that these women are at the pinnacle of their sport. That's enough, really.

hotoph88

BikingBernie wrote:

Perhaps you are just hard of understanding. Take the following:

hotoph88 wrote:

The basic opening sentence set it up - the snorefest that was the women's road race .. As to extrapolating that out to all women's racing - what the hell do you see ? !

What I actually said was:

the snorefest that was ladies world RR championships,

Perhaps the reason you have failed to engage with my arguments is because you haven't actually bothered to read what I said!

Loving it !!! No, I read what you wrote very carefully. That is why I said it was waffle, as is most the rest of the waflle by people who watch a very small part of a single race each year. We all prefer an action race like the type you mention. You are using that obvious preference to cloak your ability to exclusively dismiss and criticse the women's RR and yet fail to bring an iota of censure to the equally dismal men's race. It is that unfounded bias which marks you out as a caveman, not the fact that you put up a poll that is irrelevant to the criticsm of the bias you show.

Tom Butcher

"Perhaps I am wrong, but people like Nicole Cooke have often given me the impression that they think its should. The main argument seems to be that women should be given preferential treatment - as compared to all those others who also race at a much lower level than the elite men - because, well basically, because they are women!"

Quoting him from the other thread that's basically Bernie's argument - that having women only sport is giving them preferential treatment - women are excluded from his definition of top level sport unless they can compete equally against the elite men. He states that in pretty much those words in that thread.

Bernie the obfuscation is that you are banging on about the women's rr being boring - or women's road racing in general being boring - but that's not the core of your argument people are criticising. It's the fact you think that female sport is necessarily of a lower level and a lesser achievement - you describe it in the other thread as not being top level - than men's sport. You would see Cooke's world and olympic wins as less valuable and less of a spectacle than an equivalent men's race simply because Cooke lacks the power or an elite man - it's that where I and I think Hotoph (though they can correct me if I'm wrong) disagree with you.

To give an example outside of cycling - you would argue that Radcliffe's world record (now world best) in the marathon - far from being one of the greatest athletic feats of the last few decades is in fact no more impressive than a fringe international distance runner. Ultimately you can't be disproved in that - you either think that women's performance should be judged against women only or you don't - I am pretty sure you are in a small minority though.

BikingBernie

Tom Butcher wrote:

"Perhaps I am wrong, but people like Nicole Cooke have often given me the impression that they think it should. The main argument seems to be that women should be given preferential treatment - as compared to all those others who also race at a much lower level than the elite men - because, well basically, because they are women!"

Quoting him from the other thread that's basically Bernie's argument - that having women only sport is giving them preferential treatment - women are excluded from his definition of top level sport unless they can compete equally against the elite men. He states that in pretty much those words in that thread.

Once again, a perfect example of they way what I have actually said is ignored, and instead a 'straw man' is set up for criticism. Here you failed to include what I was replying to, that is Pross' observation that

"Women's racing doesn't get the same airtime as men's though.

I.e. I was not arguing that 'having women only sport is giving them preferential treatment', as you claim. Rather, I was arguing that giving them equal airtime despite the lower commercial value of women's racing, the lack of depth and breadth in women's racing as compared to the men's and so forth would be an example of preferential treatment.

It has been argued here that the level of competition is relatively unimportant, and seeing others compete against others of equal ability is what really counts. I agreed that there was some merit in this, and that just because a race is an elite male competition does not guarantee that it will be exciting to watch. However, if this is given as a reason for giving the elite women equal airtime and financial rewards as the top men get, then the same could be said of junior racing, disabled racing, even third cat racing. Again, to argue that the ultimate level of racing is not important and the rewards should be equal, but only in the case of elite female competitors, is also to argue for preferential treatment.

BikingBernie

Tom Butcher wrote:

You would see Cooke's world and olympic wins as less valuable and less of a spectacle than an equivalent men's race simply because Cooke lacks the power or an elite man - it's that where I and I think Hotoph (though they can correct me if I'm wrong) disagree with you.

A few posts ago in this very thread Morstar said

Unfortunately, much as I wish the sport well and will gladly watch a womens bike race, there simply is not the strength in depth to convince me that I am watching an elite sport.

I feel this is an important point. When people like Cooke can win an Olympic gold, and yet can't win a UK second category RR, and even I could time trial faster than the best women in the country, then this suggests that women's bike racing woefully lacks breadth and depth, and that the most successful women are simply lucky to be 'big fish in a very small pond'. Given this disparity it would seem unjustified to expect the women to get the same airtime and rewards as the men. Perhaps if the level of competition was closer to that of the men, but not given the current standards.

OK, so there will always be a gap between the best men and best women, but there could come a point where that gap doesn't really make that much difference to the spectacle. For example, look at competition climbing, where the women climb at only a single grade, or at most two, below the best men. As a consequence women's competition climbing is just as good to watch as the men's, has practically as a big a 'wow' factor and I would say deserves equal rewards. Unfortunately, given current standards, it will probably be a long time before women's elite bike racing can produce a spectacle as exciting and 'extraordinary' as the following:

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

Tom Butcher

"And I think that you will find that in most sports the women's game is regarded as being of lesser importance than the male game, which is to be expected when sport is supposed to be about superlatives, not 'the fasted in a restricted category that the best are not allowed to compete in'. "

Another of your quotes.

It's clear that you think women's sport is not only considered of lesser importance than the men's but that you think this is inevitable because women can't compete against men on equal terms - I think it's contingent on the way sport and society has developed and examples such as tennis and athletics show that it isn't inevitable.

Tom Butcher

"Bottom line is that if you evaluate male and female sport 'on the same terms' - and this surely must include the criteria of 'Faster, higher, stronger' - women's sport will tend to be regarded less highly than male sport, Largely because, for the most part, a female competitor will not actually be the fastest but rather the 'fastest woman'."

And another.

BikingBernie

Tom Butcher wrote:

It's clear that you think women's sport is not only considered of lesser importance than the men's but that you think this is inevitable because women can't compete against men on equal terms - I think it's contingent on the way sport and society has developed and examples such as tennis and athletics show that it isn't inevitable.

Er, did you actually read what I said about competitive climbing?

BikingBernie wrote:

OK, so there will always be a gap between the best men and best women, but there could come a point where that gap doesn't really make that much difference to the spectacle. For example, look at competition climbing, where the women climb at only a single grade, or at most two, below the best men. As a consequence women's competition climbing is just as good to watch as the men's, has practically as a big a 'wow' factor and I would say deserves equal rewards.

Of course there are other sports where the performances of women deserves as much respect as that of the men. I am not convinced that this can be said of the 'Big fish in a small ponds' world of women's cycling, where the elite women compete at about the same level a decent second cat...

As to your point about attitudes to women’s sport being contingent on the way sport and society have developed, that is very true. I do realise that in some areas the kind of values that underpinned a 'macho' attitude to sport have been undermined, even to the degree where some believe that promoting 'competition' and lauding the ultimate in human performance are negatives. However, given cycle racing was based on the sort of 'macho' ideals which, for example, held that the ideal race was one that was so hard that only one man could finish, I feel that it will be a long time before ‘caveman’ attitudes are eliminated from cycling.

hotoph88

I don't know what your "axe" is and frankly I don't care. You do spout a load of drivel in an attempt to back up your false premises. I can't imagine you watched the women's road race and know that you cannot watch other women's races because they are not broadcast, and given all you have written, there is not a chance that you will go and watch one live - so immediately your claims are undermined.

You remain blind to the fact of the parity in quality of the pair of elite races at Copenhagen. You ignore that the recent World and Olympic races have been much better for both the men and women and particularly that the Women's World Champs in 2008 was widely lauded as being one of the best World Championship races ever, male or female. I might hazard a wild guess that somehow you won't agree with that and we don't need 15 posts telling us you don't.

The last World Championships borefest was at Zolder and there the women put up a far better race with a break getting away and staying away, the lead chasers just making the back of the break as the sprint started - very exciting. Cipo being given a six hour lead out to within 120m of the line with Zabel on his wheel was not exciting. I don't care what their average speed was for the last 3 hours - nothing will make a procession, to a predetermined conclusion, where the graph of "talent v. population" is so sharp that there could only be a single winner - interesting. [You carefully hoped over my point that in the men's race this year the favourite won, in the women's race there was a huge upset - but then you wouldn't know that because you don't follow women's racing, just as I wouldn't know if my mate Bazza beating beating Adrian Lewis at Darts in my local was an upset ! I might see it as "boring" because that is my uninformed, uneducated, caveman view of darts, whereas Darts World Weekly might have a different take].

However none of these facts will alter your views and your opinions of female sport in which you attempt to drown every one on here with the volume of your posts. As to your most recent claim to expert opinion

BikingBernie wrote:

Of course there are other sports where the performances of women deserves as much respect as that of the men. Unfortunately this doesn't really apply in the 'Big fish in a small ponds' world of women's cycling, .

sometime ago - I was coaching some youngsters and in the group was someone related to an award winning female sports journalist who wrote for a major daily. That journalist rang me up to find out more about female cycling. She asked lots of questions about the sport. She went off and looked at the UCI web site and World Rankings and did her homework. She then rang me back for a few more pieces of information. I had rather downplayed the participation count in women's cycling. She told me that there were over 400 riders with world ranking points. This was more than women's professional golf by some way and about on a par with Women's tennis. I don't know whether what she told me is correct, because unlike you, I do not have "good" knowledge of women's participation rates in other sports. But given all the nonsense you come out with I would rather think I would go with what she said rather than your opinion. Her view was that only in women's tennis is there such density of elite level participation. She compared and contrasted to track and field and advised that if one were to look at individual events both for men and women, participation count of elite athletes competing in each specific discipline is very modest, particularly so since the demise of the Eastern block - who perversely did more for female participation rates than any free-market ventures.

I have just gone and had a look - http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-NOF ... w&LangId=1 Currently just over 400 and it has to have been falling in the last couple of years.

Now I know that none of that will you accept. I wouldn't like to attempt a guess on when you last, if ever, watched a women's event, live, that featured a peloton of World ranked riders, but it's a free World and you are entitled to your views - whatever your "fact base" for holding them. Please accept also others hold somewhat different views.

I wouldn't know Adrian Lewis if he ran me over in a JCB. However I wouldn't go on a darts forum telling every one how rubbish he is compared to Eric Bristow.

tailwindhome

Is there such a thing as Men's cycling.

Are women excluded from the GTs and Classics?

andrewjoseph

TailWindHome wrote:

Is there such a thing as Men's cycling.

Are women excluded from the GTs and Classics?

the women have some of their own events of the big GT's and classics. don't know many but I'm aware of the female TDF, Giro, some Belgium classics.