Are you a cycling 'caveman'?
Comments
-
andrewjoseph wrote: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.
I think he meant is 'men's' cycling open to entry of either gender (all 3 for Aussies
) 0 -
So, here we have proof that you have not actually read what I said, given that I have aready spoken about the trip I made to see the women's Tour of Flanders a couple of years ago. This was a real eye opener for me, as I was really not expecting them to be 'racing' so slowly on the cobbled climbs, especially when compared to the speed that the men went up them and given the fact that the women's race was half the distance of the men's. It was a bit like expecting to see a Superbike race, only to see a load of mopeds go past!hotoph88 wrote: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.0 -
Are you arguing that any female cyclist who has gained points in an 'elite' level race should be considered as being a professional on a par with a female professional tennis player? If the same criteria was applied to the men then we would have to conclude that there are thousands of male pro cyclists, probably putting cycling second only to football! I also have a feeling that women's golf is probably another example of the 'Big fish in a small pond' phenomenon, so I am not sure how the comparison proves that women's cycling has as much 'strength in depth' as the male side of the sport.hotoph88 wrote:
...there [are] 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.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,
The listing you have referred to is for all women who have gained points in any women's elite race of 'second class' and above, including national championships and so forth. In addition, there is the Women's World Cup ranking which has a dedicated calandar, and 131 women have gained at least 1 point this season.
For the men no global ranking is given for riders who have gained points in any elite race of class two and above, which would probably be a very long list. Instead, the UCI gives rankings for competitions such as the America Tour, Europe Tour and so forth which have a set calandar of events, just like the Women's World Cup series. (Currently 1261 men have qualifying points in the Europe Tour alone.) On top of this is the 'WorldTour' Competition for the true elites, again with its own calendar.
British Cycling do give some directly comparable figures for the elite men and women. Currently 176 UK licensed elite males have accrued UCI points and none of those seem to figure in the World Tour rankings. Fourteen (14) UK licensed elite females have also accrued points and a number of those also figure in the UCI world ranking lists, such as Nicole Cooke. In France the picture is much the same, with just 25 females having gained points at the elite level. For the men only the top 300 are named on the FFC site, and looking at the points, the complete list must be much longer. Once again, whilst the women's lists some 'big names' like Longo, I have never heard of any of the men.
I notice Beryl Burton was mentioned earlier, and as much as I was a fan of hers the fact that she won the women's BBAR for 25 consecutive years was hardly an indication that women's bike racing in her day had any 'strength in depth'. Things don't seem to have changed that much today. For example, I see that Longo is still the top-ranked French female cyclist, with double the points of the next rider and she is 53 in a couple of weeks!
Which ever way you look at it, the male side of the sport at the elite (and every other) level is at least 10 times larger than the female, with a correspondingly higher level of competition and commercial value.
As I was saying, big fish in a small pond...0 -
Yes, for example in the UK it is deemed 'fair competition' to allow the elite women to race in events for 3rd / 4th category males and also in events for 2nd / 3rd category males. Riders like Nicole Cooke and Emma Pooley have raced against the 2nd and 3rd cat men, and have on occasion managed to get into the top 10. On paper the elite women are also able to ride events open to UK 1st, 2nd and 3rd category men, but I don't know if they have. UK elite and Premier calendar races are not open to females. Given the huge step up from such events to the semi-classics, classics and Grand Tours it is no surprise they these events are also not open to female teams.dougzz wrote:I think he meant is 'men's' cycling open to entry of either gender (all 3 for Aussies0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Are you arguing that any female cyclist who has gained points in an 'elite' level race should be considered as being a professional on a par with a female professional tennis player? If the same criteria was applied to the men then we would have to conclude that there are thousands of male pro cyclists, probably putting cycling second only to football!
No, it does not work like you imagine it works - you are entirely wrong.
And once again, the fiction you create as a result of your uninformed imagining, works to fuel your prejudice. In the UK there is only a single race each year for women that gains UCI points and that is only because it has to - the British Championships. To gain UCI points a race has to apply for and gain UCI accreditation. This means that it has to meet a number of UCI specified criteria. In the last 15 years, there has only been one race in the UK that has gained sanction and then only once, if my memory is correct, or possibly twice. The WCRA 2 day did get sanctioned but then fell away again when the UCI ramped up their requirements and the organisers could not fund the support systems. There are very few races on the women's international calendar that gain points and these have fields that comprise, in the main, full time athletes. There are couple of Eastern European races which attract a number of local teams and the same can be said of a couple of French races. Conversely, events such as the two week Grande Boucle stood outside the UCI calendar and did not gain UCI points. 2 weeks in the saddle. I have no doubt BB thought they were cr*p and no doubt, according to BB they cannot be thought of as "professionals". What were they doing - on holiday ?
However, for GB men there are a number of races on the UK calendar that are UCI sanctioned so there are far more opportunities for males to gain UCI points, including many at which teams of "semi-pros" compete. You are not comparing like with like and the fact is, you don't even know, you don't know.
As for you magnanimous, self-sacrifice of a pilgrimage to the Women's Tour of Flanders - who do you think you are kidding ? You stand still and watch. First one race comes by and then the other. You went to watch THE Tour of Flanders and to your surprise a women's race came by first, from whom you could not recognise a single athlete, you had no start sheet for them and nothing to help you understand or gain interest in what past in front of your eyes. Afterwards you found out it was the women's Tour of Flanders. You have your opinion on what you saw. You over-egg that "blind" opinion just like your view on UCI rankings and, frankly, like you over-egg virtually everything else you share on here with us. BB thinks ...... now let me guess ?
BB common now admit it. The only role you see for women in cycling is at the podium celebration. Men can race 6 hours of the most boring formulaic dross but it will always, every time, absolutely, never can change, in your sweet little closed mind, be of more value than any women's race ever in the history of the Universe. We get it. We get what you think. Just don't try and dress up your bias as anything else.
Challenge yourself - answer this first question - was the Copenhagen men's race a snoozefest? Take out the emotion of a fellow Brit winning. Answer it with logic.
Then answer, - was the women's World Championships of 2010 more interesting? That is the question you set out in your poll. But involve the sexes and the same answer becomes totally unacceptable to you, and you resort to all this nonsense of ducking and diving.
However - given what has gone on before - I doubt we will get anything other than another "duck and dive" response. At which point maybe I will bid my adieu.0 -
In reality there are plenty of races where UK elite women can gain points that count towards the British Cycling 'elite women' rankings. In fact, they can gain points in events that are far from 'elite' in nature. For example, Marianne Britten, who currently tops that impressive list of 14 (14!) elite British women, gained her points in, amongst others:hotoph88 wrote:In the UK there is only a single race each year for women that gains UCI points and that is only because it has to - the British Championships... However, for GB men there are a number of races on the UK calendar that are UCI sanctioned so there are far more opportunities for males to gain UCI points, including many at which teams of "semi-pros" compete. You are not comparing like with like and the fact is, you don't even know, you don't know.
City of Preston GP Circuit Races (Women's Criterium Championships)
Reading Grand Prix (Women's Derny Race)
Team Tor 2000 Circuit Series - Event 6 (Women Only)
Bath Cycle Races Round 1 (Women)
Capernwray Women's Road Race (Women Only)
Omega Thruxton Circuits (Women Only)
Omega Portsmouth Circuits (Women Only)
Etc.
I knew exactly what race I was watching, and had a start sheet, and chose my vantage points carefully. As I said, I was interested enough to set out several hours earlier than I need to in order to watch the women's race, but was disappointed by what I saw.hotoph88 wrote:As for you magnanimous, self-sacrifice of a pilgrimage to the Women's Tour of Flanders - who do you think you are kidding ? You stand still and watch. First one race comes by and then the other. You went to watch THE Tour of Flanders and to your surprise a women's race came by first, from whom you could not recognise a single athlete, you had no start sheet for them and nothing to help you understand or gain interest in what past in front of your eyes. Afterwards you found out it was the women's Tour of Flanders...
Hardly, I think that it is great to see anyone racing, schoolboys, juniors, third cats, women, vets, anyone. All I have said is the speed, 'extraordinariness' and sheer 'balls' of the best of the men’s racing gives it an added dimension that I enjoy.hotoph88 wrote:BB common now admit it. The only role you see for women in cycling is at the podium celebration.
Where did I say that? As I have said, multiple times now, having an elite male field is no guarantee that a race will be worth watching, and having a field of schoolboys, women, whoever, does not mean that the race must by definition lack excitement or have no value. For some this year's men’s RR championship lacked excitement. I found it to be very exciting and was on the edge of my seat as I waited to see if someone could break Team GB's stranglehold on the race. That said, I have certainly seen some unexciting men's races just I have seen some exciting women's racing, even if, perhaps even more so than the men, many women's races are also often 'boring formulaic dross', only shorter.hotoph88 wrote:Men can race 6 hours of the most boring formulaic dross but it will always, every time, absolutely, never can change, in your sweet little closed mind, be of more value than any women's race ever in the history of the Universe.
However, the best of the men's races, for me and many others, have something extra, due to the extra speed, aggression, distance, difficulty and so forth that sets them apart from even the best of the women's races. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fwSe9xT_k00 -
Fact - The British Cycling ranking system is totally separate to the UCI ranking system. It defines a tier of races below those deemed acceptable for professional riders to gain ranking points. I think that was obvious to most people.BikingBernie wrote:In reality there are plenty of races where UK elite women can gain points that count towards the British Cycling rankings. In fact, they can gain points in events that are far from 'elite' in nature. For example, Marianne Britten, who currently tops that impressive list of 14 (14!) elite British women, gained her points in, amongst others:
City of Preston GP Circuit Races(Women's Criterium Championships)
Reading Grand Prix (Women's Derny Race)
Team Tor 2000 Circuit Series - Event 6 (Women Only)
Auchterlonie Memorial Handicap 1(E/1/2/3/4)
Capernwray Women's Road Race (Women Only)
Auchterlonie Memorial Handicap 3 (E/1/2/3/4)
Omega Thruxton Circuits (3rd Cat Only)
Omega Portsmouth Circuits (3rd Cat Only)
Etc.
Winning all of the above would not let one gain a single UCI ranking point - but don't let facts get in the way of your belief system. We know how dearly you wish to cling to it.
Your continued wrigglings do not warrant the effort of mutiple quotes. You, as I, know that if you want a good position at Flanders you need to be there well in advance. Don't bother to dress that up as your desire to get there early just so that you can see the women's race.
As to the rest - did you answer the two questions I set you? Your readership await your response.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:I found it to be very exciting and was on the edge of my seat as I waited to see if someone could break Team GB's stranglehold on the race.
Sorry I did not include that in my answer. I just don't know what to say. On the one hand you criticise women's racing out of hand and on the other you say that Voekler taking on the team time trial capability of GB over 10km was exciting ! (or any of the other totally unlikely - doomed to failure - efforts mounted in that race). Can you not see how making that one comment totally undermines every word you have uttered about the quality of racing at whatever level?
Let the Arsenal fans pick the team - they are bound to do better than Arsene Wengerl Yes - let them at it - they know far more. My wife wonders why I listen to 606 on a Saturday evening after the footy.
It is the best show of the week - TV or radio. Gold, absolutely gold, never fails to deliver rip roaring laughter each week.0 -
You clearly haven't looked at the qualifying points for all the rider's in the British elite women's rankings. For example, all of the races that are listed as counting towards Nicole Cooke's UCI ranking are also listed as counting towards her British Cycling 'elite women' ranking.hotoph88 wrote:Fact - The British Cycling ranking system is totally separate to the UCI ranking system. It defines a tier of races below those deemed acceptable for professional riders to gain ranking points.
I am quite happy to accept your argument that many of the women listed in British Cycling's ranking for elite female riders are actually not very elite at all, having, like Marianne Britten, gained most or all of their points in the sort of races you say are 'below those deemed acceptable for professional riders to gain ranking points'.
The bottom line is that there are only 14 'elite' females in the UK national rankings. (That is if we include those who gained their points in races 'below those deemed acceptable for professional riders to gain ranking points).' Similarly there are just 25 women with an 'elite' ranking in France, and only 131 women have scored points in the UCI women's World Cup. There is no way around it, women's 'elite' bike racing is very much a case of 'Big fish in a small pond'.
P.s. I have just looked at your profile and see that your real name is listed as being Denise Cooke. That explains a lot! 0 -
Is that because the only race Cooke rode in GB was the National Championships which counts for both ? I think you will find it is. The idea that you cling to that riders can get points in the races you suggest remains wrong. And that is the reason that only 14 GB riders get ranking points from the UK. There are no qualifying races here in the UK. So using the fact that so few have points to somehow justify the point you make is irrelevant. It might be relevant to an entirely different argument.BikingBernie wrote:
You clearly haven't looked at the qualifying points for all the rider's in the British elite women's rankings. For example, all of the races that are listed as counting towards Nicole Cooke's UCI ranking are also listed as counting towards her British Cycling 'elite women' ranking.hotoph88 wrote:Fact - The British Cycling ranking system is totally separate to the UCI ranking system. It defines a tier of races below those deemed acceptable for professional riders to gain ranking points.
As to those riders with World Cup points - 131 for the women, 182 for the men in the Pro Tour. What does that prove ? It does not represent relative participation count because in this case it works against the men. It just tells you that the point awarding system is probably about right - you don't get points for turning up. Seems sensible for both groups.0 -
Hi Denise,
I have gone carefully through what you have said, and I think I see where the confusion has arisen. You say:
When it comes to the British Cycling ‘elite women’ rankings, which are what I was originally talking about, the events I mentioned certainly do count. Look at Marianne Britten's listing for proof:The idea that you cling to that riders can get points in the races you suggest remains wrong. And that is the reason that only 14 GB riders get ranking points from the UK.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/points ... r=2011&d=4
However, many of the races that carry domestic 'elite' points are, as you put it, of a standard 'below those deemed acceptable for professional riders to gain ranking points. As such, and as you have already pointed out, they do not carry UCI points, other than for events such as the National Championships. Despite this, these events would still be open to riders such as Cooke and Pooley, as elite licence holders and, if they rode them, would gain them points in the domestic elite rankings.
True enough, there are some riders who have World Cup points but are missing from the UK domestic listing, these are Pooley, Houvenghel, Colclough, Shaw and Wilson, if added to the current British Cycling listing they would bump up the number of elite women to an 'impressive' 19. However, the fact that a handful of riders are missing from the domestic ‘elite women’ rankings is not because of a lack of races per say, but rather because some of those who ride the World Cup events never or rarely ride UK domestic events, including the national championship.
In your terms, the only true elite female riders in the UK are those who have UCI points, this is Cooke, Pooley, Armistead, Laws, Houvenghel, Martin, Colclough, Trott, Shaw, King, Wilson and Williamson, a total of 12 riders. Correspondingly, by your criteria those other women who feature on the British Cycling list of 'elite women' should not be thought of as being truly 'elite' at all, given that they gained points in races 'below those deemed acceptable for professional riders to gain ranking points.
So, does any of this disprove my suggestion that elite women’s racing is a case of ‘Big fish in a small pond’? I don’t think so. When it comes to domestic 'elite' racing, the number of qualifying riders is still pitifully small, especially given the relatively low standard of the events that carry qualifying points. When it comes to the ‘real’ elites, again the number of female riders are outnumbered by somewhere between 10:1 and 15:1 by the male side of the sport.
The women’s ‘true elite’ side of the sport can only support the World Cup series, with 131 riders currently having qualifying points. In comparison, when it comes to the men’s ‘true elite’ side of the sport there are so many riders and events that the UCI deem as being ‘acceptable for professional riders to gain [UCI] ranking points’ (that is of grade 2 and above), that they support not only the WorldTour series, with 222 riders currently having scored qualifying points, but also:
The Europe Tour (1261 riders having scored points in this competition),
The America Tour (285 riders),
The Asia Tour (358 riders),
The Oceania Tour (46 riders)
The Africa Tour (207 riders).
OK, so there is some overlap in that some riders score points in more than one of these competitions, but there are still 2184 ‘qualifying riders’ in these regional competitions alone. I would bet that there are also a correspondingly higher number of male riders competing at this ‘true elite’ level but who never gain any points than is the case with the female side of the sport.
So, being generous and saying that the ‘true elite’ women are outnumbered by the ‘true elite’ men by a factor of ‘only’ 10:1, this surely allows no other conclusion than, when compared to the men, elite women’s racing is a case of ‘Big fish in a small pond’.
As another poster has already pointed out, it would also be easier to regard the women’s ‘elite’ side of the sport as being genuinely ‘elite’ if the level of competition was substantially higher, rather than being about on a par with a decent UK domestic second cat RR, as is currently the case. (Nicole's 5th place in the 2/3 category Ras just before she won her Olympic gold being a good example of this).
Cheers! 0
