Track riders' engines.

dave_1

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

yes, you have a bit of difficulty seeing women's RR as being a truly elite sport because you are a man and are not enthused by it the way women are

Isn't that a problem?

Men's racing is followed by fans of both sexes. If women's racing is only ever going to appeal to women then it's cut half the market out (more if we actually count up how many of either sex watch cycling).

No, it isn't a problem because only a smaller minority of men are so juvenile that they'd actually show a disinterest in women's racing just cause it isn't as fast as men's.

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

only a smaller minority of men are so juvenile that they'd actually show a disinterest in women's racing just cause it isn't as fast as men's.

Ha ha! In reality most men, meaning most followers of the sport, pay only a passing interest in the women's side of the game, unless the girl involved is any any way 'hot'. Just one thread on here for the men's Tour of Flanders runs to 23 pages. I don't recall seeing any similar thread covering the women's race, and no more than a couple of posts elsewhere even mentioning it. However, I see that the 'Girls in lycra shorts' over on the 'Cakestop' is currently running at 325 pages...

That's the reality, although some (such as Rick Chasey on this very thread) seem to think that pretending otherwise is the smart thing to do as this might increase your chances of getting girls to have sex with you!

As to it being 'juvenile' to be less excited by races that are slower and have a lower level of competition than those of the elite men, there seem to be an awful lot of 'juveniles' around who find UK domestic 2nd and 3rd cat racing to be less exciting that something like Paris-Roubaix, and yet such races are no slower than the typical elite women's event.

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

only a smaller minority of men are so juvenile that they'd actually show a disinterest in women's racing just cause it isn't as fast as men's.

Ha ha! In reality most men, meaning most followers of the sport, pay only a passing interest in the women's side of the game, unless the girl involved is any any way 'hot'. Just one thread on here for the men's Tour of Flanders runs to 23 pages. I don't recall seeing any similar thread covering the women's race, and no more than a couple of posts elsewhere even mentioning it. However, I see that the 'Girls in lycra shorts' over on the 'Cakestop' is currently running at 325 pages...

That's the reality, although some (such as Rick Chasey on this very thread) seem to think that pretending otherwise is the smart thing to do as this might increase your chances of getting girls to have sex with you!

As to it being 'juvenile' to be less excited by races that are slower and have a lower level of competition than those of the elite men, there seem to be an awful lot of 'juveniles' around who find UK domestic 2nd and 3rd cat racing to be less exciting that something like Paris-Roubaix, and yet such races are no slower than the typical elite women's event.

There you go again with that generalization you'e repeated in page 1..you say.."lower level of competition" ..you again are comparing men with women from your male perspective. Women compare women's racing with what they (women) can themselves can do on a bike so they won't agree with your lower level of competition comment.

And women were about 15% of British cycling membership 5 years ago. So you can't say most people are not enthused by women's racing. Do you speak for the other 85% of men?

And 1 more thing..you say of yourself on p1 of the thread "I am fully supportive of women competing" but you've repeatedly commented that their physical performance is poor. You suffer from double think or perhaps you're just a bigot?? and hence cover with double think.

We need more than 15% women in the sport as am sure cycling men would like a women who cycles too. It's easier to date and settle with a woman who likes cycling.

andrewjoseph

BB, you seem to fail to grasp the fact that women are different to men. if they work as hard to develop the same power as many men can, let alone 'elite' men, then they are at risk of causing permanent damage.

There is a reason that women's cycling is usually over shorted courses than men's, it is physically damaging to the female body to force it to do much more than than they do at present. This has been discussed on several other threads previously.

You can't compare female cycling with tennis or even any other sport (well, maybe ultra marathons and the like),

If women could compete on a 'level playing field' with men, for any length of time, they would no longer be women.

I'm not trying to be disparaging of women, I just have a bit of understanding as to why they can't ride as fast or for as long as many men. Do some research on female physiology and extreme exercise. And yes, road and track riding are extreme exercise.

I love watching cycling of all kinds, not just elite mens.

Graculus

I have enjoyed reading this thread and there are some interesting points, but I don't think that any women have so far commented. I obviously cannot claim to speak for all women but here's what I think.

I think people have agreed for a while that women will never be able to physically match men, their physiology is just different. Those of us who are old enough to remember the women Russian and East German field athletes who used to turn up at the Olympics in the 1960s and 70s know that it can be done by use of drugs and hormones to the huge detriment to the health of the athlete. And as andrewjoseph points out, physical overtraining can also pose an extra risk to women.

Does this lesser power make for less exciting sport? Even as a woman I have to admit that I think it does. I really enjoyed that World Championships over the weekend, I was just as proud of the medals the British girls won as I was of the boys, Anna Meares' record breaking win of the 500m time trial was wonderful and there were some truly thrilling racing by the women, but the men's races just had that extra wow factor, because they are more powerful.

In terms of equality in the staging of events I think that at the Olympics they should have equal events for men and women; although the whole thing has become completely professional, it is still in the spirit of the games to treat the sexes equally. However, expecting equality across the whole sport is unrealistic for purely commercial reasons.

This is also the case for minority sports as well. I used to fence, met my husband at a fencing club and our son has just started fencing at school. It's a great sport you can start at any age and carry on with it until you drop dead, but I have never seen any fencing on British terrestrial TV.

I find tennis, golf, darts and snooker very dull but lots of people watch them so that's what gets broadcast. It's the money that ultimately counts not fairness and equality.

B3rnieMac

I've always wanted a rainbow jersey of my own. I see that a boob job is probably the easiest way to get one :P

thegibdog

Phil? Hey, Phil? Phil! Phil Connors? Phil Connors, I thought that was you!

finchy

BikingBernie wrote:

Ha ha! In reality most men, meaning most followers of the sport, pay only a passing interest in the women's side of the game, unless the girl involved is any any way 'hot'. Just one thread on here for the men's Tour of Flanders runs to 23 pages. I don't recall seeing any similar thread covering the women's race, and no more than a couple of posts elsewhere even mentioning it. However, I see that the 'Girls in lycra shorts' over on the 'Cakestop' is currently running at 325 pages...

But do cycling fans not take an interest in women's cycling because it is not on TV, or is it not on TV because not enough people would take an interest?

Is there any difference in the viewing figures for men's and women's athletics, swimming etc.? We seem to have made national heroes of a fair few female runners who were 10% slower than men - Paula Radcliffe, Kelly Holmes, Sally Gunnell...

BikingBernie

andrewjoseph wrote:

BB, you seem to fail to grasp the fact that women are different to men. if they work as hard to develop the same power as many men can, let alone 'elite' men, then they are at risk of causing permanent damage.

I would say that the primary issue is not about 'working harder', but about the small competitive base of women's cycling. Athletic ability is primarily determined by genetic ability and the smaller the number of people entering a sport the fewer the number of competitors there will be with real talent and the less they will be pushed in competition by those they race against. Given that the female side of the sort is only about 10% the size of the male side of the sport, it is no wonder that the standard of women's racing is only on a par with domestic second category male racing.

BikingBernie

johnfinch wrote:

But do cycling fans not take an interest in women's cycling because it is not on TV, or is it not on TV because not enough people would take an interest.

Is there any difference in the viewing figures for men's and women's athletics, swimming etc.? We seem to have made national heroes of a fair few female runners who were 10% slower than men - Paula Radcliffe, Kelly Holmes, Sally Gunnell...

But if the actual level of competition is so unimportant, why should not an equal push be made to promote junior or vets or disabled or even non-elite male events, all of which can doubtlessly produce 'competitive' racing? The answer seems simply to be 'because they are female and so should be given preferential treatment', which comes across as being both patronising and discriminatory.

It is probably true that, given the public appetite for 'celebrities' and willingness to buy into 'sporting heroes' whose successes reinforce perceptions of national identity, there is a market for any sport which allows people to watch Brits beating 'johnny foreigner', irrespective of the gender of the competitors. Perhaps, given suitable marketing, the actual level of competition could be made not only less important but almost an irrelevance, just as the actual qualities of the music seem to be irrelevant with regards to how many people will buy someones' records!

rick_chasey

BikingBernie wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

But do cycling fans not take an interest in women's cycling because it is not on TV, or is it not on TV because not enough people would take an interest.

Is there any difference in the viewing figures for men's and women's athletics, swimming etc.? We seem to have made national heroes of a fair few female runners who were 10% slower than men - Paula Radcliffe, Kelly Holmes, Sally Gunnell...

But if the actual level of competition is so unimportant, why should not an equal push be made to promote junior or vets or disabled or even non-elite male events, all of which can doubtlessly produce 'competitive' racing? The answer seems simply to be 'because they are female and so should be given preferential treatment', which comes across as being both patronising and discriminatory.

Do you say the same for other sports?

Athletics, tennis, swimming...?

andrewjoseph

BikingBernie wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

BB, you seem to fail to grasp the fact that women are different to men. if they work as hard to develop the same power as many men can, let alone 'elite' men, then they are at risk of causing permanent damage.

I would say that the primary issue is not about 'working harder', but about the small competitive base of women's cycling. Athletic ability is primarily determined by genetic ability and the smaller the number of people entering a sport the fewer the number of competitors there will be with real talent and the less they will be pushed in competition by those they race against. Given that the female side of the sort is only about 10% the size of the male side of the sport, it is no wonder that the standard of women's racing is only on a par with domestic second category male racing.

But you started this thread comparing the power output of elite men to elite women, saying things like they are only equivalent to 2-3rd cat men. I believe you actually stated they need to work harder. (I could be wrong, I've not looked back through).

You now seem to be changing your view (which is good, I think!). Yes, there is a small group of female riders compared to men, yes there may be room for the elite women to get stronger/faster, but they will never be comparable to elite men and we should stop wanting them to be. Enjoy their competitiveness for what it is, women racing women!

lyn1

andrewjoseph wrote:

You now seem to be changing your view (which is good, I think!). Yes, there is a small group of female riders compared to men, yes there may be room for the elite women to get stronger/faster, but they will never be comparable to elite men and we should stop wanting them to be. Enjoy their competitiveness for what it is, women racing women!

Exactly. The issue is about the appeal of womens' only events and the structure & dynamics of them. Do they appeal to the paymasters? ....currently sponsors and broadcasters, who in turn will be influenced by whether their target markets are interested in these events.
Interestingly I read a Phd on Ambush Marketing recently that examined in detail 550 cases. Rarely, if ever does this happen in women's only events. So if companies are not prepared to get involved when they can do it for free, why would they pay to do it?
Broadcasters and sponsors are commercial organisations. If they see a way of making money from particular activities, they will get involved. If a womens event pulls in big money from sponsors and broadcasters, then the competitors should be rewarded appropriately.

BikingBernie

andrewjoseph wrote:

you started this thread comparing the power output of elite men to elite women, saying things like they are only equivalent to 2-3rd cat men.

I still hold to that, mainly because it is true, as demonstrated by the performances of women when the race against 2nd /3rd cat men. (Witness Nicole Cooke's 5th place in the 2nd/ 3rd Ras stage race just before she won the Olympic RR title).

andrewjoseph wrote:

I believe you actually stated they need to work harder. (I could be wrong, I've not looked back through).

No, I never said that, and yes, you are wrong. I do, however, admire your 'chutzpah' for commenting on a thread that you admit to never having read properly, and so presumably are ignorant of the points that have actually been made!

andrewjoseph wrote:

Enjoy their competitiveness for what it is, women racing women!

And by the same measure we should enjoy the competitiveness of juniors, vets , disabled and non-elite males for what it is: not the fastest but the best in their particular, exclusive category. Of course, arguing that all such categories deserve TV coverage, a 'professional' wage and so forth is another issue.

Much the same applies to female racers unless we are trying to argue that they constitute a 'special case' simply because they are female! After all, female racers may be disadvantaged by their genetics, but so are the majority of male riders who don't benefit from the freakish genetics of the few hundred top professionals. Given this why not follow the logic that is applied to women's events and have televised races for 'normal' males, or vets, along with pro contracts, with elite men being barred from riding such events.

BikingBernie

lyn1 wrote:

If a womens event pulls in big money from sponsors and broadcasters, then the competitors should be rewarded appropriately.

And what if they don't, as is currently the case?

lyn1

BikingBernie wrote:

lyn1 wrote:

If a womens event pulls in big money from sponsors and broadcasters, then the competitors should be rewarded appropriately.

And what if they don't, as is currently the case?

Then the cloth is cut accordingly.
I am certainly unhappy with the idea that sponsors should be obliged to fund an event/team/activity they have no interest in and does not focus on their product or target market, in order to gain access to the the event that is of benefit to them.

andrewjoseph

BikingBernie wrote:

...

andrewjoseph wrote:

I believe you actually stated they need to work harder. (I could be wrong, I've not looked back through).

No, I never said that, and yes, you are wrong. I do, however, admire your 'chutzpah' for commenting on a thread that you admit to never having read properly, and so presumably are ignorant of the points that have actually been made!

You presume too much, if you go back and look you will find i have commented several times already. I have actually read all this thread from the start, I just can't remember exactly what you said and when, and have not gone back to re-read.

wjcrombie

All of the above comes down to one thing for me, and that is diversity. I think Cycling is a poorer sport for not having a greater level of representation from women and I totally support anything that would help address the balance and get more women into competitive cycling. I have only done 4 or 5 races with women in the field and that is a real shame.

Also as a 2nd cat more road racer, I do think they are put down a fair bit, but most good 2nd cats are sacrificing a lot to race at the standard they race at (and don't forget good 2nd cats have to try and compete with Elite and 1st cats for points most of the time), and therefore it is not such a bad thing for Elite Women to be at a similar level to a good 2nd cat male.

The reference to Nicole Cook ONLY getting 5th in the RAS before the olympics is also very condescending. The Ras is a very tough stage race and in no way represents a typical regional A standard. Anyone in the top 20 in that race is riding at a 1st cat standard but just not got the points yet.

In summary Women need to be encouraged to race and therefore equal rewards is right and just and either way, I think elite women are further up the pecking order than some people on this forum are giving them credit for....