Female TdF

Richmond Racer

dilemna wrote:

Would this mean podium boys? You couldn't have podium girls kissing female riders, could you :? ?

I'm all for a womens' TdF. Would they ride the same route and therefore distance and get the same prize money and bonuses etc?

There would need to be a new jersey for Queen of the Mountain and would the Queen be subservient to the King of the Mountain? Just a thought.

Oh dont start with all that nonsense

Jo Rowsell made a very good point when she was interviewed about the idea of a womens TdF on The Cycle Show on Monday. She pointed out that one of the attractive things about womens racing can be that you see a lot of attacking - the shorter distances in womens races provide a decent platform for this. If the petitioners idea of the same distances as the mens came to fruition, the style would change - basically they'd be riding tempo for 4-5 hours controlling the breakaway etc etc. Um...just like the men.

In the meantime....the womens 8 day Tour de France (La Route de France) starts on Saturday...

dougzz

Richmond Racer wrote:

Oh dont start with all that nonsense

Jo Rowsell made a very good point when she was interviewed about the idea of a womens TdF on The Cycle Show on Monday. She pointed out that one of the attractive things about womens racing can be that you see a lot of attacking - the shorter distances in womens races provide a decent platform for this. If the petitioners idea of the same distances as the mens came to fruition, the style would change - basically they'd be riding tempo for 4-5 hours controlling the breakaway etc etc. Um...just like the men.

In the meantime....the womens 8 day Tour de France (La Route de France) starts on Saturday...

It's an odd thing, and hard (for me) to explain, but I don't think the quality of the racing is the problem, it's more of a knowledge that you're not watching the best. No matter how rubbish a particular race might be, if you see Cav, Sagan, Kittel, Gilbert, Contador, Valverde, Froome, Nibali it's just this understanding that you're watching the absolute pinnacle of the sport. If you watch a women's race it might be tactically very interesting, and exciting, and lots of other things, but you're still not watching the best, just the best women. I think it extends across most sports in this way, it's not a gender thing, it's just a feeling of so what, rather than wow. A lot of people will talk about watching Spanish football, or German, but what they've really watched is Real - Barca, or Bayern - Dortmund, they don't give a monkey's about Osasuna - Getafe. Perhaps a boxing analogy is better, a great charismatic heavyweight will always be more marketable than a great middleweight, despite most middleweight fights being a lot better boxing, but there's always the nag at the back of mind that he's just a great middleweight, whereas the heavyweight is perhaps the greatest, not just the greatest at that weight.

Richmond Racer

dougzz, if you take that line of thought then you dismiss in one fell swoop any and all womens sport

Tom Butcher

I thinkpeople want to watch events that have some kind of status/importance - Real vs Bayern in a pre season friendly isn't likely to attract a TV audience, Brentford vs St Etienne in the Champions League final is.

The womens final at Wimbledon is surely likely to attract a bigger audience than Murray vs Federer in some minor tournament.

So it's not impossible for female sporting event to have more status and a bigger audience than a male event in the same sport. We may never reach a stage where a female TdF is the same draw as the male TdF but it's not that far fetched to see a female TdF as a bigger draw than the Tour of California or something like that.

dougzz

Richmond Racer wrote:

dougzz, if you take that line of thought then you dismiss in one fell swoop any and all womens sport

I have to say that's largely true I do. I'm quite limited in what I'm interested in, I watch football and cricket in varying amounts, cycling and not a lot else. I like to know what's happening in F1, Tennis and Golf, but couldn't be bothered to watch them beyond the Ryder cup, which is just about sticking to those across the pond. Sport is essentially about doing soemthing you enjoy, if you're lucky enough to be able to make money doing it great, but it doesn't owe you anything. Sport where people earn (real) money is not really sport, it's almost entirely business.

dougzz

Tom Butcher wrote:

So it's not impossible for female sporting event to have more status and a bigger audience than a male event in the same sport. We may never reach a stage where a female TdF is the same draw as the male TdF but it's not that far fetched to see a female TdF as a bigger draw than the Tour of California or something like that.

Not so sure I agree. You mention Tennis, as as I previously said that's the only sport in my opinion where women have anything approaching parity with men. Rich I believe added Golf, although I would still say whilst a lot of women make a good living at Golf it's not at the comparative level of the top women in Tennis. I'd guess that earnings wise Serena and say Sharapova would sit comfortably in the top 10 Tennis earners overall, winnings and sponsorship. Again as previously said, both these examples the women's side of the sport have separate governing bodies to the men. I don't ever see a situation where a women's cycling race will compare even to a smaller men's event. In 10 years one of us can quote these posts and say 'see I told you' I don't mind if it's you, this is something I'd be happy to be wrong about.

Richmond Racer

dougzz wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

So it's not impossible for female sporting event to have more status and a bigger audience than a male event in the same sport. We may never reach a stage where a female TdF is the same draw as the male TdF but it's not that far fetched to see a female TdF as a bigger draw than the Tour of California or something like that.

Not so sure I agree. You mention Tennis, as as I previously said that's the only sport in my opinion where women have anything approaching parity with men. Rich I believe added Golf, although I would still say whilst a lot of women make a good living at Golf it's not at the comparative level of the top women in Tennis. I'd guess that earnings wise Serena and say Sharapova would sit comfortably in the top 10 Tennis earners overall, winnings and sponsorship. Again as previously said, both these examples the women's side of the sport have separate governing bodies to the men. I don't ever see a situation where a women's cycling race will compare even to a smaller men's event. In 10 years one of us can quote these posts and say 'see I told you' I don't mind if it's you, this is something I'd be happy to be wrong about.

Re tennis, men and women are all under the same governing body - the ITF. I think you're confusing the WTA which is the womens equivalent to the ATP - its the umbrella association covering most of the leading womens tennis tournaments, rankings from those tournaments, prize monies etc. Its not a governing body, it has no sanctioning rights, no rule-making rights etc.

Tom Butcher

Not disagreeing with you but that's not the point I was making. You can go and see Federer v Nadal in some small tournament and see tennis from either that would destroy any woman tennis player. For all that it will be less of a draw than say Williams vs Sharapova at Wimbledon. It's about the status, history etc of the event. Maybe there is an element of people not viewing womens sport as intrinsically less attractive but if womens tennis can attract a decent audience why not womens cycling? I agreeit's not going to be easy just that it shold be possible.

dougzz

Richmond Racer wrote:

Re tennis, men and women are all under the same governing body - the ITF. I think you're confusing the WTA which is the womens equivalent to the ATP - its the umbrella association covering most of the leading womens tennis tournaments, rankings from those tournaments, prize monies etc. Its not a governing body, it has no sanctioning rights, no rule-making rights etc.

I'm sure you're right about this, but the WTA is why women earn big bucks. Sanction, tennis, please, someone spiked my drink.

sherer

someone said above there is an 8 day women's TdF on at the moment. Why don't the organisers of that approach the ASO and ask them to licence use of Le Tour name etc then all the ASO do is get a payment and leave the rest up to someone else to sort out.

Richmond Racer

dougzz wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Re tennis, men and women are all under the same governing body - the ITF. I think you're confusing the WTA which is the womens equivalent to the ATP - its the umbrella association covering most of the leading womens tennis tournaments, rankings from those tournaments, prize monies etc. Its not a governing body, it has no sanctioning rights, no rule-making rights etc.

I'm sure you're right about this, but the WTA is why women earn big bucks. Sanction, tennis, please, someone spiked my drink.

He he. Well, if it makes you feel better Troicki's just been slapped with an 18-month ban for refusing to give a blood sample...maybe tennis is finally starting to wake up...

ozzzyosborn206

Maybe if they brought this in it would increase wages which inturn would increase numbers of female cyclists and therefore the standard but even in the tour series there seemed to be a big gap in ability of the riders, often one rider would solo away and not be caught which i found a bit boring, also when watching any sport on tele i watch it as much as anything to be impressed by whats on show, when watching womens cycling I think i could probably do that.

I am sure people will disagree with me but on the equal rights thing if you look at it as a job, in an office a woman wouldn't get paid the same as a man for doing less work because she is a woman so why should it be different in cycling?

Other thing and main thing that i think is preventing womens cycling going big is that there are hardly too many sponsors for the mens teams, it seems every year a team folds, if they struggle to see it being viable to sponsor a mens team how can you expect them to sponsor a womans team

sherer

you only need to look back over last weekend. I didn't even know there was a women's race on in London and then they only got a 1.5 mile loop to do. I did catch it on TV but the standard I saw wasn't great, although I think the route played a part in that.

cynicalrider

Less than 20% of racing licence holders in the UK are women, so at an amateur level there are very few riders who want to race.

awavey

sherer wrote:

you only need to look back over last weekend. I didn't even know there was a women's race on in London and then they only got a 1.5 mile loop to do. I did catch it on TV but the standard I saw wasn't great, although I think the route played a part in that.

the Route de France Internationale Féminine (aka Women's TdF - yes that was quick ) on this week would be a better standard to compare against if you can find any footage of it, as the London Grand prix was really just a crit race, which you could argue was just a repeat of the nocturne from the other month, but there were alot of club cyclists as well I noticed on the start list, I dont know what the entry criteria was, but yeah Im not surprised theyd have struggled up against the Olympic team pursuit champions or even the Tour series riders.

Le Commentateur

http://www.francetvsport.fr/tout-le-spo ... 013-174439

arran77

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelsey-l-campbell/the-world-needs-a-tour-de_b_5604157.html

Makes interesting reading.

It says that not only are female riders being ostracized, but the media and sponsors are missing a major opportunity.

It only takes a quick Google search of tennis pro Maria Sharapova to see the massive marketing potential of sportswomen, children are very easily influenced by media and female cycling is missing out to other sports :roll:

Daz555

dougzz wrote:

Not so sure I agree. You mention Tennis, as as I previously said that's the only sport in my opinion where women have anything approaching parity with men.

Athletics is very strong for the women also. For example Paula Radcliffe v Mo Farah in terms of status - nothing in it. Go back through history - there are as many female global stars in track and field as there are in tennis.

Track cycling also - Trott is bigger (and far richer) than Kenny & Clancy etc. The likes of Rowsell, King, Mears et al are superstars on any track event.

Swimming is not too bad either, and nor is rowing - both sports with far less commercial profile though.

The prime reason female road cycling sucks is because MALE road cycling is lacking also (in terms of global importance) - the sport is tiny on any scale you care to mention in comparison to so many other sports. In an environment when male cycling teams can fold at any time we really can't expect much investment in the other side of the sport as well.

Womens cycling needs someone to take a bit of a gamble - someone like Eurosport showing live coverage and highlights ON THE DAY THE RACE TOOK PLACE....rather than a week later, would be a start.

Daz555

dougzz wrote:

It's an odd thing, and hard (for me) to explain, but I don't think the quality of the racing is the problem, it's more of a knowledge that you're not watching the best. No matter how rubbish a particular race might be, if you see Cav, Sagan, Kittel, Gilbert, Contador, Valverde, Froome, Nibali it's just this understanding that you're watching the absolute pinnacle of the sport. If you watch a women's race it might be tactically very interesting, and exciting, and lots of other things, but you're still not watching the best, just the best women.

I have never thought this once about female sport. Sport is about being the best man or woman (or girl or boy), not the best human. We could extend this further - so what if Bolt is the fastest human - in comparison to many other mammals his performances are pathetic.

sherer

madasahattersley wrote:

Whether they like to admit it or not (I might be castrated for saying this publicly) but a lot of people including myself wouldn't watch a women's tour. I simply don't find it as exciting. That's my honest opinion and if you think that's sexist then think away, but it isn't. I just barely find time to watch the big men's races and I wouldn't forgo watching a stage of the Tour to watch a stage of the Giro Rosa.

Not sure about you but I have never seen a women's stage race so can't say if it is or isn't exciting

DeVlaeminck

Daz555 wrote:

female road cycling sucks is because MALE road cycling is lacking also (in terms of global importance) - the sport is tiny on any scale you care to mention in comparison to so many other sports. In an environment when male cycling teams can fold at any time we really can't expect much investment in the other side of the sport as well.

I agree with most of what you've said on this thread BUT is road cycling really "tiny on any scale...in comparison to so many other sports"? OK so it may be tiny compared to some - but in terms of participation and general public interest in this country at least it seems to me now to be becoming one of a handful of major sports behind football. This may not be reflected throughout the globe but do many sports have that kind of international appeal ?

Cumulonimbus

Ok, not saying its right or wrong but i think women's sport only gets close to the same attention as mens is when it is played/done at the same time? (ie Olympics, tennis, athletics?)

rick_chasey

Cumulonimbus wrote:

Ok, not saying its right or wrong but i think women's sport only gets close to the same attention as mens is when it is played/done at the same time? (ie Olympics, tennis, athletics?)

That's more to do with the extra cost to include women's events.

For tennis it's fairly low. They have enough free time in the tournament schedule even after the men and women to have 3 types of doubles competitions for grand slams.

Same with Olympic sports. They are also helped by the fact that very few go into Olympic only sports for the money, for either gender, so there's a kind of (relative) poverty equality there too. They need funding from govts, a men's medal is worth the same as a women's medal.

markhewitt1978

Cumulonimbus wrote:

Ok, not saying its right or wrong but i think women's sport only gets close to the same attention as mens is when it is played/done at the same time? (ie Olympics, tennis, athletics?)

Yes, sure, two for the price of one. Which is why having a womens event seperate from the mens isn't going to really work. If you want proper coverage then the only way it could happen is if the womens event is happening the same time as the mens; wether they start the same stages 30 minutes later or whatever. At least then you have a chance of it being on TV.

sherer

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Cumulonimbus wrote:

Ok, not saying its right or wrong but i think women's sport only gets close to the same attention as mens is when it is played/done at the same time? (ie Olympics, tennis, athletics?)

Yes, sure, two for the price of one. Which is why having a womens event seperate from the mens isn't going to really work. If you want proper coverage then the only way it could happen is if the womens event is happening the same time as the mens; wether they start the same stages 30 minutes later or whatever. At least then you have a chance of it being on TV.

In theory yes but you need to understand how TV Production works. There will already be a team doing the mens race, you can't then have the same team doing the womens race at the same time. Even starting 30 mins before they will overlap.

Plus the extra hours will mean more work for the back end support team who can already work 12-14 hour days as it is.

morstar

Plenty of completely amateur sports have a healthy level of competition without the distraction of money and / or sponsorship.

Womens cycling does not have a healthy level of competition and this is apparent in the lack of strength and depth in the pro ranks.

Womens swimming, athletics, tennis all have strength in depth and healthy levels of competition. Womens cycling doesn't. It is an absolute shame for the brilliant female athletes that take to cycling but money alone won't resolve this underlying problem that much of the competition they face is sub-par.

No, I'm not sexist, I enjoy quality womens sport. It will benefit from investment in the short term to try and kick start interest but unless at a grass roots level, women start competing in their hundreds and thousands, the sport won't sustain itself without benevolent backers. What percentage of cyclists (recreational or competitive) are women?
In the UK, not many, on the continent? Limited personal experience but Boardman and Boulting are riding amongst hordes of male cyclist on all their segways and very few women are evident on the bikes.

For the record, I am involved in ice hockey in the UK, the game (both mens and womens) has the same problem as womens cycling; Lack of strength in depth. There is no point demanding sponsors/interest/money, the game is not of a high enough quality to generate these things of itself due to this lack of strength in depth.

Do you demand respect or command respect? I honestly believe that womens cycling is doing the former.

awavey

Daz555 wrote:

dougzz wrote:

Not so sure I agree. You mention Tennis, as as I previously said that's the only sport in my opinion where women have anything approaching parity with men.

Athletics is very strong for the women also. For example Paula Radcliffe v Mo Farah in terms of status - nothing in it. Go back through history - there are as many female global stars in track and field as there are in tennis.

Track cycling also - Trott is bigger (and far richer) than Kenny & Clancy etc. The likes of Rowsell, King, Mears et al are superstars on any track event.

Swimming is not too bad either, and nor is rowing - both sports with far less commercial profile though.

The prime reason female road cycling sucks is because MALE road cycling is lacking also (in terms of global importance) - the sport is tiny on any scale you care to mention in comparison to so many other sports. In an environment when male cycling teams can fold at any time we really can't expect much investment in the other side of the sport as well.

Womens cycling needs someone to take a bit of a gamble - someone like Eurosport showing live coverage and highlights ON THE DAY THE RACE TOOK PLACE....rather than a week later, would be a start.

but its not just on a pro team side, there isnt a womens road cycling development program run by TeamGB/British Cycling, they concentrate on the track because the lottery funding is reliant on winning olympic medals, and there are only 2 in road racing up for grabs vs potentially 5 on track, so the talent pool from which to develop the next generation of Nicoles or Lizzies for instance (and Lizzie was only spotted by the track team in the first place) isnt there, so you may see the exceptional talent break the system which is setup to create the best track riders, but you wont create the depth of talent to really game shift the road side along, and lots of those riders with talent will quit through lack of money, disillusionment long before they get to show what they are actually capable of.

so I dont know if its coverage, or the sponsors or the races that need to gamble on, maybe someone at BC towers needs to set a Brailsford style goal, I mean he was the man with the goals to create a successful track cycling team, and then to win the TdF with a british rider in a britishish team, what are BCs current goals thesedays, more medals at Rio?