Paris Roubaix 2021 pre race chat

pblakeney

blazing_saddles said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

Women's race had live coverage from 52km to go. About 85 minutes.

That's interesting. I only saw the schedule.
Shows how much filler there is.

I think they had a few technical issues so we didn’t get quite as much coverage as intended.

It’s not as if this isn’t a regular problem.

We didn’t see Evenepoel make his winning attack yesterday as half Rai’s coverage was lost to the weather.

A reminder about the Giro.
Some things simply can't be helped.

bobmcstuff

Dorset_Boy said:

I assume the whole race is being covered, if not live. They could therefore do a recap of the race so far before going live. How long that recap lasts will be dependent on the action that has taken place.

I do think there would be some appetite for an extended highlights programme of the one dayers.

There was no coverage available from the host broadcaster until well inside 60k to go as it worked out - I am just looking back (if there had been, GCN would have put it on the app - they have enough other random stuff on there).

There is a little clip from the rollout and then one clip on the first cobbled section from a fixed camera. No live moto/helicopter until around 52k to go as it happened. There's a long highlights package on there which attempts to summarise what happened but again no extra footage.

blazing_saddles

TheBigBean said:

Which sports have successful self funding women's events? Tennis is one example, does golf count? Athletics perhaps. Anyway, I think finding a successful example and then trying to replicate it is the best idea although it is worth noting that even in tennis, the women's game is watched less than the men's game.

Woman's tennis and golf are self funded because they have their own governing bodies and, more importantly, their own calendars. (aside the tennis majors)
In terms of earnings, tennis seems to have achieved near parity, if this list is anything to go by.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sport/tennis/highest-earning-tennis-players/

Golf has been experimenting with mixed events and it does appear that the bottom line for this, is indeed the bottom line.

Athletics must be the most gender neutral sport, as meetings are virtually always mixed, plus they mostly compete over the same distances and in the same field events.

takethehighroad

pblakeney said:

blazing_saddles said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

Women's race had live coverage from 52km to go. About 85 minutes.

That's interesting. I only saw the schedule.
Shows how much filler there is.

I think they had a few technical issues so we didn’t get quite as much coverage as intended.

It’s not as if this isn’t a regular problem.

We didn’t see Evenepoel make his winning attack yesterday as half Rai’s coverage was lost to the weather.

A reminder about the Giro.
Some things simply can't be helped.

They can. Paris Roubaix weather was just as bad as Coppa Bernocchi, but as Italian video cameras seem to operate using 4G, we missed anything in a bad signal area.

ASO clearly have the answer of how to broadcast in poor weather, so there's no excuse for RCS

yorkshireraw

blazing_saddles said:

TheBigBean said:

Which sports have successful self funding women's events? Tennis is one example, does golf count? Athletics perhaps. Anyway, I think finding a successful example and then trying to replicate it is the best idea although it is worth noting that even in tennis, the women's game is watched less than the men's game.

Woman's tennis and golf are self funded because they have their own governing bodies and, more importantly, their own calendars. (aside the tennis majors)
In terms of earnings, tennis seems to have achieved near parity, if this list is anything to go by.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sport/tennis/highest-earning-tennis-players/

Golf has been experimenting with mixed events and it does appear that the bottom line for this, is indeed the bottom line.

Athletics must be the most gender neutral sport, as meetings are virtually always mixed, plus they mostly compete over the same distances and in the same field events.

There's near parity now in Athletics - the one remaining major difference is Heptathlon vs. Decathlon, 7 vs 10 events a difference in the breakdown of disciplines.

Outside of that the heights of the hurdles / steeplechase barriers are lower for Women (arguably too low in the women's 100m H), and obv the men do 110m sprint hurdles to accommodate a bigger average stride between barriers.

Implements are lighter in the women's throws.

Compare to when I first started watching Athletics in the mid 80s...
1984 Olympics was the debut for Women's 400mH, 3000m & Marathon (although bizarrely the 10,000m didn't debut until 1988).
Women ran the 3000m until 1996 games when it changed to 5000m.

Pole Vault, Hammer, Triple Jump and Steeplechase have all come in in the past few decades, at various points. 'Chase still has one thing that annoys me in that the women use the same depth / length water jump - but off a lower (2'6" vs 3' for men) barrier - meaning they often land closer to the barrier and in deeper water, which always looks a bit rubbish.

Quiz question - no cheating - which women's WR in Athletics is superior to the men's equivalent?

Sorry - meandered off topic there......

davidof

TheBigBean said:

it is worth noting that even in tennis, the women's game is watched less than the men's game.

You mean there are men's tennis matches? Whatever next?

DeVlaeminck

pblakeney said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I'm not sure there would be an appetite for an extended highlights package - especially as most people know the result in advance these days.

For me if we are going to really increase the profile of women's racing then it's going to have to come through aligning the women's calendar with the men's through major races being encouraged and or compelled to run a women's equivalent with at least a certain amount of live coverage. I get that PR is an example of this but if say at least 2 hours live coverage is available the amount of times we miss the key move should be minimal.

The women's coverage of PR was 2-1/2 hours long and still apparently missed key moves. This tallies with the men's GTs. Races are now beginning from the start instead of some glass pedalling to warm up.
Full coverage is the only way not to miss key moves.

Yes but live coverage is apparently very expensive - so I get that ideally the whole race gets televised but economically there may have to be a compromise.

elbowloh

TheBigBean said:

Which sports have successful self funding women's events? Tennis is one example, does golf count? Athletics perhaps. Anyway, I think finding a successful example and then trying to replicate it is the best idea although it is worth noting that even in tennis, the women's game is watched less than the men's game.

I imagine women's beach volleyball has more coverage than the men?

orraloon

elbowloh said:

TheBigBean said:

Which sports have successful self funding women's events? Tennis is one example, does golf count? Athletics perhaps. Anyway, I think finding a successful example and then trying to replicate it is the best idea although it is worth noting that even in tennis, the women's game is watched less than the men's game.

I imagine women's beach volleyball has more coverage than the men?

I understand there is less coverage for the women, bar the Norwegians.

Pross

yorkshireraw said:

blazing_saddles said:

TheBigBean said:

Which sports have successful self funding women's events? Tennis is one example, does golf count? Athletics perhaps. Anyway, I think finding a successful example and then trying to replicate it is the best idea although it is worth noting that even in tennis, the women's game is watched less than the men's game.

Woman's tennis and golf are self funded because they have their own governing bodies and, more importantly, their own calendars. (aside the tennis majors)
In terms of earnings, tennis seems to have achieved near parity, if this list is anything to go by.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sport/tennis/highest-earning-tennis-players/

Golf has been experimenting with mixed events and it does appear that the bottom line for this, is indeed the bottom line.

Athletics must be the most gender neutral sport, as meetings are virtually always mixed, plus they mostly compete over the same distances and in the same field events.

There's near parity now in Athletics - the one remaining major difference is Heptathlon vs. Decathlon, 7 vs 10 events a difference in the breakdown of disciplines.

Outside of that the heights of the hurdles / steeplechase barriers are lower for Women (arguably too low in the women's 100m H), and obv the men do 110m sprint hurdles to accommodate a bigger average stride between barriers.

Implements are lighter in the women's throws.

Compare to when I first started watching Athletics in the mid 80s...
1984 Olympics was the debut for Women's 400mH, 3000m & Marathon (although bizarrely the 10,000m didn't debut until 1988).
Women ran the 3000m until 1996 games when it changed to 5000m.

Pole Vault, Hammer, Triple Jump and Steeplechase have all come in in the past few decades, at various points. 'Chase still has one thing that annoys me in that the women use the same depth / length water jump - but off a lower (2'6" vs 3' for men) barrier - meaning they often land closer to the barrier and in deeper water, which always looks a bit rubbish.

Quiz question - no cheating - which women's WR in Athletics is superior to the men's equivalent?

Sorry - meandered off topic there......

Must be a throwing event, I'm pretty sure shot is a couple of metres further for men and hammer is still evolving as a relatively new event so I would say discus?

m.r.m.

I'd be down for the women to race all the men's one day races on the Saturday to the men's Sunday. I'd watch all of them & get more value out of my GCN+ subscription. They can revenue split and it's a win-win for everyone.

blazing_saddles

m.r.m. said:

I'd be down for the women to race all the men's one day races on the Saturday to the men's Sunday. I'd watch all of them & get more value out of my GCN+ subscription. They can revenue split and it's a win-win for everyone.

Assuming there is no increase in prize money, how is having the men fund the women, a win for the men?
They are going to end up significantly out of pocket and those pockets aren't exactly deep in the first place.

DeVlaeminck

Yes for me it's be a case of piggybacking on the history of the men's classics to increase the prestige and the interest in the women's races. There's also presumably be some saving on costs setting up media and hospitality facilities for consecutive races.

Personally I wouldn't be arguing for equal prize money the priority should be getting agreement with race organisers and media in order to grow public interest - the financial rewards for riders will come with that over time.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck said:

Yes for me it's be a case of piggybacking on the history of the men's classics to increase the prestige and the interest in the women's races. There's also presumably be some saving on costs setting up media and hospitality facilities for consecutive races.

Personally I wouldn't be arguing for equal prize money the priority should be getting agreement with race organisers and media in order to grow public interest - the financial rewards for riders will come with that over time.

Isn't that exactly where we are today?

DeVlaeminck

pblakeney said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Yes for me it's be a case of piggybacking on the history of the men's classics to increase the prestige and the interest in the women's races. There's also presumably be some saving on costs setting up media and hospitality facilities for consecutive races.

Personally I wouldn't be arguing for equal prize money the priority should be getting agreement with race organisers and media in order to grow public interest - the financial rewards for riders will come with that over time.

Isn't that exactly where we are today?

I mean could the rest of you go through the women's race calendar naming the major races and when they will take place next year ? I couldn't - maybe I'm a minority but I'm a cycling fan who would watch it if it's on Eurosport/ITV or similar.

Is there a women's MSR next year for example - I would have to Google it .

yorkshireraw

Pross said:

yorkshireraw said:

blazing_saddles said:

TheBigBean said:

Which sports have successful self funding women's events? Tennis is one example, does golf count? Athletics perhaps. Anyway, I think finding a successful example and then trying to replicate it is the best idea although it is worth noting that even in tennis, the women's game is watched less than the men's game.

Woman's tennis and golf are self funded because they have their own governing bodies and, more importantly, their own calendars. (aside the tennis majors)
In terms of earnings, tennis seems to have achieved near parity, if this list is anything to go by.

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sport/tennis/highest-earning-tennis-players/

Golf has been experimenting with mixed events and it does appear that the bottom line for this, is indeed the bottom line.

Athletics must be the most gender neutral sport, as meetings are virtually always mixed, plus they mostly compete over the same distances and in the same field events.

There's near parity now in Athletics - the one remaining major difference is Heptathlon vs. Decathlon, 7 vs 10 events a difference in the breakdown of disciplines.

Outside of that the heights of the hurdles / steeplechase barriers are lower for Women (arguably too low in the women's 100m H), and obv the men do 110m sprint hurdles to accommodate a bigger average stride between barriers.

Implements are lighter in the women's throws.

Compare to when I first started watching Athletics in the mid 80s...
1984 Olympics was the debut for Women's 400mH, 3000m & Marathon (although bizarrely the 10,000m didn't debut until 1988).
Women ran the 3000m until 1996 games when it changed to 5000m.

Pole Vault, Hammer, Triple Jump and Steeplechase have all come in in the past few decades, at various points. 'Chase still has one thing that annoys me in that the women use the same depth / length water jump - but off a lower (2'6" vs 3' for men) barrier - meaning they often land closer to the barrier and in deeper water, which always looks a bit rubbish.

Quiz question - no cheating - which women's WR in Athletics is superior to the men's equivalent?

Sorry - meandered off topic there......

Must be a throwing event, I'm pretty sure shot is a couple of metres further for men and hammer is still evolving as a relatively new event so I would say discus?

Spot on - 76.80m for women, 74.08m for men. Both by GDR athletes in the 80s.....

The women's discus is half (1kg) the weight of the men's.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck said:

pblakeney said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Yes for me it's be a case of piggybacking on the history of the men's classics to increase the prestige and the interest in the women's races. There's also presumably be some saving on costs setting up media and hospitality facilities for consecutive races.

Personally I wouldn't be arguing for equal prize money the priority should be getting agreement with race organisers and media in order to grow public interest - the financial rewards for riders will come with that over time.

Isn't that exactly where we are today?

I mean could the rest of you go through the women's race calendar naming the major races and when they will take place next year ? I couldn't - maybe I'm a minority but I'm a cycling fan who would watch it if it's on Eurosport/ITV or similar.

Is there a women's MSR next year for example - I would have to Google it .

Quite frankly at this point in time we are not 100% sure there will be a men's MSR next year due to covid and what not.
The order of development is races > media > public awareness > money.
Try to break that order and it falls apart.

TheBigBean

DeVlaeminck said:

Yes for me it's be a case of piggybacking on the history of the men's classics to increase the prestige and the interest in the women's races. There's also presumably be some saving on costs setting up media and hospitality facilities for consecutive races.

Personally I wouldn't be arguing for equal prize money the priority should be getting agreement with race organisers and media in order to grow public interest - the financial rewards for riders will come with that over time.

The women's race featured on the BBC in the sports bulletin. Part of the report included criticism of the prize fund. I agree with you that this is counter productive, but it is what people do. Therefore organisers have the choice of not putting on a women's race, paying to put on a women's race and being criticised over the prize fund, or paying even more to put on the race with the same prize fund as men.

DeVlaeminck

pblakeney said:

DeVlaeminck said:

pblakeney said:

DeVlaeminck said:

Yes for me it's be a case of piggybacking on the history of the men's classics to increase the prestige and the interest in the women's races. There's also presumably be some saving on costs setting up media and hospitality facilities for consecutive races.

Personally I wouldn't be arguing for equal prize money the priority should be getting agreement with race organisers and media in order to grow public interest - the financial rewards for riders will come with that over time.

Isn't that exactly where we are today?

I mean could the rest of you go through the women's race calendar naming the major races and when they will take place next year ? I couldn't - maybe I'm a minority but I'm a cycling fan who would watch it if it's on Eurosport/ITV or similar.

Is there a women's MSR next year for example - I would have to Google it .

Quite frankly at this point in time we are not 100% sure there will be a men's MSR next year due to covid and what not.
The order of development is races > media > public awareness > money.
Try to break that order and it falls apart.

Different ways of doing it but the public awareness of MSR/Paris Roubaix/Flanders etc is what brings in the media coverage which is what can make it financially viable to run the race.

Over the years its proven difficult to grow a sustainable women's race calendar organically - using the order you of development you state. The way that is being tried now is you start with the public awareness and some money to invest - that brings in the media coverage which then allows you to put on the race.

neonriver

Trek is getting quite a lot of good publicity for equaling the prize money and for equaling the minimum salary for woman. But are either Deignan or Van Dijk getting paid anywhere close to the 2 mill that Nibs is getting?

pblakeney

I'm confused at to how you get public awareness without media coverage but whatever.

DeVlaeminck

pblakeney said:

I'm confused at to how you get public awareness without media coverage but whatever.

Well you've heard of Paris Roubaix right? So if someone announces a Women's Paris Roubaix there is already public awareness of what that race will look like and an expectation of what it'll be. If I announce I'm organising a Women's Tour of the Hanbury Circuit it's a bit different.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck said:

pblakeney said:

I'm confused at to how you get public awareness without media coverage but whatever.

Well you've heard of Paris Roubaix right? So if someone announces a Women's Paris Roubaix there is already public awareness of what that race will look like and an expectation of what it'll be. If I announce I'm organising a Women's Tour of the Hanbury Circuit it's a bit different.

That someone will be announcing it to the media for the public awareness of the women's event.
I'm sure people with an interest of cycling in Hanbury will be aware of the men's event so it's the same principle.
Bringing the Hanbury Circuit to a worldwide audience will be a harder task. 😉

PS - The majority of the population have no clue what Paris Roubaix is even though it was only at the weekend and is still on the news web pages.

TheBigBean

The BBC is certainly getting a lot of mileage out of the event.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/58805044

Back to gloves. I don't get this. If she never wears gloves I would have thought she has calluses in all the right places. Unless she is saying that P-R destroys hands whether you wear gloves or not.

"A lot of people were saying: 'Why didn't you wear gloves?' But I never wear gloves, because even when you wear gloves, you still get blisters because it's all about the chafing and vibration between your fingers.

shirley_basso

Just about to post the same link - front page of BBC Sport

yorkshireraw

TheBigBean said:

The BBC is certainly getting a lot of mileage out of the event.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/58805044

Back to gloves. I don't get this. If she never wears gloves I would have thought she has calluses in all the right places. Unless she is saying that P-R destroys hands whether you wear gloves or not.

"A lot of people were saying: 'Why didn't you wear gloves?' But I never wear gloves, because even when you wear gloves, you still get blisters because it's all about the chafing and vibration between your fingers.

Don't know if you've ridden the PR cobbles or not but they're not like anything else you'd find in 'Road' cycling. The Flanders ones are like a minor annoyance when you ride over them, compared to the forces the Roubaix ones put through the bike (and your hands trying to control said bike).

davidof

TheBigBean said:

The BBC is certainly getting a lot of mileage out of the event.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/58805044

They are certainly talking a lot of nonsense like claiming there has never been a Women's Tour de France. There was, it wasn't viable. Then there was the Route de France which grew out of the old event which the women exchanged for the ASO one day event.

Once again they need to solve the fundamental problem of people not wanting to watch women's cycling - at least outside of Italy. There were very few people out for the women's PR compared to the men's event. I'm sure if someone had an answer ASO would be really interested.

I agree with what Nicole Cooke said about the drug taking years killing women's cycling - the fallout of less money was the women suffered disproportionally.

As for gloves, I think Deignan is wrong.

rick_chasey

I am here for the gloves chat and I tried it when I saw boonen win roubaix without them and never went back to them (unless it's cold obviously, but then I go for no padding)

blazing_saddles

Over promoting women's sport is top of the BBC's current agenda list.
As a consequence their fixtures and results pages are a mess.

rick_chasey

If people watch non-WT level racing, then I don't think the argument against, that women cycle slower, holds much water.

It's a relative sport.