-
Giro d'Italia 2025 - Follow the race via our live blog for all the latest news!
How "Good" Is Womens Racing?
- Thread starter suipedali
- Start date
attractive young women wearing tight clothing riding bikes. What is is there not to like? So it's not as competitive as the men. The women are definately worth the time to watch.
- Feb 25, 2010
- 3,854
- 1
- 0
A pro woman from Lotto's ladies CT once joined in with one of our races - junior lvl - and she was more or less strugling towards the end..
- Mar 13, 2009
- 625
- 0
- 0
One must define 'good'.
Do you mean fast? no.
Do you mean competitive? yes.
Or something else?
Hot? yes
Do you mean fast? no.
Do you mean competitive? yes.
Or something else?
Hot? yes
- Oct 18, 2009
- 999
- 0
- 0
Moondance said:
This is exactly what i wanted to say. With all my respect to what Jeannie Longo achieved, but as her age, being National champion and consistently in the top 5 or 10 on the international level is not a good indicator.
Adding to that, Edwige Pittel, who is 43, is constantly second to Jeannie on the national level.
- Jul 25, 2010
- 372
- 0
- 0
I saw the women's commonwealth games road race and that was just as entertaining as the mens race.
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,062
- 1
- 22,485
- May 13, 2009
- 105
- 0
- 0
A lot of disappointing comments here.
In my own experience, women's racing is on-par with mens, and depending on the venue and racers, is often more exciting.
Take the recent Burnaby (Canada) 4-Day track event, i stopped in for the Wed night session, and the women's races definitely elicited the most reaction from the crowds, and some of the most epic moments of the entire event were in those races.
Sarah Hammer and Tara Whitten were both brilliant, as expected, but there were so many amazing efforts from other lesser-known (local and visiting) athletes who took chances, and really spiced things up (and were sometimes even rewarded for their gambles, beating world champions!)
While the men's races was certainly world-class, it did seem a bit more predictable, and there was much less glory for the underdogs..at least that night.
I think boring, conservative racers make for boring races, and that has nothing to do with gender.
And for sure, constantly denigrating women's racing (many comments above are entirely unfair and unreasonable) doesn't help, and i'm pretty sure many of the women reading this will be further discouraged. How's that going to help anything?
Again, boring racers make boring races - it isn't dependent on gender. Certainly the biggest snoozefests i've ever seen were men's races. What would it say about me if i judged all men's races on those? It's clearly a ridiculous attitude, and it's no less fair to judge women's races this way, especially since there is generally less support and less reward (not to mention less friendly comments on message boards.)
In my own experience, women's racing is on-par with mens, and depending on the venue and racers, is often more exciting.
Take the recent Burnaby (Canada) 4-Day track event, i stopped in for the Wed night session, and the women's races definitely elicited the most reaction from the crowds, and some of the most epic moments of the entire event were in those races.
Sarah Hammer and Tara Whitten were both brilliant, as expected, but there were so many amazing efforts from other lesser-known (local and visiting) athletes who took chances, and really spiced things up (and were sometimes even rewarded for their gambles, beating world champions!)
While the men's races was certainly world-class, it did seem a bit more predictable, and there was much less glory for the underdogs..at least that night.
I think boring, conservative racers make for boring races, and that has nothing to do with gender.
And for sure, constantly denigrating women's racing (many comments above are entirely unfair and unreasonable) doesn't help, and i'm pretty sure many of the women reading this will be further discouraged. How's that going to help anything?
Again, boring racers make boring races - it isn't dependent on gender. Certainly the biggest snoozefests i've ever seen were men's races. What would it say about me if i judged all men's races on those? It's clearly a ridiculous attitude, and it's no less fair to judge women's races this way, especially since there is generally less support and less reward (not to mention less friendly comments on message boards.)
- Mar 12, 2009
- 349
- 0
- 0
When racing the same venue as the men(worlds, olympics, etc) womens racing is almost always more exciting. Who cares if the men are faster when every race is 98% tempo ride and 2% race. I was at the 03 worlds and the women's race was exciting and filled with attacks. The men's race, like 95% of all pro races now, was just an awful, unwatchable joke and an insult to the sport.
- Jul 24, 2009
- 239
- 0
- 0
I don't agree regarding Jeannie Longo. She rides very well at the Worlds every year but she very much targets those, whereas other riders ride far tougher calendars all year round. Longo hasn't won a major race excluding French nationals for years, and that hardly seems likely to change.
Also, she is unusually old for a top-level competitor, but Bernard Hopkins is only (!) six years younger and he remains among the best male boxers in the world. That doesn't mean there's no talent in boxing, sometimes you just get freakish exceptions to the norm.
As for women's cycling in general being good, I'd very much say yes. The problems the sport has are economic and organisational, not in terms of sporting entertainment. Unsurprisingly there isn't the same depth of quality as in men's cycling, but seeing the top echelon of riders to-ing and fro-ing is every bit as exciting as watching their male counterparts. Unfortunately nowadays, there aren't many really tough races, with the Giro d'Italia being the only one I can think of to feature really big climbs now that the Grande Boucle and Vuelta a El Salvador have gone.
It's fair if people have criticisms of women's cycling they feel are legitimate, but I see a lot of arguments where the women are in a lose-lose situation. In the really aggressive one-day races, they get accused of being tactically naïve. Yet when in the Giro, the biggest race on the calendar, the big teams shut down escape attempts on flat stages extremely quickly and stringently, they get called boring and unadventurous. The fact is, just like men's cycling, there are variations in racing styles and patterns and I wouldn't be dismissive based on a few races. In general, I'd say the smaller team-sizes and shorter race distances usually make for less predictable and more attacking and open-ended racing, but it's cycling and sometimes, like men's cycling, it can be a bit boring too.
Personally, I find that the current situation of women's cycling - with most so-called professionals still working jobs or studying on the side (or rather working and studying and then cycling on the side) - gives the sport a level of intimacy, melodrama and romance which I find more entrancing than men's cycling, despite all my support for better financial conditions for the women. To me men's cycling is like a gateway drug to women's cycling - the real hard stuff, impossibly addictive once you're hooked. This is probably at least part in due to the anorexic media coverage of the women's scene, meaning that if you're interested enough to want to really get to know the races and the characters of the sport, you need to be pretty dedicated (and pretty online, too).
The financial state of the women's sport is a lamentable mess, as is the number and difficulty of races (especially stage races), but once you fall in there's no going back. I enjoy all the presentations of the men's grand tours, but that's nothing compared to my anticipation for the next women's Giro route.
I'd agree with marinoni that at championship level, women's races are more often than not better value than men's races.
Also, she is unusually old for a top-level competitor, but Bernard Hopkins is only (!) six years younger and he remains among the best male boxers in the world. That doesn't mean there's no talent in boxing, sometimes you just get freakish exceptions to the norm.
As for women's cycling in general being good, I'd very much say yes. The problems the sport has are economic and organisational, not in terms of sporting entertainment. Unsurprisingly there isn't the same depth of quality as in men's cycling, but seeing the top echelon of riders to-ing and fro-ing is every bit as exciting as watching their male counterparts. Unfortunately nowadays, there aren't many really tough races, with the Giro d'Italia being the only one I can think of to feature really big climbs now that the Grande Boucle and Vuelta a El Salvador have gone.
It's fair if people have criticisms of women's cycling they feel are legitimate, but I see a lot of arguments where the women are in a lose-lose situation. In the really aggressive one-day races, they get accused of being tactically naïve. Yet when in the Giro, the biggest race on the calendar, the big teams shut down escape attempts on flat stages extremely quickly and stringently, they get called boring and unadventurous. The fact is, just like men's cycling, there are variations in racing styles and patterns and I wouldn't be dismissive based on a few races. In general, I'd say the smaller team-sizes and shorter race distances usually make for less predictable and more attacking and open-ended racing, but it's cycling and sometimes, like men's cycling, it can be a bit boring too.
Personally, I find that the current situation of women's cycling - with most so-called professionals still working jobs or studying on the side (or rather working and studying and then cycling on the side) - gives the sport a level of intimacy, melodrama and romance which I find more entrancing than men's cycling, despite all my support for better financial conditions for the women. To me men's cycling is like a gateway drug to women's cycling - the real hard stuff, impossibly addictive once you're hooked. This is probably at least part in due to the anorexic media coverage of the women's scene, meaning that if you're interested enough to want to really get to know the races and the characters of the sport, you need to be pretty dedicated (and pretty online, too).
The financial state of the women's sport is a lamentable mess, as is the number and difficulty of races (especially stage races), but once you fall in there's no going back. I enjoy all the presentations of the men's grand tours, but that's nothing compared to my anticipation for the next women's Giro route.
I'd agree with marinoni that at championship level, women's races are more often than not better value than men's races.
- Mar 11, 2009
- 10,062
- 1
- 22,485
Vegan Dave said:
I may be wrong, but I think we are specifically talking about women's road racing here.
I would agree with the track. Events look and feel the same, especially as they tend to feature at the same event.
Moondance said:
I think i will save my comments on Longo for the clinic. But theres a reason she is able to dominate the events she handpicks.
As for the rest, weve had this argument on here countless times and opinion is split between those who see womens cycling purely as some form of legalized porn, and those who see it as a genuine competative, and exciting sport to watch. Last time it was discussed the level of sexism, stupidity and downright chauvenism reached an all time high. I really must dig out the thread where some muppet compared womens cycling to a cross between the wwe and porn films.
In answer to the op's question. Just as good as mens. Just different, thats all.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 10,645
- 20
- 22,510
So does junior races, or even amateur races. I guess the problem is that for it to actually be exciting it has to feel important, and women's cycling is simply so small that despite the good racing, it is still not entertaining to watch for most people.DirtyWorks said:
- Feb 20, 2010
- 32,346
- 13,918
- 28,180
On the few chances we've had to see the women race, they've put on exciting shows. One of the biggest problems that they have is that the lack of exposure means that it's harder for all but the very dedicated (such as Skip mentioned above) to find themselves becoming emotionally invested in the riders and how they are doing. When you're watching an event, you're more willing to tolerate boredom if you really genuinely care about participants. If you really like Mark Cavendish, you'll forget all about that tedious four hours and just remember the "exciting" last five seconds.
I also remember from discussing motorsports with people the hostility that NASCAR faces from some sections of the F1 crowd. The feeling is that there is tons and tons of overtaking in NASCAR (which is the one thing they complain is lacking in F1), but in fact too much, because it then feels like it doesn't mean as much. It's a similar problem for the average first-time viewer of women's cycling - there may be a lot of attacking and counter-attacking going on, but if you don't know who's doing what and you haven't been trained to care, you won't be as interested, therefore won't find the racing as exciting as you would a less interesting race involving people you know and care about.
Presentation is another problem; the chronic financial problems faced by women's cycling means that the coverage we do get is often rather amateurish in comparison to their men's equivalents. Even the Giro, which otherwise is above most criticism when it comes to presentation, can't afford to put in the Helicams and subsequent shots of local towns and castles that punctuate a dull stage in men's races. They do make up for this by providing the same on-screen graphics as they do for the men's Giro, which gives it an air of legitimacy that others should take note of. The other thing they really need is commentators who care and are informed. The Australian commentator at the Worlds thought Guderzo had suddenly grown a few cm, put on a few kg and found sprinting form to beat Vos and Johansson (!) and had to be corrected by his co-commentator who's one of their peers (Rochelle Gilmore, I think), while van Vleuten's puncture was described as a blow for Vos 'if she's one of the leadout train'. This is rather like if Lotto were racing next year and Gilbert punctured and the commentator referred to him as part of Greipel's train (obviously Vos is a more versatile and better racer than Greipel, but I'm just pointing out what an unintentional disservice it was to van Vleuten).
In a number of races this last year, people have commented on how races with smaller teams have turned out to be more exciting than expected, because it's more difficult to control. Granted, Columbia did their best to destroy the Tour of Turkey, and nearly succeeded, but only 5 men to control things for Greipel (in fact 4 because TJVG got into the race-winning break) wasn't enough when ISD and Cofidis were so keen to shake things up. If the race had had larger teams like many other high profile men's events, it would have been more of a joke than that edition of the Niedersachsenrundfahrt where Petacchi won every stage. In the women's events, every race is with teams of 5 or 6, bar the Giro. This makes the on-bike action varied. Yes, the depth of the péloton is comparatively small, but this leads to situations where the elite sprinters like Ina-Yoko Teutenberg, Kirsten Wild or Giorgia Bronzini will be found in the break of the day in pan-flat races. In the men's races you see a much broader list of names, but a much narrower range of likely outcomes.
I also remember from discussing motorsports with people the hostility that NASCAR faces from some sections of the F1 crowd. The feeling is that there is tons and tons of overtaking in NASCAR (which is the one thing they complain is lacking in F1), but in fact too much, because it then feels like it doesn't mean as much. It's a similar problem for the average first-time viewer of women's cycling - there may be a lot of attacking and counter-attacking going on, but if you don't know who's doing what and you haven't been trained to care, you won't be as interested, therefore won't find the racing as exciting as you would a less interesting race involving people you know and care about.
Presentation is another problem; the chronic financial problems faced by women's cycling means that the coverage we do get is often rather amateurish in comparison to their men's equivalents. Even the Giro, which otherwise is above most criticism when it comes to presentation, can't afford to put in the Helicams and subsequent shots of local towns and castles that punctuate a dull stage in men's races. They do make up for this by providing the same on-screen graphics as they do for the men's Giro, which gives it an air of legitimacy that others should take note of. The other thing they really need is commentators who care and are informed. The Australian commentator at the Worlds thought Guderzo had suddenly grown a few cm, put on a few kg and found sprinting form to beat Vos and Johansson (!) and had to be corrected by his co-commentator who's one of their peers (Rochelle Gilmore, I think), while van Vleuten's puncture was described as a blow for Vos 'if she's one of the leadout train'. This is rather like if Lotto were racing next year and Gilbert punctured and the commentator referred to him as part of Greipel's train (obviously Vos is a more versatile and better racer than Greipel, but I'm just pointing out what an unintentional disservice it was to van Vleuten).
In a number of races this last year, people have commented on how races with smaller teams have turned out to be more exciting than expected, because it's more difficult to control. Granted, Columbia did their best to destroy the Tour of Turkey, and nearly succeeded, but only 5 men to control things for Greipel (in fact 4 because TJVG got into the race-winning break) wasn't enough when ISD and Cofidis were so keen to shake things up. If the race had had larger teams like many other high profile men's events, it would have been more of a joke than that edition of the Niedersachsenrundfahrt where Petacchi won every stage. In the women's events, every race is with teams of 5 or 6, bar the Giro. This makes the on-bike action varied. Yes, the depth of the péloton is comparatively small, but this leads to situations where the elite sprinters like Ina-Yoko Teutenberg, Kirsten Wild or Giorgia Bronzini will be found in the break of the day in pan-flat races. In the men's races you see a much broader list of names, but a much narrower range of likely outcomes.
A very good comparison is Womens Tennis and Mens Tennis. They play the same game, but it's not really the same game.
- Feb 20, 2010
- 32,346
- 13,918
- 28,180
Night Rider said:
At the same time, however, tennis is something that women's cycling should aspire to. The top women's tennis names are known worldwide. I bet a larger percentage of people who know who Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal are know who the Williams sisters or Maria Sharapova are than the percentage of people who know who Alberto Contador is who know who Marianne Vos is.
That's one grammatically confusing sentence.
From riding behind the bunch training yesterday at Geelong they were always *****ing about other female riders . Unlike the mens training ride they all seem to get on OK.
Different view from riding behind!!!!!!!!!!
The racing is good but slower than the men so not as exciting but more crashes.
Dont say it after 50 years of riding I am entitled to sit on male or female.
Different view from riding behind!!!!!!!!!!
The racing is good but slower than the men so not as exciting but more crashes.
Dont say it after 50 years of riding I am entitled to sit on male or female.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Its the sponsors that build the female tennis stars up. And at Grand slams mens and tennis games interchange so fans paying for 1 will have to watch the other etc. You cant do that in cycling. Unless you had one of those sprint in the morning tt in the evening stages at the Tour, then had a womens race in the middle or something.Libertine Seguros said:
You mean your one? yes it is because your sentences are always 100% perfect before you press submit, even the umlauts are always in the right place etc but here you missed some commas so i was thinking that someone hacked into your account or something. It didnt make sence to me for a LS post to read that way.
As for the question, i dont watch womens cycling because its not on eurosport. I would like Giro Donne and FWf and the womens rvv whatver that called to be, but what you gonna do? I feel if i watched it id feel sorry for the riders though. To work so hard for so little reward and recognition.
Personally i cant see how womens rr can get more popular. As wrong as it sounds maybe if the mens part gets more popular it might just could drag the womens part up a bit. Maybe, maybe not. What else can they do?
Maybe start the Giro donne in washington
Usually, the only time You see women Professional Cyclists on Television. Is during the World Road Racing Championship. And The Olympic and Commenwealth Games. It does not get good Television coverage.
- Jul 24, 2009
- 239
- 0
- 0
You can at the Ronde van Vlaanderen, Flèche Wallonne, Tour de Romandie time trial, Memorial Davide Fardelli or the Chrono des Nations, plus lots of national championships.The Hitch said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhLZAuwEISI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yTVPLSvRl4
(It's just called the Ronde van Vlaanderen, by the way)
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 1: Durrës - Tirana (160.0k)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 431
-
Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 2: Tirana - Tirana (13.7k ITT)- Started by Gigs_98
- Replies: 62
-
Paris-Roubaix 2025, one day monument, April 13 (men)- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 30K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 30K
Latest posts
-
-
-
Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 2: Tirana - Tirana (13.7k ITT)
- Latest: danielovichdk2
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram