"Not less than the men"

[Ryo Hazuki]

Thats not my point... My point is that i want to see the best there is and as men are clearly the best there is they are the ones i want to watch. Yes that may be entertaining to some speed however i still see womens cycling to be a slower version of the same thing. Yes that sounds bad but there are plenty of other races i would rather watch and the simple fact is the men just go much faster. I think that is the case with a number of people i have nothing against them i just personally wont find womens cycling interesting to watch.

exactly what I mean

 

[Maxiton]

Stage 3 of the Giro Donne below...not so slow !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3FHxtfhFms&feature=player_detailpage#t=1550s

RAI Sport 2 in Italy show womens racing because it has a national following there. If eurosport or a Sky channel showed it I am sure it would attract cycling fans.

Thanks for that link. If you have any more links, post 'em here!

 

[Maxiton]

Yes men go much faster but Women don´t ride against men so how do you compare I don´t get it.

if we have a Peloton and riders attacking off the front, chasing breaks etc etc great racing and we get 1.5 hours of TV time.

1 group rides 60 km and the other 50 km and your watching on TV do you think wow that was fast or wow that was great racing.

Great racing @ 45 km/h and Great racing @ 40 Km/h is great racing, right ?

Exactly. If I want to see the fastest racing possible I watch Formula 1.

Yep. Same here. Formula 1, Le Mans, MotoGP, men's road racing, women's road racing. All different, all good (or sometimes not good, depending on the race).

 

[LukeSchmid]

Women are inferior to men, they cannot ride as fast but that does not mean their races cannot be exciting and interesting to watch or feature attacking riding. It is how they ride not how fast they race that makes a race worth watching.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yet the persist in scheduling it against the Tour de France. They're really not helping themselves. They should move it to August or June and they'd stand a chance.

To be honest I disagree here - scheduling it during July is the best place for it as long as they're only broadcasting highlights. They run the race fairly early, then the highlights are ready to append onto the end of Tour de France coverage - perfect for capturing the largest amount of the crossover audience, because the Tour is the time most people are watching cycling.

If they want to start broadcasting it live, then yes, it would need to move.

I remember the last Olympic women's road race telecast. the TV announcer candidly pointed out that Usain Bolt ran faster than the women's peloton

Did Usain Bolt run faster than the women's peloton for 140km too?

Women are inferior to men, they cannot ride as fast but that does not mean their races cannot be exciting and interesting to watch or feature attacking riding. It is how they ride not how fast they race that makes a race worth watching.

The women's races have been as exciting as the men's at a number of events recently (Olympics, 2007 and 2010 Worlds, Plouay 2010 to name a few, plus unlike the Contador Schleck bromance on Tourmalet we did get to see Abbott and Pooley fight tooth and nail on the Stelvio - so one pair of the best climbers in the world fought each other, the other pair bought each other ice creams and patted each other on the heads). Sadly, they don't get many opportunities to showcase themselves to the world, and in Copenhagen that opportunity was not taken in any way. That race is in no way indicative of how interesting or exciting women's cycling can be, no more than the almost-as-tedious men's race can indicate to the world what men's cycling is like. Sometimes there are good races, sometimes there are bad ones.

Sadly, the worst of them all happened on the only occasion when the world's eyes were on them.

 

[User Guide]

Varese 2008, the race that got me back into cycling.Vos,Cooke,Arndt and Johannsen the best 4 women cyclists at the time all slugging it out again and again.Epic.(Although pertinent too other threads was a course that lent itself too attacking riding)
MTB womens held at same events as mens...... Rachel Atherton,Willow Koerber etc every bit as big media wise,fan wise AND marketing ads etc in the magazines.
Whilst many of the points raised regarding funding and the minimum wage,media etc have much merit; there is just one obstacle truley standing in the way of womens cycling.Pat fat <insert cartman swearing fit from movie here> McQuaid.

 

[Irish2009]

100% User Guide.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Women are inferior to men, they cannot ride as fast but that does not mean their races cannot be exciting and interesting to watch or feature attacking riding. It is how they ride not how fast they race that makes a race worth watching.

then why not broadcast junior cycling for man?? that's a lot more attractive and aggresive

 

[BroDeal]

the winner of the female elite pro itt would've finished 32nd in the junior man itt field, that's how pathetic female cycling/sports truly is.

FAIL

 

[Boeing]

women cyclists; they are so fundamentally sound.

 

[Boeing]

Did Usain Bolt run faster than the women's peloton for 140km too?

douuuoooh you got me ahhhhh nice one wow I didnt even think of that for real like. touche ouch that stung gollyy


no but that Ethiopian marathon dude did, kinda

 

[LukeSchmid]

then why not broadcast junior cycling for man?? that's a lot more attractive and aggresive

Why not breadcast it all? Men, women, boys, girls, everything!!!!!

 

[Boeing]

Women play and walk the same golf courses as men, but hit from a closer tee, and still post higher scores.

*** edited by mod ***

 

[BroDeal]

Why not breadcast it all? Men, women, boys, girls, everything!!!!!

If you broadcast women's races, do you dudecast men's races?

 

[Boeing]

for the record, I don't watch women ride bikes because there aren't any podium chicks.

there I said it.

 

[auscyclefan94]

the winner of the female elite pro itt would've finished 32nd in the junior man itt field, that's how pathetic female cycling/sports truly is.

this shows how unbelievably stupid you are....

I don't watch female sport because the field of competitors are not as good and they aren't as physically capable as men. Simple. I don't see anything sexist or stupid in that comment.

 

[Boeing]

the industry itself can share some blame. wrong approach IMHO. all vibe and sex appeal which has nothing to do with competition.

the liz hatch experiment backfired in a big way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPi7mVbGLjA

 

[gregrowlerson]

Only read the first couple of pages of this thread.

As has been said, more men watch sport than women, so that is largely the problem/issue regarding elite female sportspeople being paid less than their male counterparts. Women have more interest in fashion than men, and as a coincidence there are many very rich female supermodels. How much do their male counterparts earn? Far less I should think.

Also most men just watch men sport, whereas women who do watch sport often like to watch men more than women. So it really is up to the girls - if you want your sports stars to earn more money simply watch them more. Sure, they don't get the television coverage that the men do, but this would change if women's soccer matches (as an example) started to get big attendances like the men.

Personally I think that sometimes women's sport can be just as entertaining, but only sometimes; I have to confess to watching far more men's sport.

 

[gregrowlerson]

the winner of the female elite pro itt would've finished 32nd in the junior man itt field, that's how pathetic female cycling/sports truly is.

That has got nothing to do with it and is a ridiculous comment. We know that women have less physical strength than men - comparing the two is greatly unfair.

On a lighter note, I wonder if a modelling forum has a thread offering support for a highly publicised men's sports illustrated swimsuit edition.

I'll get my kit off....for a decent wage of course

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Cycle Chic]

This thread needs shelving - its gone well and truly pear shaped !

 

[Libertine Seguros]

douuuoooh you got me ahhhhh nice one wow I didnt even think of that for real like. touche ouch that stung gollyy


no but that Ethiopian marathon dude did, kinda

Did "that Ethiopian marathon dude" (which one, Gebrselassie?) run as fast as Usain Bolt for three and a half times the length of a normal marathon?

Because the marathon runners didn't go faster than the women's péloton, a 100m sprinter did. If Gebrselassie ran as fast as Bolt he wouldn't have been a marathon runner, and marathons aren't as long as cycling events - even women's races which are shorter than men's - anyway.

So really, what does bringing the speed of Usain Bolt compared to the women's péloton have to say about anything? It's practically meaningless. If we're comparing totally irrelevant sports and their speeds over completely different distances, then Lindsay Vonn and Maria Riesch can go faster than the men's péloton. Does that say it all too?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

That has got nothing to do with it and is a ridiculous comment. We know that women have less physical strength than men - comparing the two is greatly unfair.

It's also completely alien to the mindset of anyone who has an interest in combat sports, most notably boxing.

Boxing is divided into weight divisions because competitors of significantly greater size have basic physical advantages over smaller competitors that render fights between them uncompetitive. Yet pretty much no boxing fan values the heavyweight division over the the lighter divisions - Mayweather and Pacquiao are the Gods of the Ring, that sport's Gilbert and Contador, not the Klitschkos.

"Objectively" everyone knows that a Wladimir Klitschko versus Manny Pacquiao fight would be a farce lasting for roughly as long as it took Klitschko to cut off the ring and stop the smaller man from running away. Yet, every boxing fan in the world knows that Pacquiao is in a class of exactly two when it comes to rating the best boxer in the world, while Klitscho is merely a good boxer in a weak division.

Yes, men have a strength advantage over women, just as bigger fighters have a strength advantage over smaller ones. So what? The point is the skill, excitement, guts, panache, tactics, ingenuity, and there's absolutely no reason why female cyclists should be or are less capable of delivering any of that.

I normally avoid these threads because I find the constant knuckle-dragging sexism, both in its "women are weaker than men, so who cares about their sports?" variety and in its "I like women's cycling because there's hot chicks in tight clothes" variety, depressing.

 

[Maxiton]

It's also completely alien to the mindset of anyone who has an interest in combat sports, most notably boxing.

Boxing is divided into weight divisions because competitors of significantly greater size have basic physical advantages over smaller competitors that render fights between them uncompetitive. Yet pretty much no boxing fan values the heavyweight division over the the lighter divisions - Mayweather and Pacquiao are the Gods of the Ring, that sport's Gilbert and Contador, not the Klitschkos.

"Objectively" everyone knows that a Wladimir Klitschko versus Manny Pacquiao fight would be a farce lasting for roughly as long as it took Klitschko to cut off the ring and stop the smaller man from running away. Yet, every boxing fan in the world knows that Pacquiao is in a class of exactly two when it comes to rating the best boxer in the world, while Klitscho is merely a good boxer in a weak division.

Yes, men have a strength advantage over women, just as bigger fighters have a strength advantage over smaller ones. So what? The point is the skill, excitement, guts, panache, tactics, ingenuity, and there's absolutely no reason why female cyclists should be or are less capable of delivering any of that.

I normally avoid these threads because I find the constant knuckle-dragging sexism, both in its "women are weaker than men, so who cares about their sports?" variety and in its "I like women's cycling because there's hot chicks in tight clothes" variety, depressing.

Yours is probably the most thoughtful post we've had here. In the latter variety of knuckle-dragging you cite, I couldn't help but feel you were referring to me, since I was I think the only one putting forth an argument even close to that. So i'd like to draw a distinction between what you're referring to and what I said.

I want to live in a world where the erotic is frankly acknowledged and experienced as something healthy and wholesome. Of course, we don't live in such a world (excepting maybe the Scandinavian countries) and so my desire stands in clear contrast to the shame and degradation that attends much of women's sports marketing, such as when female cyclists pose for cheesy magazines, and pretty much the whole of beach volleyball.

Cycling is arguably among the most homoerotic of sports and in any case there is no denying a certain erotic component to athletics in general. Indeed, the objection to women's participation in sports by so many "knuckledraggers" may stem in part from the sense of shame and general puritanism that still forms a powerful undertow in the Western world, most especially in certain corners of it - no need to name them, just look for the cross and measure the shadow it casts there.

Women's cycling can be fantastic precisely because of "the skill, excitement, guts, panache, tactics, ingenuity" that can sometimes be found there. None of that is in any way diminished by acknowledging also an appreciation of what amounts to the physical and spiritual vitality of female athletes - which is and always will be sexy.

 

[blutto]

Yours is probably the most thoughtful post we've had here. In the latter variety of knuckle-dragging you cite, I couldn't help but feel you were referring to me, since I was I think the only one putting forth an argument even close to that. So i'd like to draw a distinction between what you're referring to and what I said.

I want to live in a world where the erotic is frankly acknowledged and experienced as something healthy and wholesome. Of course, we don't live in such a world (excepting maybe the Scandinavian countries) and so my desire stands in clear contrast to the shame and degradation that attends much of women's sports marketing, such as when female cyclists pose for cheesy magazines, and pretty much the whole of beach volleyball.

Cycling is arguably among the most homoerotic of sports and in any case there is no denying a certain erotic component to athletics in general. Indeed, the objection to women's participation in sports by so many "knuckledraggers" may stem in part from the sense of shame and general puritanism that still forms a powerful undertow in the Western world, most especially in certain corners of it - no need to name them, just look for the cross and measure the shadow it casts there.

Women's cycling can be fantastic precisely because of "the skill, excitement, guts, panache, tactics, ingenuity" that can sometimes be found there. None of that is in any way diminished by acknowledging also an appreciation of what amounts to the physical and spiritual vitality of female athletes - which is and always will be sexy.

...well golly gee whiz...this bumbling embarrassment of a thread has finally produced a few excellent responses( and gawd know this topic desperately needs to be addressed and dealt with in a constructive manner)..nice work gentlemen...

...will be interesting to see how the children will respond when they get up in the morning...

Cheers

blutto