Velo d'Or 2011

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

2011 velo d'or

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
El Pistolero said:
Cycling was a big sport in Europe in the 70s. Bigger than it is now in fact. Female cycling is no big sport at all. So your comparison hardly makes sense. And trust me, there was definitely specialisation back then. Lucien van Impe, Ocana, Fuente were all pure climbers. Although Ocana had a decent time trial, much like Contador. Freddy Maertens was by far the best sprinter in his heyday. Yes, he won the Vuelta. But there were no mountains in the Vuelta that year ;)

Moser was a pure classics specialists. Again, he won the Giro, but there were almost no mountains in the Giro that year and he got help from the Italian organisers(helicopters,etc).
lol... you really don't have the "talent" to say anything correct do you?

it was a big sport in europe, in fact it was the people's sport, where guys without any training since the "early" days could contest the tour just because they had a hard life--were hard men. for example agostinho was good because he was delivering mail (using a bike) in africa during war until 27. even kelly was good because he was a farm-boy when he was young. for me they were hard men and they deserve all my respect, but i consider them as amateurs compared to modern cyclists.

obviusly a heavy\big guy has more tendency to be better on the flats and skinny men normally will have their strongest point in mountains, but fact is: moser and freddy were GT contenders. in fact, they were contenders at everything just like merckx. can cav peta or cipo win a GT?never and most likely they are\were better athletes.

like i said in previous threads, modern cycling and the old eras are almost different categories of this sport. we are not talking about hendrix vs slash here, we are talking about a group of spartan warriors VS F-22s, M-16, krav maga, nuclear weapons.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Moser and Freddy Maertens were NO GC contenders for the Tour. You don't know what you're talking about lol.

Eddy Merckx was a rich kid. So what you're saying is total crap. He didn't have a hard youth at all. What you're not understanding is the route some of these GTs had back in the 70s.
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
It's easy to miss your point when you don't have one.

My argument is that Vos is the best at EVERYTHING. Road, cross, stage racing, classics, sprinting, she's just about top in all of it. No man is even close to her domination. Not even Gilbert. Women's cycling might be pretty small fry, but that doesn't denigrate her achievements when they cover the entire spectrum of the sport of cycling.
again you are unable to understand an overall view from a evolved non-feminist homo sapiens. she isn't the best at everything... she is the best athlete in the female peloton. Period.

who is the better athlete? gilbert contador cav or cancellara? you can't say since they are the best at what they do, so in order to one of them win the velo d'or, they have to do more than win the most part of races in their terrain. It isn't their fault that the women's quality can be compared to the sixties\seventies male peloton were 90% of the winners were contesting sprints TTs cobbles mountains etc.

Vos is a barbarian warrior fighting in the jungle.

canc is the tank, cav the bullet, gilbert the missile, Conti is a F22. sorry, vos doesn't belong to this kind of modern war, just like longo didn't.
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
El Pistolero said:
Moser and Freddy Maertens were NO GC contenders for the Tour. You don't know what you're talking about lol.

Eddy Merckx was a rich kid. So what you're saying is total crap. He didn't have a hard youth at all. What you're not understanding is the route some of these GTs had back in the 70s.
are you being totally obtuse on purpose? that's exactly my point!
merckx was one of the few "real" pros and that's the reason of large number of his own wins. he was racing against hard men and not racing against athletes like him.

again.. both were GT contenders. i don't know why you are being so stupid on this. what's the difference about them being contenders at the giro or at the tour? the competition was almost the same, just like it was almost the same even at roubaix at that time. amateurs.
 
c&cfan said:
again you are unable to understand an overall view from a evolved non-feminist homo sapiens. she isn't the best at everything... she is the best athlete in the female peloton. Period.

who is the better athlete? gilbert contador cav or cancellara? you can't say since they are the best at what they do, so in order to one of them win the velo d'or, they have to do more than win the most part of races in their terrain. It isn't their fault that the women's quality can be compared to the sixties\seventies male peloton were 90% of the winners were contesting sprints TTs cobbles mountains etc.

Vos is a barbarian warrior fighting in the jungle.

canc is the tank, cav the bullet, gilbert the missile, Conti is a F22. sorry, vos doesn't belong to this kind of modern war, just like longo didn't.
So your argument is that because I am saying I think Vos merits the Velo d'Or, I am unevolved?

The Velo d'Or is not about who the superior athlete is. It's about answering the question of who's achieved the most as a cyclist in 2011.

The answer is, Marianne Vos has.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
So your argument is that because I am saying I think Vos merits the Velo d'Or, I am unevolved?

The Velo d'Or is not about who the superior athlete is. It's about answering the question of who's achieved the most as a cyclist in 2011.

The answer is, Marianne Vos has.
Well to be brutally honest it's really not comparable, woman's cycling is so much less competitive and has far fewer participants. Dominating a sport is impressive but one has to consider the size of that sport as well, else one would think that Marit Bjørgen is the best athlete in the world for example...
 
maltiv said:
Well to be brutally honest it's really not comparable, woman's cycling is so much less competitive and has far fewer participants. Dominating a sport is impressive but one has to consider the size of that sport as well, else one would think that Marit Bjørgen is the best athlete in the world for example...
Well, Johaug beat her in the 30km...
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
So your argument is that because I am saying I think Vos merits the Velo d'Or, I am unevolved?

The Velo d'Or is not about who the superior athlete is. It's about answering the question of who's achieved the most as a cyclist in 2011.

The answer is, Marianne Vos has.
yes you are unevolved, obviously.

also the definition of achieving the most isn't most wins. valverde winning the tour has much more value than valverde winning every single race\stage at the womens calendar.

why?
those girls are a joke IF you compare their achievements\abilities with the achievements\abilities of some male cyclists.

if in 2020 someone like longo accomplish as third that what she (longo) did , i will consider that women better than longo herself. why? competition. with 2546576879574t486i9678 wins vos has just proved that she is the best women at the bunch. with 6 great wins (and other stage races), contador is able to convince even the devil that he is "the most talented guy that ever raced a bike".

who achieved more?
 
c&cfan said:
why?
those girls are a joke IF you compare their achievements\abilities with the achievements\abilities of some male cyclists.
So, because Vos had the terrible luck to be born without a Y chromosome, you won't consider her talented, because there exists a man who is faster than her?

And I'm supposed to be the unevolved one?

So to your mind, the Williams sisters are worthless since they're not as strong as Federer or Djokovic? Yelena Isinbayeva is not a sports star of any consequence because she can't vault as high as Sergey Bubka? Magdalena Neuner does shorter laps than Ole Einar Bjørndalen, therefore she's a worthless skier?

Sorry, I thought it was a good idea to judge people against their playing fields first, then judge the merits of said fields second.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Vos definetly should not be considered for the Velo d'Or. Vos is a very talented cyclist no doubt but the overall field of women's cycling and often across many fields of women sport is very much inferior.
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
So, because Vos had the terrible luck to be born without a Y chromosome, you won't consider her talented, because there exists a man who is faster than her?

And I'm supposed to be the unevolved one?

So to your mind, the Williams sisters are worthless since they're not as strong as Federer or Djokovic? Yelena Isinbayeva is not a sports star of any consequence because she can't vault as high as Sergey Bubka? Magdalena Neuner does shorter laps than Ole Einar Bjørndalen, therefore she's a worthless skier?

Sorry, I thought it was a good idea to judge people against their playing fields first, then judge the merits of said fields second.
exactly. that's why vos achievements means almost zero compared to what gilbert did.
if vos was born with a y chromosome, she would have to choose about sprinting or GC for example.

my point is, you can't say that venus or serena deserve to be considered better than federer even if one of them was winning every single match. like it or not, in almost all sports, women are degrees bellow men, so the best women is always some degrees bellow the best men. sorry, in what the human body is concerned, that's nature.

also (at least in my opinion) women and men will never be in the same category in any job\occupation and that's good.
 
c&cfan said:
exactly. that's why vos achievements means almost zero compared to what gilbert did.
if vos was born with a y chromosome, she would have to choose about sprinting or GC for example.

my point is, you can't say that venus or serena deserve to be considered better than federer even if one of them was winning every single match. like it or not, in almost all sports, women are degrees bellow men, so the best women is always some degrees bellow the best men. sorry, in what the human body is concerned, that's nature.
No, not exactly. Because my point was that we judge how they do on a level playing field first, i.e. against the competition that they compete against in fair competition. Vos competes against other women, and squashes them all. If she competed against men, it wouldn't be fair competition, now, would it? Isinbayeva is the most dominant athlete in any track or field discipline right now. It is farcical to then say that she's not very good because Bubka would outvault her.

also (at least in my opinion) women and men will never be in the same category in any job\occupation and that's good.
As far as I can tell, you're posting from 1948. Could you please let me know how the Coppi/Bartali wars are playing out?
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Libertine Seguros said:
No, not exactly. Because my point was that we judge how they do on a level playing field first, i.e. against the competition that they compete against in fair competition. Vos competes against other women, and squashes them all. If she competed against men, it wouldn't be fair competition, now, would it? Isinbayeva is the most dominant athlete in any track or field discipline right now. It is farcical to then say that she's not very good because Bubka would outvault her.


As far as I can tell, you're posting from 1948. Could you please let me know how the Coppi/Bartali wars are playing out?
You really think men and women can be equal in a job or occupation? Totally unrealistic ideology.

It is the same in any sport. Women's sport is simply not as competitive across the board than mens and it is of an inferior quality which is a reason why Women's sport generally receives less prize money than equivalent events in men's sport.

In conclusion, you can't really compare an acheivement in Women's sport with Men's sport.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
You really think men and women can be equal in a job or occupation? Totally unrealistic ideology.
Of course they can, what an antiquated statement! Just because a male usually has greater physical ability is entirely irrelevant to how well either gender does their job unless we are talking about hard daily labour.

Otherwise gender is totally irrelevant.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
42x16ss said:
Of course they can, what an antiquated statement! Just because a male usually has greater physical ability is entirely irrelevant to how well either gender does their job unless we are talking about hard daily labour.

Otherwise gender is totally irrelevant.
Labour is one of the jobs where equality is impossible. Another is teaching. Demand is always high in the education sector for males therefore governments will pay more money to male teachers because their is a lack of them as it is also good for students to have a male teacher teaching them. This happens in other jobs as well which results in men becoming higher payed employees than females. Employers are less likely to hire a woman over a man anyway due to the fact of pregnancy which results in raising a child or marriage. The fact that women are morelikely to leave a job means that in some cases an employer is reluctant to pay a women the same amount as a man.

My view is not antiquated. It is reality. Don't call me sexist either as that is not the case.
 
Jun 16, 2011
260
0
0
c&cfan said:
exactly. that's why vos achievements means almost zero compared to what gilbert did.
if vos was born with a y chromosome, she would have to choose about sprinting or GC for example.

my point is, you can't say that venus or serena deserve to be considered better than federer even if one of them was winning every single match. like it or not, in almost all sports, women are degrees bellow men, so the best women is always some degrees bellow the best men. sorry, in what the human body is concerned, that's nature.

also (at least in my opinion) women and men will never be in the same category in any job\occupation and that's good.
i can't believe men still think like that.:eek:

reminds me of a john wayne movie - "little woman, go get me my grub and a beer." lol, good luck with that.

about the cycling award, i voted for gilbert.
 
Jun 16, 2009
19,657
1
0
Gingerale said:
i can't believe men still think like that.:eek:
reminds me of a john wayne movie - "little woman, go get me my grub and a beer." lol, good luck with that.

about the cycling award, i voted for gilbert.
I think it might not be a bad idea to make a thread on Gender Equality in the cafe so it doesn't disrupt our discussion of the velo d'or.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=682455#post682455
Here we go! If mods can move the gender discussion to the thread I made then that would be much appreciated.

Lets keep this to be about the Velo'dOr.
 
Jul 16, 2011
1,551
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Labour is one of the jobs where equality is impossible. Another is teaching. Demand is always high in the education sector for males therefore governments will pay more money to male teachers because their is a lack of them as it is also good for students to have a male teacher teaching them. This happens in other jobs as well which results in men becoming higher payed employees than females. Employers are less likely to hire a woman over a man anyway due to the fact of pregnancy which results in raising a child or marriage. The fact that women are morelikely to leave a job means that in some cases an employer is reluctant to pay a women the same amount as a man.

My view is not antiquated. It is reality. Don't call me sexist either as that is not the case.
There seems to discrepancies between the concept of equality used here. With regard to the argument between the achieivements of Vos and Gilbert, those supporting Gilbert would say that his achievements are greater, as male cyclists are faster (the performance of male athletes is not equal to those of female athletes).

Due to this it is difficult to say whose "achievements are greater". One thing is true that Vos has dominated women's cycling in a way that no woman has done for a long time (Nicole Cooke in her prime was certainly not as dominant as Marianne).

Here, ACF talks about equality in the sense of pay. Such inequality does exist, but the argument really centres around the concept of equality of performance. Working in education, looking at those around me, there isn't any difference in the level of performance of males and females.
 
Sep 9, 2009
6,391
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
So your argument is that because I am saying I think Vos merits the Velo d'Or, I am unevolved?

The Velo d'Or is not about who the superior athlete is. It's about answering the question of who's achieved the most as a cyclist in 2011.

The answer is, Marianne Vos has.
Vos is riding against a vastly smaller talent pool. If you really want to try and compare her achievements, you have to give equal weighting to the best amateur in East Anglia, because they need to beat roughly the same number of people to be the best.

It's the same reason winning the paralympics is not a serious achievement in most events - there tends to only be about 15 people in the world making a proper go of it.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
You really think men and women can be equal in a job or occupation? Totally unrealistic ideology.
C+C's statement was that men and women can never be equal, and more gallingly that that's a good thing.

In any job which is not bound entirely by physical abilities (so not manual labour, for example), women are liable to be every bit as capable as men. Equality in their capability is very much a reality. Now, whether they are able to attain equality of pay or equality of status (many a glass ceiling has been imposed) is another question, but your statement is that I think they "can be" equal, not that they "are" equal. And yes, it is theoretically possible that in some jobs men and women can be equal, and in the future they may be equal in others to, but to state that it is a good thing that they will never be equal in any job or occupation, as C+C did? That is ridiculous and sexist, and no amount of antiquated statements dressed up as pragmatism can change that.
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
42x16ss said:
Of course they can, what an antiquated statement! Just because a male usually has greater physical ability is entirely irrelevant to how well either gender does their job unless we are talking about hard daily labour.

Otherwise gender is totally irrelevant.
no they can't.

we will always lose to then in some areas just like we will always be better in other areas. In areas that we are considered "equals" we are not equals since men have their strong and weakest points just like women and in those comparisons those women already stopped being women.

women are going to be chosen to lots of jobs just because it will give nice publicity for the ones really pulling the strings. believe me, we will never be as good basysitters just like women will never be as good mechanics.
 
Jan 11, 2010
12,582
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
C+C's statement was that men and women can never be equal, and more gallingly that that's a good thing.

In any job which is not bound entirely by physical abilities (so not manual labour, for example), women are liable to be every bit as capable as men. Equality in their capability is very much a reality. Now, whether they are able to attain equality of pay or equality of status (many a glass ceiling has been imposed) is another question, but your statement is that I think they "can be" equal, not that they "are" equal. And yes, it is theoretically possible that in some jobs men and women can be equal, and in the future they may be equal in others to, but to state that it is a good thing that they will never be equal in any job or occupation, as C+C did? That is ridiculous and sexist, and no amount of antiquated statements dressed up as pragmatism can change that.
Please end this discussion, it's hopeless. Cycling fans are some of the most conservative and misogynistic people in the world, it's unfortunate but it's true. All you do is invite people to belittle Marianne Vos' achievements as if she's the only decent cyclist in a field of stupid creatures who are barely able to turn their pedals. Leave them to their own Neanderthal opinions.
 
Sep 9, 2009
6,391
0
0
theyoungest said:
Please end this discussion, it's hopeless. Cycling fans are some of the most conservative and misogynistic people in the world, it's unfortunate but it's true. All you do is invite people to belittle Marianne Vos' achievements as if she's the only decent cyclist in a field of stupid creatures who are barely able to turn their pedals. Leave them to their own Neanderthal opinions.
Classic. I don't like the discussion, so I'll close it down by accusing anyone who disagrees with me of being a neanderthal/racist/sexist (delete as appropriate).

A debating style used by British europhiles for 20 years. Of course, they're now all sheepishly accepting that most of what 'eurosceptics' said about the Euro has come true.

You don't have to be sexist to note that Vos has to beat a much smaller talent pool.

It's not her fault, and she's clearly the best in her competition, but she is not in a position to be compared with Gilbert, because Gilbert has to beat an order of magnitude more competitors in order to be the best in his competition. Comparisons are pointless - it is a pure guess to say she is as good as Gilbert. She may be better, she may be worse, but until the talent pool for women is as large as men, we're in no position to say.
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
theyoungest said:
Please end this discussion, it's hopeless. Cycling fans are some of the most conservative and misogynistic people in the world, it's unfortunate but it's true. All you do is invite people to belittle Marianne Vos' achievements as if she's the only decent cyclist in a field of stupid creatures who are barely able to turn their pedals. Leave them to their own Neanderthal opinions.
easy on that one sunshine. your lack of rationalism and decency to discuss this or any other subject does not make others "neanderthal". you have no right to say that. do you know the meaning of utopia? that's your world. mine is different.

in my world, men and women are different. As I said, even if the extreme feminists that post here don't agree we me, that's a good thing. Don't get me wrong, maybe both you and libertine need to read better, obviously men and women can be amazing teachers. fact is, they will have different qualities and different paths to achieve that status. women will be naturally better suited to some jobs than men just because they were born women and were created to be women. the opposite is also true.

If i am an employer and i want someone to take care of babies, being women or being men will be very important to my decision. If i am an employer and i want someone to be an F1 mechanic, well... there's a reason for 99.999999% of them being men. If i want a job that it doesn't matter if the employee will be male of female (since their natural advantages against the other will -in this case- be eliminated by their natural disadvantages) and if both have the same capacity i will choose the male one (lack of pregnancy, for example). No employer can judge me, they all do the same ALMOST every time.

there are some times when being women is better. For example, If you have a nice path of living, If you have the required set of abilities and if you try to be president, most likely you will win just because you are women----- right now that makes uninvolved people think that the country is better just because of that, unfortunately for Hillary, Obama is black and the same rules can be applied.

men, just like women, have their intellectual and physical strengths\weaknesses for a reason. Most men in most countries already accept it. as a result, stupid laws\traditions of considering women inferior humans or to private women from any job or education are being removed. That's great. Women can try to be what they want to be and this does not deserve celebration since it should be like that since day 1, but they can't feel marginalized just because men are naturally better in mathematics and engineering just like in sports. that's nature. When women don't agree with nature, usually they stop being women.

What vos did is amazing, but if a man did something similar it has to be considered 100times more amazing. before vos, it was cooke, before cook it was other one. in men, that's impossible. what gilbert did in this specialized era is unbelievable. he deserves it more than anyone.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY