women are right!

[The Hitch]

Like I've said, my mate beats the second best Dutch female rider of the last few years without training.

By the way, I checked a few weeks ago with a Colombian classmate if cycling is popular there and it is, so no point arguing over that.

Wow. You should become a lawyer.

 

[Arnout]

You don't have to believe me, I don't care.

By the way, I don't regularly watch S American cycling mostly for the reasons I gave for not watching women's cycling. They tend to have brilliant mountain stages now and then though and I enjoy watching highlights of those stages.

 

[El Pistolero]

Lol are those all the south American countries that you know of?

Do Sao Rico and San Theodoros count??

 

[hfer07]

YES: invest money on Women's cycling-they do deserve it.
NO: DO NOT MIX MEN & WOMEN. -It's fact-proven unworthy.

 

[9000ft]

I wonder if same guys who are posting that they think women's cycling shouldn't be taken seriously or women shouldn't make the same money as men because they are slower and less exciting are also the ones who say they are all for 100% clean cycling even if it means the racing may be slower and less exciting?

Personally I like watching women's sports as much, some times more than mens sports. Women tend to take a much more finesse approach to athletics rather than a brute strength.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

5) Nobody cares about it, so it isn't shown or covered!
Understandable, but also chicken-and-egg, as Hitch pointed out very well. If you have more exposure to something, you absorb knowledge of it, and you can become more emotionally invested in it. Women's cycling is seldom shown, so how can people discover that they're interested in it? Again, as Hitch pointed out, the sports where women are held in the highest esteem by fans are events where the women's events are at the same time as the men's. Ironically, this gives us more chance to directly compare men's and women's performances than there is in cycling, but we don't directly compare the men's and women's performances that often in those sports. Female skiers, biathletes, track and field athletes and even to an extent track cyclists are allowed to be the best at what they do without having to always be compared to the men. Nobody cares that Shelly-Ann Fraser or Mary Keitany can't run as fast as Usain Bolt or Haile Gebreselassie, nobody cares that Magdalena Neuner or Marit Bjørgen can't ski as fast as Emil Hegle Svendsen or Dario Cologna... we compare them to other women, not to the men.

The men's 100 & 200m sprints have always been much more popular than the equivalent women's events. Now with Bolt, the men's events have 10 times the number of views on the official Olympic YouTube channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O7K-8G2nwU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFi5ueI522E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWZQAVtkMBo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tvUQslnII0



It was lopsided before Bolt hit the scene. Maybe not to the same extent as it is now, but to say that people don't care is way off the mark.

 

[theyoungest]

Like I've said, my mate beats the second best Dutch female rider of the last few years without training. This argument really is not valid.

The only point why you don't care for women's cycling seems to be that your friend beat Annemiek van Vleuten once.

How? Why? When? At what?

 

[Izzy eviel]

I don't think posters such as Ryo should be allowed on this forum. They are clearly lacking in brain matter and as such aren't as clever as the rest of us.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The men's 100 & 200m sprints have always been much more popular than the equivalent women's events. Now with Bolt, the men's events have 10 times the number of views on the official Olympic YouTube channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O7K-8G2nwU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFi5ueI522E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWZQAVtkMBo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tvUQslnII0



It was lopsided before Bolt hit the scene. Maybe not to the same extent as it is now, but to say that people don't care is way off the mark.

I was meaning more that people don't feel the need to devalue Fraser's achievements by comparing her to Bolt, because the women's 100m and 200m are seen as valuable events in and of themselves, even if the men's events are more popular. The fact that Fraser runs 100m slower than Bolt is not considered an obstacle to the validation of her achievement.

To take it elsewhere in track and field, I'd argue that Blanka Vlašić and Yelena Isinbayeva are more well-known than any male athletes in their chosen field, and their success is not generally devalued by men being able to jump/vault higher than them in the same way that female cyclists are being devalued by having their performances directly compared to their male equivalents.

 

[gustienordic]

I would watch womens cycling if they showed it more, but its just like womens nordic: the winner wins by over a minute, while in guys someone wins by the length of a boot. Its less exciting to see the same people dominate every single race (Vos) no matter what type of race it is. Up the depth of the field and more people will watch!

 

[Arnout]

The only point why you don't care for women's cycling seems to be that your friend beat Annemiek van Vleuten once.

How? Why? When? At what?

Not the only point, but it plays a role.

Not once either. Wednesday night rides of some 80km, he participated in them for fun and was on par (sometimes stronger in the end, sometimes he lost out). Not talking about a sprint, but about general speed during the ride in the Posbank area (slightly hilly terrain northeast of Arnhem).

If you're interested, other people in the ride included Mr C Helling, a quite decent marathon speedskater. Anyway, for the sake of privacy this is all I will tell in public, I don't like talking about other people online so I will edit this message tomorrow (don't quote it please).

 

[Izzy eviel]

Not the only point, but it plays a role.

Not once either. Wednesday night rides of some 80km, he participated in them for fun and was on par (sometimes stronger in the end, sometimes he lost out). Not talking about a sprint, but about general speed during the ride in the Posbank area (slightly hilly terrain northeast of Arnhem).

You make it sound like the women were going at 100% during an evening training ride. Newsflash a) they probably weren't and b) They don't get paid enough to be full time riders. They have other commitments. Cut's down their training time too.

 

[Arnout]

Thank you very much for telling me what happened. Enjoying your armchair?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I would watch womens cycling if they showed it more, but its just like womens nordic: the winner wins by over a minute, while in guys someone wins by the length of a boot. Its less exciting to see the same people dominate every single race (Vos) no matter what type of race it is. Up the depth of the field and more people will watch!

Again though, chicken and egg. Lack of depth is a product of the lack of exposure, because the lack of exposure means lack of money, and repetitive parcours, which means the same riders keep winning, which means they earn more money and can dedicate themselves to the sport full time which many others can't, which means they continue to keep winning everything.

It's hard for them to pad the depth of the field with the current status quo. With more money, they could put together race routes with more variety; if they have enough races with enough variety that riders can afford to specialise in particular areas of cycling and, more importantly, make a living doing so, depth will follow.

 

[mr. tibbs]

I enjoy watching women's cycling.

I feel like making that statement and then getting out of this thread is the best choice for my sanity. Some of the posts in here... Ugh.

 

[Arnout]

I was meaning more that people don't feel the need to devalue Fraser's achievements by comparing her to Bolt, because the women's 100m and 200m are seen as valuable events in and of themselves, even if the men's events are more popular. The fact that Fraser runs 100m slower than Bolt is not considered an obstacle to the validation of her achievement.

To take it elsewhere in track and field, I'd argue that Blanka Vlašić and Yelena Isinbayeva are more well-known than any male athletes in their chosen field, and their success is not generally devalued by men being able to jump/vault higher than them in the same way that female cyclists are being devalued by having their performances directly compared to their male equivalents.

It's not about devaluing, it's about not caring enough. I appreciate their sacrifices, dedication but even now with one live race per year I can't be bothered to watch the WC. But I guess this is offensive behavior.

I did watch the Olympics RR though.

 

[Arnout]

Some people pretend this is a human rights issue or something. It's just preferences, just like I usually skip (most of the) the cobbled classics, because I don't care about them.

 

[Izzy eviel]

It's not about devaluing, it's about not caring enough. I appreciate their sacrifices, dedication but even now with one live race per year I can't be bothered to watch the WC. But I guess this is offensive behavior.

I did watch the Olympics RR though.

It's not offensive to say you prefer one to the other, what is offensive is when people start talking nonsense to put other people down. (last bit not aimed at you btw)

 

[greenedge]

Boom's ride in Roubaix was more impressive than a win in an Italian semi-classic. Or his fifth place at the Worlds leaving all Colombians behind.

I agree with the Boom bit but he needs to actually podium there and all those Italian races have good finishes.
Henao did not finish that far behind Boom at the WC.

 

[El Pistolero]

I agree with the Boom bit but he needs to actually podium there and all those Italian races have good finishes.
Henao did not finish that far behind Boom at the WC.

But "world class rider" Carlos Betancur finished more than 2 minutes behind if I remember correctly. Henao was ninth.

All those Italian races have a rather weak field since Lombardia moved.

Anyway, I don't watch female cycling, but I don't mind if other people enjoy it.

 

[fatandfast]

Like I've said, my mate beats the second best Dutch female rider of the last few years without training. This argument really is not valid.

beats her at what? Are they both aware that they are racing each other? I know the answer. Vos can punish a huge number of men. I think you should put you and your friends claims on youtube with some name and face association. Many Dutch destroyers will take up your claim and your non training friend may find that the possession of a penis doesn't mean you are fast.

When Armstrong started I am sure he was amazed at just how astonishing Team Lycra was, Berglund,Meister and Golay bringing rides to the redline with elite studs from all disciplines,from MTB to Ironmen the speeds were very,very high on those Wednesdays.Maybe Horner will chime in about Sorrento Valley or Otay training crits, female riders were in the mix. I would take a Twigg or Furtado over your pal in a man vs woman race.

 

[silverrocket]

Whether a handful of individuals enjoy women's cycling or not is not really the point, is it? I thought the question was whether women cyclists deserve the same pay as men (or at least increased relative to what it is now).

I don't think they do because women don't generate nearly as much money. Cyclists don't get paid for the amount of work they do, they get paid for how much money they can generate. (through fans, sponsors, viewers, etc.).

We can say it's a catch-22, where they can't bring in the money because they don't get the exposure, but they don't get the exposure because they don't bring in the money, but this is part of the process of developing a sport. We shouldn't create "artificial interest" by overpaying them.

 

[The Hitch]

But "world class rider" Carlos Betancur finished more than 2 minutes behind if I remember correctly. Henao was ninth.

All those Italian races have a rather weak field since Lombardia moved.

Anyway, I don't watch female cycling, but I don't mind if other people enjoy it.

Uggh, the "Italian race" was Piemont which moved WITH Lombardy and took place 2 days before lombardy as it always has.

exactly the same place it had in relation to lombardia when your beloved gilbert won it twice and went on to win Lombardia both times.

So to chalk Urans win there to a poor field because lombardia moved is pure ignorance.

 

[El Pistolero]

Uggh, the "Italian race" was Piemont which moved WITH Lombardy and took place 2 days before lombardy as it always has.

exactly the same place it had in relation to lombardia when your beloved gilbert won it twice and went on to win Lombardia both times.

So to chalk Urans win there to a poor field because lombardia moved is pure ignorance.

It's only a few days after the Worlds, so lot's of people will skip it. I never actually stated Piemonte didn't move nor does my post imply that. I was talking about Emilia and GP Beghelli anyway.

So what if Phil won Piemonte? It's still a small race without a world class field. Is that the only argument you got, bringing up Phil every time? You always find something to argue about lol, but for goodness sake, Piemonte is not and never was a race with a world class field. Compare it to Dwars door Vlaanderen if you must lol.

 

[Boeing]

thats right