Women Racers have to face the challenge ON THEIR OWN.

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Waterloo Sunrise said:
It's a point that needed making, and this was the most appropriate thread.

As it stands, with a nominally mixed forum, you periodically get some smart **** trying to bring Vos in to discussions.
So? Sometimes it's appropriate.

Waterloo Sunrise said:
Why not create a women's cycling forum where they can discuss it to their heart's content.
I don't much care to read the endless fan threads, with fanboys having wet dreams over Wiggins, Purito, Contador, the Schlecks, Valverde etc etc and there are far more of those than there are threads about women's cycling. :rolleyes: But I just click on through.
 
Jun 11, 2012
43
0
0
Sport doesn't owe anyone a living.

This isn't some worldwide conspiracy, it's straight economics. If enough people show enough interest in your sport, the dollars will come.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Waterloo Sunrise said:
It's a point that needed making, and this was the most appropriate thread.
Did it need making? Could you not have just written "I'm a sexist" in your sig and saved yourself the trouble?

As it stands, with a nominally mixed forum, you periodically get some smart **** trying to bring Vos in to discussions.
Perhaps because Vos is under-appreciated; she is one of the most dominant sportspeople ever.

Why not create a women's cycling forum where they can discuss it to their heart's content.
Why, though? Just don't click on the thread or don't bother reading the Vos comments if you're that sensitive. Just because you want to act in this way doesn't mean everyone else does.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
The Eggman said:
Sport doesn't owe anyone a living.

This isn't some worldwide conspiracy, it's straight economics. If enough people show enough interest in your sport, the dollars will come.
Yet if that is the case, why does the governing body invest in promoting cycling at all? Why is there such a thing as advertising if this is the case? Adequate prize money, it could be argued, would increase the level by encouraging greater competition. The UCI goes out of its way to promote men's cycling across the globe, but not women's. Why?
 
Al-Jazeera are tape-delay broadcasting full coverage of the women's Tour of Qatar at present on Al-Jazeera Sport Global, which as a bonus is free to view online from most places.

Stage 1 was a typical Qatar stage, with echelons, a four-woman break that went the distance but only just held off a strong chase group, with the bunch at 2 minutes.
 
Aug 24, 2010
155
0
0
Joachim said:
I'm struggling to think of how the situation in cycling differs from any other sport, with the possible exception of Tennis.

Its lamentable, but then it is a reflection of the priviledged position that men hold in society.
Thats a load of bull****. Women's sport isn't sport at the highest level so its perfectly normal that there's less intrest in it. Imo they should even get rid of most women's sport at the olympics (with the exceptions of gymnastics and a couple of other sports but thats about it.)
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Mich78BEL said:
Thats a load of bull****. Women's sport isn't sport at the highest level so its perfectly normal that there's less intrest in it. Imo they should even get rid of most women's sport at the olympics (with the exceptions of gymnastics and a couple of other sports but thats about it.)
Why, though?
 
Jan 20, 2013
238
0
0
Caruut said:
What an appallingly sexist obnoxious post. The entertainment from the women's football at the Olympics was far better than the drab men's tournament. Granted that has a lot to do with the weird U23 format I think, but the women's game has the potential to deliver thrilling matches, just like I can go to a 5th tier game and enjoy it more than a PL game. As more and more women get into football, one might expect the women's game to increase in both quality and popularity. The podium girls comment was just the icing on the misogynist cake - not good enough to actually take part but they can stand there and look pretty? Get back to your cave.
Really? Women's football more exciting? Really?!?? No further comment needed.

You do a lot of senseless namecalling but you are not the holder of all things true. Women's tennis may be MORE exciting because it's not about just serving with 500 km/h. Things do not have to be equal. This is Earth, not Utopia.

And what is wrong with liking podium girls? Seriously, I can tell you have no sense of humour but is there really anything wrong with that? Sorry for my honesty, but I do not find women's cycling interesting just like women's snooker is boring. Sexist, mysoginistic.... Rubbish. Pure rubbish. Now please apologise.
 
Clausfarre said:
Really? Women's football more exciting? Really?!?? No further comment needed.

You do a lot of senseless namecalling but you are not the holder of all things true. Women's tennis may be MORE exciting because it's not about just serving with 500 km/h. Things do not have to be equal. This is Earth, not Utopia.

And what is wrong with liking podium girls? Seriously, I can tell you have no sense of humour but is there really anything wrong with that? Sorry for my honesty, but I do not find women's cycling interesting just like women's snooker is boring. Sexist, mysoginistic.... Rubbish. Pure rubbish. Now please apologise.
Your choice of words in your original post was appalling. You have "immense respect" for the podium girls, the idea being the women who bust their asses racing are not worthy of respect, but pretty girls whose job is to stand there looking pretty on the other hand are worthy of "immense" respect. That is why you're getting accused of being misogynistic.

Al-Jazeera are broadcasting the women's Tour of Qatar at the moment. Yesterday's stage wasn't a great race or anything, but it was certainly no worse than most men's stages I've ever seen in Qatar.

In the wintersports, the women's events are just as popular as the men's, more people that I know could tell you the top female skiers than male (in Alpine at least), and the spectacle is certainly no worse (at times it's better, in different ways. In XC skiing the lack of depth in the women's distance mass start races means the same people win much of the time, but at least the race gets broken up early, rather than being a 48km group ski followed by a 2km race, just like any crappy men's cycling flat stage). The only exception is Ski Jumping and Nordic Combined, which have only introduced women's competitions very recently.

Women's cycling is underdeveloped, and as a result it struggles from a lack of depth and a lack of exposure. But do you really enjoy watching all those repetitive men's races where the break is held at 3 minutes for two hours, then Cavendish wins? Is that really more entertaining? A lot of the time women's cycling doesn't interest people because they haven't been given a reason to care about the participants (and the lack of fans detracts a lot from the atmosphere as well), meaning that unless you're really into the sport you don't have a reason to tense up or get excited when the moves are made.

To improve women's cycling, the desire to do so and hard work on the behalf of those with the power to do so is required. Women's golf has established itself pretty well over the last 20-30 years, thanks to the LPGA's tireless work to develop the sport. Elsewhere, it seems that established women's sports (skiing, biathlon, tennis, athletics) stay established, and underdeveloped women's sports stay underdeveloped. If anything, you could argue that slogging your guts out in a sport where there's pretty much no reward is even more worthy of respect than doing so in a sport with greater benefits. Certainly more than for slogging your guts out standing around in a dress with a cheesy smile and giving the stage winner a kiss on the cheek, at least.

Note something about all of those established women's sports that I mentioned: with the exception of the golf, the women's events are coterminous with the men's. If you go to watch a weekend event on the biathlon World Cup, you go and watch both men and women race. It's only on the weekdays they'll do men on one day, women on the other. Go to a tennis tournament, and both women's and men's matches will get top billing at various times. With the possible exception of the Ronde van Drenthe, women's cycling is in no way whatsoever ready to share top billing with the men's equivalent race. However, most of the most successful women's races are ones like Plouay, RVV and Flèche, which sit alongside the men's races. These also benefit from having the fans out in force as, while they may be there solely for the men's race later on, the enthusiastic Flemish fans cheer anybody passing and lend an air of relevance to the event.
 
Jun 11, 2012
43
0
0
Caruut said:
Yet if that is the case, why does the governing body invest in promoting cycling at all? Why is there such a thing as advertising if this is the case? Adequate prize money, it could be argued, would increase the level by encouraging greater competition.
Because money coming into a sport means a lot more that just prizemoney. It also means sponsors & coverage rights deals, which in turn feeds the advertising.

Caruut said:
The UCI goes out of its way to promote men's cycling across the globe, but not women's. Why?
The UCI promotes the men's cycling as that's where the interest and thus the money is. But don't put the cart before the horse and mistakenly think you could magically create interest by spending money on promotion. Interest happens organically.
 
The Eggman said:
The UCI promotes the men's cycling as that's where the interest and thus the money is. But don't put the cart before the horse and mistakenly think you could magically create interest by spending money on promotion. Interest happens organically.
But how do you grow organically, when one of the biggest problems is that it doesn't have the exposure to grow that interest?

If women's cycling was given the opportunity to sink or swim, and it sank, then fine, at least we tried. But it isn't in the position to have that opportunity, so it seems. This is the paradox they face. There's no coverage because there isn't the interest to justify it, but the potential audience can't get interested because there's no coverage to get into. It's a lot of work to follow women's cycling closely, ad for most the reward just isn't there to justify putting that work in.

It's why I'm not necessarily in favour of forcing women's teams on men's teams or full equivalent races alongside every men's event, because it wouldn't be economic. But something like Romandie used to do when it had the Lausanne ITT and had a women's ITT the same day, that might work. Package the women's Ronde and Flèche coverage with the men's, stick highlights on after the finish of the men's race or something like that. The co-terminous events work well, so maybe more of them. The GP Quebec/Montréal, for example, would be a perfect opportunity for it, because they're circuit races. Do them on alternating days, or the women's race in the morning and men's race in the afternoon. There is interest in Canada, we know from the old Tour of Prince Edward Island. Events with several races grouped close together would be perfect for throwing a women's race in on one of the days - the week with the Coppa Agostini, Coppa Bernocchi and Tre Valli Varesine, for example, or a women's one day race on the day between the pre-TDU crit and the TDU proper. One of the days of the Five Rings of Moscow maybe, on the Kryletskoye Ring.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
In the wintersports, the women's events are just as popular as the men's, more people that I know could tell you the top female skiers than male (in Alpine at least), and the spectacle is certainly no worse (at times it's better, in different ways. In XC skiing the lack of depth in the women's distance mass start races means the same people win much of the time, but at least the race gets broken up early, rather than being a 48km group ski followed by a 2km race, just like any crappy men's cycling flat stage). The only exception is Ski Jumping and Nordic Combined, which have only introduced women's competitions very recently.
It maybe true that in wintersports women´s events are just as popular as the men´s - though I am not 100% certain of this claim - and I personally enjoy them equally, but it does not mean that this experience translates directly to other sports. Even in tennis where formally everything is equal, women´s tennis still falls behind in popularity.
My own personal experience is also similar, in some fields (like in wintersports) I can watch women´s and men´s events with same excitement (or with same boredom), but in some fields like women´s football, it is extremly boring.
 
Jun 11, 2012
43
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
But how do you grow organically, when one of the biggest problems is that it doesn't have the exposure to grow that interest?
Here's the thing - I don't thing the problem is actually a lack of exposure. The sporting public are in fact aware that women's elite level cycling exists, just as we know lawn bowls exists, badminton exists, curling exists, archery exists, etc etc etc. The problem is the sporting public don't find it compelling enough to sit down and watch it on the telly/get out to the course/track/oval/court to warrant TV networks and sponsors investing in the sport.

And I come back to my initial point - Sport doesn't owe anyone a living. I'm sure elite women's cyclists would like to make more money out of their sport, as I'm sure do the elite lawn bowls players or archers, but at the end of the day it is only sport. A very lucky few in a handful of sports make great money out of what they do - that doesn't mean everyone is entitled to it.
 
The Eggman said:
Here's the thing - I don't thing the problem is actually a lack of exposure. The sporting public are in fact aware that women's elite level cycling exists, just as we know lawn bowls exists, badminton exists, curling exists, archery exists, etc etc etc. The problem is the sporting public don't find it compelling enough to sit down and watch it on the telly/get out to the course/track/oval/court to warrant TV networks and sponsors investing in the sport.

And I come back to my initial point - Sport doesn't owe anyone a living. I'm sure elite women's cyclists would like to make more money out of their sport, as I'm sure do the elite lawn bowls players or archers, but at the end of the day it is only sport. A very lucky few in a handful of sports make great money out of what they do - that doesn't mean everyone is entitled to it.
How do you think Britain got its public interested in cycling? There was a big population of people aware cycling existed but who couldn't give a damn for a long time.

When there are British big names, they get coverage, people who only paid a passing interest watch to cheer on their guys (or girls for that matter, especially on the track), and become fans of the sport.

But a lot of that would not have happened had the British sports funding through the lottery and whatever else it was not put a lot of focus on cycling, to try to develop it. It wasn't an organic groundswell of quality riders just happening to convene on the same place and time. It was carefully orchestrated and manufactured. The British population learnt the (British) characters, which gave them people they wanted to cheer on, and kept coming back. But had Britain not put the money in (partially based on the number of Olympic medals available) to develop the sport, it would never have happened.

Women's cycling has a decent amount of interest in only a handful of places. The Netherlands and Italy (to a lesser extent also Australia, who have a lot of top talents). Which just happens to be where most of the stars come from. The stars coming from there means there's more interest there, and there being more interest there means there are more races there which helps more stars be developed there.
 
*Sigh* GreenEdge put 5 of their 6 riders in the break, leave it to the last 5km to attack it (seemed fair enough given the wind conditions), but Kirsten Wild polices every move, they let it go to a bunch finish with 10 remaining of the break, of whom 5 are GreenEdge riders, and GreenEdge manage 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Clausfarre said:
Really? Women's football more exciting? Really?!?? No further comment needed.
Is there a match from the men's tournament that matched the semi-final between the USA and Canada in the women's? A local rivalry featuring the most historically successful team in women's football. The underdog Canada went ahead three times, only to see the USA equalise each time, pushing the match in extra time where the USA clinched a place in the final with a goal in the 123rd minute. That's an exciting game if it's pub teams in the park, who are a long way below the level of top women. Frankly I thought the women's games showed more passion - they looked like they cared more about the tournament. Onto the attendances - yes it was in a country which was going mad for the Olympics, but there were three games which achieved over 60,000 - there is clearly a market somewhere for this sport.

You do a lot of senseless namecalling but you are not the holder of all things true. Women's tennis may be MORE exciting because it's not about just serving with 500 km/h. Things do not have to be equal. This is Earth, not Utopia.
Women's vs men's tennis is an interesting one. The play in women's is often more interesting (due, like you say to the excessive power of the men's game) but I really like the 5-setters at times.

And what is wrong with liking podium girls? Seriously, I can tell you have no sense of humour but is there really anything wrong with that? Sorry for my honesty, but I do not find women's cycling interesting just like women's snooker is boring. Sexist, mysoginistic.... Rubbish. Pure rubbish. Now please apologise.
I would contest that my namecalling was senseless. I would say it was perfectly sensible - you derided women who worked hard in actually achieving something in sports and praised the girls who just stand there and look pretty on the podium - you were quite simply being very misogynist so no, I won't apologise. There's nothing wrong with saying you like podium girls. I like pretty girls too; ironically, given your insinuation that I had no sense of humour, they've always seemed quite keen on that. What I think is wrong is the insinuation that the podium is in some way the place of women in sport. Again, it is not you saying that you find women's sport boring that I find offensive - it is you saying that it could never be interesting that I think is offensive. No apology forthcoming until you stop being a pig.
 
Apr 11, 2010
191
0
0
The Eggman said:
The UCI promotes the men's cycling as that's where the interest and thus the money is. But don't put the cart before the horse and mistakenly think you could magically create interest by spending money on promotion. Interest happens organically.
I think that you may have made that up on the spot.

If women's events were run congruently with men's and with a little promotion, then maybe the 'organic' interest may occur. It's a nudge for gods sake, not a push. Once again though, that's speculation. That said, it seems to me a for cry more likely though than your argument.
 
Aug 24, 2010
155
0
0
Netserk said:
I think a solution would be that ANY protour race would have to have a race for both gender, and that when applying for proteam licens, teams that have a team of each gender gets a benefit.

Yes because more quota for women is exactly what our society needs.
 

Djave Bikinus

BANNED
Jan 29, 2013
31
0
0
Mich78BEL said:
Yes because more quota for women is exactly what our society needs.
I'm sorry but I'm all for anything that does harm to the patriarchal nature of our society. Equal pay and opportunities in sport would be a start
 
Apr 20, 2009
377
0
9,280
Djave Bikinus said:
I'm sorry but I'm all for anything that does harm to the patriarchal nature of our society. Equal pay and opportunities in sport would be a start
Pay in sports is based on exposure. Most female sports fail to attract as many viewers as the equivalent male sport, so where should the money come from? Should the men give the money they earned to women, who fail to attract an audience? Why is this fair?

A good example is women soccer. Even women don't watch it. So are all those women who refuse to watch indoctrinated by the patriarchy? Or are feminists just blaming everything they don't like in society on this big straw man?

PS. Modern feminism is a pile of crap.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY