KWalker wrote:can we start a women's racing or equality in cycling thread? leave this one for interesting pro cycling stuff?
I've seen and read it just now. seems like everything you disagree with needs to go from WW..
Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team
KWalker wrote:can we start a women's racing or equality in cycling thread? leave this one for interesting pro cycling stuff?
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.
jooo wrote:tymon_tm wrote:I'm not claiming women's racing is better. it's different. often a bit refreshing for someone used to the constant chess game provided by men's elite.
To me it just seems as if there's actually quite a bit of hype about the entertainment value of women's cycling from sections of English speaking cycling media which doesn't stack up. It's as if some use it as a good example for what men's racing should aspire to be
jooo wrote:tymon_tm wrote:when I say "shorten the distance", apart from letting cyclists keep more strenght for the finale, I also mean it's pointless from the TV spectator's perspective, or sponsor's perspective, to cover all those miles, especially since you can't even see them, can you.
You bring up an interesting aspect of the sport, that just because something may not be seen (or that exciting to most people), it doesn't mean that it isn't an important aspect of the sport.
I actually see the ability to not show half of a cycling race live as a lucky break that cycling can use more effectively to keep up with other sports that generally pose less of a logistical challenge. Television time is expensive and the fact that you can successfully condense the first part of racing into a short highlights package and then play, let's say the last hour and a half live saves huge amounts of money; ie sponsors don't need to be found to pay for a whole 6 hour broadcast. The coverage needs a lot of work though. The English speaking commentators from almost every network are awful, the pictures themselves often need improving and the sport as a whole has been slow to embrace technology.
jooo wrote:tymon_tm wrote:yes, cycling's an endurance sport, but that doesn't mean we need a negative selection at the finish line.
There is a point to the length of a race. It showcases the physical and mental toughness required to be a successful pro. I enjoy watching riders in a race of attrition, turning themselves inside out to win a long stage that's 2 and half weeks into a grand tour. Endurance is an integral part of creating those scenarios in road cycling and I don't feel this aspect needs to change for the future.tymon_tm wrote:I don't really know what you mean by the shorter stages that didn't pan out, because to the contrary - I can remember shorter, harder stages that did bring a lot of fighting rather than just dropping those who ran out of gas.
I'll politely disagree with this for the most part. They're often tackled at a faster pace which produces even less of a selection. The bunch is able to stay together more easily (due to riders not being fatigued). Sure there's been good finishes on some of the shorter stages, but again that's almost always down to a good race route and/or a GC battle, not the race distance.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.