Weight Weenies

ave wrote:>That's 5 minute power and not that crazy.
Not crazy for a man. So, now we now that Vos would get dropped from the men's Tour peleton. And what does it tell us?? F*** all.

Women are inherently weaker, different muscle fibers perhaps, higher fat percentages, etc. It's quite obvious really.
Look at running. Surely one can't say that women's athletics' "level is very low"... 5000meters' men's & women's WR differ by about 13%, more than 90seconds. (maybe it's even possible to calcualte power difference from running times?)

Which is why women's sports are boring. Sorry, but its true. WNBA anyone?

ave wrote:

Kasparz wrote:Yes, you could. Do you believe in yourself, that is the question?

I do race, and I do get dropped with these numbers. Which -if this table is correct- means that the general level of racing here is not that bad after all. This is what I find suprising. Preconceptions, I guess.

The table is not definitive. I have a domestic pro number, but have never won with that number. Its merely a sample of what riders across the spectrum have, but it has nothing to do with actual predictions of success.

For a local anecdote, I'm not an amazing rider- a normal cat 3 with a few strengths. I live in an area with lots of elite and domestic pro riders, many of which attend the weekend group rides. So do several females that have won NRC criteriums, road races, and other top level events. I manage to hang just fine, but they regularly get dropped. In fact, only 1 has ever completed the entire ride. That one has pretty good numbers on the chart above- higher for females than I am for males, but fact remains she has gotten dropped from the mens cat 3/4 races shes done and never finished a men's 1/2/3 race on an easy course but she has beaten a few of the top female pros in some big races. So anecdotally speaking I bet Evelyn Stephens or Kristen Armstrong or Marianne Vos could probably power away from me somehow, but outside of that select swath of the top 20 and even at the domestic elite level the speed differences are pretty stark.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

KWalker wrote:

ave wrote:>That's 5 minute power and not that crazy.
Not crazy for a man. So, now we now that Vos would get dropped from the men's Tour peleton. And what does it tell us?? F*** all.

Women are inherently weaker, different muscle fibers perhaps, higher fat percentages, etc. It's quite obvious really.
Look at running. Surely one can't say that women's athletics' "level is very low"... 5000meters' men's & women's WR differ by about 13%, more than 90seconds. (maybe it's even possible to calcualte power difference from running times?)

Which is why women's sports are boring. Sorry, but its true. WNBA anyone?

What utter bollocks.

Yes, the only women's sport I can stand to watch is beach volleyball........

Just a quick reminder chaps..




1 Niki Terpstra OmegaPharma- Quick-Step 1:49:50
2 Marc de Maar United Healthcare + 0:00:00
3 Thomas de Gendt Vacansoleil-DCM + 0:00:04
12 Ellen van Dijk Specialized Lululemon + 0:01:01
14 Chris Froome Sky + 0:01:01
15 Joaquim Rodriguez Katusha + 0:01:04
21 Marianne Vos Rabobank + 0:01:41
22 Annemiek van Vleuten Rabobank + 0:02:07

Kjetil wrote:

KWalker wrote:

ave wrote:>That's 5 minute power and not that crazy.
Not crazy for a man. So, now we now that Vos would get dropped from the men's Tour peleton. And what does it tell us?? F*** all.

Women are inherently weaker, different muscle fibers perhaps, higher fat percentages, etc. It's quite obvious really.
Look at running. Surely one can't say that women's athletics' "level is very low"... 5000meters' men's & women's WR differ by about 13%, more than 90seconds. (maybe it's even possible to calcualte power difference from running times?)

Which is why women's sports are boring. Sorry, but its true. WNBA anyone?

What utter bollocks.

Utter bollocks indeed. This prat obviously didn't see the womens Olympic RR to name only one event. Absolutely epic.

Giro Women -aka Giro Donne- (and they are still pro so it's not off topic) is an enterataining race, just look in YouTube for Montecatini (2012), Mortirolo, Valdidentro and Stelvio (2011) stages. You can find the ~1h highlights with full not edited finale.
And the top girls (e.g. Vos, Abbot, Pooley) are climbing good VAMs and thus producing good W/Kg and their battles are less boring than some (most?) men races.
These girls, even if few in numbers, climb well and fast, but if you just appreciate criteriums then they don't provide the same show as pro men.

Wow a grand fondo for results- like that indicates anything meaningful.

Sure the racing can be interesting from time to time, but like all professional sports there are rarely disciplines where it is on the same level. I watched the races you mentioned as they happened and found them OK, but rare rather than consistent examples.

The women's RR wasn't any more exciting than the men's IMO.

roselend wrote:Just a quick reminder chaps..


1 Niki Terpstra OmegaPharma- Quick-Step 1:49:50
2 Marc de Maar United Healthcare + 0:00:00
3 Thomas de Gendt Vacansoleil-DCM + 0:00:04
12 Ellen van Dijk Specialized Lululemon + 0:01:01
14 Chris Froome Sky + 0:01:01
15 Joaquim Rodriguez Katusha + 0:01:04
21 Marianne Vos Rabobank + 0:01:41
22 Annemiek van Vleuten Rabobank + 0:02:07

So?

Look dudes our wives/girlfriends/people who evaluate us for equality are not here. I'm not saying women are lesser than men and at some sports can be pretty damn impressive, but for competitive sports that involve racing, strength, etc. they're more boring as they go slower, score less, and are generally less physical.

If the field is uniformly weaker, the racing can be just as exciting. The issue with women's sports tends to be depth.

On basketball, I actually prefer women's. I don't relate at all to men's basketball. It has no relation to when I play. With women, the basket's actually high, as the game was designed. They're way better than I am, of course, but at least within the order of magnitude needed that I can relate.

Cycling's different. The women's Olympic RR was simply amazing. The men's scene got a bit absurd, but with the biological passport the riders are a bit more mortal now, a bit slower and more prone to fatigue, and it's a lot more interesting. But the women more generally suffer from less depth.

professional women's volleyball is WAY more exciting to watch that men's. This i promise all of you.

Not trying to prove anything here, thought it was interesting to show the results of a race where men and women rode together. You may have noticed that doesn't happen often...

Yes, women have less physical power, lower lung capacity, smaller hearts, lower cardiac output etc. It's called natural selection.

What are we discussing again?

roselend wrote:Not trying to prove anything here, thought it was interesting to show the results of a race where men and women rode together.

Except that apparently it wasn't really a race.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

Yeah, thats because if it was a 'real race' they would not be allowed to start together. On the other hand: Terpstra, Froome, Gesink, Rodriguez, De Gendt, Kittel. Not your average grand fondo then, is it?