# Could women riders catch the TDF men?



## User (19 Jul 2014)




----------



## MontyVeda (19 Jul 2014)

only way to really find out is to try it.


----------



## Crackle (19 Jul 2014)

I think some could. Average speed in the ToB was 26mph, lots of attacking. The pee issue is a non issue i reckon. I suppose physiological differences at the very highest level might be exposed on longer stages or multiple days but nowhete near the extent you might think. Judging by the ToB, men might get a shock at the amount of attacking that goes on.


----------



## laurence (19 Jul 2014)

having watched some of the Tour Series, (some of) the women could give (some of) the men a run for their money. the women do seem to go all out from the gun.

one if the big issues in the depth of talent. women's cycling has never had the support of men's, so the pool of talent to choose from is smaller. a lot of the teams are lacking in that respect, but it is changing.

i was watching the racing at Redbridge cycling centre last week, my first time seeing junior events. i was surprised to see the races are mixed and the girls were at the sharp end a lot of the time.


----------



## Herzog (19 Jul 2014)

I'd love to see how Vos would go up against the men.


----------



## jifdave (19 Jul 2014)

Crackle said:


> I think some could. Average speed in the ToB was 26mph, lots of attacking. The pee issue is a non issue i reckon. I suppose physiological differences at the very highest level might be exposed on longer stages or multiple days but nowhete near the extent you might think. Judging by the ToB, men might get a shock at the amount of attacking that goes on.


not forgetting they only ride 60 or so miles not the 100 or so the men often ride


----------



## User169 (19 Jul 2014)

Herzog said:


> I'd love to see how Vos would go up against the men.



I'd like to see Vos more frequently up against some tougher parcours. In the womens Giro just finished she was well beaten over proper hills by Pooley even though Vos had the stronger team.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jul 2014)

My rough guess, a women's TDF would be about 5kph down on the mens.


----------



## Crackle (19 Jul 2014)

jifdave said:


> not forgetting they only ride 60 or so miles not the 100 or so the men often ride


No I haven't forgotten that. I think the ability would work out as a bit of a Venn Diagram though.


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (19 Jul 2014)

Vos, Pooley, Armitstead, Cooke, it'd be great to see them all against the men

Not forgetting Beryl Burton, we can only wonder what she would have attained in this day & age (training, bikes, kit, nutrician, etc...)

Then again, she did beat Nim Carline in the 12 hour Time-Trial, back in 1967 - it took 2 years for a man to go further.
Even now, her 12 hour record still stands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She rode the 1968_ 'Grand Prix des Nations'_ as a personal invite (73km/46 mile time-trial for the pros) in 1.45:22 
She finished just over a minute behind the slowest of the pro riders, *& *with a slow rear-puncture over the last few miles!


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (19 Jul 2014)

Can't find it at the moment (maybe wrong search terms), but, isn't; there a comparison chart somewhere online, with some of the women (inc Vos) displaying VO2/lung capacity/etc.... against some of the male pros??

She came pretty high up the scale too!!


----------



## totallyfixed (19 Jul 2014)

No they couldn't, it is comparing apples and pears and in our racing world should never be done. I would go further, comparisons are often done by commentators highlighting the discrepancy between male and female, why? It is vitally important in the world of cycle racing that the two are never compared because this is to do women a huge disservice, it lowers them in the eyes of the general public.
It is hard enough fighting to get them equal prize money. Tomorrow morning if dr_pink wins the womens race she will collect £50, the equivalent man will get £100, completely wrong. A man will always [in todays racing] be quicker than a woman, but the woman worked just as hard as the man.
I could go on, a lot, but I'm tired and have to be up at 6am.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (19 Jul 2014)

I think watts/kg is a better measure for cyclists looking to do more than ride on the flat all day long.


----------



## beastie (20 Jul 2014)

The men put out a lot more power. The men's individual 4000m pursuit record is 6 seconds faster than the women's *Team* record. The men's hour record is 56km (ish), the women's 46km. So about 20% faster. W/kg I think the men are still stronger, but the gap is less?


----------



## swansonj (20 Jul 2014)

I started reading this thread with the feeling in my mind that I'd read that the longer the event, the better women do, and after a certain point, they are better than men. Perusal of the records for running for 24 hours, 48 hours, 6 days etc doesn't seem to support that - men still seem to be 10-20% faster. But I did find the Everest Base Camp - Katmandu record: originally held by a male Sherpa, lowered by a joint male-female duo, then lowered again by the female of that team on her own.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (20 Jul 2014)

In every other speed, power or endurance based sport, men seem to do better, so why should cycling be any different.

As totallyfixed said, comparing the two does a disservice not just to women's cycling but women's sport in general.


----------



## Foghat (20 Jul 2014)

Well, the question is rather naїvely phrased – could women ‘catch’ the TDF men? - but is worth discussion given the simplistic assumptions made by some commentators about how women compare with men in cycling performance.

Yes, some women could, given the right circumstances, but the question is a bit meaningless without understanding how cycle racing works and elaborating on context, or indeed clarifying better what is meant by ‘catch’.

Tour stages are ridden at varying levels of intensity (varying between days, within individual stages, between types of terrain, between rider roles and between breaks/peloton/autobus/stragglers).

So, there is no chance of any woman ever being able to ‘catch’ or stay for long with the men when the intensity is high - even Marianne Vos would find it impossible to stay with the vast majority of the male Tour riders in these situations, such as:

riding a col, or probably any significant climb, hard
battling crosswinds in hard-riding echelons
in any break
on the front
time-trials
descents ridden hard
on cobbles
fighting to rejoin if dropped
However, the top women on top form could probably ‘catch’ or at least stay with some of the TDF men in certain circumstances, such as:

riding with the autobus on a col (a fresh Vos might even be able to go faster given her good power/weight ratio, but bear in mind watts/kg is not the same as the ability to sustain power)
while remaining sheltered in the peloton (until the intensity got high, e.g. towards the end of a stage or on a strategic climb)
beating the very slowest riders in a time-trial (e.g. those saving energy and simply riding fast enough not to get eliminated on time)
maybe beating a heavy non-climber on a long climb (although note that the TDF sprinters can ride the big climbs pretty damned fast if they put their minds to it)
When I was riding Elite/1/2/3, Cat 2/3 and Cat 3/4 races in the 1990s, some of the fastest UK women (including national champions) sometimes entered some of the shorter Cat 3/4 races that I rode. In my experience, they never featured in breaks, never rode at the front, and never animated the race, but would often finish with the main field in less hilly races. There is a considerable gulf between Cat 3/4 races and the TDF and, whilst the recent advent of a developed professional female class has no doubt improved standards since then, this sort of evidence gives an idea of the gap needing to be closed in order to ‘catch’ the TDF men.

So, in answering the ‘catch’ question, one has to at least look at how women would fare if trying to ride at TDF speeds in TDF situations. Therefore, unless the OP is just querying the relative physiological capabilities of men and women in cycling, and whether these could converge at all (in which case why not pose a better question about comparative physiological data/research?), one has to conclude that yes the faster women could possibly ‘catch’ the slowest TDF men in certain circumstances or stay with the race in periods of low intensity, but they would have no chance of actually being competitive in any aspect of the race, or holding a similar length women-only race at similar speeds over similar terrain and distances.

That said, I doubt that it’s impossible that some women could ‘catch’ TDF men in other ways – such as earnings, fame – e.g. if women’s cycling became as popular to watch as men’s (as in tennis).


----------



## mustang1 (20 Jul 2014)

I was under the impression an athletic male was stronger/faster/more resilient than an athletic woman.


----------



## srw (22 Jul 2014)

User13710 said:


> It wasn't my question. In the link, you will see that it was the question posed by a reader of the Guardian. The answers that follow are interesting in their levels of detail and open-minded attitude I thought.


I don't know enough about running to know whether it's essentially a sheer power exercise (in which case the commenter who points to the 10% difference has missed the point) or whether there's something else going on in that case. 

The comparison with Andy Schleck is an instructive one - take out the pure power stages (sprints, breakaways and TTs) and I would't be surprised to see a woman competing quite well in a cycling event. She's unlikely ever to win a stage, of course, but on the right course she could come reasonably high up the GC. Of course, for those reasons very few women are ever likely to get a chance, because it's the same investment as for a male pro with lower returns.

For what it's worth, within the next 25 years or so I'd expect compulsory sex segregation to be overturned by politicians - so that we have "open" and "female" categories. In some sports where power isn't a determinant that will result in the best women competing against and beating the best men (golf, motorsport, snooker) or in the same teams (cricket) while in other sports (tour cycling) there will only ever be the occasional woman mixing it with the men.


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Jul 2014)

I am a bit confused by the question and the motivation (seems rather naive to me)...

The women couldn't hang with the men in competition if mixed. Could a women's peleton catch a men's peleton is set off one after the other, way to context based to answer, all else equal (including the dynamics of the race), no they couldn't!

The slightly better posed question below the headline re. how closely would the women's performance match that of the men, well if you take race dynamics of the race out of the question and just pit male vs female performance in terms of speed or power, even W/kg, men will appear to be performing better!

At the end of the day, men go faster in pure speed terms (I beat pro women cyclists in time trials) and put out more power, for longer. BUT, this is not, never has been and never will be relevant to the quality of womens racing!


----------



## Beebo (22 Jul 2014)

srw said:


> I In some sports where power isn't a determinant that will result in the best women competing against and beating the best men (golf, motorsport, snooker) or in the same teams (cricket) while in other sports (tour cycling) there will only ever be the occasional woman mixing it with the men.


Steve Davis doesnt think so. Quite a compelling statement about men and women!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/27253279
Davis thinks women lack "that single minded determination in something that must be said is a complete waste of time - trying to put snooker balls into pockets with a pointed stick.
"Men are ideally suited to doing something as absolutely irrelevant in life as that," he said. "They're the ones who have train sets in the loft. They have stamp collections to die for. Right? These are stupid things to do with your life. As is trying to practise eight hours a day to get to World Championship level. "So therefore I think we are also the idiots of the species as well. The male of the species has got a single-minded, obsessional type of brain that I don't think so many females have."


----------



## swansonj (22 Jul 2014)

I am prepared to believe that men, being more autistic in general than women and more willing to behave like B***ds, are statistically more likely to prosper in some sports. But that of course is only the statistical generality. I happen to know a lady who previously held multiple long-distance running records - the likes of the 48 hours and 24 hours records. Running round a circular track for 48 hours continuously might be thought to be akin to putting balls in pockets with a pointed stick in terms of pointlessness - but she is a remarkably well-adjusted and pleasant lady (with a successful career as a senior civil servant to boot).


----------



## Fab Foodie (22 Jul 2014)

I'd be prepared to go up against
Pooley, Arminstead, Trott anytime .....


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Jul 2014)

When it is a question of speed and power men will always, on average, be better, however, contrary to what some have said here, as endurance and stamina come more into the picture, i.e. as it becomes more a question of survival, women tend to catch up with and can surpass men... there are lots of articles about ultratunning, in particular, out there but here's just one: http://www.runnersworld.com/trail-running-training/why-women-rule


----------



## montage (22 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE="Flying_Monkey, post: 3192562, member: 101"*]When it is a question of speed and power men will always, on average, be better*[/QUOTE]

Is that a Canadian phrase?


----------



## srw (22 Jul 2014)

Beebo said:


> Steve Davis doesnt think so. Quite a compelling statement about men and women!
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/snooker/27253279



The old "men are better because men are worse" argument. When you think about it's teensy bit sexist and doesn't do a great deal other than reinforcing prejudices. If I want moderately dull commentary on snooker I'll go to Steve Davis. If I want an insight into psychology or sociology I think I'll go somewhere else, thanks.


----------



## jarlrmai (22 Jul 2014)

User13710 said:


> It is a naïve question - as I said earlier, it was posed by an anonymous reader of a newspaper, who might not know much/anything about cycling. I liked the fact that commenters took the trouble to go into interesting technical detail as have some responders here. Your answer, to a different question, is a perfect example of what I didn't mean - saying 'no they couldn't' with nothing much to back it up. Thanks for taking the trouble to type something anyhow .



What is your question exactly?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Jul 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> What is your question exactly?


I read the OP as an invitation to discuss rather than to ask a specific question.


----------



## themosquitoking (22 Jul 2014)

Fab Foodie said:


> I'd be prepared to go up against
> Pooley, Arminstead, Trott anytime .....


Why not Voss?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Jul 2014)

themosquitoking said:


> Why not Voss?


Because she doesn't ride a double entendre, I'd guess.


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 Jul 2014)

Women have done well in the Iditarod sled dog race. Aliy Zirkle has been second for the last two years. Susan Butcher ruled the roost for several years in the 80s. Deedee Jonrowe has placed well a couple of times and won the half way prize (a bag of nuggets at Cripple - I kid you not) a few years back.


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2014)

themosquitoking said:


> Why not Voss?





deptfordmarmoset said:


> Because she doesn't ride a double entendre, I'd guess.



She?????

or did you mean She?


----------



## Fab Foodie (23 Jul 2014)

themosquitoking said:


> Why not Voss?


I thought I'd give the home-grown talent a chance first ....


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Jul 2014)

User13710 said:


> It is a naïve question - as I said earlier, it was posed by an anonymous reader of a newspaper, who might not know much/anything about cycling. I liked the fact that commenters took the trouble to go into interesting technical detail as have some responders here. *Your answer, to a different question, is a perfect example of what I didn't mean - saying 'no they couldn't' with nothing much to back it up.* Thanks for taking the trouble to type something anyhow .



It requires backing up?


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Jul 2014)

User13710 said:


> Well, yes. I know this might come as a shock, but your opinion on its own doesn't count for much and isn't all that interesting.



You know how certain things are so well known and/or bleeding obvious that they no longer require referencing back to their original source, for example, Ohm's law, well this is one of those cases. If the physiological differences are not already obvious given the vast history of the sport not much is going to clarify the situation!

Quite frankly people out to stop focussing on such irrelevancies and focus on the racing for what it is.


----------



## Rob3rt (23 Jul 2014)

My post does not share the same sentiment as that contained in the quotes within that link and you know it!


----------



## swansonj (23 Jul 2014)

User13710 said:


> In case you missed the point, since the start of the thread* I have been repeating that*, yes, the reader's question that sparked the column in the Guardian was naïve. But, unusually, it sparked an interesting and reasonably in-depth response, rather than the usual bunch of blokes chiming in to say 'Nah, women are weedy' or similar, which doesn't get anyone anywhere.


With, if I may say so, laudable patience and persistence....


----------



## jarlrmai (23 Jul 2014)

Yeah I'm not sure how much more can be said about physiological differences, there's also the lack of exposure, money and proper racing to encourage more and better suited genetically women into the sport which will have an effect, but still on average across populations the scientific literature says that men will perform better at power based events than women, the gap closes at extreme time endurance events like ultra running where women often do better than men.

This is not to say that all women are bad, few non-pro men could keep up with Vos etc and there are women I see around that blow me away all the time, but on average, across populations men are better at cycling due to base physical traits and the men in the Tour de France are the best of the best.

If you want to have a debate about it then do so some science based research that produces evidence that shows that the current research is incorrect then we can have a debate, otherwise we might as well be debating the fact that gravity exits.

It's all very well saying opinions this, I don't know etc etc, but Sports Science is a science it has the rules of science and that is that opinions don't matter, what matters is well conducted research and peer review.

You haven't contributed anything to this debate other than to straw man the arguments of those repeating the current scientific consensus and misrepresenting what we are saying, a lot of us here are passionate about cycling and pro cycling men's and women's, I watch the women's road-race/track events and follow the women's tours when I can, I sit in front of my TV screaming on our team pursuiters and one of my favourite athletes is Joanna Rowsell.

If you want a debate about women's pro-cycling that's fine we already have a 10 page thread about how the profile of women's cycling can improve, join in. But trying to start one by comparing the elite men to the elite women is already framing the debate in a negative way one which has been mentioned before but is always answered by just enjoy the racing whomever is doing it.

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/how-to-grow-womens-pro-cycling.108806/post-3186492

Enjoy your ride


----------



## Bollo (23 Jul 2014)

I guess this is relevant to the thread...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/commonwealth-games/28425366

I don't know too much about the specifics and personalities involved, but I don't imagine it'll be comfortable ready at British Cycling.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Jul 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> This is not to say that all women are bad, few non-pro men could keep up with Vos etc and there are women I see around that blow me away all the time, but on average, across populations men are better at cycling due to base physical traits and the men in the Tour de France are the best of the best.
> 
> If you want to have a debate about it then do so some science based research that produces evidence that shows that the current research is incorrect then we can have a debate, otherwise we might as well be debating the fact that gravity exits.



You come across as missing something of the point here, not to say 'mansplaining' - which is especially bad if you're wrong or not as correct as you think. TMN is asking a question, inviting debate, not asking for some bloke to say 'here's the facts, end of'. And as I've already pointed out (and there is science to back this up), the more any sport becomes about endurance and survival, the more women become equal to, if not better than, men. So, whether women can catch up with men in cycling depends on the kind of cycling we're talking about. It's unlikely that women would ever be able to compete equally in a track sprint, but in say, endurance mountain biking, or things like the Race Across America, there's actually more scope for 'catching up'. Perhap you might consider opening your mind a little rather than trying to close down debate based on the limited amount you know (and the point is that we _all_ know a limited amount). 

PS: I started the How to Grow Women's Pro-Cycling thread... although that too was almost derailed by men ridiculing both what was and what was not being proposed.


----------



## jarlrmai (23 Jul 2014)

To be honest I'm not sure what we are supposed to be debating?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Jul 2014)

jarlrmai said:


> To be honest I'm not sure what we are supposed to be debating?



Then perhaps you'd be better off not trying to lecture anyone else. It seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## jarlrmai (23 Jul 2014)

Well i'm not seeing any other debating going on?


----------



## beastie (23 Jul 2014)

srw said:


> I don't know enough about running to know whether it's essentially a sheer power exercise (in which case the commenter who points to the 10% difference has missed the point) or whether there's something else going on in that case.
> 
> The comparison with Andy Schleck is an instructive one - take out the pure power stages (sprints, breakaways and TTs) and I would't be surprised to see a woman competing quite well in a cycling event. She's unlikely ever to win a stage, of course, but on the right course she could come reasonably high up the GC. Of course, for those reasons very few women are ever likely to get a chance, because it's the same investment as for a male pro with lower returns.
> 
> For what it's worth, within the next 25 years or so I'd expect compulsory sex segregation to be overturned by politicians - so that we have "open" and "female" categories. In some sports where power isn't a determinant that will result in the best women competing against and beating the best men (golf, motorsport, snooker) or in the same teams (cricket) while in other sports (tour cycling) there will only ever be the occasional woman mixing it with the men.


Golf is a power sport. Cricket is a power and speed and strength sport. (Ok not all aspects of golf and cricket). I am 5'6" and used to play golf a fair bit and was a low single figure handicap. I had good hand speed and strong arms but with shorter levers I could not generate the club head speed to match taller men in distance. They had a big advantage. I only played with one lady who ever hit it further than me and that was Laura Davies. She was awesome. There are few sports where strength, speed and power don't come into it, even by a small degree. 

The top women golfers are just as impressive in all round play as the men, but they can't hit it as far. Like short men they can't do much about it. Doesn't mean they aren't great golfers though. Same for all female sportists in my opinion. Marianne Vos is awesome all ends up.


----------



## theclaud (24 Jul 2014)

User said:


> what else would it become, do you really want to see the likes of Vos as some sort of sideshow so we can all go "ah isn't it nice that women can compete with men, ahhh that's progress just a shame she wins feck all..."
> do you not think Vos and her team have not considered her racing with the men, plenty of publicity and money to be made in the short term,
> anyway I need to go to work...


Did you actually read any of the stuff that TMN has repeatedly quoted, or do you intend to continue having a conversation with yourself?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (24 Jul 2014)

Ohhh you've all gone and done it now, this place will be full of womenfolk on a rant; no longer the safe male bastion of slagging off dopers and worshipping people of the Sky, it'll be feminax and mooncups.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I for one am not interested in token gestures by letting women compete against men to the detriment of womens sport....''



The trouble is that that detriment already exists, generalised and pervasive. Here's a recent, possibly still current, advertising poster for Clark's shoes. The CEO refused to withdraw them because, I suppose from his point of view they reflected the segregation that a large part of the blue v pink market already expects.








The girl who strays into the active blue side of shoe wearing becomes a tomboy, and thereby manages to lose her gender. And the narrow stereotyped version of femininity prevails, untarnished by reality. And then companies won't come forward and sponsor women's cycling racing, presumably because their market audience has gone shoe shopping.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Jul 2014)

User said:


> but this is surely the wider question of the detriment of women in society, the question was can they compete againist men in the TDF....


The degree to which women are restricted to a falsely narrow idea of femininity (which precedes the point at which girls are likely to get into competitive sports) means there's a far smaller base of riders to pick from and compete against. When we get being sporty included into common ideas of femininity we'll be able to look at the purely physiological aspects of male versus female performance. Until then I believe we still have to take these notions into account.

Personally, I don't think there's any need to merge women's and men's cycling. Sure, there will be times when there are direct challenges and a Vos will take up the Billy Jean King role. Incidentally, Laura Trott was talking about women's cycling on Radio 4 this morning and it sounded like she'd been reading @Flying_Monkey 's thread over on Pro Cycling. And that's why I want you all to be watching La Course on Sunday!


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (24 Jul 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> .



So what exactly does this say about boys who love comfort and style?


----------



## Dogtrousers (24 Jul 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> Women have done well in the Iditarod sled dog race. Aliy Zirkle has been second for the last two years. Susan Butcher ruled the roost for several years in the 80s. Deedee Jonrowe has placed well a couple of times and won the half way prize (a bag of nuggets at Cripple - I kid you not) a few years back.


FWIW here's an interview with Aliy Zirkle on the subject of being a woman athlete. She doesn't say anything really amazing but interesting-ish.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KaliqsrH94


----------



## srw (24 Jul 2014)

beastie said:


> Golf is a power sport. Cricket is a power and speed and strength sport. (Ok not all aspects of golf and cricket). I am 5'6" and used to play golf a fair bit and was a low single figure handicap. I had good hand speed and strong arms but with shorter levers I could not generate the club head speed to match taller men in distance.



Golf is not a driving competition. Cricket is not a speed bowling competition.

In golf, it's not the person who drives the furthest (which is the only power aspect) who wins - it's the person who gets the ball in the hole in the fewest shots. In cricket, it's only batting and fast bowling which are out-and-out power aspects. David Gower was one of the most successful batsman of his day without being desperately powerful. THe top three wicket-takers in test cricket of all time (Murali, Warne, Kumble) were all spinners.


----------



## fimm (28 Jul 2014)

A question from a different angle:
Watching Marianne Vos win on Sunday, she's obviously a good sprinter. She can also win GC races. This is not usual in the men's peloton, as male sprinters can't climb fast enough to keep up with the lighter climbing specialists due to power-to-weight ratio stuff. In the past I _think_ there were men who could do both - Merckx I _think_ is an example - but these days men train specifically to do one thing or the other. 

However women don't build muscle to the same extent that men do; so I was wondering if there will always be women who can do both, can be all rounders in a way that men can't?

Does that question make sense? I know what I am trying to say, and have tried to be clear without writing a very long essay.


----------

