Could women riders catch the TDF men?

[Dogtrousers]

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]

Why not Voss?

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

She?????

or did you mean She?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Why not Voss?

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

 

[Rob3rt]

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]

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]

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

 

[swansonj]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Flying_Monkey]

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]

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

 

[beastie]

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]

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?