| |
Main
Date: 14 Oct 2007 00:01:40
From:
Subject: why not a woman??
|
all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
LYNDA
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 14:29:17
From: Marian
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 18, 11:31 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1192608580.281923.151...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
> ,
>
>
>
>
>
> Marian <marian.rosenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 1:32 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <3-GdnfuQnr0UPY_anZ2dnUVZ_qmln...@comcast.com>,
> > > "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > <bikingly...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:1192320100.756328.302280@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> > > > > know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> > > > > best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> > > > > cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> > > > > chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> > > > > give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> > > > > the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> > > > It is against the Livedrunk charter.
>
> > > > The official rules state, "Anyone being discussed as a potential All Time
> > > > Best in any category must have a penis."
>
> > > > The rules also require that any discussions can not commence until all
> > > > participants have a beverage that contains at least 2 percent alcohol by
> > > > volume. It is also suggested that if the participants butts are on
> > > > furniture they should be on a stool instead of a seat.
>
> > > Two percent? A body will succumb to acute water poisoning
> > > before catching a buzz.
>
> > You -ride- while you do it so that you continuously get more
> > dehyrdated as you go along.
>
> Oh. I was misled by the mention of furniture, stool, and seat.
That's merely a suggestion, not a requirement.
-M
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 07:17:06
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 16, 9:38 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 8:10 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Women have a distinct advantage over most men in climbing competitions
> >> because they're usually smaller and lighter while having a larger
> >> percentage of their body weight in leg muscles. At last year's Mt
> >> Evans Hill Climb the first place woman in the open catagory would have
> >> finished 10th in the men's 45+ age bracket.She would have finished
> >> 45th in the open men's catagory.
>
> > Two things here, first of all, you really can't compare the men's and
> > women's time conclusively -- maybe she just went as hard as she needed
> > to in order to win the women's race. Second, that was a notably thin
> > women's open field, with respect to the winner there, who was actually
> > a cat 3.
>
> > When she did it Longo finished the climb in under 2 hours, racing
> > against women. Remember that the course record stood at around 1:55
> > for many years.
>
> > Women are fast. Don't be afraid.
>
> > Robert
>
> Don't focus on where women would have placed in the men's field. Top women are around 10-12% slower than top men, over and over. That's true in many athletic speed events, including hillclimbs.
>
> I know, Beryl Burton. She wasn't competing against top men.
It was a major loss to the sport when Beryl died so far ahead of her
time.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 07:15:51
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 11:30 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Oct 15, 8:10 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Women have a distinct advantage over most men in climbing competitions
> > because they're usually smaller and lighter while having a larger
> > percentage of their body weight in leg muscles. At last year's Mt
> > Evans Hill Climb the first place woman in the open catagory would have
> > finished 10th in the men's 45+ age bracket.She would have finished
> > 45th in the open men's catagory.
>
> Two things here, first of all, you really can't compare the men's and
> women's time conclusively -- maybe she just went as hard as she needed
> to in order to win the women's race. Second, that was a notably thin
> women's open field, with respect to the winner there, who was actually
> a cat 3.
That's true but remember that women often train in men's races in the
USA and they're usually just barely competitive in the Cat 3 men's
field.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 07:12:42
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 12:53 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com > wrote:
> bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> "Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?"
The frightening thing is that you actually knew where to get that....
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 15:02:43
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The frightening thing is that you actually knew where to get that....
>
Actually, there are loads of lyrics sites out there--all I had to
remember was the first line...maybe that's scary enough, for a male
alleged heterosexual.
I am a half-assed amateur musician, and love the old show tunes.
Probably don't have the male heterosexual record for knowing old show
tunes though, I understand that Mandy Patinkin is straight.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 07:10:33
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 12:17 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> USENET hierarchy, for USEr NETwork. Have a look at the
> Wikipedia article on USENET, and do some further research.
> It was originally designed and built to distribute to
> system administrators messages about the functioning of the
> internet in its earliest days, long before garble came
> along and dumped a bunch of innocents onto USENET, said
> innocents incapable of configuring their machine as a nntp
> client, and instead using goober's ill mannered http to
> nntp gateway. I hope you know more about racing than you do
> about the forum you have chosen to cast your pearls.
I first started posting before HTTP was invented and if memory serves
was making initial entries as far back as 1969 on some group on
Arpanet. It was some sort of discussion on a program that was called
"Doctor". The idea was to make the program act so much like a person
that you couldn't tell whether it was a person or the machine
answering your questions. I found that the way to beat it was to use
slang or imperfect English such as your for you're. Also Doctor only
had a one step memory and would only respond to the last entry of
yours.
It was a lot of fun at the time and it did bring a pretty deep
understanding of machine intelligence.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 07:05:23
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 12:13 pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>
> > And the poor little men couldn't handle distances much longer then what they
> > do now, since they have to take drugs to finish a grand tour. There has been
> > talk of making grand tours shorter so the poor little things could finish
> > the grand tours, without the need to take drugs.
>
> You think the women don't take drugs?
Ahh, yes, the "say anything" Legate gambit. By all means tell us what
you know about women's racing.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 07:01:21
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 10:09 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Jeff Jones wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, the women's hour record speed is just over 46km/h,
> > while the men's is just under 50km/h. Before the UCI changed the
> > rules, it was 48.1km/h for women and 56.4km/h for men, although I
> > don't think Longo used the superwoman position.
>
> I would be more impressed with an 4 km/hr speed differential if some of the
> guys who rode 50 km/hr had pushed a bowling ball with legs out of their
> asses six months beforehand.
Well, tell us - since the men's record is presently held by Ond ej
Sosenka at 49.700 km and the women's is 46.065 km/h set by Leontien
Zijlaard-Van Moorsel in Oct 2003 are you impressed by the nearly 4 km
difference in those two? Or perhaps you're implying that Leontien had
a baby six months prior to her record?
And by the way - just how much time is required to recover from
childbirth or does the mere fact that you've had a child put you in a
special "Asher" catagory in which you can ride slower and still be
considered "would have been faster"?
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 06:55:58
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 10:01 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid >
wrote:
> RicodJour schreef:
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:01 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Since there are [fewer] women in the sport, the level of talent isn't as
> >> closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
> >> longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need more
> >> distance to create a selection.
>
> > The distance also has to do with the time required to complete the
> > race - at least in multi-race events. The organizers will have a
> > rough idea of the desired race length time per category and adjust the
> > number of laps to fit. Since the women are riding more slowly,
> > presumably preening and hoping to catch the eye of a potential
> > husband, the races have fewer laps.
>
> While these are all sound and valid reasons, they are rationalisations.
> From the outset, distances for women were shorter because the poor
> little things weren't able to handle the longer distances.
Ewoud, there used to be a women's-only stage race in Montana that
tried to give women the same sort of challenge that the Tour gives
men. The UCI wouldn't give them support because they believed it too
hard for those poor helpless women.
Yet while it was a lot harder than most women's races it had the same
sort of racing from women - slow stolid pack pacing until the final
sprint even in hilly stages. A real breakaway was rare and usually
done by Jeany Longo.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 10:33:15
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
<cyclintom@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1192629358.201765.71040@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 15, 10:01 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid>
> wrote:
> > RicodJour schreef:
> >
> > > On Oct 15, 12:01 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Since there are [fewer] women in the sport, the level of talent isn't
as
> > >> closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
> > >> longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need more
> > >> distance to create a selection.
> >
> > > The distance also has to do with the time required to complete the
> > > race - at least in multi-race events. The organizers will have a
> > > rough idea of the desired race length time per category and adjust the
> > > number of laps to fit. Since the women are riding more slowly,
> > > presumably preening and hoping to catch the eye of a potential
> > > husband, the races have fewer laps.
> >
> > While these are all sound and valid reasons, they are rationalisations.
> > From the outset, distances for women were shorter because the poor
> > little things weren't able to handle the longer distances.
>
> Ewoud, there used to be a women's-only stage race in Montana that
> tried to give women the same sort of challenge that the Tour gives
> men. The UCI wouldn't give them support because they believed it too
> hard for those poor helpless women.
That's right. The founder, an x-green beret, wanted to make it as hard as
the men's tour. UCI thought he was crazy, but so did everyone else. However
the women's challenge was already the premiere stage race in America, it was
hard race, and brought in top riders from around the world for excellent
prize money. At one point, I think the pot went to $125,000 dollars. However
in Europe the poor helpless women were riding in the women's Giro and TDF
with sometimes 17 stages and at least 3 or 4 big climbs, often the same one
the men used in their tours. But those races were shortened because of a
lack of cash, all three, Grande Boucle, Giro De Feminin and
Thuringen-Rundfahrt are all on the chopping block every year, and every
year, somehow they manage to come up with enough funds, but the stages keep
getting less every year. Just look at the Grande Boucle 6 stages compared to
17 a few years ago. It's not a UCI race, the problem is lack of funds, not
because the race is too long and hard, it's not.
Toona is another race where men and women race the same distances and
receive the same prize money. So poor little things, yeah right. Toona is
the hardest stage race in the world for women, and has the biggest payout
for women in the world, around $60,000. The problem now is the Euro teams
don't send their women to anything more then the one day sprint fest at
Liberty Classic because it doesn't interfere with their delusions about
world cup grandure and the girls hope for the Olympic games next year. It's
also the same time as Thuringen-Rundfahrt, so they would rather grasp at
straws in the world cup monopoly then race races that are really meaningful
international tests for women like Toona. Toona is really hard, and it's the
best shot at getting a international field together in America, if they
could only come over like they did in the HP. Right now, it doesn't seem
like the prize money is enough to bring them over, although it's light years
ahead of what women get in prize money in Europe. Top pro women put their
stock in the world cup, UCI teams and ranking system, but it's an unfair
monopoly that should be broken up, IMO, or at least two UCI women's events
should be in America. Women stick to the world cup because of market value,
and dreams of Olympic gold. Right now, only a handful of America women race
in America, Neben and Armstrong being the best. I have spoke at lengths
about women's racing with staff at USAC, but the UCI have never been kind
enough to answer any questions. Gila is also an excellant stage race for
women, it yearns for international competition as well.
> Yet while it was a lot harder than most women's races it had the same
> sort of racing from women - slow stolid pack pacing until the final
> sprint even in hilly stages. A real breakaway was rare and usually
> done by Jeany Longo.
Well Judith Arndt and Rasa Polikeviciute set the HP on fire, both are good
climbers, providing some great action, and even one hour TV segments
nationwide. If you look at those rosters, it was really a who's who of
talent including Zoulfia Zabirova, Catherine Marsal, Rasa Polikeviciute ,
Judith Arndt, Diane Ziliute, Petra Rossner, Lyne Bessette, Anna Wilson, even
Modesta Vzesniauskaite was there. A number of Euro girls have come to the HP
over the years. It was the best hope of getting the best of both worlds
together. The demise of the women's HP was the biggest blow to women's
cycling in America, IMO. The best thing about the long tours of the past, it
allowed the women climbers to shine. Today women's stage races are not
selective enough for the climbers. New climbers like Emma Pooley don't have
a climbers venue to really shine like Luperini and Somaribba did in the
past. Pooley might be the next great climber.
GBMT
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 20:34:51
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
In article <o5qdnfBpkOZU2ovanZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@sti.net >,
"GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com > wrote:
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192629358.201765.71040@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 15, 10:01 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid>
> > wrote:
> > > RicodJour schreef:
> > >
> > > > On Oct 15, 12:01 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Since there are [fewer] women in the sport, the level of talent isn't
> as
> > > >> closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
> > > >> longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need more
> > > >> distance to create a selection.
> > >
> > > > The distance also has to do with the time required to complete the
> > > > race - at least in multi-race events. The organizers will have a
> > > > rough idea of the desired race length time per category and adjust the
> > > > number of laps to fit. Since the women are riding more slowly,
> > > > presumably preening and hoping to catch the eye of a potential
> > > > husband, the races have fewer laps.
> > >
> > > While these are all sound and valid reasons, they are rationalisations.
> > > From the outset, distances for women were shorter because the poor
> > > little things weren't able to handle the longer distances.
> >
> > Ewoud, there used to be a women's-only stage race in Montana that
> > tried to give women the same sort of challenge that the Tour gives
> > men. The UCI wouldn't give them support because they believed it too
> > hard for those poor helpless women.
>
> That's right. The founder, an x-green beret, wanted to make it as hard as
> the men's tour. UCI thought he was crazy, but so did everyone else. However
> the women's challenge was already the premiere stage race in America, it was
> hard race, and brought in top riders from around the world for excellent
> prize money. At one point, I think the pot went to $125,000 dollars. However
> in Europe the poor helpless women were riding in the women's Giro and TDF
> with sometimes 17 stages and at least 3 or 4 big climbs, often the same one
> the men used in their tours. But those races were shortened because of a
> lack of cash, all three, Grande Boucle, Giro De Feminin and
> Thuringen-Rundfahrt are all on the chopping block every year, and every
> year, somehow they manage to come up with enough funds, but the stages keep
> getting less every year. Just look at the Grande Boucle 6 stages compared to
> 17 a few years ago. It's not a UCI race, the problem is lack of funds, not
> because the race is too long and hard, it's not.
>
>
>
> Toona is another race where men and women race the same distances and
> receive the same prize money. So poor little things, yeah right. Toona is
> the hardest stage race in the world for women, and has the biggest payout
> for women in the world, around $60,000. The problem now is the Euro teams
> don't send their women to anything more then the one day sprint fest at
> Liberty Classic because it doesn't interfere with their delusions about
> world cup grandure and the girls hope for the Olympic games next year. It's
> also the same time as Thuringen-Rundfahrt, so they would rather grasp at
> straws in the world cup monopoly then race races that are really meaningful
> international tests for women like Toona. Toona is really hard, and it's the
> best shot at getting a international field together in America, if they
> could only come over like they did in the HP. Right now, it doesn't seem
> like the prize money is enough to bring them over, although it's light years
> ahead of what women get in prize money in Europe. Top pro women put their
> stock in the world cup, UCI teams and ranking system, but it's an unfair
> monopoly that should be broken up, IMO, or at least two UCI women's events
> should be in America. Women stick to the world cup because of market value,
[THUNK!]f30u fckmkmf a,v 7u4p5fgnv mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Sorry, I drifted off and fell on my keyboard
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 22:26:16
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-680E47.20345117102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <o5qdnfBpkOZU2ovanZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@sti.net>,
> "GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>
> > <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1192629358.201765.71040@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Oct 15, 10:01 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > > > RicodJour schreef:
> > > >
> > > > > On Oct 15, 12:01 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > >> Since there are [fewer] women in the sport, the level of talent
isn't
> > as
> > > > >> closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
> > > > >> longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need
more
> > > > >> distance to create a selection.
> > > >
> > > > > The distance also has to do with the time required to complete the
> > > > > race - at least in multi-race events. The organizers will have a
> > > > > rough idea of the desired race length time per category and adjust
the
> > > > > number of laps to fit. Since the women are riding more slowly,
> > > > > presumably preening and hoping to catch the eye of a potential
> > > > > husband, the races have fewer laps.
> > > >
> > > > While these are all sound and valid reasons, they are
rationalisations.
> > > > From the outset, distances for women were shorter because the poor
> > > > little things weren't able to handle the longer distances.
> > >
> > > Ewoud, there used to be a women's-only stage race in Montana that
> > > tried to give women the same sort of challenge that the Tour gives
> > > men. The UCI wouldn't give them support because they believed it too
> > > hard for those poor helpless women.
> >
> > That's right. The founder, an x-green beret, wanted to make it as hard
as
> > the men's tour. UCI thought he was crazy, but so did everyone else.
However
> > the women's challenge was already the premiere stage race in America, it
was
> > hard race, and brought in top riders from around the world for excellent
> > prize money. At one point, I think the pot went to $125,000 dollars.
However
> > in Europe the poor helpless women were riding in the women's Giro and
TDF
> > with sometimes 17 stages and at least 3 or 4 big climbs, often the same
one
> > the men used in their tours. But those races were shortened because of a
> > lack of cash, all three, Grande Boucle, Giro De Feminin and
> > Thuringen-Rundfahrt are all on the chopping block every year, and every
> > year, somehow they manage to come up with enough funds, but the stages
keep
> > getting less every year. Just look at the Grande Boucle 6 stages
compared to
> > 17 a few years ago. It's not a UCI race, the problem is lack of funds,
not
> > because the race is too long and hard, it's not.
> >
> >
> >
> > Toona is another race where men and women race the same distances and
> > receive the same prize money. So poor little things, yeah right. Toona
is
> > the hardest stage race in the world for women, and has the biggest
payout
> > for women in the world, around $60,000. The problem now is the Euro
teams
> > don't send their women to anything more then the one day sprint fest at
> > Liberty Classic because it doesn't interfere with their delusions about
> > world cup grandure and the girls hope for the Olympic games next year.
It's
> > also the same time as Thuringen-Rundfahrt, so they would rather grasp at
> > straws in the world cup monopoly then race races that are really
meaningful
> > international tests for women like Toona. Toona is really hard, and it's
the
> > best shot at getting a international field together in America, if they
> > could only come over like they did in the HP. Right now, it doesn't seem
> > like the prize money is enough to bring them over, although it's light
years
> > ahead of what women get in prize money in Europe. Top pro women put
their
> > stock in the world cup, UCI teams and ranking system, but it's an unfair
> > monopoly that should be broken up, IMO, or at least two UCI women's
events
> > should be in America. Women stick to the world cup because of market
value,
>
> [THUNK!]f30u fckmkmf a,v 7u4p5fgnv mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
> Sorry, I drifted off and fell on my keyboard
>
> --
> Michael Press
Get some coffee.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 06:50:11
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 9:52 am, Geraard Spergen <GSper...@spammagnet.net > wrote:
> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In a one km time trial the men's record is
> > about 37.64 mph while the women's is 32.87 despite the fact that they
> > only had to go half the distance.
>
> Last time I checked, the women's kilometer was a full 1.000 m
Pssst - the womens race is only 500 meters.
> bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > women do with less then the
> > men. whether they are pro or not in our sexist society they have to
> > do more to get the same respect.
> >
> > I'm sure they are very very good too but being a great
> > woman athlete is much much harder. why is that so hard for men to
> > understand.
>
> By this measure, the Special Olympians are the best athletes in the
> world, and the males and females compete in the same events.
The real shame here is that "Lynda" is making the claim that women,
who have their own perfectly legitimate racing, are somehow MORE
important than the hardest fastest races in the world because it's
harder for them. That makes people laugh at the idea that somehow
slower equals better and denigrate women's racing simply to make the
point that men's racing is the top of the sport.
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 08:09:40
From: Marian
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 1:32 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <3-GdnfuQnr0UPY_anZ2dnUVZ_qmln...@comcast.com>,
> "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <bikingly...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1192320100.756328.302280@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > > all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> > > know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> > > best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> > > cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> > > chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> > > give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> > > the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> > It is against the Livedrunk charter.
>
> > The official rules state, "Anyone being discussed as a potential All Time
> > Best in any category must have a penis."
>
> > The rules also require that any discussions can not commence until all
> > participants have a beverage that contains at least 2 percent alcohol by
> > volume. It is also suggested that if the participants butts are on
> > furniture they should be on a stool instead of a seat.
>
> Two percent? A body will succumb to acute water poisoning
> before catching a buzz.
You -ride- while you do it so that you continuously get more
dehyrdated as you go along.
-M
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 20:31:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
In article
<1192608580.281923.151760@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com >
,
Marian <marian.rosenberg@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 15, 1:32 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <3-GdnfuQnr0UPY_anZ2dnUVZ_qmln...@comcast.com>,
> > "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > <bikingly...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1192320100.756328.302280@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > > > all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> > > > know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> > > > best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> > > > cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> > > > chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> > > > give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> > > > the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
> >
> > > It is against the Livedrunk charter.
> >
> > > The official rules state, "Anyone being discussed as a potential All Time
> > > Best in any category must have a penis."
> >
> > > The rules also require that any discussions can not commence until all
> > > participants have a beverage that contains at least 2 percent alcohol by
> > > volume. It is also suggested that if the participants butts are on
> > > furniture they should be on a stool instead of a seat.
> >
> > Two percent? A body will succumb to acute water poisoning
> > before catching a buzz.
>
> You -ride- while you do it so that you continuously get more
> dehyrdated as you go along.
Oh. I was misled by the mention of furniture, stool, and seat.
--
Butch Deadlift
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 00:47:01
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 16, 11:13 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid >
wrote:
> Michael Press schreef:
>
> > Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias,
> > greatest athlete of the twentieth century.
>
> Oh come on.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3427787.stm
>
Very good, but we settled this a few years back. These
people contend for greatest sportsman (sportsperson),
but the greatest 20thC athlete is Reinhold Messner.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 04:12:20
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in
news:1192582021.575933.85650@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 16, 11:13 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Michael Press schreef:
>>
>> > Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias,
>> > greatest athlete of the twentieth century.
>>
>> Oh come on.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3427787.stm
>>
>
> Very good, but we settled this a few years back. These
> people contend for greatest sportsman (sportsperson),
> but the greatest 20thC athlete is Reinhold Messner.
You would think all the RAAM enthusiasts would be voting for Ann Trason.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 17:24:42
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 16, 3:19 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> > I have nearly 4000 race results for Longo
>
> I wouldn't admit that here.
Why? Because "we" suspected even more?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 19:39:36
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1192580682.915975.117350@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 16, 3:19 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> wrote:
> > GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> > > I have nearly 4000 race results for Longo
> >
> > I wouldn't admit that here.
>
> Why? Because "we" suspected even more?
Why don't you finish your beef with Henry, that was much more interesting.
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 11:26:32
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> Michael Press schreef:
> > Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias,
> > greatest athlete of the twentieth century.
>
> Oh come on.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3427787.stm
>From that article:
"Blankers-Koen beat off all competition to be crowned female athlete
of the 20th century by the International Association of Athletics
Federations."
Wow. How could you not vote for someone willing to go the extra
mile? ;)
R
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 11:12:31
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 16, 2:02 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <YOURhoward-B8318F.17501115102...@comcast.dca.giganews.
> com>,
>
> > Heh, if bikinglynda only knew...
>
> ... about Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias,
> greatest athlete of the twentieth century.
Doper.
R
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 10:23:29
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 16, 10:38 am, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Don't focus on where women would have placed in the men's field. Top women
> are around 10-12% slower than top men, over and over. That's true in many
> athletic speed events, including hillclimbs.
Sure, but what many folks don't seem willing or able to grasp is that
10% slower than TD up Mt. Evans or similar climb still puts Longo up
there with elite male climbers. If she were racing the climbing stages
of the Tour, she would be rolling with the dudes who can climb, not
with the sprinters' group.
Don't be afraid.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 20:24:11
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
* r15757@aol.com a écrit profondement:
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 14:33:10
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Davey Crockett" <rec@azurservers.com > wrote in message
news:878x62uddg.fsf@azurservers.com...
> * r15757@aol.com a écrit profondement:
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 15:19:59
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> I have nearly 4000 race results for Longo
I wouldn't admit that here.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 11:28:54
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:jOaRi.4500$wF3.3841@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> > I have nearly 4000 race results for Longo
>
> I wouldn't admit that here.
BTW, Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? Certainly not you. Out of over 6
billion people on the planet, an incredibly small fraction of them are
cyclists, fans, racers, etc. Out of that incredibly small fraction of
people, an infitestimal small number post to cycling blogs, forums or
usenet. Out of that infitestimal small number of posters is yet another
rather small cluster of posters containing the big bad wolf and it's clan.
Kill files don't work very well, but the big bad wolf has no teeth, nor do
the Mr. Magoos of the world, or the clones who mimic Henry's dumb ass
salutations. While my friend the Albino is on military leave, I'll go back
to being InTransit soon, which suits me fine, but it's good to see a few
civil people still exist here. Very few of my cycling friends and
connections in both the USA and Europe bother to waste their time posting to
forums or usenet, and I don't really care much about the big bad wolf
either, or the gauntlets they set. Wait a few years and see if the old
pranksters retire, and new generation rebuilds RBR. Maybe Pappy can die in
peace when he sees his beloved RBR returned to it's former glory.
GBMT
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 19:38:43
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:jOaRi.4500$wF3.3841@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> > I have nearly 4000 race results for Longo
>
> I wouldn't admit that here.
I'd rather have Les Earnest collection of every issue of Velonews. My Longo
palmares are mixed with all the others, by default. I'm not really a big fan
of Longo, but she was at Mclane Pacific one year, which I missed.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 19:09:11
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
Davey Crockett wrote:
> In the 2002 Etape du Tour, Longo-Ciprelli won the Women's
> Category. This is reasonably well known. What isn't so well known is
> that she crossed the line 4th Overall
Could the rider who finished 4th have stayed within 10% of Dario Frigo on the climbs?
Dan
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 14:23:57
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:r%7Ri.34616$eY.10807@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> Davey Crockett wrote:
>
> > In the 2002 Etape du Tour, Longo-Ciprelli won the Women's
> > Category. This is reasonably well known. What isn't so well known is
> > that she crossed the line 4th Overall
>
> Could the rider who finished 4th have stayed within 10% of Dario Frigo on
the climbs?
>
> Dan
Ok, quickly, on the way out the door...
What interests me is where another better climber stands, and she did often
race against the men in Italy. But wait, two actually, Canins came first.
In 1985, Canins beat Longo in the TDF, but I don't know the times, it's
missing from my notes.
In 1986, again Canins beat Longo in the TDF, final GC was 27hr 13' 27" with
Longo at 15 minutes 21 seconds back. 3rd was Inga at 22 minutes back.
In 1987 Longo beat Canins on the final GC in the TDF. The overall time was
27 hr, 33' 36" with Canins 2 minutes 52 seconds back. Ute at 3rd over 12
minutes back.
In 1988 Longo beat Canins in the TDF, final GC at 22hr 41' 38". Canins came
in 1 minute 20 seconds down.
In 1989, Longo beat Canins in the TDF, final GC at 21hr 59' 38". Canins at 8
minutes and 44 seconds down. Ouch!
Clash of the titans is over, TDF canceled in 1990, 91.
Leontien beats Longo in 1992, final GC at 21hr 38' 04" Longo 9 seconds down,
interesting, Lemond and Fignon were 8 seconds apart in 89. That was also
called a titanic battle, not as epic as Greg and Laurent, but I saw clips,
pretty impressive.
Anyway, fast forward to 1995. Canins career is nearly over, but Longo is
still in her prime, a very long prime indeed. Luperini destroys Longo,
final GC at 27hr 21' 24" Longo is 8 minutes 7 seconds down, half of that
Longo lost to Luperini on one very hard day in the mountains where Luperini
climbed incredibly well, shades of Pantani, who by the way spoke at
Luperini's races, as did Charly Gaul. Gaul actually awarded the jerseys to
Luperini at races from time to time.
So Canins destroyed Longo, Longo destroyed Canins, but Luperini destoyed
Longo when Longo was still in her prime. It's a hard question to answer, how
much better a climber is Luperini then Canins and Longo, and how would
Luperini do on Mount Washington, Mount Evans from 1995 to 1998 in her prime.
Would she of beaten Longo and Jeanson's record?
Luperini was in American only once I think at Colorado Springs. I wonder how
well Luperini would of matched Jeanson head to head? Didn't Jeanson match a
cat-1 or 2 man on Mount Washington for a short time on the climbs? I think
that was written somewhere in the journals of that event.
Luperini won the Giro De Feminin 4 times in a row, TDF three times in a row.
She was the undisputed climber of the world for years. It would of been
interesting to do V02 max and a number of calculations, watts, arobic,
anerobic fitness levels at the peak of her career and compare them to Longo
and Canins. Somaribba would also be a good case study, so would Jeanson,
without the EPO that is!
GBMT
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 21:34:19
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
* Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > a écrit profondement:
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 06:30:39
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 8:10 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Women have a distinct advantage over most men in climbing competitions
> because they're usually smaller and lighter while having a larger
> percentage of their body weight in leg muscles. At last year's Mt
> Evans Hill Climb the first place woman in the open catagory would have
> finished 10th in the men's 45+ age bracket.She would have finished
> 45th in the open men's catagory.
Two things here, first of all, you really can't compare the men's and
women's time conclusively -- maybe she just went as hard as she needed
to in order to win the women's race. Second, that was a notably thin
women's open field, with respect to the winner there, who was actually
a cat 3.
When she did it Longo finished the climb in under 2 hours, racing
against women. Remember that the course record stood at around 1:55
for many years.
Women are fast. Don't be afraid.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 16:38:56
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Oct 15, 8:10 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Women have a distinct advantage over most men in climbing competitions
>> because they're usually smaller and lighter while having a larger
>> percentage of their body weight in leg muscles. At last year's Mt
>> Evans Hill Climb the first place woman in the open catagory would have
>> finished 10th in the men's 45+ age bracket.She would have finished
>> 45th in the open men's catagory.
>
> Two things here, first of all, you really can't compare the men's and
> women's time conclusively -- maybe she just went as hard as she needed
> to in order to win the women's race. Second, that was a notably thin
> women's open field, with respect to the winner there, who was actually
> a cat 3.
>
> When she did it Longo finished the climb in under 2 hours, racing
> against women. Remember that the course record stood at around 1:55
> for many years.
>
> Women are fast. Don't be afraid.
>
> Robert
>
Don't focus on where women would have placed in the men's field. Top women are around 10-12% slower than top men, over and over. That's true in many athletic speed events, including hillclimbs.
I know, Beryl Burton. She wasn't competing against top men.
Dan
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 13:46:41
From: keithv
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 10:27 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com > wrote:
> Oh, okay.http://luthor.altervista.org/queen01.jpg
What, no helmets?
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 19:53:51
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
(snip)
"Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?"
music by Frederick Loewe; lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?
Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?
Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.
Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?
COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?
COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?
COLONEL PICKERING:
Never.
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Well, why can't a woman be like you?
One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!
Why can't a woman take after a man?
'Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.
If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?
COLONEL PICKERING:
Of course not.
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?
COLONEL PICKERING:
Nonsense.
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?
Pickering
Never.
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be like us?
[dialog]
PROFESSOR HIGGINS:
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?
Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 11:56:36
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 2:27 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 15, 6:45 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 3:10 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Here's a clue - Olympic distances for women are purposely made
> > > different then those of men so that direct comparisons aren't easily
> > > made by people like you. In a one km time trial the men's record is
> > > about 37.64 mph while the women's is 32.87 despite the fact that they
> > > only had to go half the distance. This represents and absolute
> > > measurement of the strength and endurance of men vs women.
>
> > It's actually slower (in average speed) to do a standing start 500m TT
> > than a 1km, because of the time it takes to get up to speed. You have
> > to compare it over the same distance (or time).
>
> > Interestingly, the women's hour record speed is just over 46km/h,
> > while the men's is just under 50km/h. Before the UCI changed the
> > rules, it was 48.1km/h for women and 56.4km/h for men, although I
> > don't think Longo used the superwoman position.
>
> > Not that this answers the original poster's question. First you have
> > to define BEST.
>
> > Jeff
>
> After watching Felicia Ballanger's standing starts, I started
> wondering whether women are actually faster for the first few meters
> in the 500m than men in the 1000m, due to the lower gearing that women
> use.
Also the higher percentage of body mass and muscle in the legs. Women
have special fairings that appear to violate UCI regs.
R
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 18:27:15
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 6:45 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 15, 3:10 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here's a clue - Olympic distances for women are purposely made
> > different then those of men so that direct comparisons aren't easily
> > made by people like you. In a one km time trial the men's record is
> > about 37.64 mph while the women's is 32.87 despite the fact that they
> > only had to go half the distance. This represents and absolute
> > measurement of the strength and endurance of men vs women.
>
> It's actually slower (in average speed) to do a standing start 500m TT
> than a 1km, because of the time it takes to get up to speed. You have
> to compare it over the same distance (or time).
>
> Interestingly, the women's hour record speed is just over 46km/h,
> while the men's is just under 50km/h. Before the UCI changed the
> rules, it was 48.1km/h for women and 56.4km/h for men, although I
> don't think Longo used the superwoman position.
>
> Not that this answers the original poster's question. First you have
> to define BEST.
>
> Jeff
After watching Felicia Ballanger's standing starts, I started
wondering whether women are actually faster for the first few meters
in the 500m than men in the 1000m, due to the lower gearing that women
use.
-ilan
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 18:48:22
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
wrote:
> On Oct 15, 6:45 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 3:10 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Here's a clue - Olympic distances for women are purposely made
>> > different then those of men so that direct comparisons aren't easily
>> > made by people like you. In a one km time trial the men's record is
>> > about 37.64 mph while the women's is 32.87 despite the fact that they
>> > only had to go half the distance. This represents and absolute
>> > measurement of the strength and endurance of men vs women.
>>
>> It's actually slower (in average speed) to do a standing start 500m TT
>> than a 1km, because of the time it takes to get up to speed. You have
>> to compare it over the same distance (or time).
>>
>> Interestingly, the women's hour record speed is just over 46km/h,
>> while the men's is just under 50km/h. Before the UCI changed the
>> rules, it was 48.1km/h for women and 56.4km/h for men, although I
>> don't think Longo used the superwoman position.
>>
>> Not that this answers the original poster's question. First you have
>> to define BEST.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> After watching Felicia Ballanger's standing starts, I started
> wondering whether women are actually faster for the first few meters
> in the 500m than men in the 1000m, due to the lower gearing that women
> use.
Not only that, but because they have less upper body mass in general they
don't speed up as much in the turns. Or slow down. I forget which way
that works.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 16:45:10
From: Jeff Jones
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 3:10 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Here's a clue - Olympic distances for women are purposely made
> different then those of men so that direct comparisons aren't easily
> made by people like you. In a one km time trial the men's record is
> about 37.64 mph while the women's is 32.87 despite the fact that they
> only had to go half the distance. This represents and absolute
> measurement of the strength and endurance of men vs women.
It's actually slower (in average speed) to do a standing start 500m TT
than a 1km, because of the time it takes to get up to speed. You have
to compare it over the same distance (or time).
Interestingly, the women's hour record speed is just over 46km/h,
while the men's is just under 50km/h. Before the UCI changed the
rules, it was 48.1km/h for women and 56.4km/h for men, although I
don't think Longo used the superwoman position.
Not that this answers the original poster's question. First you have
to define BEST.
Jeff
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 17:09:54
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
Jeff Jones wrote:
>
> Interestingly, the women's hour record speed is just over 46km/h,
> while the men's is just under 50km/h. Before the UCI changed the
> rules, it was 48.1km/h for women and 56.4km/h for men, although I
> don't think Longo used the superwoman position.
>
I would be more impressed with an 4 km/hr speed differential if some of the
guys who rode 50 km/hr had pushed a bowling ball with legs out of their
asses six months beforehand.
--
Bill Asher
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 09:13:25
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 12:01 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 15, 7:10 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Here's a clue - Olympic distances for women are purposely made
> > different then those of men so that direct comparisons aren't easily
> > made by people like you
>
> Dumbass -
>
> That's not the principal reason.
>
> Since there are less women in the sport, the level of talent isn't as
> closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
> longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need more
> distance to create a selection.
DA,
Fewer. Less shall not be used to indicate discrete quantities - less
water, fewer apples.
http://www.llrx.com/columns/grammar2.htm Anyother questions on goodly
grammer jist ax.
The distance also has to do with the time required to complete the
race - at least in multi-race events. The organizers will have a
rough idea of the desired race length time per category and adjust the
number of laps to fit. Since the women are riding more slowly,
presumably preening and hoping to catch the eye of a potential
husband, the races have fewer laps.
R
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 19:01:36
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
RicodJour schreef:
> On Oct 15, 12:01 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Since there are [fewer] women in the sport, the level of talent isn't as
>> closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
>> longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need more
>> distance to create a selection.
>
> The distance also has to do with the time required to complete the
> race - at least in multi-race events. The organizers will have a
> rough idea of the desired race length time per category and adjust the
> number of laps to fit. Since the women are riding more slowly,
> presumably preening and hoping to catch the eye of a potential
> husband, the races have fewer laps.
While these are all sound and valid reasons, they are rationalisations.
From the outset, distances for women were shorter because the poor
little things weren't able to handle the longer distances.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 11:29:20
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote in message
news:47139cf6$0$237$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> RicodJour schreef:
> > On Oct 15, 12:01 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Since there are [fewer] women in the sport, the level of talent isn't
as
> >> closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
> >> longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need more
> >> distance to create a selection.
> >
> > The distance also has to do with the time required to complete the
> > race - at least in multi-race events. The organizers will have a
> > rough idea of the desired race length time per category and adjust the
> > number of laps to fit. Since the women are riding more slowly,
> > presumably preening and hoping to catch the eye of a potential
> > husband, the races have fewer laps.
In the early days, races were sometimes like social gatherings, lot of
chit-chat at the front, but even smaller races like Merco are a slugfest
from start to finish.
>
> While these are all sound and valid reasons, they are rationalisations.
> From the outset, distances for women were shorter because the poor
> little things weren't able to handle the longer distances.
>
>
> --
> E. Dronkert
And the poor little men couldn't handle distances much longer then what they
do now, since they have to take drugs to finish a grand tour. There has been
talk of making grand tours shorter so the poor little things could finish
the grand tours, without the need to take drugs.
GBMT
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 13:33:52
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
In article <bfydnbxq-IYYLY7anZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@sti.net >,
"GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com > wrote:
> "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:47139cf6$0$237$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> > RicodJour schreef:
> > > On Oct 15, 12:01 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Since there are [fewer] women in the sport, the level of talent isn't
> as
> > >> closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
> > >> longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need more
> > >> distance to create a selection.
> > >
> > > The distance also has to do with the time required to complete the
> > > race - at least in multi-race events. The organizers will have a
> > > rough idea of the desired race length time per category and adjust the
> > > number of laps to fit. Since the women are riding more slowly,
> > > presumably preening and hoping to catch the eye of a potential
> > > husband, the races have fewer laps.
>
> In the early days, races were sometimes like social gatherings, lot of
> chit-chat at the front, but even smaller races like Merco are a slugfest
> from start to finish.
>
> > While these are all sound and valid reasons, they are rationalisations.
> > From the outset, distances for women were shorter because the poor
> > little things weren't able to handle the longer distances.
>
> And the poor little men couldn't handle distances much longer then what they
> do now, since they have to take drugs to finish a grand tour. There has been
> talk of making grand tours shorter so the poor little things could finish
> the grand tours, without the need to take drugs.
We don't need to take drugs.
We take drugs because we like too.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 23:14:34
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
> We don't need to take drugs.
> We take drugs because we like too.
The guy who penned "She's looking better every beer" might argue that.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-647851.13335215102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <bfydnbxq-IYYLY7anZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@sti.net>,
> "GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:47139cf6$0$237$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> > RicodJour schreef:
>> > > On Oct 15, 12:01 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> Since there are [fewer] women in the sport, the level of talent
>> > >> isn't
>> as
>> > >> closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
>> > >> longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need more
>> > >> distance to create a selection.
>> > >
>> > > The distance also has to do with the time required to complete the
>> > > race - at least in multi-race events. The organizers will have a
>> > > rough idea of the desired race length time per category and adjust
>> > > the
>> > > number of laps to fit. Since the women are riding more slowly,
>> > > presumably preening and hoping to catch the eye of a potential
>> > > husband, the races have fewer laps.
>>
>> In the early days, races were sometimes like social gatherings, lot of
>> chit-chat at the front, but even smaller races like Merco are a slugfest
>> from start to finish.
>>
>> > While these are all sound and valid reasons, they are rationalisations.
>> > From the outset, distances for women were shorter because the poor
>> > little things weren't able to handle the longer distances.
>>
>> And the poor little men couldn't handle distances much longer then what
>> they
>> do now, since they have to take drugs to finish a grand tour. There has
>> been
>> talk of making grand tours shorter so the poor little things could finish
>> the grand tours, without the need to take drugs.
>
> We don't need to take drugs.
> We take drugs because we like too.
>
> --
> Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 12:46:19
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com > wrote in message
news:bfydnbxq-IYYLY7anZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@sti.net...
Poor little things...
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/non_doping_cyclists_finish_tour_de
GBMT
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 21:13:05
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>
> And the poor little men couldn't handle distances much longer then what they
> do now, since they have to take drugs to finish a grand tour. There has been
> talk of making grand tours shorter so the poor little things could finish
> the grand tours, without the need to take drugs.
>
You think the women don't take drugs?
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 09:01:24
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 15, 7:10 am, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here's a clue - Olympic distances for women are purposely made
> different then those of men so that direct comparisons aren't easily
> made by people like you
Dumbass -
That's not the principal reason.
Since there are less women in the sport, the level of talent isn't as
closely matched as it is in the men's races. The men's races are
longer because, with the more closely matched talent, they need more
distance to create a selection.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 07:27:55
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 14, 12:42 am, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> so illan is that a man or a womans name? do you really think this is
> just about having balls then is that it? well how does having balls
> make someone a good cyclist or, a good person? Im not talking about
> anatamy I'm talking about equalness and if we are trying to figure out
> who is the best how can we do that if we only think about half of the
> people? and, how is a woman ever going to win the tour de-france if
> they don't even let her enter it? maybe you and everyone else in this
> googlegroup should go back to talking about how hot the women's
> cyclists are, its ridiculous.
Oh, okay.
http://luthor.altervista.org/queen01.jpg
R
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 07:10:38
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 14, 6:56 pm, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> why do you think I am kidding?? I don't know what the pelotons are
> but I assume they are bike races.
Sooooo -- you don't know anything about professional racing but you
think that a woman should be best.
Here's a clue - Olympic distances for women are purposely made
different then those of men so that direct comparisons aren't easily
made by people like you. In a one km time trial the men's record is
about 37.64 mph while the women's is 32.87 despite the fact that they
only had to go half the distance. This represents and absolute
measurement of the strength and endurance of men vs women.
Women have a distinct advantage over most men in climbing competitions
because they're usually smaller and lighter while having a larger
percentage of their body weight in leg muscles. At last year's Mt
Evans Hill Climb the first place woman in the open catagory would have
finished 10th in the men's 45+ age bracket.She would have finished
45th in the open men's catagory.
In the past I have supported my daughters racing and they achieved
notable things and will have memories of their teenage racing years. I
also supported women's racing and getting ever more women into
cycling.
But the idea that you can compare the absolute performance of men and
women is over the top.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 09:52:33
From: Geraard Spergen
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> In a one km time trial the men's record is
> about 37.64 mph while the women's is 32.87 despite the fact that they
> only had to go half the distance.
Last time I checked, the women's kilometer was a full 1.000 m
bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
> women do with less then the
> men. whether they are pro or not in our sexist society they have to
> do more to get the same respect.
>
> I'm sure they are very very good too but being a great
> woman athlete is much much harder. why is that so hard for men to
> understand.
By this measure, the Special Olympians are the best athletes in the
world, and the males and females compete in the same events.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 15:30:15
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> Here's a clue - Olympic distances for women are purposely made
> different then those of men so that direct comparisons aren't easily
> made by people like you. In a one km time trial the men's record is
> about 37.64 mph while the women's is 32.87 despite the fact that they
> only had to go half the distance. This represents and absolute
> measurement of the strength and endurance of men vs women.
One direct comparison here :
1967 British 12hr ITT she won with a distance of 277.25 miles catching &
passing the men's champion! She was World Road Race Champ that year but
only managed bronze in the Pursuit.
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/riders/berylburton.html
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 01:56:43
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
why do you think I am kidding?? I don't know what the pelotons are
but I assume they are bike races. are there pro women racing I dont
know but you are making my point, the women do with less then the
men. whether they are pro or not in our sexist society they have to
do more to get the same respect.
wikipedia says sara carrigan from australia won the last olympic medal
in cyclint (it says she is a pro too) so I would say she is the best
cyclist. I am sure she had to do more to get that then whatever man
won a medal. I'm sure they are very very good too but being a great
woman athlete is much much harder. why is that so hard for men to
understand. Ive been reading all the responses and the only one of
you who even seems to have a clue about that is the woman who calls
herself gmbt.
LYNDA
On Oct 14, 8:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <bikingly...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192320100.756328.302280@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> > know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> > best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> > cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> > chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> > give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> > the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> You are kidding right? How many women ride in the pro peloton?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 11:18:20
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
<bikinglynda@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1192413403.075359.209020@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> why do you think I am kidding?? I don't know what the pelotons are
> but I assume they are bike races. are there pro women racing I dont
> know but you are making my point, the women do with less then the
> men. whether they are pro or not in our sexist society they have to
> do more to get the same respect.
Ok, you're not Lafferty, lot of pranksters around here. Merkyx is spelled
Merckx, It's GBMT, not GMBT, and peloton is the group of riders in the
field. If you want to learn about cycling, there are resources out there.
Here are some sources...
http://www.bicyclesource.com/you/culture/bicycling-glossary.shtml
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/glossary.html
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/glossary.html
http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules.htm
Women do have a fair amount of hardships, sometimes with meals and lodging,
and staying in schools often in France. They also do a lot of traveling, on
the world cup circuit, and especially a lot for Ausse or America women who
want to compete in the world cup. In Europe, it's easier from women to race
there because they can more easily drive from one country to another, often
races are just over the border within driving range in all directions, as
opposed to the difference of over 2000 miles between the spring classics in
California and the big races back east, Philly, Toona and Gila in the
middle. Then add flying to Europe and Ausse-land to race, that's a lot of
travel time, or could be depending on how much of the World Cup and other
races they are doing like the Giro De Feminin. True, the women get paid
little if anything at all other then meals and lodging. Top pros usually
make less then 100k, as opposed to the millions men make. Big stretch, but
the main reason is men go faster, and that's basically what fans want to
see, strongest, fastest, simply put. Doing more to get the same respect,
well... that's another discussion. They should take full advantage of the
short time they have in the limelight. Some riders are modest, and unlike
Leontien, they never took full advantage of their chance to shine in the
limelight.
>
> wikipedia says sara carrigan from australia won the last olympic medal
> in cyclint (it says she is a pro too) so I would say she is the best
> cyclist. I am sure she had to do more to get that then whatever man
> won a medal. I'm sure they are very very good too but being a great
> woman athlete is much much harder. why is that so hard for men to
> understand. Ive been reading all the responses and the only one of
> you who even seems to have a clue about that is the woman who calls
> herself gmbt.
To be a Pro women in cycling usually means they are on a UCI pro team, but
that's another discussion. Riders in cycling were called Pros back in the
earliest days after the turn of the century, usually based on earnings. Sara
trained at high altitudes prior to winning the games in Athens. She was in
top form, felt great that day she won in Athens, and also made the break at
the right time, and some luck involved in that, plus help from Germany's
Judith Arndt. But she didn't carry that level of success into the next year.
She's far from the best cyclist today, she's average. Sara was the (BEST)
that day in Athens.
Men and women, that' s apples and oranges. I don't compare the two, they are
just too difference based on what nature has provided them, and that would
also require being an expert on both men and women's cycling to make any
real meaningful analysis comparing specific riders of both sexes to each
other, and would also require racing the same courses, same distances, etc.
I don't care to do that, nor am I interested to do that. I think the women
do quite well on their side of the sport, their numbers are increasing with
record numbers of riders turning out for some events, but they just don't
get paid very well, or get much press either, because usually media prints
or broadcasts what the majority of readers or viewers want, unless it's a
medium that can afford to specialize for a smaller unique crowd of fans
specifically, like women's cycling dot come does. CN and Velonews at times
do a great job at covering women's races, writing articles and doing
interviews with top women pros. I was invited to visit a women's training
camp this month to take photos, take notes, and publish something that would
help put women's cycling in the limelight. You might want to visit one of
these clinics, if you want a better perspective.
Also try these sites if you want about, besides CN or Velonews...
http://www.womenscycling.net/
http://www.chicabike.be/chicastart.htm
http://www.ladiescycling.net/
GBMT
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 13:56:04
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ive been reading all the responses and the only one of
> you who even seems to have a clue about that is the woman who calls
> herself gmbt.
*snort*
Well that was a funny moment to start the day with.
Thank you for that.
Bob Schwartz
PS GBMT's name is Bruce, and he's not really a fan of
the sport.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 17:50:11
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
In article <UjKQi.9745$lD6.7743@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net >,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:
> bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Ive been reading all the responses and the only one of
> > you who even seems to have a clue about that is the woman who calls
> > herself gmbt.
>
> *snort*
>
> Well that was a funny moment to start the day with.
> Thank you for that.
Heh, if bikinglynda only knew...
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 11:02:34
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
In article
<YOURhoward-B8318F.17501115102007@comcast.dca.giganews.
com >,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <UjKQi.9745$lD6.7743@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Ive been reading all the responses and the only one of
> > > you who even seems to have a clue about that is the woman who calls
> > > herself gmbt.
> >
> > *snort*
> >
> > Well that was a funny moment to start the day with.
> > Thank you for that.
>
> Heh, if bikinglynda only knew...
... about Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias,
greatest athlete of the twentieth century.
The nickname was awarded for hitting
five home runs in one game.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 20:13:57
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
Michael Press schreef:
> Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias,
> greatest athlete of the twentieth century.
Oh come on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3427787.stm
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 13:36:50
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> Oh come on.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3427787.stm
>
>
She was certainly the heroine of all the kids in my class during the
London Olympics
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2007 01:00:06
From: Benjo Maso
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > schreef in bericht
news:4714ff6a$0$232$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Michael Press schreef:
>> Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias, greatest athlete of the twentieth
>> century.
>
> Oh come on.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3427787.stm
Fanny Blankers-Koen:
World records: 100 yards, 100 m, 220 yards, 80m hurdles, long jump, high
jump, pentathlon
National records: 100 yards, 100 m, 200 m, 220 yards, 800 m (!), 80 m
hurdles, long jump, high jump, pentathlon
Olympic titles: 100m, 200m, 80 m hurdles, 4 x 100 m
National titles: 100m, 200m, 80 m hurdles, high jump, long jump, pentathlon,
shot put (!)
Benjo
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 12:56:14
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote in message
news:4714ff6a$0$232$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Michael Press schreef:
> > Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias,
> > greatest athlete of the twentieth century.
>
> Oh come on.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3427787.stm
>
>
> --
> E. Dronkert
Longo barely made this SI list, but fellow Dutchie Leontien didn't make it.
Dutchie Chantal Beltman made the walk of fame recently.
http://www.chantalbeltman.nl/index.php?mid=40&a=d&nid=36
SI Top 100, Greatest Women Athletes...
Connie Carpenter made it well ahead of Longo! Sheila Young made it, and
Julie Furtado.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/siforwomen/top_100/1/
1. Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Track & Field
2. Babe Didrikson Zaharias, Track & Field
3. Billie Jean King, Tennis
4. Sonja Henie, Figure Skating
5. Martina Navratilova, Tennis
6. Chris Evert, Tennis
7. Bonnie Blair, Speed Skating
8. Wilma Rudolph, Track & Field
9. Nadia Comaneci, Gymnastics
10. Tracy Caulkins, Swimming
11. Florence Griffith Joyner, Track & Field
12. Mia Hamm, Soccer
13. Nancy Lopez, Golf
14. Steffi Graf, Tennis
15. Cheryl Miller, Basketball
16. Margaret Court, Tennis
17. Mary T. Meagher, Swimming
18. Olga Korbut, Gymnastics
19. Peggy Fleming, Figure Skating
20. Joan Benoit Samuelson, Distance Running
21. Dawn Fraser, Swimming
22. Teresa Edwards, Basketball
23. Julie Krone, Horse Racing
24. Ann Meyers, Basketball
25. Jean Driscoll, Wheelchair Racing
26. Fanny Blankers-Koen, Track & Field
27. Mickey Wright, Golf
28. Maureen Connolly, Tennis
29. Janet Evans, Swimmer
30. Althea Gibson, Tennis
31. Mary Decker Slaney, Track & Field
32. Dorothy Hamill, Figure Skating
33. Suzanne Lenglen, Tennis
34. Lyubov Egorova, Cross Country Skiing
35. Kathy Whitworth, Golf
36. Larissa Latynina, Gymnastics
37. Grete Waitz, Distance running
38. Katarina Witt, Figure Skating
39. Amy Van Dyken, Swimming
40. Michelle Akers, Soccer
41. Pat McCormick, Diving
42. Gertrude Ederle, Swimming
43. Wyomia Tyus, Track and Field
44. Nancy Lieberman-Cline, Basketball
45. Picabo Street, Skiing
46. Anne Donovan, Basketball
47. Tenley Albright, Figure Skating
48. Lynn Hill, Rock Climbing
49. Rosi Mittermaier, Skiing
50. Susan Butcher, Dogsledding
51. Nera White, Basketball
52. Helen Wills Moody Roark, Tennis
53. Ruffian, Horse Racing
54. Chamique Holdsclaw, Basketball
55. Lisa Fernandez, Softball
56. Anita DeFrantz, Rowing
57. Mary Lou Retton, Gymnastics
58. Marion Jones, Track & Field
59. Annemarie Moser-Proll, Skiing
60. Paula Newby-Fraser, Triathlete
61. Shirley Muldowney, Auto Racing
62. Jenny Thompson, Swimming
63. Dawn Riley, Sailing
64. Carol Blazejowski, Basketball
65. Ann Trason, Ultramarathon
66. Lynn Jennings, Middle Distance Running
67. Shirley Babashoff, Swimming
68. Kornelia Ender, Swimming
69. Flo (Flora) Hyman, Volleyball
70. Hassiba Boulmerka, Track and Field
71. Connie Carpenter, Speed Skating and Cycling
72. Evonne Goolagong Cawley, Tennis
73. Alice Coachman, Track and Field
74. Silken Laumann, Rowing
75. Alice Marble, Tennis
76. Lisa Andersen, Surfer
77. Manon Rheaume, Hockey
78. Tegla Loroupe, Running
79. Willye White, Track and Field
80. Ailleen Riggin Soule, Swimming and Diving
81. Lynette Woodard, Basketball
82. Donna de Varona, Swimming
83. Helene Mayer, Fencing
84. Donna Lopiano, Athlete and Administrator
85. Kristin Otto, Swimming
86. Sheila Young, Speedskating and Cycling
87. Sheryl Swoopes, Basketball
88. Juli Furtado, Mountain Biking
89. Louise Suggs, Golf
90. Cynthia Cooper, Basketball
91. Camille Duvall, Waterskiing
92. Fu Mingxia, Diving
93. Lyn St. James, Auto Racing
94. Marion Ladewig, Bowling
95. Nancy Kerrigan & Tonya Harding, Figure Skating
96. Cammi Granato, Hockey
97. Jeannie Longo-Ciprelli, Cycling
98. Ila Borders, Baseball
99. Margo Oberg, Surfing
100. Dorothy Kamenshek, Baseball
GBMT
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 18:05:20
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
In article <dZudnSU2F7PKi4janZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@sti.net >,
"GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com > wrote:
> "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4714ff6a$0$232$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> > Michael Press schreef:
> > > Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias,
> > > greatest athlete of the twentieth century.
> >
> > Oh come on.
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3427787.stm
>
> Longo barely made this SI list, but fellow Dutchie Leontien didn't make it.
> Dutchie Chantal Beltman made the walk of fame recently.
>
> http://www.chantalbeltman.nl/index.php?mid=40&a=d&nid=36
>
> SI Top 100, Greatest Women Athletes...
> Connie Carpenter made it well ahead of Longo! Sheila Young made it, and
> Julie Furtado.
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/siforwomen/top_100/1/
Ohh, _women_ athletes.
>
> 1. Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Track & Field
> 2. Babe Didrikson Zaharias, Track & Field
Track&Field?
"Babe Didrickson Zaharias first came into national prominence
as a basketball player. Though but a teen-ager, she was nominated
for three All-American teams and once scored 106 points in a game.
Of the 634 track and field events in which she was entered,
she won all but 12. She also excelled at golf, winning the
U.S. Amateur title in 1946, the British Amateur in 1947 and the
Women's professional titles in 1948, 1950, and 1954. In baseball,
she toured the country with a team composed mostly of men and
could throw a ball 300 feet on a straight line.
(She also threw a third strike past Joe DiMaggio.)
"The Babe is here. Who's coming in second?"
--Babe Didrikson Zaharias
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 14:39:46
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote in message
news:4714ff6a$0$232$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Michael Press schreef:
>> Mildred 'Babe' Didrikson Zaharias, greatest athlete of the twentieth
>> century.
>
> Oh come on.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3427787.stm
>
'Babe' won the Gavia stage in a snowstorm as well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 09:46:14
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-B8318F.17501115102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <UjKQi.9745$lD6.7743@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Ive been reading all the responses and the only one of
> > > you who even seems to have a clue about that is the woman who calls
> > > herself gmbt.
> >
> > *snort*
> >
> > Well that was a funny moment to start the day with.
> > Thank you for that.
>
> Heh, if bikinglynda only knew...
What, that this newsgroup is full of a clusterfuck of assholes. I think she
figured that out already.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 21:46:58
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> What, that this newsgroup is full of a clusterfuck of assholes.
May we use that figure of speech in our official motto ?
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 10:16:24
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Bob Schwartz" <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:UjKQi.9745$lD6.7743@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Ive been reading all the responses and the only one of
> > you who even seems to have a clue about that is the woman who calls
> > herself gmbt.
>
> *snort*
>
> Well that was a funny moment to start the day with.
> Thank you for that.
>
> Bob Schwartz
>
> PS GBMT's name is Bruce, and he's not really a fan of
> the sport.
I'll speak for myself on that.
GBMT
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 21:09:52
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > Ive been reading all the responses and the only one of
>> > you who even seems to have a clue about that is the woman who calls
>> > herself gmbt.
Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> *snort*
>> Well that was a funny moment to start the day with.
>> Thank you for that.
>> PS GBMT's name is Bruce, and he's not really a fan of
>> the sport.
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> I'll speak for myself on that.
On your masculinity or your fandom ?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 19:22:03
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
> why do you think I am kidding?? I don't know what the pelotons are
> but I assume they are bike races. are there pro women racing I dont
> know but you are making my point, the women do with less then the
> men. whether they are pro or not in our sexist society they have to
> do more to get the same respect.
>
> wikipedia says sara carrigan from australia won the last olympic medal
> in cyclint (it says she is a pro too) so I would say she is the best
> cyclist. I am sure she had to do more to get that then whatever man
> won a medal. I'm sure they are very very good too but being a great
> woman athlete is much much harder. why is that so hard for men to
> understand. Ive been reading all the responses and the only one of
> you who even seems to have a clue about that is the woman who calls
> herself gmbt.
>
> LYNDA
Suggesting that it's tougher for a woman to be a great athlete compared to a
guy... well, that all depends upon how you define "great athlete." I would
say that it's easier for a woman to decide she wants to compete at the top
level, and win, than for a guy. Why?
#1: Less competition/smaller talent pool.
#2: Women, with a few very notable exceptions, appear less-willing to
mortgage their health by taking all manner of doping products. From what I
understand, doping is simply not as common. What this means is that those
who do... the Marion Jones & Tammy Thomas's of the world... they're able to
compete with a more definitive advantage over the rest of the field than
guys who dope. So, if a woman is willing to cheat, the case can be made that
it's actually easier for her to become a "great athlete."
I think we also have to look at something else here. Women, in general, may
not be as competitive as men in some athletic endeavors simply because
they're better people. The world is generally more tolerant of a highly
obnoxious ego-driven personality in a man than a woman. I don't think
leveling the playing field, if it means "elevating" women to such jerk
status, would improve the world. Better to knock down the guys a notch or
two (or three).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 18:04:25
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
<bikinglynda@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1192320100.756328.302280@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
You are kidding right? How many women ride in the pro peloton?
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 16:04:47
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
<bikinglynda@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1192320100.756328.302280@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> LYNDA
>
It is against the Livedrunk charter.
The official rules state, "Anyone being discussed as a potential All Time
Best in any category must have a penis."
The rules also require that any discussions can not commence until all
participants have a beverage that contains at least 2 percent alcohol by
volume. It is also suggested that if the participants butts are on
furniture they should be on a stool instead of a seat.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 22:32:47
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
In article
<3-GdnfuQnr0UPY_anZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Frank Drackman" <frankdrack@yahoo.com > wrote:
> <bikinglynda@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1192320100.756328.302280@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> > know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> > best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> > cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> > chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> > give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> > the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> It is against the Livedrunk charter.
>
> The official rules state, "Anyone being discussed as a potential All Time
> Best in any category must have a penis."
>
> The rules also require that any discussions can not commence until all
> participants have a beverage that contains at least 2 percent alcohol by
> volume. It is also suggested that if the participants butts are on
> furniture they should be on a stool instead of a seat.
Two percent? A body will succumb to acute water poisoning
before catching a buzz.
--
Michael Press
Chief LIVEDRUNK Qualification Officer
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 11:16:25
From: lewdvig
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 13, 6:01 pm, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> LYNDA
You could make a very good argument for Jeannie Longo being the best
women and one of the best overall. She had reasonably good competition
at spots in her career, nothing like Eddie though. I think if you
educate yourself on Eddie, you would have a hard time finding any
women who won against such strong competition and lots of people in
federations that wanted him not to win. He overcame a lot.
Based on your other posts, the best female cyclist will have to be
fast and UGLY right, because if she is pretty and fast and any of us
perverts comment on how pretty she is, that would make us sexist.
Right?
As for the compensation, Jeanson seemed to do OK raking in a few
million dollars without ever winning the big women races. They are not
exactly starving. I am sure there is money in the sport for people
willing to focus on the right races and smile for a product shot or
two.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 09:13:18
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 14, 4:19 am, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:
> If you
> put a mixed peloton of male and female professional cyclists on any of the
> classic courses, the first man would finish before the first woman.
Dumbass -
Google rbr, John Verheul, 2nd place.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 12:19:45
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
in message <1192320100.756328.302280@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com >,
bikinglynda@yahoo.com (' bikinglynda@yahoo.com') wrote:
> all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
Look, there isn't just one dimension of 'cyclist'. There isn't just one
sort of thing people do on bikes.
Are these girls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csFXnIpDTrE
the best cyclists ever? They can certainly do things with their bikes that
Eddie Merckx never could.
Or Rachel Atherton, ditto?
Or Jeannie Longo, who has what must be the longest career in world class
competitive racing of any cyclist ever, from winning the French national
championships in 1979 to coming 7th in the World Time Trial Championship
this year?
If your measure of cycling is road racing, then the best men can ride
faster for longer than the best women. That's just how we're made. If you
put a mixed peloton of male and female professional cyclists on any of the
classic courses, the first man would finish before the first woman.
Kind of so what? Is the best athlete the fastest ever, or the most
technically skilled ever, or the bravest ever, or the one who most fulfils
the potential of the genetics they were born with?
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 10:50:32
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
> all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> LYNDA
>
Beryl Burton
:-))
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 10:11:36
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
bikinglynda wrote:
> all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> best
I don't suppose you're a gorilla in drag ?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 09:01:52
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4711cf39$0$2889$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> bikinglynda wrote:
>
> > all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> > know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> > best
>
> I don't suppose you're a gorilla in drag ?
My first impression was it might be Lafferty doing a spin off from his
Mildred Newman, teacher at 4th grade dot com spoofs, or never doped. Sounds
like Never Doped.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 22:56:14
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
> all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> LYNDA
Do you really mean to say that the woman cyclist who wins the most races is
the BEST cyclist overall, or that the cyclist, regardless of sex, who wins
the most races is the BEST cyclist? If you're restricting "BEST cyclist" to
being, by definition, a woman... that's at least as sexist as what you're
railing against.
For what it's worth, two women come to mind as likely having won a whole lot
of races. Beryl Burton and J. Longo. How many each has won, I have no idea,
and even if it is in the neighborhood, or even surpassing, that of Eddy
Merckx, I'm sure some will claim that there was much less competition in the
women's events.
Looking forward to your reply-
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 04:42:13
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
so illan is that a man or a womans name? do you really think this is
just about having balls then is that it? well how does having balls
make someone a good cyclist or, a good person? Im not talking about
anatamy I'm talking about equalness and if we are trying to figure out
who is the best how can we do that if we only think about half of the
people? and, how is a woman ever going to win the tour de-france if
they don't even let her enter it? maybe you and everyone else in this
googlegroup should go back to talking about how hot the women's
cyclists are, its ridiculous.
LYNDA
On Oct 13, 7:12 pm, ilan...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2:01 am, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> > know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> > best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> > cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> > chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> > give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> > the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> > LYNDA
>
> Because a woman will never be able to come back from testicular cancer
> to win the Tour de France 7 times.
>
> -ilan
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 12:17:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
In article
<1192336933.908762.132570@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com >
,
bikinglynda@yahoo.com wrote:
> so illan is that a man or a womans name? do you really think this is
> just about having balls then is that it? well how does having balls
> make someone a good cyclist or, a good person? Im not talking about
> anatamy I'm talking about equalness and if we are trying to figure out
> who is the best how can we do that if we only think about half of the
> people? and, how is a woman ever going to win the tour de-france if
> they don't even let her enter it? maybe you and everyone else in this
> googlegroup should go back to talking about how hot the women's
> cyclists are, its ridiculous.
Oh, now wait a minute, biking Lynda. This _not_ a google
group. rec.bicycles.racing runs off nntp (network news
transfer protocol), not http (hypertext transfer protocol)
that gargle runs on. rbr is a group in what is called the
USENET hierarchy, for USEr NETwork. Have a look at the
Wikipedia article on USENET, and do some further research.
It was originally designed and built to distribute to
system administrators messages about the functioning of the
internet in its earliest days, long before garble came
along and dumped a bunch of innocents onto USENET, said
innocents incapable of configuring their machine as a nntp
client, and instead using goober's ill mannered http to
nntp gateway. I hope you know more about racing than you do
about the forum you have chosen to cast your pearls.
Hooogh! Snort!
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 21:48:00
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
Michael Press wrote:
> Hooogh! Snort!
You're the second person to snort today. I hope its not infectious.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 13:21:34
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
In article
<4713c3ec$0$2892$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > Hooogh! Snort!
>
> You're the second person to snort today. I hope its not infectious.
Not unless you want it to be.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 00:12:19
From:
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
On Oct 14, 2:01 am, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
>
> LYNDA
Because a woman will never be able to come back from testicular cancer
to win the Tour de France 7 times.
-ilan
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 22:48:48
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
<ilanpsi@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1192320739.388024.4760@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 14, 2:01 am, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> > know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> > best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> > cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> > chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> > give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> > the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
> >
> > LYNDA
>
> Because a woman will never be able to come back from testicular cancer
> to win the Tour de France 7 times.
>
> -ilan
What's Cynthia Compain up to lately?
GBMT
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 21:47:34
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: why not a woman??
|
<ilanpsi@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1192320739.388024.4760@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 14, 2:01 am, bikingly...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > all you guys are going on and on and on about this man named Merkyx (I
> > know who he is, one of my friends has his bike) to see if he is the
> > best but why do none of you mention the possibility that a woman
> > cyclist is best??? someone pointed out that the fame and the money
> > chance everything but the women don't get that do they? they have to
> > give those things up but presevere anyway. find the woman who wins
> > the most races and then you will find the BEST cyclist.
> >
> > LYNDA
>
> Because a woman will never be able to come back from testicular cancer
> to win the Tour de France 7 times.
>
> -ilan
Coming back from Ovarian cancer and winning anything would be remarkable.
|
|
