What Does it Take to Make Womens Sport Mainstream

[Pin-seeker]

The skill of the jockey in any horse event is extremely critical

It's the same as motor sport

Would suggest they are as important as each other

Not really,any decent Jockey would have won on Frankel.
Put a top Jockey on a average horse & he/she's more than likely going to come nowhere.

Put Hamilton in the Caterham-Renault & he ain't making a podium all season.:thup:

 

[Foxholer]

What about Winter Olympic sports such as skiing, skating, curling, etc ? Any sport where skill is more important than power. Personally think that women's athletics and swimming is just as good, especially if a British woman is winning.:thup:

I think it is the sports that women have historically not competed in, or been very popular, like football, rugby, boxing, cricket etc that have a lot of catching up to do. The standard is very varied as well, and a lot of the time the sport is not competitive. I would though always rather watch a close three set tennis match played by two top women, than a one side men's match.

Indeed Skating would qualify for the same reason as Gymnastics - it just didn't spring to mind - and I don't see why Curling isn't mixed - different length rinks? Shooting is another, but not Archery imo. Darts?

Swimming (and Athletics) might have the same 'excitement' level, but my metric is whether they could compete equally against each other - and the answer to that is a resounding 'No'!

 

[Papas1982]

The skill of the jockey in any horse event is extremely critical

It's the same as motor sport

Would suggest they are as important as each other

i fully agree greed that they're skill is highly important. But as most sports are more popular due to the males physical advantages. I would suggest in equestrian it is nit the most important factor. That's not to say that fitness Donets help. Re motor sport I'd suggest physical strength is extremely important and an advantage men still have over women.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I think you're missing the point a bit. Women's sport is usually different from men's for obvious reasons about physical strength. But that doesn't make it any less valid, less competitive or less compelling.

If TV only showed the "best" examples of sport we wouldn't have English championship football, spl, champions tour golf etc. but women's sport is generally not shown at all. There is a chicken and egg aspect about it, there's not much interest so it doesn't get on TV so there isn't much interest etc.

Take golf, when it is shown it tends to be a strange hours, maybe on the "red button" and with a much poorer quality coverage than men's golf. I watch men's golf almost constantly yet would prefer to watch the top women but I want the high standard coverage and analysis and the regular reliable times such that we can get to know and care about the players in the same way we do with the men.

I firmly believe that better coverage of women's sport would lead to greater interest, higher participation levels, improved quality and consequently greater interest.

But, as in many things, doon's "certain type of man" sets the agenda.

 

[Snelly]

I think you're missing the point a bit. Women's sport is usually different from men's for obvious reasons about physical strength. But that doesn't make it any less valid, less competitive or less compelling.

If TV only showed the "best" examples of sport we wouldn't have English championship football, spl, champions tour golf etc. but women's sport is generally not shown at all. There is a chicken and egg aspect about it, there's not much interest so it doesn't get on TV so there isn't much interest etc.

Take golf, when it is shown it tends to be a strange hours, maybe on the "red button" and with a much poorer quality coverage than men's golf. I watch men's golf almost constantly yet would prefer to watch the top women but I want the high standard coverage and analysis and the regular reliable times such that we can get to know and care about the players in the same way we do with the men.

I firmly believe that better coverage of women's sport would lead to greater interest, higher participation levels, improved quality and consequently greater interest.

But, as in many things, doon's "certain type of man" sets the agenda.

I think it is you that is missing the point.

If women's sport was as viable a proposition as you suggest then it would be treated as such by any organisation that could market and sell it around the world. The fact is that women's sport in most cases is not interesting to the sports fan as the level of play is not very good.

It is not a commercially viable product.

Wimbledon - play the men's tournament at a separate time to the women's at the all England club and see what would happen. I'd wager that the men's would be sold out and the women's would be half empty until the quarter finals.

Football and cricket - if it is such a compelling women's game then why isn't the leading female football player in England on the same cash as Wayne Rooney? Or why doesn't the leading English wicket taker for the ladies team get the same adoration and media exposure as Jimmy Anderson?

The reason is the same as why the leading bloke in the latest Gucci men's after shave ad earns a fraction of what Claudia Schiffer does for the equivalent perfume campaign. It is simple, basic economics.

You get the recognition and reward that the market forces dictate.

I will now no doubt be vitriolically abused for being a sexist dinosaur.

 

[Papas1982]

I think you're missing the point a bit. Women's sport is usually different from men's for obvious reasons about physical strength. But that doesn't make it any less valid, less competitive or less compelling.

If TV only showed the "best" examples of sport we wouldn't have English championship football, spl, champions tour golf etc. but women's sport is generally not shown at all. There is a chicken and egg aspect about it, there's not much interest so it doesn't get on TV so there isn't much interest etc.

Take golf, when it is shown it tends to be a strange hours, maybe on the "red button" and with a much poorer quality coverage than men's golf. I watch men's golf almost constantly yet would prefer to watch the top women but I want the high standard coverage and analysis and the regular reliable times such that we can get to know and care about the players in the same way we do with the men.

I firmly believe that better coverage of women's sport would lead to greater interest, higher participation levels, improved quality and consequently greater interest.

But, as in many things, doon's "certain type of man" sets the agenda.

I don't that's true at all. Rightly or wrongly men's sport has been going for so much longer that it is ingrained in our society. Take football for example. There are fans on here that support them teams obsessively. But how many if their respective female stars can they name? Their ability is irrelevant if there is no interest. Using football as an example, women may be as skilful as male counterparts. But they simply don't have the physical attributes to appeal to men (on a football basis). I've tried watching a few times unfortunatley and shot bound for a corner is scored as the goals are simply too big.

To to claim it's only sexist men that neglect female sports is sexist to say the least when sport support is massively one sided. Maybe if more women participated then female based sports would be better supported?

 

[Papas1982]

I think it is you that is missing the point.

If women's sport was as viable a proposition as you suggest then it would be treated as such by any organisation that could market and sell it around the world. The fact is that women's sport in most cases is not interesting to the sports fan as the level of play is not very good.

It is not a commercially viable product.

Wimbledon - play the men's tournament at a separate time to the women's at the all England club and see what would happen. I'd wager that the men's would be sold out and the women's would be half empty until the quarter finals.

Football and cricket - if it is such a compelling women's game then why isn't the leading female football player in England on the same cash as Wayne Rooney? Or why doesn't the leading English wicket taker for the ladies team get the same adoration and media exposure as Jimmy Anderson?

The reason is the same as why the leading bloke in the latest Gucci men's after shave ad earns a fraction of what Claudia Schiffer does for the equivalent perfume campaign. It is simple, basic economics.

You get the recognition and reward that the market forces dictate.

I will now no doubt be vitriolically abused for being a sexist dinosaur.

Spot one! Hiw many diet coke ads have there been with Rik Waller? Supply and demand.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I think it is you that is missing the point.

If women's sport was as viable a proposition as you suggest then it would be treated as such by any organisation that could market and sell it around the world. The fact is that women's sport in most cases is not interesting to the sports fan as the level of play is not very good.

It is not a commercially viable product.

Wimbledon - play the men's tournament at a separate time to the women's at the all England club and see what would happen. I'd wager that the men's would be sold out and the women's would be half empty until the quarter finals.

Football and cricket - if it is such a compelling women's game then why isn't the leading female football player in England on the same cash as Wayne Rooney? Or why doesn't the leading English wicket taker for the ladies team get the same adoration and media exposure as Jimmy Anderson?

The reason is the same as why the leading bloke in the latest Gucci men's after shave ad earns a fraction of what Claudia Schiffer does for the equivalent perfume campaign. It is simple, basic economics.

You get the recognition and reward that the market forces dictate.

I will now no doubt be vitriolically abused for being a sexist dinosaur.

 

[Foxholer]

I think you're missing the point a bit. Women's sport is usually different from men's for obvious reasons about physical strength. But that doesn't make it any less valid, less competitive or less compelling.

Actually I think, at least on my reasoning, it's you that's missing 'the point' - or at least looking at it from a different approach.

I certainly agree that a Women's competition can be just as compelling as a Men's one. But, as posted earlier, in many sports the Women's event is a 'poorer version' of the Men's one. The Women's Marathon record is (or was) something like 20 minutes more than the Men's one. High jump record is much lower and generally the Women's winners wouldn't even qualify if they were Men's times/distances - but they are still the best Woman, so rate as much as the Man's winner.

But my reasoning 'is it better to watch' or 'would Women/Men be equally competitive in a unisex competition'. I often find the rallies in Women's better to watch than in the Men's wham bam game. But, Press 'sisters' aside, Men just have naturally more strength than Ladies, so will always be Longer or Faster. It's where strength is not the primary component that there's a level playing field - and in Golf, strength does count.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I should, of course, know better by now than to post on threads like this.

I'm not denying that there is a bigger market for male rather than female sport. I'll try to simplify my point for you....

Men's and women's sport is different for obvious reasons. I believe there is a place for both. Just because you don't want to watch something doesn't mean it shouldn't be on telly for others. There is a chicken and egg situation with respect to female sport in this country but low participation levels could be improved by greater media coverage.

I don't understand why this notion outrages some of you so much.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Rightly or wrongly men's sport has been going for so much longer that it is ingrained in our society.

This is possibly the most insightful post on the thread. I won't discuss it further as I don't think I'm in the mood for the scorn that would follow.

 

[Foxholer]

I don't understand why this notion outrages some of you so much.

I detect no 'outrage'!

And I should add that because the way most Women Pros play Golf is likely to be much closer to Mens Cat 1/Elite level, more can be learnt from it than from that of Mens Pros - or even International Level Amateurs.

 

[JustOne]

Womens beach volley ball is watchable

 

[Papas1982]

I should, of course, know better by now than to post on threads like this.

I'm not denying that there is a bigger market for male rather than female sport. I'll try to simplify my point for you....

Men's and women's sport is different for obvious reasons. I believe there is a place for both. Just because you don't want to watch something doesn't mean it shouldn't be on telly for others. There is a chicken and egg situation with respect to female sport in this country but low participation levels could be improved by greater media coverage.

I don't understand why this notion outrages some of you so much.

Ive not seen anybody outraged by the notion. TV slots are not the key to things gaining popularity and so whilst some women's sports may get an interest it will only be used as filler. Women's sport has come on leaps and bounds but it simply won't catch up. I don't think it's sexist to say that it's behind. Nobody has been derogatory to the skills associated with these women. But asking for more people to watch it simply won't happen.

 

[Hobbit]

First of all, for me, it depends on the sport. Would I watch Everton ladies 'v' Arsenal ladies? No I wouldn't. But for the very reason I wouldn't want to watch Accrington Stanley 'v' Oldham. Its about the skill level.

Ladies golf 30yrs ago, no, but ladies golf today, yes. And, again, its because of the skill level.

For me, it has nothing to do with the gender. Do I want to watch someone running the 100m in 9.58secs or 10.49secs? If its a man running 9.58, I'd prefer to watch the man.

 

[DaveM]

The main fault of this thread. Is to compare like with like. Each has to be taken on its own merits. I watched the ladies rugby world cup. Mainly as there was nowt on. Soon changed my mind the English girls were brilliant, I soon forgot I was watching girls. It was just great rugby. Ok they may not be able to compete with the men. So what they are not playing men, so that type of argument as no standing.

As for the golf most amateur golfers would get a good thrashing from any of the lady pro's. Maybe that's what they can't take, to be beat by a girl.

 

[FairwayDodger]

The main fault of this thread. Is to compare like with like. Each has to be taken on its own merits. I watched the ladies rugby world cup. Mainly as there was nowt on. Soon changed my mind the English girls were brilliant, I soon forgot I was watching girls. It was just great rugby. Ok they may not be able to compete with the men. So what they are not playing men, so that type of argument as no standing.

Thank you, Dave, exactly the point I have been trying to make!

 

[Snelly]

I should, of course, know better by now than to post on threads like this.

I'm not denying that there is a bigger market for male rather than female sport. I'll try to simplify my point for you....

Men's and women's sport is different for obvious reasons. I believe there is a place for both. Just because you don't want to watch something doesn't mean it shouldn't be on telly for others. There is a chicken and egg situation with respect to female sport in this country but low participation levels could be improved by greater media coverage.

I don't understand why this notion outrages some of you so much.

I am not outraged, I just politely disagree with the suggestion that there is a male conspiracy in the sports media to undermine women's sport.

I also feel that women's sports are mainstream. Sports for all are great. My wife and daughter take part in a dozen sports between them and love it. I think we should be doing everything we can in the UK to encourage female participation in sport across the board.

However, that is a different subject.

If we are examining why women's sport gets less TV coverage then it is purely that audiences aren't bothered about it, irrespective of gender. Neither on TV or live. Golf included. If audiences cared, the tournaments would be as packed as the men's ones are and they would get high profile TV slots. But the demand doesn't exist and it is not a chicken and egg situation. You might want to watch women's sport but not many people do, relative to that played by men.

You might not like it but it is the case that if women were better at a given sport than men then that is what people would watch. I would personally love to see 11 girls run rings around the current England football team but it can't happen sadly.

 

[Foxholer]

I would personally love to see 11 girls run rings around the current England football team but it can't happen sadly.

Not so sure about that frankly!

 

[jp5]

First of all, for me, it depends on the sport. Would I watch Everton ladies 'v' Arsenal ladies? No I wouldn't. But for the very reason I wouldn't want to watch Accrington Stanley 'v' Oldham. Its about the skill level.

Ladies golf 30yrs ago, no, but ladies golf today, yes. And, again, its because of the skill level.

For me, it has nothing to do with the gender. Do I want to watch someone running the 100m in 9.58secs or 10.49secs? If its a man running 9.58, I'd prefer to watch the man.

Without a timer on screen, could you really tell the difference between 9.58s and 10.49s?