2011 Copenhagen World Championships: Elite Men Road Race

[LugHugger]

The World Championship is a classic in everything but name.

An interesting analogy. There has been a great deal of discussion of what merits a suitable course. The Classics are more or less fixed courses apart from the Worlds, it is the Worlds' distance makes it Classic-like. The Classics are more or less the same each year with the odd new berg thrown in or taken out or one section of pave swapped for another. MSR is pretty consistently the same.

So the Worlds should have fixed TYPE of parcour, is that what you're saying?

I'm not pro/anti this position per se but my instinctual feeling is that the Worlds should be held over varying types of terrain to reflect the variation of rider types in the peloton. Why shouldn't a sprinter be Champ? Why should Champs always fit the Hushovdt/Gilbert/Evans/Valverde/Bettini/Cancellara rouleur/puncheur stereotype? When was the last opportunity for A Schleck/Pantani/Rasmussen-type to win the Worlds? 95? That's a LONG time ago.

The Worlds is VERY stereotypical in the type of rider that is usually victorious. For me, that is not 'a good thing' and why I'm glad that a non-rouleur won this year .

 

[El Pistolero]

If yesterdays type course was the norm then I would agree, but it isn't.

There is no magical route that exists to select a World Champion.
Some years are more selective than others and it is up to the riders (&teams) to make the most of it.


No one is stopping you entering the current World Races.

Yes it does, because there's only a select amount of riders that get the chance of riding it. I'm not good enough for that.

 

[El Pistolero]

If yesterdays type course was the norm then I would agree, but it isn't.

There is no magical route that exists to select a World Champion.
Some years are more selective than others and it is up to the riders (&teams) to make the most of it.


No one is stopping you entering the current World Races.

Democracy isn't perfect, but do you know something better?

In the same way that a hilly race that's selective enough to throw out the pure sprinters, but not too hard to make all the sprinters chance-less is more or less the best thing you can make for a WC.

Of course climbers won't get a chance then, but the Tour is bigger than the WC, so we can just call it their unofficial WC.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Exactly. The WC course should be selective. It does not matter whether selections from from long climbs, short and steep climbs, cobblestones, dirt, wind, or whatever. It should have a way to separate the worthy from the unworthy. This course was absolute garbage. Cav should feel embarrassed every time he pulls on the jersey.

Why should it be selective?

The distance and prestige of the event makes it competitive.

And what is with this crap about everyone should have a chance to be world champion? Where is Contador's chance? Maybe every few years the course should look like the queen stage of a Giro. Maybe every few years there should be twenty sectors of cobbles to give the cobble specialists their chance. Maybe every few years the course should be shortened to below two hundred K so that those who cannot handle long distances get their chance. If we are going to design courses for specific types of riders then maybe the WC should race down Alpe d'Huez to give Nibali his chance.

Who made that point?

When people are advocating a 'selective' WC course as the norm then they are actually restricting the numbers who can win.

 

[Mambo95]

But the best climber never does and never will get a chance. Neither does a cobbled specialist.

Who is a cobbled specialist? Boonen? Hushovd? Moser? Kelly? de Vlaeminck?Museeuw? van Petegem? They've all got Worlds medals.

A Worlds with cobbles would be good, but I don't think anyone is being denied their opportunity by tarmac.

 

[El Pistolero]

Who is a cobbled specialist? Boonen? Hushovd? Moser? Kelly? de Vlaeminck?Museeuw? van Petegem? They've all got Worlds medals.

A Worlds with cobbles would be good, but I don't think anyone is being denied their opportunity by tarmac.

Because they're more versatile otherwise they wouldn't have won a medal

Some people like Devolder will never win a gold medal though.

 

[Angliru]

I think he might be.
Not having Holm and Zabel around could make more of a difference than people think.
Holm even sat in the British car yesterday.

The only way he'll be cursed is by injury. Performance wise I just don't see him not getting his usual alotment of victories.

 

[Angliru]

Erm, were were you in 2010?

Ok, his season was good, but he had a very bad first half of the season without breaking anything.

I recall some type of medical issue that impacted his early season form (dental?).

 

[Angliru]

They all have some capability over hills, andsome capability in a finish.

Ultimately you think only that subset of riders should be allowed to have a chance. I think the best sprinter, and the best climber, should also have a shout once every 6 or 7 years. You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.

I'd personally prefer much more often than 6 or 7 years but that is just me.

 

[Mambo95]

Some people like Devolder will never win a gold medal though.

That's because he's not particularly good, there are several better Belgians and he can only be bothered for about three days a year.

 

[Fus087]

Of course the problem is how do we even know if he's cursed? Only gets four wins in the Tour?

And, yes! I heard that. TRAITOOOOR!

Less than 10 GT stages? Anybody else would take that as a great season.
Not one day in green at the Tour? If things don't go his way, that could happen even with 5 stage wins.
Crashes in the Scheldeprijs, breaks his leg and is out until after Paris-Tours? That would be a curse.

I don't wish him that though.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Team GB have nothing on El Pist.
They only had to fend off all comers for 266kms over 6 hours.
He's been deflecting the masses with little more than his personal prejudice, for 30 hours and is still typing strong.

 

[pmcg76]

Why should it be selective?

The distance and prestige of the event makes it competitive.



Who made that point?

When people are advocating a 'selective' WC course as the norm then they are actually restricting the numbers who can win.

But the number is far greater than a sprinter course which is usually 2-3 riders especially if there is an outstanding individual. We have now had 2 recent flat Worlds. Cipollini was favourite in 02, he won. Cavendish was favourite this year, he won.

How often does the favourite for the Worlds actually win in a normal year, they usualyl come from a group of favourites which usually numbers between 5-20 riders. I would say a flat course is more restrictive than a normal Worlds in determining who wins.

Why should the GTs not favour sprinters either?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But the number is far greater than a sprinter course which is usually 2-3 riders especially if there is an outstanding individual. We have now had 2 recent flat Worlds. Cipollini was favourite in 02, he won. Cavendish was favourite this year, he won.

While Cav was the favourite, to suggest that it was between 2 or 3 riders is a statement written with the benefit of hindsight.

How often does the favourite for the Worlds actually win in a normal year, they usualyl come from a group of favourites which usually numbers between 5-20 riders. I would say a flat course is more restrictive than a normal Worlds in determining who wins.

Well, a flat course is more restrictive if you are a climber.
A hilly course is more restrictive if you are a sprinter.

Why should the GTs not favour sprinters either?

Sorry, no idea what this means.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, a flat course is more restrictive if you are a climber.
A hilly course is more restrictive if you are a sprinter.

A hilly course, depending on how hilly, can suit puncheurs, hilly classics guys, even some rouleurs, and climbers.

A flat course can suit some rouleurs, and sprinters.

More groups can contend on a course with some obstacles. We shouldn't have a Worlds that is so selective only the climbers can win, but we shouldn't have one so easy that only the sprinters can win. I would have thought that that's fairly simple. You can make it more biased one way or the other (Mendrisio for example was biased on the hilly side, Madrid on the flat side), but a course that eliminates all but one group of riders from contention is too limited (and that was borne out by many of the major riders not even bothering to show up at the Worlds this year, and not just those that treat everything post-July as a party, but the type that contend to win all year round like Evans and Cunego).

 

[pmcg76]

While Cav was the favourite, to suggest that it was between 2 or 3 riders is a statement written with the benefit of hindsight.




Well, a flat course is more restrictive if you are a climber.
A hilly course is more restrictive if you are a sprinter.



Sorry, no idea what this means.

Yet you cannot explain how both times a Worlds RR was flat, the outstanding favourite won. How often is their an outstaning favourite for the Worlds and how often do they win.

What is you definition of a climber? Contador, Schleck, Rodriguez. 0 chance on a flat course whilst sprinters like Zabel, Hushovd, Freire, Boonen have done ok on hillier courses than this year.

If cycling is about giving everyone a fair crack at winning, why are the GTs never designed so that a sprinter can win.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yet you cannot explain how both times a Worlds RR was flat, the outstanding favourite won. How often is their an outstaning favourite for the Worlds and how often do they win.

I assume you gave me a hint in the first line.

But I am not sure what your point is in complaining that the favourite of a race won?

What is you definition of a climber? Contador, Schleck, Rodriguez. 0 chance on a flat course whilst sprinters like Zabel, Hushovd, Freire, Boonen have done ok on hillier courses than this year.

How many times have any of those guys ever ridden the Worlds - let alone a 'flat one'?

If cycling is about giving everyone a fair crack at winning, why are the GTs never designed so that a sprinter can win.

I never said "cycling is about giving everyone a fair crack at winning"
But there is nothing (in either rules or practicality) as to why the Worlds must be selective or suit certain types of winners.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

J-Rod has raced at the Worlds 4 times - 2006, 7, 8 and 9.

 

[pmcg76]

I assume you gave me a hint in the first line.

But I am not sure what your point is in complaining that the favourite of a race won?


How many times have any of those guys ever ridden the Worlds - let alone a 'flat one'?


I never said "cycling is about giving everyone a fair crack at winning"
But there is nothing (in either rules or practicality) as to why the Worlds must be selective or suit certain types of winners.

I am not complaining they won, I am merely highliighting this idea that those saying worlds should not be be restrictive to certain types of riders is rubbish. Fact is, a flat worlds seems to have seriously restricted those that can win more than any other year as both times the favourite won.

No, there is nothing in the rules but like the GTs, the Worlds has a certain prestige in regards to its importance and toughness. Holding it on pan flat course which enables teams to dominate and control a race for a guy who does nothing all day then sprint at the finish dilutes the essence of what the Worlds are about.

Perhaps its another of those unwritten rules in cycling but the Worlds should be be of certain level of toughness and not some glorified sprint. Reminds me of when I raced U-14 in Ireland and in some races we were restricted to racing the last 200 metres or whatever.

 

[Hawkwood]

Just been looking back at the first posts in this thread. Seems like Cav was not exactly the clear favourite here, with at least one poster thinking the final 500m would be too hard for him.

 

[Winterfold]

Team GB have nothing on El Pist.
They only had to fend off all comers for 266kms over 6 hours.
He's been deflecting the masses with little more than his personal prejudice, for 30 hours and is still typing strong.

PMSL

Ive temporarily put him on ignore - but its not stopping his posts reaching me in anyway.

This is the Bradley Wiggins penultimate lap of posting for sure.

How long can he keep it up?

Will he have chilled by Lombardia, or more probably Paris-Tours

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I am not complaining they won, I am merely highliighting this idea that those saying worlds should not be be restrictive to certain types of riders is rubbish. Fact is, a flat worlds seems to have seriously restricted those that can win more than any other year as both times the favourite won.

But by saying that a course must be 'selective' or suit 'versatile' riders is making it restrictive.

As I said earlier - that would be an issue if every Worlds was pan flat or held on the same course - but they aren't.

No, there is nothing in the rules but like the GTs, the Worlds has a certain prestige in regards to its importance and toughness. Holding it on pan flat course which enables teams to dominate and control a race for a guy who does nothing all day then sprint at the finish dilutes the essence of what the Worlds are about.

I actually think saying any rider does nothing all day is quite ridiculous.
The Worlds is always 250k+, so that immediately makes it a tough race and by in large makes a worthy winner.

So does the Tour because it is 3 weeks long.
But some years the organizers put in lots of TTs (or even TTTs), or some years they put in lots of mountains.
There is no set formula to what makes either race prestigious, except the race itself.

Perhaps its another of those unwritten rules in cycling but the Worlds should be be of certain level of toughness and not some glorified sprint. Reminds me of when I raced U-14 in Ireland and in some races we were restricted to racing the last 200 metres or whatever.

To be fair - allowing U14s only contest the last 200m of a 260km race was probably a sensible idea

 

[El Pistolero]

But by saying that a course must be 'selective' or suit 'versatile' riders is making it restrictive.

As I said earlier - that would be an issue if every Worlds was pan flat or held on the same course - but they aren't.


I actually think saying any rider does nothing all day is quite ridiculous.
The Worlds is always 250k+, so that immediately makes it a tough race and by in large makes a worthy winner.

So does the Tour because it is 3 weeks long.
But some years the organizers put in lots of TTs (or even TTTs), or some years they put in lots of mountains.
There is no set formula to what makes either race prestigious, except the race itself.


To be fair - allowing U14s only contest the last 200m of a 260km race was probably a sensible idea

The Tour has followed a certain formula for quite some time now. Prologue, long time trial, sometimes a TTT, 3 Alpe stages, 3 Pyrenees stages, a few hilly stages and the rest plain flat stages.

One of the Belgian girls that got 8th at the WC was saying that the only problem she had on this course was to stay awake: it was that boring.

For me it just seems they made this race 260km long for the hell of it. Cut it down to 160km and the result would have been more or less the same. If the Champs Elysées is a glorified kermis koerske than this is a glorified Champs Elysées!

 

[Mambo95]

Why should the GTs not favour sprinters either?

They do. They have the Green Jersey and stages to go for. A good Grand Tour presents opportunities for a variety of riders to claim glory. This year's Tour did that and the three big stars were Evans, Hushovd and Cavendish - diverse riders, winning in different ways.

Now if only we could find a way which offered three such great, but different riders an opportunity to become World Champion, we'd have everything solved.

 

[El Pistolero]

They do. They have the Green Jersey and stages to go for. A good Grand Tour presents opportunities for a variety of riders to claim glory. This year's Tour did that and the three big stars were Evans, Hushovd and Cavendish - diverse riders, winning in different ways.

Now if only we could find a way which offered three such great, but different riders an opportunity to become World Champion, we'd have everything solved.

But why can't sprinters win the yellow jersey? Why shouldn't they get a chance?

Ps: replace Hushovd with Samuel Sanchez, thank you very much.