2011 Copenhagen World Championships: Elite Men Road Race

[Mambo95]

every useless tosser in with a chance of winning.

So every useless tosser was in with a chance of winning, but the course also provided no opportunity for the likes of Gilbert and Cancellara to win.

 

[pmcg76]

If every "useless tosser in with a chance of winning" then why is it you said earlier that Cav was the outstanding favorite?

I never said that the Worlds should "not be" selective - I asked why is it a "must" that it needs to be?


You don't get medals for staying in the bunch.


Not worthy - but still the winner.

There will always be a favourite but a non-selective route opens a race up to the possibility of lesser talented riders winning like Cav.

The Worlds should be selective for the same reason the Tour is selective, its supposed to select the best one day rider in the World, not the best sprinter or whatever. Admittedly I dont put as much value on the worlds as when it was held back in August before 95.

Really, Cav never left the bunch all day, he just finished at the head of the bunch. Still finished in the bunch.

Your last point is the only one that really matters, the Worlds RR like the Tour or any GT should provide a route and winner worthy of the prestige attached to it. Period.

 

[cyclopeon]

...Why shouldn't a sprinter be Champ? ...

Well, for a start there will be the constant embarrassment of the World Champions jersey leading in the grupetto on every mountain-ish stage of whichever tours he enters: more grupetto finishes than attempts to win! It will be impossible to explain to the less knowledgeable masses who watch the Tour on tv, although it will be interesting to hear Phil and Paul try.

However, Mission Accomplished for Fat Pat and the UCI: someone from the British Isles will wear the WC Stripes in the London Olympics Men's RR. Politics approved this course.

(any bets that Martin is somehow shunted out of his jersey before the Olympics?)

apologies if someone has already said all this, I haven't read the whole thread

 

[ustabe]

You don't get medals for staying in the bunch.

Cav just did.

I wouldn't say he's not worthy. It was just a boring non-selective race.

And bravo to Tom Voeckler for trying to make something of it.

 

[Mambo95]

However, Mission Accomplished for Fat Pat and the UCI: someone from the British Isles will wear the WC Stripes in the London Olympics Men's RR. Politics approved this course.

Yet the course was chosen when Cavendish was an unknown and the WC doesn't wear the jersey at the Olympics anyway.

Apart from the facts, your argument is persuasive.

(Of course, Hushovd, Boonen and Freire have never spent any time in the grupetto, embarassing the jersey)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There will always be a favourite but a non-selective route opens a race up to the possibility of lesser talented riders winning.

....and a "selective" route will favour riders that are more 'versatile'.

This is why I asked, why is there this fixation that the Worlds "must" produce a 'versatile' winner? Are they more worthy than a sprinter, climber, rouler?

The Worlds should be selective for the same reason the Tour is selective, its supposed to select the best one day rider in the World, not the best sprinter or whatever. Admittedly I dont put as much value on the worlds as when it was held back in August before 95.

Really, Cav never left the bunch all day, he just finished at the head of the bunch. Still finished in the bunch.

Your last point is the only one that really matters, the Worlds RR like the Tour or any GT should provide a route and winner worthy of the prestige attached to it. Period.

The prestige is the prize - not the course.

Did Gilbert or Cancellara say before the race that they wouldn't bother trying to win it because the course would not make a worthy winner? Hell no.

 

[pmcg76]

If every "useless tosser in with a chance of winning" then why is it you said earlier that Cav was the outstanding favorite?

I never said that the Worlds should "not be" selective - I asked why is it a "must" that it needs to be?


You don't get medals for staying in the bunch.


Not worthy - but still the winner.

....and a "selective" route will favour riders that are more 'versatile'.

This is why I asked, why is there this fixation that the Worlds "must" produce a 'versatile' winner? Are they more worthy than a sprinter, climber, rouler?


The prestige is the prize - not the course.

Did Gilbert or Cancellara say before the race that they wouldn't bother trying to win it because the course would not make a worthy winner? Hell no.

No a selective course will provide a more talented type of rider.

You just said a few posts back that you wouldnt view the winner of a flat Tour de France as a worthy winner. It is still the Tour if it is the title that matters. Cant have it both ways here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Cav just did.

I wouldn't say he's not worthy. It was just a boring non-selective race.

And bravo to Tom Voeckler for trying to make something of it.

He didn't stay in the bunch - he led it home.

It was a pretty boring race - but it didn't need to be, that is what disappointed me, that more teams or riders did not try and mix it up in the finale.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No a selective course will provide a more talented type of rider.

Are you saying that sprinters, climbers, roulers are not talented?

Cycling is not like athletics where there are different events. Why should one type be viewed as more talented than an other.

You just said a few posts back that you wouldnt view the winner of a flat Tour de France as a worthy winner. It is still the Tour if it is the title that matters. Cant have it both ways here.

Fair enough, but it was in response to a hypothetical that will never happen.

A flat Tour would change the fundamental of what the Tour is - a World Championship is a one day event on a once off course.

 

[cyclopeon]

Yet the course was chosen when Cavendish was an unknown and the WC doesn't wear the jersey at the Olympics anyway.

Apart from the facts, your argument is persuasive.

(Of course, Hushovd, Boonen and Freire have never spent any time in the grupetto, embarassing the jersey)

I thought maybe he'd wear it under his team jersey?

Thanks; I try never to let facts get in the way. I used to, before I started reading the CN forums

A matter of degree, on the grupetto: sometimes or even often vs inevitably, as near as I can recall.

 

[BroDeal]

It was a pretty boring race - but it didn't need to be...

Really? In what alternate universe would this course not be boring? How would it happen? Unless you were counting on a wind storm to break things up, this course was destined to be a waste of time that would have produced the same result if the first 250 km had been chopped off.

A non-seletive course is--wait for it--non-selective, i.e. nothing happens until the last kilometers, i.e. boring.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

But why should uphill and hilly finishes have any relevance. You said this is a pure sprinters competition. This, you said, is their World Championship. Yet now hills have relevance?

it is really amazing that people can argue that a 'pure sprinters' course is not valid because there are only a handful of possible contenders?

isn't this true of every race course? how many guys can win flanders? how many can win amstel? maybe 5 favorites?

if they drew up a course that was like a giro queen stage, and alberto decided to suit up for it, i know who the favorite would be and i wouldn't sit around for 10,000 posts complaining about it and trying to devalue it. it doesn't make sense.

it's like winterfold pointed out, probably several times by now, if it was a so-called 'selective' course with a sharp steep finish, and gilbert won, i would not be sitting around *****ing. i would simply enjoy it for what it was.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

Really? In what alternate universe would this course not be boring? How would it happen? Unless you were counting on a wind storm to break things up, this course was destined to be a waste of time that would have produced the same result if the first 250 km had been chopped off.

A non-seletive course is--wait for it--non-selective, i.e. nothing happens until the last kilometers, i.e. boring.

doesn't that essentially 'select' out the riders that cannot accelerate to and hold 70kph for 100-300 meters?

 

[spanky wanderlust]

Are you saying that sprinters, climbers, roulers are not talented?

Cycling is not like athletics where there are different events. Why should one type be viewed as more talented than an other.


Fair enough, but it was in response to a hypothetical that will never happen.

A flat Tour would change the fundamental of what the Tour is - a World Championship is a one day event on a once off course.

for me this is one of the most beautiful aspects of the sport. all different types of riders riding together.

it maybe plays better in a stage race where different stages play to different riders' strengths. but the wc is not a stage race.

and even having a stage race where different types of rider win will not keep folks on here from complaining about the parcours.

 

[BroDeal]

doesn't that essentially 'select' out the riders that cannot accelerate to and hold 70kph for 100-300 meters?

Then why not make the race 100 - 300 meters long and be done with it? Instead we get this farce of 260 km so the mugs can pretend that it was a road race.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

Then why not make the race 100 - 300 meters long and be done with it? Instead we get this farce of 260 km so the mugs can pretend that it was a road race.

if you don't like watching bicycle races, why not watch something else? or go for a ride?

they make it long to soften legs up, to let the race develop, etc. .... wait...are you really asking me to explain the basics of bicycle racing to you? can't you read up on it? maybe google 'bicycle racing 101' or something.

 

[auscyclefan94]

very constructive response to the debate. well done!

 

[spanky wanderlust]

very constructive response to the debate. well done!

ha! i play by cn forum rules. which bro deal is pretty sure he wrote long before i got here. i certainly didn't write them. and i agree. they are uncivilized. it's very 'lord of the flies' in here most days.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

very constructive response to the debate. well done!

but it's not really a debate is it? it's more of a ***** session. i'm just defending my right to enjoy the race i watched and also to enjoy the result.

but please explain why...if you in fact think it's true... it's ok to go around trying to sap people's enjoyment out of something they are passionate about.

my point in that context is valid. watching is voluntary. and if you don't like something you have a choice of not participating. or, you could also come onto a fan forum and try to bring everyone else down.

 

[BroDeal]

if you don't like watching bicycle races, why not watch something else? or go for a ride?

I do. I have 5000+ road miles so far this year, a grundle of MTB miles, and another 1500+ of trail running. How about you? Maybe if you went outside and did something then you might see what a boring fail this WC was.

they make it long to soften legs up, to let the race develop, etc.

We saw how well that worked. How many people finished together? I must have blinked and missed the development of the race. Of course I don't consider everyne riding together for 260 km development.

 

[auscyclefan94]

but it's not really a debate is it? it's more of a ***** session. i'm just defending my right to enjoy the race i watched and also to enjoy the result.

but please explain why...if you in fact think it's true... it's ok to go around trying to sap people's enjoyment out of something they are passionate about.

my point in that context is valid. watching is voluntary. and if you don't like something you have a choice of not participating. or, you could also come onto a fan forum and try to bring everyone else down.

It is a debate. people are putting forth their points of view about the course/race and are interacting with others who have differing points of view. You can enjoy the race all you like. Nobody is sapping your enjoyment of it. It is your own experience of the race so nobody is taking away those sensations or feelings that your had. People watched the race because it was a World Championship which decides who wins the right to wear the prestigious rainbow jersey. It doesn't change that the race in many fans eyes that the race was boring which negated attacking racing. It is also a fact that it was almost impossible for an attacking rider to get away which is evident by the fact that just about every attack could only get a 50m gap on the British controlled peleton.

 

[BroDeal]

but please explain why...if you in fact think it's true... it's ok to go around trying to sap people's enjoyment out of something they are passionate about.

I'm sorry. I forgot to get your approval to post my opinion. I am sure this place would be much more interesting if people only happily posted posted about moonbeams and ponies.

Why do you think it is okay to go around trying to sap the passion people feel about what a travesty this supposed world championship race was?

 

[spanky wanderlust]

I do. I have 5000+ road miles so far this year, a grundle of MTB miles, and another 1500+ of trail running. How about you? Maybe if you went outside and did something then you might see what a boring fail this WC was.



We saw how well that worked. How many people finished together? I must have blinked and missed the development of the race. Of course I don't consider everyne riding together for 260 km development.

as long as you see that i am just playing by your rules, i'm cool with it. we will never agree because i like to focus on what i enjoyed rather than what i didn't.

as for your second p, maybe going back to what people were saying before the race might clarify some stuff for you.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

I'm sorry. I forgot to get your approval to post my opinion. I am sure this place would be much more interesting if people only happily posted posted about moonbeams and ponies.

Why do you think it is okay to go around trying to sap the passion people feel about what a travesty this supposed world championship race was?

there are no moonbeams and ponies. cycling=suffering. it is pain. every single ****ing day out there is hard. if you've put in so many miles out there this year, then you know that better than most. but then you should also realize how amazing team gb's efforts were.

you are going to sit here and tell me how fit and strong you are, but you can't see how outstanding and world championship worthy wiggins', froome's, and thomas' efforts were on sunday? shutting down the most excellent and motivated cyclists in the world? even you would have trouble keeping a straight face.

oh, i forgot, it was easy, because the course was so bad.

 

[auscyclefan94]

there are no moonbeams and ponies. cycling=suffering. it is pain. every single ****ing day out there is hard. if you've put in so many miles out there this year, then you know that better than most. but then you should also realize how amazing team gb's efforts were.

you are going to sit here and tell me how fit and strong you are, but you can't see how outstanding and world championship worthy wiggins', froome's, and thomas' efforts were on sunday? shutting down the most excellent and motivated cyclists in the world? even you would have trouble keeping a straight face.

oh, i forgot, it was easy, because the course was so bad.

of course riding 266km isn't 'easy'. For a WC race it is easy. You need to understand context. GB rode well, but don't over sell how good Wiggins, Froome & Thomas were. It was impossible for a break to get away and win. Saying they shut down the most excellent and motivated cyclists in the world is simply hyperbole. There were some good riders but don't over sell what the race was. It was broing and mundane. Are you going to keep a straight face and tell me that an attacking rider would of been able to win solo or in a small group on sunday? I didn't think so.