2011 Copenhagen World Championships: Elite Men Road Race

[Dr. Maserati]

Why are you asking me to repeat myself?

I am not asking you to repeat - I am requesting clarification.

I don't want a WC for climbing specialists. I don't want a WC for any kind of specialist to the detriment of all others. My point is that Duitama wasn't really for climbers (yes, Pantani was up there; he did well at Liege once or twice too), so those saying the pure sprinters should get their chance because other specialists do are not putting forth a very convincing argument IMO.

Because if you select courses that aren't to the "detriment of all others", then it actually is going to be a course that suits only a few riders.

 

[hrotha]

Yes you are asking me to repeat myself. We already went over that - the versatility thing. The normal WC courses don't suit only a few riders.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes you are asking me to repeat myself. We already went over that - the versatility thing. The normal WC courses don't suit only a few riders.

No, I am asking you to clarify your point, because your earlier quote "The WC shouldn't be for specialists, but for versatile riders." - makes little sense.

Either you change the courses to attempt to include riders of different capability or you select a course that caters only for a limited number of riders.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

I don't want a WC for climbing specialists. I don't want a WC for any kind of specialist to the detriment of all others. My point is that Duitama wasn't really for climbers (yes, Pantani was up there; he did well at Liege once or twice too), so those saying the pure sprinters should get their chance because other specialists do are not putting forth a very convincing argument IMO.

Libertine has now popularised this nonsense idea that there is some middle way course that gives everyone a chance.

In practice it just means rotating Thor, Cadel, Piti, Phil & Fabian around the top 3 spots every year.

Any course, no matter how 'balanced' suits someone - far more variety and 'fairness' in being open about rotating the course styles and giving every sort of rider a crack of the whip at some point in their career.

 

[hrotha]

No, I am asking you to clarify your point, because your earlier quote "The WC shouldn't be for specialists, but for versatile riders." - makes little sense.

Either you change the courses to attempt to include riders of different capability or you select a course that caters only for a limited number of riders.

How does it make little sense? I consider most courses in recent history to include riders of different capability. Last year we had Gilbert, Hushovd, Evans, Nibali or Breschel giving it a go. At Mendrisio we had very different riders like Evans, Purito, Breschel and Cancellara duking it out. In 2005 and 2006 it was a reduced group sprint (well, they managed to avoid it at the last minute in 2006, but that was posed to be the outcome), but the key thing is that it was never a foregone conclusion, and other riders had their chance.

And by saying this I'm repeating myself, so if no new points are going to be raised, it's senseless to keep discussing it.

 

[Havetts]

Wouldnt that mean that those 5 that are supposed to win all the time, that those are the most balanced riders? :')

 

[hrotha]

Libertine has now popularised this nonsense idea that there is some middle way course that gives everyone a chance.

In practice it just means rotating Thor, Cadel, Piti, Phil & Fabian around the top 3 spots every year.

Of course there's no middle way course that gives everyone a chance, but there's lots of middle way courses that give many different kinds of riders a chance. Apparently the sprinters are the only specialists that are entitled to having a WC tailor-made for them.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Of course there's no middle way course that gives everyone a chance, but there's lots of middle way courses that give many different kinds of riders a chance. Apparently the sprinters are the only specialists that are entitled to having a WC tailor-made for them.

If private schools are good, and state schools are bad, the solution is to make state schools better, not close down the private schools.

In the same way, it sounds like the solution to your problem is to have a proper climbers course occasionally, rather than getting rid of the occasional sprinters course.

Of course, I made that point in my last post, but you deleted that bit of the quote so you could make a point I had already answered.

 

[hrotha]

If private schools are good, and state schools are bad, the solution is to make state schools better, not close down the private schools.

In the same way, it sounds like the solution to your problem is to have a proper climbers course occasionally, rather than getting rid of the occasional sprinters course.

Of course, I made that point in my last post, but you deleted that bit of the quote so you could make a point I had already answered.

What? I already said a couple of times I don't want a climbers course.

Anyway, I deleted that last bit because I didn't think it was relevant, because I thought it had been implicitly discussed already and because, frankly, if I addressed it it would be like this:

Any course, no matter how 'balanced' suits someone - far more variety and 'fairness' in being open about rotating the course styles and giving every sort of rider a crack of the whip at some point in their career.

No that wouldn't be more fair. Let's have a downhill WC while we're at it.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

What? I already said a couple of times I don't want a climbers course.

Anyway, I deleted that last bit because I didn't think it was relevant, because I thought it had been implicitly discussed already and because, frankly, if I addressed it it would be like this:

No that wouldn't be more fair. Let's have a downhill WC while we're at it.

You might not want a climbers course, but it doesn't prevent me from arguing that a mix of climbers, puncheurs and sprinters courses would be the best policy. And I'd have absolutely no problem with a climbers course with the finish line at the bottom of the descent.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How does it make little sense? I consider most courses in recent history to include riders of different capability. Last year we had Gilbert, Hushovd, Evans, Nibali or Breschel giving it a go. At Mendrisio we had very different riders like Evans, Purito, Breschel and Cancellara duking it out. In 2005 and 2006 it was a reduced group sprint (well, they managed to avoid it at the last minute in 2006, but that was posed to be the outcome), but the key thing is that it was never a foregone conclusion, and other riders had their chance.

And by saying this I'm repeating myself, so if no new points are going to be raised, it's senseless to keep discussing it.

The reason it makes little sense is that you are showing a preference for these 'versatile' type riders - and then in the examples you give you use a lot of the same names?!

 

[hrotha]

The reason it makes little sense is that you are showing a preference for these 'versatile' type riders - and then in the examples you give you use a lot of the same names?!

I'm using their names as examples of very different rider archetypes, which is pretty obvious when you don't try to decontextualize everything for the sake of prolonging the argument as much as possible.

 

[lancaster]

Then who should the WC races suit? And why have a course solely designed for them?

This is simple - it is called a road race. First past the line wins.

The only thing yesterdays course meant was that it be harder for other teams to shake the sprinters, everyone knew what the GB tactic was going to be.

i don't think "harder......to shake the sprinters" accurately portrays the situation.

was there a single rider who was dropped not due to a mech/crash? (rhetorical, exaggeration intended)

if it wasn't for a crash that split the field we could've been talking about a bunch of 150 at the end together.
i don't need the WC to be laps of ventoux and it's great that sprinters had a chance, but since '99 well over half have given a good chance to sprinters, i think this course could've had twice as much climbing and still been one for the sprinters but gave a realistic chance of making a tough selection or making a break stick.
most WC should be for the classics guys...........it's a classic after all. maybe once a decade, a pure sprint race, and likewise a climbing race with 1-3 climbs of 10km, once a decade have some off road (pave/stade bianchi not PR style but maybe 5-10km over the 260km course) the rest should fit somewhere in the vein of MSR, GdL, AGR (although probably never or rarely ending on a hill).

GB were awesome and Cav has earned his rainbow but a course where Cancellara's best shot is in a bunch sprint of 100 guys is probably not something we should see regularly. if the course was a bit harder, and ended with Cav win from a bunch of 30-40 there wouldn't be complaints. If the olympic RR has the same result (huge group bunch gallop, regardless of winner) i will feel slightly embarrassed (as a brit).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Libertine has now popularised this nonsense idea that there is some middle way course that gives everyone a chance.

In practice it just means rotating Thor, Cadel, Piti, Phil & Fabian around the top 3 spots every year.

Any course, no matter how 'balanced' suits someone - far more variety and 'fairness' in being open about rotating the course styles and giving every sort of rider a crack of the whip at some point in their career.

No, there is no mythical course that gives everyone a chance.

There are many types of riders, and most courses give a chance to 2, 3 or maybe even 4 of these types of riders. Last year's race really didn't suit Evans, but Pozzato and Gilbert thought they could give it a go - but in the end it suited the sprinters. If he'd been in his 2009 form Cavendish could have won that one. 2009's race suited the hilly specialists and climbers (2 different but overlapping groups), but still cobbled riders like Breschel and Cancellara were up there.

You might not be able to cater for every type of rider. You may present a course that gives one type of rider a stronger chance than anybody else. But at least give another type of rider enough of a chance that they THINK they can do it.

This year's course suited sprinters, only sprinters and nobody else but sprinters. No other type of rider thought they had a chance, and this was reflected in the small attack groups and the lack of interest in breaking up the likelihood of the sprint in the last 30km. Nobody thought they could get it to anything but a sprint. Last year, people thought if they worked together and got it right, they could prevent the sprint - but they were wrong. But them trying made it exciting. This year nobody tried, because they all realised it wasn't worth it. This made it boring.

 

[El Pistolero]

Libertine has now popularised this nonsense idea that there is some middle way course that gives everyone a chance.

In practice it just means rotating Thor, Cadel, Piti, Phil & Fabian around the top 3 spots every year.

Any course, no matter how 'balanced' suits someone - far more variety and 'fairness' in being open about rotating the course styles and giving every sort of rider a crack of the whip at some point in their career.

Ah, but here you're very wrong. Libertine wants someone to win who does more than rely on his team and sticks his nose in the wind for the final 200 meters. Not everyone should be given a chance, not at all. Weaklings should never become a World champion in any sport. Only the strongest cyclists should ever hope of becoming world champion and not someone who relies on his team for 99.999% of the race. A cyclist who has mastered several disciplines of cycling. Those are indeed a select few and only they deserve to become a...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgiDcJi534Y

 

[pmcg76]

The Worlds course doesnt need to be anything dramatic or favouring one type of rider, it justs need to be like it has for most of its history, somewhat selective, yesterday or Zolder were not selective in any form. Numerous different types of riders have won during that period so this idea that the Worlds only would suit 4-5 riders is complete BS.

2002 and 2011 were more team victories than individaul wins yet only the winner get the rainbow stripes.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm using their names as examples of very different rider archetypes, which is pretty obvious when you don't try to decontextualize everything for the sake of prolonging the argument as much as possible.

No, on one hand you are saying there shouldn't be a course for specific type riders - and then praising courses that suit specific type riders.

If you don't like that being pointed out then construct a better argument.

i don't think "harder......to shake the sprinters" accurately portrays the situation.

was there a single rider who was dropped not due to a mech/crash? (rhetorical, exaggeration intended)

if it wasn't for a crash that split the field we could've been talking about a bunch of 150 at the end together.
i don't need the WC to be laps of ventoux and it's great that sprinters had a chance, but since '99 well over half have given a good chance to sprinters, i think this course could've had twice as much climbing and still been one for the sprinters but gave a realistic chance of making a tough selection or making a break stick.
most WC should be for the classics guys...........it's a classic after all. maybe once a decade, a pure sprint race, and likewise a climbing race with 1-3 climbs of 10km, once a decade have some off road (pave/stade bianchi not PR style but maybe 5-10km over the 260km course) the rest should fit somewhere in the vein of MSR, GdL, AGR (although probably never or rarely ending on a hill).

GB were awesome and Cav has earned his rainbow but a course where Cancellara's best shot is in a bunch sprint of 100 guys is probably not something we should see regularly. if the course was a bit harder, and ended with Cav win from a bunch of 30-40 there wouldn't be complaints. If the olympic RR has the same result (huge group bunch gallop, regardless of winner) i will feel slightly embarrassed (as a brit).

To the highlighted - this is the problem, it isn't.

It is the World Championship Road Race, select a starting point put a line at the finish and first over that line is the victor.

 

[El Pistolero]

The World Championship is a classic in everything but name.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The Worlds course doesnt need to be anything dramatic or favouring one type of rider, it justs need to be like it has for most of its history, somewhat selective, yesterday or Zolder were not selective in any form. Numerous different types of riders have won during that period so this idea that the Worlds only would suit 4-5 riders is complete BS.

2002 and 2011 were more team victories than individaul wins yet only the winner get the rainbow stripes.

Why does it need to be something (selective, flat, hilly etc)?

If you look back at the winners, by in large they all have been worthy champions - either good all rounders or among the best at their specialty.
The reason for this is the distance will usually leave it amongst the top tier riders.

 

[simonk]

Wow im really impressed so many people, and not just random people, but someone like Merckx, that says so many good things about the World Championships this year. Im really proud of how good this event was. I thought someone would **** it up, but it was almost as perfect as it can be.

I know Denmark likes cycling, but i did not know that we liked it so much that at least 250.000 people was at the course to the elite RR. 100.000 more than last year. Thats just amazing really. Never seen so many people before at a cycling World Championship.

 

[hrotha]

No, on one hand you are saying there shouldn't be a course for specific type riders - and then praising courses that suit specific type riders.

That's such a blatant misrepresentation of what I said I'm going to question your honesty in this debate. I'm done.

 

[RedheadDane]

And now comes the really big question:

Will Cavendish be cursed?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Ah, but here you're very wrong. Libertine wants someone to win who does more than rely on his team and sticks his nose in the wind for the final 200 meters. Not everyone should be given a chance, not at all. Weaklings should never become a World champion in any sport. Only the strongest cyclists should ever hope of becoming world champion and not someone who relies on his team for 99.999% of the race. A cyclist who has mastered several disciplines of cycling. Those are indeed a select few and only they deserve to become a...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgiDcJi534Y

Steady on, not quite.

I have no problem with Mark Cavendish as world champion. I don't even have a problem with him winning it in a sprint. After all, he didn't see the front until the last couple of hundred metres at Sanremo, nor at Aubenas. But there were some obstacles that meant that the sprinters deserved their chance to duke it out because they'd had to work to get there. Cavendish may have been hidden in the péloton until the end in both of those stages, but he had to work to make sure he was still there at the finish, and so earnt the chance to sprint for victory.

On a course like this one, the sprinters didn't have to work to get to the finish at all. They didn't earn the chance to sprint for victory, it was just given to them.

The sprint itself wasn't ideally suited to Cav. He's just the best sprinter and was still good enough, and credit to him for that.

I just wish the course could have been a bit harder. It can still be a sprinters' course, but it needed to just be a tiny bit harder to allow other riders to think they have a chance, and make the race.

The World Championships are a once-a-year special occasion. This year it didn't feel like that. It felt like a six hour keirin.

 

[doperhopper]

ideal route?

It's almost impossible to design a "balanced" route on a circuit - either you introduce a difficulty that is too big to be climbed repeatedly (at least by sprinters), or too small and the sprinters' teams can pull all the way.

So maybe one should think about more irregular route, having one real climb earlier in the race so that the sprinters get dropped but their teams will still have enough kilometers to try to bring them back. Then, some hills should be there throughout the course to provoke breaks - the last one maybe 10 km before the finish to allow a late break possibility even if the sprinters' teams catch all the breaks and splits.

Typical scenario: peloton split into two on the climb, some four sprinter-based teams stay behind and organize a chase, the first half can be more or less as fast as the sprinter one initially, but then, after few more splits on the subsequent hills the first part gets disintegrated and will slow down. If the sprinters' group stays way behind, individual attacks will come, if they begin closing the gap quite fast the first group will be motivated to work together (despite the potential disrupters planted by sprinter teams). The whole point is to make sprinters' teams chase and not lead.

Any other ideas for the best route? It should not exclude anyone - sprinters should have a real chance to play "strong TT team" tactics, hoping to bring it together, climbers should have a chance to produce some "early hell" and get to the front group, puncheurs will be the most favored anyway, and there should be also a real opportunity for individual spartacusses.

 

[jens_attacks]

And now comes the really big question:

Will Cavendish be cursed?

let's wait for the sidi ad