Re:
Suggestions of new monuments is perhaps a murky discussion in general, as the term "monument" tends to make one think along the lines of "slam" or "major", which could be slightly misleading and result in inaccurate depictions in terms of individual sporting greatness. Men's road cycling already has five one day monuments, as well as the annual WCRR, giving thus six opportunities a year to hypothetically prove greatness (admittedly over varying terrain).
In reality, the difference in far of proof of greatness between winning many of the monuments, and between winning many of the 'classics' is minimal. There is no comparison at all between winning Queens Club and winning Wimbledon, whereas there is at least some between winning Amstel or F-W as opposed to LBL.
Therefore an argument could be made as to whether there should even be monuments. A greatness of a one day rider should really be determined more by consistency of high results, and total wins in both monuments and classics. Hypothetically, given that there is already a hilly monument for the climbers (Lombardia), and given that there is already a monument in Belgium (Flanders), a case could be made to promoting SB as a monument at the expense of LBL (also given the quality of the 'racing'). And that whole Ardennes week itself could be seen more or less as a collection of races, where the best rider over that week was such and such. But consider this. If LBL wasn't a monument, then Gilbert's incredible 2011 season would have won him less monuments in a year then Stuart O'Grady and Matthew Hayman once did.
Well, in this instance Italy would now hog three of the monuments, but this hasn't stopped America in men's golf
And it is not my suggestion of what should happen either. But it's to say that the term 'monument' runs the risk of over stating levels of greatness of certain riders. In Australia, there may well be the theory that Porte wasn't a 'great' rider, because he never won the TDF (and that Richie has never even made a GT podium is in fact an underachieving aspect of his career), whereas Hayman may well be considered 'great' because he won P-R. It's great that he won it, but he won one out of the nearly forty biggest cobbled classics that he competed in during his career, and won that event partly out of tactics and luck. If you were to rank riders from the past two decades, then maybe he would squeeze into the top 100 one day riders. Porte on the other hand, has won multiple one week stage racers, beating the very best in the world on some of those occasions, in battles of strength. Admittedly these racers were not the main targets of most riders, but still, many of those victories could be termed 'classics'. If Porte wasn't to rank in the top 20 stage race riders of the past two decades, he would certainly rank in the top 50.
Monuments are extremely hard to win too, therefore if people base too much on monument wins, then it becomes harder for the more proper greats of the sport to distance themselves from the Haymen's. And it can only make sense that if some events values increase, then others decrease, otherwise we'd almost be getting to the point of calling Nick Kyrios a tennis great because he won Acapulco (not that I am comparing that event to P-R :lol: ). But it wouldn't surprise me even if many sports followers put Hayman in the same great sporting category as say, Rob DeCastella. "He never won the Olympics," they would say. Cyclists tend not to be lumped with such hard measuring sticks, except for perhaps when it comes to whether they did or did not win the TDF, and they get a chance at that every year, not every four. Hayman - not to at all belittle his outstanding achievements as a cyclist, just using him as an example - of course shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as DeCastella, who was arguably the number one marathon runner in the world for three years, winning four 'major' races in a row. Anyway, apologies if I have gone rather off topic! But I doubt that there is room for SB as a monument.
Bolder said:
Suggestions of new monuments is perhaps a murky discussion in general, as the term "monument" tends to make one think along the lines of "slam" or "major", which could be slightly misleading and result in inaccurate depictions in terms of individual sporting greatness. Men's road cycling already has five one day monuments, as well as the annual WCRR, giving thus six opportunities a year to hypothetically prove greatness (admittedly over varying terrain).
In reality, the difference in far of proof of greatness between winning many of the monuments, and between winning many of the 'classics' is minimal. There is no comparison at all between winning Queens Club and winning Wimbledon, whereas there is at least some between winning Amstel or F-W as opposed to LBL.
Therefore an argument could be made as to whether there should even be monuments. A greatness of a one day rider should really be determined more by consistency of high results, and total wins in both monuments and classics. Hypothetically, given that there is already a hilly monument for the climbers (Lombardia), and given that there is already a monument in Belgium (Flanders), a case could be made to promoting SB as a monument at the expense of LBL (also given the quality of the 'racing'). And that whole Ardennes week itself could be seen more or less as a collection of races, where the best rider over that week was such and such. But consider this. If LBL wasn't a monument, then Gilbert's incredible 2011 season would have won him less monuments in a year then Stuart O'Grady and Matthew Hayman once did.
Well, in this instance Italy would now hog three of the monuments, but this hasn't stopped America in men's golf
And it is not my suggestion of what should happen either. But it's to say that the term 'monument' runs the risk of over stating levels of greatness of certain riders. In Australia, there may well be the theory that Porte wasn't a 'great' rider, because he never won the TDF (and that Richie has never even made a GT podium is in fact an underachieving aspect of his career), whereas Hayman may well be considered 'great' because he won P-R. It's great that he won it, but he won one out of the nearly forty biggest cobbled classics that he competed in during his career, and won that event partly out of tactics and luck. If you were to rank riders from the past two decades, then maybe he would squeeze into the top 100 one day riders. Porte on the other hand, has won multiple one week stage racers, beating the very best in the world on some of those occasions, in battles of strength. Admittedly these racers were not the main targets of most riders, but still, many of those victories could be termed 'classics'. If Porte wasn't to rank in the top 20 stage race riders of the past two decades, he would certainly rank in the top 50.
Monuments are extremely hard to win too, therefore if people base too much on monument wins, then it becomes harder for the more proper greats of the sport to distance themselves from the Haymen's. And it can only make sense that if some events values increase, then others decrease, otherwise we'd almost be getting to the point of calling Nick Kyrios a tennis great because he won Acapulco (not that I am comparing that event to P-R :lol: ). But it wouldn't surprise me even if many sports followers put Hayman in the same great sporting category as say, Rob DeCastella. "He never won the Olympics," they would say. Cyclists tend not to be lumped with such hard measuring sticks, except for perhaps when it comes to whether they did or did not win the TDF, and they get a chance at that every year, not every four. Hayman - not to at all belittle his outstanding achievements as a cyclist, just using him as an example - of course shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as DeCastella, who was arguably the number one marathon runner in the world for three years, winning four 'major' races in a row. Anyway, apologies if I have gone rather off topic! But I doubt that there is room for SB as a monument.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram