A poll about a poll

[The Hitch]

In the cycling news poll, did the tour of california deserve its place on the list of candidates,considering a lot of better races - Paris Nice, Romandie,Dauphine Poland Burgos Colombia Portugal Catalunia turkey Oman Algarve to name just a few were not included.

In other words, should idiots have even been given the chance to vote for it as the best stage race, when true cycling fans did not have the option to vote for Paris Nice.

 

[Matthijs]

a big no
but well, the idiots should also have a change to vote. this whole thing shows perfectly the weakness off democracy

 

[Mambo95]

There were worse races than the ToC on the shortlist. Trans Rockies? Cape Epic? I don't even know who rode in those, let alone won.

Paris-Nice was a glaring omission (and I thought the Tour of Britain was good too). But I have no problem with the ToC being on the list.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Be interesting to see how different the ardent follower forum poll is to the casual observer CN poll.

 

[Kwibus]

You are clearly bored Hitch.

I understand though. It's still a long way till March, but we will get warmed up soon.

This poll is a no-brainer and you will see a result that you wanted to see.

 

[The Hitch]

There were worse races than the ToC on the shortlist. Trans Rockies? Cape Epic? I don't even know who rode in those, let alone won.

Paris-Nice was a glaring omission (and I thought the Tour of Britain was good too). But I have no problem with the ToC being on the list.

So you didnt see the races, but you know they werent as good as Cali

There were 11 places.

Here are 11 stage races that are more prestigious, had less sprints, more climbs, and bigger gaps per stage than the ATOC

Giro
Tour
Vuelta
Vuelta pais Vasco
Paris Nice
Tirreno Adriatico
TOur de Suisse
Tour de Romandie
Tour de Pologne
Criterium du Dauphine
Volta a Catalunya

Which of these do you think California was better than?

 

[El Pistolero]

Paris-Nice was like the last couple of years the best one week stage race out there.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Frankly, I don't think that there should be a short-list at all.

If candidates need to be proposed to you, you don't know enough about the subject to vote on it.

If my preference is not on a shortlist, whatever I am allowed to vote for does not merit the acolade I am invited to give it.

Of course, automated processing of votes is only possible from a multiple choice questionaire, so this wisdom won't be acted upon.

 

[Mambo95]

So you didnt see the races, but you know they werent as good as Cali

There were 11 places.

Here are 11 stage races that are more prestigious, had less sprints, more climbs, and bigger gaps per stage than the ATOC

Giro
Tour
Vuelta
Vuelta pais Vasco
Paris Nice
Tirreno Adriatico
TOur de Suisse
Tour de Romandie
Tour de Pologne
Criterium du Dauphine
Volta a Catalunya

Which of these do you think California was better than?

I know those two weren't as good because they're Mountain Bike races.

As to which race ToC was better than. Well, I can't remember Catalunya being particularly engaging. And ToC wasn't really any better of worse than Pais Vasco or Romandie.

 

[The Hitch]

I know those two weren't as good because they're Mountain Bike races.
And ToC wasn't really any better of worse than Pais Vasco or Romandie.

Are you serious?

Pais Vasco was brilliant. As was Romandie. Both provided very good hilly stages with lots of attacking.

The tt were Horner took victory from Valverde by 8 seconds, with Valverde going hard on the descents, was just as interesting if not more so than 2 laps of LA. And the Valverde vs Gesink vs Horner vs Samu stage with constant attacking and the one Rodriguez won were top quality.

Big Bear just doesnt compare. Neither to that nor to the last 2 stages of Romandie and the tts were great there too.

And my list only includes more prestigious races than Cali. There were many races of the same UCI rank which were better.

 

[deValtos]

In other words, should idiots have even been given the chance to vote for it as the best stage race, when true cycling fans did not have the option to vote for Paris Nice.

Just because someone is not a 'true' cycling fan doesn't mean they're an idiot. These are peoples opinions, clearly opinions are affected by where the person lives, what races they watch, who won, was thier favourtie rider in it etc - so it's still an opinion poll. I think if the ATOC gained enough votes to be on the poll then it was the right decision to be there.

 

[djconnel]

My comment in another thread holds here as well: one person, one vote does not rank choices reliably. It is designed only to pick a winner (which it does relatively poorly).

Consider a case where everyone agrees T > V. The vast majority think V > C, but some small number think C > T. C will then get more votes than V.

But now consider a voting scheme where you allow people to rank their choices. V will get a large number of second place votes, scoring it higher than C, who will get more first place votes, yet the massive disadvantage in second place votes is too large.

So don't sweat who places third in the poll. It's all about the winner.

 

[Mambo95]

Are you serious?

Pais Vasco was brilliant. As was Romandie. Both provided very good hilly stages with lots of attacking.

The tt were Horner took victory from Valverde by 8 seconds, with Valverde going hard on the descents, was just as interesting if not more so than 2 laps of LA. And the Valverde vs Gesink vs Horner vs Samu stage with constant attacking and the one Rodriguez won were top quality.

Big Bear just doesnt compare. Neither to that nor to the last 2 stages of Romandie and the tts were great there too.

And my list only includes more prestigious races than Cali. There were many races of the same UCI rank which were better.

Nothing really sticks in my mind much about any of the races. None were classics. ToC may have had a low rank, but it had a good field.

All I remember is I quite enjoyed the ToC, while I was fairly ambivalent about the others. It helped that I didn't approach with a predisposition towards hating it.

I liked it. You didn't. That's all. Sometimes people will have different tastes to yours. Surely that's not too hard to grasp.



(And why are you getting worked up about an internet poll. Two of my three favourite one day races weren't on the list, but I don't get all indignant about it. I'm also not pompous enough to call myself a 'true fan' elevated above 'idiots'.)

 

[roundabout]

Could be an issue of coverage? Of the races listed by The Hitch 1 had zero coverage and 3 were only viewable using streams. I would guess that it's even worse for the people in Australia and North America.

 

[Anonymous]

I voted yes, purely because, if the people voted for it, then it deserves to be in the position it was voted in. Its like saying the results of a democratic election are wrong. Ultimately it was voted 3rd, so on that basis, it deserves to be 3rd.

However, a poll questioning the intelligence of the people who voted for the tour of california would be interesting.

 

[The Hitch]

My comment in another thread holds here as well: one person, one vote does not rank choices reliably. It is designed only to pick a winner (which it does relatively poorly).

Consider a case where everyone agrees T > V. The vast majority think V > C, but some small number think C > T. C will then get more votes than V.

But now consider a voting scheme where you allow people to rank their choices. V will get a large number of second place votes, scoring it higher than C, who will get more first place votes, yet the massive disadvantage in second place votes is too large.

So don't sweat who places third in the poll. It's all about the winner.

The point is not how people voted. The point is that this was the choice made by cycling news. One of the biggest cycling media out there decides that Tour of California was a better race than Paris Nice.

They decided that a less prestigious race with less action and a lesser field and a lesser top 10 and less mountains and more sprints than Paris Nice, was better.

People can think what they want. But those who actually watched both races on here are making it clear what they thought.

Is it a coincidence that the one race which is being thrown down cycling fans throats as an equal of the Vuelta, is being nominated ahead of all others

De Valtos, yes it is an opinion.
Just like the question "who is better Andy Schleck or Richie Porte " or who is better "Mark Cavendish or Alexander Kristoff" is an opinion. If someone had put Richie Porte ahead of Schleck or TGAK ahead of TMC in such a poll, there would be just as many complaints.

Cycling news should know better than to put a race cycling fans have rejected over one they loved.

 

[roundabout]

It's equal to the Giro and better than the Vuelta.

 

[The Hitch]

Could be an issue of coverage? Of the races listed by The Hitch 1 had zero coverage and 3 were only viewable using streams. I would guess that it's even worse for the people in Australia and North America.

The only one not available on Eurosport - the main media for cycling for a significant part of this forum, was Catalunia.

Nothing really sticks in my mind much about any of the races. None were classics. ToC may have had a low rank, but it had a good field.

All I remember is I quite enjoyed the ToC, while I was fairly ambivalent about the others. It helped that I didn't approach with a predisposition towards hating it.

I liked it. You didn't. That's all. Sometimes people will have different tastes to yours. Surely that's not too hard to grasp.



(And why are you getting worked up about an internet poll. Two of my three favourite one day races weren't on the list, but I don't get all indignant about it. I'm also not pompous enough to call myself a 'true fan' elevated above 'idiots'.)

Who said im getting worked up. I made a thread. It is difficult to read peoples emotions from words they write on a board. And the cheap comment about me having to get used to people having different tastes. I dont see where that gets you other than making it personal. Theres no need to make such things personal really. Its just a discussion.

Yes we all understand that people have different opinions. Mine is that Cali was worse than Paris Nice. So i made a thread about it. Do you understand now

And glad you mentioned Calis field. Because the races you said were similar, had greater fields. Cali had Leipheimer, Zabriskie Rogers, Horner ,Hejsdal and Schlecks + fab at the back and Armstrong 2 stages if that counts.

Pais Vasco had Valverde, Horner, Sanchez, Gesink and Rodriguez - already way superior, then Inxausti, Rogers and Schlecks actualy racing on the climbs even if not on top form

Romandie had once again the great one - Val Piti, Tour 3rd place Dennis Menchov in 3rd place, Igor Anton, Brajkovic, Karpets Machado, again superior.

And in both races these top guys were going all out, not a little forage on Big bear but ultimately coming in with the others.

I voted yes, purely because, if the people voted for it, then it deserves to be in the position it was voted in. Its like saying the results of a democratic election are wrong. Ultimately it was voted 3rd, so on that basis, it deserves to be 3rd.

However, a poll questioning the intelligence of the people who voted for the tour of california would be interesting.

Dim this is a really disapointing responce. I didnt ask if TOC deserved to be in 3rd place. I asked if it deserved to be in the poll in the first place ahead of PARIS NICE. You know that race where Contador faced Valverde, Frank Schleck, Samuel Sanchez, Joaquim Rodriguez on good climbs.

 

[Hmmmmm]

Definitely NOT!

 

[djconnel]

The point is not how people voted. The point is that this was the choice made by cycling news. One of the biggest cycling media out there decides that Tour of California was a better race than Paris Nice.

They decided that a less prestigious race with less action and a lesser field and a lesser top 10 and less mountains and more sprints than Paris Nice, was better..

It depends on your criteria. Does the TOC do more for more cycling fans than PN does? I think the answer is absolutely yes. For fans all the way down the coast of California, the TOC is their big chance to see the highest level of professional riders racing on the roads they love. P-N is an excellent race perhaps, but it's not as meaningful to so many.

So it's about more than about the course stats and the entry list. It's also about the impact the race has on people. The TOC iwas vast improvement over the wasteland that was US professional stage racing for the preceding 20 years. I don't think PN can say anything close.

So different voters have different criteria. Sampling these criteria, not simply matching candidates against fixed criteria, is part of the reason to have a vote.

 

[Hmmmmm]

It's equal to the Giro and better than the Vuelta.

That's because those races are old, especially the Giro!

 

[roundabout]

The only one not available on Eurosport - the main media for cycling for a significant part of this forum, was Catalunia.

I'm pretty sure it was an EXQI stream for Swiss races and my version of Eurosport has stopped covering Pais Vasco years ago.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It depends on your criteria. Does the TOC do more for more cycling fans than PN does? I think the answer is absolutely yes. For fans all the way down the coast of California, the TOC is their big chance to see the highest level of professional riders racing on the roads they love. P-N is an excellent race perhaps, but it's not as meaningful to so many.

I find it difficult to express just how much I disagree. The Tour of California is meaningful to more people than Paris-Nice? Really? You have heard of Europe, right?

 

[djconnel]

Of course I've heard of Europe. And I didn't say P-N wasn't meaningful. I said TOC is more meaningful to more people.

To the Italians, P-N is a preview of whom to watch for in M-SR (along with T-A). To the French, it's a preview of whom to watch for in the Tour. The TOC, however, is the only live game in town for hundreds of thousands of cycling fans. There's no great classic in the country, no great tour in the country. This is the best there is.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I find it difficult to express just how much I disagree. The Tour of California is meaningful to more people than Paris-Nice? Really? You have heard of Europe, right?

+ the rest of Europe.

I'm not sure how meaningful the ToC will be to anyone, when Lance, Levi and Christope Hornier (Eurosport joke) retire, Amgen sonsorship ends and they can't find a new sponsor, without the formentioned US riders.

Paris-Nice is not only secure, steeped in history, but is very meaningful to both riders and millions of European fans alike.

Not to mention the fact that the racing is usually streets ahead of the rest of the one weekers.