Are you frustrated with the fame sprinters have?

Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
Maybe this is just me but i get extremely annoyed with the fame of certain sprinters especially Kittel. Yea it's a talent and he prob works hard for it but it's for me hard to swallow that he's one of the main guys in cycling while he can't get up a hill of 2%.

I consider it as extremely frustrating, guys like cav at least proved that they can win other races than just flat stages.

Sprinting is extremely overrated and the only reason why they even have fame is cause of the climbers and the exciting riders cause let's face it no one would watch the tour if there are only flat stages in.

I hate it. There's nothing you can change about i guess but it still saddens me :(
 
May 24, 2011
41
0
0
Nope.

Or... to develop that answer....

It's part of the rich tapestry of the GT races. And, it's not just that Kittel only wins flat stages, it's more that almost literally nobody can beat him on them at present, even - as he has shown - when his train lets him down. That is a special talent.
 
Miburo said:
Maybe this is just me but i get extremely annoyed with the fame of certain sprinters especially Kittel. Yea it's a talent and he prob works hard for it but it's for me hard to swallow that he's one of the main guys in cycling while he can't get up a hill of 2%.

I consider it as extremely frustrating, guys like cav at least proved that they can win other races than just flat stages.

Sprinting is extremely overrated and the only reason why they even have fame is cause of the climbers and the exciting riders cause let's face it no one would watch the tour if there are only flat stages in.

I hate it. There's nothing you can change about i guess but it still saddens me :(
Sprinting is a very special talent. For Kittel, Cav, and company to reach the levels they do is very impressive IMO. Of course to do what they are able to do they pay a price - They can't climb as well. I think that is one of the beauties of the sport - the diversity. I think if all we had was climbers that would be boring as well. GT's are special not just because they are long, but because they have all sorts of different terrains for different riders.
 
Jul 22, 2011
695
0
0
I agree. I've been outspoken about it in the past, and it's gotten me a lot of hate, because for whatever reason sprinting in road cycling is so deeply entrenched in the current paradigm and in the fans' minds that any criticism of it is seen as ignorance.

What defines road cycling for me is the challenge of obstacles over a distance. Mountains, hills, downhills, cobbles, sterrato, hell, even crosswinds on flat roads. I like seeing a contest of who can overcome those obstacles best, not who can be fastest in their absence.

It's true bunch sprints can, and often are, spectacular, but it's no secret very few stages that end in one are of any interest. There's an easy solution for that, however, and that's called track cycling. And there, they are truly spectacular. And if you ask me, riders such as Kittel, Cav, and the other so-called "pure" should stick to it, because they're doing absolutely nothing else on the road.
 
Jan 24, 2012
1,169
0
0
Miburo said:
Maybe this is just me but i get extremely annoyed with the fame of certain sprinters especially Kittel. Yea it's a talent and he prob works hard for it but it's for me hard to swallow that he's one of the main guys in cycling while he can't get up a hill of 2%.

I consider it as extremely frustrating, guys like cav at least proved that they can win other races than just flat stages.

Sprinting is extremely overrated and the only reason why they even have fame is cause of the climbers and the exciting riders cause let's face it no one would watch the tour if there are only flat stages in.

I hate it. There's nothing you can change about i guess but it still saddens me :(
Yes I agree with you very much. GTs are 21 stages long and you can look at the profiles beforehand and know which stages are completely boring until the last 3-5kms as those are the pan flat sprinter stages. More in line with that you were referring to, I definitely don't understand the fame for someone like Kittel, Cavendish, etc. that stare at someone's *** for 199.8km of a 200km race or stage only to then do some actual racing themselves. Does Kittel accumulate more than 1.5-2km of actual racing in an entire GT?

The main reason I stopped watching Phil and Paul was because we would be in the middle of the queen stage of the tour, huge ****ing mountains everywhere and guess what, they mention Cavendish's name 700 ****ing times. Nobody ****ing cares where Cavendish is, this is a ****ing mountain stage.

Another thing is teams building completely around a sprinter (or mostly really). Have you seen what OPQS have done since Cavendish has been out? Martin is about to solo his way to a ****ing TdF ffs, Kwia is trying crazy long attacks even with poor form. OPQS could build an elite group stage hunters and ignore the ultra pan flat stages and completely tear the peloton apart whenever they want. Instead, they make a guy who stares at *** until the last 200m(ish) their captain and pay him the most(assumption) and drag him around the ****ing tour.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,820
1
0
No poll? I'm disappointed in you Miburo. ;)

Re. OP, I've never really thought about it. While the breakaway artists, the climbers, the punchers, etc. will be the ones that give us more exciting performances; not every rider has body type to be one of these types. So you have to give the guys that excel at short bursts of speed on flats something. And I can't really blame guys like Kittel for not trying to become more diverse in different types of riding when they're already so dominant in the sprint.

As long as a race isn't overloaded with sprint stages I'm fine with the sprinters and the fame they get. Plus just navigating the peloton in the lead up to a sprint and the fight for position is an enormous skill in itself.
 
Hello everybody. This looks like a thread for me. Create your own Libertine Seguros post with a selection of punctuation, conjunctions and the following stock phrases:

- HTC-Columbia are evil
- Sprinters get more chances to win than any other type of rider, by far
- Sprinters don't deserve to compete for victory unless the route has made them fight for it
- Sarcastic comparison of Andrea Guardini's ability to climb to something exaggeratedly bad at it (e.g. "Andrea Guardini climbs hills about as well as water")
- The Official Worst Race In The World®
- Something interesting could have happened, but the race designers wouldn't let it
- Giant-Shimano are a horrible team that bring nothing to races
- Bob Stapleton killed cycling
- The only good thing about a pure flat stage is that people faster than Sagan will make it to the end so he will lose
- [insert rider on leadout duty] is too good to be wasted riding for scum like [insert sprinter]
- Seriously, this race sucked. Really sucked
- We're 85km from the finish, the péloton has the break on a 2 minute leash, wake me when we're done
- Nothing happens in sprint stages, you may as well watch a 10-second clip of the sprint and use the time for something more productive, like crochet or learning Klingon
 
Yep indeed. Never was a sprint fan, still am not. Only sprinter that ever really captured my attention was Cipo and that was because he was a showman. Abdu I liked a bit also, crazy man!

Sprint stages are dreadfully boring and usually catching the final 5km is all that is required. I do realize of course that races have to get from point A to point B and not all that territory can make interesting racing.

Sprints are boring and sprinters are boring. Just my humble opinion.
 
Jul 22, 2011
695
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
No love for Óscar Freire?
Oh, that I have. And Hushovd, and Sagan, and now Bling, and any and all "sprinters" that won't be chained to the panflat.

There's nothing I love more than a complete rider, and respect to any sprinter who aims to be so. My dislike is only towards these balls of meat who, again, might as well be on the track, because there's nothing on road cycling for them that they wouldn't have there.
 
Broth3r said:
I agree. I've been outspoken about it in the past, and it's gotten me a lot of hate, because for whatever reason sprinting in road cycling is so deeply entrenched in the current paradigm and in the fans' minds that any criticism of it is seen as ignorance.

What defines road cycling for me is the challenge of obstacles over a distance. Mountains, hills, downhills, cobbles, sterrato, hell, even crosswinds on flat roads. I like seeing a contest of who can overcome those obstacles best, not who can be fastest in their absence.

It's true bunch sprints can, and often are, spectacular, but it's no secret very few stages that end in one are of any interest. There's an easy solution for that, however, and that's called track cycling. And there, they are truly spectacular. And if you ask me, riders such as Kittel, Cav, and the other so-called "pure" should stick to it, because they're doing absolutely nothing else on the road.
Of course you can criticize sprinting. You're more than welcome to, but understand that your last sentence probably will give other people the impression that you are ignorant. First of all Cav has done a little more than win "sprint" stages. 2nd let's pretend that all he has done is stay in the main group and then win from the bunch....do you know how hard that is? That is something that AC, Froome, or Tony Martin, could never dream of doing. It is a very impressive skill. You say they are "doing nothing else," like sprinting isn't enough. I think what they are doing is plenty. To even finish a flat stage at the pace that these riders do is impressive.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Miburo said:
Maybe this is just me but i get extremely annoyed with the fame of certain sprinters especially Kittel. Yea it's a talent and he prob works hard for it...
Yeah, "probably." That's mighty generous of you.


Miburo said:
let's face it no one would watch the tour if there are only flat stages in.
Yup. That's probably a pretty safe assumption. Which is why, I suppose, that no one, ever, anywhere, has suggested designing a Grand Tour with "only flat stages." So I guess we're safe! :)
 
Jul 22, 2011
695
0
0
Jspear said:
Of course you can criticize sprinting. You're more than welcome to, but understand that your last sentence probably will give other people the impression that you are ignorant. First of all Cav has done a little more than win "sprint" stages. 2nd let's pretend that all he has done is stay in the main group and then win from the bunch....do you know how hard that is? That is something that AC, Froome, or Tony Martin, could never dream of doing. It is a very impressive skill. You say they are "doing nothing else," like sprinting isn't enough. I think what they are doing is plenty. To even finish a flat stage at the pace that these riders do is impressive.
I never questioned the skill in sprinting - I don't think anyone does. It is impressive, absolutely, and I have no doubt they work just as hard if not harder than riders who specialize in other skills. I just question its place in road cycling.

And on Cav, i see no reason for him not to be included in that group. I recall a single exception, in last year's Brit champs, and that's it.

Netserk said:
Imo sprints were better in the pre-Cav period with no clear top-dog (McEwen was the best, but not unbeatable) and often more chaotic sprints with only one lead-out man per sprinter.
This is also true. McEwen was one of the few "pure" sprinters I ever liked, precisely because he didn't require a train, he'd pop out of nowhere and go for it. Same for Freire, though again, he was far more than just a sprinter. Gotta have some respect for people who win riding a bike, not a train.
 
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
Miburo said:
Maybe this is just me but i get extremely annoyed with the fame of certain sprinters especially Kittel. Yea it's a talent and he prob works hard for it but it's for me hard to swallow that he's one of the main guys in cycling while he can't get up a hill of 2%.

I consider it as extremely frustrating, guys like cav at least proved that they can win other races than just flat stages.

Sprinting is extremely overrated and the only reason why they even have fame is cause of the climbers and the exciting riders cause let's face it no one would watch the tour if there are only flat stages in.

I hate it. There's nothing you can change about i guess but it still saddens me :(
I never really cared about sprinters unless they are versatile. Look at Sean Kelly, that guy was a proper racer.
 
Apr 10, 2009
594
0
0
I'm going to guess most that don't like sprinting or have no respect for it aren't sprinters themselves and probably have never tried a bunch sprint. It takes nerves of steel and strength, bike handling and an awful lot of effort.

I'm no climber and I like watching climbing stages but if that was all there was it would be very boring also. I can appreciate the effort it takes.

You all should do the same for sprinters.
 
Broth3r said:
Oh, that I have. And Hushovd, and Sagan, and now Bling, and any and all "sprinters" that won't be chained to the panflat.

There's nothing I love more than a complete rider, and respect to any sprinter who aims to be so. My dislike is only towards these balls of meat who, again, might as well be on the track, because there's nothing on road cycling for them that they wouldn't have there.
Credit for Hushovd. I'm not a Matthews fan, but that's more to do with him (and that fricking nickname), respect for him as a rider. I detest Sagan more than possibly any other rider on earth, maybe even including Armstrong (but only maybe), and you won't get me to change my mind on that. If he ever wins a race again it's too soon.

I think credit should also be due to John Degenkolb, who's proven himself far more all-round than most sprinters to the point where he's a genuine Classics guy at this point, and also Arnaud Demare, who has been climbing horribly in this Tour but who has won Dunkerque overall twice thanks to being able to last the hilly stages.

However, flat sprint stages are godawful and there is absolutely no excuse for designing a race where there is no possibility of any other outcome. Flat stage with occasional hellingen? Fine. Flat stage with exposed sections and risk of cross-wind? Fine, possibly even underused. Flat stage with tough surfaces e.g. hormigón, cobbles, strade bianche? Bring it on. Flat stage on nice wide roads with good tarmac and no risk of the above? Go to hell.
 
Broth3r said:
I never questioned the skill in sprinting - I don't think anyone does. It is impressive, absolutely, and I have no doubt they work just as hard if not harder than riders who specialize in other skills. I just question its place in road cycling.

And on Cav, i see no reason for him not to be included in that group. I recall a single exception, in last year's Brit champs, and that's it.
Just a couple examples....did you watch the Tour of California this year? He made stage 1 very interesting. TdF 2013 stage 13....very entertaining. I'm forgetting what stage, but in the 2013 Giro he made it through a very hard day to take one stage win. Those are just a couple off the top of my head.
 
Jul 22, 2011
695
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Credit for Hushovd. I'm not a Matthews fan, but that's more to do with him (and that fricking nickname), respect for him as a rider. I detest Sagan more than possibly any other rider on earth, maybe even including Armstrong (but only maybe), and you won't get me to change my mind on that. If he ever wins a race again it's too soon.

I think credit should also be due to John Degenkolb, who's proven himself far more all-round than most sprinters to the point where he's a genuine Classics guy at this point, and also Arnaud Demare, who has been climbing horribly in this Tour but who has won Dunkerque overall twice thanks to being able to last the hilly stages.

However, flat sprint stages are godawful and there is absolutely no excuse for designing a race where there is no possibility of any other outcome. Flat stage with occasional hellingen? Fine. Flat stage with exposed sections and risk of cross-wind? Fine, possibly even underused. Flat stage with tough surfaces e.g. hormigón, cobbles, strade bianche? Bring it on. Flat stage on nice wide roads with good tarmac and no risk of the above? Go to hell.
Agreed on the last two points.

On Sagan, out of curiosity, is it safe to assume it's a matter of attitude? If so, I can relate, I can't support him because of that. At the same time, i can't bring myself to hate him because there's nothing I like more than a complete rider who will fight for victory in any terrain, at any time.

Though well, that might change, with him disregarding to develop his uphill skills - a true shame. And now that Valverde hasn't been that kind of rider in years, there's no one left. Guess it's a thing from times past.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Libertine Seguros said:
I detest Sagan more than possibly any other rider on earth, maybe even including Armstrong (but only maybe), and you won't get me to change my mind on that. If he ever wins a race again it's too soon.
What? Has Sagan done something I'm not aware of? Plenty of riders who may not be the nicest of guys. What makes Sagan possibly worse than Lance ****ing Armstrong?
 
Jun 19, 2013
142
0
0
Sprinting is part and parcel of the sport, the positioning, timing and sheer speed required is hard to master, certainly not a discipline for the weak of heart.
 
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
However, flat sprint stages are godawful and there is absolutely no excuse for designing a race where there is no possibility of any other outcome. Flat stage with occasional hellingen? Fine. Flat stage with exposed sections and risk of cross-wind? Fine, possibly even underused. Flat stage with tough surfaces e.g. hormigón, cobbles, strade bianche? Bring it on. Flat stage on nice wide roads with good tarmac and no risk of the above? Go to hell.
Exactly. Maybe 1min highlights.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
SHAD0W93 Professional Road Racing 42

ASK THE COMMUNITY