Are you frustrated with the fame sprinters have?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Pah,I like the sprints and I like the GT races.

If you want a three week race with days featuring several mountains you need flat stages to compensate and offer recovery. So they are a necessary evil and to me this necessary evil is brightened by the sprint trains, the boxing and the bursts of finishing speed
 
Jul 22, 2011
695
0
0
Bye Bye Bicycle said:
I am frustrated with stupid threads like this one. :rolleyes:

Fortunately in the real world out there guys like Marcel Kittel, Mark Cavendish, André Greipel etc. always reign supreme over the likes of Txurukka, Pirazzi or whatever always-losing little-talented wannabe climber gets the praise of the sprinter-haters here currently.

There's nothing more exciting in professional cycling then the last 20, 30 seconds of a pure sprint stage. And fortunately sponsors, race designers, team leaders and the majority of cycling fans see it exactly the same.
Some of us need more than 30 seconds of cycling a day in our lives.
 
Avoriaz said:
Pah,I like the sprints and I like the GT races.

If you want a three week race with days featuring several mountains you need flat stages to compensate and offer recovery. So they are a necessary evil and to me this necessary evil is brightened by the sprint trains, the boxing and the bursts of finishing speed
What a thread :D

Amongst cycling fans it would seem that sprinters do not have much 'fame' at all. Everyone time you enter the professional road racing section just have a look at the threads and topics: Climber dominated. There is much more love for climbers than there is sprinters. But yes, on a twenty second news snippet the winner of the stage will naturally be mentioned....often a pure sprinter.

Many have mentioned that a GT should host stages of all kinds of terrain; so that even includes pancake flat. The key is to not have too many of these. To have 4 stage designs in a row that Cippo could win is a travesty.

As Avoriaz mentioned, recovery comes into it; the climbers need their 'rest days'.

But here's the thing: They don't get to rest as much as the sprinters, and this is the main problem. It's not flat stages. It's not sprint trains. It's weak time limits.

Most of the sprinters can climb a lot better than we see. The point is that they don't have to try particularly hard, so they don't. That makes sense. Why bust your gut to finish fifteen minutes behind Nibali in the high mountains when you are allowed to finish half an hour behind and not get eliminated (in the process saving extra energy for the next winnable sprint stage)?

Make the sprinters work for their sprint wins...on the other stages. Create a greater risk that just staying in the autobus will get you eliminated (this also will offer even more substance to the winner of the points jersey). Could also have a last rider out rule for each stage (meaning that even the climbers aren't safe on the flat stages).

In Australia I think that Evans is a lot more lauded than McKewen, though the latter won a LOT more stages. I enjoy the hilly stages much more too, but a rider like Robbie deserves his spot in the peleton. Winning a sprint is not always about raw power, but about tactics and timing. There is a skill to it. But a good way to go about all of this is to not have four or five pancake stages in week 1, and on the otherside of the coin, to have at least one other flattish stage in the final week besides Champs; that way you reward the fast men who have made it over the high mountains.
 
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.
Zabel took the green jersey 6 times in a row. Petacchi dominated Giro and Vuelta. Cippolini at his best dominated. Then came McEwen for a few years. Than Boonen was almost unstoppable until cocain came his way. Now it is Cav vs. Kittel. The last 20 years there was always that one guy or two guys who were A LOT faster than the rest. Nothing new about that. :rolleyes:
 
gregrowlerson said:
What a thread :D

Amongst cycling fans it would seem that sprinters do not have much 'fame' at all. Everyone time you enter the professional road racing section just have a look at the threads and topics: Climber dominated. There is much more love for climbers than there is sprinters. But yes, on a twenty second news snippet the winner of the stage will naturally be mentioned....often a pure sprinter.

Many have mentioned that a GT should host stages of all kinds of terrain; so that even includes pancake flat. The key is to not have too many of these. To have 4 stage designs in a row that Cippo could win is a travesty.

As Avoriaz mentioned, recovery comes into it; the climbers need their 'rest days'.

But here's the thing: They don't get to rest as much as the sprinters, and this is the main problem. It's not flat stages. It's not sprint trains. It's weak time limits.

Most of the sprinters can climb a lot better than we see. The point is that they don't have to try particularly hard, so they don't. That makes sense. Why bust your gut to finish fifteen minutes behind Nibali in the high mountains when you are allowed to finish half an hour behind and not get eliminated (in the process saving extra energy for the next winnable sprint stage)?

Make the sprinters work for their sprint wins...on the other stages. Create a greater risk that just staying in the autobus will get you eliminated (this also will offer even more substance to the winner of the points jersey). Could also have a last rider out rule for each stage (meaning that even the climbers aren't safe on the flat stages).

In Australia I think that Evans is a lot more lauded than McKewen, though the latter won a LOT more stages. I enjoy the hilly stages much more too, but a rider like Robbie deserves his spot in the peleton. Winning a sprint is not always about raw power, but about tactics and timing. There is a skill to it. But a good way to go about all of this is to not have four or five pancake stages in week 1, and on the otherside of the coin, to have at least one other flattish stage in the final week besides Champs; that way you reward the fast men who have made it over the high mountains.
good idea ...let them work in the montains as well
 
gregrowlerson said:
Most of the sprinters can climb a lot better than we see. The point is that they don't have to try particularly hard, so they don't. That makes sense. Why bust your gut to finish fifteen minutes behind Nibali in the high mountains when you are allowed to finish half an hour behind and not get eliminated (in the process saving extra energy for the next winnable sprint stage)?

Make the sprinters work for their sprint wins...on the other stages. Create a greater risk that just staying in the autobus will get you eliminated (this also will offer even more substance to the winner of the points jersey). Could also have a last rider out rule for each stage (meaning that even the climbers aren't safe on the flat stages).

.
I think most sprinters really find it hard on the tough multiple mountain stages, the fact that many have to take massive risk's on the descents shows how close they are to missing the cut in some stages. Of course there are guys who just take it easy in the gruppetto but there are riders who have to push themselves just to hang on to the back, hence why guys like Kittel and Cav have teammates that stay with them to keep a pace.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
Netserk said:
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to a period, not all time before Cav. There wasn't many trains in the Tour between 2003 & 2007 fx.
Okay, I didn't spot that pre-Cav meant 2003 to 2007:rolleyes:
 
Aug 4, 2010
11,337
0
0
Its part of our sport.I like sprints occasionally,positioning,timing etc
But I dont like how many chances they have for win in a GT.
There should be max 4/5 stages for sprinters!
 
fatsprintking said:
The tactics in the sprints now are fascinating if you open your mind up to it. I think all the sprint stages this tour have been fantastic as various teams fight to control the bunch, but ultimately fail to do so. The combination of luck and skill is what makes the sprints great - the level of skill displayed by Sagan moving through the bunch at speed is astounding.
Lupi33 said:
I think the technical aspect of being able to win sprints is something you appreciate more the longer you watch pro cycling

I enjoy it more now than I did years ago
The actual sprint and what immediately precedes it are not the problem, so far as I see. Even I, overlord of Sprint Haters, have posted cooing about Hondo and Petacchi's work in 2010, defending Greipel and making comparisons in style of sprinters. The sprint itself is very impressive. However, 99 times out of 100 a stage that goes to a full bunch sprint (so not like today with 40-50 riders, or a typical Sagan stage in the Tour de Suisse with 20-30 at the finish) is a total waste of a day, and like the Official Worst Race In The World® you may as well just hold a 1km drag race or put it on a velodrome instead of waiting for an interminable Kirby anecdote about cheese to finish.
Pricey_sky said:
I don't mind letting the sprinters have their glory in a Grand Tour, a 3-week race should accommodate as many of the best possible riders they can which means keeping a balanced route.

Ok some of the pure flat stages can be a little tedious but I find the Vueltas 15 uphill finishes exactly the same. I really like watching the sprint closing stages and watching teams jockey for position and launch their sprinter, it can be chaos and sorts the men from the boys.
And that's also why the Vuelta's stage designs have taken a battering from many fans and traceurs, and La Flèche Wallonne is also derided as a dull race, only for puncheurs instead of sprinters.
Oldman said:
Take a breath, sprinter analyst! Tommy V feigns fatigue and drama and isn't very good at it.
Sagan actually creates fatigue, drama and comedy! That's one more marketable element and he does a good job poking fun at the Sanctity of cycling tradition.
But different people have different tastes in comedy too, of course. And Sagan's brand of "humour" is something that sometimes I get but don't enjoy, and other times just don't get at all, and simply don't understand how people can find endearing.
Lupi33 said:
I think some expect all riders (and sportspeople for that matter) to be expressionless, polite, courteous, humble, apolitical, quiet and non controversial

what a boring world that would be
Or, alternatively, some people don't expect all riders to be expressionless, but reserve the right to dislike riders who break that mould in unlikable ways.

Do you remember the audience's divided reactions to Riccardo Riccò before he was busted the first time? A lot of people disliked him because of his behaviour and actions. Sagan is a bit like that. Somebody that successful with that kind of attitude and behaviour will always divide audiences. I come down on the side that can't stand him, and I can't reconcile with those that like him because I simply can't understand why people would like him. Like I've said, I've had it explained to me, I just don't get it.

Plenty of riders have personalities that aren't dour and emotionless, don't arouse the same distaste from me.
 
Oldman said:
Take a breath, sprinter analyst! Tommy V feigns fatigue and drama and isn't very good at it.
Sagan actually creates fatigue, drama and comedy! That's one more marketable element and he does a good job poking fun at the Sanctity of cycling tradition.
I never liked being around Sprinters at a finish but loved them on uphill grades...they blow like fireworks when they're overextended. On flat ground it is a different sport and surely more of a spectacle than dramatic orgy of suffering. Depends what sort of masochism you favor, doesn't it?
You're right Sagan is comical, I was laughing really hard when nobody worked with him and he got road rage at everyone when Gallopin went, throwing his bike on the floor in frustration at the end was also funny.
 
May 25, 2009
403
0
0
Really, if we didn't specifically design courses against them then sprinters would win a lot more. Like the London Olympics
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Do you remember the audience's divided reactions to Riccardo Riccò before he was busted the first time? A lot of people disliked him because of his behaviour and actions. Sagan is a bit like that. Somebody that successful with that kind of attitude and behaviour will always divide audiences. I come down on the side that can't stand him, and I can't reconcile with those that like him because I simply can't understand why people would like him. Like I've said, I've had it explained to me, I just don't get it.
Sagan seems a nice person, Ricco was just a ***. Ricco has personality disorders, haven't spotted one on Sagan yet.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Pricey_sky said:
You're right Sagan is comical, I was laughing really hard when nobody worked with him and he got road rage at everyone when Gallopin went, throwing his bike on the floor in frustration at the end was also funny.
There you go. An honest response to frustration and more interesting than just whining.
 
Jul 26, 2009
45
1
8,585
While I find the sprinters' speed and power impressive, and I appreciate that it takes nerves of steel, I find the flat, sprinter stages boring. For me, especially in a GT, they are nothing more than respite before the real action takes place in the mountain stages and the TTs. They serve a purpose, because every stage can't be a mountain stage, and the last few km of a sprint stage are exciting. However, being dragged around for 200 km only to win by a hundredth of a second just isn't as impressive as a hard fought 20 or 30 km climb (think Anquetil and Poulidor on the Puy de Dome). It makes me cringe when people do the accounting for stage wins in the TDF, for example, and then start talking about whether Cav will overtake Hinault or Merckx. A sprint stage win should be worth about 1/5 of a mountain stage or TT win.

If you look at the generally accepted lists of the great cyclists over the last century, almost without exception, they are climbers or all-rounders - riders that could win GT's and/or classics. Sprinters are a sideshow. Impressive sideshows, but a sideshow nonetheless.
 
Jul 15, 2010
420
0
0
Soloist said:
While I find the sprinters' speed and power impressive, and I appreciate that it takes nerves of steel, I find the flat, sprinter stages boring. For me, especially in a GT, they are nothing more than respite before the real action takes place in the mountain stages and the TTs. They serve a purpose, because every stage can't be a mountain stage, and the last few km of a sprint stage are exciting. However, being dragged around for 200 km only to win by a hundredth of a second just isn't as impressive as a hard fought 20 or 30 km climb (think Anquetil and Poulidor on the Puy de Dome). It makes me cringe when people do the accounting for stage wins in the TDF, for example, and then start talking about whether Cav will overtake Hinault or Merckx. A sprint stage win should be worth about 1/5 of a mountain stage or TT win.

If you look at the generally accepted lists of the great cyclists over the last century, almost without exception, they are climbers or all-rounders - riders that could win GT's and/or classics. Sprinters are a sideshow. Impressive sideshows, but a sideshow nonetheless.
Patrick Sercu and Andre Darrigade were pure sprinters and would be on the list of great cyclists. Really Martens, Altig and others would probably have been "just" sprinters if they were riding today in the age of specialisation. Apparently they were ok....
 
1) Sercu could more than just sprinting
2) To hell with "would haves". These guys were not riding in this age, period. Stick to facts
3) This is no longer an age of specialization. We are no longer in the nineties, nor in the noughties
4) Maertens and Altig were not sprinters.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
SHAD0W93 Professional Road Racing 42

ASK THE COMMUNITY