Climbers classic.

To people with more cycling knowledge then myself. Why are there not any climbers classics, yes I know some classics have 3000ft of climbing etc or like Milan Turin but why isn't there a legit proper 5-6 climb classic like out of the grand tours? Is it because we see it too much in the gts. Would be interesting if they used different cat 1 and hc climbs every year
 
Great idea, although I think it would be difficult to find a date for such classic. There is snow in high mountains between november and may, and during the rest of the season you have giro, tour and vuelta. Perhaps they could drop paris tours in favour of climbers classic, but i think the climbers would like to peak in som other part of the season.
 
A classic is meant to suit complete riders who can both climb AND ride flat, and handle a long distance. Only the new routes with hill climbs denatured them as they favour explosive riders. Only Paris-Roubaix and the Tour of Flanders still have a traditional route.

Climbers are specialised riders. It's just logical they shouldn't have as big a palmares as more complete riders have. It's logical they shouldn't be able to win classics nor GT's on a regular basis.

They may focus on races like Montjuich or formerly the Subita al Naranco. There was a "Classique des Alpes" though but screwed by the ProTour.

By the way, in order to second BigMac, I'd say I've never seen a stage race that is essentially based on cobbles. Dunkirk is not really cobbled.
 
Re:

Mr.White said:
And why a stage race would be based on cobbles?!
Why a stage race should be based on climbs?
Why should a 1.65m, 50kg rider have 50 opportunities to shine in a year and a 1.90m, 80kg rider 5?

They're both specialities. One of them is honored nowadays, the other isn't.
 
Mar 24, 2015
743
1
3,280
It wouldn't make any sense, imo.

While a usual Classic parcour is open the an high number of riders, a mountain classic would be open just to a handfull of real contenders.
Everybody would know that on the final climb it would be only the likes of AC, Froome, Nibali, Aru, Quintana and a few more.

What's the point?

Mountain parcour are suitable only for stage races, where a rider must be tested on different sort of terrains.
 
Nowdays it would be a bit boring as well. If you take away the context of the GC, it's not the most interesting racing to watch a load of guys ride up numerous climbs at threshold, gradually dropping off one by one.
 
Re:

huge said:
It wouldn't make any sense, imo.

While a usual Classic parcour is open the an high number of riders, a mountain classic would be open just to a handfull of real contenders.
Everybody would know that on the final climb it would be only the likes of AC, Froome, Nibali, Aru, Quintana and a few more.

What's the point?

Mountain parcour are suitable only for stage races, where a rider must be tested on different sort of terrains.
You do know that mountain races don't need to be an MTF, and that riders are legally allowed to attack before the final climb, right?
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re: Re:

rghysens said:
Mr.White said:
And why a stage race would be based on cobbles?!
Why a stage race should be based on climbs?
Why should a 1.65m, 50kg rider have 50 opportunities to shine in a year and a 1.90m, 80kg rider 5?

They're both specialities. One of them is honored nowadays, the other isn't.
No. Climbs are part of the terrain, a geographical term. You can hardly make a race in Spain, Italy, France, etc, without any climbs. Cobbles, well it's a surface, and a rare one. You got plenty of races with cobbles in it though, they appear in stage races too, but you can hardly base a race around cobbles. Simply there's just not so many of them. Climbs are much, much more frequent than cobbles. As for a 1.90m, 80kg riders, there's plenty of flatter races for them...
 
Martin said:
Great idea, although I think it would be difficult to find a date for such classic. There is snow in high mountains between november and may, and during the rest of the season you have giro, tour and vuelta. Perhaps they could drop paris tours in favour of climbers classic, but i think the climbers would like to peak in som other part of the season.
Somewhere in June would be a good idea, between Giro and Tour.
 
I understand everyone's points but the one thing I read a lot on here is that the gt stages are not like the old 250km 6 cat climbs stages of the past. tbh in my opinion raves like Tretino and epically route du sud recently with the massive day of climbing are probably as close as we get. We have one day races for every single rider regardless if it's small of big except straight up pure climbers. Would a big gc rider use a one day race with 6 cat 1s as a lead up race to a tour or is that to hard. Even a single day mtt on ventoux or stelvio , angrilu would get me in tbh. Kind of like that mt Fuji single climb stage ?
 
Re:

Scarponi said:
I understand everyone's points but the one thing I read a lot on here is that the gt stages are not like the old 250km 6 cat climbs stages of the past. tbh in my opinion raves like Tretino and epically route du sud recently with the massive day of climbing are probably as close as we get. We have one day races for every single rider regardless if it's small of big except straight up pure climbers. Would a big gc rider use a one day race with 6 cat 1s as a lead up race to a tour or is that to hard. Even a single day mtt on ventoux or stelvio , angrilu would get me in tbh. Kind of like that mt Fuji single climb stage ?
Well, the old Classique des Alpes was held the day before the Dauphiné. Winners included Jalabert, Botero, Mancebo and Mayo.
 
Re:

huge said:
It wouldn't make any sense, imo.

While a usual Classic parcour is open the an high number of riders, a mountain classic would be open just to a handfull of real contenders.
Everybody would know that on the final climb it would be only the likes of AC, Froome, Nibali, Aru, Quintana and a few more.

What's the point?
If there was a one-day race based around a final climb of Alpe d'Huez, or a similarly iconic or difficult climb, people would watch because the guys like Froome and Quintana wouldn't hold back (assuming the timing wasn't too close to a big objective) like they often do during the Tour.
 
Priorities are different, and the possible group of winners would be vastly different. Classics, especially the smaller ones, often have more unpredictable racing and a bigger group of possible winners and more tactics. I think classics shouldn't just be W/Kg's slugfest. Nobody prefers FW to PR.

I do think that there should be one day races with cat 2 and maybe some cat 1 mountains far from the finish. Medium mountains would be best for this. When should they be though? I think the best place would between the Tour and the Vuelta, have a week of two with 4 classics including CSS. June would also be possible.
 
Well, I think it would be interesting to see a one-day race in high mountains. I don't get any of the arguments against it mentioned so far in this thread. Clashes with GTs are not a problem. There's no necessity to force all of the world's best climbers to participate in this race. This kind of race doesn't have to be as prestigious as monuments. Beside the fact, Dauphine and Suisse are held between Giro and the Tour and they have decent line-up. If riders can find a place for a one-week race in this part of the year, it shouldn't be a problem to find a place for one-day race. And we can as well make the race, for example, in South America, so it can be held pre-Giro or post-Vuelta.
About it being possibly boring- well, there are dozens of completely boring flat races that usually end up in a sprint. Why can't we have a boring mountainous race that ends up in an uphill sprint for a change? Nobody is forced to watch.
About classics intended to suit more versatile riders- well, I don't get this. I would rather have as many types of races in calendar as possible- variety is usually more interesting. As I said previously- it doesn't have to be as prestigious race as monuments.
 
Why are there high mountains in the GT's? To create time gaps, not to make sure the best climbers win, that you can ensure in the medium mountains already. High mountain classics just make group of possible winners smaller, the race easier to control and more predictable.
 
Whats the point of it then if it doesnt have prestige?
I think classic for climbers are terrible idea. As long as riders such as Cancellara can't win a GT, I won't support a classic for pure climbers
 
Ask RCS to take this year's Lombardia course, get rid of the first 150kms and race 3 laps around the Ghisallo-Sormano loop before the finish in Como as it is planned and there you are: your climber's monument. :D
 
Re:

damian13ster said:
Whats the point of it then if it doesnt have prestige?
I think classic for climbers are terrible idea. As long as riders such as Cancellara can't win a GT, I won't support a classic for pure climbers
That is just ***. You know this year's Tour had just about everything, except for little time trialing. It's just that if you use all terrains for different stages, gaps are gonna be wayy bigger on the mountain stages. That's only natural. You're saying there shouldn't be one day races on all terrains because when GT's don't exclude mountains.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
damian13ster said:
Whats the point of it then if it doesnt have prestige?
I think classic for climbers are terrible idea. As long as riders such as Cancellara can't win a GT, I won't support a classic for pure climbers
That is just ***. You know this year's Tour had just about everything, except for little time trialing. It's just that if you use all terrains for different stages, gaps are gonna be wayy bigger on the mountain stages. That's only natural. You're saying there shouldn't be one day races on all terrains because when GT's don't exclude mountains.
You can't be serious?
It had no time trialing, one easy cobble stage, couple flat stages, 2-3 Murs, and then everything else is for climbers. One of the, if not the most unbalanced routes in recent history

Come on, who wouldn't love a GT in which you have an equivalents of PR, RVV, Lombardia, LBL, 2 medium mountain stages, 2 high mountain stages, 2 long time trials, etc? Even if it is just 14-15 stages spread across 3 weeks due to some travel required.
Would be awesome to watch :D
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Red Rick said:
damian13ster said:
Whats the point of it then if it doesnt have prestige?
I think classic for climbers are terrible idea. As long as riders such as Cancellara can't win a GT, I won't support a classic for pure climbers
That is just ***. You know this year's Tour had just about everything, except for little time trialing. It's just that if you use all terrains for different stages, gaps are gonna be wayy bigger on the mountain stages. That's only natural. You're saying there shouldn't be one day races on all terrains because when GT's don't exclude mountains.
You can't be serious?
It had no time trialing, one easy cobble stage, couple flat stages, 2-3 Murs, and then everything else is for climbers. One of the, if not the most unbalanced routes in recent history

Come on, who wouldn't love a GT in which you have an equivalents of PR, RVV, Lombardia, LBL, 2 medium mountain stages, 2 high mountain stages, 2 long time trials, etc? Even if it is just 14-15 stages spread across 3 weeks due to some travel required.
Would be awesome to watch :D
So petition RCS or ASO. In the meantime the rest of us want one day out of HUNDREDS for a climbers' classic.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY