Climbers classic.

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
 
Jun 29, 2015
173
0
0
Re:

damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
of course this parcours is through the roof. but basically i like the idea of a monster one day race.
but NOTHING will come down to the last 2-3km. in huge stages like this there is selection from behind. no insane sprint attack. just slowly but stadyly riders fall off .sestriere 1992 was one of the toughest stages in modern times. the gaps between 1st and 10th were huge. alomst every one came on his own,all strong GC men!
 
Re: Re:

malakassis said:
damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
of course this parcours is through the roof. but basically i like the idea of a monster one day race.
but NOTHING will come down to the last 2-3km. in huge stages like this there is selection from behind. no insane sprint attack. just slowly but stadyly riders fall off .sestriere 1992 was one of the toughest stages in modern times. the gaps between 1st and 10th were huge. alomst every one came on his own,all strong GC men!
I disagree.

The reason why Chiapucci went off so far ahead was to make up time on GC, as well as to win the stage.
 
Jun 29, 2015
173
0
0
Re: Re:

barmaher said:
malakassis said:
damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
of course this parcours is through the roof. but basically i like the idea of a monster one day race.
but NOTHING will come down to the last 2-3km. in huge stages like this there is selection from behind. no insane sprint attack. just slowly but stadyly riders fall off .sestriere 1992 was one of the toughest stages in modern times. the gaps between 1st and 10th were huge. alomst every one came on his own,all strong GC men!
I disagree.

The reason why Chiapucci went off so far ahead was to make up time on GC, as well as to win the stage.
i disagree to you. if there would be a climbers classic with 8000D+ and 240k sooner or later one favorites team will go on the attack. others would need to follow. some wont be able to follow and fall off. the extreme demands of huge vertical gain and length push the distribution of race results to the very edge of normal distribution. that means gaps between 1st and 2nd dilate more.
FYI: this year otztaler radmarathon,men: 700classed, 1st with 7h2min, 10th with 7h25min. between them 2,3min gaps no groups. in these extreme coditions a team becomes less important because still: you have to ride your own race.
 
Re:

damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
Wow, some guys in here despise MTF's. Look at the stage, dude. Even Tignes 07' when nothing happened until to the last climb, gaps were decent and we saw action further out - in headwind. But I guess its more about the new sort of thinking that MTF's is the root of all evil
 
Re:

barmaher said:
I love most of your routes, Gigs, but that is ridiculous. What is it, 7000m of vertical gain? Over 243km. Come on!
I think you all misunderstood me. Saying that the stage is overkill, should mean that I know it is too difficult, I guess I should have made that more clear :eek: . I have this route in my mind since months because the climbs fit so perfectly. In an original route I started in Cluses and finished in Bourg Saint Maurice, then I wanted to look if there is a mtf you could put in the final and because Tignes alone is kind of lame I put in Hauteville too (at that point it was probably already unrealistic) and after that I simply put Joux Verte and Joux Plane on the beginning, actually only just for fun. This is too hard, no doubt about that, but I think it works good as an example what I mean with "impossible to control"
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
Wow, some guys in here despise MTF's. Look at the stage, dude. Even Tignes 07' when nothing happened until to the last climb, gaps were decent and we saw action further out - in headwind. But I guess its more about the new sort of thinking that MTF's is the root of all evil

It was a stage race.....(2007). In a stage race there is an incentive to win by as much as possible.
That is not the case in the classic.
You win by 1000m at the end, and thats all that counts.

Why would the strongest rider/team risk an attack instead of just following wheels and winning it in last 2km?
And if a weaker rider attacks then just let the superdoms chase.
 
Also, the harder the finish, the more riders will be afraid of it, and the more energy they'll conserve for it, therefore the less likely they are to make it a big deal. Therefore, if a Climber's Classic has to finish uphill, it either has to be one of those medium-mountain Spanish mountain one-day races like the Subida a Urkiola or Subida al Naranco where the objective is effectively to make it like a puncheur's race that's too tough for regulation puncheurs, or the final climb simply CANNOT be the hardest climb. Think Mortirolo-Aprica.
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Valv.Piti said:
damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
Wow, some guys in here despise MTF's. Look at the stage, dude. Even Tignes 07' when nothing happened until to the last climb, gaps were decent and we saw action further out - in headwind. But I guess its more about the new sort of thinking that MTF's is the root of all evil

It was a stage race.....(2007). In a stage race there is an incentive to win by as much as possible.
That is not the case in the classic.
You win by 1000m at the end, and thats all that counts.

Why would the strongest rider/team risk an attack instead of just following wheels and winning it in last 2km?
And if a weaker rider attacks then just let the superdoms chase.
Its a +240 km with over 9 mountains, primarily 1 categories, for crying out loud. Im well aware that it is an other situation, its just stupid to state that it will come down to a 2-3 kilometer sprint on such a stage. It simply wont, its a way, way, way too agonizing stage, almost no mater how hard it is raced. Also, I think Giggs also just tried to illustrate what you COULD do, its not super flattering just to call it 'absolutely horrible'.
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Valv.Piti said:
damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
Wow, some guys in here despise MTF's. Look at the stage, dude. Even Tignes 07' when nothing happened until to the last climb, gaps were decent and we saw action further out - in headwind. But I guess its more about the new sort of thinking that MTF's is the root of all evil

It was a stage race.....(2007). In a stage race there is an incentive to win by as much as possible.
That is not the case in the classic.
You win by 1000m at the end, and thats all that counts.

Why would the strongest rider/team risk an attack instead of just following wheels and winning it in last 2km?
And if a weaker rider attacks then just let the superdoms chase.
1.) As I already wrote it, if I would have to design a climbers classic, this wouldnt be the route. Its just like Valv.Piti wrote
2.) So you think it would come down to the last 2 km's? Why? I mean its not like everyone expects to be the strongest rider in such a finish. The problem of finishes like the Flèche Wallone is that everyone knows there are about 4-5 favorites. Same situation in Liege if a big group finishes together. The big difference is, these races are, although they are hilly, still relatively easy. A climbers classic isnt. In the hilly classics of the last years we saw hardly any long range attacks because the race was too easy to control. One team could lead the bunch for 200 k's, and still driving a very hard pace. Doing that in my stage would maybe also work, but it would be sucide because your leader would be isolated on the final climb and there would still be many other good climbers with him. Moreover its hard to chase down a group of good climbers, especially if they have domestiques with them and if it is big, which should be the case, because once again. What will 90% of the riders have to loose.
 
Jun 24, 2013
2,705
1
0
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Also, the harder the finish, the more riders will be afraid of it, and the more energy they'll conserve for it, therefore the less likely they are to make it a big deal. Therefore, if a Climber's Classic has to finish uphill, it either has to be one of those medium-mountain Spanish mountain one-day races like the Subida a Urkiola or Subida al Naranco where the objective is effectively to make it like a puncheur's race that's too tough for regulation puncheurs, or the final climb simply CANNOT be the hardest climb. Think Mortirolo-Aprica.
or something like the uphill through Briançon
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
damian13ster said:
Valv.Piti said:
damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
Wow, some guys in here despise MTF's. Look at the stage, dude. Even Tignes 07' when nothing happened until to the last climb, gaps were decent and we saw action further out - in headwind. But I guess its more about the new sort of thinking that MTF's is the root of all evil

It was a stage race.....(2007). In a stage race there is an incentive to win by as much as possible.
That is not the case in the classic.
You win by 1000m at the end, and thats all that counts.

Why would the strongest rider/team risk an attack instead of just following wheels and winning it in last 2km?
And if a weaker rider attacks then just let the superdoms chase.
1.) As I already wrote it, if I would have to design a climbers classic, this wouldnt be the route. Its just like Valv.Piti wrote
2.) So you think it would come down to the last 2 km's? Why? I mean its not like everyone expects to be the strongest rider in such a finish. The problem of finishes like the Flèche Wallone is that everyone knows there are about 4-5 favorites. Same situation in Liege if a big group finishes together. The big difference is, these races are, although they are hilly, still relatively easy. A climbers classic isnt. In the hilly classics of the last years we saw hardly any long range attacks because the race was too easy to control. One team could lead the bunch for 200 k's, and still driving a very hard pace. Doing that in my stage would maybe also work, but it would be sucide because your leader would be isolated on the final climb and there would still be many other good climbers with him. Moreover its hard to chase down a group of good climbers, especially if they have domestiques with them and if it is big, which should be the case, because once again. What will 90% of the riders have to loose.
In this case you would also have 4-5 favorites, from 4-5 different teams that would have an incentive to control the race. As much as I hate it, it would end up being controlled until very last section of a very last climb on which the team leaders would decide the race between themselves to see who is the strongest. At least in FW, Ardennes in general you have some chaos, fight for position, etc. Even that wouldn't be the case here. Simply a contest on who can push more watts.

Do you really think that Saxo would send someone in the break and dont chase (just look at this years Giro and them chasing Kreuziger....). Do you think that Movistar would focus on breakaway instead of driving the pace up for Quintana? Do you think Sky would do anything else other than set up Froome's sprint?
The only unknown would be possibly Astana since they have multitude of top notch climbers (well, maybe Sky with Landa as well), but this is just not enough to make race interesting.
 
And it would be completely different say if it ends downhill with 10 kilometers of flat? You are on the one hand criticizing the route, but it seems to me your are criticizing present cycling even more so with the superdoms, radios and generally how races are raced at this day and age.
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Gigs_98 said:
damian13ster said:
Valv.Piti said:
damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
Wow, some guys in here despise MTF's. Look at the stage, dude. Even Tignes 07' when nothing happened until to the last climb, gaps were decent and we saw action further out - in headwind. But I guess its more about the new sort of thinking that MTF's is the root of all evil

It was a stage race.....(2007). In a stage race there is an incentive to win by as much as possible.
That is not the case in the classic.
You win by 1000m at the end, and thats all that counts.

Why would the strongest rider/team risk an attack instead of just following wheels and winning it in last 2km?
And if a weaker rider attacks then just let the superdoms chase.
1.) As I already wrote it, if I would have to design a climbers classic, this wouldnt be the route. Its just like Valv.Piti wrote
2.) So you think it would come down to the last 2 km's? Why? I mean its not like everyone expects to be the strongest rider in such a finish. The problem of finishes like the Flèche Wallone is that everyone knows there are about 4-5 favorites. Same situation in Liege if a big group finishes together. The big difference is, these races are, although they are hilly, still relatively easy. A climbers classic isnt. In the hilly classics of the last years we saw hardly any long range attacks because the race was too easy to control. One team could lead the bunch for 200 k's, and still driving a very hard pace. Doing that in my stage would maybe also work, but it would be sucide because your leader would be isolated on the final climb and there would still be many other good climbers with him. Moreover its hard to chase down a group of good climbers, especially if they have domestiques with them and if it is big, which should be the case, because once again. What will 90% of the riders have to loose.
In this case you would also have 4-5 favorites, from 4-5 different teams that would have an incentive to control the race. As much as I hate it, it would end up being controlled until very last section of a very last climb on which the team leaders would decide the race between themselves to see who is the strongest. At least in FW, Ardennes in general you have some chaos, fight for position, etc. Even that wouldn't be the case here. Simply a contest on who can push more watts.

Do you really think that Saxo would send someone in the break and dont chase (just look at this years Giro and them chasing Kreuziger....). Do you think that Movistar would focus on breakaway instead of driving the pace up for Quintana? Do you think Sky would do anything else other than set up Froome's sprint?
The only unknown would be possibly Astana since they have multitude of top notch climbers (well, maybe Sky with Landa as well), but this is just not enough to make race interesting.
1.) We're talking about a classic, a race not everybody will ride, so the number of teams working probably wont be too high
2.) If someone attacks on the penultimate climb of an ardenne classic, thats because he doesnt have a chance in the final. The same counts for an attack in a climbers classic, just that such an attack would have to be from far more out.
3.) What about all the teams which don't have a top favorite? They wont ride for second place so I think the break will still be very strong. And we all know these great 30 men break aways from some gt's and how often does such a break get caught?
 
Re: Re:

Billie said:
Libertine Seguros said:
Also, the harder the finish, the more riders will be afraid of it, and the more energy they'll conserve for it, therefore the less likely they are to make it a big deal. Therefore, if a Climber's Classic has to finish uphill, it either has to be one of those medium-mountain Spanish mountain one-day races like the Subida a Urkiola or Subida al Naranco where the objective is effectively to make it like a puncheur's race that's too tough for regulation puncheurs, or the final climb simply CANNOT be the hardest climb. Think Mortirolo-Aprica.
or something like the uphill through Briançon
Something like that would be the ideal finish for a real mountain classic, but then it wouldn't be the hardest climb of the day so what I put up there would still be true :p

Anyway, this is a mountain classic route for a race we already have, just needs a better field:
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
And it would be completely different say if it ends downhill with 10 kilometers of flat? You are on the one hand criticizing the route, but it seems to me your are criticizing present cycling even more so with the superdoms, radios and generally how races are raced at this day and age.

Yes, as shown by this year's Lombardia.
Cycling is changing, mostly due to the strength of the doms, but I am not criticizing that. It is natural and was to be expected.
However, in order to keep it interesting the routes have to be adjusted, and that means making race harder in mid-section and don't end with a ridiculous MTF
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Valv.Piti said:
And it would be completely different say if it ends downhill with 10 kilometers of flat? You are on the one hand criticizing the route, but it seems to me your are criticizing present cycling even more so with the superdoms, radios and generally how races are raced at this day and age.

Yes, as shown by this year's Lombardia.
Cycling is changing, mostly due to the strength of the doms, but I am not criticizing that. It is natural and was to be expected.
However, in order to keep it interesting the routes have to be adjusted, and that means making race harder in mid-section and don't end with a ridiculous MTF
that race neither had a flat section at the end nor was bad, so whats your point.
Moreover the point is that when you say that everything would come down to the last 2 km's of the last climb that wont be changed by a descent finish. Okay, maybe a little bit more, but on the other hand tems of Valverde like riders would suddenly try to kill any sort of action because they want a sprint.
However I indeed think that a downhill finish would be better, you don't have to convince anyone about that because everyone knows it. I can say it one hundred times more often: The route I posted just should show how hard races could be and that I don't think they could be controlled. But I still don't think a mtf is as horrible as you say (also because I think you overestimate Tignes. Maybe the climb is long but its flat, only slightly more than 5% steep, so you wont completely blow up if you have already ridden at the front for quite some time)
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Valv.Piti said:
And it would be completely different say if it ends downhill with 10 kilometers of flat? You are on the one hand criticizing the route, but it seems to me your are criticizing present cycling even more so with the superdoms, radios and generally how races are raced at this day and age.

Yes, as shown by this year's Lombardia.
Cycling is changing, mostly due to the strength of the doms, but I am not criticizing that. It is natural and was to be expected.
However, in order to keep it interesting the routes have to be adjusted, and that means making race harder in mid-section and don't end with a ridiculous MTF
By your logic, the domestiques will still be able to dominate up to the second last/last climb. But I guess we just fundamentally disagree on what happens to a peloton after nearly 250 in the Alps with 9 1st categorized climbs.
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Gigs_98 said:
damian13ster said:
Valv.Piti said:
damian13ster said:
Thats absolutely horrible. Everything would come down to the last 2-3km uphill sprint. Why would the teams risk long range attack? Just ride tempo, have 5-6 best riders left by the midpoint of last climb and the strongest man wins. Boooooooring.
Climber's classic can't be a MTF otherwise the above scenario will play out 9/10 times.

Now doing it in opposite direction with a bit more flat at the end....
Wow, some guys in here despise MTF's. Look at the stage, dude. Even Tignes 07' when nothing happened until to the last climb, gaps were decent and we saw action further out - in headwind. But I guess its more about the new sort of thinking that MTF's is the root of all evil

It was a stage race.....(2007). In a stage race there is an incentive to win by as much as possible.
That is not the case in the classic.
You win by 1000m at the end, and thats all that counts.

Why would the strongest rider/team risk an attack instead of just following wheels and winning it in last 2km?
And if a weaker rider attacks then just let the superdoms chase.
1.) As I already wrote it, if I would have to design a climbers classic, this wouldnt be the route. Its just like Valv.Piti wrote
2.) So you think it would come down to the last 2 km's? Why? I mean its not like everyone expects to be the strongest rider in such a finish. The problem of finishes like the Flèche Wallone is that everyone knows there are about 4-5 favorites. Same situation in Liege if a big group finishes together. The big difference is, these races are, although they are hilly, still relatively easy. A climbers classic isnt. In the hilly classics of the last years we saw hardly any long range attacks because the race was too easy to control. One team could lead the bunch for 200 k's, and still driving a very hard pace. Doing that in my stage would maybe also work, but it would be sucide because your leader would be isolated on the final climb and there would still be many other good climbers with him. Moreover its hard to chase down a group of good climbers, especially if they have domestiques with them and if it is big, which should be the case, because once again. What will 90% of the riders have to loose.
In this case you would also have 4-5 favorites, from 4-5 different teams that would have an incentive to control the race. As much as I hate it, it would end up being controlled until very last section of a very last climb on which the team leaders would decide the race between themselves to see who is the strongest. At least in FW, Ardennes in general you have some chaos, fight for position, etc. Even that wouldn't be the case here. Simply a contest on who can push more watts.

Do you really think that Saxo would send someone in the break and dont chase (just look at this years Giro and them chasing Kreuziger....). Do you think that Movistar would focus on breakaway instead of driving the pace up for Quintana? Do you think Sky would do anything else other than set up Froome's sprint?
The only unknown would be possibly Astana since they have multitude of top notch climbers (well, maybe Sky with Landa as well), but this is just not enough to make race interesting.
No, a race on Gig's parcours would simply be too tough to control. By the summit of the Cormet de Roselend anyone left would simply be in survival mode, with over 60kms to go, over two Cat 1 climbs. Teams would have no more than 2-3 riders left by that stage, with two more massive climbs to come. Look at the stage to Gardecchia in the 2011 Giro, because that is the closest thing that has been raced recently.

The problem wouldn't be teams controlling, it would be the opposite extreme - too much of a slog fest to be entertaining.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS