Figueira Champions Classic - Casino Figueira 2026 (Feb 14)

[Salvarani]

The difference is that in most other sports you're not wasting two hours (or 21 days) watching a foregone conclusion with zero suspense. It's not comparable to tennis at all. I'd take the 2020 Giro anyday over 2024, and 100/100 times I'd watch Tiller vs Berckmoes in the Brussels Cycling Classic than watch the 15th Pogacar solo of the year. I think your 'everybody wants to watch the best in the world' perception is a lot less prevalent in cycling than you seem to think.

On this forum it is not prevalent, but I think its true for in real life.

And I think it is more prevalent than what you think.

 

[Red Rick]

There were lots of great stages in that Giro, and we had a GC battle with constant twists and turns and a huge climax. It was just a great race overall even if, sadly, Roglic was unlucky.

Our opinions on the gravel stage diverge ofcourse, but the GC battle in the mountains before the Finestre was just very lethargic.

Like the idea that 2023 Giro was godawful is entirely incompatible with the idea that the 2025 Giro was great. Yet somehow it gets treated like a one day race.

 

[Salvarani]

yep

Lazy point.

I would very much find it more plausible that Pog and any other of the current big stars has just driven up more interest in the sport and ratings, more viewers in general watching races. It is not the only sport were ratings has gone up either.

 

[Netserk]

san valentino was fantastic, especially because the gc implications were unclear

 

[Squire]

On this forum it is not prevalent, but I think its true for in real life.

And I think it is more prevalent than what you think.

Yeah, I don't really have any numbers to back up my perception other than what to me seems like common sense and some anecdotal evidence. But there sure has been more of a buzz around most big sports when there is close competition at the top. The interest in cross country skiing in Norway has fallen off a cliff in recent years, for example. But I also concur that some big stars have elevated some sports with their performances.

I just don't think that's universally the case for cycling where an event lasts for so long that the tactics and suspense becomes a big part of the attraction and watching some guy being so superior without providing a very different viewing experience compared to his competitors just isn't the most interesting thing in the world for everybody. In contrast to let's say snooker, where watching a prime O'Sullivan playing is something very out of the ordinary, or how some people loved watching prime Messi despite his team 'always' winning. Now of course I know you'd say that Pog does the same as those guys for you, but I just disagree even though I can see why some might be on your side of the fence.

 

[Red Rick]

san valentino was fantastic, especially because the gc implications were unclear

As was Monte Bondone, which fills similar criteria, even if not to the same degree.

If we consider GC implications being unclear to be very important, Crans Montana was great.

 

[Netserk]

As was Monte Bondone, which fills similar criteria, even if not to the same degree.

If we consider GC implications being unclear to be very important, Crans Montana was great.

both of those are wildly off

san valentino had massive moves in gc, and the whole race suddenly felt far more alive

alone what yates did there was better than those two stages put together

 

[tobydawq]

Yeah, I don't really have any numbers to back up my perception other than what to me seems like common sense and some anecdotal evidence. But there sure has been more of a buzz around most big sports when there is close competition at the top. The interest in cross country skiing in Norway has fallen off a cliff in recent years, for example. But I also concur that some big stars have elevated some sports with their performances.

I just don't think that's universally the case for cycling where an event lasts for so long that the tactics and suspense becomes a big part of the attraction and watching some guy being so superior without providing a very different viewing experience compared to his competitors just isn't the most interesting thing in the world for everybody. In contrast to let's say snooker, where watching a prime O'Sullivan playing is something very out of the ordinary, or how some people loved watching prime Messi despite his team 'always' winning. Now of course I know you'd say that Pog does the same as those guys for you, but I just disagree even though I can see why some might be on your side of the fence.

I only associate snooker with the thing that used to delay the cycling or tennis coverage in the '00s so whoever was really good or really bad was my favorite snooker player as it would result in shorter frames and thus less delay.

 

[Salvarani]

Yeah, I don't really have any numbers to back up my perception other than what to me seems like common sense and some anecdotal evidence. But there sure has been more of a buzz around most big sports when there is close competition at the top. The interest in cross country skiing in Norway has fallen off a cliff in recent years, for example. But I also concur that some big stars have elevated some sports with their performances.

I just don't think that's universally the case for cycling where an event lasts for so long that the tactics and suspense becomes a big part of the attraction and watching some guy being so superior without providing a very different viewing experience compared to his competitors just isn't the most interesting thing in the world for everybody. In contrast to let's say snooker, where watching a prime O'Sullivan playing is something very out of the ordinary, or how some people loved watching prime Messi despite his team 'always' winning. Now of course I know you'd say that Pog does the same as those guys for you, but I just disagree even though I can see why some might be on your side of the fence.

I didnt say Pog does the same as those guys for me or that he does anything for me at all, really.

I just think you are wrong in thinking there is a lot of people outside of this community that holds the same view on the topic as you do. I think you are mistaken with that perspective or view in the grand scheme of things.

Everyone here is a super-fan of the sport in general. Sometimes that can be a blind-spot in these types of questions.

 

[Samamba]

I didnt say Pog does the same as those guys for me or that he does anything for me at all, really.

I just think you are wrong in thinking there is a lot of people outside of this community that holds the same view on the topic as you do. I think you are mistaken with that perspective or view in the grand scheme of things.

Everyone here is a super-fan of the sport in general. Sometimes that can be a blind-spot in these types of questions.

I would say most of my friends are "casuals", not cycling freaks but they watch the bigger races. They definitely couldn't care less if Pogacar was at the start of a big race or not, they watch because of the race (like they will al watch Flanders, Roubaix, MSR, some other Belgian races, Worlds, Giro and Tour mostly) and they prefer a close race between whoever over Pogacar or Van der Poel dominating, even tho there's also the annoying "omg, just enjoy they excellence, masterclass or whatever" argument sometimes.

Now on the other hand there are definitely people who partly watch for the biggest starts, the people you don't want to watch cycling with cause the keep asking "where is Woutje" or "where is Mathieu", they don't know a lot of other riders. But again, take these stars out of the sport and they would still watch, cause they watch because of cycling, not because of the riders. Stars are made.

Of course Pogacar for example has made the sport way more popular in certain countries, like ofc Slovenia. But that's different.

 

[Squire]

I just think you are wrong in thinking there is a lot of people outside of this community that holds the same view on the topic as you do. I think you are mistaken with that perspective or view in the grand scheme of things.

Everyone here is a super-fan of the sport in general. Sometimes that can be a blind-spot in these types of questions.

Yeah, in the absence of very clear evidence in any direction, that's a fair position to have. So we'll just have different views. I just refuse to completely believe that with the time investment required for following cycling as opposed to, say, a Usain Bolt 100m, there aren't a lot of people who aren't terribly excited to watch someone that regularly makes the sport look like a grown-up racing against children without any obvious advantage other than somehow going a lot faster.

I didnt say Pog does the same as those guys for me or that he does anything for me at all, really.

Was just my assumption. I might have over-interpreted your Pog enthusiasm during races.

 

[Cycling111]

Lazy point.

I would very much find it more plausible that Pog and any other of the current big stars has just driven up more interest in the sport and ratings, more viewers in general watching races. It is not the only sport were ratings has gone up either.

In France, at least, that's the case. This year, Roubaix and Dauphiné have had their highest viewership in 5 years.

But I'm not just talking about viewership. It's difficult to compare because there are more platforms and streams than five years ago.

In other sports, what matters most is seeing the best athletes. A high-level match will always have higher level than lower-level one, however entertaining it may be. But the fact is that the Tour de France has had more attacks than Giro and Vuelta in the last years. So they can't even use that as an excuse.

 

[Salvarani]

Yeah, in the absence of very clear evidence in any direction, that's a fair position to have. So we'll just have different views. I just refuse to completely believe that with the time investment required for following cycling as opposed to, say, a Usain Bolt 100m, there aren't a lot of people who aren't terribly excited to watch someone that regularly makes the sport look like a grown-up racing against children without any obvious advantage other than somehow going a lot faster.

I think it is human nature that a lot of people want to watch someone because they are great at what they do. A lot of sports have had stars like that or have stars like that currently. That has generated interest.

Just as I think it is human nature for people to grow resentment towards a team or someone winning a lot.

Was just my assumption. I might have over-interpreted your Pog enthusiasm during races.

Thats neither nor there on just discussing this matter, since it is much broader imo.

 

[Red Rick]

both of those are wildly off

san valentino had massive moves in gc, and the whole race suddenly felt far more alive

alone what yates did there was better than those two stages put together

Again arguing perception is everything.

We can stop pretending what happens on the road actually matters.

 

[Salvarani]

Now on the other hand there are definitely people who partly watch for the biggest starts, the people you don't want to watch cycling with cause the keep asking "where is Woutje" or "where is Mathieu", they don't know a lot of other riders. But again, take these stars out of the sport and they would still watch, cause they watch because of cycling, not because of the riders. Stars are made.

Of course Pogacar for example has made the sport way more popular in certain countries, like ofc Slovenia. But that's different.

I dont think its given they would watch or that they would have started an interest in the first place, if not for something or someone sparking it at one point.

 

[Netserk]

Again arguing perception is everything.

We can stop pretending what happens on the road actually matters.

do you want to count attacks (very different numbers, not comparable)

count time gaps?

what physically happened on the road between the main contenders were worlds apart

 

[Squire]

I think it is human nature that a lot of people want to watch someone because they are great at what they do. A lot of sports have had stars like that or have stars like that currently. That has generated interest.

Just as I think it is human nature for people to grow resentment towards a team or someone winning a lot.

I don't really need to discuss this infinitely, as I think both can see each other's points, but I'll just say that in my eyes there is a huge difference between sports in terms of what having one big star who's great at what they do does to the entertainment value. The problem with cycling and I guess some other endurance sports is that by far the most important factor is quite a constant and not very changeable one, so when that is very skewed, it can take away more from the competition aspect of the sport than what's the case with a lot of other sports.

Personally I like pretty much all cyclists, and ones that I favour slightly have come from both the dominant and outsider categories. But who I cheer for at any given time mostly depends on the specific race situation. So for me the only resentment is towards a boring race, not necessarily the riders being responsible for that boring race. Of course I notice there's a lot of 'my dad is stronger than your dad' on the forum, as in all sports. But I just want interesting and entertaining races where things are in the balance in some way, and not foregone conclusions. But I also resent artificial attempts at creating suspense. If someone is dominant, then that's just how it is. Just to add a perspective from someone whose interest is very not star-dependent.

Today's Figueira Classic was a great example of a very fun and interesting race, even if the pre-race favourite won.

 

[Samamba]

I dont think its given they would watch or that they would have started an interest in the first place, if not for something or someone sparking it at one point.

I mean they are Flemish, you don't start watching cycling because of some cyclist, it's cause it's on the tv in the background at every family gathering

 

[Red Rick]

do you want to count attacks (very different numbers, not comparable)

count time gaps?

what physically happened on the road between the main contenders were worlds apart

Attacks with or without substance? Cause without substance those Pirazzi Giro's were awesome.

 

[Salvarani]

Just to add a perspective from someone whose interest is very not star-dependent.

I dont disagree with you.

My point was just that one has to be careful that it is a perspective that "everybody" holds and one is probably in a minority in the grand scheme of things here.

 

[Squire]

I dont disagree with you.

My point was just that one has to be careful that it is a perspective that "everybody" holds and one is probably in a minority in the grand scheme of things here.

Yeah, I got involved here pretty much because I was countering that exact argument going in the other direction.

 

[Netserk]

Attacks with or without substance? Cause without substance those Pirazzi Giro's were awesome.

you get to set the bar.

how many times did yates attack towards san valentino?