Is cycling dying as spectator a sport?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Perhaps the races are too hard on a clean peloton.

Tom Dumoulin said he was just finished in the final, while for our eyes nothing has happened. But the doms are so good nowadays, they are barely worse than their leaders. So they keep such a high pace that everyone is finished.
Kwiatkowski said he was feeling super bad in the final, but he won the damn race.

People still underestimating that nobody has anything left in these 250km classics nowadays. If you want attacks, then you have to reduce the amount of riders a team can field, because the domestiques these days are simply too strong.
 
"Having nothing left" is very relative and I'm very sceptical about any claims that they raced super hard, considering we regularly see everybody just waiting for their domestiques to show up (not necessarily today but in general).

We still get a selection when the contenders speed up. I still believe that, when the actual contenders put themselves to it, the domestiques cease being a factor because they can't keep up. The main difference is that, nowadays, they just sit up after the selective bit is done and wait until the next one.

I also suspect most riders nowadays have forgotten that, if you're knackered, that means so is everybody around you. Perfect time to attack and try something unexpected, particularly if you're not one of the 2-3 top contenders.
 
Re:

Miburo said:
Maybe not as much to do with the points brought up in this thread but I always would have loved to see an all stars event in cycling.

Like a few days before the tour where they do different events eg. 1km sprint between the best sprinters, a 10km MTF between the best climbers etc.

Just for entertainment value, they don't even have to go all out orso. Could be fun i think.
Like a modern version of the GP Wolber?
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
4
0
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Miburo said:
Maybe not as much to do with the points brought up in this thread but I always would have loved to see an all stars event in cycling.

Like a few days before the tour where they do different events eg. 1km sprint between the best sprinters, a 10km MTF between the best climbers etc.

Just for entertainment value, they don't even have to go all out orso. Could be fun i think.
Like a modern version of the GP Wolber?

Not gonna lie, had to look that one up :)

Yea something like that, i think it could be really entertaining. Instead of doing that team presentation.

An upgraded version of criterium.
 
Jul 1, 2013
1,952
0
0
I'm starting to find that there is to much race coverage, or rather I'm watching too much. I grew up with 15 min on C4. Even with as little as that I was inspired. Last couple of years its been constant. To much of a good thing I suppose. I feel like I've watched a season and its only April.
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
Bushman said:
hrotha said:
Everybody knows the riders don't care about making the races attractive, and few people argue they should. That's why we're proposing changes that are not up to the riders or the teams, but to the UCI and the organizers: to force the riders to race differently.
Doesn't seem so whenever there has been an important race.
What do you mean?

I mean there is often a lot of complaining about the riders riding too boring even though the riders doesn't have a lot to do with it. Not talking about this thread of course.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
"Having nothing left" is very relative and I'm very sceptical about any claims that they raced super hard, considering we regularly see everybody just waiting for their domestiques to show up (not necessarily today but in general).

We still get a selection when the contenders speed up. I still believe that, when the actual contenders put themselves to it, the domestiques cease being a factor because they can't keep up. The main difference is that, nowadays, they just sit up after the selective bit is done and wait until the next one.

I also suspect most riders nowadays have forgotten that, if you're knackered, that means so is everybody around you. Perfect time to attack and try something unexpected, particularly if you're not one of the 2-3 top contenders.

Problem is though, that the toughest domestiques aren't a lot more knackered than the leaders and therefore they can bring an attacker back in most cases.
 
BigMac said:
Race lenght: Would keep it as it is. Don't think increasing the mileage is the way to go. It's the performance gap between domestiques and leader that is pretty much non exitant until some real trouble gets underway - which may itself be a reflection of conservative riding.

I have a problem with race length, though, mate. You should know that by 1990, the UCI decided to cut short all semi-classics and several classics to 200/210km. All those that they did not grant World Cup label (before the ProTour, you had the UCI ranking which is more or less the CQ ranking and the World Cup gathering 10 single-day races). So that is why the Walloon Arrow was reduced to the 200k distance that it still has today. Same for Ghent-Wevelgem (though it's been increased for the last few years). Same for the Volk/Nieuwsblad, the GPE3, the Coppa Placci, the Giro di Lazio (real name of Roma Maxima), etc etc. All these races easily exceeded 200k in 1989. Let's not talk about Paris-Brussels, 280km or so in 1989, gradually shortened to a mere Brussels Classics since 2013. I've talked extensively about it.

All this still sticks in craw. I'm convinced that the UCI waged a war on the classics. One day is not enough exposure for sponsor publicity. Most of the new races are stage races (except your beloved Canadians ;)). I know for sure that the UCI wish to destroy the kermess races in Belgium and elsewhere while this is what cycling is all about, it's not just a show on TV! A popular festival in villages around the churches. Much too local and too common people oriented for the guys at the UCI.

The cycling as I see it has died long ago anyway. I've never even known it. Cycling is the people's sport, the sport of the labouring classes who chose the sport to escape the land, the small workshops, the factories in order to achieve a dream. That era is gone. Few riders nowadays come from the working class and they have many more opportunities anyway.

Claiming that the oldtimers were not pro except the top ones is an insult. Since the sixties all decent riders adopted the most advanced training methods that there is.

The problem with cycling today is that they earn too much money. Besides, you have the lighter and more efficient bikes that make the races less hard + the asphalt smoother. The radios of course or more generally the fact that Team directors control the race much more than before. The team spirit is too strong (see Van Avermaet today!). Re Amstel, there's still the problem that the main climbs are all in the finale (on this new route) while for an entertaining race, you got to place the main climbs after 60% or 75% of the route but no more in order to encourage them to move earlier. That is even what Jean-François Pescheux formerly from ASO admitted!! The Côte de Saint-Nicolas should be dropped.

BigMac said:
On the other hand, the thing is quite polarized: what we also see is some helpers performing better than assigned team leaders from other teams, which would take me to another section of this forum.

For the real answer, w should go to there. Good to see you say that. :)


PS: the GP Wolber was real race. 220km long. :eek:
 
Curse you CN for logging me out while I was writting.

Echoes said:
BigMac said:
Race lenght: Would keep it as it is. Don't think increasing the mileage is the way to go. It's the performance gap between domestiques and leader that is pretty much non exitant until some real trouble gets underway - which may itself be a reflection of conservative riding.

I have a problem with race length, though, mate. You should know that by 1990, the UCI decided to cut short all semi-classics and several classics to 200/210km. All those that they did not grant World Cup label (before the ProTour, you had the UCI ranking which is more or less the CQ ranking and the World Cup gathering 10 single-day races). So that is why the Walloon Arrow was reduced to the 200k distance that it still has today. Same for Ghent-Wevelgem (though it's been increased for the last few years). Same for the Volk/Nieuwsblad, the GPE3, the Coppa Placci, the Giro di Lazio (real name of Roma Maxima), etc etc. All these races easily exceeded 200k in 1989. Let's not talk about Paris-Brussels, 280km or so in 1989, gradually shortened to a mere Brussels Classics since 2013. I've talked extensively about it.

All this still sticks in craw. I'm convinced that the UCI waged a war on the classics. One day is not enough exposure for sponsor publicity. Most of the new races are stage races (except your beloved Canadians ;)). I know for sure that the UCI wish to destroy the kermess races in Belgium and elsewhere while this is what cycling is all about, it's not just a show on TV! A popular festival in villages around the churches. Much too local and too common people oriented for the guys at the UCI.

The cycling as I see it has died long ago anyway. I've never even known it. Cycling is the people's sport, the sport of the labouring classes who chose the sport to escape the land, the small workshops, the factories in order to achieve a dream. That era is gone. Few riders nowadays come from the working class and they have many more opportunities anyway.

Claiming that the oldtimers were not pro except the top ones is an insult. Since the sixties all decent riders adopted the most advanced training methods that there is.

The problem with cycling today is that they earn too much money. Besides, you have the lighter and more efficient bikes that make the races less hard + the asphalt smoother. The radios of course or more generally the fact that Team directors control the race much more than before. The team spirit is too strong (see Van Avermaet today!). Re Amstel, there's still the problem that the main climbs are all in the finale (on this new route) while for an entertaining race, you got to place the main climbs after 60% or 75% of the route but no more in order to encourage them to move earlier. That is even what Jean-François Pescheux formerly from ASO admitted!! The Côte de Saint-Nicolas should be dropped.

Interesting, didn't know it. In general terms, I have nothing against increasing the mileage of those discriminately mutilated races. Had my mind in Amstel and Liège, for instance, which are above the 250km mark - though now that I think of it, it wouldn't be that out of the ordinary to lenghten both. Still, riders finish those races claiming them to be two of the possible hardest days on the bike, so I don't foresee any increase in distance. FW is, however, decidedly too short.

Much agree with the second paragraph. It's a sport turn business, run by businessmen, devoted to the coin. That's why I like watching Junior races live from time to time, as that is, I think, where the essence's still at. It's mainly organised by the locals and that popular and festive side of it is still well present; where tradition survives, at least. The uncompetitive events are mostly long gone, though. Our [shy] equivalent to your kermesse cycling started it's downfall in the late 90's and is now pretty much non existant. Mind it, cycling tradition in Portugal was never that notable, though.

Yes, the Canadians...! Hope they came to make a stand. Can we really expect anything other than stage races when one day races are being neglected and overlooked by the general public - though that may have to do with one day races not being given the worthy exposure and conditions they deserve. Sort of a vicious circle.

Here cyclists are extremely underpayed compared to most other nations and the higher ranks of the sport. I'd even say not overpayed considering the general scene of the country. No one in their right mind, in here, would choose to be a cyclist. Other than, of course, when they love what they do and are convinced in achieving a better life - that, in Portugal, never changed. I had recently made a map, which I seem to have lost, with the dispersion of Portuguese cyclists over the years, across the territory, reaching the predictable conclusion that most came from underdeveloped and rural zones. In fact, cycling is still despised by the wealthier groups and city people in general, in Portugal, because it is associated with the agrarian, provincial folk. Such honor is reserved to football and rugby. Not very nice to see them taking over and making it just another business of theirs.

Costa's parents' own some lands in Póvoa do Varzim and sometimes he goes there to help with plowing and planting. Machado comes from Vila Nova de Famalicão, a working area. The late Manoel the Oliveira described it as such: ''Rail communications between various towns in the North, cheerful and picturesque streets, events occurring in the local newspaper. Building - Holy House of Mercy Hospital, Town Hall, monument to Camilo Castelo Branco. Work in the fields. Churches. The romantic surroundings. Wiring industries, watches, buttons, tailoring and fabrics. Harvest, fair.''. It was true for Agostinho, who came from Torres Vedras, it's still true nowadays for a lot of riders. Not cherry picking. :)

No arguing with the rest, either.

BigMac said:
On the other hand, the thing is quite polarized: what we also see is some helpers performing better than assigned team leaders from other teams, which would take me to another section of this forum.

For the real answer, w should go to there. Good to see you say that. :)

Eheh, might be strongly anti clinic, but don't believe in fairy tails.
 
Perhaps shorter races could entice the riders to race more aggressively. Maybe the current riders aren't good enough to put in multiple attacks or solo efforts after long distances and go for the win. Then again this could go the other way and riders will just be stronger for the finale and continue to ride how hey do.

The number of riders for each team should be dropped, but increase the number of teams. Riders like Greg Van Avermaet, Stijn Vandenbergh, Jakob Fuglsang should all be able to be the sole leader of their style of races but they aren't. With more team leaders getting into breaks together they are more likely to work together, unlike today where Nibali was in front with Tony Martin and Simon Clarke, if they were team leaders hey would have helped Nibali.
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
- No team radio
- Smaller teams
- Smaller fields
- Longer races

Cycling is very traditional sport but needs some innovation with the rules.

For example, for stage races, team classification should be more important and some stages could be marked as "Team Stage" where the time of the 3rd rider of each would count for every rider on the team.

Some other (flat boring) stages could mark as "Point Stages" where the winner would be based on points scored during intermediate sprints similar to Points Race on the track. Have 10 sprints during a race, every 20km or so and you would see some action and extra motivation in the breaks.

Use of circuit courses and criteriums are also exciting for spectating and should be part of a stage race.

There is many ways to make it more exciting for the fans, we just need to be open to experiments and new ideas.

Quite honestly, I would also allow "substitutes" during stage races. Bring 9-12 riders, but only 6 can start any given stage.

I know that some of these ideas may sound a little crazy, but I'm sure that at least some of them would stick and provide excitement for the fans and sponsors.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,136
6
0
Parrulo said:
Let's face, you can't present 2 hours of racing like today and pretend like they were interesting. This kind of racing brings no one new to the sport and even drives some less enthusiastic people away, which only adds to the constant downfall of cycling over the past few years.

So what is wrong with cycling?

Imo pretty much everything is wrong. From the mentality of the people involved to the way things are run.

Without going into much detail right away, imo this are some of the things that should be changed:

1- Size of teams, they are imo too big which makes it easy to control the races. Smaller teams would also lead to more teams because of smaller rosters.
2- Point system is heavily biased towards placings. Everything out of a podium should be pretty much worthless and second and third much less rewarded than first.
3- Bonus points and prize money should be given to aggressive riders and teams. In this day of social media it would be pretty easy to have polls running during the race or shortly after, they could also use an uci selected jury to decide.
4- Length of races, particularly classics. 250km's are no longer an issue for your average trained professional athlete. This distances worked in the 60's/70's and 80's because only the top riders were real professionals.


Anyway what do you guys think?

what are you talking about> we are having the greatest cycling season start in years and the best race ever this year with gent wevelgem. agr is boring because of the course change. and it's just 1 race that was never interesting to begin with
 
Honestly, I never understood this cycling is so boring these days! which seem to be pretty common around here.
Sure, there are sometimes long periods of time when next to nothing happens - and then they all crash because they fall asleep due to the 'nothing happens' - but so there are in pretty much every sport. Come on; you can have a football/soccer match with literally nothing happening, not even a win. Cycling on the other hand always have something happening, even if that something is simply the sprint-teams bringing back the break and delivering their sprinters for the sprint.

Maybe I'm just lucky that I don't remember those "good ol' days." when cycling apparently was so much better, so instead of comparing with some magic days of yonder I look at cycling as it is now.
 
Ryo, if you deny there's a trend you are blind. Gent-Wevelgem was great because of an uncontrollable external factor - the weather. The Volta was a great race because the organizers screwed up and basically fooled the contenders into having to make up for their time loss - similar to the 2010 Giro (minus the screw up). When you leave the riders to their own devices, they produce a borefest more often than not.
 
BigMac said:
Curse you CN for logging me out while I was writting.

Lol happened to me many times. Now, I always copy my post before submitting. Pavlovian reflex. :p

BigMac said:
Much agree with the second paragraph. It's a sport turn business, run by businessmen, devoted to the coin. That's why I like watching Junior races live from time to time, as that is, I think, where the essence's still at. It's mainly organised by the locals and that popular and festive side of it is still well present; where tradition survives, at least. The uncompetitive events are mostly long gone, though. Our [shy] equivalent to your kermesse cycling started it's downfall in the late 90's and is now pretty much non existant. Mind it, cycling tradition in Portugal was never that notable, though.

Also went a lot to see U23 races, though lesser now since I'm in Brussels. And cyclocross events are still something regarding the sphere. Yeah the downfall of the kermess races was the late 90's. But these were real competition, here, you know (though there was a lot of corruption but everywhere). In the 70's all the big names were present and yet some more obscure riders could get their share of wins despite the top field. What an era it must have been! Today, I think we still have the Gullegem Koerse which attracts some top riders: Gilbert won it in his best year 2011, Cancellara, Meersman, Lampaert were present in recent years but that's virtually the only one. I have a book about the kermesses: this one http://www.boekenroute.nl/gasten/gtn1Bo ... ekID=35023. That's where I read that a member of the UCI wished to scrap it and Verbruggen had to calm him down. It stroke me.

BigMac said:
Here cyclists are extremely underpayed compared to most other nations and the higher ranks of the sport. I'd even say not overpayed considering the general scene of the country. No one in their right mind, in here, would choose to be a cyclist. Other than, of course, when they love what they do and are convinced in achieving a better life - that, in Portugal, never changed. I had recently made a map, which I seem to have lost, with the dispersion of Portuguese cyclists over the years, across the territory, reaching the predictable conclusion that most came from underdeveloped and rural zones. In fact, cycling is still despised by the wealthier groups and city people in general, in Portugal, because it is associated with the agrarian, provincial folk. Such honor is reserved to football and rugby. Not very nice to see them taking over and making it just another business of theirs.

Costa's parents' own some lands in Póvoa do Varzim and sometimes he goes there to help with plowing and planting. Machado comes from Vila Nova de Famalicão, a working area. The late Manoel the Oliveira described it as such: ''Rail communications between various towns in the North, cheerful and picturesque streets, events occurring in the local newspaper. Building - Holy House of Mercy Hospital, Town Hall, monument to Camilo Castelo Branco. Work in the fields. Churches. The romantic surroundings. Wiring industries, watches, buttons, tailoring and fabrics. Harvest, fair.''. It was true for Agostinho, who came from Torres Vedras, it's still true nowadays for a lot of riders. Not cherry picking. :)

Eheh I remember the picture of Rui planting onions with his parents (Trevim?) on the thread dedicated to him.:) Yes, Portugal is different, other countries probably too but here in Belgium, or in France or the Netherlands, it's been a general trend since the eighties that cycling was gradually taken over by the middle-class and the bourgeoisie. Fignon, LeMond or Hampsten were middle-class men. It's not rare to see cyclists being students now (Hermans, Wellens, etc.). Not that they are bad guys, though, it's not my point.

But oh boy! such a great read and great analysis from you. :) You've perfectly understood what kind of people traditionally despise cycling and why. You perfectly understood that cycling is traditionally associated with the land, with traditions, ... Wonderful!

Lol reminds me of a poster on a French forum saying: "The Left-wing does not like cycling: not enough multikulti, not enough urbane, not enough suburbian." :D (just his opinion, lol)

By the way, I have such a map, lol, mind you I did that for several countries. Might send it to you, one day. ;-)

Oh and Agostinho was such an amazing, underrated rider & tragic story. I read a lot about him too.

BigMac said:
Eheh, might be strongly anti clinic, but don't believe in fairy tails.

Never claimed that, dear mate. I fully respect your sig ;-), sometimes feel embarrassed because I did insult riders on here, lol. But here, we are not accusing any rider in particular. Surely, you understood that.
 
Imo this year was really good,lot of spectacular races, i really enjoyed till now.AGR was boring but this was just one drop in the ocean.The problem as i see it,is that the quality of the current riders seems to be lower than those of"the good old days". But really can't blame them for that.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
2
0
Echoes said:
I have a problem with race length, though, mate. You should know that by 1990, the UCI decided to cut short all semi-classics and several classics to 200/210km. All those that they did not grant World Cup label (before the ProTour, you had the UCI ranking which is more or less the CQ ranking and the World Cup gathering 10 single-day races). So that is why the Walloon Arrow was reduced to the 200k distance that it still has today. Same for Ghent-Wevelgem (though it's been increased for the last few years). Same for the Volk/Nieuwsblad, the GPE3, the Coppa Placci, the Giro di Lazio (real name of Roma Maxima), etc etc. All these races easily exceeded 200k in 1989. Let's not talk about Paris-Brussels, 280km or so in 1989, gradually shortened to a mere Brussels Classics since 2013. I've talked extensively about it.

Interesting, I didn't know that these races used to be so much longer, to be honest!

It would be great if some of these races could have a length and prestige that fits their history again.

I also think that adding more length in stage races would improve the abysmal situation stage racing tends to be in. Less silly steep climbs for the spectacle and more km's would make the races more open in my opinion. It's interesting how before the war, on crappy bikes and horrible road surfaces with ancient training methods (compared to today obviously) and without doping many editions of the TDF used to be more than a 1000 kilometers longer than they are nowadays; or even around 2000 kilometers for some really old editions. Of course going back to the really old days is a bit overly romantic; but it's just plain silly that the parcours has become much easier, despite the fact that cycling has become much easier (with better training methods, better equipment, beter roads et cetera).
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
Parrulo said:
..........
1- Size of teams, they are imo too big which makes it easy to control the races. Smaller teams would also lead to more teams because of smaller rosters.
...............

I agree with smallet teams. But more teams means that more support vehicles, more mechanics, or hotel rooms, and possibly more confusion at feed zones. In other words more complex logistics for teams and race organizers.

Asero831 said:
..........
2. No one cares about the point system. Im sure the veteran Gilbert does not know how many WT points are given to the 10th placer
.........................

Teams care about the points system currently because they determine if the team gets a world tour selection. And of course teams want to hire riders with lots of points.
 
avanti said:
Parrulo said:
..........
1- Size of teams, they are imo too big which makes it easy to control the races. Smaller teams would also lead to more teams because of smaller rosters.
...............

I agree with smallet teams. But more teams means that more support vehicles, more mechanics, or hotel rooms, and possibly more confusion at feed zones. In other words more complex logistics for teams and race organizers.

Asero831 said:
..........
2. No one cares about the point system. Im sure the veteran Gilbert does not know how many WT points are given to the 10th placer
.........................

Teams care about the points system currently because they determine if the team gets a world tour selection. And of course teams want to hire riders with lots of points.

I remember reading (perhaps on Inner Ring) that only the points of the top riders (top 10/12 signed?) count anyway, and as it is the World Tour cannot fill its slots so these excuses are not relevant just now.

Edit: http://inrng.com/2012/11/sporting-value-explained/
 
avanti said:
Parrulo said:
..........
1- Size of teams, they are imo too big which makes it easy to control the races. Smaller teams would also lead to more teams because of smaller rosters.
...............

I agree with smallet teams. But more teams means that more support vehicles, more mechanics, or hotel rooms, and possibly more confusion at feed zones. In other words more complex logistics for teams and race organizers.
If you exclude the feed zone problem,the amount of vehcihles at stage finishes/starts and the length of the caravan behind the peloton, then 30 teams of 5 still only comes to 150 compared to some races' 200 odd riders. This would lead to more racing for position as the teams want to be close to the front of the caravan with 60 team cars behind. With more pro conti teams, it would lead to bigger breaks meaning its more likely they come to the finish ahead of the peloton.
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
It's interesting how before the war, on crappy bikes and horrible road surfaces with ancient training methods (compared to today obviously) and without doping many editions of the TDF used to be more than a 1000 kilometers longer than they are nowadays; or even around 2000 kilometers for some really old editions. Of course going back to the really old days is a bit overly romantic; but it's just plain silly that the parcours has become much easier, despite the fact that cycling has become much easier (with better training methods, better equipment, beter roads et cetera).

And if it were just that, Marty ... Look at the classics in those early days. Paris-Brest-Paris, a bit less than 1200km, continuously (can't call it a single-day race they covered it in those days but it's still a classic lol and the most prestigious of all). Held every ten years. Still remains as a cyclotourist and audax race.

In 1920 the Walloon Louis Mottiat won Bordeaux-Paris-Bordeaux, which exceeded 1200km the longest ever "single-stage" race. He won Paris-Brest-Paris the year after. What a hard man he was. :eek:

Let's not forget Bordeaux-Paris, Queen of the Classics until the late 20's and the Bol d'or (24h race on the track)

Nevertheless it's really in the course of the 20's that the 250/300km standard generalised. The cycling calendar was getting heavier and heavier and that the riders had no more time to prepare for such endurance races. I think Karel Van Wijnendaele noticed that.
 
May 11, 2009
1,301
0
0
[quoteEchoes]............................

Let's not forget Bordeaux-Paris, Queen of the Classics until the late 20's ..............[/quote]

This race lasted until 1988 with the last three years not being motor paced. Winners include Kubler, Simpson, Bobet, and Anquetil. This was my favorite race until it ended.