Is cycling dying as spectator a sport?

[Tonton]

I like this thread and the posts. The take on cycling's popularity and its perception could be a thread of its own. Cycling used to be a poor-people sport, cars were expensive, working class folks would ride a bike to work, there were no school buses, kids rode a bike to school. Racing to make it to work on time, racing against classmates, with dreams of Bobet, Coppi...everyone could identify. That was the golden age of cycling. In some parts of Europe, cycling is still viewed as a blue collar thing.

Back to the thread, I'm all for smaller teams, definitely get rid of earpieces, but I wouldn't mess with distances.

The mention of kermesses brings some thoughts to mind: what I liked about small races growing up was that at the end of every lap, a local business would sponsor a prize, making the race super interesting. Many attacks, and in a way many winners. Then, why not split money and glory/points? You win PR, great: you get a bunch of points, you get the fame. And along the way, maybe 200m after each cobblestone sector, have intermediate competitions, with the bulk of the money for the taking. The same format would work well at the Ronde too.

Favorite would save their legs for the finish, smaller guys would make it their objective, one of them may hang on to win...

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

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.

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.

I knew about Bordeaux-Paris before, but not about the others.

It's a shame this type of racing is lost. Even if it's not realistic to return to these types of things, it would be much better if they at least made every classic 250-300km again. I knew (partly because of you) that Flèche used to be way more prestigious, but the other I found that it's longest editions was actually 300km! Do you know if other classics back in the day used to be 300km as well? Nowadays obviously the only race with such a length is MSR, but I always wondered whether back in the day one day races used to be much longer, considering even old editions of at least the TDF (but I guess other stage races too) used to have 300km stages.

 

[nayr497]

I've been an avid road cyclist since 2003, probably been following pro road racing since around 2009, been following cross for a few years too. Went to Louisville in 2012, going to Richmond in September.

I grew up watching most American sports (football, basketball, soccer too, as I played my whole life, some tennis) but now all of them have become such corporate orgies to sell people cars, phones, and lite beer that I've totally written them off.

I LOVE professional cycling. I don't care who wins, I don't care if someone is not clean. I just like the spectacle, the scenery, the thrill. I don't want to see it become more popular. I also enjoy ice hockey and the NHL is getting more popular...and worse. Season is too long, the game is changing, the heart isn't there.

Anyway, I love pro cycling, I don't care if I'm one of 28 people watching it, I love it.

 

[NairoQ]

Anyway, I love pro cycling, I don't care if I'm one of 28 people watching it, I love it.

The thing is, if you and 27 of us are the only ones watching, there won't be much to watch anymore. I would like cycling to become more popular, because that's the only way it can keep growing as a sport and make sure enough riders are willing to make the sacrifices. But personally I don't think cycling is getting more and more boring, it's just the good races we've seen over the last couple of years everyone compares with. Really, there won't be more than 3 'memorable' races a year, just because that's what makes them memorable. The rest of the year should be exciting enough for fans, as an interesting thing in cycling is that you can almost never be certain how a race will turn out.

 

[Gigs_98]

I completely agree with the team sizes as well as the race design. But I think the important thing is not how long a race is, its more about the profile. Maybe stages like this years alp d hue stage are really too short but other ones like the cervinia stage of this years giro wouldn't become worse if you make it 50 km shorter

 

[Michele]

Before talking about how to change the sport (I agree it needs some changes although Im not sure which ones) I would focus first on good marketing.
Im talking about the fact that many races, even big ones like Giro, don't have a nicely developed websites, updated routes, apps etc; all stuff that have a minimun cost but which are a must nowdays.

 

[Echoes]

I know that Bordeaux-Paris ended in 1988 but for most historians, it was really until the late 20's that it was the most coveted yearly classic. Every top rider of the time wanted it. Afterwards, it only relied on the prestige of being the oldest of all but only a handful of top riders were interested, I think. The field was really poor for the last two decades. While I'm a Van Springel fan.

It's a shame this type of racing is lost. Even if it's not realistic to return to these types of things, it would be much better if they at least made every classic 250-300km again. I knew (partly because of you) that Flèche used to be way more prestigious, but the other I found that it's longest editions was actually 300km! Do you know if other classics back in the day used to be 300km as well? Nowadays obviously the only race with such a length is MSR, but I always wondered whether back in the day one day races used to be much longer, considering even old editions of at least the TDF (but I guess other stage races too) used to have 300km stages.

Sorry for the late answer.

Actually, among the classics that are still existing today, I think they all had pretty much the length. Only the first ever Tour of Flanders was 324k in 1913 but we should bear in mind that that Tour of Flanders was not exactly the race it later became. It had a very local field and even the best Belgians of the time were not all there. Many classics of the time were superior. Same for Liège-Bastogne.

When it was created in 1896, Paris-Roubaix was actually known for its rather short distance - for the standard of the time (280k). That might be one of the reasons it stayed.

But most of the single-day races of that era that had the best field and that were often very long have now disappeared and hence are forgotten, unfortunately. One of them is Paris-Rennes. Between 1927 & 1939, it was a really decent classic that I would rate equal to Ghent-Wevelgem today. Some of the big names of the times won it: http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.eu/disparues/anc_paris_rennes.php

In 1935 - arguably the best edition, I think I read that Speicher surprised his opponents in a feed zone -, the distance was 335km.

Also about the endurance races, I was only mentioning the most famous of them but there used to be several of them. Actually most of them only had one edition: Marseille-Paris in 1902 (900+ km), Paris-Nantes-Caen-Rouen-Paris in 1892 (1000+km), Paris - Saint-Malo in 1894 (400+km). And the Italians had the Gran Fondo (~600km), some 9 editions between 1894 & 1979: http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.eu/disparues/anc_grand%20fondo_seicento.php.

However in more recent days, Paris-Brussels also exceeded the 300km mark in the eighties. 301km between 1983 & 1986, a peak at 309km in 1987, 293 in 1988, 294 in 1989 (longest race that year!!) and in 1990, reduced to 246km (due to what I said above, but for geographical reasons, the UCI still conceded a 200+km length to that race). Before 1983, the race length was usually 286km long with some peaks above the 290 mark and even above the 300 mark too.

Oh and if I get back to "your" period: systematically above the 400km mark between 1908 & 1926, 300+km from 1927 to 1955 and in 1907. So that answers your question, I think.
http://www.dewielersite.net/db2/wielersite/wedstrijdfiche.php?wedstrijdid=358

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Thanks for the answer! That does explain quite a bit

I guess the classics that survived are the ones with a shorter length when that type of length became the norm. Even though going back to the really old days might not be realistic, it wouldn't hurt to have all real classics be 250km - 300km again. Preferably with a few more that are around the 300km mark. Increasing the length and difficulty would make perfect sense, considering the roads, equipment, training et cetera has made cycling easier during recent decades.

 

[Tonton]

Before talking about how to change the sport (I agree it needs some changes although Im not sure which ones) I would focus first on good marketing.
Im talking about the fact that many races, even big ones like Giro, don't have a nicely developed websites, updated routes, apps etc; all stuff that have a minimun cost but which are a must nowdays.

This is sooooooooo true!!!

 

[Pantani_lives]

There are two trends in modern cycling: the broadcasts are getting longer, and the finals are getting shorter.

 

[The Hegelian]

Here's Vaughters' take on it:

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/video/435483715668/Vaughters-on-the-state-of-cycling

If I was running a team or employed in any way on the world tour, I might agree.

But as a fan I completely disagree. The moment that cycling shifts from being relatively idiosyncratic to a highly formulaic organised sporting-entertainment commodity, is the moment I drop off forever.