Is Pro Racing Less Exciting?

[ingsve]

Not sure about the lack of Clinic help being a factor. If anything, I'd say clinic stuff tends to raise and equalize rider levels towards the average, which would make team tactics more effective and cycling more predictable. After all, people in the 90s already complained about cycling being more boring than in the 80s (before EPO changed everything).

Well, part of the reason why people felt the 90s was more boring might be because a rider like Indurain won a lot of the GTs which makes it less variable. In the 80s no one won more than a couple GTs of the same type in a row which makes it less predictable which is more enjoyable. Indurain was also said to be a boring rider since he mostly defended himself in the mountains and crushed in the ITTs.

Also raising riders ability tends not to bring them towards an average but rather the opposite. The higher the level riders are on the bigger the variance tends to be which makes the gaps bigger. I know that there used to be huge time diffrences in GC at least during the early 90s when Indurain dominated.

 

[Boeing]

19 days of tempo group riding, a TT and a sprint up a hill = TDF

 

[Jancouver]

Is it more boring? Yes

Why? Team High Road

BS. Just look at the TDU. They were unable to control the race. We need smaller teams and more time bonuses. TDU was exciting to the last mile because of the time bonuses and also because High Road wasnt strong enough to bring back the successful breakaway. If they had another horse in their team, the race would be over after few days.

TDF needs teams of 6 and more time bonuses. 1 minute winner. 30 sec for mid race sprints.

 

[mombus]

Everything was always better in the past... to those who really, really love something (like you said: music, sports, works of fiction, television, movies....EVERYTHING). It's called nostalgia. It always seems like everything you dedicate your mind to should be better and more exciting. Do you really not think that 15 years from now people will be talking about Schleck and Contador, Gilbert and all of the Belgians coming up, the coming together of Cervelo and Garmin, Basso going for the Tour, Vaughters, Riis, Cavendish, the rise of Team Sky, Cancellara and the nonsense over his insane attacks, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? Because they will, and they will talk about all of it as if this was a golden age... because the norm then will involve enhanced humans, bio-engineering etc. It is all just sentiment. Try to enjoy the present. It's fun. This is a great time for cycling.

 

[jaylew]

BS. Just look at the TDU. They were unable to control the race. We need smaller teams and more time bonuses. TDU was exciting to the last mile because of the time bonuses and also because High Road wasnt strong enough to bring back the successful breakaway. If they had another horse in their team, the race would be over after few days.

TDF needs teams of 6 and more time bonuses. 1 minute winner. 30 sec for mid race sprints.

I love the idea of smaller teams. Harder for teams to control, more teams, probably more exciting racing. And less chance of a Geox-like snub. You could have 28 teams of 7 instead of 22 teams of 9. Add Geox, Bretagne, Androni, Farnese, Skil, and Colombia to the mix. Mmm, that sounds yummy. Of course I have no idea what that would do logistically, if anything.

 

[ingsve]

I love the idea of smaller teams. Harder for teams to control, more teams, probably more exciting racing. And less chance of a Geox-like snub. You could have 28 teams of 7 instead of 22 teams of 9. Add Geox, Bretagne, Androni, Farnese, Skil, and Colombia to the mix. Mmm, that sounds yummy. Of course I have no idea what that would do logistically, if anything.

Ya, logistics is the main problem. If they allowed 28 teams instead that would mean 12 more team cars in the caravan and hundreds of more beds needed to house all the extra crew from the six new teams each night.

 

[jaylew]

Yeah, I was thinking the team car thing might be an issue. I'd settle for 24-25 teams of 8.

All the best teams get in and 6-7 wildcards for ASO so they can invite as many French teams as they want.

 

[Oldman]

When the big boys play, they play I agree. I get the feeling the smaller teams smell victory as the old school moves out.....More riders believe in taking a chance and reap the rewards or not, against last centuries dictators...um....sorry, director sportives and their grandiose superstars .

You got it- the opera of chaos that cycling should be. It creates the epics and heros that we all revere. Of course I'm talking about a fantasy that only exists in the minds of the faithful but a little uncertainty about outcome could help that fantasy along. Would that be bad? Watch Didier and Bode duke it out at Kitzbuehl and tell me that drama isn't compelling.

 

[Chef_Vodnik]

You got it- the opera of chaos that cycling should be. It creates the epics and heros that we all revere. Of course I'm talking about a fantasy that only exists in the minds of the faithful but a little uncertainty about outcome could help that fantasy along. Would that be bad? Watch Didier and Bode duke it out at Kitzbuehl and tell me that drama isn't compelling.

Wat? Care to give a link to that?

 

[rhubroma]

of course it is.it all began with those who have chosen cycling to be jesus of professional sports,then all the tests and scandals,cyclists dissing each others,accepting every stupid rule,whereabouts and so on.all other sports are getting more and more exciting,cycling on the other hand is going down big time.'93-'06 remains the golden age no matter what they say.

93-06 the Golden Years? Please, I beg to differ. This is precisely when it began to get boring, first with Indurain, then Armstrong. We had the exceptional relief of Pantani, an old style scalatore, however the 80's years were really the fantastic ones. The sport arrived at just the right balance between tradition and innovation. After that EPO and super-teams and "super-men" and money took over, the fantasy went out the door and today we arrive at the pathetic farce, with the current generation of UCI morons to boot running the show, globalization of events, etc, that have taken away anything of the epic and romantic at the events.

 

[jens_attacks]

rhubroma i was talking only from my personal view.i watch cycling just since 98-99 so it might be the nostalgia and the lack of knowledge of '80's cycling.

 

[Derrick]

"The opera of chaos", what a great description. Is pro. racing less exciting? Undoubtedly. I've just been watching tapes going back to 1962. Endless attacks, contenders attacking with 4 hours and 4 climbs to go forcing anyone with pretensions to respond and risk being ridden into oblivion. Godefroot coming 3rd on the Alpe, Sercu making 100 mile lone breaks. I don't see Cavendish volunteering for that do you. Even Sels and Reybroeck, not known for their generous contribution to the race, had the decency to appear in a break now and again. The Belgian racing scene{the only one I know} was enlivened by the endless en musette pros or the loose amalgamations of local riders, all with different sponsors who weren't afraid to deliver a good kicking to the stars and did so frequently. In an age of Merckx,Godefroot, Verbeeck, Van Springel who remembers riders like Roger Loysch, Richard Buckaki, Herman Vrijders or Fernand Hermie all of whom managed to win half a dozen races a year despite the opposition.

 

[uphillstruggle]

This is the problem. Spain have for so long been the Igor Antón of football, exciting, impressive, but collapsing in a heap before the end.

This post amused me a lot. It would, however, make England the Cadel Evans of football: awful to watch, overly defensive and despite bags of talent at hand always blowing good opportunities to win big.

And now too old to win big.

 

[rhubroma]

rhubroma i was talking only from my personal view.i watch cycling just since 98-99 so it might be the nostalgia and the lack of knowledge of '80's cycling.

Well their is certainly some nostalgia at work, however, not merely.

Over the last two decades we've seen the speeds go up so much, significantly as a result of peds, partly as a result of more refined training methods and tech advances, that this has made it all just so predictable and script like. Attacks from afar are much more risky, so that anything daring is just snuffed before it can even be attempted. Riding is done to deter attacks by teams where everyone is so f-in strong that it usually works, which has made the races less exciting. Sure we have exceptions, Pantani on the Galibier, Flandis on testosterone, but these are few and far between.

I starting following and practicing cycling in the early 80's. Everything was different, more spontaneous, less robotic. Even the fact that helmets weren't worn, when safety wasn't such an obsession, and high-tech eye ware was unknown, made the athletic gesture seem more natural, human, free, etc.

Yet it was the first modern decade of cycling just the same. Lycra was introduced, new time trial equipment was tried, the team kit reflected a new modern sensibility. For the first time the Irish and Americans produced real champions, from Kelly and Roche to Lemond and Hampsten. Just the same the French were still, at times, the best in their own race between Hinault and Fignon, while Italy, Belgium and Spain always kept pace. The Colombians seemed like the greatest threats in the mountains, while for the first time serious events took place in Ireland and the US. The sport was growing, but hadn't reached the corporate levels it would during the Armstrong era, nor did we have the superteams to shut the races down before they got started. And it still had a respect for all the great legends of Europe that had made the sport the greatest public spectacle on its roads since the turn of the XX century. Doping played a role in the game, but it wasn't the arms race yet that it would become in the 90's and 00's.

There was still room for fantasy and daring attacks like in the previous decades going back to the 60's, when pro sport began its first push towards the modern era, yet the speeds were increasing, the athletes and their equipment becoming more streamlined and avant guarde, but not ballistic and space-aged.

All of that has been destroyed, or most of it, by the total lack of freedom that athletes are given to interpret the races for themselves, invent, improvise (and, yes, race radios play a role here, sorry), but also because of the general corporatization of the sport (like everything else), where only wins count and sponsorship investment dollars means that there is no margin for any rider independence outside of team orders.

The result is that the sport has advanced in speed, efficiency and strength, but the entertainment and aesthetic value of the events have been decidedly lessened. IMO.

 

[L'arriviste]

It's just cognitive bias a lot of the time, I suppose, that makes us believe that earlier days were better days. Personally, I loved '85-'91 - Lemond, the mature years of the "French Foreign Legion", mancrush on Fondriest, that sort of thing - but that's when I was also a kid. It's like Christmas, really. Not as much fun for grown-ups.

 

[Bike Boy]

Some would say that was boring. Not me I just love watching people who are good at what they do. I can watch hour after hour of cycling and never get bored... my one complaint in Canada compared to the UK is that it's harder to get coverage. Although my wife and kids aren't complaining they get to see more of Dad!

I feel the same way, although I'm guilty of dobbelt standards. For example I never loved Ricco for some reason, he never struck me as a very trustworthy guy I guess. On the contrary I absolutely love Gilbert. In theory Gilbert could be dirty as hell, but he's got that hard working mentality I love. And talking about hard working mentality it's hard not to think of Merckx.

And by the way, I'm glad to hear that the family peace is preserved

 

[rhubroma]

It's just cognitive bias a lot of the time, I suppose, that makes us believe that earlier days were better days. Personally, I loved '85-'91 - Lemond, the mature years of the "French Foreign Legion", mancrush on Fondriest, that sort of thing - but that's when I was also a kid. It's like Christmas, really. Not as much fun for grown-ups.

While superficially it would seem rational to concur, however, I do think there reaches a time in any human activity when we arrive at a "high point," beyond which one gets closer to, if not surpasses, the expiration date.

Perhaps I am overly biased toward the 80's, though it still seams to me that, if we can use a teleological model, cycling enjoyed its true epic age of heroes and infancy during the pre-WWII era, followed by a push toward maturity and modernization that saw the first tentative steps in the 50's and peaked in the 80's. Afterward we know the rest of the novel, and it is filled with a decadence that can only indicate a downward turn, an aging effect.

All the evidence points to this interpretation. In this sense I was probably just lucky to have seen it, like so many others, before the decline began.

 

[Derrick]

It has been mentioned that races are faster and of course there is the better roads means you go faster which means better tyres which means you go faster which means bigger gears which means etc. etc. However many races are not faster. The "Sunday in Hell" Marc De Meyer 1976 P-R was about 1kph faster than last years and if you care to go back to Van Steenbergen's 1948 win it was about 3kph faster although on a shorter course. No one has mentioned the fact that breaks are not defended any longer and I know it frequently comes up when riders of my era talk. I've lost count of the "full and frank" discussions I had when infiltrating chasing groups but you had to be very aware of reprisals. I remember having difficulty in a break with a particular rider just messing about when the rider behind me who must have been 4 stone heavier than me tapped me on the shoulder, moved me out of the way, drew level with the offender and just kicked his handlebars away.
While I have a great deal of sympathy for the opinion of Libertine Seguros regarding HTC my question is why do the other teams let them do it?

 

[FignonLeGrand]

This post amused me a lot. It would, however, make England the Cadel Evans of football: awful to watch, overly defensive and despite bags of talent at hand always blowing good opportunities to win big.

And now too old to win big.

What this is madness, as an Eglishman with just about an equal love of cycling and football I couldnt agree less. Cadel just was world champion and put up one of the finest displays as the Champ seen in the past 2 decades last year. England havnt got close to winning anything in years and the last time they did, they followed it up by having their captain almost arrested for theft at the next world cup. Cadel may often fall at the last furlong, however he has a far grater Palmares than the England football equivalent, and frankly most other Pro Cyclists. He is more like German football, quite dull (last WC excepted) but always there or there abouts.

 

[FignonLeGrand]

93-06 the Golden Years? Please, I beg to differ. This is precisely when it began to get boring, first with Indurain, then Armstrong. We had the exceptional relief of Pantani, an old style scalatore, however the 80's years were really the fantastic ones. The sport arrived at just the right balance between tradition and innovation. After that EPO and super-teams and "super-men" and money took over, the fantasy went out the door and today we arrive at the pathetic farce, with the current generation of UCI morons to boot running the show, globalization of events, etc, that have taken away anything of the epic and romantic at the events.

Its always s hard to comapre era's. Different technology, teams, approaches. However whether its the 50, 60, 70s or 80S one thing is clear, they were all better than the 90's or early 0's. My god Rijs won the TDF!!! Simply awful

 

[uphillstruggle]

What this is madness, as an Eglishman with just about an equal love of cycling and football I couldnt agree less. Cadel just was world champion and put up one of the finest displays as the Champ seen in the past 2 decades last year. England havnt got close to winning anything in years and the last time they did, they followed it up by having their captain almost arrested for theft at the next world cup. Cadel may often fall at the last furlong, however he has a far grater Palmares than the England football equivalent, and frankly most other Pro Cyclists. He is more like German football, quite dull (last WC excepted) but always there or there abouts.

It's a slightly difficult argument to get anywhere with seen as though it's an analogy but anyway; Cadel has a bad style, which I think the England football team have compared to many other teams around. I stick by my point about them both being needlessly defensive (although Evans is getting better). I also feel that both Cadel and the England football team went through a period where they had the talent at their disposal and lack of far superior competitors to win very big and didn't. 07 & 08 tour de France for Evans, tournaments such as world cup 1990 & 2002 and Euro 1996 come to mind for England. The Analogy runs out of steam as there is only a competition very two years for a European national side whereas Cadel has numerous chances in any given year.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

England are more like Damiano Cunego, the GT rider. Once upon a time they managed to get a win, and get continually trumped up as one, but ultimately aren't good enough to get any more than a top 8 at best, can pull out a cracking performance for a big win once in a while (La Pandera, for example) but will also fall apart in a pressure situation.

I like the comparison of Germany and Cadel Evans - very successful, not very exciting, but have really become more entertaining to watch in the last couple of years. Unfortunately the German football side is also full of youngsters with zeal and verve, while Cadel doesn't have time on his side.

Spain are a bit like Valverde the GT rider, in that after years of promise but blowing it, they won in the end by becoming more boring than they ever were before. That and half of them were involved in Puerto, of course

 

[uphillstruggle]

England are more like Damiano Cunego, the GT rider. Once upon a time they managed to get a win, and get continually trumped up as one, but ultimately aren't good enough to get any more than a top 8 at best, can pull out a cracking performance for a big win once in a while (La Pandera, for example) but will also fall apart in a pressure situation.

I like the comparison of Germany and Cadel Evans - very successful, not very exciting, but have really become more entertaining to watch in the last couple of years. Unfortunately the German football side is also full of youngsters with zeal and verve, while Cadel doesn't have time on his side.

Spain are a bit like Valverde the GT rider, in that after years of promise but blowing it, they won in the end by becoming more boring than they ever were before. That and half of them were involved in Puerto, of course

I could buy in to you Cunego=England comparison but Cunego has verve and goes down with a bag, England are a wet lettuce. A English comedian before the world cup compared supporting England to the guy who keeps going back to a cheating girl friend who promises she's changed only for her to go out and cheat on you the the next day.

Cadel Evans=Germany no way. Germany win to much for that to work. I prefer Menchov=Germany. They look good but not great; they can go most of the competition without really being noticed yet regularly win/finish high.

Valverde is spot on.

This is a fun game even if not in spirit of the thread.

 

[Mambo95]

Andy Schleck = Holland. Loads of talent, occasionally puts in a great performance, but just as likely to get drunk, chase girls and get sent home.

 

[marinoni]

Well their is certainly some nostalgia at work, however, not merely.

Over the last two decades we've seen the speeds go up so much, significantly as a result of peds, partly as a result of more refined training methods and tech advances, that this has made it all just so predictable and script like. Attacks from afar are much more risky, so that anything daring is just snuffed before it can even be attempted. Riding is done to deter attacks by teams where everyone is so f-in strong that it usually works, which has made the races less exciting. Sure we have exceptions, Pantani on the Galibier, Flandis on testosterone, but these are few and far between.

I starting following and practicing cycling in the early 80's. Everything was different, more spontaneous, less robotic. Even the fact that helmets weren't worn, when safety wasn't such an obsession, and high-tech eye ware was unknown, made the athletic gesture seem more natural, human, free, etc.

Yet it was the first modern decade of cycling just the same. Lycra was introduced, new time trial equipment was tried, the team kit reflected a new modern sensibility. For the first time the Irish and Americans produced real champions, from Kelly and Roche to Lemond and Hampsten. Just the same the French were still, at times, the best in their own race between Hinault and Fignon, while Italy, Belgium and Spain always kept pace. The Colombians seemed like the greatest threats in the mountains, while for the first time serious events took place in Ireland and the US. The sport was growing, but hadn't reached the corporate levels it would during the Armstrong era, nor did we have the superteams to shut the races down before they got started. And it still had a respect for all the great legends of Europe that had made the sport the greatest public spectacle on its roads since the turn of the XX century. Doping played a role in the game, but it wasn't the arms race yet that it would become in the 90's and 00's.

There was still room for fantasy and daring attacks like in the previous decades going back to the 60's, when pro sport began its first push towards the modern era, yet the speeds were increasing, the athletes and their equipment becoming more streamlined and avant guarde, but not ballistic and space-aged.

All of that has been destroyed, or most of it, by the total lack of freedom that athletes are given to interpret the races for themselves, invent, improvise (and, yes, race radios play a role here, sorry), but also because of the general corporatization of the sport (like everything else), where only wins count and sponsorship investment dollars means that there is no margin for any rider independence outside of team orders.

The result is that the sport has advanced in speed, efficiency and strength, but the entertainment and aesthetic value of the events have been decidedly lessened. IMO.

Really great post. You articulated exactly what I've been thinking.