Teams & Riders Jonas Vingegaard: The Chicken who eats Riis for breakfast

Page 36 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
So, yeah... guess I got a little irate with my "I don't give a *** about [various decades]."
Mostly, it just irks me how some people treat the past as if it was some wonderful glory days; cycling peaked in the 80es? Oh, come on! :rolleyes:

Cycling has never peaked. Cycling will never peak. Because talking about a "peak" would imply that there will be a time when it can never get better, and what a sad thought that would be.
I resent the "old days were better" notion as well. I think most of the time it's nostalgia for the times when we were younger and we looked better and not the actual fact. I've been around long enough to know that eras in sports that I found dull when they were present now look way better once they became the past (90's in F1 is a good example).

However - saying that "now" is better than the past is just as wrong as the other way around. And disregarding tradition has nothing to do with respecting the present. These can coexist. You can respect the past and the present at the same time...
 
However - saying that "now" is better than the past is just as wrong as the other way around. And disregarding tradition has nothing to do with respecting the present. These can coexist. You can respect the past and the present at the same time...
You should always strive to make "now" better than the past. Big difference between the following:

1: "Those days were amazing, so sad they'll never come back."
2: "Those days were amazing, these days will be even better."
 
Reactions: bNator
I think riders should generally make an effort to go to the World Championships. It’s an important race and if you stand a chance with the parcours or could be key in helping your team, you should go. If a rider is very fatigued and out of peak shape it makes sense to not go, but that should be the exception rather than the norm.

There may need to be some sort of incentives to help bring in more of the top riders. Prestige comes down to quality of the field in cycling, so having the best field year in and year out is also the best way to incentivize riders to enter.
The more the WC serves other purposes (than being the best race to crown the best cyclists), the more prestige it will lose.

As an example, I don't think Doha served the main purpose well.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Don't know how long you have been following cycling, but it was Armstrong who started snubbing Worlds, when he would have been selected by his national team. It was a poor example to follow and has done a disservice to cycling. It thus has nothing to do with the parcours, in this sense, but respect for the race (and, yes, I still think that should mean something for reasons already stated in previous posts). When Pantani was chosen for Italy, he went, no questions asked, which obviously wasn't going to be on a course for Cipollini. The point is that here Pog goes, Van Aert goes, Remco goes (with the exception of Van Aert, is the course any more suited to the others than Jonas and, if so, by how much? I mean it's not a 1980 Sallances or 1995 Diutama mountain goat's parcourse), while Johnas has been called up by Denmark, but refused to go. The Tour winner isn't going to represent his flag, but the runner up is, and the reason stated is lack of motivation (for Worlds?). Perhaps my expectations are just anchored in a past that is gone and unfortunately never coming back, but I can't approve of the Tour winner not showing up for this Worlds. And if the Worlds has gone to the Land Down Under, on the other side of the globe, twice in the last 12 years, well it's clearly an indication of how much, second only to Europe, Australia contributes to cycling's base development and financial stability. The Aussie fans thus deserved to have the Yellow Jersey amongst the field of contenders at the elite mens road race riding for the rainbow stripes.
AFAIK, both Ullrich and Pantani skipped the WC the year they won the Tour. Nor did Indurain in 1994.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
The more the WC serves other purposes (than being the best race to crown the best cyclists), the more prestige it will lose.

As an example, I don't think Doha served the main purpose well.
I agree, I guess my question is have the WCs been in a decline for a while or are they still as respected as ever? From what some posters are saying it looks like they’re losing prestige, but what is the combination of forces required to bring it back up?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I agree, I guess my question is have the WCs been in a decline for a while or are they still as respected as ever? From what some posters are saying it looks like they’re losing prestige, but what is the combination of forces required to bring it back up?
In the globalized era of cycling, perhaps for core nations like France, Belgium and Italy Worlds prestige has not diminished. In Italy, for example, to be called to the squadra azzurra still has a mystique about it, like entering into the "sacred precinct," into which the "profane" may not enter. In fact, in Italy Worlds is still considered part of cycling's Olympus and is covered in the press with consequent reverence. If Italy wins there is ecstatic enthusiasm, whereas if the team performs poorly the national federation, ds and riders all receive stern criticism in the pundits' reports.
 
In the globalized era of cycling, perhaps for core nations like France, Belgium and Italy Worlds prestige has not diminished. In Italy, for example, to be called to the squadra azzurra still has a mystique about it, like entering into the "sacred precinct," into which the "profane" may not enter. In fact, in Italy Worlds is still considered part of cycling's Olympus and is covered in the press with consequent reverence. If Italy wins there is ecstatic enthusiasm, whereas if the team performs poorly the national federation, ds and riders all receive stern criticism in the pundits' reports.
Yet Nibali declined to participate in 2017 to better focus on Lombardia.
 
AFAIK, both Ullrich and Pantani skipped the WC the year they won the Tour. Nor did Indurain in 1994.
Pantani had won the Giro and Tour in 1998 and the Worlds was in the Low Countries. The terrain was completely unsuitable to his characteristics and so I don't even think he factored into the national team that year. Indurain and Ullrich were missed at Palermo and San Sebastian respectively and were criticized over it as a result, but Armstrong made not participating routine after his "miraculous" transformation. Before Tour winners, as far as I racall in the 70s and 80s, hardly missed Worlds without good reason.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Giro-Vuelta is far more compatible with the WCRR than just the Tour (see Nibali in 2013). And this year's course is completely inappropriate for Vingegaard ...
I disagree that this course is more inappropriate for Vingegaard than Bergen was for Nibali or, for that matter, more appropriate for Tadej than Jonas. In any case, the case of Nibali in 2017 is completely different.
 
I disagree that this course is more inappropriate for Vingegaard than Bergen was for Nibali or, for that matter, more appropriate for Tadej than Jonas. In any case, the case of Nibali in 2017 is completely different.
Can I give you a piece of advice?
Watch the race Sunday. And I bet you won't even notice, Vingegaard isn't there. Because isn't it amazing how great racing isn't dependent on one guy, who just happens to have won an earlier - completely unrelated - race, being present?
 
Can I give you a piece of advice?
Watch the race Sunday. And I bet you won't even notice, Vingegaard isn't there. Because isn't it amazing how great racing isn't dependent on one guy, who just happens to have won an earlier - completely unrelated - race, being present?
I'd like to think certain positions are comprehensible enough in terms of why they were made, even though we might not agree with them. However, your response has demonstrated that you have entirely missed the point.It's not about how great the race will be in his absence, but how for the sport how having all the marquis riders this year, which includes the winner of the Tour on this course would have been better for the spectacle, event sponsors and fans. It's really not that difficult to understand and I bet every UCI official, cycling promotor, race sponsor and especially Aussie (and non) enthusiast roadside would agree.
 
It's not about how great the race will be in his absence, but how for the sport how having all the marquis riders this year, which includes the winner of the Tour on this course would have been better for the spectacle, event sponsors and fans. It's really not that difficult to understand and I bet every UCI official, cycling promotor, race sponsor and especially Aussie (and non) enthusiast roadside would agree.
But I just don't see how his presense is important for the spectacle...
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Where there is no hope, there is no cause.
Yeah, you! Too focused on the "Who".

Seems all you'd get would be when the speaker at the sign in could call him out as the Tour Winner, and then... we might not see him for the rest of the race. I'd still much rather our spots go to eight riders, who are all motivated. And yes; of course motivation is important! No matter what you seem to think...

Anyway; I'll be looking forward to seeing him in Croatia, and then on to Lombardia! :D
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Yeah, you! Too focused on the "Who".
Look, it's about building the hype, creating interest and expectation. It's just basic human psychology and marketing. I remember being on the Col d'Eze during the last day of Paris-Nice. I can assure you I was there to see as many stars at the time as possibile and that's what fans want at Worlds (and if they don't, they haven't been following cycling long enough).
 
Look, it's about building the hype, creating interest and expectation. It's just basic human psychology and marketing. I remember being on the Col d'Eze during the last day of Paris-Nice. I can assure you I was there to see as many stars at the time as possibile and that's what fans want at Worlds (and if they don't, they haven't been following cycling long enough).
Are you familiar with the sport's practice at all?
What you're talking about makes sense for novice fans and those accidentally intrigued.
It's on par with the claim the Tour winner should race Paris - Roubaix.
 
Are you familiar with the sport's practice at all?
What you're talking about makes sense for novice fans and those accidentally intrigued.
It's on par with the claim the Tour winner should race Paris - Roubaix.
Not the same and if you think so that's pretty amateurish. I'm well aware of the sport's practice, it's evolution,etc., but don't necessarily have to applaud everything. And frankly I don't get the offense felt by some, because I think the Tour champion not riding this Worlds is a negative for the race and the sport. You don't feel that way fine, but don't deride me because of it.
 
Not the same and if you think so that's pretty amateurish. I'm well aware of the sport's practice, it's evolution,etc., but don't necessarily have to applaud everything. And frankly I don't get the offense felt by some, because I think the Tour champion not riding this Worlds is a negative for the race and the sport. You don't feel that way fine, but don't deride me because of it.
Your opinion is fine. You're entitled to it.
Arguments, though, are unveiling ignorance.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY