I'd take the 15 seconds. In athletics, the 100 metre sprint is also much more fun to watch than the 1500 metres race imo.I'd rather 5 minutes of suspense over 15 seconds.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I'd take the 15 seconds. In athletics, the 100 metre sprint is also much more fun to watch than the 1500 metres race imo.I'd rather 5 minutes of suspense over 15 seconds.
One warm beer's better than four cool.I'd take the 15 seconds. In athletics, the 100 metre sprint is also much more fun to watch than the 1500 metres race imo.
Top Tip: play those 15 seconds by repeatedly playing 1 second and then pausing for 20 seconds. Hey Presto - you can watch Fleche Wallone 101 times a yearI'd rather 5 minutes of suspense over 15 seconds.
And less than 2 weeks after the tourThey've never done it the week after winning the World Championships.
And less than 2 weeks after the tour
Sure, but the issue is that there is so little suspense because the field wins every single time. And in many editions there are no late attacks at all.Okay, I have to ask. Why would it have been a better edition of FW in 2018 if they hadn't caught Nibali and Schachmann?
The catch was made on the final 500 metres, so the race would have been exactly the same, apart from the fact that we wouldn't have gotten an intense finale between the best puncheurs in the world but just a simple thumping of Nibali by Schachmann.
I think it's a massive fallacy by many cycling fans purely to judge the intrigue of a race by whether the race ended in a sprint or with a break. For me, it's just as much about the battle between the break and the field, and that can be exciting even if the field ends up winning. That doesn't nullify the intrigue of the race and the battle between break and field.
Or is it just because people forget and see, okay 1) Alaphilippe, 2) Valverde, so it must have been like any year?
Very different level of depth to the field in women's cycling. It's more comparable to Merckx day with the level of race favourites. Plus VdB is a godWell, having checked the result for the women's race... it didn't seem to have slowed down Van Der Breggen much.
White socks are the only way to go with black shoes.Black shoes and white socks on Wurf looks a bit naff. someone give him a slap.
Hong Kong action cinema style.White socks are the only way to go with black shoes.
VdBreggen rode a 3-week grand tour before Worlds?Well, having checked the result for the women's race... it didn't seem to have slowed down Van Der Breggen much.
Black shoes and white socks on Wurf looks a bit naff. someone give him a slap.
Not three week but week and a half, and won, so went deeper than some of these guysVdBreggen rode a 3-week grand tour before Worlds?
VdBreggen rode a 3-week grand tour before Worlds?
And they're so underpaid for everything they do that they become ridiculously lean.Let's be real: Cyclists wear tight lycra on which some company's logo's are printed. They wear ridiculous looking helmets on their heads, oversized sunglasses and long socks. There's just no way to look good with that, that's wishful thinking.
Yeah decent 20 days of racing for AnnaNot three week but week and a half, and won, so went deeper than some of these guys
Okay, I have to ask. Why would it have been a better edition of FW in 2018 if they hadn't caught Nibali and Schachmann?
The catch was made on the final 500 metres, so the race would have been exactly the same, apart from the fact that we wouldn't have gotten an intense finale between the best puncheurs in the world but just a simple thumping of Nibali by Schachmann.
I think it's a massive fallacy by many cycling fans purely to judge the intrigue of a race by whether the race ended in a sprint or with a break. For me, it's just as much about the battle between the break and the field, and that can be exciting even if the field ends up winning. That doesn't nullify the intrigue of the race and the battle between break and field.
Or is it just because people forget and see, okay 1) Alaphilippe, 2) Valverde, so it must have been like any year?
I suppose Betancur is the member of the nobility then?And they're so underpaid for everything they do that they become ridiculously lean.
Feudalism, I tell you.