Milan-Sanremo underrated !

[Andy99]

One thing I'd like to address is that my quote that started this whole thing off was not intended to disparage Milan-San Remo.

I was simply making the point that Milan-San Remo cannot be considered a hilly classic, because it simply ISN'T. What makes Milan-San Remo what it is is distance; after which a smallish climb becomes a killer. The Cipressa and Poggio are easier than almost any climb in the Ardennes Classics, way easier than the climbs in the Giro di Lombardia and easier than the climbs in San Sebastián. You get tougher climbs in myriad one day races all around Europe. But those don't come after you already have 260+ km in your legs. I was addressing the argument that Zabel was a good hilly classic rider pointing at his Sanremo results by saying that Sanremo isn't a hilly classic.

Two small hills do not make Milan-San Remo a hilly classic, just as two short cobbled sections do not make Liège-Bastogne-Liège a cobbled classic. Doesn't stop it being a classic though.

About spot on that, I'd say. (never thought I'd say that!)

For a sprinter to win though still earns serious respect.

 

[El Pistolero]

One thing I'd like to address is that my quote that started this whole thing off was not intended to disparage Milan-San Remo.

I was simply making the point that Milan-San Remo cannot be considered a hilly classic, because it simply ISN'T. What makes Milan-San Remo what it is is distance; after which a smallish climb becomes a killer. The Cipressa and Poggio are easier than almost any climb in the Ardennes Classics, way easier than the climbs in the Giro di Lombardia and easier than the climbs in San Sebastián. You get tougher climbs in myriad one day races all around Europe. But those don't come after you already have 260+ km in your legs. I was addressing the argument that Zabel was a good hilly classic rider pointing at his Sanremo results by saying that Sanremo isn't a hilly classic.

Two small hills do not make Milan-San Remo a hilly classic, just as two short cobbled sections do not make Liège-Bastogne-Liège a cobbled classic. Doesn't stop it being a classic though.

I was thinking the same when he used that quote to start this topic.

But I'm actually of the opinion that MSR is a little bit overrated especially if a sprinter wins it. If a non-sprinter can win it than I'm highly impressed by it(Cancellara for example)

The classics I like the most are the ones that can't be dominated, and MSR can certainly be dominated if you're one of the best sprinters.

Races like LBL and P-R are a little bit more random(perhaps not in the final result, but what happens during the race it self), that's what I like about them.
I mean, who expected Hushovd to crash out on the final cobblestone sector at P-R 2009?

You have to do your best to crash in the final of MSR

 

[El Pistolero]

About spot on that, I'd say. (never thought I'd say that!)

For a sprinter to win though still earns serious respect.

I think it earns more respect if a non-sprinter wins it.

 

[Andy99]

I think it earns more respect if a non-sprinter wins it.

Probably equal.

Difficult for a non-sprinter because of the sprinters teams control - though equally difficult for a sprinter to cope with the tempo up the Cipressa and Poggio.

 

[El Pistolero]

Probably equal.

Difficult for a non-sprinter because of the sprinters teams control - though equally difficult for a sprinter to cope with the tempo up the Cipressa and Poggio.

Nah, even Cavendish can get over it. It's really nothing special. Put in some real hills and watch the carnage.

Those saying sprinters deserve a classic. Meh, they don't. Sprinters win more than any other type of cyclist. Try and win something as a second tier climber, good luck. Second tier sprinters win pretty much the entire time and it's ****ing me off µ

Looking at the recent results, the sprinters certainly have it easier.

 

[Andy99]

Nah, even Cavendish can get over it. It's really nothing special. Put in some real hills and watch the carnage.

Those saying sprinters deserve a classic. Meh, they don't. Sprinters win more than any other type of cyclist. Try and win something as a second tier climber, good luck. Second tier sprinters win pretty much the entire time and it's ****ing me off µ

Looking at the recent results, the sprinters certainly have it easier.

Guess you don't have a gallop then?

 

[hrotha]

People didn't specialize in sprints back in the 70s hence they didn't need the tactics that sprinting teams now use. They raced everything on the calender and needed to be able to win on all kinds of terrains, instead of just specializing in one thing.

In my opinion, people didn't need to specialize as much back then because there were fewer riders at the top, which allowed the best of them to shine in all kinds of races. Just like a good junior or u23 rider who's always up there, winning 90% of his races in u16 and earlier categories, no matter the profile, but who upon turning pro finds out he isn't actually that much of a climber.

 

[El Pistolero]

In my opinion, people didn't need to specialize as much back then because there were fewer riders at the top, which allowed the best of them to shine in all kinds of races. Just like a good junior or u23 rider who's always up there, winning 90% of his races in u16 and earlier categories, no matter the profile, but who upon turning pro finds out he isn't actually that much of a climber.

True, that's also a factor.

But back in the 70s there was just the amateur rank I think. And there were youngsters there who won a lot, but when they came in the pro rank not so much. Just look at what Merckx said:

In 1964, he rode the road race at the 1964 Summer Olympics and finished 12th.[n 1] In the same year, he became world amateur champion at Sallanches, France. He said his victory was tainted by the long list of riders who had won the amateur championship and done nothing afterwards.[8] Merckx said of the race:
“ Yes, I remember it, [winning the world championship] but winning the Tour de France for the first time was more important to me. The world championship can be won by any good rider who has the right form on the right day, but to win the Tour you have to be good every day. I was in the break after the first few laps, but when the bunch started coming back to us, I broke away on the last climb to win by 27 seconds from Walter Planckaert, with Gösta Pettersson of Sweden third. Planckaert hadn't realised I was away and he thought that he had won.[10]

And Merckx speaking about his amateur days:
"I was winning races, but it wasn't easy. I wasn't dominating anything back then."[8

 

[brianf7]

If you have ever tried to hang on to the bunch at 90kmh for the last 10 km and then try to sprint you would know it is not just sitting in the bunch to the last 200 meters. Its a matter of hang in with everything you have.
it aint easy.

 

[roundabout]

Yes, San Remo is predictable, but is it more predictable than Fleche Wallonne? It's just the other side of the same stick, San Remo is for very few and FW is for very few, but we're complaining only about M-SR. We have 5 Monuments and they are very different so it's extremely hard for the same rider to gather all 5, but if someone does it, we can be sure he is the champion, the real allrounder of classic races.

Good point about Fleche Wallonne. The "bunch sprint" up the Mur de Huy became the norm only in the last decade.

 

[El Pistolero]

Good point about Fleche Wallonne. The "bunch sprint" up the Mur de Huy became the norm only in the last decade.

That's why it would be a bit silly to turn FW into a monument.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Flanders had a few close calls where it almost turned into a 20 men group sprint as well mind you (just like MSR was a 20 men group sprint last year)

 

[El Pistolero]

Flanders had a few close calls where it almost turned into a 20 men group sprint as well mind you (just like MSR was a 20 men group sprint last year)

It never the less is way easier to get away in Flanders than at MSR. I don't expect a bunch sprint any time soon. It would actually be cool to see who would win if a 20 men group came to the finish for the victory lol. For one time only.

And the race is fun the whole way through, the same can't be said about MSR. And the amount of spectators in Flanders just make the scenery that much greater than MSR even though Italy has a more beautiful landscape.

+ I live near the Flemish Ardennes I ride on cobblestones like 5 times a week, including some of the most famous climbs in the Flemish races Poggio is a joke compared to some hills.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sprinters win more than any other type of cyclist. Try and win something as a second tier climber, good luck. Second tier sprinters win pretty much the entire time and it's ****ing me off

Looking at the recent results, the sprinters certainly have it easier.

This.

+ I live near the Flemish Ardennes I ride on cobblestones like 5 times a week, including some of the most famous climbs in the Flemish races Poggio is a joke compared to some hills.

Poggio is a joke compared to some hills, sure, and if it was at the end of a 160-170km GT or stage race stage, it would be a sprint 10 times out of 10. But after 290km in the legs, it will sap you. I don't see the likes of Napolitano and Furlan getting to the end of MSR in the front group, but the likes of Freire can.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

wow, didn't know poggio was that easy.
Max 4,7%???
Same goes for the other hills.

The new climb, Le Manie is the only one that goes over 10%?

 

[The Hitch]

According to Mercx the other difficulty about MSR is that its totaly straight for such a long time. Just goes on and on and on.

You dont have so many turns where you can stop pedalling for a while or where those dropped can try to catch on.

 

[online-rider]

You know what they could do? Rip up the tarseal on the Poggio and lay it over with gravel.

 

[Echoes]

(Alfred) The Hitch gets it right.

What makes Milan Sanremo its reputation as one of the hardest classic races in the calendar is the combination of long straight roads, distance, climbs and - don't forget - technical descents. Moser and Kelly besides Merckx won it in the descent. They were all great descenders. I didn't mention it but Merckx also argue that modern bikes are too light for daring descenders to take risks in the descent of the Poggio. Perhaps !

How such a race finishes up with a sprint is a real mystery to me and sometimes I'm just wondering what would happen if Bordeaux-Paris ever was reinserted into the pro calendar. Sprint, as well?

I agree with DT when he says it's a lot harder to make a difference on any race whatsoever. I remember the 1997 spring very well. Zabel's sprint in Sanremo wasn't the only shock. In Flanders you had some 60 riders in front before the Kapelmuur. In Paris-Roubaix, 11 riders sprinting for the win. In Liège Bastogne, 60 riders in front before the Redoute. All of that seems usual today but was unprecedented back then. Yesterday I was watching a report on Andrei Tchmil on Canvas (Dutch-speaking Belgian channel) and saw his win in Flanders again. 60 riders in front after the Bosberg. If it weren't for his attack with 10km to go, there would have been a sprint.

Food program and training methods? Maybe an element but then I'd argue that Coppi didn't train the same way as Girardengo did (he's known as a revolutionary in that field), Merckx didn't train the same way as Coppi or Kelly as Merckx. It's always been in constant evolution. Yet, the repetition of sprint is very modern. Different nationalities? I don't agree. Coppi and Merckx were racing when cycling was at the peak of its popularity. It was euro-oriented but ALL Europe was cycling, which by far is no longer the case now.

And by the way, I don't agree with the argument of the pre Sanremo calendar being heavier today. Most European pre-Sanremo events existed in the 80's (Laigueglia, Bessèges, Med Tour, Mallorca, ...). In the seventies, riders were still often racing six-days events in winter, in order to keep up.

The Tour of Flanders in Merckx's days had far fewer climbs than it has today, that's for certain. However, several things did not change:

- The climbs are short
- The course is constantly turning, which allows for weaker riders to come back
- It's 40km shorter than Milan Sanremo

In the end, there must be reason if Merckx lost it three times to Eric Leman, who was a brave Flandrian (and a very fast sprinter) but too weak to take the lead in big races. Leman could never have beaten Merckx in Sanremo, no way ! The reason Merckx could win Flanders twice is stormy weather wich exhausted the sprinters. There's a reason he could set a stunning record of 7 wins in Sanremo (and could even win it in hot sunny days).

And besides you had other weird winners like Zandegu, Dolman, Bal, Martens or Lammerts ! Flanders is a nice classic but not that hard !


PS: I do apologise for my poor English in the OP but you'll understand that even if you can speak three languages, the art of translating from one into another is still not easy. I hope it's still understandable.

 

[c&cfan]

(Alfred) The Hitch gets it right.

What makes Milan Sanremo its reputation as one of the hardest classic races in the calendar is the combination of long straight roads, distance, climbs and - don't forget - technical descents. Moser and Kelly besides Merckx won it in the descent. They were all great descenders. I didn't mention it but Merckx also argue that modern bikes are too light for daring descenders to take risks in the descent of the Poggio. Perhaps !

How such a race finishes up with a sprint is a real mystery to me and sometimes I'm just wondering what would happen if Bordeaux-Paris ever was reinserted into the pro calendar. Sprint, as well?

I agree with DT when he says it's a lot harder to make a difference on any race whatsoever. I remember the 1997 spring very well. Zabel's sprint in Sanremo wasn't the only shock. In Flanders you had some 60 riders in front before the Kapelmuur. In Paris-Roubaix, 11 riders sprinting for the win. In Liège Bastogne, 60 riders in front before the Redoute. All of that seems usual today but was unprecedented back then. Yesterday I was watching a report on Andrei Tchmil on Canvas (Dutch-speaking Belgian channel) and saw his win in Flanders again. 60 riders in front after the Bosberg. If it weren't for his attack with 10km to go, there would have been a sprint.

Food program and training methods? Maybe an element but then I'd argue that Coppi didn't train the same way as Girardengo did (he's known as a revolutionary in that field), Merckx didn't train the same way as Coppi or Kelly as Merckx. It's always been in constant evolution. Yet, the repetition of sprint is very modern. Different nationalities? I don't agree. Coppi and Merckx were racing when cycling was at the peak of its popularity. It was euro-oriented but ALL Europe was cycling, which by far is no longer the case now.

And by the way, I don't agree with the argument of the pre Sanremo calendar being heavier today. Most European pre-Sanremo events existed in the 80's (Laigueglia, Bessèges, Med Tour, Mallorca, ...). In the seventies, riders were still often racing six-days events in winter, in order to keep up.

The Tour of Flanders in Merckx's days had far fewer climbs than it has today, that's for certain. However, several things did not change:

- The climbs are short
- The course is constantly turning, which allows for weaker riders to come back
- It's 40km shorter than Milan Sanremo

In the end, there must be reason if Merckx lost it three times to Eric Leman, who was a brave Flandrian (and a very fast sprinter) but too weak to take the lead in big races. Leman could never have beaten Merckx in Sanremo, no way ! The reason Merckx could win Flanders twice is stormy weather wich exhausted the sprinters. There's a reason he could set a stunning record of 7 wins in Sanremo (and could even win it in hot sunny days).

And besides you had other weird winners like Zandegu, Dolman, Bal, Martens or Lammerts ! Flanders is a nice classic but not that hard !


PS: I do apologise for my poor English in the OP but you'll understand that even if you can speak three languages, the art of translating from one into another is still not easy. I hope it's still understandable.

(why isnt the word MERCKX (the cyclist) only allowed in the clinic?)

i'm going to explain why m-san remo ends with "big" groups nowadays:

- today's cyclist have much better training methods etc. we know this. with time, the overall difference between them is smaller. still, to win, to be "that" better, you have to be specialized. (a sprinter cant win M.ventoux. still the average rider is much better than the average rider in the 70s.)

-in merckx time, only a few were really pros. only those guys were able to win (with merckx wining the most) and all of them had almost the same program of races, meaning that between them, and since the shape was almost the same, the best rider would win much more times than the others.

-cyclists were really poor in the 60\70s. only 10 (less) had the money to "extra" help, and between those 10, merckx even had his own team, so he had more money (in those days that is = more and better "help"). anti-doping tests proved that. when a new test was ready, only one or 2 riders were busted. one of them was the belgium (hero for some "smart" persons). fact

-with time the average rider was becoming better. more riders were able to get that help (2 speed peloton).

-nowadays we know how it is.. all of them with enough money and the wheel has already been found. lighter drugs.

answer to one post:

put an average protour rider with what merckx was able to take as "help" in those days. put the others much more cleaner. all with the same race program. with training level that allowed only to the best to win (nowadays that does not happen), and he will have a much more palmares than merckx did and he would beat merckx's hour record.

the end. sorry about the d-word. but it was necessary to explain my point of view.

regards.

 

[Echoes]

Woohoo ! Always been a fan of this race and will always be.
Under special conditions, its hardness can be revealed.

Always considered it as one of the greatest and I'm glad that this year's race proved me right !

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But it's still not a hilly classic, and you still can't use success at Milano-Sanremo as evidence of ability in hilly classics, which is what the whole debate you mischaracterised was about.

 

[sublimit]

But it's still not a hilly classic, and you still can't use success at Milano-Sanremo as evidence of ability in hilly classics, which is what the whole debate you mischaracterised was about.

Hey sorry for snapping at you yesterday.
The thing is a rider that was bang on form like Heinrich Haussler is a case in point. He looked so dominant earlier in Qatar but this was a different ball game altogether, sat on the whole way and was eventually shot out the back.
I saw an excuse from his team manager about him missing most of last year hence not quite having the legs, maybe but this looked a fast race compared to 2009.

 

[Echoes]

I do apologize if I misunderstood your post. And as a matter of fact it was not the only one on the Montepaschi thread that triggered my reaction.

I didn't respond to your post on this thread because I fully agreed with you. In my opinion, when I say the Poggio becomes a killer after such a long distance it says it all. Fignon also said that in order to win Milan Sanremo you needed stamina + puncher skills (distance + hills).

Yeah it's a unique race, that's why I love it. Milan Sanremo specialists are not necessarily Liège Bastogne specialists or Lombardia specialists. Still it's not rare to see the same riders at the front on all these races.

I'm repeating myself but there must be a reason why Merckx won 7 Milan Sanremo and 5 Liège Bastogne but Flanders only twice (and largely due to the weather).

 

[royalpig180]

Given that MSR, the first monument of the season, is now over, I was wondering how everybody ranks it with the other monuments. In other words, how would you rank the five monuments according to imporance/prestige?

I would do it as follows:

- Paris-Roubaix
- MSR
- LBL
- Lombardia
- Flanders

 

[The Hitch]

No way is Flanders last. For one it has the biggest crowds by far, with every village and town coming out.

On that point alone id put it first.

In Belgium it is huge with tremendous passion from the fans. I think a rider (particularly from Flanders) can make more of a career just from winning RVV than any other one day race.

Lombardy is probably last. Just yesterday Backsted said MSR was one of the 4 biggest races (didnt mention GDL) and last year for example, it was no more than a consolation for the guy who wished he had won the worlds. It suffers for not being a spring classic.

Roubaix is second. Partly because of its uniqness and history and partly because anglophile riders and ds's think cycling doesnt exist outside France and thats the only monument in France.

LBL based on its strenght in field and variation in winners is above MSR, though before MSR became sprinters only, probably other way round.

So the 2 italian ones are the least prestigious, but monuments nonetheless and Italy does have Grand Tour as well as the 2 monuments so cant really complain..