Modern Day Racing tactics and lack of excitement

[ElChingon]

Why the clinic?

Well we're going into clinic territories or I know we will.

As of late everyone is watching the races and basically asking for the impossible or at least that over the top attack and over the top win for some rider they are a fan of. Yet, all we get is boring (according to the posts) racing where the riders basically wait till others give up (due to exhaustion, lack of legs) then make their move and usually close to the finish line.

Most riders are tagged "wheelsuckers" for this new or newish and gaining in occurrence tactic. Yes, in other years there might of been obvious wheelsuckers and we all know those so lets not go down that line in this thread.

This reminds me of stories of racing back in the day (before any of us were born) where the fans demanded more great attacks and greater win from the riders, obviously in those old days they probably just rode till others failed and then took the win in a very non exciting way. As I read the racing threads the fans are again asking for these great achievements in racing and keep complaining the racing is boring an uneventful for them.

So with this new-ish non-doping (as far as I know) era this new racing tactic seems to be what we will get as fans because no one is racing with the old doping exciting racing. Or do the fans want at any cost that exciting over the top racing we saw in the past decade(s)? Of course the cost is as we all know doping.

 

[Race Radio]

I am not sure what you mean by lack of excitement. I prefer uncertainty, bad days, and races not being over after the first TT/Mountain top finish

The "top fuel" racing of the 90's/00's was boring and predictable.

 

[Parrulo]

I am not sure what you mean by lack of excitement. I prefer uncertainty, bad days, and races not being over after the first TT/Mountain top finish

The "top fuel" racing of the 90's/00's was boring and predictable.

the cleaner 70's/80's weren't, so there goes OP's "racing is boring because they are clean" argument out of the window.

 

[hrotha]

Yeah, this has been refuted countless times already. Cycling became much more conservative and controlled when EPO spread throughout the peloton, raising the average level of the field a lot and unnaturally leveling the playing field among the middle of the pack, allowing doped teams to control even the toughest mountain stages. The kind of conservative racing we've seen this Giro has nothing to do with the peloton being cleaner.

If I ride with my mates, you can expect attacks, counterattacks and gaps. That our level is abysmal doesn't factor into it, provided none of us gets an unnatural boost. A clean peloton will be slower, nothing else.

Also I can't believe anyone (save for Hesjedal's relatives and Garmin employees) can think this Giro was exciting.

 

[Race Radio]

the cleaner 70's/80's weren't, so there goes OP's "racing is boring because they are clean" argument out of the window.

Agreed.

Some of the best racing coincided with the testers catching up with the dopers and for a short period making a more level playing field.

The late 80's and the last few years are a good example. Last years Tour was amazing. 87, 89, both great Tours.

In the past if a rider had a good program, and responded well it, they could see a 10-15% increase in power. Now they are lucky to get 5%. Taylor Phinney was complaining about holding 500 watts for 10 minutes.....Armstrong and Ullrich would hold 495 for 40 minutes and weighed 10 kilos less.

Things have changed, for the better

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Both forms of racing are exciting. We're getting less spectacular attacks now but this means the GC contenders are closer to each other at the end of a mountain stage and the end of the tour. It's come down to who can gain a few seconds and more riders are in the running.

On the other hand, though someone who could get a big lead through a big attack when there was more doping, you never quite knew if another rider would make a massive attack to get it back. That was exciting to watch. Now, if they lose a minute, it's gameover. They're not going to sprint off the front on a mountain and rider away anymore and gain miniutes. That knowledge can be boring at times. But then again, as we know, it's closer at the end which makes it more exciting. Both types of riding have their good points and bad points.

 

[hrotha]

I don't think the two are related. You can have good and bad racing both in a clean or dirty peloton, you can have a close race or big gaps in both scenarios, because the only real factor here is the mentality of the riders and their DS's. Which is why Kreuziger was disappointed after winning a stage because he sooo wanted to be 7th, or why De Gendt admitted he only attacked to avoid trouble in the descent so that he could keep his 8th place, or why Purito never really tried to win because he didn't want to risk losing his 2nd. Being 12th or whatever in the Tour earns you more points and a bigger salary than winning a stage.

 

[thehog]

Why the clinic?

Well we're going into clinic territories or I know we will.

As of late everyone is watching the races and basically asking for the impossible or at least that over the top attack and over the top win for some rider they are a fan of. Yet, all we get is boring (according to the posts) racing where the riders basically wait till others give up (due to exhaustion, lack of legs) then make their move and usually close to the finish line.

Most riders are tagged "wheelsuckers" for this new or newish and gaining in occurrence tactic. Yes, in other years there might of been obvious wheelsuckers and we all know those so lets not go down that line in this thread.

This reminds me of stories of racing back in the day (before any of us were born) where the fans demanded more great attacks and greater win from the riders, obviously in those old days they probably just rode till others failed and then took the win in a very non exciting way. As I read the racing threads the fans are again asking for these great achievements in racing and keep complaining the racing is boring an uneventful for them.

So with this new-ish non-doping (as far as I know) era this new racing tactic seems to be what we will get as fans because no one is racing with the old doping exciting racing. Or do the fans want at any cost that exciting over the top racing we saw in the past decade(s)? Of course the cost is as we all know doping.

The problem with the Giro and recent Tour editions is back ending the course with a load of mountains in the final week. The organizers do this as it keeps the time gaps tight until the end. But what ultimately occurs is the riders "wait". They dont't risk too much in the first 2 weeks as there's little to gain. Then in the final week there's so much climbing they're always thinking about tomorrow today. Riders can't risk massive efforts because you pay the next day. Doping would help as you recover better.

In short I blame the course. 80's racing was great because every rider had their bad day and the 3 weeks wasn't 2011 Giro-like but their were challenges throughout the 3 weeks. You also didn't have super-teams setting manic pace up the climbs so no one could attack. By the last climb each team was down to one rider. These days you get 4-5 guys from one team at the base of the final climb.

I wish the organizers would stop trying to make it exciting in terms of time gaps and let the race unfold of its own volition. The riders will make the race exciting.

 

[hrotha]

Doping would help as you recover better.

So would your rivals and their teammates.

You also didn't have super-teams setting manic pace up the climbs so no one could attack. By the last climb each team was down to one rider. These days you get 4-5 guys from one team at the base of the final climb.

There weren't any super-teams at this Giro, and they set up no manic pace. Whenever things got serious, Liquigas disappeared. If there were 4-5 guys from one team at the base of the final climb, that's because 40 guys made it together to the base of the final climb, because the stage wasn't being raced. And that's what we saw pretty much every single stage this Giro.

 

[meat puppet]

I think the fact/claim that racing in the 70/80s was clean and aggressive does not necessarily contradict the claim that we are seeing more conservative racing now that at least the wildest days are behind us. At least for the moment.

I'd risk proposing that the riders, many of whom have become pros in the yesteryear's world of medical preparation, just take some time to adapt and learn to race cleaner again.

Although probably not the best ambassador for clean and credible racing, Schleck did his big surge at the Tour. De Gendt gained a lot by yesterday's brave attack. Liquigas' train tactics up the mountain, on the other, did not deliver at all at the Giro. Some of that is of course on Basso.

But chances are teams and riders will begin seeing point in altering the tactics towards attacking earlier.

 

[thehog]

So would your rivals and their teammates.

There weren't any super-teams at this Giro, and they set up no manic pace. Whenever things got serious, Liquigas disappeared. If there were 4-5 guys from one team at the base of the final climb, that's because 40 guys made it together to the base of the final climb, because the stage wasn't being raced. And that's what we saw pretty much every single stage this Giro.

Play fair I'm working with the discussion....

The manic pace setting on final climbs is still there. Liquigas were doing it. It wasn't USPS/T-Mobile sort of stuff but it's hard to attack when the bunch is already doing 35km p/h uphill.

The way to avert this is to alternate the course around.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Today may actually be cleaner than the 80s. They had no EPO back then but steroid and testosterone use was rampant. They would have been able to recover better after big mountain stages. And lets not forget the widespread use of amphetamine which would really make a difference in the third week.

 

[hiero2]

Hmmm. I have noticed the complaints about "boring" too, but I think it is just the complainers complaining. I did say one rider this year was a wheel-sucker, but that was because he obviously did and was, to win and beat Cancellara. I have seen several other finishes where the winner pulled less - but that is, as they say, tactics. You do what you can. In the case of whatshisface and Cancellara - it was just that it was so obvious to me that if the guy had pulled, even ONCE, he would have not had enough left to win.*

I have actually found most of the racing the past couple years to be very exciting. This Giro, for example - tightly fought - start to finish! How much better can you get then that??

No, I don't think it is that races are more boring, I think it is because we have so much more coverage of the races, and a current lack of heroes, that the complainers are just finding more reason to complain. You can't very well complain about a boring race that you had to read about, can you! Now we can see them.

We also have a big dose of suspicion in the fan ranks, over doping. And, a lack of heroic heroes. Even though LA is guilty as far as I am concerned, he WAS heroic when he rode. Other riders were counterpoint to LA. The Big Mig years, on the other hand, were, hmmm, boring? But Landis filled the bill with that solo feat.

The who was there to take up the flag of hero? Contador? Almost, but not quite. The Schlecks? Except some of us would rather eat cow pies for breakfast than watch them win. Cav comes about the closest at the moment, but he generates haters as well. Boonen? Too many parties. Cancellara? I like him, but he isn't a GT man, and we seem to need a GT man to fill the hero role.

I remember many boring stages in the late 80's - but the heroes were big, and the coverage was miserable. It is the exciting stages that we remember.

So, I think it is a combination of the excellent race coverage we have, the lack of GT greats, and suspicions caused by doping. Spectators seem to think every race covered will be a gladiatorial spectacle, to be discussed for years into the future, a la Lemond and Fignon. But what they get is a little more mundane. Add that we are between GT greats, and great performances are suspicious, and people call it boring.

*Since I know this will get comments - I know he pulled through once - but if you go back and watch that tape, you will notice that he did NOT PULL. Once he came through he was soft-pedaling, and Fabian had to come back to the front or the peloton would catch them. It was legal - but such poor form in my opinion. . .

 

[hrotha]

Play fair I'm working with the discussion....

The manic pace setting on final climbs is still there. Liquigas were doing it. It wasn't USPS/T-Mobile sort of stuff but it's hard to attack when the bunch is already doing 35km p/h uphill.

The way to avert this is to alternate the course around.

No, that Liquigas was setting up a fast pace is a myth. They were bluffing, and no one called them out on it because no one wanted to move a finger. But consider this: every time things got serious, Basso was alone, or only had Caruso. Very large groups made it over extremely hard mountains. The gaps between the first 15 or so riders in insanely tough stages were minimal (1:20-2:00). The breakaways invariably held their own even when they were comprised of a single rider.

The race was simply not raced hard.

 

[BroDeal]

The problem with the Giro and recent Tour editions is back ending the course with a load of mountains in the final week. The organizers do this as it keeps the time gaps tight until the end. But what ultimately occurs is the riders "wait". They dont't risk too much in the first 2 weeks as there's little to gain. Then in the final week there's so much climbing they're always thinking about tomorrow today. Riders can't risk massive efforts because you pay the next day. Doping would help as you recover better.

In short I blame the course. 80's racing was great because every rider had their bad day and the 3 weeks wasn't 2011 Giro-like but their were challenges throughout the 3 weeks. You also didn't have super-teams setting manic pace up the climbs so no one could attack. By the last climb each team was down to one rider. These days you get 4-5 guys from one team at the base of the final climb.

I wish the organizers would stop trying to make it exciting in terms of time gaps and let the race unfold of its own volition. The riders will make the race exciting.

This.

Courses + drugs allow riders to seldom--sometimes never--have a bad day.

The Tour courses have sucked since 2009. Now the Giro is going the same way.

There is something seriously wrong when Ryder H can win a GT and Wigans is considered a serious contender for the Tour.

 

[BroDeal]

Cycling is like Nascar. While Nascar uses restrictor plates to limit engine power so that no car has an advantage, cycling's doping limits have effectively done the same thing. Combine that with courses that limit the opportunities for riders to take much time before the final week and we get the sucktastic racing that we see today. Even more infuriating is fans gushing about how it was a fantastic race because it was so close at the end.

 

[180mmCrank]

It's funny this kind of discussion because it depends on what people mean by exciting and/or what people find exciting - it's pretty subjective.

So I will declare up front that I will always be captivated by the GT format - regardless of the the character of the race.

I loved watching the races in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's The character of the GT's has changed. I tend to agree that when the organizers try to manipulate the race by distorting the parcours with excessive ITT, Mountains or backend load a race - it often goes wrong.

Radios have certainly made a difference - I am not so convinced that this is the only reason the character has changed. I think the sophistication of training methods has had a bigger impact.

As for doping ... there is no doubt that this has effected individual performances ... made heros of some and villains of others ... and it has effected the character of the races. I don't know that it has made it more or less exciting. Seeing an individual attack and destroy the field on long climb is definatley exciting/compelling but for me it is no more exciting than watching a majestic athlete grind away at the front and wear his competition down. We have seen lots of all of these over the years. AND I have become just as tired as others have of watching a compelling race for 3 weeks only to have the winner DQ months later because they doped. But in the moment I am still a sucker for the drama of a GT

As I say I am biased I love it all. July here we come!

 

[hrotha]

Cycling is like Nascar. While Nascar uses restrictor plates to limit engine power so that no car has an advantage, cycling's doping limits have effectively done the same thing. Combine that with courses that limit the opportunities for riders to take much time before the final week and we get the sucktastic racing that we see today. Even more infuriating is fans gushing about how it was a fantastic race because it was so close at the end.

The riders didn't race even on perfect stages to make gaps, even on the last two ones. In fact, the a priori favourites never really raced.

 

[BroDeal]

The riders didn't race even on perfect stages to make gaps, even on the last two ones. In fact, the a priori favourites never really raced.

Bring back six cog 13-24 climbing gears. That'll separate the real contenders from the Wigans.

 

[180mmCrank]

The riders didn't race even on perfect stages to make gaps, even on the last two ones. In fact, the a priori favourites never really raced.

Really? Gosh I think you must have been watching something different from me. They raced their @sses off pretty much every day.

If you had the chance to sit in the peloton or even in a team car during the race - I think you would have a differnet understanding of the intensity of an event like this.

AND I get that not everyone finds this compelling and there are other more overt kinds of 'racing' that many find more exciting. As i said above for me i fine it all compelling.

I will often sit all day in front of the TV watching a flat sprint stage... my favourite way to do this was always to sit in a small town cafe nursing a cup of coffee listening to the locals babble on in Italian or French ... but i will do it on the couch too. Does that make me sad?

Each to his own

 

[hrotha]

Really? Gosh I think you must have been watching something different from me. They raced their @sses off pretty much every day.

Yes, really. I explained in post #14. Most people saw all of Liquigas at the front and assumed they were drilling it hard, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The favourites raced for 2-3 km per mountain stage. Only De Gendt forced them to actually race from the Mortirolo to the Stelvio.

 

[180mmCrank]

Yes, really. I explained in post #14. Most people saw all of Liquigas at the front and assumed they were drilling it hard, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The favourites raced for 2-3 km per mountain stage. Only De Gendt forced them to actually race from the Mortirolo to the Stelvio.

No I don't think you quite understand. I get that the pace was not always being pushed and i wasnt even thinking about Liquigas. I guess I just have a sense of the intensity it takes to get from the start to finish of any stage, day after day ... this might look easy on the TV but as I am sure we can all appreciate it takes a huge amount of effort both mentally and physically.

You can't even survive in the race without a certain kind of intensity. I think this gets lost as we watch TV and look at the overall aggregate performance of the riders. At an individual level every rider is focussed - if they lose that focus and intensity they will not be able to play their role in the race. They will not survive.

Does this make sense?

 

[hrotha]

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that cycling is hard?

 

[Berzin]

Cycling is like Nascar. While Nascar uses restrictor plates to limit engine power so that no car has an advantage, cycling's doping limits have effectively done the same thing. Combine that with courses that limit the opportunities for riders to take much time before the final week and we get the sucktastic racing that we see today. Even more infuriating is fans gushing about how it was a fantastic race because it was so close at the end.

No offense to the type of talent and dedication it takes to win a professional race, but using this latest edition of the Giro as a template, I find cycling so boring and the characters so lackluster that I barely watch anymore.

 

[ultimobici]

No, that Liquigas was setting up a fast pace is a myth. They were bluffing, and no one called them out on it because no one wanted to move a finger. But consider this: every time things got serious, Basso was alone, or only had Caruso. Very large groups made it over extremely hard mountains. The gaps between the first 15 or so riders in insanely tough stages were minimal (1:20-2:00). The breakaways invariably held their own even when they were comprised of a single rider.

The race was simply not raced hard.

This is a result of a couple of factors in particular, IMO. Firstly a less boosted peloton simply cannot cane it day after day with impunity. But perhaps as big a factor is the use of radios allows a far finer control of efforts. As a result you have castrated races?

I still maintain that removal of EPO and other blood manipulation methods has wound the clock back to a degree. But it is the mass of information available to a rider that prevents the cavalieresque attacks of the past.