-
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 think that this thread is as much about something else: Most Underrated Races.
Those who are bringing up Spilak and Porte are really arguing that one week races are underrated, and I agree with them. The achievement in winning Paris-Nice and the Dauphne (let's say combined in one season) might be in real terms comparable to a 2nd or 3rd in the GC at the Giro, but most on the forum wouldn't see it that way. You can't really do anything as a one week racer and immediately be tagged with greatness, whereas there are five monuments (plus the world champs and numerous classics) for one day races, and three, three week grand tours. Personally I'd like to see something like the Tour De Suisse have much more prestige, but it seems to have slipped away from where it was at 10-15 years ago and cannot even compete with the Dauphne....
I like the idea of an almost 'monument' style one week race, but most seem on an even level of prestige (P-N, T-A, P-V, Romandie, Dauphne, Swiss) and suffer from in some ways being prep events for GT's. Maybe something like Paris-Nice should be rated higher, as it's not specific prep for a GT and so even the best GT riders will often hit a mini peak for it, but half of the top stage racers are inevitably lured in by T-A.
Those who are bringing up Spilak and Porte are really arguing that one week races are underrated, and I agree with them. The achievement in winning Paris-Nice and the Dauphne (let's say combined in one season) might be in real terms comparable to a 2nd or 3rd in the GC at the Giro, but most on the forum wouldn't see it that way. You can't really do anything as a one week racer and immediately be tagged with greatness, whereas there are five monuments (plus the world champs and numerous classics) for one day races, and three, three week grand tours. Personally I'd like to see something like the Tour De Suisse have much more prestige, but it seems to have slipped away from where it was at 10-15 years ago and cannot even compete with the Dauphne....
I like the idea of an almost 'monument' style one week race, but most seem on an even level of prestige (P-N, T-A, P-V, Romandie, Dauphne, Swiss) and suffer from in some ways being prep events for GT's. Maybe something like Paris-Nice should be rated higher, as it's not specific prep for a GT and so even the best GT riders will often hit a mini peak for it, but half of the top stage racers are inevitably lured in by T-A.
Nibali is the most underrated. Won 4 GTs and supposedly all asterisked because of some guys crashing, blah blah. In the end he's won 4 GTs and a Monument. That does not happen by chance.
Re:
Nibali was there when his superior competitors crashed out. The only real GT where he suggested he was actually the strongest was the 2013 Giro.
Is there really any difference between Nibali winning his GTs and Schleck and Scarponi winning their GTs?
All 3 did win their respective GTs, but the fact of the matter is they needed a massive slice of luck to do so.
Anyway, there's enough discussion on that topic in the Nibali thread
jsem94 said:
Nibali was there when his superior competitors crashed out. The only real GT where he suggested he was actually the strongest was the 2013 Giro.
Is there really any difference between Nibali winning his GTs and Schleck and Scarponi winning their GTs?
All 3 did win their respective GTs, but the fact of the matter is they needed a massive slice of luck to do so.
Anyway, there's enough discussion on that topic in the Nibali thread
Re:
I think most would rate P-N, Suisse and P-V better than the rest in terms of prestige.
gregrowlerson said:
I think most would rate P-N, Suisse and P-V better than the rest in terms of prestige.
Re: Re:
How? He's by far the best sprinter. No one denies that but i hate riders who can only do that and get paid millions.
He can't get over a hill, nothing. Cav had some qualities, greipel too. Kittel has nothing else, that's it.
Maybe you value high watts for 200m but i don't.
Oh yea he can do a good prologue sometimes, what an amazing rider.
Hugo Koblet said:
How? He's by far the best sprinter. No one denies that but i hate riders who can only do that and get paid millions.
He can't get over a hill, nothing. Cav had some qualities, greipel too. Kittel has nothing else, that's it.
Maybe you value high watts for 200m but i don't.
Oh yea he can do a good prologue sometimes, what an amazing rider.
Re: Re:
Sure, Kittel isn't the most entertaining rider but in terms of being good at what he does, Kittel is one of the absolute best riders in the peloton.
Kittel wins flat stages, Contador wins mountain stages, Tony Martin wins time trials etc. I don't really see why one would single out and criticize sprinters here. They specialize at one type of races, other riders specialize at other types of races.Miburo said:
Sure, Kittel isn't the most entertaining rider but in terms of being good at what he does, Kittel is one of the absolute best riders in the peloton.
A guy like lulu is 10 times the rider Kittel ever will be but does the big public know him? Does he get paid even a fraction of what Kittle gets paid?
A way superior rider than Kittel but because he can't push those watts for 200m...
It's frustating that in cycling which is such a hard sport, such a quality as sprinting gets rewarded big time. I would have no problem with it if the rider showed other qualities and the organisers don't make it so easy for them but they do.
A way superior rider than Kittel but because he can't push those watts for 200m...
It's frustating that in cycling which is such a hard sport, such a quality as sprinting gets rewarded big time. I would have no problem with it if the rider showed other qualities and the organisers don't make it so easy for them but they do.
How many flat stages are there in the tour? 8-9?
Why not 8-9 ITT? or 8-9 MTF's?
Why do sprinters get rewarded? What do they to deserve that? Why does Kittel deserve that?
Don't come with the Organisation wanting to have easy stages, can easily put a hill on the last 20 km so you get rid off the fuckers.
Sprints are good for nothing, only crashes. Another reason why i hate it.
And kittel embodies that. Yea he is the best sprinter, i still don't how i underrate him, maybe i'm underrating sprinting? How can you underrate that garbage though...
Who do people watch cycling? Surely not to see the flat sprints? That ain't the main reason right? But then why do these fuckers get paid so much, they're riding on the back of the riders who make the race entertaining.
Yet they get paid so much, so unfair...
Why not 8-9 ITT? or 8-9 MTF's?
Why do sprinters get rewarded? What do they to deserve that? Why does Kittel deserve that?
Don't come with the Organisation wanting to have easy stages, can easily put a hill on the last 20 km so you get rid off the fuckers.
Sprints are good for nothing, only crashes. Another reason why i hate it.
And kittel embodies that. Yea he is the best sprinter, i still don't how i underrate him, maybe i'm underrating sprinting? How can you underrate that garbage though...
Who do people watch cycling? Surely not to see the flat sprints? That ain't the main reason right? But then why do these fuckers get paid so much, they're riding on the back of the riders who make the race entertaining.
Yet they get paid so much, so unfair...
Kittel gets paid what he does because he's worth it. LuLu gets paid what he does because he's worth that much. Wins are worth a lot more than riding aggressively or entertaining, that's just how the cycling business works.
I do agree though that there are way too many flat stages (or races for that matter), but we can hardly blame Kittel or any other rider for that.
I do agree though that there are way too many flat stages (or races for that matter), but we can hardly blame Kittel or any other rider for that.
Re: Re:
Yes, there's a massive difference! And if you don't see it, you're pretty blind then!!!
First massive difference: Nibali won his GT's on the road. Schleck and Scarponi didn't (in fact many would say they didn't won at all)
Second massive difference: Nibali won GT's! 4 of them!!!
Heck even Oscar Pereiro is more deserved GT winner than Schleck and Scarponi!
PremierAndrew said:
Yes, there's a massive difference! And if you don't see it, you're pretty blind then!!!
First massive difference: Nibali won his GT's on the road. Schleck and Scarponi didn't (in fact many would say they didn't won at all)
Second massive difference: Nibali won GT's! 4 of them!!!
Heck even Oscar Pereiro is more deserved GT winner than Schleck and Scarponi!
Re:
I understand your frustration, but all your questions have simple answers.
Why are there 8/9 sprint stages in the Tour? Because of the topography of France and the towns who buy the stage finishes and starts. France itself does not have many mountains, the big ones are concentrated in two parts of the country. The medium mountain areas there are more of, but ASO don't tend to go there because of the fact they can't base a whole Tour in the south of France. Northern France is pretty flat, with the notable exception of the Vosges but you can't go there every year. Sprinters are lucky that the topography of france is as it is and lucky that ASO make minimal effort to have more medium mountain stages because some towns spend a lot to host stages.
Kittel could probably survive a cat 4 climb 20-30km before the finish. Even a gently rolling stage like Harrogate 2014 I'd back Kittel. And why are there not 9 ITTs? Because that would ruin the GC. Why are there not 9 MTFs? Because of who wants the stages and the need to cover more than one region of France. And because then it would be the Vuelta. Do people watch sprints? The last 5km, and for non-fans it is very exciting in its simplicity: riders going as fast as they can to get in a good position to then all sprint for the win. It's more simple than a mountain stage, however beautiful for us fans, and so easier to understand. There are less games, less tactics.
And why do they get so much? That's one you answer yourself. When there are so many sprint stages, shouldn't you give the guy who wins most your stages, WT points and placings more money? Sponsors think so, and until the make up of Tour stages changes, they'll continue to. And that doesn't look very soon. You know a race that you should be annoyed at when you have over 5 flat stages? The giro.
Miburo said:
I understand your frustration, but all your questions have simple answers.
Why are there 8/9 sprint stages in the Tour? Because of the topography of France and the towns who buy the stage finishes and starts. France itself does not have many mountains, the big ones are concentrated in two parts of the country. The medium mountain areas there are more of, but ASO don't tend to go there because of the fact they can't base a whole Tour in the south of France. Northern France is pretty flat, with the notable exception of the Vosges but you can't go there every year. Sprinters are lucky that the topography of france is as it is and lucky that ASO make minimal effort to have more medium mountain stages because some towns spend a lot to host stages.
Kittel could probably survive a cat 4 climb 20-30km before the finish. Even a gently rolling stage like Harrogate 2014 I'd back Kittel. And why are there not 9 ITTs? Because that would ruin the GC. Why are there not 9 MTFs? Because of who wants the stages and the need to cover more than one region of France. And because then it would be the Vuelta. Do people watch sprints? The last 5km, and for non-fans it is very exciting in its simplicity: riders going as fast as they can to get in a good position to then all sprint for the win. It's more simple than a mountain stage, however beautiful for us fans, and so easier to understand. There are less games, less tactics.
And why do they get so much? That's one you answer yourself. When there are so many sprint stages, shouldn't you give the guy who wins most your stages, WT points and placings more money? Sponsors think so, and until the make up of Tour stages changes, they'll continue to. And that doesn't look very soon. You know a race that you should be annoyed at when you have over 5 flat stages? The giro.
The reward that climbers and TT specialists get is being able to win the GC. Sprinters can't challenge for the GC, and so they are rewarded with flat stages - which are there anyway for the sound practical reasons Brullnux identifies.
Re:
What good exactly do super domestiques provide fans? They make for less entertaining, more predictable races. Doesn't mean they're not incredible, often underrated, riders though who play a key role in the sport. Same as sprinters. It would be pretty boring on flat or rolling stages if every break succeeded because noone could be bothered to chase them down.
To be fair, you could say exactly the same about Lulu. Who the hell watches cycling to see a super domestique chase down all mountain attacks, or drive such a high pace that no-one can get away? It was pretty unsatisfying to see a great climb like Jito de Escarandi reduced to a 2km uphill sprint in the Vuelta last year because Astana, and Lulu in particular, did such a great job of controlling the climb.Miburo said:
What good exactly do super domestiques provide fans? They make for less entertaining, more predictable races. Doesn't mean they're not incredible, often underrated, riders though who play a key role in the sport. Same as sprinters. It would be pretty boring on flat or rolling stages if every break succeeded because noone could be bothered to chase them down.
Re: Re:
Schleck and Scarponi won their GTs because they were fortunate enough that a superior rider got disqualified. Nibali won 3 of his GTs because he was fortunate enough that a superior rider (or multiple superior riders) crashed out.
And if you don't see it, you're pretty blind then!!!
Mr.White said:
Schleck and Scarponi won their GTs because they were fortunate enough that a superior rider got disqualified. Nibali won 3 of his GTs because he was fortunate enough that a superior rider (or multiple superior riders) crashed out.
And if you don't see it, you're pretty blind then!!!
Re: Re:
You do remember that Landis originally stood on the top step of the podium, right?
So even with a 30 minute gift Pereiro needed a DQ to win the Tour.
But he is apparently more deserved. Makes zero sense, but whatever.
Mr.White said:
You do remember that Landis originally stood on the top step of the podium, right?
So even with a 30 minute gift Pereiro needed a DQ to win the Tour.
But he is apparently more deserved. Makes zero sense, but whatever.
Re: Re:
I don't think he's underrated, he had a good season last year and is now in the WT trying to find his feet but I don't think he's underrated as yetPantani Attacks said:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
-
Live coverage of Sprint Finishes: Head-on camera or Helicam shot?- Latest: Logic-is-your-friend
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Latest: Slavique Nuke
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram