Olympic Road Race

[spalco]

We won't see Frodo anymore then.

And that's the only thing you do care about, isn't it? I mean, let's be real, that's your actual objection, the probability of Cavendish winning.

 

[patterson_hood]

Zolder was even worse than London as Belgium actually has a lot of possibilities to make a great race. But this will be as bad and boring. Unless something like in San Remo 2011 happens.

And I don't think Cav can handle 400km without a strong team, no. And otherwise make ik 500km.

So basically anything to stop Cav having a chance then?

 

[El Pistolero]

So basically anything to stop Cav having a chance then?

Anything to stop a peloton of over 100 man finishing in the same time.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

And I don't think Cav can handle 400km without a strong team, no. And otherwise make ik 500km.

So this isn't about how entertaining the route may be, but actually designing it so your least favourite riders can't win it?

 

[patterson_hood]

Anything to stop a peloton of over 100 man finishing in the same time.

Snipers? Lions on the course? How about they have to ride up to Ben Nevis, climb it 15 times while carrying their bike and then return to London on a fold-up?

 

[El Pistolero]

So this isn't about how entertaining the route may be, but actually designing it so your least favourite riders can't win it?

2010: flat worlds
2011: flat worlds
2012: flat olympics

Cav is the symbol of the mass sprint. If he won't make it, so won't any other pure sprinter. I just don't want a boring race of 100 people finishing in the same time. The flat stages in the Tour are barely watched compared to the medium mountain stages and mountain stages. No wonder a lot of people thing cycling is boring when they see stuff like this. Besides, Cav won't win in London So it's not about him actually.

 

[auscyclefan94]

2010: flat worlds
2011: flat worlds
2012: flat olympics

Cav is the symbol of the mass sprint. If he won't make it, so won't any other pure sprinter. I just don't want a boring race of 100 people finishing in the same time. The flat stages in the Tour are barely watched compared to the medium mountain stages and mountain stages. No wonder a lot of people thing cycling is boring when they see stuff like this. Besides, Cav won't win in London So it's not about him actually.

2010 was hardly a flat words. Many of the riders who rode the course where comparing to Amstel Gold and Gent Wevelgem.

In saying that, this course is an absoulte joke. How could this possibly be the Olympic RR course?

 

[patterson_hood]

Why is everyone so adamant that a course which favours sprinters is unfair, but a course which favours climbers would be fair?

 

[Jamsque]

Guys it really isn't worth arguing with El P over this kind of thing. He is blinded by his hatred of Cavendish and I would swear that bunch sprints killed his grandmother or something. Just put him on ignore and be done with it.

 

[Lanark]

Why is everyone so adamant that a course which favours sprinters is unfair, but a course which favours climbers would be fair?

Courses that favour actual climbers are extremely rare however. But the problem isn't about whether it's fair or not, it's the problem that a pan-flat route will result in a completely boring race much more often than not.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I have no problem with a sprint but I think there needs to be something for the attackers to win. Having a tdf sprint stage for the worlds is just wrong.

 

[spalco]

I think it's unfair that the mountain bike courses are always so biased against pennyfarthing-pros.

 

[Mambo95]

Courses that favour actual climbers are extremely rare however. But the problem isn't about whether it's fair or not, it's the problem that a pan-flat route will result in a completely boring race much more often than not.

But this isn't any other race. The biggest teams will only have five riders. A team of five is going to struggle to control things.

A course is only selective if the riders make it so, and any course can be made selective, particularly with small teams.

 

[El Pistolero]

Why is everyone so adamant that a course which favours sprinters is unfair, but a course which favours climbers would be fair?

Because it only favors them. There's not even an obstacle in there like the Poggio. A perfect race would be something were both the sprinters, the puncheurs or the climbers can win. I know I called the worlds flat of 2010, but that course would have been so much better than this one in London. In Australia we saw the likes of Allan Davis, Thor Hushovd, Philippe Gilbert and even Cadel Evans battling it out for victory. That was good, because the result of the race was unpredictable until the peloton caught Gilbert.

 

[The Hitch]

The original course had them going around Regents park 30 times or whatever.

Then they changed it to this which is good because you can get more fans out.

I dont know what they could have done to make it more challenging, but surely a few laps of Box hill before going back into London, to make it that much more challenging.

Cav will have an awesome team behind him. It might be the reason he goes to Sky, to practise it.

How will the Olympic Road Race change things for next years tour?

It will be a sprinters course - so will the main contenders still do the Tour? will they do part of the tour and pull out like in 2008?

Even with a course designed just for him - can Cav win without his train?

Will we see Cav as world champ and olympic champ by this time next year?

I have a feeling Cav might lose one or the other. More likely worlds.

I think a lot of the contenders will be there.

Especially since for a lot of riders the Tour finishes their season. Why not take the short journey from Paris on Sunday to London on Saturday.

Its probably less then a Zomegnan transfer.

And you get to live the olympic experience, live in the accomodation, socialise with other athletes, take part in the ceremony, in the case of someone like Schleck or Hushovd perhaps hold the flag, then have a little criterium the day after.

Some of them will be up for the tt and might want to ride some of the rr as warmup.

Samuel Sanchez said he doesnt care how flat the course is he will defend his title.

I fully expect the likes of Cadel Evans, Andy Schleck, Philipe Gilbert, Alberto Contador, Vincenzo Nibali, and many many others to join him on the start line, and maybe even try a selection. Hell Italy working with Spain, might just could do it.

 

[El Pistolero]

I have no problem with a sprint but I think there needs to be something for the attackers to win. Having a tdf sprint stage for the worlds is just wrong.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Couldn't agree more.

It is a similar argument regarding the Australian Nats course. Guys like Renshaw are whining about the course being too hard though in past years it has proven that sprinters and climbers can be up there for the win. The Aus nats course provides for a bit of both. That's what an olympic course or a worlds course should provide. Many people who don't usually watch cycling will watch such events and this needs to be a show case of pro cycling. I have never really rated the olympics RR title simply because there are so many bigger, better and more important events that have a deeper history and mean more though that does not mean it isn't important.

 

[Lanark]

But this isn't any other race. The biggest teams will only have five riders. A team of five is going to struggle to control things.

A course is only selective if the riders make it so, and any course can be made selective, particularly with small teams.

Depends on what team Cavendish is going to. Otherwise, he could have 10 to 15 people working for him. You really think the likes of Eisel aren't going to help him? In the end, everyone who hasn't got somebody on his national team that can win, and can't win himself, might as well help the guy who is his teammate the other 12 months to a win.

 

[Andy99]

It is a similar argument regarding the Australian Nats course. Guys like Renshaw are whining about the course being too hard though in past years it has proven that sprinters and climbers can be up there for the win. The Aus nats course provides for a bit of both. That's what an olympic course or a worlds course should provide. Many people who don't usually watch cycling will watch such events and this needs to be a show case of pro cycling. I have never really rated the olympics RR title simply because there are so many bigger, better and more important events that have a deeper history and mean more though that does not mean it isn't important.

As an aside, they aren't still being held at Buninyong are they?

 

[The Hitch]

There also seems to be an idea with some that all Worlds/Olympics courses have to be suitable for climbers - LBL clones if you will - an idea seemingly bourne out of a false assumption that climbers are more worthy cyclists.

Beijing was a climber's course. Rio will almost certainly be a climber's course. London provides something different.

Climbers are more worthy cyclists. Cobbled riders are more worthy cyclists. Puncheurs are more worthy cyclists.

They dont get towed to the line.

They have to think about tactics. They decide when to attack. They dont race the entire course with other riders doing most of the work for them.

The great sprinters are not the ones who have never been seen on the front of the race earlier than the 300m to go mark, but the ones who while winning the sprints when the race is flat, also try things when the course hasnt been specially made for them.

See Freire or Hushovd going it alone often, not relying on their team, handling what is thrown at them.

There always seems to be a victim logic from sprint fans, complaining that there are so many mountain stages, with this now familiar line "sprinters need their races too".

Cry me a river. Sprinters get by far the most races and while im not going to put down the ammount of skill and stamina needed, it is relatively speaking the easiest, the most predictable and to most cycling fans, the least entertaining discipline.

Sprinters get their pan flat stages in every gt and stage race in existance.

But a one day race, especially the greatest one day race - the ORR, requires slightly more skills. By all means give the sprinters a more favourable course, but a pan flat race is unfair to the other riders.

Far more riders can try their luck, at different points, show their hand, just show off their talent and their national jersey, when the course has a few hills in it than when its total flat.

No one says the course needs to be LBL all the time. A sprint finish with a couple of hills thrown in a few km earlier is also fine. Thats a sprinters course they just have to work for it.

And i do realize it would be difficult for London to give a better course. Im just saying that there is such a thing as a better course and a worse course.

Wiggins, Swift, Millar, Thomas - if the Brits put their focus on it, Cavendish can have a plenty strong train.

eta: oh, strike Millar of course, my bad, but still, my point stands.

Im not sure if Wiggins wants to be doing this before the team pursuit. Maybe Thomas too. Gerraint is more likely though.

 

[Andy99]

Whilst it's obviously not a mountain, the route does take in several ascents of Box Hill.

Surely there is an opportunity for those who can't sprint to split things a little?

 

[Caledon]

Guys it really isn't worth arguing with El P over this kind of thing. He is blinded by his hatred of Cavendish and I would swear that bunch sprints killed his grandmother or something. Just put him on ignore and be done with it.

Jamsque is calling this exactly right. It's not worth the effort - rationality, El P and Cav won't be found in the same location, ever.

As for the general point about the course. 7 years ago Jacques Rogge did not announce that the games are "...awarded to the city of Bourg d’Oisans".
They are in LONDON and it is pretty FLAT - a sprinter will probably win - shock horror. Live with it.

 

[Andy99]

Jamsque is calling this exactly right. It's not worth the effort - rationality, El P and Cav won't be found in the same location, ever.

As for the general point about the course. 7 years ago Jacques Rogge did not announce that the games are "...awarded to the city of Bourg d’Oisans".
They are in LONDON and it is pretty FLAT - a sprinter will probably win - shock horror. Live with it.

Thread closed.

 

[patterson_hood]

Courses that favour actual climbers are extremely rare however. But the problem isn't about whether it's fair or not, it's the problem that a pan-flat route will result in a completely boring race much more often than not.

For non-cycling fans the bunch sprint would be the most exciting outcome, I've found this from experience over the last three weeks. In a country that doesn't get road-cycling a flat stage is probably the best way to promote it. Of course it would help the promotion if Cav won.

 

[Mambo95]

They have to think about tactics. They decide when to attack.

(I won't quote everything)

But do they decide when to attack? Usually in the classics there are one or two key points where the attacks come. They tend to stick to a format, which is the way a lot of fans expect it.

However, clever tacticians can find a different way - look at Garmin at Roubaix, Cancellara the year before or Devolder's RvV wins, for example. Their teams won by not sticking to the format and doing something unexpected.

The same applies to this course, especially with small teams - there is no format for this sort of race. The unimaginitive just see a flat finish and say 'sprinters', while the smarter riders and DSs will be able to see opportunities.

This may come down to a bunch sprint, but with at the very most 50 riders. However, I think it actually more likely to come down to a much smaller bunch with 5km to go.