Ronde van Vlaanderen v Paris - Roubaix - which one is harder?

[Roland Rat]

What does "harder" mean? I'd say RVV is slightly physically harder but Roubaix mentally harder. As an overall challenge, they're probably pretty equal.

 

[Echoes]

O'Grady, Bäckstedt, Knaven, Guesdon, Demol, Rosiers, Post... all those were second-tier riders who have the P-R as their best career achievement by a long shot.

2 points:

Post - great trackie - won in 1964, with the fastest average speed in history because it was on a totally different route, via Amiens, Arras etc closer to the sea. The roads that the race took by then were less and less cobbled. The 1965 edition was the least cobbled in history.

Paris-Roubaix has really been what it is today since 1966 (win for Gimondi) when they started to search for deserted cobbled sections in the area round Valenciennes and the so-called "Pévèle". Aremberg was only added in 1968. That's when Antoine Blondin called it 'the last insanity of the cycling world'

And though Roger Rosiers never won any other classics, he often top10ed and was very impressive (I have a quote by Merckx about him). Dolman, Bal, etc never top10ed in any other classic events.

OK for the likes of Demol, Guesdon, etc.

I think it's telling that, though the hellingen of De Ronde are insanely brutal, Paris-Roubaix is pan flat and the race still comes down to between one and five guys every year. Any course that is flat and still features this kind of selection and often with a solo winner who wins by minutes... yeah.

As I argued in my first post on this thread, it being flat is an element that makes it really hard, mostly the final part of it. Round Valenciennes, you have some declivity, by the way (the Buat section).

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I also voted for Roubaix. It usually has less tactics involved and more natural selection.

yeah this.

and this>

Originally Posted by mr. tibbs
I think it's telling that, though the hellingen of De Ronde are insanely brutal, Paris-Roubaix is pan flat and the race still comes down to between one and five guys every year. Any course that is flat and still features this kind of selection and often with a solo winner who wins by minutes... yeah.

What was the largest group to finish in Roubaix? For my money, I can only think of threes, but I'm sure there are a few years where a much larger group came in together.

PR always gets decimated.

generally harder to get back onto a group too. Bad luck I felt, always hurts more at PR.

 

[Kvinto]

The both races are very hard and exciting. I dont know how to compare Koppenberg to Arenberg... I like them both. This poll would be much more representative with an option "equally hard".

 

[md2020]

In the interview after the race last weekend, Hincapie said that the Ronde is the hardest race in cycling. Considering his history with Roubaix that's saying something. Personally, I think it's kind of like asking who wins in a fight, Superman or The Hulk?

 

[Archibald]

haha! I like the comparison of Arenberg vs the Koppenberg. Having ridden both, I'd nominate Arenberg.

I did RvV this year (150km) and I did the final 120kms of Roubaix last year. They were the hardest 120kms I've ever ridden. My hands took a couple of months to fully recover.
At the end of RvV, I could have ridden and done much more of this course.
There's no respite at Roubaix, you're going all the time, while RvV has quite a few downhill sections where you can recover. The hills were taxing but not as bad as I'd thought they'd be.
The Ronde cobbles are not as tough on you either - they're all fairly similar - but Roubaix, they vary greatly and their upkeep is far worse. They're mostly country lanes used by farm vehicles while RvV's are mostly regular roads...

 

[Anonymous]

I'm just stunned at how much effort it takes to ride at speed over shitty cobbles. There was one really bad section at RvV, but there are 10 harder than that at Roubaix.

In good conditions, I think P-R is harder that RvV... but it's close. In bad conditions, P-R is stupid-hard. Waaaayyy worse than RvV.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

I didn't ride RVV tour version, but did ride RVV hills and cobblestrokes. And I rode the Amstel Gold race tour version multiple times. And I hear from peole who've done both, they have the same experience as me. AGR is even harder than RVV because there's only hills and downhills, BUT, nothing compares to Roubaix.

It might be flat, but like you said, there are no downhills to recover. It's just cobblestroke after cobblestroke. I only rode 4 or 5 of the official PR cobble strokes beforE I had enough ... so freakishly hard... and you bump everywhere, there is no path which is easy (like the gutter in RVV climbs).. it's just...hell. At least for a lightweight like me it's hell.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Voted Roubaix, since you need 6-7 days to recover from that.
For de Ronde you "only" need 3-4 days.

 

[El Pistolero]

I gotta say Roubaix if you just compare both races.

The Ronde is the harder race to win though.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

I gotta say Roubaix if you just compare both races.

The Ronde is the harder race to win though.

What does that mean?

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

because the final of the ronde is easier (last 10k are flat f.ex) it's more of a lottery

loterries are always hard to win

 

[Monty Dog]

DeRonde is a 'harder' race to win because the course isn't as selective - after Tenbosse, there's plenty of recovery before the Muur and then it's mainly downhill to the Bosberg. Team tactics often close-down the chase.
Comparing Koppenberg with Arenberg? What makes the Koppenberg tough is the mud and other riders getting in the way- with a clear-run up the middle it's quite easy and you can ride it on a big ring (just). The sheer hammering you take at Arenberg has no comparator in cycling.

 

[El Pistolero]

because the final of the ronde is easier (last 10k are flat f.ex) it's more of a lottery

loterries are always hard to win

That's why I'm hoping the finish will change next year.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

DeRonde is a 'harder' race to win because the course isn't as selective - after Tenbosse, there's plenty of recovery before the Muur and then it's mainly downhill to the Bosberg. Team tactics often close-down the chase.
Comparing Koppenberg with Arenberg? What makes the Koppenberg tough is the mud and other riders getting in the way- with a clear-run up the middle it's quite easy and you can ride it on a big ring (just). The sheer hammering you take at Arenberg has no comparator in cycling.

LOL

I agree Arenberg is harder than Koppenberg. But there is no way you can do the Koppenberg on the big ring. Not even Cancellara or Gilbert
The steepest part is like 20%... WITH cobbles...

 

[Granville57]

Paris-Roubaix is known as the Queen of the Classics. There's a reason, no?

Because Vlaanderen is King?

In the interview after the race last weekend, Hincapie said that the Ronde is the hardest race in cycling. Considering his history with Roubaix that's saying something. Personally, I think it's kind of like asking who wins in a fight, Superman or The Hulk?

That's easy. Superman!

I was going to mention the same quote from George. He seemed pretty adamant about it too—no second thought. Which was suprising given his history with Roubaix. I also remember seeing him in an interview saying that the way he feels after racing Roubaix is the same way he feels after finishing the Tour. It takes that much out of him!

Of course his latest response came just after finishing Flanders. Hopefully the same guy will ask him the same question again after this Sunday.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

because the final of the ronde is easier (last 10k are flat f.ex) it's more of a lottery

loterries are always hard to win

That all depends on how good you are.

So what it means is that the Ronde is harder for the very strongest rider(s) to win. By implication, it's easier for everyone else to win.

If a few riders find the Ronde harder to win and hundreds find it easier, it's easier. I'd have thought.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I think in RVV you can get lucky ..... if you can stick it out and be in the last group, you have every chance of getting there.

PR you have to be superman. There is no 'lucky' winner. If you win it, you deserve it

 

[Asero831]

PR is on a different level. No time to recover your energy and only the strong survive. it is an all out assault especially in the last 50 kms

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Ronde van Vlaanderen v Paris - Roubaix - which one is ha

I think PR is harder, because the real racing starts much earlier than in the RVV where the action mostly takes place on the two last climbs. In paris roubaix there is action in almost every cobble section of the last 80 km

 

[Scatto]

I tried to vote for RVV (didn't work).

I live between both areas and I've ridden RVV (only 150k) as an amateur and most of the finale of PR on training. I don't think you can compare the races. RVV needs fast muscles to endure the pain to get over the hill, while PR needs more time trial skills and some body. The last kilometers of both races are not very different: about 15k and mostly flat. It makes for many tactics to play out and anybody who wins either races is not a pancake. So the level is equal but despite many riders winning both, it's not the same beast. Why I'd downvote PR is because punctures and accidents may sweep out even the best rider in the race. Mostly this happens very early in the race so we don't even hear about it, but luck is often a decisive factor, not in who wins, but who won't.

 

[Echoes]

Re: Ronde van Vlaanderen v Paris - Roubaix - which one is ha

"Punctures and accidents in Paris-Roubaix are no bad luck, it's a matter of clear-mindedness", says Roger De Vlaeminck.

Not 100% true but at least luck is certainly not more of a factor than in any other races. Some crashes are pure bad luck, others are not and this holds true for any kind of races. A rider in form would often avoid mishaps.

Agree with the rest of your post, though.

I stand by what I said 4 years ago. Paris-Roubaix is not even in the same league as the Tour of Flanders. It's the hardest of ALL cycle races. It epitomises the sport. "If you haven't raced Paris-Roubaix, you are not a cycling rider", said Charly Mottet.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

I've only cycled (parts of) the route of the Ronde, so maybe I'm not qualified to speak, but as far as I can see I can't look past Paris-Roubaix.

Of course what type of rider you are factors into things. Some might be more suited to the Ronde some might be more suited for Roubaix. But if I have to pick one race for both the greatest and the hardest race of all of cycling, it's got to be Paris-Roubaix.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re:

So the level is equal but despite many riders winning both, it's not the same beast.

+1

But, I like the randomness of *minor* equipment failure in a race. That happens during the Ronde too, just probably not as dramatic. .

 

[Flamin]

Re: Ronde van Vlaanderen v Paris - Roubaix - which one is ha

"Punctures and accidents in Paris-Roubaix are no bad luck, it's a matter of clear-mindedness", says Roger De Vlaeminck.

He must have been seriously drunk when he said this, because he actually made sense here for once.

I just saw this double interview with him and Museeuw in HNB. God, this guy is unbearable it's beyond me how media still give him a platform to voice his opinion.