RVV - new finale

[El Pistolero]

Indeed, Koppenberg in the last 25k would be 'koersvervalsing' as we say in Dutch.

That climb is 99% positioning and when you are not in the first 3 when they start the climb you are screwed. It has nothing to do with racing.

Only the best are up front. If you have bad luck you're screwed either way. One can call Gilbert's puncture right before Cancellara's acceleration at the Ronde this year also koersvervalsing then.

 

[Descender]

They are a bit longer, I think. But since they're all gathered together in the final 20km, it sucks, anyway. Thank God, the new Flanders' route doesn't have the Koppenberg with 10km to go. That would be the deepest sh*t they could have made.





1966: Sels - Gimondi > Roubaix
1967: Zandegu - Janssen > Roubaix
1968: Godefroot - Merckx > Roubaix
1969: Merckx - Godefroot > Flanders (thanks the weather)
1970: Leman - Merckx > Roubaix
1971: Dolman - Rosiers > Roubaix
1972: Leman - De Vlaeminck > Roubaix
1973: Leman - Merckx > Roubaix
1974: Bal - De Vlaeminck > Roubaix lol
1975: Merckx - De Vlaeminck > Flanders
1976: Planckaert Wa. - Demeyer > equal
1977: same winner
1978: Godefroot - Moser > Roubaix (the classic specialist - sic -, lol)
1979: Raas - Moser > Roubaix
1980: Pollentier - Moser > Roubaix
1981: Kuiper - Hinault > Roubaix
1982: Martens - Raas > Roubaix
1983: Raas - Kuiper > Roubaix
1984: Lammerts - Kelly > Roubaix lol
1985: Vanderaerden - Madiot > Flanders
1986: van der Poel - Kelly > Roubaix
1987: Criquielion - Vanderaerden > Flanders
1988: Planckaert E - Demol > Flanders
1989: Van Hooydonck - Wampers > Flanders
1990: Argentin - Planckaert E > Argentin started his partnership with Ferrari. No assessment
1991: Van Hooydonck - Madiot > equal
1992: Durand - Duclos-Lassalle> Roubaix

The rest of the nineties does not deserve consideration.

17-6 for Roubaix.

Case closed.

No, case not closed.

Apart from the fact that there are some questionable decisions there (no way Kuiper beats Raas) you can't just cancel 1990 because of doping innuendos... and quite certainly you can't just erase the last 20 years of competition and call this a fair statement. So I'll complete this:

1993: Museeuw - Duclos-Lassalle > Flanders
1994: Bugno - Tschmil > Flanders
1995: Museeuw - Ballerini > Flanders
1996: Bartoli - Museeuw > Roubaix
1997: Sorensen - Guesdon > Flanders
1998: Museeuw - Ballerini > Flanders
1999: Van Petegem - Tafi > equal
2000: Tchmil - Museeuw > Roubaix
2001: Bortolami - Knaven > Flanders
2002: Tafi - Museeuw > Roubaix
2003: Van Petegem - Van Petegem > same winner
2004: Wesemann - Bäckstedt > Wesemann should take this... but I'll just leave it blank and describe it as one of those **** years.
2005: Boonen - Boonen > same winner
2006: Boonen - Cancellara > equal
2007: Ballan - O'Grady > Flanders
2008: Devolder - Boonen > Roubaix
2009: Devolver - Boonen > Roubaix
2010: Cancellara - Cancellara > same winner
2011: Nuyens - Vansummeren > Flanders

So that's 8-5 for Flanders in the last 18 years.



About the Limburg climbs-Flanders climbs, I fail to see how that's even up for debate. The Limburg climbs are, on average, a bit longer, but they are not paved. Those climbs are just too soft for today's pro riders, they keep putting 25-30 of them in and making the race very long and you still have people like Freire getting to the foot of the Cauberg time and time again. Flanders' murs are on another level of difficulty.

 

[Monty Dog]

Agree about Ninove and Meerbeke being a dull suburb and Oudenaard being a far better location for the finish. I love the Oude Kwaremont as you need to ramp-up the power as you hit the stones, it epitomises the style of the Flemish hardman.

 

[El Pistolero]

For the Flemish the Ronde is the most prestigious classic. For the Italians the Ronde is the second most prestigious classic after La Primavera. For the Dutch the Ronde is probably the most prestigious. And no one cares about the opinion of the French.

Ronde wins

Best if you don't take my post so serious though. They're both very prestigious races with Roubaix being physically tougher than the Ronde. But the Ronde has bigger crowds and a way better name. Especially in Italian: Giro delle Fiandre.

Besides, if you're going to rank a race purely on its hardness than Liège-Bastogne-Liège will always win unless they bring back Bordeaux-Paris.

 

[William H]

Besides, if you're going to rank a race purely on its hardness than Liège-Bastogne-Liège will always win unless they bring back Bordeaux-Paris.

I'd think Roubaix is harder that than L-B-L. You certainly tend to get bigger gaps, though this year was a bit of an exception.

 

[El Pistolero]

I'd think Roubaix is harder that than L-B-L. You certainly tend to get bigger gaps, though this year was a bit of an exception.

Big gaps don't mean it's harder. In Roubaix a lot of these gaps are made because of crashes and mechanicals.

 

[El Pistolero]

Hitler is ****ed off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4rwyFl1XTM&feature=player_embedded

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Indeed, Koppenberg in the last 25k would be 'koersvervalsing' as we say in Dutch.

That climb is 99% positioning and when you are not in the first 3 when they start the climb you are screwed. It has nothing to do with racing.

Sounds like it has everything to do with racing.

I'm not familiar enough with every combination of climbs, but any way to pit the strongest vs. the smartest will be a good race. From the talk about how far away the last climb is vs the difficulty of the final circuits this may be the case? Or am I stretching that too far...

Until we see the way it shapes up on a map and profile, were just speculating about speculation, so its all moot anyway, IMHO.

 

[luckyboy]

Sounds like it has everything to do with racing.

I'm not familiar enough with every combination of climbs, but any way to pit the strongest vs. the smartest will be a good race. From the talk about how far away the last climb is vs the difficulty of the final circuits this may be the case? Or am I stretching that too far...

Until we see the way it shapes up on a map and profile, were just speculating about speculation, so its all moot anyway, IMHO.

Maps + Profiles here - http://www.rondevanvlaanderen.be/system/files/460/original/FC12_RVV_PERSMAP.pdf?1316174400

 

[dolophonic]

Besides, if you're going to rank a race purely on its hardness than Liège-Bastogne-Liège will always win unless they bring back Bordeaux-Paris.

Agreed...i think it is the hard. Its also my favourite

 

[Michielveedeebee]

Indeed, Koppenberg in the last 25k would be 'koersvervalsing' as we say in Dutch.

That climb is 99% positioning and when you are not in the first 3 when they start the climb you are screwed. It has nothing to do with racing.

It would be awesome ya! No Koppenberg in the last 25 kms doesn't make sense imo... Hardest hill around here!

 

[luckyboy]

Must be amazing living near all those hellingen.

 

[Pantani_lives]

RIP Muur van Geraardsbergen
RIP Ronde van Vlaanderen

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Now there's really need for a race that really uses the hills located more western, like Berendries, Haaghoek/Leberg, Molenberg, Muur, Bosberg, Valkenberg,...
Those are all great hills, but will not be used properly

 

[Libertine Seguros]

For the Flemish the Ronde is the most prestigious classic. For the Italians the Ronde is the second most prestigious classic after La Primavera. For the Dutch the Ronde is probably the most prestigious. And no one cares about the opinion of the French.

Lombardia > Sanremo. How is Sanremo a monument again?

 

[El Pistolero]

Lombardia > Sanremo. How is Sanremo a monument again?

Italians are weird, they even voted for Berlusconi

 

[Echoes]

No, case not closed.

Apart from the fact that there are some questionable decisions there (no way Kuiper beats Raas) you can't just cancel 1990 because of doping innuendos... and quite certainly you can't just erase the last 20 years of competition and call this a fair statement. [...]

Well, sorry, it was probably not the right thing to do, but it's beyond me, I can't help.

Kuiper was a GC contender, which Raas was not.

I agree that it's been more balanced in recent years. There are more climbs now than in the seventies, in Flanders. Even Merckx concedes it. But still those climbs are short, there are far too many turns, which gives the riders the chance to take a breather as they slow down and, most importantly, there are short descents where you can recup, freewheeling.

In Paris-Roubaix there are virtually NO descents. You cannot recup between the sections. It's as if between Flanders' climb, it was just flat. This is why Paris-Roubaix blows away everything that can be made in a single day in the modern calendar.

Those climbs are just too soft for today's pro riders, they keep putting 25-30 of them in and making the race very long and you still have people like Freire getting to the foot of the Cauberg time and time again.

I do agree on this. No question. It's close, I admit.

It would be awesome ya! No Koppenberg in the last 25 kms doesn't make sense imo... Hardest hill around here!

But, Sweet Jesus, already argued, time and again. This is WHY it should be placed at 2/3rd 3/4th of the route ! Otherwise they wait for it. Patersberg and Kwaremont at the end is just stupid. Kapelmuur is softer, that's why it should be at the end !

Lombardia > Sanremo. How is Sanremo a monument again?

Discussed time and again too !

One of the greatest list of past winners. Long straight roads, over 298km, which tired the sprinters out until these got access to ******** (the thing I'm not entitled to name otherwise I'd be banned).

Milan-Sanremo > Lombardy.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6415&highlight=Sanremo
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12667&highlight=Sanremo

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

It's hardly a criterium. How about giving it a go and what if, the race ends up being more exciting?

Stop talking sense, it's irrational!

 

[Anonymous]

I agree that it's been more balanced in recent years. There are more climbs now than in the seventies, in Flanders. Even Merckx concedes it. But still those climbs are short, there are far too many turns, which gives the riders the chance to take a breather as they slow down and, most importantly, there are short descents where you can recup, freewheeling.

In Paris-Roubaix there are virtually NO descents. You cannot recup between the sections. It's as if between Flanders' climb, it was just flat. This is why Paris-Roubaix blows away everything that can be made in a single day in the modern calendar.

But still those climbs are short, there are far too many turns, which gives the riders the chance to take a breather as they slow down

Every turn the riders slow down for means there is an acceleration coming out. Additionally, there is a huge fight for position leading up to the climbs (not unlike the fight for position going in to Arenberg, for example). Both situations are nervous and very hard.

In Paris-Roubaix there are virtually NO descents. You cannot recup between the sections.

You say this as if P-R is flat. It is not. Not as up/down as RvV, but it's not pan flat until well after Mons en Pevele. Also, it's not uncommon to see recovery on the smooth sections between the pave... so the riders recup between sectors unless the race is au bloc (not unlike RvV)... or riders are chasing to get back in the bunch, etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion about Roubaix but you seem to just dismiss the Ronde as something silly, particularly when compared to P-R. That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it but I'd guess very few in the world of cycling would agree with you.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

You say this as if P-R is flat. It is not. Not as up/down as RvV, but it's not pan flat until well after Mons en Pevele. Also, it's not uncommon to see recovery on the smooth sections between the pave... so the riders recup between sectors unless the race is au bloc (not unlike RvV)... or riders are chasing to get back in the bunch, etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion about Roubaix but you seem to just dismiss the Ronde as something silly, particularly when compared to P-R. That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it but I'd guess very few in the world of cycling would agree with you.

This is not really true, all the riders say the hardest parts of PR are the sections between the pavés...

 

[Anonymous]

This is not really true, all the riders say the hardest parts of PR are the sections between the pavés...

So that's why the boys tend to come back together after being blown apart on the pave?

When the hammer is down it's all hard. But the selections are normally made on the pave, not on the pavement.

 

[Echoes]

Every turn the riders slow down for means there is an acceleration coming out.

Different kind of effort, right?
Endurance men would prefer continuous effort, I think.

You say this as if P-R is flat. It is not. Not as up/down as RvV, but it's not pan flat until well after Mons en Pevele. Also, it's not uncommon to see recovery on the smooth sections between the pave... so the riders recup between sectors unless the race is au bloc (not unlike RvV)... or riders are chasing to get back in the bunch, etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion about Roubaix but you seem to just dismiss the Ronde as something silly, particularly when compared to P-R. That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it but I'd guess very few in the world of cycling would agree with you.

I agree that there is declivity round the 'Valenciennois' which can even be seen on TV, while the end (in the Pévèle round the Carrefour de l'Arbre) is pan flat.

My opinion is based on what riders (friends of mine) who had raced both races as amateur/U23 told me. The key difference is the "relative" lack of descents.

For example I recently saw an interview of Gilbert Duclos-Lassalle telling the same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeC-cKp7Hgg&feature=related

At 1.40 he says: "It's not that the cobbles are any different because apart from more or less upright, a cobble is a cobble. The only difference with Flanders is that it's cobbled climbs and in the climbs you can be at the limit but behind you automatically have a short descent or a descending false flat which allows you to recup, while in Paris-Roubaix, it's almost always flat, which means you can't afford to be at the limit [I have problems to translate 'se mettre dans le rouge'] because otherwise you pay the prize for it in the finale."

And I'm sorry to read that you think I dismiss Flanders as something silly. It wasn't my intention. Yeah, it's a classic, no doubt. It's harder than many other races in the calendar. But yeah, I do believe when compared to the other major classics, it's softer.

 

[hrotha]

Lombardia > Sanremo. How is Sanremo a monument again?

2011 MSR > 2010 Lombardia

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Discussed time and again too !

One of the greatest list of past winners. Long straight roads, over 298km, which tired the sprinters out until these got access to ******** (the thing I'm not entitled to name otherwise I'd be banned).

Milan-Sanremo > Lombardy.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=6415&highlight=Sanremo
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12667&highlight=Sanremo

Yes, in the past it has had a great list of winners. But since Zabel's first win it's been a sprint practically every year. This year's edition was the first interesting one in years. The climbers and hilly classics guys no longer believe they can win, and just act as domestiques for the sprinters. As soon as Goss was named in the group of 70 or so this year, I knew he would win.

M-SR was once one of the greatest, toughest races on the calendar. But it simply isn't hard enough anymore.

It wouldn't make my list of least favourite races (Scheldeprijs has that one sewn up) but it's a long, long way from being the race it used to be.

 

[Anonymous]

Different kind of effort, right?
Endurance men would prefer continuous effort, I think.




I agree that there is declivity round the 'Valenciennois' which can even be seen on TV, while the end (in the Pévèle round the Carrefour de l'Arbre) is pan flat.

My opinion is based on what riders (friends of mine) who had raced both races as amateur/U23 told me. The key difference is the "relative" lack of descents.

For example I recently saw an interview of Gilbert Duclos-Lassalle telling the same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeC-cKp7Hgg&feature=related

At 1.40 he says: "It's not that the cobbles are any different because apart from more or less upright, a cobble is a cobble. The only difference with Flanders is that it's cobbled climbs and in the climbs you can be at the limit but behind you automatically have a short descent or a descending false flat which allows you to recup, while in Paris-Roubaix, it's almost always flat, which means you can't afford to be at the limit [I have problems to translate 'se mettre dans le rouge'] because otherwise you pay the prize for it in the finale."

And I'm sorry to read that you think I dismiss Flanders as something silly. It wasn't my intention. Yeah, it's a classic, no doubt. It's harder than many other races in the calendar. But yeah, I do believe when compared to the other major classics, it's softer.

Different kind of effort, right?
Endurance men would prefer continuous effort, I think.

Yes, without doubt. The thing is... riders only have so many matches to burn. I do agree that the efforts are different. Probably more anerobic efforts at Flanders and much longer efforts at threshold for P-R.

And I'm sorry to read that you think I dismiss Flanders as something silly. It wasn't my intention.

No need to apologize. These are my two favorite races and after over 20 years of being very interested in RvV and P-R I still can't decide which one I like better