Dazed and Confused said:on flat highway type bunch sprints? Meh.
I'm not denying it's extremely dull but the sprints field is top class, the GC field is only of 2.2 standard.
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!
Dazed and Confused said:on flat highway type bunch sprints? Meh.
Netserk said:Depends on which stages. Stage wins like Rolland's and Rasmussen's were much better than a sprint win.
Bernie's eyesore said:I'm not denying it's extremely dull but the sprints field is top class, the GC field is only of 2.2 standard.
So if Cav had won 3 more stages (5, 12 & 14) he would have had a better Tour than Contador?taiwan said:OK in 2009 Berto won 2 stages as well as the GC though. If you cancel out 2 stage wins on either side you have achievements about as remarkable as each other IMO. Trying to compare pears to lemons, but, that's the point of the thread.
taiwan said:You're basically saying that there is nothing a sprinter can do in his career to equal a GT winner. It's not a satisfactory answer to the OP, you're totally dismissing the value of (flat) stage wins.
It isn't always that hard to win a GC if you're simply that much better than the competition. See the '11 Giro.
pmcg76 said:Bingo, you got it. Sprint stage wins are the Europa League of pro cycling even less so.
I would say a mountain stage win in a GT is at least equal to 3-5 bunch sprints. People will struggle to remember one bunch sprint from another barely weeks after an event(unless like the Abdu 91 stage) but many people will remember epic mountain stages for years. Even medium mountain stages have more value than a bunch sprint.
In terms of GC, you would need to win 10+ bunch sprints to even get anyway near the GC winner.
In terms of a GT, sprint stages are the filler before the real racing starts. Honestly how many people bother following the first week of a GT if it is all flat finishes.
taiwan said:Why pay Cavendish £££££££ if sprint stages are pretty much worthless? To win the Scheldeprijs? Cycling snobbery.
Bernie's eyesore said:I'm not denying it's extremely dull but the sprints field is top class, the GC field is only of 2.2 standard.
pmcg76 said:In terms of a GT, sprint stages are the filler before the real racing starts. Honestly how many people bother following the first week of a GT if it is all flat finishes.
Viking said:snipped...
So, the only way to enjoy the whole of a grand tour is to enjoy each stage as a race on it's own. If you enjoy the bunch sprints, then that first week of flat stages is awesome. The big-name sprinters are generally ready, they have full team support, and enough of them are in it in the last half-k for a great finish. You really can't say the same for any of the other stages.
Sorry for that tangent.