The Champion Of The World

[rickshaw]

I really don't "get it". To me the "World Championship" just looks like another one day race done with National teams instead of trade teams. Why the hype? Its just a one day race, not a series, or true measure of any one rider's greatness.

Help me out please.

 

[spalco]

It's a combination of the history of the race and the fact that many of the best cyclists in the world try to peak for it.

I'm not sure what's to get or not to get here - yes, it's "just another one day race", but one that many cyclists care a lot about, which makes it very relevant athletically.

 

[abbaskip]

The prestige with being declared World Champion, and wearing the rainbow jersey for the season that follows, perhaps?

The Rugby Union World Cup Final, is just another Rugby Test. The same rules as all the tests played before it.

The Football World Cup Final is the same any other international played before it.

Need I go on??

 

[Izzy eviel]

Well if you win that race, it means you've beaten all the best riders in the world.

Unlike other races, they will all be there unless injured.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

it is a prestigious one day race with national teams. it is very long and very hard, even if it's flat.

the motivation is that the winner gets to call himself world champ and wear the jersey every race for the entire year. plus big contracts and bonuses are sure to follow.

this motivation means most of the strongest riders will be peaking for this one event. and the teams bring their best riders and the pace is kept brutally high.

it is a big deal for the riders and so it's a big deal for us.

 

[Ferminal]

All the monuments are also "just another one day race" (with cobbles or hills or 300km, big deal) if you want to break them down to that level. I don't see how the Worlds is any less of a race than those. The prestige of the Rainbow Jersey means that everyone wants to win, thus the race is one of the most fiercely contested on the calendar.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

plus, if you are an italian wearing this jersey, it's guaranteed sex!

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

it is a bit of a spectacle, but a good one.

Most winners are deserved and usually hold up the honor as the worlds champ the following year. But that has not always been the case. Take for instance Igor Astarloa from 2003. He turned out to be a bust after his worlds title in the elite men's road race. Here's a list of the (about) past 20 Worlds elite men's RR winners:
1993 Lance Armstrong (USA)
1994 Luc Leblanc (FRA)
1995 Abraham Olano (ESP)
1996 Johan Museeuw (BEL)
1997 Laurent Brochard (FRA)
1998 Oscar Camenzind (SUI)
1999 Oscar Freire (ESP)
2000 Romans Vainsteins (LAT)
2001 Oscar Freire (ESP)
2002 Mario Cipollini (ITA)
2003 Igor Astarloa (ESP)
2004 Oscar Freire (ESP)
2005 Tom Boonen (BEL)
2006 Paolo Bettini (ITA)
2007 Paolo Bettini (ITA)
2008 Alessandro Ballan (ITA)
2009 Cadel Evans (AUS)
2010 Thor Hushovd (NOR)

Any others you see in that list who were not really deserving? Maybe Brochard.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

The prestige with being declared World Champion, and wearing the rainbow jersey for the season that follows, perhaps?

The Rugby Union World Cup Final, is just another Rugby Test. The same rules as all the tests played before it.

The Football World Cup Final is the same any other international played before it.

Need I go on??

The nature of a final is that people have had to do something to get there. Of course I agree the world championship is special, but I don't think your counter arguments to the OP hold much water.

 

[MartinGT]

I thought Cadel wore the jersey with some great pride last year and its going to be great to see Thor wearing it at the Tour of Britain before handing it over.

 

[analo69]

Everybody who wins the world championship deserves the win. They won by being faster than anyone else and because of that the win was deserved. If someone else should have won they could just have gone faster. That is the nature of cycling.

It is, however, not always the best rider who wins. Tactics, team strength etc. also play a part.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

WC is my favorite race of the year

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Most winners are deserved and usually hold up the honor as the worlds champ the following year. But that has not always been the case. Take for instance Igor Astarloa from 2003. He turned out to be a bust after his worlds title in the elite men's road race.

Any others you see in that list who were not really deserving? Maybe Brochard.

All the riders that have won it deserve to win. What I'm concerned with is how they honor the jersey while wearing it.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Everybody who wins the world championship deserves the win. They won by being faster than anyone else and because of that the win was deserved. If someone else should have won they could just have gone faster. That is the nature of cycling.

It is, however, not always the best rider who wins. Tactics, team strength etc. also play a part.

Yes, I stand corrected. I agree any who win deserve it.

And for sure tactics and team strength play a part. Must have been how Brochard won it.

Igor Astarloa in 2003 though, I did not check, but if I recall right he had a pretty good year in 2003. Any maybe the following year for him was more bad luck than bad performance. Maybe I was too harsh there.

 

[TeoSheva]

plus, if you are an italian wearing this jersey, it's guaranteed sex!

if you are Italian, you don't need a jersey

 

[goggalor]

Well if you win that race, it means you've beaten all the best riders in the world.

Unlike other races, they will all be there unless injured.

And unless the course is rubbish.

 

[Arnolfini]

The nature of a final is that people have had to do something to get there. Of course I agree the world championship is special, but I don't think your counter arguments to the OP hold much water.

Riders from the major cycling countries actually do have to do something to be picked to ride for their country. They have to show they're in great shape and in a winning mood in the weeks previous to the WC race itself.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

I really don't "get it". To me the "World Championship" just looks like another one day race done with National teams instead of trade teams. Why the hype? Its just a one day race, not a series, or true measure of any one rider's greatness.

Help me out please.

Completely agree. A World Championships should be the pinnacle of a particular sport (well, in a non Olympic year). It should tell you who's the best for that year.

In athletics, rowing and swimming, for example, that's the case. In golf and tennis, for example, they have the majors and Grand Slams which do that, so they don't need a WC. Cycling have the GTs and Monuments, which tell us whom the best riders are, which are the pinnacle of the sport. We don't need a WC - all they do is tell us who's got the most left at the end of an exhausting season; an insult to the term World Champion.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Yes, I stand corrected. I agree any who win deserve it.

And for sure tactics and team strength play a part. Must have been how Brochard won it.

Igor Astarloa in 2003 though, I did not check, but if I recall right he had a pretty good year in 2003. Any maybe the following year for him was more bad luck than bad performance. Maybe I was too harsh there.

I wouldn't say you were corrected. I know what you were getting at, just a bad choice in words

There have been world Champions that have failed to do anything significant while wearing the jersey. Maybe it was bad luck, but I kind of expect a World Champion to feature in several races. Ballan was ill much of his run as World Champion, so he didn't feature in any races that suit him, understandable. Astarloa, however, had a forgetful season as champion, and Vainšteins didn't do much either. And wasn't Broachard involved with the Festina scandal the year following his win, so I understand what you said initially.

 

[taiwan]

I see it as a like a monument in terms of importance, the Worlds, albeit a funny one with both national teams and a changing course. Maybe like Paris Roubaix level?

 

[Thomsena]

I kind of undestand your thoughts. Had Contador won the Tour as well, he would of course have been stated as the world best cyclist by all of us - imo (and many others I guess) he already is. He would have absolutely no chance on winning in Copenhagen and eventually the title 'world best cyclist' would be handed to the 'wrong' rider. It's a Championship for a special group of riders depending on the route and that route seems to be somewhat in the same categori every time in terms of toughness, hills and distance..

 

[pmcg76]

Pesronally I think the Worlds are slightly over-rated, a lot of things including luck, tactics, weather conditions, route all play a role in throwing up Champions, I guess this applies to every race but as the Worlds course is never the same, these elements play more of a role than say in the regular classics which are run on the same course every year.

When the Worlds were moved to October in the mid 90s, a lot of the big names stopped attending because it was so late in the season resulting in a sequence of lesser riders winning. Brochard, Camenzind, Freire (was a nobody when he won in 99) Vainteins, Astarloa, a lot of them didnt do the jersey justice either but then a lot of big names didnt either.

Cipollini won on a pan-flat route in Zolder with the Italian team designed with one thing in mind, keeping the race together for a sprint. Cipollini never even made the Squadra most years.

I remember 93 in Oslo, the weather conditions turned the circuit into a skating ring with riders crashing everywhere, even uphill. A lot of big names crashed out and when Lance went near the end, the remaining big names hesitated and looked at each other giving Armstrong the advantage he needed.

1990 also was very tactical with the late Rudy Dhaenans and team-mate Dirk De Wolf getting away together whilst the big names dithered behind. 88 Fondriest won becasue of the clash between Criquelion and Bauer. 1995, a lot of guys didnt even attend because of the need to prepare at altitude for the Colombian race, then Olano won because he had the stongest guy in the race(Indurain) acting as a deterrent to others whilst he escaped. Very often the best guy in the race doesnt win the World title.

I think the Worlds have improved in recent years and it usually a good race these days, unique I guess but to me its not the pinnacle of one day racing. I would rate something like Flanders or L-B-L as more prestigious. How many lucky L-B-L winners have there been?

 

[Thomsena]

How many lucky L-B-L winners have there been?

No one is 'lucky' to win a bike race. Just to point that out.

 

[pmcg76]

No one is 'lucky' to win a bike race. Just to point that out.

Really, so Fondriest wasnt lucky in 88, heading for 3rd place when Bauer takes Criquelion out causing Bauer to lose momentum with Fondriest getting by for the win.

Or Ghirotto winning a stage of the Tour when the lead riders Millar and Bouvatier were sent the wrong way almost within sight of the finishing line.

 

[Thomsena]

No.? They obviously did an effort to be in front of the race which is where you want to be if you want a spot on the podium. And they obviously did a better job than 150+ riders behind them.