The Champion Of The World

[mb2612]

It's the other way round, everyone is lucky to win a bike race. Strength can get you close, but if enough rivals don't want you to win then you can't, see Cance this year.

I think the worlds is as prestigious as a monument because the routes change each year, meaning that every top rider has a chance of winning it at some point in their career. You can't' say that about any other race.

 

[The Hitch]

Since when do world championships crown world number 1s. In all sports, injuries, controversies, mistakes, other priorities come into play and the best might not win.

World Championship in most sports (and i stress the word sport before someone tries to tell me car driving has a world championship) is just a competition where individuals from around the world meet and represent their nations.

In competitions where there is a world ranking, the top dog does not always win the World Championship.

Observe how Robles and Xiang the best 2 hurdlers in the world did not win the world championship because they took each-other out.

In cycling the world championship jersey is so prestigious because you get to wear the stripes for the next year. As such every race the world champion enters he is treated as a jersey holder.

an immense ammount of prestige in every race. To those who say its equal to Roubaix, i do not see this treatment given out to Johann Van Summeren.

 

[powerste]

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.

If a racer really did have an exhausting season (as opposed to simply peaking for a single race) then having the most left near the end - and proving that against strong and motivated national teams over a very long and fast race - isn't an insult at all.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

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

I seem to recall a lot of statements to a very different effect when Giorgia Bronzini won the rainbow stripes in Geelong.

 

[Thomsena]

It's the other way round, everyone is lucky to win a bike race. Strength can get you close, but if enough rivals don't want you to win then you can't, see Cance this year.

Absolutely rubbish.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Sometimes luck is a factor:

 

[boomcie]

I'm puzzled as to why this thread was created. What's not to like about the worlds?

 

[mb2612]

Absolutely rubbish.

Name a race where a rider won with no luck.

 

[Eric8-A]

I've always thought that the course for the WC's should have a bit of every disclipline in it. Such as long climbs, power climbs, straights, etc. Something that will truly test the riders in the way that the one who really crosses the line first at the end, can truly be the best. Not have a certain rider who specializes in a certain discipline like in this years course.

 

[rickshaw]

puzzle nomore, its not about "liking" the race

I'm puzzled as to why this thread was created. What's not to like about the worlds?

Sure its a good race, no denying that. And from what people have been posting a lot of you, and the professional community, consider ita big deal. I've never followed it to closely, probably because of the lack of TV coverage in my non-cycling country. So when someone writes what a travisty it is that (drum roll) THE WORLD CHAMPION !! can't ride in the Vuelta, for example, I think, "What's that got to do with it?"

I get the bragging rights aspect, and the historical part. Maybe there is a WC in cycling, because there is a WC in every organized sport. Gotta have it.

Thanks all. I feel better about the WC... but its still a one day race, with national teams, whose members are sometimes arbitrarily chosen, and who don't train together much.

 

[Echoes]

I also think the Worlds are slightly overrated.

In the old days (the 20's), the Worlds were known as Wolber GP and raced solely among the winner of a handful of big classics of that time (like the Masters in tennis). The label World Championship was justified.

In this respect, in the UCI ranking era, I had an idea. The ranking should decide who should be selected. For the RR, the Italian squad, for example, should have the first 9 Italian riders at the ranking. Thereby the national coach could let a second "leader" like Ballerini did when Bettini was there. For the ITT, the - let's say - 50 best performers at UCI ranking in ITT's should be selected whatever their nationalities.

This is much more difficult now, since the Pro Tour.

I believe the system by national teams gives it a weaker field than the major classics. I'm not an opponent to it though. It gives the race prestige and uniqueness.

But you just have to take the 1976 edition. The first 8 were champions and then you had Don Allan of Australia (9th) and Mike Neel of the USA (10th). Those two guys never made such performance in major classics simply because the Italians, the Belgians or the Dutch had a limited number of riders at the Worlds and an unlimited number of riders in the classics (and they had the best riders at that time).

I also remember a great controversy in 2005 when Luxembourg had the right to only one rider while they had two riders who had good results that season (Kirchen and F Schleck) while Iran could have 3 of them (among others). McQuaid's insane conception of globalization. (pf course, now the problem is just opposite. Too many Luxos, lol)

Also depending on the year, the course might really be cakewalk. Remember Zolder 2002.

With regards to the hardness of the race, in my opinion:

Paris-Roubaix >>>>>>>>>>>>> Worlds (whatever the route)

With regards to prestige:

Paris-Roubaix = Worlds

 

[The Hitch]

Paris Roubaix is harder than the worlds yes (though we wait to see if Zomegnan can have his way and make sure the entire 2013 course consists of turning back and doing the climb again immediately after the descent for 19 laps) but in prestige surely worlds is much bigger.

Any rider will get way more press in their country and around the world if they win the worlds. Also PR isnt one of the triple crown.

 

[boomcie]

With regards to prestige:

Paris-Roubaix = Worlds

I don't know what scientific scale you're using to measure this, but I'm going to have to disagree.

Worlds give you a whole year of publicity (=beneficial to prestige). Who has given Vansummeren any attention this year?

 

[Echoes]

I don't know what scientific scale you're using to measure this, but I'm going to have to disagree.

Worlds give you a whole year of publicity (=beneficial to prestige). Who has given Vansummeren any attention this year?

First sentence: History and past winners

Second one: The whole peloton and the media give him more attention now. It's not because you get a specific jersey that a race has prestige. Otherwise the Curaçao nats > Paris-Roubaix.

Also PR isnt one of the triple crown.

That's subjective. In my opinion it is.

As Tim Brant said: "If you wanna be considered among the elite, you'll have to win Paris-Roubaix"

 

[Mambo95]

In this respect, in the UCI ranking era, I had an idea. The ranking should decide who should be selected. For the RR, the Italian squad, for example, should have the first 9 Italian riders at the ranking. Thereby the national coach could let a second "leader" like Ballerini did when Bettini was there. For the ITT, the - let's say - 50 best performers at UCI ranking in ITT's should be selected whatever their nationalities.

This is much more difficult now, since the Pro Tour.

I believe the system by national teams gives it a weaker field than the major classics. I'm not an opponent to it though. It gives the race prestige and uniqueness.

But you just have to take the 1976 edition. The first 8 were champions and then you had Don Allan of Australia (9th) and Mike Neel of the USA (10th). Those two guys never made such performance in major classics simply because the Italians, the Belgians or the Dutch had a limited number of riders at the Worlds and an unlimited number of riders in the classics (and they had the best riders at that time).

I also remember a great controversy in 2005 when Luxembourg had the right to only one rider while they had two riders who had good results that season (Kirchen and F Schleck) while Iran could have 3 of them (among others). McQuaid's insane conception of globalization. (pf course, now the problem is just opposite. Too many Luxos, lol)

I disagree with this completely. There's no right or wrong. I'd just like to a completely different approach.

I don't think globalization is insane at all. There was a time when Americans, Brits and Australians where the outsiders in globalization. (The UCI aren't really doing it right though.)

I would like to see the Worlds as a proper World race, and much like the football World Cup a bringing together of the best talent from around the World on equal terms and not just a extension of the Champions League (which it currently seems like).

The 'equal terms' is the key bit. I would like to see 25 teams, each with 8 riders (or perhaps 28 with 7 each). Those teams would qualify both through the World Tour and the Continental Tours (much like the football World Cup). If the Iranians, Colombians and Moroccans are tearing it up on their own continents, I want to see a full team of them at the Worlds, not riding at a disadvantage to the big boys.

This would make it a true World Championship and give it a much different flavour to the usual one day races.

 

[boomcie]

First sentence: History and past winners

Second one: The whole peloton and the media give him more attention now. It's not because you get a specific jersey that a race has prestige. Otherwise the Curaçao nats > Paris-Roubaix.

Vansummeren's media attention has been marginal, except right after the event. Don't get hung up on history either and don't throw in the Curacao nationals... That argument really didn't make any sense.

But I guess it's your right to form your own opinion about something. Doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree.

 

[kanari]

I think many (but not all) die-hard cycling fans rate Paris-Roubaix at least as high as the WC, but to most people a WC is more prestigious simply because they don't have the same relationship to P-R as the cycling fans. They simply don't realise the beauty of P-R that us cycling fans do. For example Hushovd was last year voted athlete of the year in Norway ahead of guys who had won multiple Olympic gold medals in XC-skiing and biathlon. That would probably never have happened if he'd instead been 2nd in WC and 1st in P-R.

As many have said above there is obviously something special about wearing the jersey as well, Thor has said that it was a much bigger deal than he had thought before he won.

 

[Mambo95]

I think many (but not all) die-hard cycling fans rate Paris-Roubaix at least as high as the WC, but to most people a WC is more prestigious simply because they don't have the same relationship to P-R as the cycling fans. They simply don't realise the beauty of P-R that us cycling fans do. For example Hushovd was last year voted athlete of the year in Norway ahead of guys who had won multiple Olympic gold medals in XC-skiing and biathlon. That would probably never have happened if he'd instead been 2nd in WC and 1st in P-R.

The problem with PR (compared with the WC) is it's a very eclectic race and these days attracts a specific type of rider. Most contenders are doing donkey work for others for almost all of the year. The GC riders don't touch it (apart from Wiggins), the likes of Gilbert don't either (yet).

The Worlds on the other hand is accessible to all. Obviously, not in a single edition, but it's really the one and only race that any top rider can realistically win at sometime in their career (from GT riders like Evans to pure sprinters like Cipo). And that's why it's the World Championship and special.

 

[Midnightfright]

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.

I think he has a resonable chance of holding onto it.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

I tend to think of the World's as high in visibility but low in significance: a League Cup for those who know English football. Nice to win, but not the FA Cup (one of the monuments) or the League (GTs, but mainly the Tour).

But surely the UCI are mor interested in hyping the World Tour nowadays (their Champions League): what they really want is for riders to target that, rather than consider it an incidental result of a good season. They are longing for the race to number one to feature in PhilGil and Cadel's comments.

 

[Echoes]

Vansummeren's media attention has been marginal, except right after the event. Don't get hung up on history either and don't throw in the Curacao nationals... That argument really didn't make any sense.

But I guess it's your right to form your own opinion about something. Doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree.

He did get media attention, notably at the ToC, I can tell you.

And did I anywhere force the others to agree with me?

The problem with PR (compared with the WC) is it's a very eclectic race and these days attracts a specific type of rider. Most contenders are doing donkey work for others for almost all of the year. The GC riders don't touch it (apart from Wiggins), the likes of Gilbert don't either (yet).

The Worlds on the other hand is accessible to all. Obviously, not in a single edition, but it's really the one and only race that any top rider can realistically win at sometime in their career (from GT riders like Evans to pure sprinters like Cipo). And that's why it's the World Championship and special.

1st alinea: This is something you could have said ten years ago. I do notice today that the best time-trialist of the last decade - namely Cancellara - has Paris-Roubaix as main objective. And the best indicator of the endurance of a rider is still the TT. GT contenders are all more climbers than TTists now. Cancellara has a bigger "motor" than 'em, though he's too heavy for the mountains. And you can't say he is a cobble specialist either. Hushovd and Boonen are better on the cobbles. He usually makes the difference on asphalt. Gilbert has far less endurance (as I already put it, see how he was unable to consolidate the gap he created after the Bosberg).

By the way, Gilbert DID race Paris-Roubaix. That was in 2006 and at the end he was broken to pieces, weeping, complaining and stated it was in one day harder than a whole GT.

And the prospect of Paris-Roubaix seems to go in that same direction. Boasson Hagen, Phinney, Boom are all possible future contenders who have a TT in the bag. Hopefully also Sergent.

2nd alinea: That's precisely the main problem, that some disgraceful sprinters/wheelsuckers like Cipollini can win it. Those guys don't deserve big wins. Even Boonen, the way he won his title or Freire, the way he won his second title (though these could show some aggressive rides on other occasions).

 

[Stingray34]

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

Only if Ballan and Bettini wear it over their heads

 

[ElChingon]

Like any race many factors determine not only the winner but the history of the race. Sure Fondirest won a controversial race but that is exactly why you remember it and why you still debate it to this day!

Rooting or hating on Squadra Azzuri is yet another past time. But what I really hate are the countries who show up like their parents made them show up. Most notables are the USA teams made up of riders who looked like they couldn't come up with a good enough excuse to not be there. All the big names bow out as if its a race is meaningless, yet riders from other countries are almost bribing their countries selection committe to be on the long list.

The changing race routes and hosting countries add to the challenge I think. If it was a similar route year in and year out only one type of rider would be showcased. Instead we get a varied route making a repeat winner very tough.

It would be improved if it was earier in the season, like pre-tour where more riders are peaking or at least on the radar.

Its a quality race for some, hence Thor's bonous for being World Champ, assuming Jonny V ponyed up!

 

[Je ne sais quoi]

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.

I assumed it was due to being heavily promoted by the UCI, as it was one of the few races organized by the UCI and their major source of revenue.

 

[auscyclefan94]

it is the title "world Champion". Winning Paris Roubaix does not carr the same weight universably as World Champion. in all sports world championships are competed in national teams You compete with your country men to acheive the goal. It is the history and the jersey.

Generally World Championships are very exciting races as it is the teams only compete together once a year on courses which are not familiar to most due to them being changed around a fair bit.