The Double (vlaanderen and roubaix), too easy? Why?

[Miburo]

In 8 years it happened 4 times by 2 guys. In '03 it also happened but that's from another generation and i would like to focus on this one.

Boonen in '05 and '12. And canc in '10 and '13.

And with some more luck it could even happen more often. Canc in '11 for example.

What does this mean?

 

[spalco]

[x] Boonen and Cancellara are just that much better than their competition.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Cancellara + Boonen >>>>> rest

 

[wiggos sideburn]

Boonen and Cancellara are different level to the competition on cobbles

 

[Netserk]

LOL @ OP

And with some more luck: '11.

How about '08 and '09?

 

[Afrank]

Cance and Boonen are the greatest cobble riders of their generation. If your strong enough, you can do the double multiple times. And the don't come stronger than Tornado Tom and Spartacus.

 

[Pentacycle]

The races mostly suit the same men; heavy riders who fly over cobbles and can power up short, steep hills; riders who can take a good beating. If you stand out in Vlaanderen, you most likely stand out in the Flemish region of France as well. Roubaix and Vlaanderen are much more alike than for example the hilly classics.

And most importantly, Fab and Boon are untouchable when in top form.

 

[infeXio]

Would you stop getting so effin butthurt every time Boonen doesnt get mentioned in the context. my god

 

[Netserk]

The races mostly suit the same men; heavy riders who fly over cobbles and can power up short, steep hills; riders who can take a good beating. If you stand out in Vlaanderen, you most likely stand out in the Flemish region of France as well. Roubaix and Vlaanderen are much more alike than for example the hilly classics.

 

[Miburo]

LOL @ OP

And with some more luck: '11.

How about '08 and '09?

I was just using one example. Yea true.

Other good examples.

Relax. Take a chill pill.

 

[Descender]

That they're similar races that appeal to the same type of riders and take place 7 days apart?

 

[Netserk]

That they're similar races that appeal to the same type of riders and take place 7 days apart?

Compared to Amstel and Liege?

Also a week a part and more similar than Ronde and Roubaix.

 

[The Hitch]

Where is the boonen fan option?

Boonen won because he was the best. Canc won because he was lucky. Vandenberg would have come back from being dropped and beaten him.

 

[Netserk]

Where is the boonen fan option?

Boonen won because he was the best. Canc won because he was lucky. Vandenberg would have come back from being dropped and beaten him.

I don't think anyone argued that.

 

[Descender]

Compared to Amstel and Liege?

Also a week a part and more similar than Ronde and Roubaix.

I'm not sure about that... but what's your point? Amstel and Liege have also been won by the same rider the same year more than once.

 

[El Pistolero]

Ronde van Vlaanderen, E3 Harelbeke and G-W have strong competition. Roubaix has weak competition.

So if you're the strongest in the Ronde van Vlaanderen, you'll definitely be the strongest in Roubaix. Same field(most people who ride Roubaix also rode the Ronde, but not vice versa) even if the races are different. In Roubaix, the strongest also usually wins. Not all the time of course, but usually.

 

[Peccio89]

Weak competion for two reasons in respect to the past :
- till early 90s some gc guys used to compete in these races but now they don't anymore
- additionaly with the abolition of the world cup there are much less ardennes specialist that decide to race in the Ronde, while with the WCup still going most of them at least tried( and some of the most classy one like Bartoli and Argentin even won it)

If you sum those two factor you have cobble races with much less champion than in the past.

 

[Netserk]

I'm not sure about that... but what's your point? Amstel and Liege have also been won by the same rider the same year more than once.

My point is that despite that they are more similar, it's more rare to win AGR+LBL than RVV+P-R.

IMO it's because the cobbles monument are more selective, and are 'easier' to win when you are the best.

 

[Miburo]

Ronde van Vlaanderen, E3 Harelbeke and G-W have strong competition. Roubaix has weak competition.

I tend to agree with that.

On roubaix it's just nearly impossible to beat Boonen and Canc in top shape. Well you've the bad luck of course.

But usually the best guy wins and that's them.

Exceptions are '07, '11 and '04 in the last 11 years.

Each 4 years orso it seems an underdog wins

 

[Lanark]

A combination of a couple of factor. But I think the most important is that because of the specialisation in cycling, Vlaanderen and Roubaix have become much more fringe events, with only a couple of real stars aiming for it. You can't ride everything, and for most guys from Spain, Italy etc. it makes more sense to aim more for the Ardennes classics because those races are much more in line with the stuff they usually do.

The fact that the races are so alike surely helps in this regard as well, but the races were alike 15 years ago as well, but the double was extremely rare in those days.

 

[luckyboy]

My point is that despite that they are more similar, it's more rare to win AGR+LBL than RVV+P-R.

IMO it's because the cobbles monument are more selective, and are 'easier' to win when you are the best.

Because plenty of riders can win on hills, but only a few can win on the cobbles.

You get GC men and all sorts mixing in with the puncheurs in the Ardennes. There are more riders who are good at going uphill than there are who are good at going over cobbles.

 

[spalco]

Ronde van Vlaanderen, E3 Harelbeke and G-W have strong competition. Roubaix has weak competition.

So if you're the strongest in the Ronde van Vlaanderen, you'll definitely be the strongest in Roubaix. Same field even if the races are different. In Roubaix, the strongest also usually wins. Not all the time of course, but usually.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure how much value this argument has. Because in my opinion the reason is, that Roubaix is the most selective of those races, so fewer guys ever have a chance to get to the end in a good position.

How many guys are realistically capable of winning the Tour de France in any given year? Three or four the most, unless something extraordinary happens? And yet it's the most important race in the calendar.

 

[Netserk]

Because plenty of riders can win on hills, but only a few can win on the cobbles.

You get GC men and all sorts mixing in with the puncheurs in the Ardennes. There are more riders who are good at going uphill than there are who are good at going over cobbles.

On the other hand:

Those who are good on cobbles tend to have them as their primary target.

Few of those that are good in the Ardennes have them as their primary target.

 

[the asian]

Agree with most of the points.

Boonen and Cancellara are so much better than the rest.

Actually in all 4 instances where Fab or Tom won the double they won E3 Harelbeke as well.
Just shows that the competition is weak for the cobbled classics.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

There's far less people who can win Roubaix, indeed. It's something for the happy few.

Although there's a lot of young guys coming op who have the ability for PR.
There's Vanmarcke, Gaudin, Phinney, Turgot, Boom, Vandenbergh,... All guys who seem to be a bit more suited for PR than RVV