"The French public doesn't like people who win,"

[Hugh Januss]

Who?


P.S.
Got this message when I tried to post just the above: "The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters."

So, I added this P.S.!

.........

 

[Ripper]

I think the French like the struggle, the panache. So races that are close, rather than dominated by one rider, or races where guts lead to victory. But yes, they also like to see things shaken up (the more wins in a row, the more they will want someone new) and new people on the rise.

 

[David Suro]

To generalize what the French public likes is inane. The French are a diversified people with diversified preferences, just like any other nation.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

No one likes a predictable winner but everyone loves a great champion.

 

[Ripper]

To generalize what the French public likes is inane. The French are a diversified people with diversified preferences, just like any other nation.

While there are a few 'phobes around, I think speaking about cultural preferences can be quite interesting and enlightening. Of course they are diversified, as are most/all countries, that does not keep them from doing things that are uniquely ... French

 

[gatete]

That just seems irrational to me. And I think it is fair to say that's how it works for you. For me, I'd be hyped for Gesink. Because he was able to up his game to defeat all challengers. How folks can't respect that--unless it's a fellow countrymen--is beyond my comprehension. But then it's not for me to understand or accept. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

In all fairness I somehow agree with having a countrymen as an eternal favorite only if a) your country doesn't present winners all the time b)your countrymen champion is not a dyck like someone we know and loathe in this forum

 

[rhubroma]

That the French haven't had a champion in their national event since Hinault, certainly has played a contibuting factor in their being "hostile" to a winner. In a European civilization where national rivalries are secular and profoundly felt (just observe World Cup Soccer), that the Tour has been for the last 25 years or so dominated by foreign riders has certainly embitered the passionate cycling fans of France. Yet, as it is also noted, the French along the roadside cheer every rider on, from the first to the last.

Traditionally, from what I've understood, it isn't so much that they don't "like" a winner, it depends more on "how" the winner achieves his victories. He has to suffer and take risks when in trouble. Roche's dramatic climb to chase down Delgado to save the Tour for example. Lemond, if he couldn't have been loved because not French, when against Hinault and Fignon, was nonetheless much respected. Indurain was not the most exhilarating of champions, but a true Prince. Pantani simply induced passion. While it is well know that Armstrong didn't enjoy a good relationship with the French public or media. But this was due to his own disagreeable character, more than his dominance.

Yet if a French star comes around, you can bet that they will "love" a winner once again. And I don't think it is any different for any other nation, including America, to get passionate about a countryman's wins and to detest those of a foreign state.

 

[Mellow Velo]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/15/sports/AP-CYC-Athlete-of-the-Decade-Armstrong.html

I think this is a factor in how people feel about certain 7-time winners in forums outside of France too.

Obviously,you haven't seen Lance racing in France.
A false assumption based on a couple of lines at the bottom of the article.
Hack or xenophobe?

 

[Animal]

The French like to support the underdog. Look at Anquetil. They never really liked him and prefered Poulidor who never won the Tour.

 

[Anonymous]

While there are a few 'phobes around, I think speaking about cultural preferences can be quite interesting and enlightening. Of course they are diversified, as are most/all countries, that does not keep them from doing things that are uniquely ... French

I agree, especially when someone is talking about their own culture. One of the things I love about the Giro is seeing the tifosi on the big climbs dressed in cycling kit, with bikes along the road, and knowing that they rode the same climb to get there. I compare that to the people with camper vans, dogs and lawn chairs, who park and party for four days waiting for the peloton. They're all great fans, and I respect both groups, but the cultures of the two are vastly different, and I imagine their experiences were as well.

 

[Timeless]

Personally, i like arrogant sports stars...

(Lleyton Hewitt - tennis - comes to mind from Oz. I don't know anyone other than myself that actually likes him. Youngest ever world number one and frimly agreed upon to be an arrogant little shit for most of his winning days - but i thought he was great!!)

Actually, Hewitt is one of my favourite tennis players (and I'm not an Aussie). He is not the most talented but is a true battler. He will put his heart into every game and I love that he wears his competitive spirit on his sleeve. I actually don't find him arrogant these days - he knows his place, he knows that his best days are behind him and I find him quite humble - but put him on the court and he will still give it his all.

 

[Azdak6]

I would not dispute the other names on your list but I take it you never read much about Jordan's personality - most would say he was every bit as aggressive in his approach to winning championships as LA.

As an aside - I was and still am a Jordan fan. I enjoy watching the best work, for me it is art in motion.

Jordan could be absolutely brutal in his treatment of teammates, as well as the overall aggressiveness you mentioned.

He also taught Tiger Woods everything he knew about Las Vegas "cocktail" waitresses.

At least in his earlier years, Jordan was able to present a genuineness and more "agreeable" public face (with the help of his corporate handlers) which boosted his reputation.

 

[Azdak6]

That the French haven't had a champion in their national event since Hinault, certainly has played a contibuting factor in their being "hostile" to a winner. In a European civilization where national rivalries are secular and profoundly felt (just observe World Cup Soccer), that the Tour has been for the last 25 years or so dominated by foreign riders has certainly embitered the passionate cycling fans of France. Yet, as it is also noted, the French along the roadside cheer every rider on, from the first to the last.

Traditionally, from what I've understood, it isn't so much that they don't "like" a winner, it depends more on "how" the winner achieves his victories. He has to suffer and take risks when in trouble. Roche's dramatic climb to chase down Delgado to save the Tour for example. Lemond, if he couldn't have been loved because not French, when against Hinault and Fignon, was nonetheless much respected. Indurain was not the most exhilarating of champions, but a true Prince. Pantani simply induced passion. While it is well know that Armstrong didn't enjoy a good relationship with the French public or media. But this was due to his own disagreeable character, more than his dominance.

Yet if a French star comes around, you can bet that they will "love" a winner once again. And I don't think it is any different for any other nation, including America, to get passionate about a countryman's wins and to detest those of a foreign state.

I have always been struck by the "morality play" atmosphere that seems to surround european pro cycling. Most public comments and interviews from riders sound as though they have been written by a hack writer of melodramas. There is this overemphasis on form and custom which is totally out of sorts, IMO, with the grueling nature of the sport and the working class grit of many of its participants. In that light, it doesn't surprise me that Armstrong-or even Americans in general--would be viewed with mixed emotions. I see it as one of those cross-cultural differences that make the world a more interesting place.

 

[yetanothergreenworld]

I feel like people who play the "French hate winners" card usually have a bizarre view of cycling history -- the idea that back in 1985 cycling was a "mostly French" sport but has since been "internationalized," leading to a situation in which French riders just can't compete against dynamic new powers like, um, Luxembourg and Spain.

There are two truths couched within the BS, however.

First, I think there is arguably a romantic streak within French sports journalism (which is not the same as "the French") that valorizes the underdog, the visible spectacle of suffering, the win that's achieved through guts rather than calculation. This is especially true of cycling, which historically is a working-class sport and often described through romanticized imagery of factory labor or trench warfare. To this kind of sensibility, Armstrong's "exact science" approach to winning the Tour is a real turn-off.

Second, French sports journalists are arguably also hostile to a certain kind of highway-cop attitude that Armstrong carries around with him. The fact is that both Hinault and Fignon were unpopular with their home media because they were perceived as haughty and arrogant. In both cases, it took a case of spectacular humbling (Hinault's broken nose and pair of black eyes in 1985, Fignon's last-second collapse in 1989) to get the press to warm to them. I'm sure that Armstrong's being from Texas during the Bush years didn't help his public image, but arguably it was his adherence to this sort of character type that was the most damning thing against him.

 

[mherm79]

i think it pays to keep in mind that the French fell in love with the Tour because it was viewed as an extreme physical challenge, where the winner was deemed to be the one who was able to suffer the most. The winner became a hero.

When the Tour started cyclists travelled a greater distance in a day than the majority of people could even imagine travelling. The Tour was also an individual challenge - no team mates, not team cars / mechanics. This made the winner even more Superhuman.

So to the French public the winner must work hard, and therefore riders who win easily aren't 'loved' like they loved the winners of the past.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I think this is all a play on words.

really, the quote should be "the french like to see new up and comers"

or better yet "all fans of any sport are interested in seeing some underdog win"

there's nothing wrong with wanting to see a new winner each year, but personally i think it is completely irrational to, say, 'hate' a winner purely becoz they win... I guess the reason people don't like some winners is becoz of the way they win, whether it's arrogance or something like that. Personally, i like arrogant sports stars...

(Lleyton Hewitt - tennis - comes to mind from Oz. I don't know anyone other than myself that actually likes him. Youngest ever world number one and frimly agreed upon to be an arrogant little shit for most of his winning days - but i thought he was great!!)

Did anyone hate Merckx?

His competition.
Possibly, Zoetemelk as he was beaten by him many timers.

 

[pedaling squares]

Did anyone hate Merckx?

I don't think the beret-clad hooligan who punched him on the Puy-de-Dome was a fan.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Well one fan at the 1975 TDF was unhappy enough with him that they punched him in the kidney as he was climbing the Puy de Dome. It almost made him have to leave the race, and snapped his winning streak at 5, he never won another TDF.

I don't think the beret-clad hooligan who punched him on the Puy-de-Dome was a fan.

Ha, I beat you to it by 2 days and 2 pages. Didn't know about the beret though. You just made that part up didn't you?