Teams & Riders The "MVP" Mathieu Van der Poel Road Discussion Thread

[jono]

It's not snow based, but it is definitely a winter sport. We just have to wait for IOC to grow a brain. That would be like having an extra condition for summer sports that they have to be held at above 30 degrees C without any clouds or don't count.

I would like to see cyclocross in the winter Olympics. That said, the IOC's definition of a winter sport is something that is performed on ice or snow. There are no exceptions that I can think of.

Cyclocross is very rarely held in icy or snowy conditions. Trying to force the ice/snow element (Val di Sole) can lead to dangerous conditions for riders.

If cyclocross is included in the winter Olympics because it is held in the winter months (in parts of Europe at least -- in North America it is strictly a fall sport) that opens the door to a whole bunch of others.

Another solution is that cycling gets rid of some of the track of BMX medal events and includes CX in the summer Olympics.

 

[Axel Hangleck]

Another solution is that cycling gets rid of some of the track of BMX medal events and includes CX in the summer Olympics.

Well XC Short Track has been mentioned for inclusion in the summer Olympics; and remember, Track is a winter sport, but is also in the summer games.

 

[Barkintheeye]

We should hope for everybody's sake, that more youth trainers start to understand the importance of CX for their riders. Which will in turn benefit both road and CX. But you can't expect the current RR peleton to start doing CX all of a sudden.

This is so right on the spot. CX is an ideal starting point for young riders that later on can either continue CX or transfer to the road or MTB.

And yes, pros that are lacking the technical skills of CX won’t bother starting as their results will inevitably be ridiculous in comparison even with the pure CX riders in the lower echelons. Better to focus on the upcoming road season.

MTB:ers seem to lack both the interest and the skills for being really competitive.

 

[proffate]

Sure it can, they just have to make it an Olympic sport and all the focus that was artificially forced to MTB in the 90's can gradually shift back.

I think you are confusing cause with effect. I claim MTB made it to the Olympics because of its popularity (both in terms of spectating and participating), not the other way round. If you're going to watch or do off-road cycling, why not use a bike that was actually built for the task? Why not watch/do it in a primarily natural setting? Ok, so if you're living in Belgium in 1980 then you don't have XCO available to you, or even road cycling due to the weather, so you settle for CX. No one would invent CX if they had other options.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I think you are confusing cause with effect. I claim MTB made it to the Olympics because of its popularity (both in terms of spectating and participating), not the other way round. If you're going to watch or do off-road cycling, why not use a bike that was actually built for the task? Why not watch/do it in a primarily natural setting? Ok, so if you're living in Belgium in 1980 then you don't have XCO available to you, or even road cycling due to the weather, so you settle for CX. No one would invent CX if they had other options.

Yes, and everybody suddenly liked MTB because it was better at the EXACT same time that it became an olympic sport. What a crazy coincidence.

 

[jono]

If you're going to watch or do off-road cycling, why not use a bike that was actually built for the task? Why not watch/do it in a primarily natural setting?

I can't speak to the "do"ing part because I've never raced (and barely even ridden) MTB but CX is far superior as a spectator sport than XCO MTB, especially for in-person spectators.

 

[proffate]

Yes, and everybody suddenly liked MTB because it was better at the EXACT same time that it became an olympic sport. What a crazy coincidence.

MTB is wildly popular as a participatory sport across the world, mostly outside of a competitive context. CX is far less popular and it doesn't really exist outside of competition. And you're telling me MTB is popular because it was made an Olympic sport? I don't think endurobros know or care which cycling disciplines are in the Olympics. I'm willing to bet Red Bull Rampage has more viewers than the Olympic MTB race.

Downhill MTB should be made an Olympic sport before CX. But I do agree CX would be better than including 12 different track events (or any, really).

I can't speak to the "do"ing part because I've never raced (and barely even ridden) MTB but CX is far superior as a spectator sport than XCO MTB, especially for in-person spectators.

I'll accept that may be true for in-person spectating, mainly due to the course size. This is likely one reason why XCC is gaining popularity so fast.

 

[Extinction]

MTBing became popular because invented in the US, simple as that, where in the beginning (1978 to early 80s) it was viewed like BMX for adults with long range/nature trek possibilities. It's novelty and pioneering spirit at the time appealed to American sensibilities. Whereas its marketability and endurance nature made MTBing subsequently catch on worldwide, which eventually earned it an Olympics status as a discipline.

By contrast, outside of Europe cycling has always pretty much been a niche sport, with cyclocross being a niche within a niche. Within US cycling cyclocross has slowly gained more traction, but it's still a small movement. Not too many years ago the cyclocross community often had somebody in the family background from Belgium, or were friends of somebody who had no kidding. Even in European cycling outside the Low Countries cyclocross is a minority vocation. The relatively limited sphere of where cyclocross is truely popular, therefore, likely explains why it hasn't been made an Olympic sport, but the MTB has.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

MTBing became popular because invented in the US, simple as that, where in the beginning (1978 to early 80s) it was viewed like BMX for adults with long range/nature trek possibilities. It's novelty and pioneering spirit at the time appealed to American sensibilities. Whereas its marketability and endurance nature made MTBing subsequently catch on worldwide, which eventually earned it an Olympics status as a discipline.

By contrast, outside of Europe cycling has always pretty much been a niche sport, with cyclocross being a niche within a niche. Within US cycling cyclocross has slowly gained more traction, but it's still a small movement. Not too many years ago the cyclocross community often had somebody in the family background from Belgium, or were friends of somebody who had no kidding. Even in European cycling outside the Low Countries cyclocross is a minority vocation. The relatively limited sphere of where cyclocross is truely popular, therefore, likely explains why it hasn't been made an Olympic sport, but the MTB has.

No. Not at all. Nobody cared about MTB before it became Olympic. Then nobody cared about CX because MTB became Olympic. CX didn't make it as an Olympic sport for the sole reason that it is a winter sport for which snow/ice is not required, while some morons at the IOC decided that winter = snow. I guess only a few places in the world still have winter, and maybe in a few years they can put a cork in winter olympics altogether when it won't be snowing anywhere anymore. That's the only reason why peeing in the snow has a better chance at becoming an olympic sport than CX.

Again, look at the wide range of nationalities involved in CX before '96 and compare that to after '96. The easiest test is to check how many times other nationalities won a WCC before then, and compare that to how many since. From 1950-1996 there were 29 men's elite WC not Dutch/Belgian. That's 29 out of 47 or 62%. Since '96, we're talking about 5 out of 26, or 19%. Thank god Van Aert and Van der Poel decided to stay home last year or it would have been only 15%.

 

[Barkintheeye]

On a very subjective note I find televised XCC MTB races quite boring. Both the perspective of the course, the individual camera shots and the dynamics between the riders typically is not all that exciting. There are some exceptions but in general quite dull. The longer events just don’t work on TV.

In comparison CX works very well for viewing, televising and also watching live due to the compressed courses. Further lots of things are always going on and the chance (risk) of some mishap that will change the event is ever present. The courses are also very different - Zonhoven (sand), Gavere (mud), Hulst (grassy) etc - which ensure variation. Finally it has really helped the sport that several of the best CX riders have taken up road (which is significantly more popular among the general population) and made a massive mark. Should the same have happened with MTB riders it would probably have increased the interest for MTB events.

 

[Bolder]

Yes, and everybody suddenly liked MTB because it was better at the EXACT same time that it became an olympic sport. What a crazy coincidence.

It was a little bit of both, but MTB was already wildly popular in California before the 96 Olympics. I don't think, at least in the U.S., that including XC added many participamts. It was the "outlaw" image of DH and dirt jump culture that drove the biggest part of the boom. Maybe different in Europe?

Would having CX in the Olympics make it more popular? It might. But having MTB in the Olympics didn't prevent a huge exodus of sponsorship money later, especially in XC.

 

[theyoungest]

It's not snow based, but it is definitely a winter sport. We just have to wait for IOC to grow a brain. That would be like having an extra condition for summer sports that they have to be held at above 30 degrees C without any clouds or don't count.

Just because Belgians are traditionally so bad at the Olympics doesn't mean that the whole concept of a winter sport should change, just to get you some medals

If you define a Winter Olympic sport as 'a sport that is generally done during winter time' then why not include cross country running? Or indoor athletics? The definition 'it needs to be on snow or ice' seems a little narrow, but it does make sense because it leaves you with the sports that you can only really do on these surfaces. Silly as they may be (curling, anyone?) Otherwise you might as well do away with the whole idea of the Winter Olympics.

 

[Extinction]

No. Not at all. Nobody cared about MTB before it became Olympic. Then nobody cared about CX because MTB became Olympic. CX didn't make it as an Olympic sport for the sole reason that it is a winter sport for which snow/ice is not required, while some morons at the IOC decided that winter = snow. I guess only a few places in the world still have winter, and maybe in a few years they can put a cork in winter olympics altogether when it won't be snowing anywhere anymore. That's the only reason why peeing in the snow has a better chance at becoming an olympic sport than CX.

Again, look at the wide range of nationalities involved in CX before '96 and compare that to after '96. The easiest test is to check how many times other nationalities won a WCC before then, and compare that to how many since. From 1950-1996 there were 29 men's elite WC not Dutch/Belgian. That's 29 out of 47 or 62%. Since '96, we're talking about 5 out of 26, or 19%. Thank god Van Aert and Van der Poel decided to stay home last year or it would have been only 15%.

I agree with your analysis, the seasonal factor having definitely contributed to why one discipline was called up to the Olympics and not the other. However, and this is where I don't agree with your opening "No, not at all," the marketability of MTB absolutely played just as decisive a role and, since you mentioned it, the fact that it first appeared on the Olympic agenda at Atlanta 96, in the US, is a demonstration of this.

I don't know what the situation with MTB was like outside the US in 96 and the years just prior, but MTB sales had been growing hugely domestically at the time and I imagine this was starting to become relatively true in Europe and Australia (the other markets that counted). Since most, if not all, brand and parts development was then "Made in the USA" there was a colossal insentive to develop the sport's market. And since at the IOC the US lobby is very strong, not forgetting the Atlanta location along with a rapidly growing MTB market and (as you emphasize) the sport takes place during the right season; everything was in place for the discipline to make its Olympic debut.

So, as I mentioned, "MTBing became popular because invented in the US, simple as that," is true (if nothing else, America knows how to develop markets). While such business interests and US influence at IOC doubtless got MTB an Olympics invitation at Atlanta in 96, despite the fact that as a sport it wasn't yet as popular as road cycling or CX. But the potential was there, and this was exploited at the right moment. By contrast, none of these factors, including the wrong season, played out to favor CX. CX bike sales weren't growing exponentially, nor were there large business interests to grow its market share, or a powerful IOC lobby to get the sport an Olympic slot.

I thus think these issues contributed equally as much to why MTB has become what it has today, whilst CX lost traction, despite more TV converge of the sport at Eurosport of late outside of Belgium and Holland.

 

[Extinction]

It was a little bit of both, but MTB was already wildly popular in California before the 96 Olympics. I don't think, at least in the U.S., that including XC added many participamts. It was the "outlaw" image of DH and dirt jump culture that drove the biggest part of the boom. Maybe different in Europe?

Would having CX in the Olympics make it more popular? It might. But having MTB in the Olympics didn't prevent a huge exodus of sponsorship money later, especially in XC.

And this ties into the business culture factor I raised. California, with the Hollywood and Silicone Valley industries, is no mere US state, but a global economic powerhouse and trendsetter. I can imagine some Hollywood stars or Silicon Valley gurus discovering MTB in 95 saying, "Whoa, dude, far out. We gotta get this sport to the Olympics!" And so it was.

 

[theyoungest]

I agree with your analysis, the seasonal factor having definitely contributed to why one discipline was called up to the Olympics and not the other. However, and this is where I don't agree with your opening "No, not at all," the marketability of MTB absolutely played just as decisive a factor and, since you mentioned it, the fact that it first appeared on the Olympic agenda at Atlanta 96, in the US, is a demonstration of this.

I don't know what the situation with MTB was like outside the US in 96 and the years just prior, but MTB sales had been growing hugely domestically at the time and I imagine this was starting to become relatively true in Europe and Australia (the other markets that counted). Since most, if not all, brand and parts development was then "Made in the USA" there was a colossal insentive to develop the sport's market. And since at the IOC the US lobby is very strong, not forgetting the Atlanta location along with a rapidly growing MTB market and (as you emphasize) the sport takes place during the right season; everything was in place for the discipline to make its Olympic debut.

So, as I mentioned, "MTBing became popular because invented in the US, simple as that," is true (if nothing else, America knows how to develop markets). While such business interests and US influence at IOC doubtless got MTB an Olympics invitation at Atlanta in 96, despite the fact that as a sport it wasn't yet as popular as road cycling or CX. But the potential was there, and this was exploited at the right moment. By contrast, none of these factors, including the wrong season, played out to favor CX. CX bike sales weren't growing exponentially, nor were there large business interests to grow its market share, or a powerful IOC lobby to get the sport an Olympic slot.

I thus think these issues contributed equally as much to why MTB has become what it has today, whilst CX lost traction, despite more TV converge of the sport at Eurosport of late outside of Belgium and Holland.

Cyclocross in the Netherlands is also mostly only on Eurosport. In terms of viewing numbers, the sport is only big in Belgium. I do wonder though if the viewing numbers of mountain biking worldwide are really that much bigger than cyclocross. Certainly now with the Van der Poel-Van Aert-Pidcock saga, I get the impression that a lot more cycling fans are tuned in than they would be for an average XCO world cup in the summer... but I could be wrong there.

 

[Barkintheeye]

Just because Belgians are traditionally so bad at the Olympics doesn't mean that the whole concept of a winter sport should change, just to get you some medals

Well Belgium may not excel in all of the disciplines in the Winter Olympics but they have at least one superstar on the ice: Bart Swings. He has been about as dominant as you can be in any sport on inline skating and has won Olympic gold and silver on the ice.

 

[theyoungest]

Well Belgium may not excel in all of the disciplines in the Winter Olympics but they have at least one superstar on the ice: Bart Swings. He has been about as dominant as you can be in any sport on inline skating and has won Olympic gold and silver on the ice.

He has, yes, in the speedskating discipline that resembles inline the most: the mass start. And I believe they won a bronze medal in shorttrack with Hanne Desmet. They also won an Olympic medal in speedskating once with a naturalized Dutchman, Bart Veldkamp. But I think that's about all. Cyclocross would of course improve their medal tally immensely (and it was a bit of banter to begin with )

 

[Extinction]

Cyclocross in the Netherlands is also mostly only on Eurosport. In terms of viewing numbers, the sport is only big in Belgium. I do wonder though if the viewing numbers of mountain biking worldwide are really that much bigger than cyclocross. Certainly now with the Van der Poel-Van Aert-Pidcock saga, I get the impression that a lot more cycling fans are tuned in than they would be for an average XCO world cup in the summer... but I could be wrong there.

No, I think you are right. In any case, more than TV exposure, it simply boils down I think to global MTB sales versus global CX bike sales, which is why we'll probably see gravel Olympic event coming up in the near future.

 

[Axel Hangleck]

If CX had been invented in the US, it would be a far bigger sport than it is now; just look first at MTB, and now Gravel.......

 

[Extinction]

If CX had been invented in the US, it would be a far bigger sport than it is now; just look first at MTB, and now Gravel.......

Perhaps regarding CX, but certainly MTB, which was my initial point. But not only that it was invented in the US, but precisely when in the late 70s. This was when families started to invest in outdoor recreational activities, and the idea of "fitness" and weight loss became part of popular American culture (diet soft drinks, light beer, those ridiculous morning exercise shows with that tan guy with the frizzy hair and short workout shorts, etc.) And, of course, families had the disposable income to buy equipment. Skiing as a truly popular family activity, to cite another case, began to really take off at this time. The MTB arriving on the scene then, with its pioneering, outdoorsy and grass roots appeal and without a Euro patrimony, but that "Made in the USofA" mark, puerile as this may be, played right into popular American patriotic sensibilities. Moreover, that California (and Colorado, where the USOC is located) was the locus where MTB first took off in the 80s, from the business and marketing perspective, the nascent activity/sport could not have had a more auspicious beginning.

That MTB further created a US branded off-road alternative to road cycling, and again became popular early in the state where USOC has its headquarters, made the sport's Olympic debut at Atlanta in 96 almost a foregone conclusion to its natural marketability, I think. One could even recall that US global influence was at its peak then, in the wake of "end" of the Cold War and the implosion of the Soviet Union, as another possible contributing factor as to why America got it's homegrown sport, which wasn't that popular elsewhere, an Olympic birth at this time. The rivalry between the two superpowers had, after all, marked the Olympics for the past four decades (remember the 1980 and 1984 boycotts by Washington and Moscow respectively). And then with Atlanta 96, as Logic pointed out, MTB took off from there internationally.

 

[Wyndbrook]

Cross needs to just wait a few years, by then snow based based sports will almost be extinct.

 

[Ricco']

If the UCI would want it €nough, I'm sure cross could be an Olympic $port.

After all, as it was seen in the most recent winter olympics, the existence of snow in the location of the competition apart from the bare minimum amount needed of artificial snow is not a requisite to hold an olympic event.

They could even have a Koksijde style event in the dunes if Saudi Arabia wins their desired bid.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

If you define a Winter Olympic sport as 'a sport that is generally done during winter time' then why not include cross country running? Or indoor athletics? The definition 'it needs to be on snow or ice' seems a little narrow, but it does make sense because it leaves you with the sports that you can only really do on these surfaces. Silly as they may be (curling, anyone?) Otherwise you might as well do away with the whole idea of the Winter Olympics.

I think any sport that is relevant, should be at the Olympics. Be it either summer or winter. And i think circumstances, like rain, mud, cold, wet/hard dirt, snow... which are typical fall/winter conditions, more than qualify for being regarded as a winter sport. For all i care they can make chess an olympic winter sport, but that's a different matter. As for being relevant, you could argue that that no longer is the case, though i would disagree in this WvA/MvdP/TP era, but mainly that the reason for it not being as relevant anymore, is a direct result of excluding it in the first place. So you can discuss all the semantics you want, but in this case the only correct decision is to right the wrong.

 

[IndianCyclist]

His back injury has returned. It may threaten his classics

 

[Boes]

His back injury has returned. It may threaten his classics

I don't think there's reason to start panicking yet.

Last year his back issues started in his first or second cross. Now it started after 2 months of competition and having just done a crazy week with 5 crosses. He's at the end of a busy period so it might just be overexertion, hopefully.