The New World Champion! Appreciation

[El Pistolero]

Eh? No, it doesn't. It simply means that for the last Olympics Anglophone countries were equally as successful as non-Anglophones. When fewer Anglophone medals are won next year, what will that mean?

70% of the gold medals were won by one country. And non-Anglophone group is quite a bit bigger than the Anglophone group.
By the way it's not an insult. I wished track cycling was bigger in Belgium because it does a hell of a job in training cyclists in sprinting, staying upright(if you can do keirin you can ride in a peloton) and developing time trial talents.

It's no coincidence the British team did so well at a flat worlds: it's because of track cycling. That and talent of course.

 

[The Hitch]

70% of the gold medals were won by one country. And non-Anglophone group is quite a bit bigger than the Anglophone group.
By the way it's not an insult. I wished track cycling was bigger in Belgium because it does a hell of a job in training cyclists in sprinting, staying upright(if you can do keirin you can ride in a peloton) and developing time trial talents.

It's no coincidence the British team did so well at a flat worlds: it's because of track cycling. That and talent of course.

I think over 50% of medals in middle and long distance running over recent years if not decades have come from 2 small countries.

Does that mean endurance running is something only Kenya and Etheopia care about?

 

[El Pistolero]

I think over 50% of medals in middle and long distance running over recent years if not decades have come from 2 small countries.

Does that mean endurance running is something only Kenya and Etheopia care about?

It means a few things. One of them is the clinic and the other is that the people who live there are genetically superior for endurance running compared to Caucasian race. Do I know the reason for that? Nope, but I'm sure some scientists know.

I can assure you that is not the case with track cycling. As long distance running was pretty popular in Europe in the past, but when the Africans came to the scene they out shone the Euros. There's still plenty of white people doing Marathon, but they come in many minutes behind the first 3.

And the figures will be 100% for years to come Hitch

 

[Mambo95]

Not that Cav is as bad as the first or Txurruka as good as the second, but this "people know best" logic is very flawed.

It was only a metaphor, which will be broken if people want to test it enough.

I wasn't trying to put forward a "people know best logic" which I will acknowledge complete as bogus.

What my veiled point was, is that there are many cycling fans on here and elsewhere that over romanticise this sport, probably having read flowery prose about the greats of the past. And they use this romaniticism to elevate themselves above the 'July Fan', for want of a better phrase, because they understand the soul of the sport.

In reality, it is, and always has been, a very cynical sport. And a simple sport - first across the line wins. The likes of Txurruka and Hoogerland aren't daring dreamers that many like to think they are. Their riders who know that can't win but getting on TV will get themselves publicity and more money.

This is professional sport. Winning is what counts. How you win is only of interest to a small minority.

 

[El Pistolero]

A counter example would be Lady Gaga or Britney Spears or Ketchup to Tom Waits.

Not that Cav is as bad as the first or Txurruka as good as the second, but this "people know best" logic is very flawed.

This is Cav:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qlOsETQug

 

[Libertine Seguros]

This is professional sport. Winning is what counts. How you win is only of interest to a small minority.

Of course winning is what counts, but there has to be some kind of spectacle. The casual fans have to have a reason to come back. People like us keep watching, because we love the sport even if we may criticise its flaws. But if the casual fan is not entertained, then they will stop watching.

The sport needs people like Cavendish. They're marketable, they can be exciting, they pull viewers in. But it equally needs people like Hoogerland and Txurruka - people who make the product viewable so those viewers don't get bored and switch off. And many of those people who watch wouldn't give Hoogerland or Txurruka a second glance. But if guys like those didn't go on the attack (as you say, often about nothing more than getting sponsor airtime, but sometimes they ARE just going on a wing and a prayer, other times they're doing a specific role for their leader eg getting into breaks in mountain stages) then they'd notice, because all of a sudden their footage is 80km of a group ride followed by a sprint. And the sprint would still be as exciting as ever, but the lead-in would miss those guys.

 

[PCutter]

Yup, sorry about that. 7 out of 10 gold medals it is.

Ps: what's the reason for only 2 Olympic track events for women?

'Cause no one cares. Unfortunately this is being rectified for London which means some pretty prestigious mens events are being dropped to make room for equalisation. So no more 4000m Individual Pursuit which is why Phinney has looked to drop the track since the US team pursuit may struggle to medal over UK, Aus, NZ, Russia.

However, the reason for the success of Anglo track success is somewhat based on racial profiling. Short history is 1976 Montreal Olympics Australia came away without a single Gold medal, which for a nation that prides itself on its sporting abilities was a national disgrace. This lead to the Government opening up the purse strings and creating the Australian Institute of Sport which brought together Olympic sports under a mission/vision/whatever to deliver more success and gave funding for better coaching etc. The AIS, roughly based on the successful Eastern European institute idea (with a bit less clinical help) was pretty successful.

Given it was taxpayers money, the Australian government wanted to see some successful outcomes for the money invested, so in order to ensure continued funding increases, the administrators asked themselves the question, which sports are Anglo's likely to be successful at at an Olympic level? After ruling out track, they went for sports where either they had historic success - swimming - or ones where it didn't appear we were genetically incapable of competing for gold like the mens 100m sprint. As such, track cycling was identified as a sport where a number of medals were on offer and where Anglo's were likely to be able to compete for gold (rowing was another). So money was pushed towards a successful track programme, including hiring foreign coaches etc. This worked, and Australia has a pretty good record as a top track cycling nation over the last 10-20yrs (Beijing being an exception, and heads rolled as a result). As a side project, the AIS set up a road programme headed by Heiko Salzwedel in part to keep track cyclists employed and in the family, he set up the Giant-AIS team, which is the precursor to Jayco-AIS and GreenEDGE. This process cranked up in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics on the back of further government funding and we had a successful Olympics.

Britain, having seen Australia's success on the track, and having won the London games, and having realised they were Anglo's too, decided track cycling was a place to focus. They signed up Heiko, and a number of other successful coaches from the Australia programme...add a bucket load of Lotto money....and hey presto, you have a successful track team, as they proved in Beijing. They've done the same with their swimming squad. ie. Australia are pretty successful, what are they doing? Lets do the same. No shame in that, we did the same originally when setting up the Institute system taking the ideas from Germany. Was interested to read yesterday in the fall out of the Italian WC team that the head of Italian cycling said they would be looking to replicate the Australian model in Italy.

So yes, track is very Anglophone, and its not by accident. Olympic gold rather than success in the monuments drives government institute funding, which is why we focus on producing track cyclists. Handy road riders just happens to be a nice bi-product. But I look forward to Australia beating GB on the track next year, so the world will be right again!

 

[Anonymous]

This is Cav:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qlOsETQug

and this is you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PFURM9eA_Q&feature=player_embedded

 

[El Pistolero]

'Cause no one cares. Unfortunately this is being rectified for London which means some pretty prestigious mens events are being dropped to make room for equalisation. So no more 4000m Individual Pursuit which is why Phinney has looked to drop the track since the US team pursuit may struggle to medal over UK, Aus, NZ, Russia.

However, the reason for the success of Anglo track success is somewhat based on racial profiling. Short history is 1976 Montreal Olympics Australia came away without a single Gold medal, which for a nation that prides itself on its sporting abilities was a national disgrace. This lead to the Government opening up the purse strings and creating the Australian Institute of Sport which brought together Olympic sports under a mission/vision/whatever to deliver more success and gave funding for better coaching etc. The AIS, roughly based on the successful Eastern European institute idea (with a bit less clinical help) was pretty successful.

Given it was taxpayers money, the Australian government wanted to see some successful outcomes for the money invested, so in order to ensure continued funding increases, the administrators asked themselves the question, which sports are Anglo's likely to be successful at at an Olympic level? After ruling out track, they went for sports where either they had historic success - swimming - or ones where it didn't appear we were genetically incapable of competing for gold like the mens 100m sprint. As such, track cycling was identified as a sport where a number of medals were on offer and where Anglo's were likely to be able to compete for gold (rowing was another). So money was pushed towards a successful track programme, including hiring foreign coaches etc. This worked, and Australia has a pretty good record as a top track cycling nation over the last 10-20yrs (Beijing being an exception, and heads rolled as a result). As a side project, the AIS set up a road programme headed by Heiko Salzwedel in part to keep track cyclists employed and in the family, he set up the Giant-AIS team, which is the precursor to Jayco-AIS and GreenEDGE. This process cranked up in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics on the back of further government funding and we had a successful Olympics.

Britain, having seen Australia's success on the track, and having won the London games, and having realised they were Anglo's too, decided track cycling was a place to focus. They signed up Heiko, and a number of other successful coaches from the Australia programme...add a bucket load of Lotto money....and hey presto, you have a successful track team, as they proved in Beijing. They've done the same with their swimming squad. ie. Australia are pretty successful, what are they doing? Lets do the same. No shame in that, we did the same originally when setting up the Institute system taking the ideas from Germany. Was interested to read yesterday in the fall out of the Italian WC team that the head of Italian cycling said they would be looking to replicate the Australian model in Italy.

So yes, track is very Anglophone, and its not by accident. Olympic gold rather than success in the monuments drives government institute funding, which is why we focus on producing track cyclists. Handy road riders just happens to be a nice bi-product. But I look forward to Australia beating GB on the track next year, so the world will be right again!

Thank you, was a good read.

 

[El Pistolero]

and this is you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PFURM9eA_Q&feature=player_embedded

Still better

 

[Anonymous]

Still better

haha great song

 

[The Hitch]

What my veiled point was, is that there are many cycling fans on here and elsewhere that over romanticise this sport, probably having read flowery prose about the greats of the past. And they use this romaniticism to elevate themselves above the 'July Fan', for want of a better phrase, because they understand the soul of the sport.

In reality, it is, and always has been, a very cynical sport. And a simple sport - first across the line wins. The likes of Txurruka and Hoogerland aren't daring dreamers that many like to think they are. Their riders who know that can't win but getting on TV will get themselves publicity and more money.

This is professional sport. Winning is what counts. How you win is only of interest to a small minority.

Respectively disagree with all.

First of all under that logic most sports are simple. Team with most goals wins. Person who jumps highest wins. Person who throws furthest wins. And theres of first over the line wins.

And GTs arent neccesarily first over line wins. Lowest accumulated time over 21 stages - time bonuses + time added by race official trying screw you because they like andy schleck and evans better. Not so simple now is it?

Second of all it is a romantic sport. Its main staging points are the areas most associated with romance and beauty. Paris. The Alpes. French viniards. Northern Italy. I dont think any other sport offers that.
And considering the pain barriers faced, falling in love with the sport is necessary to success.

And I think there is a lot there to be romantiscised. The Bartali and Coppi stories for 1. A hero who used his cycling to save lives and contribute to war effort. A national icon who fell too young. The achievments of Mercx, the ferocity of Hinault, the personality of Indurain.

And these guys were not rock stars, or actors or footballers. They all rode through countries and mountains, rain and snow and sun, armed with nothing more than a bicycle.

I also think that those of us who follow the sport all year round, care about its protagonists, care about its history, have a right to elevate ourselves above July fans. I dont see anything wrong with elitism. I certainatly will look down on anyone who tries to say Lance is the greatest rider of all time because he won 7 tdfs and the best before only one 5.

Thirdly, how someone wins is very important. A heroic 30k effort stays far longer in the memory (collective fan memory so to speak) than all those stages Cav won into wherever the **** other than Bordeaux and Paris.

Ive seen a clips or pictures of Mayo crossing Alpe finish line 8 years ago more times than i have seen Greipel victory in this years edition (and no i have not gone looking for Mayo videos on youtube or any other sight).

The only Champs Elysee finish ive seen before 2004 was Bernard Hinaults victory. Why? Because it was an epic solo. And i think a lot of people would agree with me that that 1 victory was worth more than all of Cavs Champs wins combined, even if he wins another 3 or 4.

And what is the one Champs Elysee finish you get hordes of fans calling for an attempted repeat of, every year come the end of July? Cav 09? Benati 07? Mcewen 2002?

Due to your admittedly very impressive cycling knowledge, I can safely assume that i don't need to write the answer down. You know which year and rider im talking about.

 

[Mambo95]

Of course winning is what counts, but there has to be some kind of spectacle.

I agree. But what is the spectacle? For a hardcore fan it is different to the casual fan. You hate sprints, I love them.

Cycling's unique selling point is its great variation. Contador, Gilbert, Cavendish - all great, all different. There's no Vettel or Federer or Woods who can dominate the sport over a season. And that's why the World Championships reflects this.

Now, in my opinion, there are certain cycling fans who will glorify certain aspects of the sport over the more populist aspects. It's generally an affectation from people who want to show they're true fans (just like the 'musos' I mentioned).

An example of this is people who said how awesome this year's Giro was and how it was better than the Tour (there was a poll about this). This year's Giro = Emperor's New Clothes. It was a dog of a race. A three week exhibition race where His Majesty bestows stages on loyal subjects. The Tour was great, but lots of 'ordinary' people watched it, so that's no good.

I've kind of lost my train of thought here, so here's my basic point. Some of you are obsessed with the strongest, the boldest, the most combatitive, etc. They ask for a Worlds where the first 5 hours aren't boring (wake up the first five hours are always boring). It's all romantic nonsense that is sold to the more susceptible fans. The reality of the best teams is to do away with all that and just win.

 

[Tei6chai]

However, the reason for the success of Anglo track success is somewhat based on racial profiling.
... big snip ....
Britain, having seen Australia's success on the track, and having won the London games, and having realised they were Anglo's too, decided track cycling was a place to focus. They signed up Heiko, and a number of other successful coaches from the Australia programme...add a bucket load of Lotto money....and hey presto, you have a successful track team, as they proved in Beijing.

I honestly, can't comment on how the AIS chose track, but most of the facts I know of are accurate ... but I'm not sure the racial interpretation stacks up in the GB case (not least, because the UK has a bigger population of African origin than the entire populations of several Australian States).

What I do know is that the public reasons given by British Cycling are simple and pretty transparent:
1. The level of competition on the track was much lower ... track having been in serious decline for 50 years (Italy used to wipe the boards, now have only Viviani among the men)
2. Track was not utterly dominated by road cycling's 'clinic' culture at the time (late 1990s, early 2000s) ... and had practically no trade teams .... meaning that youngsters could be coached through to maturity, rather being rushed into and destroyed by the bad practices in many junior trade teams (Italy wastes its vast pool of young road talent this way)

Given Britain's tiny pool of active cyclists to draw on (probably even less than Australia, despite the difference in national populations) it was the obvious strategy to follow.

... and has been implemented with aplomb ... the track skills and training in the riding styles of Cav, Thomas and Wiggins are obvious to see.

 

[hrotha]

Mambo, everybody likes sprints. What we don't like is the kind of racing and courses that lead to big fat bunch sprints - everything but the last few kilometers.

 

[El Pistolero]

I agree. But what is the spectacle? For a hardcore fan it is different to the casual fan. You hate sprints, I love them.

Cycling's unique selling point is its great variation. Contador, Gilbert, Cavendish - all great, all different. There's no Vettel or Federer or Woods who can dominate the sport over a season. And that's why the World Championships reflects this.

Now, in my opinion, there are certain cycling fans who will glorify certain aspects of the sport over the more populist aspects. It's generally an affectation from people who want to show they're true fans (just like the 'musos' I mentioned).

An example of this is people who said how awesome this year's Giro was and how it was better than the Tour (there was a poll about this). This year's Giro = Emperor's New Clothes. It was a dog of a race. A three week exhibition race where His Majesty bestows stages on loyal subjects. The Tour was great, but lots of 'ordinary' people watched it, so that's no good.

I've kind of lost my train of thought here, so here's my basic point. Some of you are obsessed with the strongest, the boldest, the most combatitive, etc. They ask for a Worlds where the first 5 hours aren't boring (wake up the first five hours are always boring). It's all romantic nonsense that is sold to the more susceptible fans. The reality of the best teams is to do away with all that and just win.

Not many people hate sprints, we hate the 5 hour waiting time.

Ps: the populist aspects of cycling would be climbing. Highest viewing rates are all on mountain stages.

 

[Tei6chai]

Mambo, everybody likes sprints. What we don't like is the kind of racing and courses that lead to big fat bunch sprints - everything but the last few kilometers.

Hmmm ... seems to me that there was a fight on through most of the 266 kms on Sunday

 

[The Hitch]

I agree. But what is the spectacle? For a hardcore fan it is different to the casual fan. You hate sprints, I love them.

Cycling's unique selling point is its great variation. Contador, Gilbert, Cavendish - all great, all different. There's no Vettel or Federer or Woods who can dominate the sport over a season. And that's why the World Championships reflects this.

Now, in my opinion, there are certain cycling fans who will glorify certain aspects of the sport over the more populist aspects. It's generally an affectation from people who want to show they're true fans (just like the 'musos' I mentioned).

An example of this is people who said how awesome this year's Giro was and how it was better than the Tour (there was a poll about this). This year's Giro = Emperor's New Clothes. It was a dog of a race. A three week exhibition race where His Majesty bestows stages on loyal subjects. The Tour was great, but lots of 'ordinary' people watched it, so that's no good.

Why do you keep trying to tell people what they think???

As much as i love most of your posts this particular bit is really annoying. Every time someone has an opinion different from yours you belittle their train of thought. Funny considering how you were dumping on elitism just a second ago and now you are claiming to be so intellectually superior that you know how your opponents think, and what they think.


No, we cant have more complex reasons for disagreeing with you.

Because we are inferior and hence our beliefs must be simple and motivated by this mindless dislike of popular things

Go practice psychology elsewhere.

 

[Ferminal]

The Tour was great, but lots of 'ordinary' people watched it, so that's no good.

Yes because the whole 3 weeks were amazing so if people don't rate it as an amazing race they are elitist.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I agree. But what is the spectacle? For a hardcore fan it is different to the casual fan. You hate sprints, I love them.

I don't hate sprints. I hate sprint stages. Even if the first 5 hours are normally boring at the Worlds, at most editions we get at least 40 mins of action. We were lucky if we got 40 seconds this year. Those 40 seconds were quite exciting, but they don't make up for 5'39 of drivel.

Again, you make the suggestion by calling on the 'muso' analogy that 'musos' are affecting their tastes, or that those of us that don't like watching a flat stage parade are affecting it to somehow look like bigger fans. I have to say that I'm a bit put out by that. Are you basically saying that I'm lying when I say that I didn't enjoy the Worlds, to make myself look like a bigger cycling fan? Are you saying that people who say they don't like Coldplay are actually secretly Coldplay fans that don't want to hurt their street cred?

The spectacle is different things to different people. You yourself said it. To me, five hours and 39 minutes of group riding is not a spectacle. I'm not saying that to be cool, I'm saying that because I got bored sick during the Worlds this year. The sprint can still be intense, the sprint can still be exciting. But for me, it just isn't enough of a payoff. For your musical analogy, it's like wading through a 15 minute drum solo which eventually explodes into this amazing riff... only for the song to immediately fade out. It was a great riff, but it didn't last long enough to justify 15 minutes of drum solo, so you leave dissatisfied.

 

[hrotha]

Hmmm ... seems to me that there was a fight on through most of the 266 kms on Sunday

That's not particularly interesting to watch until they go all out... in the last few km.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes because the whole 3 weeks were amazing so if people don't rate it as an amazing race they are elitist.

Fermi right as usual.

Add to that personally I didnt like the Tour because riders i dont like got a 2 minute - 2 minute 30 headstart on my 2 favorite riders, making me upset when i saw they both would have had a legitimate chance of winning when the mountains finally came.

Add to that the crashes.

So thats why I didnt like the Tour.

Oh wait, no no no, sorry, scrap that.

What I actually mean is that I dont like the Tour because "lots of ordinary people watch it".

Thanks for the correction Doc.

 

[auscyclefan94]

to clarify, he is currently 57th in the world on distance, with 12,808 kilometres, but the only pure sprinter above him on that list is Tyler Farrar who is 49th on 12,962 so only 160km ahead of Cavendish.

For what its worth, neither of the Shlecks are even in the top 100, and neither are the two last world champions, Thor Hushovd (10,904km) and Cadel Evans (8,325km) - Ballan rode 12,880 in 2009, Bettini 13,447 in 2008.

So, whatever the argument, Cavendish will ride more kilometres next year than any world champion of the last five years

How is how many kn's he rides relevant? Considering that Cadel and Andy are general classification riders it is not surprising that they would ride less km's.

I give no credit to the World Champion's new team who feels the need to continually delay the announcement of Cav's arrival to Sky even if other riders at Sky are already talking about him as a team mate. Geez they even made Cav delete his tweets because of not wanting to announce it 'too early'.

 

[Tei6chai]

That's not particularly interesting until they go all out... in the last few km.

If they weren't going 'all out' until the last few kms ... how come no one got away from the Brits?

Were they psychologically compelled to go at the same "snail's pace" as Wiggins and Froome?

... I'm fairly sure the fastest lap was a very long way from the end.

 

[hrotha]

If they weren't going 'all out' until the last few kms ... how come no one got away from the Brits?

Were they psychologically compelled to go at the same "snail's pace" as Wiggins and Froome?

I thought we were talking about fighting for position within the peloton?
edit: I re-read the discussion. Ok, you were talking about attacks and breakaways. Well no, that didn't go on for most of the race. Doomed breakaways in flat races aren't particularly exciting.
edit 2: besides, we weren't talking about the WC per se, we were talking about flat races in general.