The New World Champion! Appreciation

[Mambo95]

Respectively disagree with all.

Second of all it is a romantic sport. Its main staging points are the areas most associated with romance and beauty.

And I think there is a lot there to be romantiscised.

I won't quote everything, just the key points.

Cycling certainly is beautiful and there certainly is a lot that can be romanticised. But it can be over-romanticised. Particularly in a sport that has such a history of doping and race-fixing. These shortcomings have been disguised by baloney. In the last twenty years 'panache' might as well have been an Amgen trademark.

The romantic view is only appreciated by a small minority. The majority don't care, and they're probably more right because they're not clinging on to some idealised vision of the past, not to some personal dogma of what cycling should be.

 

[Ferminal]

Seems more personal preference than anything. Some people like sprints, some like cobbles, hills, mountains up and down. We all like them all to varying degrees. Some people like orchestrated drama, some like flat out racing. Why can't we accept people's subjective opinions for what they are without trying to undermine their rationality?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Seems more personal preference than anything. Some people like sprints, some like cobbles, hills, mountains up and down. We all like them all to varying degrees. Some people like orchestrated drama, some like flat out racing. Why can't we accept people's subjective opinions for what they are without trying to undermine their rationality?

How very diplomatic of you? I think you may find yourself with pickets up your ****!

 

[The Hitch]

I won't quote everything, just the key points.

Cycling certainly is beautiful and there certainly is a lot that can be romanticised. But it can be over-romanticised. Particularly in a sport that has such a history of doping and race-fixing. These shortcomings have been disguised by baloney. In the last twenty years 'panache' might as well have been an Amgen trademark.

The romantic view is only appreciated by a small minority. The majority don't care, and they're probably more right because they're not clinging on to some idealised vision of the past, not to some personal dogma of what cycling should be.

Theyre right because their version of cycling isnt in the past?

Sorry why are they (obviously you mean yourself) right? There are 2 opinions, those who believe long range attacks are more exciting and those who believe sprints are more exciting. The fact that the latter does not look to the past for their preferred racing does not make them right.

 

[Mambo95]

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

I'm not telling anyone what they think. Who am I telling what they think?

I'm saying that some people have an over romantic and idealistic view of what has always been a cynical sport, and try to show their show their superior cycling fan credentials by pushing that romanticism.

Ultimately, all that matters in sport is the result.


(As you may well be aware, I have also been critical of the overly cynical doping fans in the Clinic)

 

[pmcg76]

I think in most sports, fans love the daring, the bold, the guys prepared to take that little extra risk, that moment of unpredictability. Likewise, most sports fans hate the negative, pragmatic, formulatic approach that athletes, teams often take. Yes, it brings success but its not what gets most peolpe hooked, especially neutral sports fans.

This whole debate reminds me of an ongoing saga this year that occured in a very minor sport only played in Ireland, Gaelic Football but can be true in any sport. Our local team went on a successful run this year making the last 4 of the All-Ireland Series and winning a provincial title for the first time in 20 years which is the most success we have had in years. Everyone got on the bandwagon, 80,000 people for the semi-final.

However our team was pilliored all year by the media and other teams fans because they played the most negative, defensive, dire rubbish even seen on a football pitch. That is fact. This reached its zenith after we lost to the subsequent Champions in the semi-final in probably the most wretched game I have ever seen. It really was anti-football.

Our fans were hyperbolic about the negative press our team received and claimed we were justified to play as we did as out tactics brought us success and everyone else was just jealous. It was laughable. There was no rule to say our team shouldnt have played the way they did but it did go completely against the spirit of the game.

Now I supported the team all the time but I could at least grasp why the team was so widely derided by everyone except our fans who felt aggrieved at the perceived sligths and took it all very personally. Sometimes, even in success you just have to admit that your team/athlete is just not very entertaining or exciting for neutrals to watch. Even if our team had won the title, we would have been lambasted and regarded as unworthy winners and I couldnt really have argued with that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I won't quote everything, just the key points.

Cycling certainly is beautiful and there certainly is a lot that can be romanticised. But it can be over-romanticised. Particularly in a sport that has such a history of doping and race-fixing. These shortcomings have been disguised by baloney. In the last twenty years 'panache' might as well have been an Amgen trademark.

The romantic view is only appreciated by a small minority. The majority don't care, and they're probably more right because they're not clinging on to some idealised vision of the past, not to some personal dogma of what cycling should be.

I was going to jump in earlier and say I found merit in both yours & the Hitchs points - but I don't think the "romantic view is only appreciated by a small minority".

Your original point - that the sport is simple and not worried about 'romance' is true.
But The Hitches point is that 'we' (the fans) are more than often ruled by emotions.

To bring it back to the WC race - it had nothing to do with the course being boring. Because if Cancellara had clipped off and held off everyone and won by a bike length it would be (rightly) viewed as one of the best Worlds ever.

Simply, the better job GB & Cav did the more boring it got.

 

[Mambo95]

pmcg76 has this absolutely right. There's a contrast between what the competitors want and (neutral) fans want. With some cycling fans, the contrast is more stark, partially due to the romantic prose of cycling journalists.

A great example of this was Hushovd at Paris-Roubaix.

Some (including me) thought he did an excellent professional team job to execute a plan to help deliver victory for the team that pays his wages (even if he wasn't too happy about it) - the pragmatic, realist view.

Others thought that he was a wheel sucker who had disgraced the hallowed rainbow stripes. He wasn't a 'true champion' - the idealistic, romantic version. These are the people who have not done sport at any high level and bought into a decades of baloney cycling PR.

 

[The Hitch]

pmcg76 has this absolutely right. There's a contrast between what the competitors want and (neutral) fans want. With some cycling fans, the contrast is more stark, partially due to the romantic prose of cycling journalists.

A great example of this was Hushovd at Paris-Roubaix.

Some (including me) thought he did an excellent professional team job to execute a plan to help deliver victory for the team that pays his wages (even if he wasn't too happy about it) - the pragmatic, realist view.

Others thought that he was a wheel sucker who had disgraced the hallowed rainbow stripes. He wasn't a 'true champion' - the idealistic, romantic version. These are the people who have not done sport at any high level and bought into a decades of baloney cycling PR.

I am not one of the ones who dumped on Thor. I even defended him for wheelsucking Cancellara in stage 3 2010 because of what Canc had done the dya before.

But fans have a right to complain.

I personally dislike my compatriot Szmyd during Tour stages. Yes hes doing his job, very very impressively but the race becomes more boring.

Same for Kreuziger in 2010 Vuelta, a rider who i really like.

Szmyd isnt at fault either are Roman or Thor. They are just doing their job. But at the same time many cycling fans wants to see attacking riding, rather than a train going up a climb.

 

[Mambo95]

Your original point - that the sport is simple and not worried about 'romance' is true.
But The Hitches point is that 'we' (the fans) are more than often ruled by emotions.

But who are 'the fans' are they the dozens, maybe hundreds, who post on internet forums, or are they the thousands/millions who line the roads and watch on TV.

What I am disagreeing with is the affectations that some of the dozens/hundreds feel the need to adopt to elevate themselves above the thousands/millions.

I come from a background of having played a sport (not cycling) at a reasonably high level, so I'm more interested in the result than how it's achieved, because that's what sport is ultimately all about. If the result can be achieved with 'panche' ((R) Amgen) then great, but it's the result that counts.

 

[Mambo95]

I am not one of the ones who dumped on Thor.

I didn't say you were. You seem to think everything I say is directed at you. It's not.

 

[pmcg76]

pmcg76 has this absolutely right. There's a contrast between what the competitors want and (neutral) fans want. With some cycling fans, the contrast is more stark, partially due to the romantic prose of cycling journalists.

A great example of this was Hushovd at Paris-Roubaix.

Some (including me) thought he did an excellent professional team job to execute a plan to help deliver victory for the team that pays his wages (even if he wasn't too happy about it) - the pragmatic, realist view.

Others thought that he was a wheel sucker who had disgraced the hallowed rainbow stripes. He wasn't a 'true champion' - the idealistic, romantic version. These are the people who have not done sport at any high level and bought into a decades of baloney cycling PR.

Actually my point was more that people should be more open to criticism of their own teams/athletes and less one-eyed if it is justified. People can wallow in success all they want but at least try to understand why others are critical. You are saying that success is the only important thing, yes to the actual particpants and their fans but to other it means little or nothing.

In the example I gave, if this had been some other team in our place, our fans would have hurling as much criticism and vitriol at that team. It is the saying 'when the boot is on the other foot'

 

[Kazistuta]

I think in most sports, fans love the daring, the bold, the guys prepared to take that little extra risk, that moment of unpredictability. Likewise, most sports fans hate the negative, pragmatic, formulatic approach that athletes, teams often take. Yes, it brings success but its not what gets most peolpe hooked, especially neutral sports fans.

Right on the money, pmcg!

If we compare to the biggest (?) sport of the world, football, most people would agree that the style that brought Norway great success during Egil "Drillo" Olsens first session as NT coach was heavily boring and destructable. Likewise the style of Jose Mourinho coached Inter was often considered the same, but the playing styles of both teams (and many more teams I suppose) brought results, which as stated by others is the main criteria of the TEAMS.

The SUPPORTERS on the other hand does like the spectacles (romanticising or not), especially when watchin an event for 5+ hours.

What I don't like in this debate is when people try to belittle Cav's win by telling the route was too easy (just rode it today, and YES - it WAS easy, even to me!), because you have to play the hand you're dealt, and Great Britain did that perfectly - very deserving in my optics.

We all know which stages/races that'll most likely end in a sprint, so everyone should just opt to watch the last hour or so to avoid boredom. There's always potential for surprises though, and that's what makes people tune in before the almost inevitable outcome.

This years cource WASN'T selective (noone could or should argue that), but after racing the circuit today I must say that the only other potential "hill" (hrmf!) finish would have made a mass crash in the end almost as inevitable as the sprint itself. The Danish cycling community/supporters got their big cycling event, and it would have been sad if we never got to host a WC just because we didn't possess the obstacles to make the race interesting. All the ney-sayers in this forum should have decided to bet on Cav in this race and making some money of it instead of complaining about his win. He deserved to win on this course considering the way his team rode.

But I too look forward to a more selective race - even though I must admit I was happy to see a WC course that DIDN'T suit Gilbert after such a great season on his behalf. He can always win next year or the year after that, this was always Cavendish's race to lose.

 

[pmcg76]

But who are 'the fans' are they the dozens, maybe hundreds, who post on internet forums, or are they the thousands/millions who line the roads and watch on TV.

What I am disagreeing with is the affectations that some of the dozens/hundreds feel the need to adopt to elevate themselves above the thousands/millions.

I come from a background of having played a sport (not cycling) at a reasonably high level, so I'm more interested in the result than how it's achieved, because that's what sport is ultimately all about. If the result can be achieved with 'panche' ((R) Amgen) then great, but it's the result that counts.

Would just like to make one more non cycling analogy here, in the 90s Italian football was regarded as the No 1 football nation(clubs) in Europe, they were highly successful winning European titles for fun but the Italian defensive style of play was regarded as boring to watch.

In contrast English football was nowhere having returned from the post Hysel European ban but the game in England was always regarded as exciting to watch and has always been the most watched League in the world becasue of that. As a result, the Premier league attracted the big money and married to the atmosphere in English grounds and style of play, attracted the best players and is now possibley the No 1 league in the World. It wasnt success that got the Premier league to the top, it was other factors. Italian football in contrast is now dying on its feet.

 

[richtea]

Simply, the better job GB & Cav did the more boring it got.

Like Steaua Bucharest v Barcelona in 1986

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But who are 'the fans' are they the dozens, maybe hundreds, who post on internet forums, or are they the thousands/millions who line the roads and watch on TV.

I am not sure what your asking really - but fans are people who 'follow' the sport. Whereas people at the side of the road may just be spectators (or fans!).

What I am disagreeing with is the affectations that some of the dozens/hundreds feel the need to adopt to elevate themselves above the thousands/millions.

Ok, now I have no idea what this means...

I come from a background of having played a sport (not cycling) at a reasonably high level, so I'm more interested in the result than how it's achieved, because that's what sport is ultimately all about. If the result can be achieved with 'panche' ((R) Amgen) then great, but it's the result that counts.

Fair enough - but the distinction is there.
You are looking at it from a competitor POV (results matter) others are looking at it as a 'sporting' POV (how the game was won).
Neither is right or wrong, just different.

 

[The Hitch]

I didn't say you were. You seem to think everything I say is directed at you. It's not.

No you read that differently then I intended.

I am not reacting to an accusation.

I am a neutral coming in, and announcing upon my entry that " I am not one of the ones who dumped on Thor".

 

[simo1733]

Erm, Spain is far more diverse. Actually I don't see GB as a great sport nation at all.

They pretty much are on top of every big sport out there. Basketball, cycling, tennis, F1 racing, football, Handball, etc

GB came 4th at the last Olympics how did Spain get on.

 

[simo1733]

Would just like to make one more non cycling analogy here, in the 90s Italian football was regarded as the No 1 football nation(clubs) in Europe, they were highly successful winning European titles for fun but the Italian defensive style of play was regarded as boring to watch.

In contrast English football was nowhere having returned from the post Hysel European ban but the game in England was always regarded as exciting to watch and has always been the most watched League in the world becasue of that. As a result, the Premier league attracted the big money and married to the atmosphere in English grounds and style of play, attracted the best players and is now possibley the No 1 league in the World. It wasnt success that got the Premier league to the top, it was other factors. Italian football in contrast is now dying on its feet.

Actually Sky played a big part in the transformation of English Football.

 

[pmcg76]

Actually Sky played a big part in the transformation of English Football.

Of course but without a viable product it wont sell. I think most people who would have followed the game in Engalnd and Italy during the 90s would still have plumped for the English version.

 

[auscyclefan94]

GB came 4th at the last Olympics how did Spain get on.

Olympics...lol

 

[usedtobefast]

Olympics...lol

really? a lot of athletes, some i know, would take exception with that. given the sport you are in and the pressure of only every four years, getting a result is very hard. ask some of your Aussie Olympians...

 

[auscyclefan94]

really? a lot of athletes, some i know, would take exception with that. given the sport you are in and the pressure of only every four years, getting a result is very hard. ask some of your Aussie Olympians...

I wasn't saying that. I think the importance of the olympics in some sports (including cycling) is way overhyped and I don't agree that it is the best measure of how countries stack up against each other as sporting nations hence why I said lol.

 

[usedtobefast]

I wasn't saying that. I think the importance of the olympics in some sports (including cycling) is way overhyped and I don't agree that it is the best measure of how countries stack up against each other as sporting nations hence why I said lol.

i agree,the hype is well,hyperbole. and nationalism is way over done. but getting a result, it still ranks up there with a major good thing. i recall Bob Mionske got 4th in the 1988 RR and he was so bummed by that result he said it might as well have been 40th or something close to that. that said, the Olympians i do know, really enjoyed the experience, results or not. that is from gold medal winners and also ran's. just getting there is so hard. a lot of dedication. can you imagine...curling? i mean where do you see that?

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Olympics is maybe a good measure in athletics and swimming (and winter sports etc) but still abnormalties can happen. Also in track cycling i guess it is a big deal. And other individual smaller sports.

In a lot of team sports, probably the most main stream sports, there are bigger events. Maybe something like volleyall , water polo and hockey the exception... I don't really know.

Certainly not a fair gauge of national sports power tho.
For example spain have an amazing soccer scene etc. But at best in the olmpics they can get one medal. A lot of funding and money involved in spanish football.

Now compare that to rowing, where NZ (just a random example, I dunno if they are even good at it) could win 3,4 or maybe even 5 gold medals, for different events in a single sport. I refuse to believe 5 gold medlas from rowing, could even compare to the presence of spanish football on a global scene. That is a hard thing to achieve.

Same goes for track cycling, so many medals involved in comparison to the one gold medal avilable in the team sports.

The olympics are certainly an indication in some regards, but also pretty flawed.

Spain are very impressive in regards to the big sports.

Soccer(which feels like peanuts in the olympics soccer, they dont even send elite sqauds), Cycling - IMO the best - Basketball, Tennis. All big sports, and spain having great success.