The New World Champion! Appreciation

[Escarabajo]

Geelong was not a finish for the pure sprinter; if it were ran in reverse it would have been. There were some climbs at the end which completely eliminated all the pure sprinters. Remember Hushovd won from a lead group of about 20, hardly a field sprint.

I agree there hasn't been a course for the climbers, but I don't think you will see one unless Galibier or Alpe d'huez hosts worlds. The problem with having a course for the climbers is even guys you wouldn't consider pure climbers could have a go; the rouleur or especially a puncheur could hang with the climbers and probably have enough to beat them at the line. The sprinters might as well not even show up. I don't see the happy medium between the two types of courses.

Again, make it balanced. Thor, Gilbert and other punchy good sprinters would show up. If a pure sprinter that can not make it over a bridge can not do it, then be it. I won't miss them at all.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

Again, make it balanced. Thor, Gilbert and other punchy good sprinters would show up. If a pure sprinter that can not make it over a bridge can not do it, then be it. I won't miss them at all.

There is no way to make it balanced. You add too many hills to create a selction, you've eliminated all the pure sprinters. You don't add enough hills and it's boring . You also have to consider locations. I've seen MSR out there as an example, but that is in the same location every year. Coppenhagen could have perhaps created a hillier course, given their terrain, but what about nations that don't offer such terrains. Should there not be a WC held there because they unfortunately have a pan flat country side?

EDIT: I will say in response to your underlined text that I totally agree. I simply don't see a way to create a balanced course that is in a different part of the world each year.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

If you make a race easy for a sprinter to get to the last 200metres of a race, they will always have a shot when normally they wouldnt.

So it should be harder?
But if you make it easy enough for Hushovd to get to the last 200m they will always have a shot when normally they wouldn't.

So it should be harder still?
But if you make it easy enough for Gilbert to get to the last 200m they will always have a shot when normally they wouldn't.

So it should be harder still?
But if you make it easy enough for Evans to get to the last 200m they will always have a shot when normally they wouldn't.

So it should be harder still?
But if you make it easy enough for Contador to get to the last 200m they will always have a shot when normally they wouldn't.

Why don't you just make it so insanely difficult that only one rider is capable of finishing? Then you really would have a worthy champion.

I think you're just drawing an arbitrary line here. You have defined 'normally' in such a way as to exclude this course without justifying why this course shouldn't be described as normal.

 

[pmcg76]

So it should be harder?
But if you make it easy enough for Hushovd to get to the last 200m they will always have a shot when normally they wouldn't.

So it should be harder still?
But if you make it easy enough for Gilbert to get to the last 200m they will always have a shot when normally they wouldn't.

So it should be harder still?
But if you make it easy enough for Evans to get to the last 200m they will always have a shot when normally they wouldn't.

So it should be harder still?
But if you make it easy enough for Contador to get to the last 200m they will always have a shot when normally they wouldn't.

Why don't you just make it so insanely difficult that only one rider is capable of finishing? Then you really would have a worthy champion.

I think you're just drawing an arbitrary line here. You have defined 'normally' in such a way as to exclude this course without justifying why this course shouldn't be described as normal.

No, its quite simple, if a rider is so one dimensional that they cannot get over the merest of hills, they dont deserve to be a champion. Likewise if a rider is so one dimensional that the only thing they can do is climb, they will never win in a sprint finish(I dont mean a full bunch sprint) therefore they need to be more aggressive during the race like Evans in 09. All those riders you mentioned are multi-faceted, therefore they all can perform on a mixed course. This is a common trait of all the great cyclists in history, they were multi-faceted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, its quite simple, if a rider is so one dimensional that they cannot get over the merest of hills, they dont deserve to be a champion. Likewise if a rider is so one dimensional that the only thing they can do is climb, they will never win in a sprint finish(I dont mean a full bunch sprint) therefore they need to be more aggressive during the race like Evans in 09. All those riders you mentioned are multi-faceted, therefore they all can perform on a mixed course. This is a common trait of all the great cyclists in history, they were multi-faceted.

Well it is simple when you ridicule any elite cyclist by saying "they cannot get over the merest of hills".

 

[rhubroma]

Yes I have.
Quite a bit when I was younger, perhaps I spent too much time studying the guys ass in front and missed the lesson of 'fundamentals of the sport' and Latin.

While I think it is irrelevant - perhaps I have a greater appreciation of sprinters because I quickly understood the simple fundamental, that if I did not shake them they would beat me.


The poster asked you a basic and fair question - nothing in your response had merit.


What Horsius Crapolus.
Most of what you write is the (not without merit) romantic notion that defines different riders in how they are perceived by the 'fans'.

The Worlds 'circuit' doesn't "maketh the man" a deserving winner - if it did they would select a magical course from the 'fundamentals' book and stick to that course - (disa corso).

Astarloa, Camenzind, Vainsteins - from the last 20 years are all World Champions who won on 'worthy' courses - but hardly lived to that billing.
The race details are often quickly forgotten - what defines a Champion is how they race, respect and honor the title and by the simple fundamental of getting victories.


You're right - they don't call Paris Brussels the sprinter WC - they call Paris Tours the Sprinters Classic.

Va bene...on the last point I stand corrected. I momentary lapsus I guess.

In your effort to change the entire history of the sport, however, you are merely ridiculous. But seriously, Dr. M, I'm not talking from a fans perspective, but how things are viewed from inside the peleton. While I don't find much merit in it now, I did ride with pros in the past and the experience did mold a certain perspective and world view, if you like, of the sport. In fact, you might be talking from the fans perspective. And we all know how frequently what is said by the fans on the sports talk shows and forums like this is total crapola.

Much as I am in awe of your level of attainment in this, your valueless critique of the two-wheeled sport is just absurd.

I don't mean to be harsh, but that's what it is. Other than horsius crapolus, it is obstinacy personified.

So once again, a World Championships course that allows a pure sprinter to win simply aint no big deal.

 

[rhubroma]

And of course, in asking someone not to be condescending, one is of course condescending in turn...

The essence of your points is valid, but once in a while, pure speed should be rewarded, it has its place. If pure speed is to be rewarded then it is correct that the fastest and most technically accomplished sprinter wins. As he did. For a sprint victory his win was far from straightforward and executed with style IMO.

(I race a bit, but am a rouleur who inevitably fails to grind faster sprinters off his wheel, at times, well most of the time, it is fecking annoying and obviously a cheap lazy shot - but such is life )

Lots of race organisers will be happy with the WC crossing their winning line as often as Cav will.

Pure speed has many moments during the season when it is awarded, in fact probably more than any other type of rider does the sprinter have access to opportunity for victory throughout the season.

My point is that to honor the term World Champion and to have it even remotely representive of what that signifies: a pure sprinter is makes a horrible candidate.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Va bene...on the last point I stand corrected. I momentary lapsus I guess.

In your effort to change the entire history of the sport, however, you are merely ridiculous. But seriously, Dr. M, I'm not talking from a fans perspective, but how things are viewed from inside the peleton. While I don't find much merit in it now, I did ride with pros in the past and the experience did mold a certain perspective and world view, if you like, of the sport. In fact, you might be talking from the fans perspective. And we all know how frequently what is said by the fans on the sports talk shows and forums like this is total crapola.

Much as I am in awe of your level of attainment in this, your valueless critique of the two-wheeled sport is just absurd.

I don't mean to be harsh, but that's what it is. Other than horsius crapolus, it is obstinacy personified.

So once again, a World Championships course that allows a pure sprinter to win simply aint no big deal.

Amazingly you don't address any of my 'valueless' critiques.

I too have worked, met, hung-out, drank and - wait for it - even cycled with some of the best Pro cyclists in the World.
Guess what - it is completely irrelevant to any argument.

For someone who tries to pass me off as a mere 'fan' you seem to be in awe of their view.

Cavendish is World Champion - for something that is "no big deal" that appears to upset you.

 

[rhubroma]

Amazingly you don't address any of my 'valueless' critiques.

I too have worked, met, hung-out, drank and - wait for it - even cycled with some of the best Pro cyclists in the World.
Guess what - it is completely irrelevant to any argument.

For someone who tries to pass me off as a mere 'fan' you seem to be in awe of their view.

Cavendish is World Champion - for something that is "no big deal" that appears to upset you.

I didn't try to pass you off as a mere fan, but was just countering your critique of what I said as being the product of a "romantic view that comes from a fan's perspective" or something to that effect.

Look I don't understand you. I find your thoughts valueless in so far as you seem to find great merit in a sprinter being the World Champion, or that it is pointless any attempt to distinguish or qualify the worth of different athletes and who makes a better WC and who is a poorer candidate. Or that the Worlds course has no bearing on the race's prestige, or that only the riders themselves make the event, etcetera.

Well that's not how its viewed in Europe, but continue to deride me if it pleases you. I just find those thoughts meaningless. So I just tried to relate to you how I think, which has been shaped by my cycling background in Italy and France for whatever that's worth. Basta.

So please go on and see the sport however you like Dr. M, just don't tell me my view is crapola.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I didn't try to pass you off as a mere fan, but was just countering your critique of what I said as being the product of a "romantic view that comes from a fan's perspective" or something to that effect.

Then why even mention that you have ridden with Pro's to impress a point that is only your view.
Guess what, that just means you're a fan that knows some riders - big deal.

I didn't critique the romantic notion, in fact I even acknowledged it has some merit.

Look I don't understand you. I find your thoughts valueless in so far as you seem to find great merit in a sprinter being the World Champion, or that it is pointless any attempt to distinguish or qualify the worth of different athletes and who makes a better WC and who is a poorer candidate. Or that the Worlds course has no bearing on the race's prestige, or that only the riders themselves make the event, etcetera.

Perhaps the reason you don't understand me is because I didn't make many of the 'thoughts' that you have attributed 'to me.

I'll make it simple for you.
I don't find "great merit" in sprinters being WC, however I acknowledge their athleticism, skill, bravery and ability to make snap decisions.

I am not advocating that all WC routes should be flat, or even included often - I just don't understand your desire to exclude them completely.

Well that's not how its viewed in Europe, but continue to deride me if it pleases you. I just find those thoughts meaningless. So I just tried to relate to you how I think, which has been shaped by my cycling background in Italy and France for whatever that's worth. Basta.

So please go on and see the sport however you like Dr. M, just don't tell me my view is crapola.

Isn't pointing out "how its viewed in Europe" actually attempting to deride me?

Nationality, or where one resides is as relevant as who you cycle with - fortunately for you as, unlike you, I am a European who spends most of his time living in Europe.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Is this now the verbal diarrhea thread?

Unbelievable how so many of the world's (self identified) great minds find time to debate at such length, and in such overwrought style, on t'internet.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There is no way to make it balanced. You add too many hills to create a selction, you've eliminated all the pure sprinters. You don't add enough hills and it's boring . You also have to consider locations. I've seen MSR out there as an example, but that is in the same location every year. Coppenhagen could have perhaps created a hillier course, given their terrain, but what about nations that don't offer such terrains. Should there not be a WC held there because they unfortunately have a pan flat country side?

EDIT: I will say in response to your underlined text that I totally agree. I simply don't see a way to create a balanced course that is in a different part of the world each year.

It shouldn't always be "balanced". Some years should offer more to the bunch sprinter and others more to the climbers and puncheurs. You know, like the monuments. They shouldn't just have a course that is for sprinters, sprinters and nothing but sprinters just the same as they shouldn't have a course that does nothing but loop up and down from Grenoble to Chamrousse.

The Geelong course was a good balance, but you could make a flatter Worlds on a course that only had the one climb from Geelong (rather than both), and that would be an acceptable flat Worlds - the "pure sprinters" shouldn't have a chance to sprint for the win if they're incapable of making it over any kind of obstacle, since we're judging what is theoretically the best cyclist in the world. And going uphill and downhill is such an intrinsic part of cycling that it seems ludicrous that somebody with no skills for either should become World Champion. For the record, Cavendish is not somebody with no skills for that, otherwise he wouldn't have won that Tour stage I pictured earlier or San Remo. But what if, say, Napolitano, Furlan, Van Hummel or Guardini had won? All of those could easily have made it to the finish on that course. But Guardini and van Hummel were being dropped on 1km climbs in the Tour of Turkey, for god's sake.

You shouldn't have to be a climber to contend at the Worlds. But you ought to have to display some kind of versatility, even if it's only a token amount.

 

[ultimobici]

Well that's not how its viewed in Europe, but continue to deride me if it pleases you. I just find those thoughts meaningless. So I just tried to relate to you how I think, which has been shaped by my cycling background in Italy and France for whatever that's worth. Basta.

I don't remember any one of the national federations or the multitude of European riders complaining about a sprinters' course over the last 3 years.

It's not like the course was a secret or Cavendish was an unknown element, far from it. He was a marked man and as such the teams of Italy, France, Spain, Holland & Belgium failed to make life hard for him. It's not like the British team was numerically stronger either, but it was a team with a single objective - to win! A big factor in Cavendish's win was that Britain succeeded in doing what the Italians fail at every year, riding selflessly for one man.

To deride his win because the course was not "hard" enough is disingenuous and a cheap shot. How he conducts himself as WC is the true test of his mettle & the quality of his win.

 

[rhubroma]

Is this now the verbal diarrhea thread?

Unbelievable how so many of the world's (self identified) great minds find time to debate at such length, and in such overwrought style, on t'internet.

Yes it is logorrhea and verbosity at its finest.

Only through long drawn out sentences, strung together in exaggerated and ultimately ridiculous ways, is there any margin for comprehension around here.

 

[rhubroma]

I don't remember any one of the national federations or the multitude of European riders complaining about a sprinters' course over the last 3 years.

It's not like the course was a secret or Cavendish was an unknown element, far from it. He was a marked man and as such the teams of Italy, France, Spain, Holland & Belgium failed to make life hard for him. It's not like the British team was numerically stronger either, but it was a team with a single objective - to win! A big factor in Cavendish's win was that Britain succeeded in doing what the Italians fail at every year, riding selflessly for one man.

To deride his win because the course was not "hard" enough is disingenuous and a cheap shot. How he conducts himself as WC is the true test of his mettle & the quality of his win.

Well how could they have made life hard for him with a course like that?

 

[rhubroma]

Then why even mention that you have ridden with Pro's to impress a point that is only your view.
Guess what, that just means you're a fan that knows some riders - big deal.

I didn't critique the romantic notion, in fact I even acknowledged it has some merit.



Perhaps the reason you don't understand me is because I didn't make many of the 'thoughts' that you have attributed 'to me.

I'll make it simple for you.
I don't find "great merit" in sprinters being WC, however I acknowledge their athleticism, skill, bravery and ability to make snap decisions.

I am not advocating that all WC routes should be flat, or even included often - I just don't understand your desire to exclude them completely.



Isn't pointing out "how its viewed in Europe" actually attempting to deride me?

Nationality, or where one resides is as relevant as who you cycle with - fortunately for you as, unlike you, I am a European who spends most of his time living in Europe.

Well congratulations. Applause and cheers!

Look I respect a sprinter for being good at what he does, I just have a different conception of World Champion.

Perhaps it is because I've lived and ridden in Italy for 16 years, almost half my life, even if I can't technically call myself European (although this will probably change in the future, as much as this might disappoint you), whereas certainly the Italians prefer a harder course as long as it wasn't the one that Cipollini won of course.

Otherwise I stand by my analysis. And I should add that I wasn't mentioning my riding past to brag, far from it, but that it merely wasn't from just a fan's perspective, as I raced among those who went on to be the types of riders of which we are talking about now.

 

[Winterfold]

My point is that to honor the term World Champion and to have it even remotely representive of what that signifies: a pure sprinter is makes a horrible candidate.

Well i guess we differ there

sprinteur, puncheur, barodeur, grimpeur, rouleur - each has their merits in my opinion and all should get a chance at the WC once in a while (so grimpeurs and their fans are hard done bywhen it comes to shots at the rainbow jersey).

Ultimately where an elite cyclist ends up being strongest is decided by his or her genes and a matter of both chance and hard work. I dont think it is right to discriminate on subjective grounds.

It is not a particular race with a characteristic parcours that suits a certain kind of rider - it is a moveable feast.

If people want eg LBL every year, well, it already exists.

PS I would have said this before Cav appeared on the scene - Cipo in the rainbow jersey was always a sight l enjoyed.

 

[rhubroma]

Well i guess we differ there

sprinteur, puncheur, barodeur, grimpeur, rouleur - each has their merits in my opinion and all should get a chance at the WC once in a while (so grimpeurs and their fans are hard done bywhen it comes to shots at the rainbow jersey).

Ultimately where an elite cyclist ends up being strongest is decided by his or her genes and a matter of both chance and hard work. I dont think it is right to discriminate on subjective grounds.

It is not a particular race with a characteristic parcours that suits a certain kind of rider - it is a moveable feast.

If people want eg LBL every year, well, it already exists.

PS I would have said this before Cav appeared on the scene - Cipo in the rainbow jersey was always a sight l enjoyed.

I can live with this.

Though I still maintain the title is befitting of a more complete rider.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

It shouldn't always be "balanced". Some years should offer more to the bunch sprinter and others more to the climbers and puncheurs. You know, like the monuments. They shouldn't just have a course that is for sprinters, sprinters and nothing but sprinters just the same as they shouldn't have a course that does nothing but loop up and down from Grenoble to Chamrousse.

The Geelong course was a good balance, but you could make a flatter Worlds on a course that only had the one climb from Geelong (rather than both), and that would be an acceptable flat Worlds - the "pure sprinters" shouldn't have a chance to sprint for the win if they're incapable of making it over any kind of obstacle, since we're judging what is theoretically the best cyclist in the world. And going uphill and downhill is such an intrinsic part of cycling that it seems ludicrous that somebody with no skills for either should become World Champion. For the record, Cavendish is not somebody with no skills for that, otherwise he wouldn't have won that Tour stage I pictured earlier or San Remo. But what if, say, Napolitano, Furlan, Van Hummel or Guardini had won? All of those could easily have made it to the finish on that course. But Guardini and van Hummel were being dropped on 1km climbs in the Tour of Turkey, for god's sake.

You shouldn't have to be a climber to contend at the Worlds. But you ought to have to display some kind of versatility, even if it's only a token amount.

That I can wholeheartedly agree with. I think where we differ isn't so much on course selection but how easy we perceive the Coppenhagen course to have been. I'm not sure riders like you mentioned above would have made it to the finish on this course. If they did, it would be in no condition to contest the sprint. Riding that ever so slight incline multiple times at an increasing pace would have been enough to soften their legs.

 

[SlowBloke]

With Millar in the Olympics..

.. makes Cav's chances there better as well.

 

[The Hitch]

There was the Cav review of the season on Eurosport yesterday, probably will be shown a few more times yet, titled "One man two jerseys".

One interesting thing he said was that had he done what Pettachi did in Giro 2, the "internet forums" would have gone wild.

Cav is watching us

 

[El Pistolero]

There was the Cav review of the season on Eurosport yesterday, probably will be shown a few more times yet, titled "1 man 2 jerseys".

1 interesting thing he said was that had he done what Pettachi did in Giro 2, the "internet forums" would have gone wild.

Cav is watching us

Petacchi did nothing there, is he still crying about that?

What a bad loser, get over it. Cavendish caused crashes left and right in 2010, so I'd keep my mouth shut if I were him. And keep your spit off the people that crashed because of you as well, thank you.

 

[Thomsena]

Had to read that several times to get it. Man, Hitch. You really need to stop writing numbers instead of letters!

 

[Boardslide]

Petacchi did nothing there, is he still crying about that?

What a bad loser, get over it. Cavendish caused crashes left and right in 2010, so I'd keep my mouth shut if I were him. And keep your spit off the people that crashed because of you as well, thank you.

Before you go off on one you should get your facts right, in the interview he actually said that Pteacchi did nothing wrong in fact it was just like old fashion sprinting but his point was that if the roles had been reversed the commissaries would had fined and relegated him for the moves and that the internet forumers such as yourself would have had a field day.

 

[El Pistolero]

Before you go off on one you should get your facts right, in the interview he actually said that Pteacchi did nothing wrong in fact it was just like old fashion sprinting but his point was that if the roles had been reversed the commissaries would had fined and relegated him for the moves and that the internet forumers such as yourself would have had a field day.

Then why did he wave his hands like an angry dwarf during the sprint? No one would have criticized Cavendish because Petacchi wouldn't have thrown a tantrum. The only reason why that sprint was given special attention was because Cavendish complained for a correct sprint. I have already voiced my opinions during the Tour that the judges relegate cyclists too easily in sprints. So no, I wouldn't have a field day simply because I couldn't care less about sprints. Cavendish is like the boy who cried wolf.

Rules are changed to favor him and he still tries to play the victim. Grow a pair is my advice to him.