The New World Champion! Appreciation

[Captain_Cavman]

Flimsy foundation? So what's your criteria for a strong rider? Or better what determines the caliber of a rider? A course in which 100 men arrive all at once, or one in which by simple attrition and elimination only the most gifted arrive at the front? Whom we may conventionally call champions. I was talking about engine size. I don't know how much you've raced, but believe me the pure sprinters are not the true champions of the sport. They are exceptional specialists, though I think a course that bears the title of World's shouldn't be designed to award a pure velocity specialist, with all the brutal aerobic qualities that the sport otherwise demands and brings out in its most sensational athletes. This is what separates the men form the boys as far as road cycling goes and hence a world champion should be representative of the most demanding hardships that this sport places upon its athletes: and these are not measured in seconds, but minutes; not in meters, but kilometers; not in flat out speed over an easy course, but ferocious and sustained energy output over brutal terrain. In short selectivity.

No. The sprinters are not a breed apart, they are part of the same continuum. Strength is the ability to produce a burst of power in order to distance competitors. It can be on a flat finish or on the Mur de Huy or on the Zoncolan. Different riders will have differing ability to unleash that power on different gradients and over different lengths. An ability to unleash that power over one particular type of gradient for one particular length of time is not inherently more/less worthy than for any other type.

There is no such thing as a "pure sprinter" on the road. Cavendish does not train to sprint, he trains to get over hills to enable him to be at the front at the finish in order to unleash his sprint. I don't know if there are any top-level pros who train purely to sprint but I doubt that there are. More interestingly, are there any that train to sprint at all? Maybe to practice leadouts, I'd be interested to know.

As much as I enjoyed watching Super Mario sprint at the Tour and Giro, for example, I could hardly consider him even a 1/4 of the cyclist Indurain was if you follow my point. Therefore he was not a very representative nor exemplary as world champion, like Cavendish isn't.

In our sport the guys with the most phenomenal engines are not the pure sprinters, therefore, as I have repeated many times before, I would like to see a world championship course that's not so banal and which permits the better gifted athletes to express themselves to establish a more representative pecking order. If not what type of World's event is it? Or how does the title bearer in any way correspond to the actual hierarchy within the sport and thus the real differences in caliber between some athletes and others? A sprint finish is only an evaluation of top end speed, but that is not the stuff of a certain type of class that is at all becoming of one called cycling World Champion IMO. It's too big of a name for someone who has no hope in winning, I don't say the Tour de France, but not even Leige-Bastone-Liege and probably not even Paris-Roubaix or the Tour of Flanders. I don't think that a pure velocity specialist who would otherwise finish minutes back on a more demanding course is worthy of it.

But you haven't managed to define "gifted" or "calibre" in any objective way, saying they're better just because you prefer them to sprinters.

And all this business of comparing track sprinters to road cyclists is totally inane: like exchanging apples for oranges.

Who was comparing them? Aha you've just spotted one of the gaping holes in your argument and rushed to fill it.

I have to say Captain Caveman, your obvious national sympathies have clouded your judgement here.

I am curious that you accuse me of lacking objectivity. Please could you point to a sentence I have written on this topic that indicates an emotional response unsupported by reason.

In the sense that if you find no qualitative difference in a World Champion who bears the name Mark Cavendish and one who bears the name of say Cadel Evans, with all that this implies about the difficulty level of the types of respective courses that permitted each to hold the title, then obviously there is no argument of mine that could possibly make you see things differently.

Not until you start using some form of logical reasoning, no.

 

[rhubroma]

No. The sprinters are not a breed apart, they are part of the same continuum. Strength is the ability to produce a burst of power in order to distance competitors. It can be on a flat finish or on the Mur de Huy or on the Zoncolan. Different riders will have differing ability to unleash that power on different gradients and over different lengths. An ability to unleash that power over one particular type of gradient for one particular length of time is not inherently more/less worthy than for any other type.

There is no such thing as a "pure sprinter" on the road. Cavendish does not train to sprint, he trains to get over hills to enable him to be at the front at the finish in order to unleash his sprint. I don't know if there are any top-level pros who train purely to sprint but I doubt that there are. More interestingly, are there any that train to sprint at all? Maybe to practice leadouts, I'd be interested to know.

But you haven't managed to define "gifted" or "calibre" in any objective way, saying they're better just because you prefer them to sprinters.

Who was comparing them? Aha you've just spotted one of the gaping holes in your argument and rushed to fill it.

I am curious that you accuse me of lacking objectivity. Please could you point to a sentence I have written on this topic that indicates an emotional response unsupported by reason.
Not until you start using some form of logical reasoning, no.

Alright, Captain Caveman, you win, my logic is flawed, indeed I have no logic and have utterly missed everything, literally everything, in our discussion. Difficulty of terrain counts for nothing, cycling boils down to an absolute power output irrespective of the roads ridden, etc. Tour or Ardennes champions are of the same class as the sprinters. The term "Bigs" isn't worth the letters spent on it, etcetera.

Cav is the equal to Evans and vice versa. The Worlds is a title awarded but not merited, etcetera. You have made me see the light. However if I have to define "caliber" in road cycling terms, then we really are speaking two different languages. Big fish, little fish, eagles and chickens...it's all the same.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Alright, Captain Caveman, you win, my logic is flawed, indeed I have no logic and have utterly missed everything, literally everything, in our discussion. Difficulty of terrain counts for nothing, cycling boils down to an absolute power output irrespective of the roads ridden, etc. Tour or Ardennes champions are of the same class as the sprinters. The term "Bigs" isn't worth the letters spent on it, etcetera.

Cav is the equal to Evans and vice versa. The Worlds is a title awarded but not merited, etcetera. You have made me see the light. However if I have to define "caliber" in road cycling terms, then we really are speaking two different languages. Big fish, little fish, eagles and chickens...it's all the same.

To be fair - that is a lame response and I would expect better if your point has merit.
I was going to ask similar questions to CapCav - but instead I will highlight one part you mentioned.

.....

The title of World Champion has to at least have some bearing on realty to be taken seriously and live up to its name.
,,.

Why?
The prestige of the event is what makes it competitive.
If it was about only having the best champion win than an overall point system would be far more appropriate.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

For me it devalues the Worlds. I doubt Cavendish or Cancellara shares the same opinion.

So, if it doesn't devalue it for the participants then the 'quality' of the course has little bearing?

It only took you a few days.

 

[pmcg76]

well done to cavendish and very good preperation work from britain they did good a lot of good work in advance for this race.

on the subject of this devauling the worlds thing.. I dont think they should make courses for sprinters, climbers or cobblestoners, in my opinion that is just stupid and isnt really a good reflection of a world champion, and all these fellows have races throughout the year that are very important for them and have all of their specialist field there...I think because road racing is a broad sport then the world championship race should be a balanced race that has flat parts and climbing.. I think to make it a sprinters race is a bit stupid and I dont think cipollinis win is anywhere near as important as the rest after him.. to take hills out the world championship is like taking mountains out of the tour..

Bingo, the worlds should always be a balanced course that doesnt favour any one type of rider too much. Not too hilly, not too flat, a bit of something for everyone. It has never been rotated and I dont feel it should. If a rider is so one dimensional that some of the route rules them out of contention, then they really dont deserve to be World Champion, simple really.

 

[pmcg76]

No. The sprinters are not a breed apart, they are part of the same continuum. Strength is the ability to produce a burst of power in order to distance competitors. It can be on a flat finish or on the Mur de Huy or on the Zoncolan. Different riders will have differing ability to unleash that power on different gradients and over different lengths. An ability to unleash that power over one particular type of gradient for one particular length of time is not inherently more/less worthy than for any other type.

There is no such thing as a "pure sprinter" on the road. Cavendish does not train to sprint, he trains to get over hills to enable him to be at the front at the finish in order to unleash his sprint. I don't know if there are any top-level pros who train purely to sprint but I doubt that there are. More interestingly, are there any that train to sprint at all? Maybe to practice leadouts, I'd be interested to know.

But you haven't managed to define "gifted" or "calibre" in any objective way, saying they're better just because you prefer them to sprinters.

Who was comparing them? Aha you've just spotted one of the gaping holes in your argument and rushed to fill it.

I am curious that you accuse me of lacking objectivity. Please could you point to a sentence I have written on this topic that indicates an emotional response unsupported by reason.
Not until you start using some form of logical reasoning, no.

When I was a kid(12-14) my friends and I were getting into cycling, we organised races amongst ourselves, there was only 3-4 of us and we went hell for leather. One of my friends was weaker than the rest of us and we would beat him on any circuit.

As kids do, we tried to even things up so we agreed not to race until the final 100metres of a race. This weak friend could then beat us in a sprint finish. Are you trying to tell me becasue he could sprint better than us that he was actually equal to us.

This happens at every level of racing, there is always a guy who can sprint if there is a handicap race or manages to hang with the bunch if its an easy race but put them in a normal race and they are nowhere. Likewise there are guys who can TT but cant do Road races.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bingo, the worlds should always be a balanced course that doesnt favour any one type of rider too much. Not too hilly, not too flat, a bit of something for everyone. It has never been rotated and I dont feel it should. If a rider is so one dimensional that some of the route rules them out of contention, then they really dont deserve to be World Champion, simple really.

Again, why?

Doesn't a balanced course favour just a limited type of rider.

Hills or mountains are fast finishers kryptonite - the longer or harder the more you will shake off or tire - how do you 'balance' that?

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Seriously, there are people who like Coldplay, and know how to use the interweb?


Takes all sorts, I suppose.

 

[pmcg76]

Again, why?

Doesn't a balanced course favour just a limited type of rider.

Hills or mountains are fast finishers kryptonite - the longer or harder the more you will shake off or tire - how do you 'balance' that?

No if there are hills and you cannot climb you lose out and if you can climb but not sprint then you lose out so you have to have some level of ability in each area. Lastly tactical knowledge can also play a big role. Most times, the worlds are decided by a small group not some amazing 30km solo that nlows everyone away.

The year Evans won is the perfect example, there was Evans who was is a stage race rider but a weak sprinter, Valverde another all-rounder but a fantastic sprinter. Cancellara, who is a pure strength rider and Rodriguez who is a short hill specialist. The course didnt favour any one type too much and meant they each had to race to maximise their strengths. None of those guys were relying on one type of ability to win.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No if there are hills and you cannot climb you lose out and if you can climb but not sprint then you lose out so you have to have some level of ability in each area. Lastly tactical knowledge can also play a big role. Most times, the worlds are decided by a small group not some amazing 30km solo that nlows everyone away.

Doesn't that just suit people who are 'Jack of all trades, Master of none'?

The year Evans won is the perfect example, there was Evans who was is a stage race rider but a weak sprinter, Valverde another all-rounder but a fantastic sprinter. Cancellara, who is a pure strength rider and Rodriguez who is a short hill specialist. The course didnt favour any one type too much and meant they each had to race to maximise their strengths. None of those guys were relying on one type of ability to win.

But was Cancellara marked out of it? So, it could be argued that the strongest (most worthy) didn't win?

This is the point - road racing is not just a V02 max test.

I was going to include tactical ability etc in my earlier post - isn't that the uniqueness of Road Racing. You pit riders of different ability against each other on various type courses and the winner is the one that crosses the line first.

 

[Escarabajo]

Again, why?

Doesn't a balanced course favour just a limited type of rider.

Hills or mountains are fast finishers kryptonite - the longer or harder the more you will shake off or tire - how do you 'balance' that?

To me it should. The winner should be more balanced. It is my opinion. The UCI does not care about my opinion so that's why I have stopped watching the World Championship.

I am not sure if the World Championship popularity has come down over time or not, but I personally don't care anymore for those bunch sprints. I might be the minority but I don't care. I want to see the Lemonds, the Roches, The Hinaults, The Indurains (he was second in Duitama) even the Cadel Evans win the Championship. What can I do. It is what I like about cycling. Even that Fredy Marteens from the picture you showed was a worthy champion.

 

[El Pistolero]

Again, why?

Doesn't a balanced course favour just a limited type of rider.

Hills or mountains are fast finishers kryptonite - the longer or harder the more you will shake off or tire - how do you 'balance' that?

Bingo, not every random schmuck should be able to become world champion of one day races(as that is what it is really). Of course it should be limited.

 

[pmcg76]

Doesn't that just suit people who are 'Jack of all trades, Master of none'?



But was Cancellara marked out of it? So, it could be argued that the strongest (most worthy) didn't win?

This is the point - road racing is not just a V02 max test.

I was going to include tactical ability etc in my earlier post - isn't that the uniqueness of Road Racing. You pit riders of different ability against each other on various type courses and the winner is the one that crosses the line first.

Are you really calling the likes of Bettini, Evans, Valverde, Sancehz etc not masters of their trade. Look at the Tour, A Schleck is a top climber but is let down by his TTing and 'jack of all trades' Evans won this year. So is the Tour a poor event because of that.

Its not about being the best at one skill, its about being multi faceted. The best riders in cycling history have all been multi facted, Armstrong, Indurain, Kelly, LeMond, Fignon, Hinault, Merckx all of them multi facted. Were they mere jack of all trades type riders. They were stronger at some aspects than others but at least could do everything to some level.

These 'Jack of all trades' are the greatests of the greats in cycling history, not the Van Poppels, Abdujaparovs, Cipollini's, Boardmans, Herreras, etc.

The other thing about the Worlds it is still an indiviudal victory where team-work usually plays a limited role in deciding a champion. On flat courses, the team becomes more important than the individual and this is evidenced out by the roles of GB and Italy in the respective titles. Never has there been praise for a the teams as there has been those two years.

 

[Tank Engine]

To me it should. The winner should be more balanced. It is my opinion. The UCI does not care about my opinion so that's why I have stopped watching the World Championship.

I am not sure if the World Championship popularity has come down over time or not, but I personally don't care anymore for those bunch sprints. I might be the minority but I don't care. I want to see the Lemonds, the Roches, The Hinaults, The Indurains (he was second in Duitama) even the Cadel Evans win the Championship. What can I do. It is what I like about cycling. Even that Fredy Marteens from the picture you showed was a worthy champion.

Maertens was a real class act (13 stages and the overall in the Vuelta one year, Paris-Nice, Top 10 in the Tour).

Don't think you're in the minority. The course this year was pants. That's not Cav's fault though.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The Worlds is a bit like a monument, in some ways. I think it should vary its styles accordingly. Every type of rider has a chance to win a monument if they are good enough.

Sprinters can win San Remo. Climbers can win LBL and Lombardia. Rouleurs can win the Ronde and Roubaix. Puncheurs can win the Ronde, LBL and Lombardia. ITT specialists can win Roubaix. Sprinters can place highly at the Ronde and Roubaix, rouleurs can place highly at San Remo, Climbers can place highly at San Remo, puncheurs can place highly at San Remo.

There is a monument for more or less anybody at the top level. As a result the Worlds should perhaps reflect that. Certainly we don't want a Worlds that is more challenging than Lombardia, as it eliminates too many people from contention. But accordingly, we don't want a Worlds that is less challenging than San Remo, as that is almost always a sprint (since Zabel's first win anyway) but the parcours offers just enough for the other types of riders to feel like they have a chance and can spring a surprise.

Now, the circuit format that the Worlds often does means you wouldn't actually need a climb the size of the Poggio in order to do this, since you could be climbing it 10-15 times. But if the Cipressa and Poggio weren't there, then San Remo would be a much, much more boring race than it is now, because the only platform for attacking on would be too far away for the rouleurs, puncheurs and climbers to believe they had a chance. A Worlds with only a single small climb would favour the sprinters immensely, but the parcours giving a bit more rope for attackers to hang themselves on would mean that the winning sprinters would earn the right to sprint for victory rather than have the sprint for victory handed to them the second they arrived in København. The chances are, Cavendish would still have won - he's clearly on form (as he won a sprint which wasn't ideal for him here anyway) and has won stages that look like this when on form before:

- but the course throwing a bone - no matter how small - to types of riders other than straightforward bunch sprinters would have silenced a lot of the critics.

 

[Bike Boy]

Major congrats to Cavendish and the brits. Easy parcours made this possible, but still a worthy world champion in my opinion. No matter how frustrated some of you guys are this is still the worlds.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

When I was a kid(12-14) my friends and I were getting into cycling, we organised races amongst ourselves, there was only 3-4 of us and we went hell for leather. One of my friends was weaker than the rest of us and we would beat him on any circuit.

As kids do, we tried to even things up so we agreed not to race until the final 100metres of a race. This weak friend could then beat us in a sprint finish. Are you trying to tell me becasue he could sprint better than us that he was actually equal to us.

This happens at every level of racing, there is always a guy who can sprint if there is a handicap race or manages to hang with the bunch if its an easy race but put them in a normal race and they are nowhere. Likewise there are guys who can TT but cant do Road races.

You're saying, you let a guy win so that makes him stronger than you but because you let him win he was actually weaker than you? And this proves that I or somebody else is wrong about something?

As for your last para, I'd argue that there isn't "A guy" but "guys" who have varied abilities to hang on to the bunch, dependent on terrain and speed across it. On any terrain even Angliru or Zoncolan, somewhere in the field you will always have one guy hanging onto another (stronger) guy's wheel, waiting for the sprint. It's what makes road racing more interesting to follow than TTing.

 

[pmcg76]

You're saying, you let a guy win so that makes him stronger than you but because you let him win he was actually weaker than you? And this proves that I or somebody else is wrong about something?

As for your last para, I'd argue that there isn't "A guy" but "guys" who have varied abilities to hang on to the bunch, dependent on terrain and speed across it. On any terrain even Angliru or Zoncolan, somewhere in the field you will always have one guy hanging onto another (stronger) guy's wheel, waiting for the sprint. It's what makes road racing more interesting to follow than TTing.

I have no idea what you mean by the first bit, I think my analogy was pretty simple really but you still have a problem getting it.

And I dont have a problem with a guy who can hang on in the mountains, at least it shows a level of vesratility. I am talking about those guys who cannot hang on unless the course is super-easy or they start with a handicap advantage.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bingo, not every random schmuck should be able to become world champion of one day races(as that is what it is really). Of course it should be limited.

So they should just do away with the road race - do it like X factor and have a call in.

Are you really calling the likes of Bettini, Evans, Valverde, Sancehz etc not masters of their trade. Look at the Tour, A Schleck is a top climber but is let down by his TTing and 'jack of all trades' Evans won this year. So is the Tour a poor event because of that.

Absolutley not - but again when you are suggesting that every WC "must" have a 'selective' winner it is you that is not valuing riders like Cav or Husovd etc.

What is the so much better about a Bettini than a Cipollini?

Its not about being the best at one skill, its about being multi faceted. The best riders in cycling history have all been multi facted, Armstrong, Indurain, Kelly, LeMond, Fignon, Hinault, Merckx all of them multi facted. Were they mere jack of all trades type riders. They were stronger at some aspects than others but at least could do everything to some level.

These 'Jack of all trades' are the greatests of the greats in cycling history, not the Van Poppels, Abdujaparovs, Cipollini's, Boardmans, Herreras, etc.

The other thing about the Worlds it is still an indiviudal victory where team-work usually plays a limited role in deciding a champion. On flat courses, the team becomes more important than the individual and this is evidenced out by the roles of GB and Italy in the respective titles. Never has there been praise for a the teams as there has been those two years.

If you want to call Kelly, LeMond etc 'Jack of all trades' thats fine' - but don't go attributing that to me.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

I have no idea what you mean by the first bit, I think my analogy was pretty simple really but you still have a problem getting it.

And I dont have a problem with a guy who can hang on in the mountains, at least it shows a level of vesratility. I am talking about those guys who cannot hang on unless the course is super-easy or they start with a handicap advantage.

I'm sorry I didn't get your analogy; I just can't see where handicapping comes into a discussion about road race world champions.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

- but the course throwing a bone - no matter how small - to types of riders other than straightforward bunch sprinters would have silenced a lot of the critics.

When was the last time Worlds featured a course for pure sprinters? 2005? It certainly wasn't the past two years. I'd say it was time the course threw a bone to the pure sprinter.

 

[pmcg76]

So they should just do away with the road race - do it like X factor and have a call in.




Absolutley not - but again when you are suggesting that every WC "must" have a 'selective' winner it is you that is not valuing riders like Cav or Husovd etc.

What is the so much better about a Bettini than a Cipollini?


If you want to call Kelly, LeMond etc 'Jack of all trades' thats fine' - but don't go attributing that to me.

Well it is you that described a course that suits riders who can do various apects of cycling as for 'jack of all trades master of none' cyclists.

What aspect of cycling was Kelly master of? Cimbing, No, TTing, No, Sprinting, No. So he wasnt master of any so that makes him a 'jack of all trades' by definition. What about Stpehen Roche, what was he master of in cycling. When you say master, that means the best, the top dog, the guys who wins more than others at one aspect of cycling like Cavendish.

Yes, I do view the likes of Bettini and countless others as better than Cipollini simply because they are better 'cyclists'. You want to start a thread who was the better cyclist, Bettini v Cipollini, would love to see the responses.

 

[pmcg76]

I'm sorry I didn't get your analogy; I just can't see where handicapping comes into a discussion about road race world champions.

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.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well it is you that described a course that suits riders who can do various apects of cycling as for 'jack of all trades master of none' cyclists.

I described your course - the one you cannot define and are having difficulty in explaining why one trumps the other.

What aspect of cycling was Kelly master of? Cimbing, No, TTing, No, Sprinting, No. So he wasnt master of any so that makes him a 'jack of all trades' by definition. What about Stpehen Roche, what was he master of in cycling. When you say master, that means the best, the top dog, the guys who wins more than others at one aspect of cycling like Cavendish.

Kelly was the jack of all trades - and Master of ALL.
Roche was fabulously fast and a great all rounder - without the sprint.

Yes, I do view the likes of Bettini and countless others as better than Cipollini simply because they are better 'cyclists'. You want to start a thread who was the better cyclist, Bettini v Cipollini, would love to see the responses.

Better cyclists?
Better all rounders, sure but not better cyclists.

 

[pmcg76]

I described your course - the one you cannot define and are having difficulty in explaining why one trumps the other.



Kelly was the jack of all trades - and Master of ALL.
Roche was fabulously fast and a great all rounder - without the sprint.



Better cyclists?
Better all rounders, sure but not better cyclists.

Where did you describe my course? Both Palmercq and Libertine have described what I consider the correct type of course for the Worlds RR.

So now are agreeing that Kelly and Roche are actually jack of all trades but just very good jack of all trades. Isnt that who we want the Worlds to suit, the best cyclists in the World???

No!! better cyclists, tell you what do a list of the Top 20 cyclists ever, hey even Top 50 cyclists of all time, see how many of them were limited to being good at one aspect of cycling like Cavendish, Boardman or Herrera. I dont mean classics, Tour etc either. I mean sprinting, TTing, climbing etc. The fact is cycling is made up of different areas and the best cyclists are those who are good at them all, not those who are good at one aspect.