Tour of Denmark 2021 (10th to 14th of August)

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Kragh is "deeply disappointed", understandably. I think this TT was an anticlimax.

Good stages all in all, but apart from that not the best Tour of Denmark.
Because a Dane didn't win? Or because Remco obliterated the field? Fair opinion if the latter but I think the Vejle stage was so good that it alone puts this edition above par (or it should actually be below, I guess, if the golf terminology is to hold up).
 
Because a Dane didn't win? Or because Remco obliterated the field? Fair opinion if the latter but I think the Vejle stage was so good that it alone puts this edition above par (or it should actually be below, I guess, if the golf terminology is to hold up).
Because the GC was over already after stage 3, because the final 10 kilometers in Vejle were relatively boring, because the hilly terrain of stage 4 didn't have a direct impact on the way the stage unfolded and ended, and because Evenepoel didn't need the win in Copenhagen - Kragh did. I could probably find even more reasons.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Because the GC was over already after stage 3, because the final 10 kilometers in Vejle were relatively boring, because the hilly terrain of stage 4 didn't have a direct impact on the way the stage unfolded and ended, and because Evenepoel didn't need the win in Copenhagen - Kragh did. I could probably find even more reasons.
Okay, the last reason is nonsense, this is professional sport and a win doesn't matter if your opponents don't ride for the win too. But otherwise, I can see your points.
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
Okay, the last reason is nonsense, this is professional sport and a win doesn't matter if your opponents don't ride for the win too. But otherwise, I can see your points.
I've never been a fan of a superiour rider winning stage after stage - that's why I think it's okay to have an unwritten rule in GT's about the leading rider not taking all the wins he can possibly get.

If I thought cycling was cool when one guy is dominant all the way through, I wouldn't care about a tight GC either.

Of course, if you are a Pogacar fan or an Evenepoel fan, you'll want them to win everything. I'm not.
 
Last edited:
I've never been a fan of a superiour rider winning stage after stage - that's why I think it's okay to have an unwritten rule in GT's about the leading rider not taking all the wins he can possibly get.

If I thought cycling was cool when one guy is dominant all the way through, I wouldn't care about a tight GC either.

Of course, if you are a Pogacar fan or an Evenepoel fan, you'll want them to win everything. I'm not.
i utterly disagree.

i always want the very best rider to win (and dominate, if that is the way it goes).

this fixation on doing everything to have a close race and/or make everyone happy is just plain dumb and goes against the nature of sport which is to determine the very best.

cycling -- particularly in GTs or stage races -- is rarely close.

manufacturing closeness or "gifting" wins to appeal to fans of more riders goes against what actually makes things dramatic.

if you cannot appreciate rides like Remco's in stage 3 or Pog's mountain obliteration of this year's TDF, then perhaps cycling is not the sport for you.

the sport's history is actually precisely built on these events.

one has to appreciate great rides, otherwise cycling becomes "let's have everyone win!"

the 1989 TDF goes down as the greatest precisely because it breaks the mold. but there has to be a mold to break in the first place.

also, not a huge fan of super close overall races in case there are too many "what ifs". Had Lemond flatted on his way into Paris and ended up losing the TDF by 8 seconds, that would have completely SUCKED (particularly since his team had already conceded 50 seconds to Fignon's in the TTT).
 
Last edited:
i utterly and completely disagree.

i always want the very best rider to win (and dominate, if that is the way it goes).

this fixation on doing everything to have a close race and/or make everyone happy is just plain dumb and goes against the nature of sport which is to determine the very best.

cycling -- particularly in GTs or stage races -- is rarely close.

manufacturing closeness or "gifting" wins to appeal to fans of more riders goes against what actually makes things dramatic.

if you cannot appreciate rides like Remco's in stage 3 or Pog's mountain obliteration of this year's TDF, then perhaps cycling is not the sport for you.

the sport's history is actually precisely built on these events.

one has to appreciate great rides, otherwise cycling becomes "let's have everyone win!"

the 1989 TDF goes down as the greatest precisely because it breaks the mold. but there has to be a mold to break in the first place.

also, not a huge fan of super close overall races in case there are too many "what ifs". Had Lemond flatted on his way into Paris and ended up losing the TDF by 8 seconds, that would have completely SUCKED (particularly since his team had already conceded 50 seconds to Fignon's in the TTT).
I agree that we disagree here. :)

My opinion also has to do with the history of the sport. Dominant riders have often turned out to have achieved their results illegally.
 
Reactions: Big Doopie
i utterly disagree.

i always want the very best rider to win (and dominate, if that is the way it goes).

this fixation on doing everything to have a close race and/or make everyone happy is just plain dumb and goes against the nature of sport which is to determine the very best.

cycling -- particularly in GTs or stage races -- is rarely close.

manufacturing closeness or "gifting" wins to appeal to fans of more riders goes against what actually makes things dramatic.

if you cannot appreciate rides like Remco's in stage 3 or Pog's mountain obliteration of this year's TDF, then perhaps cycling is not the sport for you.

the sport's history is actually precisely built on these events.

one has to appreciate great rides, otherwise cycling becomes "let's have everyone win!"

the 1989 TDF goes down as the greatest precisely because it breaks the mold. but there has to be a mold to break in the first place.

also, not a huge fan of super close overall races in case there are too many "what ifs". Had Lemond flatted on his way into Paris and ended up losing the TDF by 8 seconds, that would have completely SUCKED (particularly since his team had already conceded 50 seconds to Fignon's in the TTT).
Yes, and it's also a question of palmares. Every win counts.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Because the GC was over already after stage 3, because the final 10 kilometers in Vejle were relatively boring, because the hilly terrain of stage 4 didn't have a direct impact on the way the stage unfolded and ended, and because Evenepoel didn't need the win in Copenhagen - Kragh did. I could probably find even more reasons.
I find your answer quite surprising. You are Denmark's official hill expert. Quite an icon if you ask me.

This year we had a more international field honoring the Vejle course and treating it like a real classics with all the climbs being raced for once.

The alternative is a boring uphill sprint stage with the peloton slow pacing over Østengaard, Højen Skovvej, Gl. Kongevej, etc.

It was the best edition in recent memory IMO. At least the best Vejle edition.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Samu Cuenca
I find your answer quite surprising. You are Denmark's official hill expert. Quite an icon if you ask me.

This year we had a more international field honoring the Vejle course and treating it like a real classics with all the climbs being raced for once.

The alternative is a boring uphill sprint stage with the peloton slow pacing over Østengaard, Højen Skovvej, Gl. Kongevej, etc.

It was the best edition in recent memory IMO. At least the best Vejle edition.
Thanks. ;)

I liked the Vejle stage as variety. It's good to see that the stage can be won in other ways than by waiting until the final time up Kiddesvej. But I don't think that a combination of a big time gap from the leading rider to number two is good for a short stage race, especially not when the same rider has the strongest team behind him.

The routes as such were good, although the initial stages in southern Jutland are always a bit boring.
 
Reactions: Velolover2
Thanks. ;)

I liked the Vejle stage as variety. It's good to see that the stage can be won in other ways than by waiting until the final time up Kiddesvej. But I don't think that a combination of a big time gap from the leading rider to number two is good for a short stage race, especially not when the same rider has the strongest team behind him.

The routes as such were good, although the initial stages in southern Jutland are always a bit boring.
I consider it an honor to talk with "The King of the Hill". :laughing:

I agree. But having Remco there was an important because we all got a rare glimpse of how the race would look like with early action. Everyone knew that he wouldn't be waiting for the last lap.

You probably need to a stage that is just as difficult as the Vejle stage for better action than this year. A gravel stage would be fun, but then it will become much more of a lottery.
 
I hope they don't make the Frederiksberg ITT a regular feature. I'd like the ITT to before the Vejle stage (if it's not in Vejle, too). Of course it wouldn't have mattered this year, but I'd much rather give the non-TTers a chance to take time back at the end of the race rather than lose it.

I don't know if it's possible to make the Frederiksberg road stage much harder, but we have already seen that things can actually happen on it unlike in Paris, for instance.

I think we could also have seen earlier action than usual in Vejle, if DQS had brought Asgreen as their leader, and then there probably wouldn't have been such as big a time difference between the top 5 going into the Kalundborg stage, which could have made the finish there more exciting. I also think Uno-X probably could have delivered more aggressive racing, if they hadn't lost Larsen and Halvorsen early on, and Hulgaard hadn't been unfortunate as well.
 
I hope they don't make the Frederiksberg ITT a regular feature. I'd like the ITT to before the Vejle stage (if it's not in Vejle, too). Of course it wouldn't have mattered this year, but I'd much rather give the non-TTers a chance to take time back at the end of the race rather than lose it.

I don't know if it's possible to make the Frederiksberg road stage much harder, but we have already seen that things can actually happen on it unlike in Paris, for instance.
I can’t think of a way of making the Copenhagen stage much tougher, other than placing the finish on top of Valby Bakke. That would slightly enhance the chances of creating tiny time gaps, but I heard that it would be difficult for logistic reasons.

What if the final stage (or penultimate) was Vejle?
 
Last edited:
I can’t think of a way of making the Copenhagen stage much tougher, other than placing the finish on top of Valby Bakke. That would slightly enhance the chances of creating tiny time gaps, but I heard that it would be difficult for logistic reasons.

What if the final stage (or penultimate) was Vejle?
I wouldn't mind having the final stage in Vejle, though it would probably only be for a one off

I think he had been standing there for quite some time when I took a photo of him. His family members (or whoever the others were) looked like they didn't think it was that much fun anymore ... ;)

He did a good job, but I don't think he beats Roy Moberg, the race director of the women's Tour of Norway, dressed as a chicken.

 
Reactions: Danskebjerge

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS