UCI WorldTour 2017

[wwabbit]

Something doesn't quite sit right with me with so many here suggesting that WorldTour status should only be awarded to races held in 5-6 particular countries, all from the same area of one continent.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

Something doesn't quite sit right with me with so many here suggesting that WorldTour status should only be awarded to races held in 5-6 particular countries, all from the same area of one continent.

Which is why it should be dropped all together. Or at the very least go back to the name "ProTour".

Cycling just isn't a world sport.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Something doesn't quite sit right with me with so many here suggesting that WorldTour status should only be awarded to races held in 5-6 particular countries, all from the same area of one continent.

Which is why it should be dropped all together. Or at the very least go back to the name "ProTour".

Cycling just isn't a world sport.

But it does have significant following in many parts of the world: Europe, N. America, Colombia, Australia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Unsure on Asia but I think that countries like Iran must have good following, and countries further east as well.

But I agree that almost all of its followers are from Europe, namely France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Netherlands, as well as the UK nowadays. There are few other counties around the world with an interest in cycling. However, I feel it should be important to recognise them some way or another.

 

[KyoGrey]

Maybe the problem is the whole World Tour concept as if it was Formula 1. The Pro Tour was created as a way of grouping the best races in one calendar.

This races happen to be in the traditional countries, France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland etc.

TBH, the only other countries with enough weight in the sport to have race days in the top tier may were Germany and the USA, with maybe the recent inclusions of some race days in Australia and the UK.

No need of top tier races in Asia, the Middle East, or Canada.

 

[TMP402]

So, err...

With only one WorldTour team currently committed to The Presidential Tour of Turkey, the April 18-23 race could face cancellation in its first year on the UCI's premier calendar.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-of-turkey-in-doubt-as-worldtour-teams-shy-away/

 

[RedheadDane]

It's a shame if they have to cancel it completely, has actually had some pretty good racing. Why not simply bring it back down a level?

I suppose the WT could be something like this.

1. No teams required to start any races. Bit like in the Women's World Tour, a team having WT status would simply mean automatically being invited to the WT races, not being required to ride.

2. WT teams would have to make clear whether or not they intend to participate in a race at least three months before the race is to start, giving organisers time to fill in extra Wild Card spots. If a team fails to clearly state it's intentions, and doesn't start in a race, it'll face a fine.
I suppose a dispensation could be make for special circumstances.

3. If a WT race doesn't attract enough (10) WT teams it'll have to go through a three-year "probation period", if after those three years the level of interest hasn't increased. Well... it ain't a WT race anymore.

 

[TMP402]

Do .1 and .HC races regularly turn down WT teams? If not, there really is nothing about the Tour of Turkey that makes it more attractive as a WT race than 2.1 or 2.HC. Totally devalues the WT.

 

[Fus087]

Re:

Do .1 and .HC races regularly turn down WT teams?

No.

 

[sQiD]

For a more equitable race classification system, i suggest :

- Cat 1 : the 3 grand tours

- Cat 2 : the 5 monuments

- Cat 3 : the one-week stage races like Paris-Nice, Tour of Catalogna, and Tour de Suisse...

- Cat 4 : the on day races like Gand-Wevelgem, Amstel Gold Race and Grand Prix de Montréal...

- Cat 5 : the new races which will be promoted to Cat 3 or 4 if they remain successful.