WIggins Wins Worlds

dave_1

well done Wiggins http://www.cyclingnews.com/track/2008/m ... lts/wtc081

Kléber

Good for him but he's not the world's best cyclist, only the quickest at using a fixed gear bike whilst riding around a wooden banked track for the set distance of 4km. It's like saying you are the world's tallest person but only from a sample of people who are left-handed, vegetarian and speak Urdu: track cycling is a minority sport within cycling.

Anyway, congratulations to Bradley, job done and the gold medal's his. Let's hope he can collect gold in Beijing and then win the prologue in the Tour next year (although it'll be on a hillier circuit in Monaco).

dave_1

Kléber wrote:

Good for him but he's not the world's best cyclist, only the quickest at using a fixed gear bike whilst riding around a wooden banked track for the set distance of 4km. It's like saying you are the world's tallest person but only from a sample of people who are left-handed, vegetarian and speak Urdu: track cycling is a minority sport within cycling.

Anyway, congratulations to Bradley, job done and the gold medal's his. Let's hope he can collect gold in Beijing and then win the prologue in the Tour next year (although it'll be on a hillier circuit in Monaco).

he was 2nd in the TDF TT last year mid TDF...the Kazhakblood dopers in front don't count in the world ranking of TTers. So, Wiggins is close to the best on a good day I think...excellent ride by him. Hope he takes the hour as well.

Bronzie

............not to mention 4th in the TDF prologue behind Cancellara, Kloden and Hincapie - he's certainly among the very quickest in the world at this discipline, if perhaps he's less consistent at the longer distances.

Great result from him and nice to have something more positive to discuss other than the Hayles situation.

cougie

He's clearly the best at that discipline.

How could you say that anyone is the worlds best cyclist ? Everyone is so specialised these days.

Well done Bradley - lets hope the Tour goes for a 4km prologue in a wooden oval shape soon....

eh

Well done but I still wonder why can't he (won't he?) convert that speed onto the road and be a big player, rather than a 4k specialist. Ah well his career choice, but I just feel his talent is pretty wasted at just winning 4k's.

For me Cancellara is a much better rider and I'd be really interested to see him show up at the Olympics for the 4k then we'd have a proper race.

dave_1

it is puzzling...gravity is the same on the track as on a road...why is he so much slower? The laws of physics apply equally

Salsiccia

I would have thought riding time trials on the road requires more handling skills, ability to guage effort on inclines, gear choice and probably other things I can't think of that don't really apply to pursuiting.

In now way am I trying to diminish Wiggins' achievement, but I imagine it would be easier for a good road time triallist to achieve in the pursuit than vice-versa.

Kléber

The road involves other technical aspects, such as crosswinds, cornering and more.

But I just think the biggest element is the size of the pond. It's easy to be the big fish in the tiny world of track cycling as almost no one races on the track. How many of British cycling's membership, for example, have even raced once on a track? As for the pros, the money, prestige and recognition goes to road cycling and the best riders follow.

Track riding is fun, but it is very much a world of circus-like entertainment, where medals are awarded for all sorts of bizarre competitions. Explain why you have a medal for the sprint, and another for the keirin. Try to explain to a bloke in the pub the rules of the madison and tell me why we have world titles for the madison and the points race. Like I say, the prestige lies on the tarmac, track is a fun but quirky sideshow.

dave_1

Kléber wrote:

The road involves other technical aspects, such as crosswinds, cornering and more.

But I just think the biggest element is the size of the pond. It's easy to be the big fish in the tiny world of track cycling as almost no one races on the track. How many of British cycling's membership, for example, have even raced once on a track? As for the pros, the money, prestige and recognition goes to road cycling and the best riders follow.

Track riding is fun, but it is very much a world of circus-like entertainment, where medals are awarded for all sorts of bizarre competitions. Explain why you have a medal for the sprint, and another for the keirin. Try to explain to a bloke in the pub the rules of the madison and tell me why we have world titles for the madison and the points race. Like I say, the prestige lies on the tarmac, track is a fun but quirky sideshow.

if track was that easy why would people like Armstrong and Ullrich and others not risk their image with an attempt on trackies hour records e.g. Boardman and Obree's records. I think track is scary hard for some of the top grand tour riders...otherwise they would go for the hour and whip the trackies, no??

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

if track was that easy why would people like ARmstrong and Ullrich and others no risk there image with an attempt on trackies hour records e.g. Boardman and Obree's records. I think track is scary hard for some of the top grand tour riders...otherwise they would go for the hour and whip the trackies, no??

But the Hour record is an complete oddity. If you could use a modern bike I'm pretty sure Ullrich or Armstrong would've gone for it. But if you're not used to riding full out in an aero position on a 70's style track bike, well, you're not going to do well.

I'm with Kleber on this one - the track is a sideshow. (I think it's a boring sideshow, but hey, each to their own)

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

if track was that easy why would people like ARmstrong and Ullrich and others no risk there image with an attempt on trackies hour records e.g. Boardman and Obree's records. I think track is scary hard for some of the top grand tour riders...otherwise they would go for the hour and whip the trackies, no??

But the Hour record is an complete oddity. If you could use a modern bike I'm pretty sure Ullrich or Armstrong would've gone for it. But if you're not used to riding full out in an aero position on a 70's style track bike, well, you're not going to do well.

I'm with Kleber on this one - the track is a sideshow. (I think it's a boring sideshow, but hey, each to their own)

but they ride road position bikes on the road...it's not so hard. Cancelera might struggle with his height in the hour as on a sharply curved velodrome blood takes longer to return to heart with the g force of the bends...it suits more compact riders. Ferrari believed this is what put Indurain at a disadavntage at least

Kléber

I didn't say it was easy! Clearly the specialists there are supreme athletes and highly trained for the day. I'm not knocking the riders. Just pointing out that it's a derivative form of the sport.

Remember, Indurain and Rominger did go for the record. But Boardman did such an incredible ride that few want to try it. Is Sosenka the new holder or has his attempt not been validated?

timoid.

Dave_1 wrote:

Kléber wrote:

The road involves other technical aspects, such as crosswinds, cornering and more.

But I just think the biggest element is the size of the pond. It's easy to be the big fish in the tiny world of track cycling as almost no one races on the track. How many of British cycling's membership, for example, have even raced once on a track? As for the pros, the money, prestige and recognition goes to road cycling and the best riders follow.

Track riding is fun, but it is very much a world of circus-like entertainment, where medals are awarded for all sorts of bizarre competitions. Explain why you have a medal for the sprint, and another for the keirin. Try to explain to a bloke in the pub the rules of the madison and tell me why we have world titles for the madison and the points race. Like I say, the prestige lies on the tarmac, track is a fun but quirky sideshow.

if track was that easy why would people like ARmstrong and Ullrich and others no risk there image with an attempt on trackies hour records e.g. Boardman and Obree's records. I think track is scary hard for some of the top grand tour riders...otherwise they would go for the hour and whip the trackies, no??

There isn't any money in the hour record or on the track. That's why Armstrong and Ullrich couldn't be arsed.

Didn't some low rank Beolorussian rider nearly do the hour last year?

Kléber

Dave_1 wrote:

Ferrari believed this is what put Indurain at a disadavntage at least

Indeed, syrupy blood, packed thick with blood cells is heavy! All that iron...

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

Remember, Indurain and Rominger did go for the record. But Boardman did such an incredible ride that few want to try it. Is Sosenka the new holder or has his attempt not been validated?

Yep, he's the holder.

I think he might have won something on the road once. Not sure.

andy_wrx

I imagine it would be easier for a good road time triallist to achieve in the pursuit than vice-versa.

Mixing-up pursuiting and The Hour, let alone what 'a good road time triallist' might be, it was interesting how hard 'Dr Hutch' found The Hour...

reverendmark

eh wrote:

Well done but I still wonder why can't he (won't he?) convert that speed onto the road and be a big player, rather than a 4k specialist. Ah well his career choice, but I just feel his talent is pretty wasted at just winning 4k's.

For me Cancellara is a much better rider and I'd be really interested to see him show up at the Olympics for the 4k then we'd have a proper race.

I can imagine he looks at that Olympic gold medal and doesn't think his talent is especially wasted.

As for Cancellara, it's something I would have liked to have seen, but he decided against doing it. He was said to be doing some track trials, so either the numbers didn't add up, or the qualification just didn't fit with his schedule. See the fourth item here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /dec19news

Salsiccia

On a slightly different tack, fair dos to the BBC who are giving the Worlds a decent bit of coverage on the TV and their website.

Bronzie

Dave_1 wrote:

Cancelera might struggle with his height in the hour as on a sharply curved velodrome blood takes longer to return to heart with the g force of the bends...it suits more compact riders.

The current hour holder is 6'6"!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ond%C5%99ej_Sosenka

dave_1

I think the hour is a huge achievement and I only have confidence in Obree and Boardman's of the big name attempts. All Dr Ferrari or Conconi backed records are not to be put along side an Obree or Boardman record

Titanium

True. Moser's comeback to reclaim the record at the age of 50 was a joke, but played on the media, who couldn't ask what Ferrari was doing.

As for Sosenka, if they counted laps of the track, did someone else count his haematocrit?

Tim Farr

As to the relative merits of the track and road racing. The track is so much more accessible for the spectator, and what you see is usually much more exciting. I was at Worlds on Wednesday and obviously Bradley's rides against the Dutch guy had us on the edge of our seats. But even better, and subsequently unheralded, was the scratch race won by a Bylorussian. What a rider - in the first 20 laps he attacked and soloed to within 40 metres of the bunch, before fading and sitting at the rear of the bunch to the last few laps. Then surging again to win by a wheel from an extremely fast finishing dutchman - superb win and exciting race.

One interesting observation. On leaving the track the universal ritual is that the riders are met by the coach and at least one mechanic; their function is to wait hand and foot on the rider.They unstrap the rider, take the helmet, provide a drink, take the bike and handover the roadbike for a warmdown. This Bylorussian had nobody to meet him. Presumably he was his own coach, mechanic, dietician and shrink!!

geoff_ss

iainf72 wrote:

I'm with Kleber on this one - the track is a sideshow. (I think it's a boring sideshow, but hey, each to their own)

We've ridden to watch the Tour several times on mountain stages and it has a certain charm - the ride, the scenery, the atmosphere - then the spectacle of the riders passing relatively slowly and often visible for a long time. For us the main thing has always been the ride - the race just gave the day a focus.

It's a great thing to see but for sheer thrill and visceral excitement it doesn't come near to track racing. We haven't got tickets for the World's but we go to all the Winter Revolution meetings at the velodrome and it's a great evenings entertainment for very little cost. Much the best form of cycle racing from the spectator's point of view IMO Moreover - Brits are actually winning,which is a change

Geoff

ricadus

I love the Gent 6-Days: the loud music, the betting shop atmosphere and especially the boozy scrum in the middle.

I think, for the girls, the track guarantees them a bigger & better audience, with the exception maybe of Olympic and WCH road races and major races in Italy. I was at a stage of the Grand Boucle a couple of years ago and there were only about 3 dozen spectators at the finish.

FixUpLookSharp

I'm surprised to hear people calling track racing a boring sideshow. In my opinion, it's some of the most accessible and exciting racing in cycling! I defy anyone to watch a Madison, for example, and not be riveted.

As for suggesting that Wiggins' win is somehow not quite that great because it's in a "minority" part of cycling, well that's just silly. To me, that's a little like saying winning Roubaix isn't that impressive because it's not the Giro, or winning the Giro isn't that impressive because it's not the Tour. Each race is different and thus demands different talents. Does that really mean one race is better than the other?

iainf72

FixUpLookSharp wrote:

As for suggesting that Wiggins' win is somehow not quite that great because it's in a "minority" part of cycling, well that's just silly. To me, that's a little like saying winning Roubaix isn't that impressive because it's not the Giro, or winning the Giro isn't that impressive because it's not the Tour. Each race is different and thus demands different talents. Does that really mean one race is better than the other?[/quote]

Yes.

That's not to say the minor races are unimportant, they're just not as important or impressive.

FixUpLookSharp

iainf72 wrote:

That's not to say the minor races are unimportant, they're just not as important or impressive.

Okay, but don't you think that it's a bit strange to invoke supposedly more impressive races when talking about a win like this? Instead of just celebrating the fact the Wiggins won a World Championship, why does it have to be compared to something else, and found wanting? Why denigrate the win by saying it's only in a minority, sideshow event? Do we really need the caveat?

Kléber

I've congratulated Wiggins but also recognise that this achievement isn't the pinnacle of cycling. As said, it's a great achievement but plonk Hincapie, Cancellara, Hushovd, Zabriskie and many more names on there and the story might be different. McGee was riding but he's just come out of Paris-Nice, had he aimed for the title, the result could be different?

There are so many medals on offer at the worlds. For example, why are medals awarded for the sprint and keirin, both reward the same skill. The same for the madison and the points race. It's much easier to point to the World RR and TT champ as the best of the best, no?

Also FixUpLookSharp, what % of the membership of Irish Cycling and USA Cycling race on the track? I'd suggest It is a minority sport within a minority sport.

afx237vi

FixUpLookSharp wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

That's not to say the minor races are unimportant, they're just not as important or impressive.

Okay, but don't you think that it's a bit strange to invoke supposedly more impressive races when talking about a win like this? Instead of just celebrating the fact the Wiggins won a World Championship, why does it have to be compared to something else, and found wanting? Why denigrate the win by saying it's only in a minority, sideshow event? Do we really need the caveat?

I've been watching bits of the coverage on BBC and Eurosport and virtually everyone involved in track cycling is doing exactly that. From commentators, coaches and the riders themselves - every single one of them has said the worlds are just preparation for the Beijing Olympics. IMO that damages the credibility of track cycling. They virtually admit that there's only one meeting every four years that they care about.

Why should I care about riders winning world championships on the track when they are just using it as build up for the Olympics?

FixUpLookSharp

Well, Ireland doesn't even have a proper velodrome, so the % of Irish racers competing on track is pretty tiny. Track is actually pretty popular in the US, and provided that you live near a velodrome (there are at least 23 in the US) it's actually easier to compete on the track than it is on road. A lot of people compete in both disciplines.

Look, I'm not mental, and I'm not denying that track doesn't have the same amount of participation as road. Clearly, road racing is the big show in cycling when compared to track, time trialing, cyclocross, etc. But does that mean that a win on the track has put in its place, so to speak? You say that Wiggin's win doesn't mean he's the best cyclist in the world, but who said it does? Who said the 4000m Individual Pursuit title was the pinnacle of cycling? It's crazy to suggest that one result should be judged that way. If this is your criterion, then almost every race in cycling falls short.

Wiggin's win was great. It makes him the best in the world at the 4000m Individual Pursuit. Does that make him the best cyclist in the world? No. Do we need to qualify his incredible win by underlining that? No.