Gent-Wevelgem - status

iainf72

Did we ever resolve whether or not this was still a chipper?

Or does it depend who wins?

andyp

How long is it this year?

andyp

235 kms.

Less of a chipper than it was, but it needs to get back up to 250 kms to regain it's former status.

Monty Dog

Depends if Nico Mattan's mate is still driving the lead car?

rick_chasey

Chipper.

E3 consistently has better racing and a better startlist.

LangerDan

The Americans tried for a Unilateral Declaration of Monument-ness when Hincapie won a decade ago. I'd expect a similar grass-roots movement this side of the pond if Cav wins.

As for the race itself, it seems to be more remembered for every thing except the racing:- Cipo twatting the motorbike commissaire with a bidon, Farrar and Casper smashing themselves up on the descent of the Kemmelberg and as Monty mentioned, the "neutral" service car dragging Mattan up to Flecha.


Edit: - I forgot about Zabel getting run over by a horse in 2000.

Circus race

inkyfingers

There have been some properly entertaining editions, even in recent years; 2002 was good, 2005 (though obviously controversial) was entertaining, 2007 was decent and 2009 was a proper gritty affair. When the weather is bad and it splits up all over the place it seems like a real classic, when it's sunny and theres no wind and a sprinter wins from a group of 100 then it feels like a chipper.

Hopefully giving it it's own weekend slot a week away from Flanders will mean that more guys will take it seriously, clearly Boonen did last year which is a good sign. The fact that the Kemmelberg is so far from the finish means it's never going to be as selective as some of the other cobbled classics, but then is that a bad thing? How many mini Ronde's do you need?

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

Hopefully giving it it's own weekend slot a week away from Flanders will mean that more guys will take it seriously, clearly Boonen did last year which is a good sign.

Boonen made it clear that he wanted to ride E3 - and that E3 was better preparation for the Ronde.

Levefre made him ride it because they needed the ProTour points, since their car was last in the queue.

Other than riders who have no chance in other proper cobbled races (mainly sprinters), no riders seem to like G-W.

andyp

It is, like Amstel Gold, a consolation classic. None of the big names would admit to targetting it, but if they win it and fail to win either Flanders or Roubaix then they can argue they've had a successful spring campaign.

greasedscotsman

I liked it in it's midweek slot. Used to make a good race to go and see, along with Pino Cerami between Flanders and Roubaix.

But then I like chips!

dave_1

it is a pretty decent win to get..isn't a semi classic but isn't on level of Flanders or Roubaix. Same as Paris Tours maybe? Cipo and Abdu had a great sprint battle in 1992 GW for the win..plenty big names take it. Kelly in 1988 as well. I think Amstel is above it though.

RichN95.

Here's what they should do. Scrap 3 Days of de Panne. Move one of E3 or GW to next Wednesday (they can alternate). Then we have an unbroken run of 11 classics of varying status over five and a half weeks from San Remo to Liege. Package them together as a Classics Series competition (individual and team) sort of like the old World Cup and market and sell it as such. And have a concurrent women's series.

Won't happen though.

frenchfighter

RichN95 wrote:

Here's what they should do. Scrap 3 Days of de Panne. Move one of E3 or GW to next Wednesday (they can alternate). Then we have an unbroken run of 11 classics of varying status over five and a half weeks from San Remo to Liege. Package them together as a Classics Series competition (individual and team) sort of like the old World Cup and market and sell it as such. And have a concurrent women's series.

Won't happen though.

Interesting.

greasedscotsman

RichN95 wrote:

Here's what they should do. Scrap 3 Days of de Panne. Move one of E3 or GW to next Wednesday (they can alternate). Then we have an unbroken run of 11 classics of varying status over five and a half weeks from San Remo to Liege. Package them together as a Classics Series competition (individual and team) sort of like the old World Cup and market and sell it as such. And have a concurrent women's series.

Won't happen though.

Why scrap De Panne? Surely you already have 11 classics in 5-6 weeks, why remove another race?

And why does everything have to be a series? Riders going for a win at Liege won't be at Roubaix, so seems a bit meaningless. And I don't care for team competitions either. I'm interested in who wins MsR or Flanders, is that not enough?

Would like to see more women's races running in parallel to the men's events, like Amstel used to do and Flanders still does.

RichN95.

greasedscotsman wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Here's what they should do. Scrap 3 Days of de Panne. Move one of E3 or GW to next Wednesday (they can alternate). Then we have an unbroken run of 11 classics of varying status over five and a half weeks from San Remo to Liege. Package them together as a Classics Series competition (individual and team) sort of like the old World Cup and market and sell it as such. And have a concurrent women's series.

Won't happen though.

Why scrap De Panne? Surely you already have 11 classics in 5-6 weeks, why remove another race?

And why does everything have to be a series? Riders going for a win at Liege won't be at Roubaix, so seems a bit meaningless. And I don't care for team competitions either. I'm interested in who wins MsR or Flanders, is that not enough?

Would like to see more women's races running in parallel to the men's events, like Amstel used to do and Flanders still does.

I'd get rid of De Panne because it gets in the way of the plan. It's a poor man's Eneco Tour which the stars avoid as there are lots of crashes.

The purpose of a series is to make it more attractive to TV audiences. Most sports viewers are fairly casual and don't go on cycling forums. A series gives context and narrative to the races and therefore more appeal. The idea is not to downgrade races, but to boost all of them. Individual wins will lose no prestige. There have been series in the past - Super Prestige, World Cup.

A team competition (over a series not a single race) works because it doesn't matter if Cancellara is not in the Ardennes because Schleck is. And while the audience may not be familiar with Terpstra, the fact he's riding for for Omega has significance. It will help deliver increased exposure for sponsors, without whom the sport dies.

One of these days cycling will realise that what worked in the 70s just doesn't cut it in the modern world.

greasedscotsman

RichN95 wrote:

I'd get rid of De Panne because it gets in the way of the plan. It's a poor man's Eneco Tour which the stars avoid as there are lots of crashes.

The purpose of a series is to make it more attractive to TV audiences. Most sports viewers are fairly casual and don't go on cycling forums. A series gives context and narrative to the races and therefore more appeal. The idea is not to downgrade races, but to boost all of them. Individual wins will lose no prestige. There have been series in the past - Super Prestige, World Cup.

A team competition (over a series not a single race) works because it doesn't matter if Cancellara is not in the Ardennes because Schleck is. And while the audience may not be familiar with Terpstra, the fact he's riding for for Omega has significance. It will help deliver increased exposure for sponsors, without whom the sport dies.

One of these days cycling will realise that what worked in the 70s just doesn't cut it in the modern world.

The World Cup was hardly a great success though. Do you really think a reduced version will work now?

Don't see why you need to get rid of De Panne. OK, it doesn't have to be part of the RichN95 Super Pro Classics Series, but if the big riders don't want to race it, then up to them. Hate to see races disappear. And as a spectator, if I went over to watch a week of racing in Belgium, there is more to see.

RichN95.

greasedscotsman wrote:

The World Cup was hardly a great success though. Do you really think a reduced version will work now?

Don't see why you need to get rid of De Panne. OK, it doesn't have to be part of the RichN95 Super Pro Classics Series, but if the big riders don't want to race it, then up to them. Hate to see races disappear. And as a spectator, if I went over to watch a week of racing in Belgium, there is more to see.

It would work better than the old World Cup because it would be focused on a five week period - like a football World Cup or the Six Nations - not something that you would dip into once in a while.

If there's a lot of clamour for De Panne, then it could be moved to another date. But a bigger picture needs to be seen. You mention what you would like 'as a spectator', but the spectator on the side of the road is not what brings in the money - it's the TV audience.

The alleged breakaway league what to create new events, traditionalists wanted to keep everything just as it was in 1930. There's a happy medium of repackaging the old without really changing it. Modern tradition is what is needed. My idea is an example of it.

(PS Hockey blew a chance to be a TV sport in the early 90s due to it being hard to see the ball. At the time I said "Why does the pitch have to be green?". Not acceptable apparently. 20 years later, finally the Olympic pitch isn't green).

blazing_saddles

Scrap De Panne and form a classic.....er.....Classics competition?
Rich is clearly angling for Pat Mc's job, when the time comes.
He's got the right stuff. :P

Seriously, re-packaging for the masses, what does that mean?
I assume it has something to do with making the sport attractive
to audiences new to the sport.
However, once again, it seems to entail robbing established audiences of some of their
cherished events.

De Panne has prestige, attracts huge crowds and has extensive tv coverage,
which is seen live in many European countries, that have huge cycling fan bases.

Gent-Wevelgem, on the other hand, doesn't even make Eurosport's schedules,
never mind a global audience.
That's when it's run on a weekend.

Yellow Peril

I don't like Rich's idea at all. Lots of sports are constantly being re-invented and re-packaged and in so doing lose touch with their history and event status. Very often it is the equivalent of scrapping fine claret in favour of lambrini.

greasedscotsman

I don't think Rich's series idea is that terrible. I just don't think any fans, riders or teams would be that interested and because of that, I don't see the point. Might have worked in the 1970s, but not now. And I still don't like the idea of getting rid or moving De Panne. Think it works fine where it is.

If it's given that Gent Wevelgem doesn't work where it is, I'd move it back to where it was, between Flanders and Roubaix, move Scheldeprijs to where E3 Harelbeke now is and E3 to the Sunday before Flanders.

And I reckon that Gent Wevelgem's importance and standing will be significantly raised if Cavendish wins it.

rick_chasey

Are we all agreed that over the past 10 years the E3 has been a better race with a better startlist?