RATE THE RACE - Tour of Flanders.

2»

Comments

  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    iainf72 wrote:
    Ok, can I nominate Roger De Vlaeminck to offer his opinion?

    It was a dull race - Compare it to E3, which had similar outcome but there were sections of very exciting racing. If you can't call a race boring, how will you know when racing is actually exciting?

    I think it isn't so much that you can't call a race boring, merely that different races appeal to different people. Having said that, I didn't think that this was a great race.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,314
    LeicesterLad wrote:
    Can I just point out that I am a cycling fan not a pro-rider. In order to be a fan there must be some form of entertainment. This is no judgement on the riders - it's a very hard race for very hard men, though I do think too many people are bottling it these days, happy with their top 10 finish - this comes down to the fact that the race wasn't very entertaining.

    *Fan of entertainment wasn't entertained shocker*

    As a cycling fan, I don't think there is such a thing as a "boring" classic. Weren't most of us enthralled by the race on Sunday? Boonen's crash, What was Greipel doing? What were Lotto doing? Sky are crashing/not up much, what's Chav plan of attack, etc a million questions and curiosities...
    Retrospectively, I'll pronounce some races more entertaining than others - definitely. Will also probably categorise some as True Classic Classics or something: but at the time of the race I'm usually riveted. As a "consumer" much of my interest as a viewer is dictated by what I get to see in the coverage.
    LeicesterLad wrote:
    Oh, and the final loop is sh*t.
    Might agree - maybe it's just sentimental, but the Muur then Bosberg seemed more iconic, apart from anything else.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    Jez mon wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Ok, can I nominate Roger De Vlaeminck to offer his opinion?

    It was a dull race - Compare it to E3, which had similar outcome but there were sections of very exciting racing. If you can't call a race boring, how will you know when racing is actually exciting?

    I think it isn't so much that you can't call a race boring, merely that different races appeal to different people. Having said that, I didn't think that this was a great race.

    Again I have to remind people that there is a spectrum between Best Race Ever and Utterly Rubbish

    Do I need to write my Varsity Blue thing out again?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • danlikesbikes
    danlikesbikes Posts: 3,898
    ddraver wrote:

    Again I have to remind people that there is a spectrum between Best Race Ever and Utterly Rubbish

    ^-^ I like that statement.

    For me the race was good. I know people say its boring as its on a circuit, or its boring as its not the old course.

    However consider that so many 'good' classics riders where not racing or seem to have p poor form right now and it leaves the teams with little other options. If only Boonen had not crashed out early, if Gilbert was doing better, Thor & EBH don't seem on top of it. Yes you know the pace appears slow when the Gorilla can get in a break away but look at the time sheet and they were up at a higher pace than last year for a vast majority of the race.

    My conclusion is its the riders that make the race & we simply didn't have enough in the race, stay in the race or with good enough form.
    Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
  • le_patron
    le_patron Posts: 494
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    I would love for a few current and former pro's to come on here and decimate all of this casual armchair criticism about the quality of races: this drumming of fists on table demanding entertainment for one's consumption! Fair enough; but if you discount the 70% or so of riders who are either bottle-carriers or just not up for it, that leaves the rest of elite pros doing what they can "under the circumstances"

    Not sure what that would achieve. We are rating the race as a spectacle. Some races are better than others, otherwise we'll all just agree that everyone did their best 'under the circumstances' and they are therefore all the same. Which they aren't.
    Twists, turns and surprises normally supply excitment, along with some teams willing to take chances to outsmart the favourites.
    What also helps is a course that delicately balances opportunities for those willing to take a gamble with those simply pumping out the most watts for longest in a team controlling the pace. The previous course got this balance about right in most eyes, and didn't happen by accident.
    And the pace can't have been totally stifling as Lotto managed to get someone in position at the sharp end.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Fab's wearing down and near gap of Sago on oude
    kwaremont was great and suspense of paterburg
    summit was great great racing viewing..7/10...race radios
    have reduced what we can ask for. 1992 RVV 10/10
    1986 RVV 10/10. Lemond accused Vanderpoel
    of motorpacing. Lowered expectations are how to
    score bike racing...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,314
    le patron wrote:
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    I would love for a few current and former pro's to come on here

    Not sure what that would achieve. We are rating the race as a spectacle. Some races are better than others, otherwise we'll all just agree that everyone did their best 'under the circumstances' and they are therefore all the same. Which they aren't.
    Twists, turns and surprises normally supply excitment, along with some teams willing to take chances to outsmart the favourites.
    What also helps is a course that delicately balances opportunities for those willing to take a gamble with those simply pumping out the most watts for longest in a team controlling the pace.

    What it might achieve is conveying more of a sense of what it's actually like from a rider's perspective. Personally, I love hearing stories from elite riders recounting their experiences from "the inside" of something we witness from afar. As I mentioned earlier, as a cycling fan I'm generally enthralled whilst watching a race: it's retrospectively that it'll get labelled and categorised. It's a musical thing, I suppose - peaks/troughs, and all that.

    I used to go to see a band called The Bays: they played what was basically a continuous improvised dance number. It would often start as laid-back funk, drift into disco/house and then occasionally end up being really funky drum & bass. At every gig, people would be dancing like crazy by the time things reached a climax. But sometimes, chatting about it after, we'd agree that it just didn't quite have that little extra special something... It was nigh on impossible to define what the missing thing was.
  • andyrr
    andyrr Posts: 1,822
    Le Commentateur wrote:
    A bit like the Ali v Foreman fight in the 70s. Big build up... nothing much appears to happen for ages... gets slightly better, then wham: it's over.

    For me, when there is such huge anticipation of a race I get concerned that post-race we'll be thinking "Well, was that it ... ?", This was such a race - I record to DVD pretty much every single day race I get on satellite and this race is one I've already formatted the disk awaiting P-R.
    My own enjoyment of a race is very often determined by how long the end result is in doubt. Sunday's Ronde had a small degree of that but when I saw the RSNT rider hammering away for all he was worth at the front I knew that they were just setting it up for Cancellara to turn on the turbo at his chosen moment. Impressive for sure but not a lot of wondering about what was going to happen from Kwaremont onwards.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    I enjoyed it, the whole point of races this long is that
    1 theres 200k in the legs and thats a major influence
    2 its so long they, have to wait to use whatevers left
    3 its fast over a difficult circuit
    4 the tactics evolve (slowly) over the race in response to form, crashes, other attacks punctures mechanicalss, stronger/weaker teams and LUCK

    I liked it, but then i like to watch the whole thing
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    andyrr wrote:
    Le Commentateur wrote:
    A bit like the Ali v Foreman fight in the 70s. Big build up... nothing much appears to happen for ages... gets slightly better, then wham: it's over.

    For me, when there is such huge anticipation of a race I get concerned that post-race we'll be thinking "Well, was that it ... ?", This was such a race - I record to DVD pretty much every single day race I get on satellite and this race is one I've already formatted the disk awaiting P-R.
    My own enjoyment of a race is very often determined by how long the end result is in doubt. Sunday's Ronde had a small degree of that but when I saw the RSNT rider hammering away for all he was worth at the front I knew that they were just setting it up for Cancellara to turn on the turbo at his chosen moment. Impressive for sure but not a lot of wondering about what was going to happen from Kwaremont onwards.

    How dull to know ahead of time. Please can you tell me the result of the rest of the races this year ill stick some money on
    cheeer :)

Categories