Amstel gold race 2018 *SPOILERS*

rick_chasey

There was also the World Cup which, in the '90s, was a big deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_Road_World_Cup

Sun Dodger

Interesting that the non-Monument World Cup races haven't fared too well - arguably only Amstel and San Sebastian have as high a profile nowadays.

sherer

Rick Chasey wrote:

There was also the World Cup which, in the '90s, was a big deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_Road_World_Cup

don't forget we used to have the white jersey for leader of the Pro Tour. That's gone now too.

Do remember the World Cup as that was just when I really started getting into watching it on TV

knedlicky

inseine wrote:

Sagan was on the front when Kreuziger pulled away, then stayed on the front and watched as Gasparotto came past. Neither were strong or surprise attacks. I really thought he's have gone with Gasparotto at least. Doubly frustrated since he was my PTP pick!

TheBigBean wrote:

I presumed Sagan was sandbagging / not riding as part of a long game to win another race. Just like he did before Paris-Roubaix. The problem is I'm not sure what this next race is - maybe he will be a late entry to LBL and stun everyone.

Sagan said after the race that near the end he didn't have the legs to go after anyone.

His next race is supposed to be T of California.

knedlicky

RichN95 wrote:

inseine wrote:

No one seems to know when it was decided that there were monuments. Not sure they were considered so in the Merckx era

When I started watching cycling in the 80s I don't think anyone talked about 'Monuments' or 'Grand Tours'.

I don't remember the term 'monuments' being used years ago either.
I think it is relatively new, probably created somewhere in the media (like the three buildings at the waterfront in Liverpool were first called The Three Graces by a London-based newspaper only about two decades ago, but now the term is commonly used even by Liverpudlians).

Eitherway, I've seen 5 characteristics stated to define what is a 'monument':
first took place a long time ago, if possible before WW1 (rules out Amstel);
has taken place with very few interruptions since;
basically the same route and challenges over the years (so if the route of P-R were radically changed or the cobbled stretches were tarmaced, it wouldn't any longer qualify);
great public popularity;
high quality winners (rules out Paris-Tours)

I'd rather not have the term, and just keep to the more traditional term 'Classics' (although there is probably no definition of what constitutes a Classic either).

andyp

The term 'monuments' has been in common parlance in all the years I've been following cycling and have always been the five most prestigious one day races on the calendar. At times one or other has dipped in popularity and the prestige has been tarnished somewhat, but they remain the yardstick by which the greats are measured over generations.

The Perrier Superprestige was prestigious in its day, as was the World Cup, but they never carried the same weight as winning a monument. Obviously there have been some anomalies, but the list of winners of all the monuments is a great way of seeing who were the best riders of certain eras.

knedlicky

About 5 years ago a French website prepared a list of races which had the best quality fields based on participating riders' achievements at the time of each race, combining the annual ratings together into decades, as well as having an overall rating for all the pre-war years. If one uses their 'field quality' ratings to decide which one-day races might be the 5 'monuments', one sees the five vary throughout the decades.

(Solely the Tour of Lombardy is constantly in the top 5, while L-B-L only appears there since the 70s. Also, P-R didn't make the top 5 between 1991-2010. In recent years, there have been a couple of surprise entries, Gent-Wevelgem and Zürich, and first in 2001-2010 did Amstel make it into the top 5)

up to 1940:
Paris-Roubaix
Milan-San Remo
Paris-Tours
Tour of Lombardy
Bordeaux-Paris (last one in 1988)

1941-50:
Milan-San Remo
Tour of Lombardy
Tour of Tuscany
Tour of Lazio (last one in 2008)
Tour of Veneto (last one in 2012)

(The slant to races in Italy is partly because north of the Alps, some races didn't take place some war years. P-R missed 1941 and 1942, otherwise would have likely been in the top 5)

1951-60:
Milan-San Remo
Rome-Naples-Rome (last one in 1961)
Paris-Roubaix
Tour of Flanders
Tour of Lombardy

1961-70:
Tour of Lombardy
Paris-Roubaix
Tour of Flanders
Milan-San Remo
La Flèche Wallonne

1971-80:
Paris-Roubaix
Liège-Bastogne-Liège
La Flèche Wallonne
Tour of Lombardy
Gent-Wevelgem

1981-90:
Liège-Bastogne-Liège
Tour of Lombardy
Tour of Flanders
Paris-Tours
Paris-Roubaix

1991-2000:
Tour of Flanders
Liège-Bastogne-Liège
Tour of Lombardy
Championship of Zürich (last one in 2006)
Milan-San Remo

2001-2010:
Liège-Bastogne-Liège
Milan-San Remo
Amstel Gold Race
Tour of Lombardy
La Flèche Wallonne

mididoctors

RichN95 wrote:

When I started watching cycling in the 80s I don't think anyone talked about 'Monuments' or 'Grand Tours'.
mg]

yeah...

people did use the term la doyenne and Primavera, falling leaves, race to the sun etc etc for certain races but "monuments" is a pretty newish thing.

maybe 20 odd years ago when it became popular-ish...not sure when it slipped into common usage. no doubt been used sporadically for a lot longer

inseine

Fascinating stuff guys.
All the different criteria seem to rules out Stade Bianche which I've often heard being talked up as a new monument. basically too new and too short.

mididoctors

its a load of hipster nonsense..but it may stick as "canon" if it's used enough.

bit like the term "gapped" which i hate. how the hell that got into common use while dropped seems to be yesterdays lingo

RichN95.

andyp wrote:

The Perrier Superprestige was prestigious in its day, as was the World Cup, but they never carried the same weight as winning a monument. Obviously there have been some anomalies, but the list of winners of all the monuments is a great way of seeing who were the best riders of certain eras.

I was using the points system to the relative points scores between the classics as an indication of their relative prestige at that time.

DeVlaeminck

knedlicky wrote:

Sagan said after the race that near the end he didn't have the legs to go after anyone.

He forgot to add "except Valverde when he followed Wellens and to outsprint everyone left in the group".

dish_dash

ha... thanks knedlicky. Goes to prove my view that the Tour of Lombardy is the best race in the calendar...

Did the 'monuments' classification have something to do with WT points classifications?

mididoctors

some journo on the comic more likley

salsiccia1

DeVlaeminck wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

Sagan said after the race that near the end he didn't have the legs to go after anyone.

He forgot to add "except Valverde when he followed Wellens and to outsprint everyone left in the group".

In fairness, I'd want to drag Valverde back, even if my balls fell off doing it

RichN95.

The idea of those five races being monuments seems to have its roots in the Challenge Desgrange-Colombo which started in 1948 and was organised by L'Equipe and Gazzetta (with contributions from Belgium's Het Nieuwsblad and Les Sports) in an attempt to promote their main races above ones owned by less influential rivals.

The races were:
L'Equipe: Tour de France, Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Brussels, Paris-Tours
Gazzetta: Giro d'Italia, Milan-San Remo, Lombardia
Het Niewsblad: Tour of Flanders
Les Sports: Fleche Wallonne.

Liege-Bastogne-Liege was added when Les Sports bought it in 1951. (Tour de Suisse and the Vuelta also joined later)

I think in more recent years they have had their status formalised as, for historic reasons, they are the only races allowed to exceed 250km.

rick_chasey

Apart from the race in question, obviously.

m.r.m.

Sun Dodger wrote:

Interesting that the non-Monument World Cup races haven't fared too well - arguably only Amstel and San Sebastian have as high a profile nowadays.

Isn't Strade Bianche the highest profile non monument nowadays?

Bo Duke

When sponsors move the finish line of classic races for promotional purposes you realise we're talking semantics anyway.

Milan-San Remo is the mother of all early season races even though it's rarely the most exciting.
Paris-Roubaix preferably in the mud with countless riders falling and puncturing is the test of a Man. All hail Tom Boonen.
Strade Bianchi is the rain and the dirt is the essence of tough cycling by tough men. Wonderful and so aesthetically rewarding.
Paris-Nice is the beginning of the serious racing as the sun comes out and the Grand Tours approach...

What a way to start the season!

jam1e

mididoctors wrote:

its a load of hipster nonsense..but it may stick as "canon" if it's used enough.

bit like the term "gapped" which i hate. how the hell that got into common use while dropped seems to be yesterdays lingo

Bit OT but I always consider “gapped” to be describing a possibly temporary state whilst “dropped” is describing a probably permanent one. (Unless it’s at the finish when “gapped” is used quite a bit and there’s no chance of undoing it... hmmm, need to think this through a bit more.)

No_Ta_Doctor

jam1e wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

its a load of hipster nonsense..but it may stick as "canon" if it's used enough.

bit like the term "gapped" which i hate. how the hell that got into common use while dropped seems to be yesterdays lingo

Bit OT but I always consider “gapped” to be describing a possibly temporary state whilst “dropped” is describing a probably permanent one. (Unless it’s at the finish when “gapped” is used quite a bit and there’s no chance of undoing it... hmmm, need to think this through a bit more.)

I'd always thought of it more as gapped if you attack and get a gap (you don't drop a bunch) and dropped if you fall off the back

DeVlaeminck

Getting a gap is off the front, gapped is off the back. I think like Jam1e wrote gapped is retrievable whereas dropped suggests that it's likely to be game over.

thegibdog

Depends on how you end up out of the back too. If you're caught behind a crash or lose the wheel coming out of a corner then you are gapped. If you've been ridden off the wheel then you're dropped.

mididoctors

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Getting a gap is off the front, gapped is off the back. I think like Jam1e wrote gapped is retrievable whereas dropped suggests that it's likely to be game over.

mmmm example: getting dropped on the Tourmalet then getting back on the descent was pretty standard banter back in the day.

what you called getting gapped in the following group is what we called getting "caught behind"

tailwindhome

Gapped is when the elastic snaps and you're free to fly.

DeVlaeminck

mididoctors wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Getting a gap is off the front, gapped is off the back. I think like Jam1e wrote gapped is retrievable whereas dropped suggests that it's likely to be game over.

mmmm example: getting dropped on the Tourmalet then getting back on the descent was pretty standard banter back in the day.

what you called getting gapped in the following group is what we called getting "caught behind"

OK "likely to be game over unless there's a 20k descent to get back on."

Gapped is usually just a reasonably small gap - Froome gets gapped on climbs all the time because of the way he rides but you probably wouldn't say he's been dropped.

rick_chasey

Still no reason to turn a noun into a verb.

mididoctors

DeVlaeminck wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Getting a gap is off the front, gapped is off the back. I think like Jam1e wrote gapped is retrievable whereas dropped suggests that it's likely to be game over.

mmmm example: getting dropped on the Tourmalet then getting back on the descent was pretty standard banter back in the day.

what you called getting gapped in the following group is what we called getting "caught behind"

OK "likely to be game over unless there's a 20k descent to get back on."

Gapped is usually just a reasonably small gap - Froome gets gapped on climbs all the time because of the way he rides but you probably wouldn't say he's been dropped.

I would describe that pedalling strategy as "he is riding within himself"

rick_chasey

mididoctors wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Getting a gap is off the front, gapped is off the back. I think like Jam1e wrote gapped is retrievable whereas dropped suggests that it's likely to be game over.

mmmm example: getting dropped on the Tourmalet then getting back on the descent was pretty standard banter back in the day.

what you called getting gapped in the following group is what we called getting "caught behind"

OK "likely to be game over unless there's a 20k descent to get back on."

Gapped is usually just a reasonably small gap - Froome gets gapped on climbs all the time because of the way he rides but you probably wouldn't say he's been dropped.

I would describe that pedalling strategy as "he is riding within himself"

Riding his own race, I've heard.

"climbing like it's a time trial".

Midi is right. No need for gap to be a verb.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Still no reason to turn a noun into a verb.

Verbing is fine.