Skip Madness
New Member
Apologies - long post alert:
From the Sports Personality of the Year thread:
How important are the Olympics really?
Now, I know that they are the great quadrennial sporting event that everyone wants to be at their peak for, and in sports like athletics or swimming I can see why. But when it comes to cycling... what's the point?
To me the prestige afforded to the Olympic cycling events does not chime with much actual sporting significance. The one pull of the Olympics that I can see is that as so many riders target it, it invariably has a very strong field in any given event and so pits the best against each other. But so do many other events in non-Olympic (and Olympic) years, and I reckon it is about time we reappraised the place of the Olympics in the cycling calendar. Let's compare the Olympic Games and the World Championships.
Starting with road racing, as it is probably the discipline most followed on here. Take a look at the start lists, first of all. In the men's road race there are typically around 200 starters in the Worlds compared to only around 140 at the Olympics. Now, you could make the argument that a reduced start list means a more elite field. I disagree - there is a small but notable percentage of (no nice way of saying it) making-up-the-numbers riders in both events, but the fleshier peleton at the Worlds means more chances for someone to come from left-field, or riders escaping that the big teams aren't sure are good enough to be worth chasing or not. There is also more scope for riders from smaller nations to get together in breaks and so forth at the Worlds. But above all else, it simply means more of the sport's top athletes.
This difference is even more marked in the women's road race - while around 140 riders take to the start line at the Worlds, the Olympic field consists of 67 riders. 67! This obviously has a decimating effect on the class of the field - names were left off in Beijing like De Goede, Baccaille, Curi, Luperini, Kelly, Morfin, Fahlin etc.
The same is true in the time trial - the Olympics had 39 men and 25 women starting compared to 58 and 43 respectively at the Worlds. A bit more "padding" at the Worlds, but not much more proportionally.
There is the feeling of the Olympics that since it is only held once every four years it is somehow more special, a slighter opportunity, and therefore a more glorious win than the Worlds. Actually, I think the wait between each Olympiad works against it.
The great thing about the Worlds is that if you are a great rider, your chance will come. The course is usually suited to a classics rider, but sprinters get plenty of chances, too. Even though there are seldom pure climbers' courses, climbers will get an opportunity on the hillier courses as the cumulative effect of climbing lap after lap favours them. Even if you are injured and miss one or two championships, you are virtually guaranteed a shot at winning it at least once.
On the other hand, most riders cannot really expect to ride more than four Olympics in a career with a realistic chance of winning (I know there are the odd exceptions, but it is a broad truth). The course may only suit your style of rider once or twice. One injury, one little bit of bad luck or one off-day and that is it blown. It is true that the best riders arrive in the best shape, but sometimes things will just conspire against you. This is often held up as an attraction of the Olympics, but to me it just means that chance has a potentially skewing effect which the frequency of the Worlds cancels out.
On to the track. I simply cannot see how the Beijing Olympics, where the women got a meagre three track events, can in any way be described as the pinnacle of track racing. That is pathetic. Even the men were denied the scratch race and the kilo. What is the point in having track events if you aren't going to do them properly? The four year gap between Olympics is less of an issue due to the unchanging nature of the velodrome - but that is provided your event is still bloody in it.
Cloverleaf's view was knocked in the other thread, but what else can downhill riders do apart from win World Championships and World Cups? The only mountain-biking at the Olympics is the XC.
What all of the above shows is that regardless of how seriously any cyclist takes the Olympics, the Olympics does not take them seriously. The World Championships in road, track, mountain, BMX or cross are all about festivals of cycling and cyclists. The Olympics just tacks cycling on, and that is exactly how it feels. I see it most simply in the icons of each event; an Olympic medal, however difficult it may be to obtain, is a kind of generic symbol of sporting success, and cycling mutates itself to some degree or another in order to be eligible for them. I get the impression that some people think a silver or bronze Olympic medal is worth more than actually winning other big races. The rainbow jersey is ours. It is all about our sport as it should be. It is why Paolo Bettini's gold helmet looked kind of tacky, and why Samuel Sánchez' contention that his victory in the Olympic road race is somehow bigger than winning the Tour de France is laughable.
Now I do not want to denigrate the achievements of al Britian's Olympic cyclists, because they won tough events against top-quality fields. But I always feel that the Olympics is a bit like cycling fun-sized. Certainly regarding the road, the results aren't indicative of quality in the same way the World Championships or major classics are - I do not believe that a road racer's palmares is less complete for lacking an Olympic medal. For me the Worlds and the classics are a league above the Olympics in their importance, and the Olympic track events are just smaller, lesser versions of the World Championships.
Discuss!
From the Sports Personality of the Year thread:
Cloverleaf said:
Dave5N said:
This is interesting, as it coincides with something I have been thinking about recently.John the Monkey said:
How important are the Olympics really?
Now, I know that they are the great quadrennial sporting event that everyone wants to be at their peak for, and in sports like athletics or swimming I can see why. But when it comes to cycling... what's the point?
To me the prestige afforded to the Olympic cycling events does not chime with much actual sporting significance. The one pull of the Olympics that I can see is that as so many riders target it, it invariably has a very strong field in any given event and so pits the best against each other. But so do many other events in non-Olympic (and Olympic) years, and I reckon it is about time we reappraised the place of the Olympics in the cycling calendar. Let's compare the Olympic Games and the World Championships.
Starting with road racing, as it is probably the discipline most followed on here. Take a look at the start lists, first of all. In the men's road race there are typically around 200 starters in the Worlds compared to only around 140 at the Olympics. Now, you could make the argument that a reduced start list means a more elite field. I disagree - there is a small but notable percentage of (no nice way of saying it) making-up-the-numbers riders in both events, but the fleshier peleton at the Worlds means more chances for someone to come from left-field, or riders escaping that the big teams aren't sure are good enough to be worth chasing or not. There is also more scope for riders from smaller nations to get together in breaks and so forth at the Worlds. But above all else, it simply means more of the sport's top athletes.
This difference is even more marked in the women's road race - while around 140 riders take to the start line at the Worlds, the Olympic field consists of 67 riders. 67! This obviously has a decimating effect on the class of the field - names were left off in Beijing like De Goede, Baccaille, Curi, Luperini, Kelly, Morfin, Fahlin etc.
The same is true in the time trial - the Olympics had 39 men and 25 women starting compared to 58 and 43 respectively at the Worlds. A bit more "padding" at the Worlds, but not much more proportionally.
There is the feeling of the Olympics that since it is only held once every four years it is somehow more special, a slighter opportunity, and therefore a more glorious win than the Worlds. Actually, I think the wait between each Olympiad works against it.
The great thing about the Worlds is that if you are a great rider, your chance will come. The course is usually suited to a classics rider, but sprinters get plenty of chances, too. Even though there are seldom pure climbers' courses, climbers will get an opportunity on the hillier courses as the cumulative effect of climbing lap after lap favours them. Even if you are injured and miss one or two championships, you are virtually guaranteed a shot at winning it at least once.
On the other hand, most riders cannot really expect to ride more than four Olympics in a career with a realistic chance of winning (I know there are the odd exceptions, but it is a broad truth). The course may only suit your style of rider once or twice. One injury, one little bit of bad luck or one off-day and that is it blown. It is true that the best riders arrive in the best shape, but sometimes things will just conspire against you. This is often held up as an attraction of the Olympics, but to me it just means that chance has a potentially skewing effect which the frequency of the Worlds cancels out.
On to the track. I simply cannot see how the Beijing Olympics, where the women got a meagre three track events, can in any way be described as the pinnacle of track racing. That is pathetic. Even the men were denied the scratch race and the kilo. What is the point in having track events if you aren't going to do them properly? The four year gap between Olympics is less of an issue due to the unchanging nature of the velodrome - but that is provided your event is still bloody in it.
Cloverleaf's view was knocked in the other thread, but what else can downhill riders do apart from win World Championships and World Cups? The only mountain-biking at the Olympics is the XC.
What all of the above shows is that regardless of how seriously any cyclist takes the Olympics, the Olympics does not take them seriously. The World Championships in road, track, mountain, BMX or cross are all about festivals of cycling and cyclists. The Olympics just tacks cycling on, and that is exactly how it feels. I see it most simply in the icons of each event; an Olympic medal, however difficult it may be to obtain, is a kind of generic symbol of sporting success, and cycling mutates itself to some degree or another in order to be eligible for them. I get the impression that some people think a silver or bronze Olympic medal is worth more than actually winning other big races. The rainbow jersey is ours. It is all about our sport as it should be. It is why Paolo Bettini's gold helmet looked kind of tacky, and why Samuel Sánchez' contention that his victory in the Olympic road race is somehow bigger than winning the Tour de France is laughable.
Now I do not want to denigrate the achievements of al Britian's Olympic cyclists, because they won tough events against top-quality fields. But I always feel that the Olympics is a bit like cycling fun-sized. Certainly regarding the road, the results aren't indicative of quality in the same way the World Championships or major classics are - I do not believe that a road racer's palmares is less complete for lacking an Olympic medal. For me the Worlds and the classics are a league above the Olympics in their importance, and the Olympic track events are just smaller, lesser versions of the World Championships.
Discuss!
(Men's 'cross anyway)
The British dedication and professionalism is outstanding, but when the racing is not even close (and it has not been this year) then it will become boring before long. Hopefully other nations will catch up.
The British dedication and professionalism is outstanding, but when the racing is not even close (and it has not been this year) then it will become boring before long. Hopefully other nations will catch up.