Page 1319 of 1889

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:50 am
by elviento
Agreed, if we are going by the exposure team sponsors got, Saxo Tinkoff got their money's worth. Certainly way more than the likes of Sojasun, BMC, etc.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 12:29 pm
by HUMP DIESEL
djconnel wrote:Excellent example: Contador scored big positive points in my mind from the way he rode this year. The quality of the race is the thing, not who wins it, and Contador made the race.


Tell that to the guy that wins. I don't race not to win, what is the point? If I wanted to train, I would train and not spend money on racing. When I line up the intent is to win or my teammate to win.

HUMP

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:30 pm
by djconnel
Winning is great. However, my interest in a race goes well beyond who wins.

We're so obsessed with winning, that winning is all that matters, we get ourselves in a hole where cheating is inevitable. The competition is the thing, not the result, and since cheating destroys the competition, the win has no value.

"PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:38 pm
by btompkins0112
Yes, that's not entirely true that winning is everything otherwise riders wouldn't get into breakaways that are 90% unsuccessful. TV time is important for sponsors and non-bicycle industry sponsors like that as much as winning, since winning says nothing about the advantages of their products.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:42 pm
by HammerTime2
The win has no value? Trek sold a lot of bikes based on the now vacated TdF victories by Lance Armstrong.

Floyd's Ride for the Ages increased the brand awareness for Phonak hearing aids.

Etc.

+1 on btompkins' observations as well.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:13 pm
by petepeterson
some of the most popular riders rarely win bike races. Look at chava and voigt. They ride with panache and people love them.

Winning is important. Entertainment is more important.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 6:47 pm
by Monkeyboy3333
i'm with Petepete here. For my viewing pleasure anyway, but then I am not a competitive racer/racer at all

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:07 pm
by airwise
djconnel wrote:Excellent example: Contador scored big positive points in my mind from the way he rode this year. The quality of the race is the thing, not who wins it, and Contador made the race.


Sorry but for me he just hopelessly rode off when every tom dick and harry knew he would blow up and get caught. As predictable as anything else and utterly pointless.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:38 pm
by spud
as utterly predictable as when Contador took off on stage 18 (or whatever it was) of the Vuelta last year?

You may think you know the result, but the reality is that when a guy like Contador makes a move, even one most deem foolhardy, there's always the possibility that he'll stick it. And that's what makes racing interesting.

Froome showing up to my local training race does not make it an interesting race. It's only interesting if other hitters show. And yes, they all want to win, but there's only one winner. For the entertainment value, it's equally important that someone loses. But that doesn't make them losers.

And getting back to onepoint, Tinkov is making his philosophy pretty clear - win or else. Unless you believe that #2 - #10 at the Tour didn't train hard enough, or commit themselves enough, you can guess the ramifications.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:47 pm
by KB
My view of this Tour was that it was much better than last year's borefest. And for me the best stage, by far, was when they got caught in the crosswinds, and on a flat stage. OPQS started it off, but when Saxo went to the front it was great to watch.

I thought Saxo made a good fist of it. Same with Movistar; it would have been an even better race for them if Valverde hadn't of had bad luck.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:01 pm
by Tinea Pedis
spud wrote:as utterly predictable as when Contador took off on stage 18 (or whatever it was) of the Vuelta last year?

Bingo.

He kept trying moves all race, including the cross wind stage. Man should be applauded, not derided for riding like some garden variety idiot.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:28 pm
by petepeterson
Tinkoff is a joke. Even if he is acting as would I assume this this video is embarrassing at best. Feel free to fast forward to the end where he discusses going home to have sex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSJsD-ICOA

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:00 pm
by djconnel
HammerTime2 wrote:The win has no value? Trek sold a lot of bikes based on the now vacated TdF victories by Lance Armstrong.

Floyd's Ride for the Ages increased the brand awareness for Phonak hearing aids.

Etc.

+1 on btompkins' observations as well.


Obviously the "win at all costs" view dominated during Lance's & Floyd's time. I'm arguing for the way it should go to take pressure off cheating. Finishing 2nd w/o cheating can't be viewed as worse than winning while cheating. There needs to be a change in perception. Guys like Tinkoff are a bad influence.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:17 pm
by ave
Thanks petepeterson,
That was a good one. Now I know why I am not a millionare. Not that I want to be one.

Re: "PRO" Cycling Discussion

Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:43 am
by MarkGiardini
petepeterson wrote:Tinkoff is a joke. Even if he is acting as would I assume this this video is embarrassing at best. Feel free to fast forward to the end where he discusses going home to have sex


I don't know if his "jokes" get lost in translation, but he's just not funny.
His army of yes men and puppets would be the only ones who find him funny, out of fear for losing their lives otherwise..