andydude Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 I don't know how anyone can say that the way Gilbert or Cancellara won the Classics last year was anything but exciting and how the omission of race radios would have made them any more exciting. Random yes (when Cancellara punctured he would have been out of both Flemish classics), but not necessarily better. Watching Boonen and Cancellara hammer it out is what everyone wants to see, not just who manages to win because he won the durability lottery. I think racing is currently as exciting as can be, but people all get hung up on the big tours where breakawways are reeled in slowly. That's just one aspect. Real tactical racing happens in the oneday races and to make it fair the guys need the race radios. Plus, look at last year's Giro and you will see lots of unexpected results despite the fact that they had radios. I think people are romanticising the idea too much and it won't solve the problem. I like to see who is best, I don't just tune in to see unbridled chaos on television I guess better in some instances and not in others. But basically you're saying the racing of the last 90 years (without radios) was a lottery and not exciting? I just can't see how radios make racing more fair? I see technology in sport in helping the sport, e.g. lbw in cricket, replay in rugby, photo-finish in cycling, but not improving the athlete. Radios improve the individual, not the sport in general, I believe. You talk of a "problem", but I can't see one. Racing 10 years ago was just as tactical. You just had to be more aware of what was going on, who was attacking, etc. Now you can sit back more. More tactical, less racing. Or not. Where's the good old days... Just kidding. The more I type and think the more I think that both views have merit. Maybe it's not such a bad idea... (how about that u-turn!)
'Dale Posted January 20, 2011 Author Posted January 20, 2011 The more I type and think the more I think that both views have merit. Maybe it's not such a bad idea... (how about that u-turn!)Hence, the 'sometimes' button in the poll...
Danger Dassie Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 I like a tweet Andrew McClean made about it, essentially only allow race radios if viewers can listen in........ berry cool idea I reckon.
Willehond Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 I like a tweet Andrew McClean made about it, essentially only allow race radios if viewers can listen in........ berry cool idea I reckon. I think Rabobank came up with that one to open it all up like they did in Formula 1. In that case I think it makes sense because everyone has access to your feed, even the opposition! Just imagine the cat-and-mouse and poker games that would serve up!!! I like that
TNT1 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 I alays though 'NO', but after reading Jonathan Vaughter's piece in cyclingnews.com I've shifted to the "YES" view. Strange what actual experience does to fluffy nostalgic theory... +1. I agree completely with JV.
'Dale Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 Well, after some time it is clear that the majority votes go to 'no race radios'... And it is a small representation of votes cast. Wonder how the pro riders would vote?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now