Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Olympic Cycle Race Now
All together now.....
And the wheels of the bikes go round & round, round & round, round & round.
Why dont they just have a mile sprint, and be done with it, its so boring!!!!
And the wheels of the bikes go round & round, round & round, round & round.
Why dont they just have a mile sprint, and be done with it, its so boring!!!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The long race exposes peoples' strengths and weakness. Some are good at climbling, some descending, some sprinting. Some just plod along helping their team mates.
There are plenty of other races that are more explosive. Watch out for the track races.
I have to admit, as a cycling fan, it is a wee bit boring at the moment. The end is fun, when they really go for it.
There are plenty of other races that are more explosive. Watch out for the track races.
I have to admit, as a cycling fan, it is a wee bit boring at the moment. The end is fun, when they really go for it.
Trying to feign some interest in the Olympics, watched about ten minutes of this cycling and got told about tyre thickness, cross winds, cobbles - but no idea of who is winning, or whether the GB riders (have we actually got any?) are doing any good. Why do the commentators assume we are all experts and know what it going on? They keep talking about how they did in xxx country or race but nothing about this one - most people are watching this with very little knowledge (or interest if I am honest) but its not exactly rivetting stuff is it?
GB riders include Chris Froome - who just won the Tour de Fance - and Geraint Thomas who won the team pursuit on the track in Beijing and London Olympics.
They do give background info on the riders before a race, but I guess when the race is on the commentators just get on with their job.
Again, watch the end of this race and all of the track cycling.
They do give background info on the riders before a race, but I guess when the race is on the commentators just get on with their job.
Again, watch the end of this race and all of the track cycling.
I posted this a couple of weeks ago when the Tour de France was on:
------------
Only a personal opinion (and by no means an answer to the question) but whilst cycling (on the road) is a probably a fine sport in which to participate, as a spectator sport it must come a very close second only to golf as an utter bore. Standing by the side of a road halfway up a French mountain to watch a few dozen bikers and their assorted entourages wizz by in a few seconds (or a bit longer if you are on an uphill stretch) must be almost on par with watching two blokes trudge across a field (which 95% of golf consists of).
It can be sparked up all you like with different coloured jumpers, but the end result is a few seconds, or perhaps a minute or two depending on how strung out the field is, of bikes, cars (with bikes strapped to the roof), more bikes and motor bikes belt past. Sorry, not for me. It is obviously for the French as the impact of the Tour on the French economy is vast, with huge numbers of people taking time off to watch it.
In recent years this inexplicable mania has spread to the UK. Only this coming weekend the poor residents of Surrey and many other areas will once again be confined to barracks whilst some bike race or other wends its way from London and over Box Hill. There are plenty of cycle tracks where these events can be held and spectators can watch the entire event from the comfort of a seat. I especially like the race where one bloke dressed as a postman has the advantage of being on a moped. Eminently more sensible and far more entertaining than standing on a windy mountainside.
-----------------
I imagine my remarks could apply equally to the fiasco currently going on in Brazil. I accept it is marginally more interesting (and a whole lot more comfortable) watching it on the telly, but the tedium factor must be similar.
------------
Only a personal opinion (and by no means an answer to the question) but whilst cycling (on the road) is a probably a fine sport in which to participate, as a spectator sport it must come a very close second only to golf as an utter bore. Standing by the side of a road halfway up a French mountain to watch a few dozen bikers and their assorted entourages wizz by in a few seconds (or a bit longer if you are on an uphill stretch) must be almost on par with watching two blokes trudge across a field (which 95% of golf consists of).
It can be sparked up all you like with different coloured jumpers, but the end result is a few seconds, or perhaps a minute or two depending on how strung out the field is, of bikes, cars (with bikes strapped to the roof), more bikes and motor bikes belt past. Sorry, not for me. It is obviously for the French as the impact of the Tour on the French economy is vast, with huge numbers of people taking time off to watch it.
In recent years this inexplicable mania has spread to the UK. Only this coming weekend the poor residents of Surrey and many other areas will once again be confined to barracks whilst some bike race or other wends its way from London and over Box Hill. There are plenty of cycle tracks where these events can be held and spectators can watch the entire event from the comfort of a seat. I especially like the race where one bloke dressed as a postman has the advantage of being on a moped. Eminently more sensible and far more entertaining than standing on a windy mountainside.
-----------------
I imagine my remarks could apply equally to the fiasco currently going on in Brazil. I accept it is marginally more interesting (and a whole lot more comfortable) watching it on the telly, but the tedium factor must be similar.
N.J. A long post, which only demonstrates how little you know about both golf and bike racing. You might just as well say that chess is simply 'two blokes (or gals) sitting on either side of a table and pushing bits of wood about' and yet as you may or may not know, it can be to participants, one of the most exciting activities ever devised. :0)
I know quite a bit about bike racing, and golf and chess (and most other sports with the possible exception of netball), Khandro. Fine sports/games/pasttimes they all are - for the participants.
My issue with road cycling and golf (and I'll add chess since you mention it) is that, fine as they are to participate, as live spectator sports they are about as exciting as watching paint dry. Anyone watching golf has either to sit in a stand and watch a succession of pairs play their last shot or two on a selected number of holes or they have to follow one pair of the participants around the course with walking probably taking up 95% of their time. Road cycling I've described. Watching live chess? You're having a laugh of course.
Tennis is not in the same category, cloverjo. Spectators see the whole match to a conclusion, they know who has won immediately the match is finished and the action - though it may not be to everybody's taste - is quite sustained throughout.
My issue with road cycling and golf (and I'll add chess since you mention it) is that, fine as they are to participate, as live spectator sports they are about as exciting as watching paint dry. Anyone watching golf has either to sit in a stand and watch a succession of pairs play their last shot or two on a selected number of holes or they have to follow one pair of the participants around the course with walking probably taking up 95% of their time. Road cycling I've described. Watching live chess? You're having a laugh of course.
Tennis is not in the same category, cloverjo. Spectators see the whole match to a conclusion, they know who has won immediately the match is finished and the action - though it may not be to everybody's taste - is quite sustained throughout.
Which is perfectly true, mamy.
So back to my original point: much of this stuff is not suitable as a "spectator sport" - as skillfull and difficult to peform as much of it is. The BBC in particular has devoted enormous amounts of its airtime (and its licence payers' money) to broadcast what is essentially tedious pap.
So back to my original point: much of this stuff is not suitable as a "spectator sport" - as skillfull and difficult to peform as much of it is. The BBC in particular has devoted enormous amounts of its airtime (and its licence payers' money) to broadcast what is essentially tedious pap.
NJ; I have often thought that if a tv channel was brave enough to launch a chess programme at a high tournament level with expert commentary on all the implications of each move it would be a winner, and introduce so many new people to a game which (so I believe) knocks the socks of computer games.
Who would have at one time thought that snooker, let alone darts, would become such a spectator sport?
Who would have at one time thought that snooker, let alone darts, would become such a spectator sport?
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Film, Media & TV42 mins ago
ChatterBank48 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.