World Cups too Redundant??

D. Summertime
Edited Date/Time 5/13/2015 11:49pm
Hey vital!

I was just looking at the uci bike schedule for this year and it occurred to me that the World Cup season consists of most of the same tracks every single year. I know Lourdes was new this year and I think there are 1 or 2 other ones but basically its just the same tracks from last year and the year before and the one before and the year before that one. Now I am not saying that the races are boring because they aren't. It's just that it bothers me to see the same track over and over again. it would be nice to see a whole new place and setting with new crazy rowdy features and rocks And speed to keep me coming back to see a whole new show. So dont you guys think that it can get a bit redundant every year as far as venues go? Is there even any other places to hold a World Cup?

Let me know your thoughts on this because I feel like it could make for some good discussion.

- D
|
BigBoi
Profile picture for user BigBoi
Posts
17
Joined
5/30/2012
Location
Washington, DC US
BigBoi 5/13/2015 6:23am
5/13/2015 6:23am
Dear Mr. Summertime,

There should be 2 or 3 more races each season. Those additional races need to be held at new or infrequently used venues.
Big Bird
Profile picture for user Big Bird
Posts
2138
Joined
2/1/2011
Location
Oceano, CA US
Big Bird 5/13/2015 8:24am
5/13/2015 8:24am
I agree that things are a bit redundant. I like having one or two "Classics." like Fort William but I too would like to see more new venues. As a fellow American, I find it particularly annoying that our only American World Cup race is held in a tiny ski resort on the east coast. As a Coloradan I'm sure that you'd rather see one at a much more worthy mountain in your fine state. And as a Californian I find it ridiculous that there's no West Coast World Cup. How 'bout Big Bear or Mammoth? The main problem is that it takes a lot of money to host a World Cup race and a new venue has to really want it financially.
Karabuka
Profile picture for user Karabuka
Posts
318
Joined
12/1/2011
Location
SI
Karabuka 5/13/2015 12:00pm
5/13/2015 12:00pm
Doesn't UCI require quite wealthy fee in order to host world cup race? I mean there is no enormous money going around in MTB compared to many other sports like footballs, motor racing, even road cycling so I my opinion it could be lowered to promote the sport and encourage new venues. There are 2 new this year and they both look crazy (Lourdes already proved it but the other one in Switzerland doesnt look too shaby either). And I also agree venues like Fort Willian and MSE are classics but they do not have to host a race every year as there are many many more track around the world that would refresh series a lot, like some other venue from BDS, France/Italy/Switzerland/Austria have endless number of potential tracks but I think UCI should contribute to the DH scene more. Anyone who read the interview with the general boss of UCI on pinkbike saw he was talking how much they do to promote mtb but there was not 1 definite answer what and how they do it... As much as I love DH series I seriously think it could be made much much better!
russthedog 5/13/2015 11:49pm
5/13/2015 11:49pm
I dont think it makes it boring or redundant at all - its the competitors that make it different. Look at most major sporting competitions around the world - motogp, f1. tennis pro tour. They, and the World Cup, are at the same venues because they are damn good venues. Id rather watch ft william every year than go to a sub standard track just for a change. Most years the winners change and there are always new contenders - thats what make it exciting and relevant. 2 or 3 new tracks per year spices it up just nicely - and thats basically what they do!

Post a reply to: World Cups too Redundant??