Talk:Classic cycle races

How did the term "Monuments" came about?

It is a term we hear a lot the last few years, but it seems that historically it was not always that clear cut of a distinction with other Classics in terms of prestige. I remember hearing a lot about Flêche Wallonne at some point, like it was about on par with the top Classics. But nowadays, it is just "Monument/Not A Monument". Could somebody add where the term emerged from? I suppose it is because they are the only pre-WWI events to have consistently been featured on the World Tour/Pro Tour, but who launched the term?

Listing order of races

I think the article should list all the Classics first with comments, and then at the bottom a paragraph and listing on the "Monuments". I feel putting "Monuments" at the top gives it too much emphasis, the Classics is not just the "Monuments". LDHan 12:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere

Don't other countries have classics too? For instance, nearly every race in Belize save The Tour and the National Road Championship are called Classics-should we have a page for them too?--Aaronhumes 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there are many races in many countries which have "Classic" in their names, or maybe are called "classics" locally, but internationally, "the Classics" are specifically a small number of one-day races held mainly in France, Belgium and Italy that have a long history (some are over 100 years old). LDHan 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a few US races like Philly could be added, but given that some Euro races like Paris-Tour, which is very old, are not even considered real Classics because of their level, it would be hard to make a case for many non European races.

What makes a Classic?

A Classic is a term used by fans and the peloton - but lacks clear definition or boundary. Recent edits have removed Gent-Wevelgem and Het Volk, but either way deciding if they constitute classics or not is POV. How can we say one race is a classic, when another perfectly good race isn't? What is agreed upon? The Monuments, for sure. Then there are races that were part of the World Cup (either at any point, or the static calender of the last few seasons), and then the slightly wider net of the ProTour. Then some races are not part of the ProTour, but are called classics, such as Paris-Brussels, Het Volk, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne or Classic Haribo. What I'm saying is, what criteria should we use to list races? Should the notion of "semi-classic" be mentioned? How should discontinued races be talked about? Mk3severo 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Gent-Wevelgem and Het Volk are definitely Classics. I think what defines a Classic is history and location, but that's just my own opinion. However, wiki articles are based on established sources not personal opinions, so if we look through old magazines and books etc, we should be able to come up with list of races that most people might agree on. I think the recent category of the "monuments" have confused the definition of a "Classic". LDHan 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read on a forum (hence unverified) that the Challenge Desgrange-Colombo described 8 races as Classics: the Mounuments, Paris-Tours, Paris-Brussels and La Flèche Wallonne. Mk3severo 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, races like Ghent and Fleche were called minor-classics. I think that is a good term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:67D3:C900:2407:44F6:1787:799D (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that the article simply defines 'classics' as 'one-day races'. The pages One-day race (cycling) and One-day race even redirect to Classic cycle races. The article states that races like Grand Prix Cycliste de Québec, Grand Prix Cycliste de Montréal, Japan Cup or Trofeo Cala Millor-Cala Bona are 'commonly regarded as Classics' (which is, in addition, unreferenced).

I totally disagree with that. 'Classics' are usually seen as hard one-day races with a long tradition and the best competitors. This only applies to a minority of the listed races like the 'monuments' plus a handful others. Some others are described as something like 'semi-classics' or 'minor-classics'. And the rest of the one-day races are just 'one-day races' but no 'classics'. --217.227.69.73 (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's why I don't understand the Montreal and Quebec race in the listing of classics. They only exist for just 5 years. The fact that they are one day races and are part of the Word Tour (and they are there for mostly commercial reasons), doesn't make them 'Classic' in any way. History is the main part that makes a race classic. So they are not even in a category of 'minor classic' 84.59.96.73 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we will never find a consensus about what constitutes a classic. UCI even has no mention of it in their rulings and every other source seems to have their own definition, so we have to write an objective article about what has always been a very subjective matter. No laughing matter. Basically, any new race can call itself a classic: Clasica San Sebastián, HEW/Vattenfall CyClassic and races in Belize or Australia did it for commercial reasons, even though they were freshly-created races. That is of course a contradiction in terms, but no ones denies that they are important races, which in turn, hints at how loosely the term is used and how the meaning has changed over the years. Dr.robin (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of us who write on the cycling portal obviously have a pretty good understanding of cycling's history and I have my own idea of what a classic is; but the problem remains, it it just an opinion, impossible to source. I was the one who included the Canadian races in the article (don't hate me for it), even though they don't fit my own idea of classic races. However, in that way all one-day races of the UCI WorldTour are listed, and I think official categorization is one of the few objective criteria we can work with. Categorization hints of prestige and commercial importance, and those are legitimate factors as well. Historical importance on the other hand is very subjective: some races gain importance, others wane or have disappeared altogether. Obviously, age is an objective criterium too, but far from absolute. E.g. why is Rund um Köln in none of these lists, even though it is older than the Tour of Flanders? Some commentators say that any race older than fifty years instantaneously becomes a classic, meaning that we need to list 150 or so more races -- I strongly disagree. And then what is a "semi-classic": every one-day race in the world younger than fifty years? There is no beginning to it. Therefore I am a big fan of the clear-cut - yet very young - term 'monument', and why I put such elaborate work in it. But I agree on one thing; the article needs to amplify its definitions. I will try to hit the books.Dr.robin (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]