Anna Kiesenhofer: Mathematician, amateur cyclist, Olympic champion(cyclingnews.com)
cyclingnews.com
Anna Kiesenhofer: Mathematician, amateur cyclist, Olympic champion
https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/anna-kiesenhofer-mathematician-amateur-cyclist-olympic-champion/
178 コメント
If you’re interested in learning more, the Lanterne Rouge podcast has an excellent recap of today’s race: https://youtu.be/uKXX_3GKZWE
Oh communication is so important, isn't it? There's even an old Slim Gaillard song about that I used to lindy hop to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teaxWYRH9A4
What I've read, Kiesenhofer would have preferred to race the time trial instead of the the road race, she even told that the austrian press just before the race. A breakout gives you the advantage of riding your own pace at our optimal and constant power level; something a you can't in a breakout group where the the lead does cycle and goes from hundrets watts to almost zero and back again. I guess it's partly due to her not being a professional (anymore), thus not having to deal with team trainings and training mostly on her own? Not sure on that.
What I've read, Kiesenhofer would have preferred to race the time trial instead of the the road race, she even told that the austrian press just before the race. A breakout gives you the advantage of riding your own pace at our optimal and constant power level; something a you can't in a breakout group where the the lead does cycle and goes from hundrets watts to almost zero and back again. I guess it's partly due to her not being a professional (anymore), thus not having to deal with team trainings and training mostly on her own? Not sure on that.
It would be a breath of fresh air for Tour de France if they did not use radios.
Another outcome could be that we would not see the same rider winning multiple years, simply due to missing radios.
All in all seems like a win for viewers.
Another outcome could be that we would not see the same rider winning multiple years, simply due to missing radios.
All in all seems like a win for viewers.
Totally, and way more fun to watch and even ride in too. I feel like pro cycling is way too cold and clinical these days.
More time trials, that's what does mix up the Tour de France. I mean who needs a radio on a time trial anyways :-D
With cell phones, the crowd would suddenly have a lot of agency (and spoofing).
> All credit to her for an extremely strong ride.
And a better strategy, which is a major part of competition. People commenting on her being lucky. She had a better strategy.
And a better strategy, which is a major part of competition. People commenting on her being lucky. She had a better strategy.
She won deservedly. And it was very entertaining.
But there was luck involved, and in 99% of the cases, it’d be terrible advice and strategy to count on a major communications breakdown within the team of top favorites and (apparently) within the organization of the race themselves?
“Strategy” is one of those words that’s used way too much in hindsight.
But there was luck involved, and in 99% of the cases, it’d be terrible advice and strategy to count on a major communications breakdown within the team of top favorites and (apparently) within the organization of the race themselves?
“Strategy” is one of those words that’s used way too much in hindsight.
In any other sport, being ahead of the favourite by a wide margin for much of a race, then crossing the finishing line so far ahead that the second-place athlete isn't even in view, would be called a "resounding victory" rather than "lucky"
Have you considered the option that “resounding victory” and “being lucky” aren’t mutually incompatible concepts?
Ok, but it was lucky
I mean, it worked in this case, but winning from the break, especially for an important race like this, is rare. They were definitely lucky.
She was at least 40km alone in the wind. There she needed 20-30% more energy then the riders in the peleton. So this was a incredible performance while the peleton calculated wrong.
And she was in the wind regularly (in a small group of 3) for the other 100km. Incredible.
all that TT training really paid off!
If you're losing then it's a good idea to take actions that increase the variance of the possible outcomes.
Exactly, she was one of many underdog competitors, best bet for her is not a good one, but it can work, get in a break and hope for screw ups behind. That doesn't get you a win very often, but its not very rare either.
Road cycling is one of the sports where giving luck room to happen is a perfectly legitimate part of the game. Did others have a better hand? Maybe, but they failed to play it.
The others had no strategy because they didn't know she were upfront.
They still shouldn't have given the breakaway 10 minutes in a race as hard to control as this (with teams of 4).
In the men's race, the favourite teams (Belgium and Slovenia) sacrificed riders earlier (Greg van Avermaet and Jan Tratnik respectively) to maintain the breakaway on a leash. The dutch women were arrogant and they paid for it.
Breaks are rarely a winning strategy (on mountains they are, but those are a pure display of strength and will-power). Granted she is a mathematician and might be literate in road racing strategy but I'm sure a lot of that strategy is down to experience which she doesn't have.
When you’re extremely unlikely to win by conventional means then a high variance strategy is the best way to maximize your chances of winning. Sure, if you play this race out 50 times maybe she only wins 1 time by breaking away and hoping other riders flub up their response. But what were her odds of winning by staying with the peloton? 1/100? 1/200?
As you said, she’s a mathematician - she knew exactly what she was doing.
As you said, she’s a mathematician - she knew exactly what she was doing.
An early break is often very unlikely to get you a win and also the best chance you have for a win, at the same time.
https://youtu.be/mccKzTdfXts
But when they are it's amazing to watch. Completely different circumstances though.
But when they are it's amazing to watch. Completely different circumstances though.
This is part of what makes road racing so much fun to watch. You need to be strong to win, but it's not just a pure contest of who can put out the most watts per kilogram. Tactics - and some luck - play a factor too.
Tactics are a measure of who knows at what time to put out how many watts per kilo.
What happens in road racing is politics. Domestiques grouping up at a leisurely pace to finish a climb stage just under the time limit, celebrities holding the team car by a sticky water bottle to catch back up to the group that dropped them, taking it easy for the first part of the race until a race leader says "let's go", and not attacking while someone important stops to pee, when their extra-efficient, extra-fragile tires puncture, or they get tired and downshift at a bad time and drop a chain or something.
I understand that being 1% faster in a sport where your opponent can save 33% of his energy by drafting doesn't make a win a sure thing. But cyclists have spent a century drafting ever more unusual unwritten rules and it's become more about the politics than the pedaling.
What happens in road racing is politics. Domestiques grouping up at a leisurely pace to finish a climb stage just under the time limit, celebrities holding the team car by a sticky water bottle to catch back up to the group that dropped them, taking it easy for the first part of the race until a race leader says "let's go", and not attacking while someone important stops to pee, when their extra-efficient, extra-fragile tires puncture, or they get tired and downshift at a bad time and drop a chain or something.
I understand that being 1% faster in a sport where your opponent can save 33% of his energy by drafting doesn't make a win a sure thing. But cyclists have spent a century drafting ever more unusual unwritten rules and it's become more about the politics than the pedaling.
IMO the politics and team tactics/antics are part of the fun.
It’d be boring real quick if they’d make it 21 time trials…
It’d be boring real quick if they’d make it 21 time trials…
Sounds similar to Emma Coburn's win in steeplechase in 2014[1]
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_riHHyAIvk
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_riHHyAIvk
Wow, that's really something to see. Was there ever any discussion of what the rest of the pack was thinking? Did they think Coburn was going to be unable to keep the pace and they'd real her in, or what?
(Coburn, rather)
Victory has man fathers (or in this case mothers), but defeat is an orphan.
Ostrogodsky(2)
Sorry but this is ridiculous! Everyone who participates at the olympics must be a professional athlete. Especially, if you are favorite.
Observing the environment around you should be obvious?! It is not like Anna Kiesenhofer had the one ring on her finger and was invisible...
Observing the environment around you should be obvious?! It is not like Anna Kiesenhofer had the one ring on her finger and was invisible...
Ahhh, no. No! NO!
The Olympics as envisioned by Coubertin didn't allow professionals for a very long time, A VERY LONG TIME. For boxers this year is actually the first Olympics that do accept professionals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games#Amateurism_and_p...
The Olympics as envisioned by Coubertin didn't allow professionals for a very long time, A VERY LONG TIME. For boxers this year is actually the first Olympics that do accept professionals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Games#Amateurism_and_p...
Curiously, every single soviet sports athlete who ever competed on any international event was considered an amateur, while in fact being a full time professional devoted to his sport.
Usually they were officially 'working' at some factory, but were members of a sports club and received a substantial stipend, never doing any work but training and competing. This practice still lives in Russia. The income of any Olympics team russian athlete is estimated to be no less than 5-7k USD, generally coming in the form of several grants and stipends.
Usually they were officially 'working' at some factory, but were members of a sports club and received a substantial stipend, never doing any work but training and competing. This practice still lives in Russia. The income of any Olympics team russian athlete is estimated to be no less than 5-7k USD, generally coming in the form of several grants and stipends.
It's the same for most countries, Germany has the Sportsoldat, employed by the military (and even more employed by the police) and they make up the majority of the German Olympic team. Not everyone likes this in Germany, but there's not much of an alternative in sight.
The American U.S. Army World Class Athlete Program is tiny compared to the German practise.
This sounds rather idealistic and doesn't represent the reality, particularly for this female cycling race! The top competitors of Anna Kiesenhofer had professional contracts!
Yes, but this is a huge part of the history of the Olympics. The Dream Team in 1992, athletes who worked for their governments (and just trained full-time) in the 70s, athletes living an impoverished life for years while chasing their Olympic dreams (see Steve Prefontaine working as a bartender).
She did not earn her money with cycling. Last year, her proffesion was Mathematics teacher. She was also far from a favorite for this race.
She spent one year in a proffesional group. The commentators were saying she really dislikes riding in 'the bunch'. Which would make proffesional cycling hard. She qualified through national championships, which are open to non-proffesionals.
As for invisibility, the person who came second thought they were first. So somehow they missed this. And she wasn't the only one who didn't know there was still someone ahead.
Non of this is meant to say Kiesenhofer did not deserve this. She rode an amazing race, and earned this gold medal.
She spent one year in a proffesional group. The commentators were saying she really dislikes riding in 'the bunch'. Which would make proffesional cycling hard. She qualified through national championships, which are open to non-proffesionals.
As for invisibility, the person who came second thought they were first. So somehow they missed this. And she wasn't the only one who didn't know there was still someone ahead.
Non of this is meant to say Kiesenhofer did not deserve this. She rode an amazing race, and earned this gold medal.
She's not a mathematics teacher, but a research mathematician.
And women's pro cycling pays very poorly compared to the Men.
Notably, 15% of men riding in the tour de France earn less than 45000 a year. That isn't a low salary, but for a proffesional athlete at the peak event, it isn't a lot either.
$45k is the very definition of "low salary."
She finished over a full minute ahead of second place and at one point had as much as a ten minute lead. She was out of sight for most of the race.
Ok so you want to explain to me that when she was breaking out from the group at the beginning she was invisible?
As you can also read in the linked article, she broke away with some others, as is usual in cycling. After a while the peloton caught up with the breakaways, thinking they're now racing for the lead. But they didn't realise Anna Kiesenhofer wasn't among them, as she is a virtually unknown amateur, so nobody missed her.
Excuse us, she never was an virtually unknown amateur. 2017 she got a professional contract from a Belgian team, but refused to cycle on their "stupid" rules. She rather went by her own rules, without a team and didn't need the money. 2018 she was 5th in the European time trials. She constantly rode, but not so much on professional UCI events, but also on many amateur marathon events. Which she thought were harder and better. She was official Austrian champion afterall.
The peloton just missed her, due to complete lack of communication amongst the disfunctional leading dutch team. There were many dutch and other coaches on the street with cellphones, but they didn't try to catch her, so she was lucky. A properly organized peloton would have caught her easily. You could see with your own eyes how disorganized the peloton was. Extremely interesting case for social studies.
The peloton just missed her, due to complete lack of communication amongst the disfunctional leading dutch team. There were many dutch and other coaches on the street with cellphones, but they didn't try to catch her, so she was lucky. A properly organized peloton would have caught her easily. You could see with your own eyes how disorganized the peloton was. Extremely interesting case for social studies.
Yeah, I don't mean to discredit her. Just saying the peloton didn't think of her as they caught up with the front runners, as they didn't really know her. Exactly for the reason you state: she didn't attend a whole lot of pro events.
Is it possible that an outlier, an amateur, a lone wolf, was able for a moment to draw the strength and determination that would lead to victory and not even the best in the world stood a chance.
Of is as you say....she was lucky and her victory was just a series of unfortunate circumstances for the other riders. I want to believe that there was no one that day that could beat her.
Of is as you say....she was lucky and her victory was just a series of unfortunate circumstances for the other riders. I want to believe that there was no one that day that could beat her.
It would be nice to believe, but when second place celebrates like she won says she wasn't aware of a rider up the road, it's not just not the story today. Perhaps if they had known and chased, Kiesenhofer still would have been able to hold them off, but we'll never know.
I also wouldn't call the rest of the peloton "unfortunate." They knew keeping track of the breakaway would be especially important given the lack of radio communication with a director in a team car, and they still didn't. I think Kiesenhofer deserves a ton of credit for this win; she was in the break from the very start of the race, and she was solo for over an hour, I believe. You can't do that without a lot of dedicated training and preparation. If anything, I think this is an example of "shoot your shot." You never know when things will break your way!
Part of the reason I love cycling races is that it's a combination of athletic ability and strategic thinking that you don't see in most other sports. The physics of drafting mean that a well coordinated group almost always has the speed advantage over a lone rider, but lone riders often win races because they don't have to deal with the coordination problems of a group. After 4+ hours of racing, people are trying to calculate optimal game theory decisions while at their max heart rate. It can be bonkers to watch!
I also wouldn't call the rest of the peloton "unfortunate." They knew keeping track of the breakaway would be especially important given the lack of radio communication with a director in a team car, and they still didn't. I think Kiesenhofer deserves a ton of credit for this win; she was in the break from the very start of the race, and she was solo for over an hour, I believe. You can't do that without a lot of dedicated training and preparation. If anything, I think this is an example of "shoot your shot." You never know when things will break your way!
Part of the reason I love cycling races is that it's a combination of athletic ability and strategic thinking that you don't see in most other sports. The physics of drafting mean that a well coordinated group almost always has the speed advantage over a lone rider, but lone riders often win races because they don't have to deal with the coordination problems of a group. After 4+ hours of racing, people are trying to calculate optimal game theory decisions while at their max heart rate. It can be bonkers to watch!
If you can manage to pull away when the front of the pack is dominated by people with no chance, then it can be hard to catch. Part of the chess match in cycling is keeping your friends close but your enemies closer. If you can catch a draft off of the person making a break, you burn far less energy than they do. If you’re trying to reel them in then you’ve won. Otherwise if you can’t beat em, join em.
This is why relative unknowns often break away. Especially as a professional. Nobody was watching Pedro Noname, but now the sponsors and recruiters know his name. Even if he doesn’t win, he’s gotten a good story and better prospects.
In this case it sounds like communication was bad and so if you didn’t see her break away then some people didn’t know she was gone. Or vastly underestimated her.
This is why relative unknowns often break away. Especially as a professional. Nobody was watching Pedro Noname, but now the sponsors and recruiters know his name. Even if he doesn’t win, he’s gotten a good story and better prospects.
In this case it sounds like communication was bad and so if you didn’t see her break away then some people didn’t know she was gone. Or vastly underestimated her.
A few months ago on my usual round I (6'3", 103kg) by chance teamed up with a much smaller woman. I felt the draft effet even when I was behind her rather small statue, and it was a fun and quick ride. Then came a bus of five riders working even better then we did and they went by at an incredible speed. Since then I humbly accept that breakouts winning a race is rare.
On nearly level terrain the peloton has a distinct aerodynamic advantage that lets them reel in most people who are just having a good day. People try it anyway and hope for bad luck, or leverage time bonuses if the rules allow it.
Big groups on a downhill are dangerous, on an uphill are too hot and cramped and so in both cases individual skill and power are outsized. If a technical downhill racer can break away on the last climb, they may be gone for the day. Tours have been lost or won on this tactic.
In a multi day tour a twelfth place competitor might pull away, even take a few people with them. The other teams may not be interested in catching, might have lesser members in the breakaway and be hedging their bets, so they can’t build consensus on burning their people to kick up the pace. They make think that they can wait for him to wear out and reel him in later, but there comes a point where from one update to the next they discover he’s still gaining on them, and oh shit do we still have time to catch? We better find out.
The worst for me is when they catch the breakaway mere miles from the finish line. Sometimes a person stays away all day only to end up finishing in the group, or at least beaten by all the sprinters.
Big groups on a downhill are dangerous, on an uphill are too hot and cramped and so in both cases individual skill and power are outsized. If a technical downhill racer can break away on the last climb, they may be gone for the day. Tours have been lost or won on this tactic.
In a multi day tour a twelfth place competitor might pull away, even take a few people with them. The other teams may not be interested in catching, might have lesser members in the breakaway and be hedging their bets, so they can’t build consensus on burning their people to kick up the pace. They make think that they can wait for him to wear out and reel him in later, but there comes a point where from one update to the next they discover he’s still gaining on them, and oh shit do we still have time to catch? We better find out.
The worst for me is when they catch the breakaway mere miles from the finish line. Sometimes a person stays away all day only to end up finishing in the group, or at least beaten by all the sprinters.
> The worst for me is when they catch the breakaway mere miles from the finish line. Sometimes a person stays away all day only to end up finishing in the group, or at least beaten by all the sprinters.
Yeah, this is why I (and most others, I believe) find most of the sprint stages in the Tour pretty boring. The break vs. peloton dynamic is critical for road races to work (e.g. if there's no one up the road, why don't we all just ride along at 25kph?), but in those flat stages, the sprint teams are so good and care so much about the sprint finish that it's almost a guarantee they catch the break.
Yeah, this is why I (and most others, I believe) find most of the sprint stages in the Tour pretty boring. The break vs. peloton dynamic is critical for road races to work (e.g. if there's no one up the road, why don't we all just ride along at 25kph?), but in those flat stages, the sprint teams are so good and care so much about the sprint finish that it's almost a guarantee they catch the break.
When they added the time bonus to the point system I was not sure it was a good thing. But sometimes a third place climbed to second or first cemented a bigger lead by staying out front for 2/3 of the race and then finishing with the pack. Especially if they could pull it off twice
By definition there was no-one that day that could beat her. It’s an empirical outcome, not a theoretic one.
There's always someone who can beat you. It doesn't matter - they didn't. What matters is that she chose and executed her best-chance prep and race day strategies wisely and bravely. It takes away nothing from her achievement that she also happened to hit the one outer she needed on the river
Fantastic ride and if you follower her Twitter she's been doing a lot of very detailed exploration of her endurance limits in preparation.
When the lead group fell to 3 they had an 11 minute lead.
She broke free and went solo with 40km to go.
When she finished that lead had eroded to 2 minutes as the front group she dropped had been caught.
So in those 40km she lost 9 minutes of lead she had built with the help of the breakout group.
This was all strategy and then a tremendous physical performance on her part.
Dutch team needs a serious kick in the ass for underestimating an "amatuer" in this regard. It was obvious she was in it for the gold or nothing; and they fatally assumed it would be the later.
Fantastic win when you consider training, strategy, and performance all came together to pull it off. This is what olympians are all about!
When the lead group fell to 3 they had an 11 minute lead.
She broke free and went solo with 40km to go.
When she finished that lead had eroded to 2 minutes as the front group she dropped had been caught.
So in those 40km she lost 9 minutes of lead she had built with the help of the breakout group.
This was all strategy and then a tremendous physical performance on her part.
Dutch team needs a serious kick in the ass for underestimating an "amatuer" in this regard. It was obvious she was in it for the gold or nothing; and they fatally assumed it would be the later.
Fantastic win when you consider training, strategy, and performance all came together to pull it off. This is what olympians are all about!
It’s easy to underestimate a break-away rider when you don’t know that there is one.
The silver medal winner thought she had won the race.
They need a kick for not communicating amongst themselves.
The silver medal winner thought she had won the race.
They need a kick for not communicating amongst themselves.
I heard something early on about a communication failure, not sure how much truth there is in that.
Nonetheless, it was an incredible performance - right down to her collapsing to the ground victorious in tears at the line.
I laughed a little when I saw the Danish competitor come to congratulate her with a big smile while the Dutch team two meters away wouldn’t even acknowledge she was there - no point being bitter about it afterwards when you’ve already been beaten that badly by a “nobody”. I wasn’t even sure if Anna even realised because she was so exhausted (and elated!).
40KM without the help of a peloton. Incredible.
Nonetheless, it was an incredible performance - right down to her collapsing to the ground victorious in tears at the line.
I laughed a little when I saw the Danish competitor come to congratulate her with a big smile while the Dutch team two meters away wouldn’t even acknowledge she was there - no point being bitter about it afterwards when you’ve already been beaten that badly by a “nobody”. I wasn’t even sure if Anna even realised because she was so exhausted (and elated!).
40KM without the help of a peloton. Incredible.
[deleted]
Yeah, just an amazing performance.
FYI, the pros got caught out here a bit. The Olympic road race is probably the last one running that doesn't allow radios.
FYI, the pros got caught out here a bit. The Olympic road race is probably the last one running that doesn't allow radios.
Totally agree! Look at her bike, tires, wheels, the ceramic speed jockey wheels, her jersey, her helmet, her training. It was all set up for that last 40km. She executed what she planned perfectly, everybody else made a mistake. That played in her favor, true, but the strategy was there, using her strengths which suited the course with this tactics. Leaving the break with 40km to go, set up the rest of the break as a bait. She assumed, that the lack of radios may cause a miscommunication with rather high probability, buying her some time. She may not imagined 11 minutes, but she is good at downhill and TT, so it could work, and it did. Brains, guts and lots and lots of power, well done Anna!
Could you please elaborate more on strategy you referred to. tia.
(More related to the comments than the article) I've seen tons of takes on this since watching the end of the race this morning and, although it certainly played a part in deciding the outcome, it's a shame that more focus has seemed to be on making excuses or how the Dutch riders messed things up instead of Dr Kiesenhofer's incredible story and ride.
Kiesenhofer was on a fantastic day: van Vleuten's earlier attack from the peloton made no inroads to Kiesenhofer, assuming the time gaps shown on the TV were correct.
Watching on the TV we knew there was still a rider out front and, even if the race "ardoisier" (blackboard holder) wasn't the best, team management should have figured out a way to get that information to the chasing pack. I mean, the race finished on a motor racing circuit with pit lanes containing team helpers! It's not like it was like stage 16 of this year's Giro, where poor weather stopped race images being broadcast[1].
[1] https://cyclingtips.com/2021/05/gallery-amazing-images-from-...
Kiesenhofer was on a fantastic day: van Vleuten's earlier attack from the peloton made no inroads to Kiesenhofer, assuming the time gaps shown on the TV were correct.
Watching on the TV we knew there was still a rider out front and, even if the race "ardoisier" (blackboard holder) wasn't the best, team management should have figured out a way to get that information to the chasing pack. I mean, the race finished on a motor racing circuit with pit lanes containing team helpers! It's not like it was like stage 16 of this year's Giro, where poor weather stopped race images being broadcast[1].
[1] https://cyclingtips.com/2021/05/gallery-amazing-images-from-...
Oh, "they" knew. Cyclists talk amongst themselves. Shapira and Plichta fell back to the peloton and they knew.
Not everyone knew, but then they let a group break away and build an 11 minute lead at one point. If you weren't keeping track of every rider in that group you are probably just trying to hang on to make a play amongst the rider left around around you later and not thinking about Gold.
Not everyone knew, but then they let a group break away and build an 11 minute lead at one point. If you weren't keeping track of every rider in that group you are probably just trying to hang on to make a play amongst the rider left around around you later and not thinking about Gold.
In giro they have radio communications from the team manager. In the Olympics they don't have that, they can't tell them the differences.
Also winning when the opponents are not really trying to catch you it's not really a story either. It happens a lot even when they know a rider is upfront in order to save energy for second place and not give a free ride to other cyclists -see how Carapaz won in men events where only Wout tried to catch him. The real story is the mistake from the dutch team that could have catch her but missinterpreted the situation.
Also winning when the opponents are not really trying to catch you it's not really a story either. It happens a lot even when they know a rider is upfront in order to save energy for second place and not give a free ride to other cyclists -see how Carapaz won in men events where only Wout tried to catch him. The real story is the mistake from the dutch team that could have catch her but missinterpreted the situation.
This isn't the first time something like this has happened: cycling aficionados will remember the tale of Robert Millar and the "stolen" 1984 Vuelta [1].
I personally love it when races are run without radios. The UCI tried to ban them in 2010 but the pro teams rebelled, claiming that they were essential for safety reasons; the number of crashes at the 2021 Tour de France would suggest that they aren't succeeding very well at that core function.
Radios make the races formulaic. Not necessarily predictable but certainly a different event. I can't think of any other sport where pros are held to different rules (i.e. allowed technical assistance) compared to amateurs.
[1] https://crankpunk.com/2012/11/09/robert-millar-the-case-of-t...
I personally love it when races are run without radios. The UCI tried to ban them in 2010 but the pro teams rebelled, claiming that they were essential for safety reasons; the number of crashes at the 2021 Tour de France would suggest that they aren't succeeding very well at that core function.
Radios make the races formulaic. Not necessarily predictable but certainly a different event. I can't think of any other sport where pros are held to different rules (i.e. allowed technical assistance) compared to amateurs.
[1] https://crankpunk.com/2012/11/09/robert-millar-the-case-of-t...
> I personally love it when races are run without radios
I agree wholeheartedly.
It levels the playing field in a way that means money can't interfere as much. Some people make a break off the front? You have to remember how many people went and how good they are. You want to make sure they don't get too far away? Chase them.
Cycling fans (of which I am one) make a lot of noise about how they enjoy the strategy involved, but there are different kinds of strategy. There's nothing I dislike more than a few people making a breakaway and the peloton sauntering along, knowing that they'll be able to catch the break within X kilometres of the finish if they make Y effort at Z kilometres out because they know exactly where the breakaway is. People wax lyrical about heroic individual deeds and head-to-head competition of the past. You want more of that? Ban radios.
The whole safety argument is bunk from what I've read of it - the amount of cameras and personnel on the course is more than enough to catch any issues.
I agree wholeheartedly.
It levels the playing field in a way that means money can't interfere as much. Some people make a break off the front? You have to remember how many people went and how good they are. You want to make sure they don't get too far away? Chase them.
Cycling fans (of which I am one) make a lot of noise about how they enjoy the strategy involved, but there are different kinds of strategy. There's nothing I dislike more than a few people making a breakaway and the peloton sauntering along, knowing that they'll be able to catch the break within X kilometres of the finish if they make Y effort at Z kilometres out because they know exactly where the breakaway is. People wax lyrical about heroic individual deeds and head-to-head competition of the past. You want more of that? Ban radios.
The whole safety argument is bunk from what I've read of it - the amount of cameras and personnel on the course is more than enough to catch any issues.
If you don't have radios, you still need to tell riders about the gaps.
Perhaps a radio channel that just tells riders the state of play without input from the teams themselves.
Perhaps a radio channel that just tells riders the state of play without input from the teams themselves.
Why do you need to tell riders about the gaps?
Because otherwise the Olympics for road cycling and actual high-level road cycling races become totally different things.
The entire game of road cycling races is based on judging these gaps. Without it, you would probably never let anyone ride off. Then races become attrition, followed by sprint.
Either that or you get a weird spotting system where people try to get gap timings to the riders through unofficial channels. Probably from the broadcast, but if delayed too much, from physical spotters with stopwatches.
The entire game of road cycling races is based on judging these gaps. Without it, you would probably never let anyone ride off. Then races become attrition, followed by sprint.
Either that or you get a weird spotting system where people try to get gap timings to the riders through unofficial channels. Probably from the broadcast, but if delayed too much, from physical spotters with stopwatches.
I'm talking about the whole of cycling, not just the Olympics, so the first point doesn't stand.
Do you really prefer the spectacle of the peloton letting a breakaway head off into the distance, knowing that in 95% of cases they can just reel it back in just enough not to have an effect on the GC? Today just showed how exciting it is when people can head off down the road far enough for the others not to know what's going on. I think on balance I prefer attrition followed by sprint, although I'd contend that's a micharacterisation of what would actually happen.
Besides, isn't that exactly what the TDF used to be and what turned it into the best cycling race in the world? This year's TDF at least gave us a glimpse of what it could be like when someone rips up the rule book and the Sky train doesn't optimise the entire race into irrelevance.
I also think that there are enough cameras around to stop unofficial channels. And who's to say whether the person on the roadside is someone who's for you and giving you good information or against you and feeding you lies?
Do you really prefer the spectacle of the peloton letting a breakaway head off into the distance, knowing that in 95% of cases they can just reel it back in just enough not to have an effect on the GC? Today just showed how exciting it is when people can head off down the road far enough for the others not to know what's going on. I think on balance I prefer attrition followed by sprint, although I'd contend that's a micharacterisation of what would actually happen.
Besides, isn't that exactly what the TDF used to be and what turned it into the best cycling race in the world? This year's TDF at least gave us a glimpse of what it could be like when someone rips up the rule book and the Sky train doesn't optimise the entire race into irrelevance.
I also think that there are enough cameras around to stop unofficial channels. And who's to say whether the person on the roadside is someone who's for you and giving you good information or against you and feeding you lies?
I think that you can do a lot against the 'optimized races' by giving riders the timing info reliably _without_ giving them radio communications with their teams.
I also think that currently, the races are actually quite fun. Even in the sky times in the TDF, there were breakaways with a chance, there were people who would solo to a victory.
I don't think unofficial channels are ever going to be policeable. Obfuscation is too potent. And I don't think it would be interesting if teams start competing to be better at getting their riders extra info. Even though I think its quite fun to try to design such systems.
I don't think unofficial channels are ever going to be policeable. Obfuscation is too potent. And I don't think it would be interesting if teams start competing to be better at getting their riders extra info. Even though I think its quite fun to try to design such systems.
This sounds like a much better sport.
A road race involves people traveling over dozens of kilometers, with many spectators lining the streets. There are so many ways a spectator can signal something to a rider in code (color of hat, waving or not waving a flag / choosing what flag, shouting something as they pass, etc.).
Sometimes a spectator might just say something about "oh that group a couple minutes before you looked fast" and not even be part of a team.
Sometimes a spectator might just say something about "oh that group a couple minutes before you looked fast" and not even be part of a team.
Before radio you had a moto putting the latest gap to display in front of the peloton. This is very simple and would not cause trouble. Note that they do not have that for the Olympic games for some reason.
Wrong. Anna was constantly informed by the moto of her lead. We will have to hear from others, like Longo or Brennauer if there were informed or not. But I'm pretty sure they were.
This is incredible, but some of the headlines of "amateur wins gold versus pros" are a little misleading.
She was with a pro-team, she is the current Austrian time-trial champion and had devoted herself to making this happen over the pandemic. Meanwhile the Dutch World Champion didn't know she was ahead, so didn't chase her.
I love the story, but it isn't a simple amateur beating out all the pros story.
She was with a pro-team, she is the current Austrian time-trial champion and had devoted herself to making this happen over the pandemic. Meanwhile the Dutch World Champion didn't know she was ahead, so didn't chase her.
I love the story, but it isn't a simple amateur beating out all the pros story.
> She was with a pro-team
Only in 2017. She quit a Belgian pro-team shortly after she joined [1]. Quote from the linked article: "I noticed that professional sport is too much physical and psychological stress for me and that I prefer to only do hobby sport"
> but it isn't a simple amateur beating out all the pros story.
IMHO she probably is not really just an amateur, but also not a pro. I mean, she is 30, doing her post-doc at EPFL Lausanne right now... It's not like training is the only thing she spends her time with. Also not sure if she has sponsors.
And to everyone here on HN saying that the Dutch riders didn't know there was someone in front: These are professional athletes, competing at the olympics. If the Dutch's claim is true, it's their own fault. Knowing who is/how many are in front is part of the game. And they lost that game. Also Kiesenhofer was ahead 1:15 minutes. It's not like that's nothing. Even if the Dutch would have chased her, is it sure they would have beaten her? I am not sure...
The point being: Kiesenhofer won, no matter what.
[1] https://sport.orf.at/tokyo2020/stories/3081410
Only in 2017. She quit a Belgian pro-team shortly after she joined [1]. Quote from the linked article: "I noticed that professional sport is too much physical and psychological stress for me and that I prefer to only do hobby sport"
> but it isn't a simple amateur beating out all the pros story.
IMHO she probably is not really just an amateur, but also not a pro. I mean, she is 30, doing her post-doc at EPFL Lausanne right now... It's not like training is the only thing she spends her time with. Also not sure if she has sponsors.
And to everyone here on HN saying that the Dutch riders didn't know there was someone in front: These are professional athletes, competing at the olympics. If the Dutch's claim is true, it's their own fault. Knowing who is/how many are in front is part of the game. And they lost that game. Also Kiesenhofer was ahead 1:15 minutes. It's not like that's nothing. Even if the Dutch would have chased her, is it sure they would have beaten her? I am not sure...
The point being: Kiesenhofer won, no matter what.
[1] https://sport.orf.at/tokyo2020/stories/3081410
It is definitely the mistake of the dutch riders, and the dutch team. From reports, it might also be issue with communication between the organization and the dutch team.
There were complaints about unclarity of information for the riders. If true that probably is something the organization to do better. But 'our girls' could have done better.
My read is that: being used to having communication; hubris and situational awareness mistakes; unclear signaling of gaps to the riders; and a spotty cell connection in the coach's car combined to the Dutch riders making a very bad mistake.
What would have happened without this mistake is an unkowanle what-if. My money would be on Kiesemhofer having been caught, given how quickly the gap was shrinking at the end. But that what if doesn't matter as much as the huge mistake that prevented it from materializing.
There were complaints about unclarity of information for the riders. If true that probably is something the organization to do better. But 'our girls' could have done better.
My read is that: being used to having communication; hubris and situational awareness mistakes; unclear signaling of gaps to the riders; and a spotty cell connection in the coach's car combined to the Dutch riders making a very bad mistake.
What would have happened without this mistake is an unkowanle what-if. My money would be on Kiesemhofer having been caught, given how quickly the gap was shrinking at the end. But that what if doesn't matter as much as the huge mistake that prevented it from materializing.
I think it is fair. Compared to the Dutch, she was an amateur. No coaching and no funding. All of her training was solo. That should have put her at a disadvantage.
She's only an amateur in the technical sense.
It seems to me like she has the passion and drive for time trialing, not really road racing. It's hard to do that for money, and she is apparently driven and lucky enough to be able to have a job but still train like a pro.
It seems to me like she has the passion and drive for time trialing, not really road racing. It's hard to do that for money, and she is apparently driven and lucky enough to be able to have a job but still train like a pro.
4 year gap is plenty to be considered an amateur no? It's not like it was 4 months
Seems she's a PhD who studies Partial Differential Equations. Her post-doc research institution is understandably proud:
https://actu.epfl.ch/news/epfl-scientist-wins-cycling-gold-m...
https://actu.epfl.ch/news/epfl-scientist-wins-cycling-gold-m...
I left the PDE group as a postdoc a few months before she joined. This even further solidifies that I wasn’t quite cut out for that level of mathematics… haha.
Congrats on her win!
Congrats on her win!
This was what I came into the comments to find out! I like that the faculty is 'celebrating her result,' a phrase we often use for new discoveries and theorems, rather than race placements.
I got excited when I saw 'Catalan' in the original article, but, sadly, as she's in PDE research, she's merely from Catalan, not studying Catalan numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_number
I got excited when I saw 'Catalan' in the original article, but, sadly, as she's in PDE research, she's merely from Catalan, not studying Catalan numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_number
> I got excited when I saw 'Catalan' in the original article, but, sadly, as she's in PDE research, she's merely (...)
angry Catalan noises
I'm really happy for her, she did her PhD at my alma mater, in a rather well-known lab. Here's one of the main papers leading to the doctorate: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02605
angry Catalan noises
I'm really happy for her, she did her PhD at my alma mater, in a rather well-known lab. Here's one of the main papers leading to the doctorate: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.02605
Being a pro athlete competing and winning at an event like Olympics and pursing a post doc in a tough field like mathematics is an achievement lot more interesting than whether she is really amateur
Don't know where to add it to so I'll add it in response to the OP as some discussion is about it:
Quotation from the Dutch TV (interview with van Vleuten, silver medal winner) [1]:
> "Onderschatting van de tegenstander, in combinatie met heel veel miscommunicatie en ook slechte communicatie vanuit de organisatie."
Which roughly translates to () is mine: "Underestimated the opposition (singular), in combination with lots of miscommunication and bad communication (with the team) from the organization."
Though it looked like she was contend with the performance of Anna Kiesenhofer vs her eventual performance.
[1] Source: https://nos.nl/tokyo2020/artikel/2390838-38-jaar-en-ze-had-m...
Video is country restricted for some stupid reason as it is a interview ... stop whining about rights ...
Quotation from the Dutch TV (interview with van Vleuten, silver medal winner) [1]:
> "Onderschatting van de tegenstander, in combinatie met heel veel miscommunicatie en ook slechte communicatie vanuit de organisatie."
Which roughly translates to () is mine: "Underestimated the opposition (singular), in combination with lots of miscommunication and bad communication (with the team) from the organization."
Though it looked like she was contend with the performance of Anna Kiesenhofer vs her eventual performance.
[1] Source: https://nos.nl/tokyo2020/artikel/2390838-38-jaar-en-ze-had-m...
Video is country restricted for some stupid reason as it is a interview ... stop whining about rights ...
Interesting preparation twitter thread by Anna Kiesenhofer on body temperature
https://twitter.com/AnnaKiesenhofer/status/14113592085247262...
https://twitter.com/AnnaKiesenhofer/status/14113592085247262...
Especially with global warming I wish they took climate into more account with deciding locations. It becomes borderline unsafe I think the US track trials were too hot if I remember right?
For training though the US climbers have a small space in their gym that is enclosed in plastic with heater humidifiers for this reason. pretty funny.
Temps + humidity - or 'condies' as the kids say - are really important to climb at the top level. Cold and a breeze is usually best.
For training though the US climbers have a small space in their gym that is enclosed in plastic with heater humidifiers for this reason. pretty funny.
Temps + humidity - or 'condies' as the kids say - are really important to climb at the top level. Cold and a breeze is usually best.
Interesting, the race taking place on a hot day and she doesn't feel hot when her core peaks at 39.3 degrees.
I’m curious how much the extra year has helped some athletes who wouldn’t have won or might not have won until 2024. Or given a few the extra time to show they can compete.
For ex: an 18yr old Tunisian was a big upset for gold at 400m swimming.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/lists/olympics-swimming-ahmed-hafna...
https://youtu.be/nkkn9qEnPbE
Not to downplay any of their abilities or achievements.
For ex: an 18yr old Tunisian was a big upset for gold at 400m swimming.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/lists/olympics-swimming-ahmed-hafna...
https://youtu.be/nkkn9qEnPbE
Not to downplay any of their abilities or achievements.
The extra year was also a year with less competition. That probably allowed some people to train up without being noticed.
Normally it would have been noticed how much they improved in the past year in competition. Without competition, you don't know how people progressed the last year.
Normally it would have been noticed how much they improved in the past year in competition. Without competition, you don't know how people progressed the last year.
The Dutch Cyclists didn’t even need a phd in PDEs, they could have gone for gold if they had been able to count to three.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_at_the_2020_Summer_Oly...
With more than a minute difference to the rest? She wasn't even in the pack, incredible victory.
With more than a minute difference to the rest? She wasn't even in the pack, incredible victory.
In fact initially Van Vleuten thought she had won when she finished and didn't knew that Kiesenhofer had finished ahead of her.
"After Shapira and Plichta were caught by the remainder of the peloton the rest of the riders seemed to believe that they were racing amongst themselves for Gold, unaware that Kiesenhofer was still in front."
Not saying she shouldn't had won, but when nobody is pursuing you, it is much easier to win.
We have seen in the men race that even when people know there is one person in front, 80% of the riders prefer not to force to prevent the strongest guy of the group to win the sprint. (Who won the sprint anyway)
Not saying she shouldn't had won, but when nobody is pursuing you, it is much easier to win.
We have seen in the men race that even when people know there is one person in front, 80% of the riders prefer not to force to prevent the strongest guy of the group to win the sprint. (Who won the sprint anyway)
No, the rules are pretty simple. The one who manages to first cross the finish line wins. Everybody knows the rules.
The problem is it is not a very simple sport and there is some game theory involved. Riding as fast as possible is not the best strategy, actually it is pretty poor one.
The better strategy comes from understanding you don't need to win by a lot, winning by 1s is the same as winning by 10 minutes. Also riding alone or at the front costs a lot more effort than riding behind somebody.
Actually, riding at the same speed at the front might be max effort and in the pack might be almost coasting.
Together, this means you may have a very valid strategy to try to preserve energy (ie. keep with the pack) and count on your better ability to sprint at the end to get ahead of competitors. That of course as long as you believe there is nobody running away.
At the extreme of effort, very small differences of effort can have very large effects on your body. If you look at it, a difference of tempo to run a 5k and 10k is very small.
The current world records for 5k is 12:35.36 and 10k is 26:11.00.
If you look at difference, 5k is 151s/km while 10k is 156s/km, just 5s or 3% slower.
And yet that minute difference lets you run twice as far.
The problem is it is not a very simple sport and there is some game theory involved. Riding as fast as possible is not the best strategy, actually it is pretty poor one.
The better strategy comes from understanding you don't need to win by a lot, winning by 1s is the same as winning by 10 minutes. Also riding alone or at the front costs a lot more effort than riding behind somebody.
Actually, riding at the same speed at the front might be max effort and in the pack might be almost coasting.
Together, this means you may have a very valid strategy to try to preserve energy (ie. keep with the pack) and count on your better ability to sprint at the end to get ahead of competitors. That of course as long as you believe there is nobody running away.
At the extreme of effort, very small differences of effort can have very large effects on your body. If you look at it, a difference of tempo to run a 5k and 10k is very small.
The current world records for 5k is 12:35.36 and 10k is 26:11.00.
If you look at difference, 5k is 151s/km while 10k is 156s/km, just 5s or 3% slower.
And yet that minute difference lets you run twice as far.
In professional cycling the Ride as Hard as You Can people are necessary but often don’t achieve any real rank on the team. They might not even finish a tour, either having not budgeted enough for the late stages, or being so new that they can’t understand how tired they’re gonna be later.
Their claim to fame may be limited to being on the top team, it might be being on a top 5 team. If you’re lucky you team may place several people in the top 10. If you’re their hedge against the captain being injured, that might even be your name in seventh place.
Lemond is famous in small part for being number #2 to Bernard Hinault and feeling it should have been him on the podium.
But Lemond is the classic case of the unreliable captain. He was like a race horse. On a good day he was like the wind. But a stiff breeze could lay him up. He lamented the Hinault situation but illness stopped him from winning two others. And then that goddamned duck hunting trip… (I met him a few years later, he did a signing at a bike shop owned by a friend… who he as going to go duck hunting with the next day. I so wanted to ask him why he was crazy.)
I never felt he had the sort of lieutenants that Armstrong enjoyed, the way he was to Hinault. I’m racking my brain trying to remember who was on Delgado’s team and coming up completely blank. But I think that just proves my point.
Their claim to fame may be limited to being on the top team, it might be being on a top 5 team. If you’re lucky you team may place several people in the top 10. If you’re their hedge against the captain being injured, that might even be your name in seventh place.
Lemond is famous in small part for being number #2 to Bernard Hinault and feeling it should have been him on the podium.
But Lemond is the classic case of the unreliable captain. He was like a race horse. On a good day he was like the wind. But a stiff breeze could lay him up. He lamented the Hinault situation but illness stopped him from winning two others. And then that goddamned duck hunting trip… (I met him a few years later, he did a signing at a bike shop owned by a friend… who he as going to go duck hunting with the next day. I so wanted to ask him why he was crazy.)
I never felt he had the sort of lieutenants that Armstrong enjoyed, the way he was to Hinault. I’m racking my brain trying to remember who was on Delgado’s team and coming up completely blank. But I think that just proves my point.
> I’m racking my brain trying to remember who was on Delgado’s team and coming up completely blank.
Delgado had Miguel Induráin [1] working for him, hardly an unknown rider.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indur%C3%A1in
Delgado had Miguel Induráin [1] working for him, hardly an unknown rider.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indur%C3%A1in
Oops. Seems I have flipped Delgado and Indurain in my head. Which I should have realized when the wikipedia page seemed to be understating his win history.
Who was Indurain's right hand?
Who was Indurain's right hand?
> Who was Indurain's right hand?
His brother ? I think that Jean-François Bernard did that role at the end of Indurain's career.
His brother ? I think that Jean-François Bernard did that role at the end of Indurain's career.
> In professional cycling the Ride as Hard as You Can people are necessary but often don’t achieve any real rank on the team. They might not even finish a tour, either having not budgeted enough for the late stages, or being so new that they can’t understand how tired they’re gonna be later.
I am not much interested in cycling, but I understand this is the dimension that is not present on Olympics. Or do they also ride as teams and assign from the start who is going to get "protected" to preserve their strength to get the best shot at getting gold?
I am not much interested in cycling, but I understand this is the dimension that is not present on Olympics. Or do they also ride as teams and assign from the start who is going to get "protected" to preserve their strength to get the best shot at getting gold?
Most countries will have a clear leader yes, especially the big ones with 4/5 riders. Sometimes they hedge their bets by having one guy "free", often in the breakaway. It apparently wasn't so much the case with the Dutch women this year though.
And yet, there are quite a few solo wins. I think somewhere between 10 and 25 percent of races get won solo?
The advantage of the solo strategy is that everyone behind you is trying to put in less effort than the others behind you. So they can get stuck in a game theoretical tragedy of the commons.
The advantage of the solo strategy is that everyone behind you is trying to put in less effort than the others behind you. So they can get stuck in a game theoretical tragedy of the commons.
Why 5k when it's only a week since Austrian Christoph Strasser set the records for 1000 (one thousand) kilometers, in just under a day (with 2 minutes total for breaks and clothes changes).
Because I ran distances from 5k to marathon (with 10k being my favourite) and so I know from my own experience. I have no knowledge of how you run a 1000k run.
Time trial is a better way of finding which rider is the fastest, but the race is so boring without an obvious winner.
Not saying she shouldn't had won, but when nobody is pursuing you, it is much easier to win.
She certainly benefited from a mistake by the other competitors, but “much easier” is surely a big exaggeration. You could equally well say it’s much harder to win the race when you’re out by yourself, with nobody to chase, nobody to set the pace, and no pack to draft with.
If she hadn’t cycled the race of her life, she would have been caught.
She certainly benefited from a mistake by the other competitors, but “much easier” is surely a big exaggeration. You could equally well say it’s much harder to win the race when you’re out by yourself, with nobody to chase, nobody to set the pace, and no pack to draft with.
If she hadn’t cycled the race of her life, she would have been caught.
I don’t think “much easier” is an exaggeration at all. It is hard to win with no help as you say. Which is why there’s a good chance that she would have been caught if the people who did have help knew there was someone they needed to catch.
That being said, good on her for sneaking away getting out in front unnoticed. It’s not always just about pure ability.
That being said, good on her for sneaking away getting out in front unnoticed. It’s not always just about pure ability.
> sneaking away getting out in front unnoticed
They knew she was in the early breakaway, they just assumed she had been caught.
They knew she was in the early breakaway, they just assumed she had been caught.
The road race at the Olympics is somewhat of an outlier in cycling. It uses national teams as opposed to commerical teams, so riders ride with unfamilar teammates, and in this case the biggest favorites were actually teammates. It also bans radios, so there's no direct communication between the coaches and the riders possible.
I didn't see this race yet, and although I enjoy watching it I'm no expert on road cycling. However, ISTR that in every televised race there is a particular motorcycle that stays with the lead rider(s). If a racer thinks she's on the front and doesn't see that motorcycle around somewhere, shouldn't she reconsider her position?
Also the racers who had been on the breakaway and got caught knew she was still up there, but they might not have cared to tell anyone about it.
Also the racers who had been on the breakaway and got caught knew she was still up there, but they might not have cared to tell anyone about it.
There's usually motorcycles in front of the chasing groups as well, and I don't think the motorcycle for the leader is specially marked.
Even with radio, the breakouts might feel confident with the lead but not realize yet that the poursuivants have stepped up their speed.
world/european championship has the same national structure as the olympics, the radios are present in those races, so in that way the olympics is unique.
The big difference between typical pro races and the Olympics is that in the Olympics the riders don’t race with radios, which made this situation possible. In a typical pro race, the team director would be telling his riders there is still someone up the road.
Consider what happened in mens racing.
When there is someone ahead, you also get hesitation. No one wants to expend the effort to catch them. Everyone hopes that someone else will put in that effort. It's a classic game theoretical 'tragedy of the commons'.
The same could have happened here. The dutch riders were all riding for themselves. The other riders would probably have looked to the favorites to close the gap.
When there is someone ahead, you also get hesitation. No one wants to expend the effort to catch them. Everyone hopes that someone else will put in that effort. It's a classic game theoretical 'tragedy of the commons'.
The same could have happened here. The dutch riders were all riding for themselves. The other riders would probably have looked to the favorites to close the gap.
Tactics are as important as strength in cycling. The strongest person doesn't always win.
It might be interesting to recall that Alan Turing was an Olympics team contender for 1948~1949
Harald Bohr won a silver medal at the 1908 Olympics with the Danish football team. He was also a notable mathematician, an editor for Acta Mathematica and he discovered the fascinating Fastperiodische Funktionen.
Sports and academics were not unusual in his family: his brother Niels (not an Olympian, but a known physicist) had a son Ernest who was an Olympian in 1948 (hockey).
Unlike his father and brother Aage, Ernest did not win a Nobel (he was a lawyer).
Sports and academics were not unusual in his family: his brother Niels (not an Olympian, but a known physicist) had a son Ernest who was an Olympian in 1948 (hockey).
Unlike his father and brother Aage, Ernest did not win a Nobel (he was a lawyer).
Thanks for adding this anecdote. Is it the same mathematician who worked on almost periodic functions ? I have run into those in my line of work. On second thoughts, I guess that's what Fastperiodische Funktionen means.
On a different note this would be the third example where the person concerned is Danish.
Was entertained by how you wrote about all those relations and associations it felt like those logic puzzles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_Puzzle
On a different note this would be the third example where the person concerned is Danish.
Was entertained by how you wrote about all those relations and associations it felt like those logic puzzles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_Puzzle
IceDane(7)
Honest question: why would this be interesting in this context?
(Edit: check the follow-up comments to see why I wasn't as surprised as others about Ms. Kiesenhofer being both sportswomen and active academic and therefore did not make the connection with Mr. Turing immediately)
(Edit: check the follow-up comments to see why I wasn't as surprised as others about Ms. Kiesenhofer being both sportswomen and active academic and therefore did not make the connection with Mr. Turing immediately)
It’s super rare to be intellectually gifted and a world-class athlete. There was an NFL offensive lineman with a published mathematical paper as well, but I didn’t know about Turing’s physical talents until now.
I don’t know of any other instances of brilliant people being paid or awarded medals for their physical abilities, so I personally found it interesting.
I guess the parent comment was for those of us that were intrigued by the intersection of top-tier physical and mental abilities.
I don’t know of any other instances of brilliant people being paid or awarded medals for their physical abilities, so I personally found it interesting.
I guess the parent comment was for those of us that were intrigued by the intersection of top-tier physical and mental abilities.
It’s also a healthy correction for the nerds-versus-jocks dichotomy which was so common for years. There are a non-trivial number of people who actively questioned someone’s technical competency if they were athletic or assumed that the only way to be a successful academic was to grind everything else out of their life.
My experience is that high-achievers in one area are often high-achievers in other areas as well. For academics as well as athletics, individual ability matters, but the discipline and work-ethic that most high-achievers have translates across fields.
Yes - also simply the circumstances: if you’re in a position to do either well, you probably don’t have serious chronic health problems, family demands, poverty, etc. That doesn’t make it easy but it makes it possible to focus on something more than survival, much as how coming from a financially stable family makes it easier for someone to take a gamble on a startup rather than a safer job at a big company.
[deleted]
Because he's also a Mathematician in the Olympics, similar to (but not as successful) as Mrs. Kiesenhofer.
We like when nerds are not completely 1 dimensional.
Hmm, I've got a friend who won the German championship in their sport (watersport, individual) and went on to get a PhD in math, so maybe that's why the idea of both being a successful sportsman and following an academic career was not exactly foreign to me. Thanks for replying!
Why don't you call her Dr. Kiesenhofer then? Esp. Austrians love their titles.
I recently started watching road cycling with this years Tour de France and now the Olympics and it's pretty interesting. A lot of tactical depth and it's a perfect WFH background noise- it plays out over hours so you don't have to be watching every minute
Both mens and womens road race in the Olympics were excellent too, a lot of drama and interesting mind games
Both mens and womens road race in the Olympics were excellent too, a lot of drama and interesting mind games
Welcome, I am also addicted!
http://www.cyclingtorrents.nl
Any chance you have an invite?
What an amazing effort from Kiesenhofer. I imagine being alone in the front for that long would be many times more effort than staying in the peloton. Heroic effort.
I am curious how this upset compare with other upsets in previous Olympics? Has there been bigger upsets than this one?
If this were a tennis event, would this be like someone who was ranked top 50 or top 100 in the world beating Novak Djokovic to win gold?
I am curious how this upset compare with other upsets in previous Olympics? Has there been bigger upsets than this one?
If this were a tennis event, would this be like someone who was ranked top 50 or top 100 in the world beating Novak Djokovic to win gold?
Think of it more like this: "cyclist who is very good at riding all-out on her own has chance to ride all-out on her own; peloton that has potential advantage of strength in numbers doesn't use advantage; to some surprise, lone rider wins."
This doesn't happen in stage races because of radios and professional teamwork, but I'm this race the technology and incentives aligned to open the door for a breakaway win.
The fun part is that the cyclist who won isn't even optimized to compete in the same way as the others. She's literally a time trial specialist who rejected a pro team offer because she didn't want to compete on anything but personal cycling performance, and then she beat those teams.
This doesn't happen in stage races because of radios and professional teamwork, but I'm this race the technology and incentives aligned to open the door for a breakaway win.
The fun part is that the cyclist who won isn't even optimized to compete in the same way as the others. She's literally a time trial specialist who rejected a pro team offer because she didn't want to compete on anything but personal cycling performance, and then she beat those teams.
Revenge of the nerds! You go, math geek!
Reminds me of an old "Nerds vs. Jocks" joke, from the last century: http://www.spiegl.org/humor/jordan_gates.html
Reminds me of an old "Nerds vs. Jocks" joke, from the last century: http://www.spiegl.org/humor/jordan_gates.html
I'm just about to watch this, very excited to see it play out. I'm listening to the very start of the race right now and it's very funny how things work out:
"[The smartest racer will win, not just the strongest. Well who are we kidding, you need a good bit of luck too.]"
That's certainly true given the sheer luck on display (peloton lost track of breakaway) and how smart Kiesenhofer is. I also think it's interesting how much she dislikes riding in the peloton. She's 10ft off the back in the starting roll-out.
"[The smartest racer will win, not just the strongest. Well who are we kidding, you need a good bit of luck too.]"
That's certainly true given the sheer luck on display (peloton lost track of breakaway) and how smart Kiesenhofer is. I also think it's interesting how much she dislikes riding in the peloton. She's 10ft off the back in the starting roll-out.
Her victory is well deserved, but from what I can tell in the Olympics isn't it the case that unless they're right in front of you contestants have no way of knowing if they're even winning? This could be a case of #2 and #3 falling from the lead and not even realizing they're #2 and #3, and rather thinking they're #1 and #2. If they knew their true positions it's possible the outcome could've been different.
>if they knew their true positions it's possible the outcome could've been different.
That is part of the sport. riders keep up with time gaps on boards from the motos, they go back to their team car for information (and water), count the riders getting brought back, they talk with their team mates or even other teams about the situation. Radioless races are run differently, but the favourites forgetting the road leader is not common and embarrassing.
That is part of the sport. riders keep up with time gaps on boards from the motos, they go back to their team car for information (and water), count the riders getting brought back, they talk with their team mates or even other teams about the situation. Radioless races are run differently, but the favourites forgetting the road leader is not common and embarrassing.
There are no radios allowed at the Olympics, like there are at professional races (ie Tour, Vuelta, Giro etc.)
That simple. The last refresh point was ~50kms before the final, if the person there didn't give an info to the riders then they just didn't know how far she was ahead hence the confusion of van Vleuten at the finish
That simple. The last refresh point was ~50kms before the final, if the person there didn't give an info to the riders then they just didn't know how far she was ahead hence the confusion of van Vleuten at the finish
No radios really exposed the poor racecraft of the Dutch riders. Seen some commentators criticising the no radios in OL (and WM) races, but I personally I think it is nice that it emphasize the skill of the rider and minimise the impact of SD's. Riders in the van Vleuten group, such as Uttrup, did know that there was a rider up the road. So it does seem that the mishap is truly on the Ducth riders.
For some reason this story reminded me of the French winning 4x100 freestyle relay in London 2012. They went in as the underdogs but trounced the Americans with Yannick Angel who swam the final leg absolutely trouncing Phelps and co. He was also an athlete who had a hobby of reading and was quiet a good student at that time. There is something mesmerizing about athletes who also embrace intellectually stimulating activities.
Great performance, thrilling race, well done!
Nothing to take away from Anna Kiesenhofer. It is an absolute brilliant win. But an amateur winning a sporting event supposed to be for amateurs has become news. It's sad how much Olympics has lost its original meaning and intent.
All that's remaining is to become an Astronaut.
[deleted]
shayankh(2)
<Women>: Does incredible things, that typically men are way better at (math and sports) and: She even does 2 of them, at the same time and to the very best. Incredible. Bravo!
How plausible/believable. And what an adorable women and a role model for other girls. And we need so many more female role models to inspire as many young girls as possible (ideally: All of them).
Having kids and a family (with a man,... a protector?!) is really lame and needs to be avoided. Top notch careers are much more important. I mean: Who doesn't want to be remembered by the random name that was given to you - First name by your parents, last name by people in the middle ages struggling to keep people apart during rapid population growth. I feel very inspired now.
Thank you journalist (w/m/d) for writing this article.
It is clear that men are all grabbing for these enviable positions just for the sake of it (and not as a means for anything else) and we need to get women there, too.
How plausible/believable. And what an adorable women and a role model for other girls. And we need so many more female role models to inspire as many young girls as possible (ideally: All of them).
Having kids and a family (with a man,... a protector?!) is really lame and needs to be avoided. Top notch careers are much more important. I mean: Who doesn't want to be remembered by the random name that was given to you - First name by your parents, last name by people in the middle ages struggling to keep people apart during rapid population growth. I feel very inspired now.
Thank you journalist (w/m/d) for writing this article.
It is clear that men are all grabbing for these enviable positions just for the sake of it (and not as a means for anything else) and we need to get women there, too.
So you have a complicated group dynamic, where the majority of the peloton has no interest in pulling the group to catch the break, since they would just get beat by one or more of the Dutch riders, and the Dutch riders didn't seem to have a clear plan on how to control the race and who would sacrifice their chances and work on the front for the rest of the team.
As others have said, there were no radios allowed for riders in the race, so all information about the breakaway came from the race director's car trailing the peloton. This was a well known fact about the race coming in, and it's the same way that the annual World Championship race is run. It's normal for riders to drop back to the team car to get information about the break, and the lead moto for a group of cyclists will occasionally show time gaps on a whiteboard.
At least one of the Dutch riders claimed to have known about the lone rider off the front [1], but somehow that information didn't make it to the rest of the team. It seems that most of the peloton didn't know (or didn't care) how many riders were up the road, and the Dutch team failed to communicate amongst themselves and establish a plan.
All that leads to Kiesenhofer's solo move working out. All credit to her for an extremely strong ride.
[1]https://netherlandsnewslive.com/miscommunication-and-underes...