There are only two 'real' bike races: everything else is just a little bit silly

A recent *Cycling Weekly* article, provocatively titled "There are only two 'real' bike races: everything else is just a little bit silly," has ignited a predictable debate within the cycling community. The piece, penned by an unnamed author, asserts that only Paris-Roubaix and the Tour of Flanders possess the true gravitas and historical significance to be considered genuinely "real" races, effectively demoting all other events, including Grand Tours and Monuments, to a secondary, less serious status.

This bold declaration, while clearly designed to provoke, taps into a long-standing, often unspoken, hierarchy among cycling fans and riders alike. The unique demands and iconic status of the Northern Classics, with their brutal cobbles and unpredictable nature, have always held a special place. However, to dismiss the strategic complexity of a Grand Tour or the sheer endurance required for a Milan-San Remo is to ignore decades of sporting evolution and the diverse challenges that define professional cycling.

Ultimately, such pronouncements serve mainly to stir the pot. While Paris-Roubaix and Flanders are undeniably monumental, the notion that only two races hold 'real' value is a quaint, if rather myopic, perspective in a sport brimming with narratives.