2020 Tour Colombia 2.1 - February 11-16

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I am so freaking tired of the fans who basically want the GC to be ruled by nothing but pure climbers.

Get rid of ITTs they scream.

TTTs are dumb they wail.

Long flat stages suck they cry.

What do they not understand about the term “all rounder”. Stage races are supposed to crown the best all rounder. Traditionally that has been a TTer who can also climb. And that is why TTing is considered The Race of Truth because you cannot hide. The strongest wins.

In the last decade climbers have been disproportionally advantaged as it is.
Completely agree. This why I also hate the Tour route.
 
I am so freaking tired of the fans who basically want the GC to be ruled by nothing but pure climbers.

Get rid of ITTs they scream.

TTTs are dumb they wail.

Long flat stages suck they cry.

What do they not understand about the term “all rounder”. Stage races are supposed to crown the best all rounder. Traditionally that has been a TTer who can also climb. And that is why TTing is considered The Race of Truth because you cannot hide. The strongest wins.

In the last decade climbers have been disproportionally advantaged as it is.
Everybody's been complaining about TTTs. The majority say there's not enough ITTs. I swear the only time people complained about too much ITT was the 2012 Tour which was mainly because the mountain stages were just disgustingly easy.

People want competitive and balanced routes. Sometimes it's hard to get both. But with the current GT landscape nobody complains about too much ITTing when there's 40km of it.
 
A good performance from Ardila, stayed with the top riders until about 2km from the end. Not bad for someone who hasn’t raced because of injury since the U23 Giro, and for a 20 year old in his first race at this level.
 
Everybody's been complaining about TTTs. The majority say there's not enough ITTs. I swear the only time people complained about too much ITT was the 2012 Tour which was mainly because the mountain stages were just disgustingly easy.

People want competitive and balanced routes. Sometimes it's hard to get both. But with the current GT landscape nobody complains about too much ITTing when there's 40km of it.
All fair points.

However, when Ti-Raleigh was winning TTTs in the late 70s and 80s they could be 80km long.

When Merckx won the TDFs there were often 3-4 ITTs totaling over 100KMs.

When Hinault and Indurain reigned, they had well over 100KMs of ITT.

Before the Vuelta, the three GT winners were Simon Yates, Carapaz and Bernal.

These are small CLIMBERS who are so-so, if not bad (Carapaz) TTers.

Before anyone freaks out at me. I am not saying that none of these riders should ever win a single GT. Maybe one or two at most though. Van Impe won one TDF (one that had 5 MTFs, and he could actually TT pretty well), Bahamontes won one. Fuente - the greatest climber of his era - never a single one.

If you keep shortening stages, adding MTFs at crazy gradients and eliminating ITT kms, you end up with one dimensional riders winning GTs and not all-rounders.

No one can convince me that Simon Yates or Carapaz is of the caliber or Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, LeMond, Fignon, Thevenet, Zoetemelk or even Roche, nor will they ever be.

I get it. I get it. People find watching climbing more exciting. But climbing was way more exciting in the 70s and 80s precisely because the climbers had more to do to catch up, and you also didn't know who might collapse or have a bad day because they had been ridden into the ground by the long flat stages.

GTs, traditionally, crown the best all-rounder. And also the rider who recovers best and has the best endurance. By shortening stages drastically and eliminating ITT kms you are irremediably altering the look of the winner.

And I find that a shame.
 
And what if EF Education had won the TTT by a couple of seconds? We wouldn't hear any of this.

But they totally SMOKED the opposition.

DESTROYED them.

Should they not get any reward for that? Is not being able to do other things than climb steep gradients at high altitude important any more in bike racing?
 
And what if EF Education had won the TTT by a couple of seconds? We wouldn't hear any of this.

But they totally SMOKED the opposition.

DESTROYED them.

Should they not get any reward for that? Is not being able to do other things than climb steep gradients at high altitude important any more in bike racing?
Count me among the group that doesn't like TTTs. I'm fine with adding other things that test a rider's skillset like a stage with cobbles but I just don't want the GC winner of a race determined because a rider happens to have teammates that are better TTers than another.
 
Count me among the group that doesn't like TTTs. I'm fine with adding other things that test a rider's skillset like a stage with cobbles but I just don't want the GC winner of a race determined because a rider happens to have teammates that are better TTers than another.
I get that sentiment, but we've had plenty of GT winners who won because they had the strongest teammates. Whether you ride a TTT in the run up to a MTF or in an actual TTT is more or less the same thing.

I'm fine with a TTT once in a while -- it's a skill, like riding cobbles.

Overall though I think the days of long ITTs are over. Sponsors pay the bills and 4 hours of a 50km ITT on TV is not going to draw anyone but the most hardcore fans. Even I tune out on ITT days until the very last 4-5 riders. I'd be interested to see the ratings of a 90km short mountain stage vs an ITT, at least in the middle of a race.
 
I like watching ITTs, but it doesn't half benefit riders of the best-funded teams hugely. Bardet or Pinot could lose a stack of time simply because INEOS have Dennis, Castroviejo and others helping.

Not really very fair.

With regard to goats winning GTs, clearly that isn't the case as the best pure climbers in the peloton like Superman Lopez and Sosa are unlikely to ever do it. What you're forgetting is that the biggest teams also have a load of climbers able to stop the climbers from gaining too much of a benefit on every summit finish. The world has changed since the 1970s and 1980s.
 
Yeah it needs to be said that mountain stages haven't adjusted to the increasing prominence of mountain domestiques.

It used to be that being a mountain goat meant doing the multi HC climb mountain raids. Now it means doing one 30 minute W/kg ballistic test.
 
Reactions: Big Doopie
I get that sentiment, but we've had plenty of GT winners who won because they had the strongest teammates. Whether you ride a TTT in the run up to a MTF or in an actual TTT is more or less the same thing.
It's not even close to the same thing and while that might seem to be the case, it would be much harder to actually prove. The drag is minuscule on a climb compared to a TTT and what you're doing is affecting everyone in a TTT, not just your teammates.
 
I don't like TTTs especially if that defines the winner in stage1 and makes the rest of the race dull.
I'm all for ITT and make the climbers work hard for the money, so that complete riders end up winning
But let's talk about Colombia and Boyacá. Do we really want a sprinter win by bonus seconds in the climbers "hotbed"?

But no worries, next year they talk about the Caribeean zone. If they stick to that, I'm afraid the most that they can put together are little hills, because the few climbs are not apt for a road race.

You can do a hilly circuit or ITT in almost every city in the Atlantic Coast (Sincelejo, Cartagena, Barranquilla and Santa Marta) but almost all are less than 2Km and 5% avg (La Popa being the exception at 8% but as HTF).
They might end up doing the last 2 days in Santander, where they can get a bit of altitude and long climbs
 
All fair points.

However, when Ti-Raleigh was winning TTTs in the late 70s and 80s they could be 80km long.

When Merckx won the TDFs there were often 3-4 ITTs totaling over 100KMs.

When Hinault and Indurain reigned, they had well over 100KMs of ITT.

Before the Vuelta, the three GT winners were Simon Yates, Carapaz and Bernal.

These are small CLIMBERS who are so-so, if not bad (Carapaz) TTers.

Before anyone freaks out at me. I am not saying that none of these riders should ever win a single GT. Maybe one or two at most though. Van Impe won one TDF (one that had 5 MTFs, and he could actually TT pretty well), Bahamontes won one. Fuente - the greatest climber of his era - never a single one.

If you keep shortening stages, adding MTFs at crazy gradients and eliminating ITT kms, you end up with one dimensional riders winning GTs and not all-rounders.

No one can convince me that Simon Yates or Carapaz is of the caliber or Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, LeMond, Fignon, Thevenet, Zoetemelk or even Roche, nor will they ever be.

I get it. I get it. People find watching climbing more exciting. But climbing was way more exciting in the 70s and 80s precisely because the climbers had more to do to catch up, and you also didn't know who might collapse or have a bad day because they had been ridden into the ground by the long flat stages.

GTs, traditionally, crown the best all-rounder. And also the rider who recovers best and has the best endurance. By shortening stages drastically and eliminating ITT kms you are irremediably altering the look of the winner.

And I find that a shame.
I don't get why the few ITT's are often up climbs nowadays, like this years TdF. I mean mountain ITT's are IMO even more boring to watch (to those who don't like TTs) cos no pure TT specialist has a chance to win and it is really just about the GC riders, so until the last 5 to 10 riders there is really nothing happening. So if they give us a TT make it flat at least.
 
Reactions: Big Doopie
Why do races like this get their own thread when the Tour Down Under is hidden away under "Hot racing coming up in Australia" ? UCI category does not explain this bias?
Can you not just set up a thread for whatever race you feel like
Yes, this is the case for all races, except the Australian races. This is mentioned clearly in the forum rules. There used to be a lot of Australian forum members back in the day, but they have all been permanently banned for opening race topics about the Australian races. And rightly so, imho.

* above statement may or may not be completely fabricated *
 
Yes, this is the case for all races, except the Australian races. This is mentioned clearly in the forum rules. There used to be a lot of Australian forum members back in the day, but they have all been permanently banned for opening race topics about the Australian races. And rightly so, imho.

* above statement may or may not be completely fabricated *
I thought it was for being a Cuddles cuddler
 
The "Hot Racing" thread has been around long enough that it now comes under historical preservation laws and cannot be tampered with unless proper mitigation is provided. It's a memorial to ACF and other Australian posters of yore. . .
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY