Did they try too hard to make this Giro special?

[md1975]

RIP WW. it's a pity but don't blame the giro. Remember Jon lee Augystyn's trapise down a cliff??? Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

I don't blame the Giro, but I do question when a race becomes more than needed.

Example: In 3 weeks of racing, how many climbs do you really need? How many flats? How many rolling hill type days?

I think the powers that be that planned the race included so many climbs this year with difficult decents, that many are flat out scared of some of them. It won't stop them from riding, but is it needed? I see nobody complain at the TDF with say 8-9 days out of 20-21 in the mountains. So why did the Giro feel they needed more and steeper and more tricky and dangerous decents?

I think it was an effort to trump the TDF, and get more riders to do the Giro over say the Tour of Cali. Andy for example would be a huge draw...but he will be in Cali. I just feel that they need to think a tad more about how much a body can take...mental and physical. Then set the race up so that the big climbs and wicked decents are involved, but either split better or seperated at some point with a rest day or flat stages.

 

[Parrulo]

I see nobody complain at the TDF with say 8-9 days out of 20-21 in the mountains

you need to get your eyes checked

boredom and general lack of real mountain stages in the tour is a topic well discussed all over this forum

 

[ultimobici]

I don't blame the Giro, but I do question when a race becomes more than needed.

Example: In 3 weeks of racing, how many climbs do you really need? How many flats? How many rolling hill type days?

I think the powers that be that planned the race included so many climbs this year with difficult decents, that many are flat out scared of some of them. It won't stop them from riding, but is it needed? I see nobody complain at the TDF with say 8-9 days out of 20-21 in the mountains. So why did the Giro feel they needed more and steeper and more tricky and dangerous decents?

I think it was an effort to trump the TDF, and get more riders to do the Giro over say the Tour of Cali. Andy for example would be a huge draw...but he will be in Cali. I just feel that they need to think a tad more about how much a body can take...mental and physical. Then set the race up so that the big climbs and wicked decents are involved, but either split better or seperated at some point with a rest day or flat stages.

As per the previous post, a visit to the optician, followed by a trip to buy an atlas. To Run the Giro without more climbing than the Tour is virtually impossible due to Italy's topography.

 

[dolophonic]

They are doing a great job with the Giro route. That is not the problem.
To blame the road is a mistake. A tragic loss but there is a risk inherently.
The difficulty is what makes the Giro so great. We don't want to castrate it.
To overreact is not a way to deal with the loss.

 

[Angliru]

They are doing a great job with the Giro route. That is not the problem.
To blame the road is a mistake. A tragic loss but there is a risk inherently.
The difficulty is what makes the Giro so great. We don't want to castrate it.
To overreact is not a way to deal with the loss.

+1000
A whole lot of knee-jerk reactions going on here. Many here need to go ride their bikes to clear their heads.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

One that I have ridden which comes to mind is the Passo Pordoi, which was part of the famous 1949 Giro stage to Pinerolo.

How long was that stage? 600km? Pordoi is in the Dolomites, no way was it in a stage to Pinerolo surely?

Yeah, but the high Vosges are jam packed with relatively steep 2nd and 1st category climbs. The Jura Mountains have some very steep 1st category climbs.

... which the TdF organisation conveniently ignores. When the Tour does visit these ranges the courses are often less than stellar. It's a choice, really. And sure, money is a factor.

The Tour organisation is known to play it safe a lot though. Everybody knows Alpe d'Huez, Tourmalet, Galibier. The once-a-year fans know those climbs. There is a feeling that they can't hype the race up as much for a climb to Pierre-Saint-Martin, or Cam Basque, or Mont du Chat, as for a more well-known climb. I disagree, of course, and many of us do. I believe that if the course is better designed so that the racing is exciting we won't care where it is they're climbing to.

I don't blame the Giro, but I do question when a race becomes more than needed.

Example: In 3 weeks of racing, how many climbs do you really need? How many flats? How many rolling hill type days?

It's not how many, it's how they're used. The Tour needs to use more to try to encourage racing because of the higher control. The Giro stage last year to Monte Grappa featured just one climb, but was far more exciting than most Tour multi-climb stages. And it's where they're used too, because it's no use having a farce like the 2009 Tarbes stage.

I think the powers that be that planned the race included so many climbs this year with difficult decents, that many are flat out scared of some of them. It won't stop them from riding, but is it needed? I see nobody complain at the TDF with say 8-9 days out of 20-21 in the mountains. So why did the Giro feel they needed more and steeper and more tricky and dangerous decents?

Lots of people complain at the TDF's lack of proper mountainous routes. At the several meaningless flat stages. The Giro and Vuelta at least try to mix things up with the occasional late short climb. Far too many Tour stages feature no challenging obstacles, and the break never get more than 3 minutes up the road. And without proper, challenging ITTs to balance them out, the riders are all too happy to ride in formation until the last climb of the day. I'd also say that when was the last time we had 9 mountain stages in the Tour?

I think it was an effort to trump the TDF, and get more riders to do the Giro over say the Tour of Cali. Andy for example would be a huge draw...but he will be in Cali. I just feel that they need to think a tad more about how much a body can take...mental and physical. Then set the race up so that the big climbs and wicked decents are involved, but either split better or seperated at some point with a rest day or flat stages.

Andy wouldn't ride the Giro regardless of parcours. He wants to ride the Tour, so the Giro would want to make it EASIER, not harder, in order to get him. California is a nice sponsor trip for him. The Giro has almost always in recent memory served up a better course and better racing than the Tour. Maybe it is a reaction to California, but more likely it's a reaction to the criticism Zomegnan received for the 2004 and 2009 routes, the least mountainous ones. Viewer figures for flat stages at the Giro are chronic, especially since Cipollini retired. The mountains sell the race, not necessarily to the riders, but to us the viewers (and most importantly the Italian viewers). If you'd rather watch a safe, sterile race with few climbs, watch the Tour. It's not possible to do that in Italy with Italy's geography. If you want to get from A to B, there's almost inevitably going to be some climbing and descending along the way. The Giro is the most mountainous race for the same reason Paris-Roubaix is flat. Because that's what the land is like there.

 

[ultimobici]

How long was that stage? 600km? Pordoi is in the Dolomites, no way was it in a stage to Pinerolo surely?

Oops! Getting mixed up with the Coppi memorial