• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Giro 2017, stage 13: Reggio Emilia - Tortona 229 km

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

Kafviar said:
Seriously, what is even the point of sprint stages..?

I guess they are Ok in the early stages of a race. However, such a pan flat stage midway into the Giro is pointless: of course a few transition stages here and there are OK, but they should make them more hilly, so that breakaways and sprint teams have comparable chances, depending on the quality of the sprinter.
 
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
 
Gigs_98 said:
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
Race organisors want to attract the best field possible and then they have to make flat stages to attract the sprinters.
 
Gigs_98 said:
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
Have you ever contemplated that some might consider mass sprints entertaining? I mean, you don't like it, that's ok, but let those others have a bit fun. There are stages for everyone.
 
Hugo Koblet said:
Gigs_98 said:
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
Race organisors want to attract the best field possible and then they have to make flat stages to attract the sprinters.
Yeah, as I wrote, they exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance, or said differently to attract the best sprinters possible. But actually thats the fascinating thing. This argument only works because there seems to be an agreement that sprinters are an important part of cycling. Every freakin 2nd stage in this years tdf will be as interesting as todays giro stage, only because it's in the mind of cycling fans and race organizers that sprint stages are an important part of the race. There will be a finish in Liege, that city where the worlds most famous hilly classic finishes, but still the stage will be flat because race organizers thought you can't give pure sprinters no chance to win a stage before stage 4.
What if race organizers from now on would decide that there is no need to give sprinters at least 6 or 7 chances to win a stage in a gt? GT's would immediately become more entertaining to watch, cycling as a whole might become more popular and sprinters would still ride the tdf, even if there are only 3 or 4 sprint stages, because what else should they do?
 
starlord said:
Gigs_98 said:
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
Have you ever contemplated that some might consider mass sprints entertaining? I mean, you don't like it, that's ok, but let those others have a bit fun. There are stages for everyone.
So you prefer to watch a completely flat stage where absolutely nothing happens before the last 500 meters, over a stage with some hills close to the finish, which still make a sprint possible but make it less controlled and give attackers a chance?
 
Gigs_98 said:
starlord said:
Gigs_98 said:
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
Have you ever contemplated that some might consider mass sprints entertaining? I mean, you don't like it, that's ok, but let those others have a bit fun. There are stages for everyone.
So you prefer to watch a completely flat stage where absolutely nothing happens before the last 500 meters, over a stage with some hills close to the finish, which still make a sprint possible but make it less controlled and give attackers a chance?

I personally don't like when an attacker wins on sprinters stage, there's absolutely no tension seeing one or two riders fight it out in slo-mo sprint.
 
Gigs_98 said:
starlord said:
Gigs_98 said:
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
Have you ever contemplated that some might consider mass sprints entertaining? I mean, you don't like it, that's ok, but let those others have a bit fun. There are stages for everyone.
So you prefer to watch a completely flat stage where absolutely nothing happens before the last 500 meters, over a stage with some hills close to the finish, which still make a sprint possible but make it less controlled and give attackers a chance?
I certainly do not. But I know a few people (okay 2 exactly) who do, they love stages with mass sprint at the end of the day (and are disappointed in case break gets it). Yeah, it' strange (for us) but it kinda teaches you that people have different tastes. Live and let live :)
 
Vroome.exe said:
Gigs_98 said:
starlord said:
Gigs_98 said:
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
Have you ever contemplated that some might consider mass sprints entertaining? I mean, you don't like it, that's ok, but let those others have a bit fun. There are stages for everyone.
So you prefer to watch a completely flat stage where absolutely nothing happens before the last 500 meters, over a stage with some hills close to the finish, which still make a sprint possible but make it less controlled and give attackers a chance?

I personally don't like when an attacker wins on sprinters stage, there's absolutely no tension seeing one or two riders fight it out in slo-mo sprint.
So. You'd rather watch 150 kilometers, where nothing happens just for the joy of watching the exciting last kilometer, than watch a race with attacks 30-40 kilometers from the finish? That's weird, but ok.
 
Cance > TheRest said:
Vroome.exe said:
Gigs_98 said:
starlord said:
Gigs_98 said:
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
Have you ever contemplated that some might consider mass sprints entertaining? I mean, you don't like it, that's ok, but let those others have a bit fun. There are stages for everyone.
So you prefer to watch a completely flat stage where absolutely nothing happens before the last 500 meters, over a stage with some hills close to the finish, which still make a sprint possible but make it less controlled and give attackers a chance?

I personally don't like when an attacker wins on sprinters stage, there's absolutely no tension seeing one or two riders fight it out in slo-mo sprint.
So. You'd rather watch 150 kilometers, where nothing happens just for the joy of watching the exciting last kilometer, than watch a race with attacks 30-40 kilometers from the finish? That's weird, but ok.
I dont think you can have an exciting last 40km full of attacks and still have a sprinter win it. There must be some stages for sprinters like this one.
 
Gigs_98 said:
starlord said:
Gigs_98 said:
What I don't get is why race organizers make stages boring on purpose. I get that you can't make mountain stages every day and I get that there should be many different kinds of stages but why make this stage pan flat instead of using a little climb close to the finish to at least give attackers a chance. Stages like todays exist for the sole purpose of giving sprinters a chance to win and not to entertain fans of the sport
Have you ever contemplated that some might consider mass sprints entertaining? I mean, you don't like it, that's ok, but let those others have a bit fun. There are stages for everyone.
So you prefer to watch a completely flat stage where absolutely nothing happens before the last 500 meters, over a stage with some hills close to the finish, which still make a sprint possible but make it less controlled and give attackers a chance?
I've said this in another threat, you don't have to watch before the last couple of k. Just accept it as a fact that some stages provide 3 hours of entertainment, some 1 hour, some 30 minutes, and some 10.

If you demand that every stage offers you at least 1 hour of entertainment, you are watching the wrong sport.
 
Re:

Admirable that Gaviria keeps going for these intermediate sprints. Speaks of his mentality (and his confidence).

Kafviar said:
Seriously, what is even the point of sprint stages..?
They're also for the fans who are actually roadside. It gives some of the 130,000 people of Alessandria and Tortona a chance to watch the race as they get of work (as well as a convient friday afternoon destination for fans out of Milan and Turin [both about an hour away]), plus the travelling fans a day to stay in a beautiful town centre as the race finishes up, which can be a nice little break from camping all day up in some out of the way mountain.