I actually started my first post with it. It's called the Tour de France, not Nepal. If you go by that name, i assume the idea is to show all parts of the country, to traverse all the different regions. As such, the Tour is huggely skewed. And i have no idea why you would think of a climber when thinking of GT winners. Merckx, Hinault, Froome, Indurain, Armstrong... all the most dominant TDF winners, were all world class climbers AND timetrialers. Clinic aside (the pure climbers weren't clean any more than their more all-round rivals), there is no reason to have such an image in your head. For every pure climber victory, there are 5 all-rounder wins. Even Contador was a great TT'er.
I'm also not saying my vision of how a GT should look like is superior to yours (though obviously, we all know it is

) i was simply stating that GT's are in fact skewed towards climbers, even though some people claim they aren't. Is it really that weird to expect more from a potential GT winner, than to be only good at one thing? Like i said, in 1934 there was a 90k ITT. Good luck with that, Gaudu, Kuss, Sosa.