giro d'italia

[dabaideschbi]

Hi guys! i think that the giro its much better than the tour! i am talking about the routes in general! the tour and the vuelta dont have the same mountains for example. Zoncolan,Kronplatz,Mortirolo,Marmolada,Sestriere,colle delle finestre,tre cime di lavaredo ecc.....
the main difference its that not many important riders come to race.
Think if contador, schelck brothers, evans, plus the italians like nibali,basso,scarponi, come to race for the overall classification, it would be awesome for us! usually giro gives the opportunity to sprinters and to guys who are racing the classics like gilbert,cunego,rodriguez,ecc... i wish i can see an edition in which all of this great riders race!

 

[The Hitch]

Hi guys! i think that the giro its much better than the tour! i am talking about the routes in general! the tour and the vuelta dont have the same mountains for example. Zoncolan,Kronplatz,Mortirolo,Marmolada,Sestriere,colle delle finestre,tre cime di lavaredo ecc.....
the main difference its that not many important riders come to race.
Think if contador, schelck brothers, evans, plus the italians like nibali,basso,scarponi, come to race for the overall classification, it would be awesome for us! usually giro gives the opportunity to sprinters and to guys who are racing the classics like gilbert,cunego,rodriguez,ecc... i wish i can see an edition in which all of this great riders race!

Yes the Giro is way better. No it does not give more opportunities to sprinters. There are less sprints in the Giro, and this year, most of them left the race before the finish. They dont even give sprinters the last stage in the Giro.

It does not matter that much that Contador and Schleck dont do the race. It still brings a quality field. And also, if you look at past results, the Giro isnt always so much weaker thant the Tour. Contador was probably given more of a run for his money in the 08 Giro thant the 07 Tour. Sastre won the Tour but could only manage 4th in the Giro the next year. And this year the Giro had Basso, Sastre and Evans - 3 of the biggest names in our sport, all of whom have accomplished far more than Andy Schleck.

 

[dolophonic]

I'm voting for the Giro too.. It has consistently been very exciting.
The beauty of Italy as a country helps too.

 

[Señor_Contador]

Hi guys! i think that the giro its much better than the tour!

Keep smoking crack.

i am talking about the routes in general! the tour and the vuelta dont have the same mountains for example. Zoncolan,Kronplatz,Mortirolo,Marmolada,Sestriere,colle delle finestre,tre cime di lavaredo ecc.....

The Tour de France is so huge it needs not introduce any spectacularly steep climbs to attract attention. They do have them though. And the Vuelta has some climbs that are just as hard as the ones you named.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Hi guys! i think that the giro its much better than the tour! i am talking about the routes in general! the tour and the vuelta dont have the same mountains for example. Zoncolan,Kronplatz,Mortirolo,Marmolada,Sestriere,colle delle finestre,tre cime di lavaredo ecc.....
the main difference its that not many important riders come to race.
Think if contador, schelck brothers, evans, plus the italians like nibali,basso,scarponi, come to race for the overall classification, it would be awesome for us! usually giro gives the opportunity to sprinters and to guys who are racing the classics like gilbert,cunego,rodriguez,ecc... i wish i can see an edition in which all of this great riders race!

All of them ?

Will never happen. But I think 2009 + 2010 had some relatively pleasant lineups, anyway.
Don't you think so ?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Keep smoking crack.
The Tour de France is so huge it needs not introduce any spectacularly steep climbs to attract attention. They do have them though. And the Vuelta has some climbs that are just as hard as the ones you named.

That is an appalling response to a commonly held belief. Did you try to be deliberately offensive?

Many of us share the belief that the size of the circus has nothing to do with the quality of their respective acts.
The Giro is always the highlight of my year. IMO, It has more variety, passion and excitement, but far less of the commercial hype.

Of course given your user name, it is understandable that you would prefer both the Tour and the Vuelta.

 

[Señor_Contador]

That is an appalling response to a commonly held belief. Did you try to be deliberately offensive?

Many of us share the belief that the size of the circus has nothing to do with the quality of their respective acts.
The Giro is always the highlight of my year. IMO, It has more variety, passion and excitement, but far less of the commercial hype.

Of course given your user name, it is understandable that you would prefer both the Tour and the Vuelta.

No, I wasn't trying to be offensive. More like dismissive.

I understand the Giro is the highlight of your year but... please allow me to introduce a healthy dose of reality: The Tour de France is the biggest race of the year. Bar none.

I'd even say that the TdF is bigger than the Giro and the Vuelta put together. The Vuelta, nowadays, is the race teams go to to salvage some "face" when the season hasn't been that great. The Giro... only Italians care about the Giro (and of course, many cycling enthusiasts like you or myself) and some suicidal cyclists using it as a training "ride".

My two cents.

 

[Mich78BEL]

No, I wasn't trying to be offensive. More like dismissive.

I understand the Giro is the highlight of your year but... please allow me to introduce a healthy dose of reality: The Tour de France is the biggest race of the year. Bar none.

I'd even say that the TdF is bigger than the Giro and the Vuelta put together. The Vuelta, nowadays, is the race teams go to to salvage some "face" when the season hasn't been that great. The Giro... only Italians care about the Giro (and of course, many cycling enthusiasts like you or myself) and some suicidal cyclists using it as a training "ride".

My two cents.

many cycling-fans, journalists, experts put the Giro in very high regard, some rate it higher then the Tour even

i agree that the tour from a publicity standpoint is bigger, more important, but in terms of difficulty its pretty even, and in terms of history its a close second

 

[Cobblestoned]

I think it shouldn't be generalized.

It differs every year.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Yeah there have been pretty crappy editions of the Giro as well like 2004 when Cunego won in front of Gonchar and even Brad McGee managed a top 10 spot

 

[Mellow Velo]

Dismissive? Slightly better I suppose.
This debate has been doing the rounds, quite regularly, on the various cycling forums.
Opinion of the two camps usually boil down to whether or not one prefers the spectacle of size, media coverage, field quality etc over the quality of the parcours and actual racing.

I'm for the latter. The racing at the Giro is far less conservative.
I find the excitement it's "Big Brother" delivers to be consistently deflating....
Not that the TDF has always been the bigger of the two.

 

[the3verB]

i love the giro, but except this year, the giro has never been the most spectacular gt of the year in the last decade.

In 2008 and 2009, there were big names in the race but no spectacle. No attacks from favorites except at 254 metres of the summit (cf menchov di luca).

In 2006, 2007 the spectacle in the Tour was exceptionnal!

The 2005 vuelta was very good.



For the routes, it's true the vuelta has a problem with the mountains.
In France, there are Alpe huez, ventoux, joux plane, bonnette, galibier, tourmalet, luz ardiden, pailleres....but Prudhomme is a very bad director.

 

[Luis Ocaña]

Yes the Giro is way better. No it does not give more opportunities to sprinters. There are less sprints in the Giro, and this year, most of them left the race before the finish. They dont even give sprinters the last stage in the Giro.

It does not matter that much that Contador and Schleck dont do the race. It still brings a quality field. And also, if you look at past results, the Giro isnt always so much weaker thant the Tour. Contador was probably given more of a run for his money in the 08 Giro thant the 07 Tour. Sastre won the Tour but could only manage 4th in the Giro the next year. And this year the Giro had Basso, Sastre and Evans - 3 of the biggest names in our sport, all of whom have accomplished far more than Andy Schleck.

Nice comparison. A 32, 35 and a 33 year old against a 25 year old guy.

 

[dabaideschbi]

the vuelta doesn't have great mountains like the giro and the tour. Except bola del mundo and angliru, there were a lot of similar stages in this year vuelta, many stages looked like a classic race like a fleche wallone for example.
the tour de france has great mountains but the director is not using them: this year there was a stage with tourmalet,aspin aubisque and peyresourde far away from the arrive, what happened to alpe d'huez,galibier,izoard,! those mountains are much better like for example than morzine. In italy mountains are more spectacular , because they are harder ! when menchov won zomegnan made a huge mistake because there werent a lot of mountains finish

 

[El Pistolero]

the vuelta doesn't have great mountains like the giro and the tour. Except bola del mundo and angliru, there were a lot of similar stages in this year vuelta, many stages looked like a classic race like a fleche wallone for example.
the tour de france has great mountains but the director is not using them: this year there was a stage with tourmalet,aspin aubisque and peyresourde far away from the arrive, what happened to alpe d'huez,galibier,izoard,! those mountains are much better like for example than morzine. In italy mountains are more spectacular , because they are harder ! when menchov won zomegnan made a huge mistake because there werent a lot of mountains finish

This year was the celebration of the 100th birthday of the Pyrenees in the Tour de France, so that's why there was little focus on the Alps. The 2011 Tour has Alpe d'Huez in it.

 

[Bike Boy]

I understand why so many rate the giro over the tour, and I tend to do that my self. But I get the feeling that it has become popular to put great emphasize in how much better the giro is.
Maybe it's the need to compensate, considering the tour de france status in the generel public.

I agree that the giro has had great lineups the last couple of years, but in generel the tour is the race with the most exciting lineups with 2008 as the obvious exception (due to politics).

the tour the france is probably more about strong team lineups and putting in great team efforts, and yes with the lesser challenging parcours it adds up to be little bit dull, but when the big names eventually go head to head it will draw you in.
A sense of great magnitude will inevitably affect you.


Truth be told, the giro seems to be more firework, compared with the tour. One day you got 60 guys in a break away and stuff like that, but in all seriousness I don't think the tour needs that kind action. It would diminish the greatness of the race.

Remember the tour 2001? 36 minutes, ring a Bell?
Yes you know what I'm talking about. The teams who were supposed to take responsibility was massively critisized.
whether you like this kind of racing or not, it's so obvious that it happens a lot more in the giro.

Also I don't think the tour needs 10 mountains stages sections off 27 %. because it forces the strong teams to create the race. whereas in the giro the parcours create the race (roughly speaking).
I think saxo bank has proved that with a strong team and a brilliant tactic it's possible to create true drama.

 

[dolophonic]

I enjoyed this stage a lot...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOD5ouvWxVk

That looks like a little bit of a "spectacle" no?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

i love the giro, but except this year, the giro has never been the most spectacular gt of the year in the last decade.

In 2008 and 2009, there were big names in the race but no spectacle. No attacks from favorites except at 254 metres of the summit (cf menchov di luca).

Eh? How on earth could you consider the 2009 Tour (with a grand total of two meaningful attacks, and almost the whole thing settled by a TTT and a little dig on Arcalis, the most boring MTF this side of Big Bear Lake) or the 2009 Vuelta (where nobody bothered to even think of attacking Valverde for a week) more exciting than the 2009 Giro? Admittedly it wasn't the most exciting Giro but it was still the best GT of 2009 by a mile. And in 2008 it was the most exciting of the GTs too.

In 2006, 2007 the spectacle in the Tour was exceptionnal!

The 2005 vuelta was very good.

I'd say that a general rule of thumb is Giro-Vuelta-Tour in terms of racing.

2010: Giro-Vuelta-Tour
2009: Giro-Vuelta-Tour
2008: Giro-Vuelta-Tour
2007: Giro-Tour-Vuelta
2006: Tour-Vuelta-Giro
2005: Giro-Vuelta-Tour
2004: Giro-Vuelta-Tour

For the routes, it's true the vuelta has a problem with the mountains.
In France, there are Alpe huez, ventoux, joux plane, bonnette, galibier, tourmalet, luz ardiden, pailleres....but Prudhomme is a very bad director.

France has plenty of mountains, but sometimes the selection is poor. Compared to the Giro and Vuelta, we see very little of the super-steep climbs too. The Vuelta has Lagos de Covadonga, Morredero, Cobertoria, Sierra Nevada (that road goes on for many km beyond where they finish btw), Calar Alto, etc, plus there are some great climbs that the Vuelta never uses. Bola del Mundo is new, and Lagunas de Neila, key climb of the Vuelta a Burgos, is never used. The Alto del Acebo, key climb of the Vuelta a Asturias, is never used. Plus you have the trouble of avoiding the Basque country for stages. There are some good Pyrenean climbs, but they insist on using ones like Cerler and Pla de Beret (which I actually quite like tbh, as a first-week climb). On the other hand, what the Vuelta has that the Tour doesn't (or at least doesn't use) is a wide range of those shortish but very steep climbs like Xorret del Catí. Hell, the climbs don't even need to be THAT long - the time gaps on Montelupone in Tirreno-Adriatico are bigger than the gaps opened up when the Tour visited Arcalis...

I also wish Prudhomme would use more of the climbs in Alpes-Maritimes.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

IAlso I don't think the tour needs 10 mountains stages sections off 27 %. because it forces the strong teams to create the race. whereas in the giro the parcours create the race (roughly speaking).

Of course you don't need 10 mountain stages with sections of 27%... but you do need SOMETHING. The parcours may make the race, but part of that is because it gives somewhere the strong teams can create the race. There's too much riding on the Tour to attack on a parcours that doesn't encourage it. Look at the first week of the Giro. Hardly a single categorised climb! Yet we had great excitement. Wind and rain, a leader with weak teammates, a miscalculation and a breakaway beating the sprinters home, an intermediate stage solo win, and an epic stage through the mud and the sleet.

The first week of the Tour could have been exciting... well, half of it could. The Tour has too many stages that are just write-offs. I don't mind a stage going to a sprint if you don't know from the moment the course is announced that it will be. If the sprinters have had to work for their victory they deserve it.

But again, it comes down to my problem that because the Tour is so big, teams have too much riding on it to take risks. When the break got 7 minutes on the way to Pau, Zabriskie got on the front because Horner and Plaza were threatening Hesjedal's top 10 position. There's never a thought of attacking - only of stopping others from doing so. You don't have so much of that at the Giro. The Giro is about 10 or so guys who really want to win and will attack to do so, the Tour is about 30 or so guys who really want to get into that top 20 but aren't prepared to take any risks to do so lest they blow up and lose what they have. The Tour creates drama in the same way as an important football match at 1-0 does - it's not exciting but every move means something. The Giro is a 4-3 attack-fest.

 

[Barrus]

avoiding the Basque country for stages.

Uhm, Libertine, I don't know if you heard it yet, but there is a really persistent rumour at the moment that they'll ride through the Basque country next year, with at least two stages, if I am correct. It has not been confirmed, but I think it is looking quite good, but still the definitive decision still needs to be made, so they can still decide not to go there

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Uhm, Libertine, I don't know if you heard it yet, but there is a really persistent rumour at the moment that they'll ride through the Basque country next year, with at least two stages, if I am correct. It has not been confirmed, but I think it is looking quite good, but still the definitive decision still needs to be made, so they can still decide not to go there

very true - but while we're judging the mountains of the Vueltas gone by, then obviously those in País Vasco can't really be taken into account since they haven't visited them since about 1975.

I demand a stage finish in Aia!!!

 

[rhubroma]

No, I wasn't trying to be offensive. More like dismissive.

I understand the Giro is the highlight of your year but... please allow me to introduce a healthy dose of reality: The Tour de France is the biggest race of the year. Bar none.

I'd even say that the TdF is bigger than the Giro and the Vuelta put together. The Vuelta, nowadays, is the race teams go to to salvage some "face" when the season hasn't been that great. The Giro... only Italians care about the Giro (and of course, many cycling enthusiasts like you or myself) and some suicidal cyclists using it as a training "ride".

My two cents.

Well your not very smart either (in addition to being offensive). Because none of this has to do with the dramatic gargantuanness and unrivaled importance of the Tour in the cycling universe (nobody disagrees with that), but the quality of its parcours, which in terms of variety and spectacularity, take a back seat to the Giro. And this was plainly communicated by the poster you have here tried to deride.

Now we know the Spanish have been going really well in France of late, but just because the Giro's route is unquestionably better year in and year out; there is no reason for you to be so on the defensive with desperatly fanatical attempts to amplify Spanish glory.

 

[icefire]

Well your not very smart either (in addition to being offensive). Because none of this has to do with the dramatic gargantuanness and unrivaled importance of the Tour in the cycling universe (nobody disagrees with that), but the quality of its parcours, which in terms of variety and spectacularity, take a back seat to the Giro. And this was plainly communicated by the poster you have here tried to deride.

Now we know the Spanish have been going really well in France of late, but just because the Giro's route is unquestionably better year in and year out; there is no reason for you to be so on the defensive with desperatly fanatical attempts to amplify Spanish glory.

The Giro has traditionally had very poor TV coverage in Spain. Read: out of the Basque Country it was only live on TV the first time Delgado was in (1988) and the years of Indurain (1992-94). In 2008 it was only covered during the mountain stages after Contador took the maglia rosa.
Add to that that it is not in July, when a significant amount of people is either on holidays or has reduced work hours that allow them watching TV while having a siesta

 

[The Hitch]

Eh? How on earth could you consider the 2009 Tour (with a grand total of two meaningful attacks, and almost the whole thing settled by a TTT and a little dig on Arcalis, the most boring MTF this side of Big Bear Lake) or the 2009 Vuelta (where nobody bothered to even think of attacking Valverde for a week) more exciting than the 2009 Giro? Admittedly it wasn't the most exciting Giro but it was still the best GT of 2009 by a mile. And in 2008 it was the most exciting of the GTs too.



I'd say that a general rule of thumb is Giro-Vuelta-Tour in terms of racing.

2010: Giro-Vuelta-Tour
2009: Giro-Vuelta-Tour
2008: Giro-Vuelta-Tour
2007: Giro-Tour-Vuelta
2006: Tour-Vuelta-Giro
2005: Giro-Vuelta-Tour
2004: Giro-Vuelta-Tour



France has plenty of mountains, but sometimes the selection is poor. Compared to the Giro and Vuelta, we see very little of the super-steep climbs too. The Vuelta has Lagos de Covadonga, Morredero, Cobertoria, Sierra Nevada (that road goes on for many km beyond where they finish btw), Calar Alto, etc, plus there are some great climbs that the Vuelta never uses. Bola del Mundo is new, and Lagunas de Neila, key climb of the Vuelta a Burgos, is never used. The Alto del Acebo, key climb of the Vuelta a Asturias, is never used. Plus you have the trouble of avoiding the Basque country for stages. There are some good Pyrenean climbs, but they insist on using ones like Cerler and Pla de Beret (which I actually quite like tbh, as a first-week climb). On the other hand, what the Vuelta has that the Tour doesn't (or at least doesn't use) is a wide range of those shortish but very steep climbs like Xorret del Catí. Hell, the climbs don't even need to be THAT long - the time gaps on Montelupone in Tirreno-Adriatico are bigger than the gaps opened up when the Tour visited Arcalis...

I also wish Prudhomme would use more of the climbs in Alpes-Maritimes.

This is a truely great post. Not only do you make the point about sevral mountains which can be used not being used (and you name them) you also make the point about short climbs like those of TA being available for use.

Sticking with TA, Senor Contador has been trolling around on this thread with comments that the Giro isnt that important at all, that the Vuelta is bigger and that we must all be on some narcotic to be leave otherwise.

Well ill put fortward a controversial argument as well. For me not only is Giro>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tour but also Tirreno Adriatico>>>>Tour (for excitement)

 

[sagard]

Well your not very smart either (in addition to being offensive). Because none of this has to do with the dramatic gargantuanness and unrivaled importance of the Tour in the cycling universe (nobody disagrees with that), but the quality of its parcours, which in terms of variety and spectacularity, take a back seat to the Giro. And this was plainly communicated by the poster you have here tried to deride.

Now we know the Spanish have been going really well in France of late, but just because the Giro's route is unquestionably better year in and year out; there is no reason for you to be so on the defensive with desperatly fanatical attempts to amplify Spanish glory.

When your guy is the boss of the tour, none of the other races really matter much. Straight from the Lance playbook.