Giro vs le Tour

So just what is it that gives the Tour so much more prestige than the Giro?
Surely it is not just the extra 4 editions.

Has the racing, history, drama been beter at the Tour than the Giro over their life spans?
Are the Alps/Pyrenees considered more highly than the Dolomites?
Is it just marketing and hype? The Tour being sold in a better way than the Giro?
What has really separated the two over the past century?


And the sixty four million dollar question: Can Zomegnan push the Giro above the Tour over the next few years - if the ASO continue with such bland parcours, while Zomegnan produces such Giro's as last years?
 
May 27, 2010
5,376
0
0
the tour will always be above the giro it is far above any race in cycling. people know pro cycling as the tour de france. Most only know that race and lance armstrong. I dont really know why but it holds much more prestige.
 
Personally I'd love to be able to watch more of the Giro after what I watched last year. But there's one problem; I have classes and, well... exams in May. In July I have nothing.

It's all a matter of calenderial issues I'd say. And, I don't really think calenderial is an actual word...
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
2
0
RedheadDane said:
Personally I'd love to be able to watch more of the Giro after what I watched last year. But there's one problem; I have classes and, well... exams in May. In July I have nothing.

It's all a matter of calenderial issues I'd say. And, I don't really think calenderial is an actual word...
This might be a good explanation for today, but I think the questions is why has the TdF become so much bigger than the Giro. Remember that only ~15 years ago, the live coverage of Giro stages started maybe during the last 30 km. Therefore, actual racing didn't start until then and the Giro was considered easier for that reason (among others). Live coverage has changed these races probably more than anything else (even more than earpieces). Now, with essentially equal coverage, the Giro is ridden as hard (or maybe even harder) than the TdF.

But we need to go even further back in time. There's a reason why the TdF had this special status even when there were no motorcycles with cameras following the riders, when the only live pictures were from static cameras mounted at the finish line or on mountain passes, or even back to the time were the only coverage was a newspaper article the day after.

I think the TdF became an international race much earlier than the Giro. You have to wait until 1950 for the first non-Italian winner of the Giro. The Giro has been (and maybe still is) a much more Italian affair than the TdF ever was a French race.
 
Maybe it has to do with the idea that because the Tour is longer in distance (typically) and started first, that it is the premiere cycling event. For whatever reason, even now, the Giro doesn't seem as accessible as the Tour de France. I think that's a reflection on the marketing of the two events. Could you imagine being two weeks out from the Tour and not being positively bombarded with updates, articles, etc. about the riders, the event, the new technology etc? Me either. But as someone note above, it also has to do with the calendar. The spring is covered with real, meaningful races. June is basically reserved for the Dauphine and the Tour de Suisse and the national championships for most countries. Maybe that's something that evolved over time, but the point is the calendar is much less crowded as compared to say April.

Of course, all of this is viewed through the lens of a guy who did not know what the Giro was six years ago and learned of cycling through the Lance Armstrong story--funny how things have changed since then but I digress--so take it for what it is worth.
 
Mar 10, 2009
255
0
9,030
Like already mentioned, le Tour was the first and it has always had the best field and always will. The parcours or the better racing in Giro doesn't matter, because normal people don't even know what the heck Giro is. At least in here in Finland if I went on the streets and asked people what is Giro d'Italia, probably 1 out of 10 000 would know. But 9999 of 10 000 would know what the Tour de France is.
 
Sep 21, 2009
15
0
0
Sasquatch said:
Comparing both Parcours the last two years the Giro is superior to the Tour.
Sure was. I remember last year watching the Giro on TV 2-3 times a day and never getting bored. By the end of the Tour I would just watch the last 15 of the stage once and hardly get a rise.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Tour in the '90 and early 2000s was definitely better than the Giro. Giro was a Cippolini and Petacchi snooze fest for a long time.

And well pretty much was better before the nineties as well.

The 2008 and 2010 Giro were just totally crazy.
 
Nastyy said:
Like already mentioned, le Tour was the first and it has always had the best field and always will. The parcours or the better racing in Giro doesn't matter, because normal people don't even know what the heck Giro is. At least in here in Finland if I went on the streets and asked people what is Giro d'Italia, probably 1 out of 10 000 would know. But 9999 of 10 000 would know what the Tour de France is.
yeah, but why is that? What made the Tour more special over the past century?
 
Mar 10, 2009
255
0
9,030
I'd say the Tour is the greatest because it's the oldest. Giro and Vuelta are more or less just copycats. Wimbledon is the most prestigious Grand Slam, just because it's the oldest. So I'd say the same goes with the Tour.
 
Nastyy said:
I'd say the Tour is the greatest because it's the oldest. Giro and Vuelta are more or less just copycats. Wimbledon is the most prestigious Grand Slam, just because it's the oldest. So I'd say the same goes with the Tour.
I'd have said Wimbledon because it's still more classy to be playing on grass at the grand old club. Similar to the Masters in golf being at Augusta compared to the US Open or PGA...
There's only 4 editions difference between the Tour and Giro, so it's not that much older...
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Much of the reason for the dominance of the Tour is that in it's formative years, the Giro was a parochial race. It was a local race for local people (and the Giro has never fully lost this feel). It started in 1909 and didn't have a non-Italian winner until 1950 (and it only had 2 non-Italian podiums before then).

By contrast the Tour had 'national' teams from 1930. By 1950 it had had winners from Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy as well as podium finishers from Germany and Switzerland and KOMs from Spain. Even an Australian (Opperman) rode it in the 30s. As such its reputation and interest in it branched beyond its borders far sooner than the Giro.
 
El Pistolero said:
Eddy Merckx, Jacques Anquetil, Raymond Poulidor, Lucien van Impe, Bahamontes, Luis Ocana, Jan Ullrich, Marco Pantani, etc

Merckx might have won 5(6) Giro's as well, but the most impressive stuff he did in the Tour, not the Giro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GlzF94HN8Q
Seriously? Of all possible impressive Merckx performances, you pick the one where he was being beaten by Ocaña?

Now I know very little about cycling in the 60s and 70s, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM-1Ch52CF8
That's the Giro alright.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
hrotha said:
Seriously? Of all possible impressive Merckx performances, you pick the one where he was being beaten by Ocaña?

Now I know very little about cycling in the 60s and 70s, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM-1Ch52CF8
That's the Giro alright.
Yup, that's one of the most epic Tour de France's ever.

Giro of 68 and Tour of 69 were just total domination that's never been seen post WWII cycling. Except in those years of course.

But people like a close fight with many dramatic stuff happening. That's '71 all right.
 
its all about the media but things can be changed.

just a few days ago i was trying to explain how much better the giro was to a friend of mine who is a hardcore "tour fan" ( aka a f*gg0t) and he was calling BS on what i was saying cus you know. . . "the tour is awesome" so i showed him the course for this year's giro and this year's tour and then showed him some videos from the stade bianche stage and zoncolan+ finestre in 2005 and he was like "oh sh*t i must watch this!!!!"

also a few of my friends that i got into cycling last year are already watching the classics and setting up for their first giro

so ya time changes everything
 
Parrulo said:
its all about the media but things can be changed.

just a few days ago i was trying to explain how much better the giro was to a friend of mine who is a hardcore "tour fan" ( aka a f*gg0t) and he was calling BS on what i was saying cus you know. . . "the tour is awesome" so i showed him the course for this year's giro and this year's tour and then showed him some videos from the stade bianche stage and zoncolan+ finestre in 2005 and he was like "oh sh*t i must watch this!!!!"

also a few of my friends that i got into cycling last year are already watching the classics and setting up for their first giro

so ya time changes everything
Glad to hear youve been busy converting. This thing of ours needs more fans. The Giro needs more fans. Revolutions start from the ground.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
As much as I love Giro, but Tour IS the ultimate showup of the best cyclists (with some exceptions) of the world - lean, topfit and fired up 100%.

The ultimate race would be, to ride this years Giro-course in July again. :D

In fact le Tour needs some more horrorfactor and more pain again. Thats where Giro is ahead now.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY