Giro vs le Tour

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:
The tour is good because of the circus that it is. I love seeing the sport I love get so much media attention, even if it isn't the most entertaining race.
For me I hate seeing the sport I love getting so little media attention in what is the only race the media knows exists.
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,645
2
0
The Hitch said:
For me I hate seeing the sport I love getting so little media attention in what is the only race the media knows exists.
that's fine. hate the media, not the race.

Anywho, I'd rather the only race they know get attention, then nothing at all.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Tour of 2006 > Giro 2006(was an even bigger joke than Floyd lol)
Tour of 2007 >>>>> Giro 2007
Giro 2008 > Tour 2008(but was still good. Just couldn't compete with the Giro dell Cera)
Giro 2009 > Tour 2009
Giro 2010 > Tour 2010
 
-- edited by mod --

El Pistolero said:
Tour of 2006 > Giro 2006(was an even bigger joke than Floyd lol)
Tour of 2007 >>>>> Giro 2007
Giro 2008 > Tour 2008(but was still good. Just couldn't compete with the Giro dell Cera)
Giro 2009 > Tour 2009
Giro 2010 > Tour 2010
if the trend of Giro > Tour continues, could the Giro become bigger than the Tour? or mearly be able to stand on its own on the world stage more than it does now?
and would riders covet winning it more?

btw, great post Mello
 
Jul 24, 2009
242
0
0
Archibald said:
get over it
No.
it has many meanings, as the same word in many countries means different things...
You can be a sophist about it and say it's some kind of reference to meatballs or sticks or whatever, or you can accept that its usage to describe another person is widely understood as a homophobic insult and not go round using it on public forums.
 
Skip Madness said:
No.

You can be a sophist about it and say it's some kind of reference to meatballs or sticks or whatever, or you can accept that its usage to describe another person is widely understood as a homophobic insult and not go round using it on public forums.


just ignore the little over sensitive troll like i did
 
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:
that's fine. hate the media, not the race.
Why would I hate the race?:confused:

Anywho, I'd rather the only race they know get attention, then nothing at all
I dont think they do get any attention.

Compared to a lot of other ****, this is absolutely nothing. Nothing. On the last day of the Tour after the presentation I checked newspapers around the world, NA SA, Africa, Asia Europe, and 90% of them had some F1 race over the Tour. Many of them had nothing about the Tour. During the Tour itself almost none of them had anything about the Tour.


In my home country and my country of birth the Tour gets no attention. Alberto Contadors name recognition is between 1 and 3 %. Even in the major cycling countries it hardly dominates the sporting news. To me the Tour is important because im a cycling fan, but to the wider world its no more popular than the nordic skiing world championships or snooker china open or one of the lesser tennis tournaments.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Tour is the biggest yearly sport event in the world. It is definitely more popular than skiing and all the sports Holland got Olympic medals at in Beijing combined(just a joke before some Dutchie gets on my tail).
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
...

A better sporting comparison from the fan's point, I feel, would be that of horse racing and the Grand National. Pretty self-explanatory, that one.

...
Sorry, you've lost me.

Grand National = Poor quality field, (historically) difficult course, greatest public awareness.

Cheltenham Gold Cup (for example) = Best field, more prestigious within the sport, less difficult course and less public awareness.

Which are you comparing to the Tour and which to the Giro?
 
Captain_Cavman said:
Sorry, you've lost me.

Grand National = Poor quality field, (historically) difficult course, greatest public awareness.

Cheltenham Gold Cup (for example) = Best field, more prestigious within the sport, less difficult course and less public awareness.

Which are you comparing to the Tour and which to the Giro?
Ok, lets say you are comparing the Tour of Turkey against the Tour of California. Horses for courses no?
 
Jun 22, 2009
10,645
2
0
The Hitch said:
Why would I hate the race?:confused:



I dont think they do get any attention.

Compared to a lot of other ****, this is absolutely nothing. Nothing. On the last day of the Tour after the presentation I checked newspapers around the world, NA SA, Africa, Asia Europe, and 90% of them had some F1 race over the Tour. Many of them had nothing about the Tour. During the Tour itself almost none of them had anything about the Tour.


In my home country and my country of birth the Tour gets no attention. Alberto Contadors name recognition is between 1 and 3 %. Even in the major cycling countries it hardly dominates the sporting news. To me the Tour is important because im a cycling fan, but to the wider world its no more popular than the nordic skiing world championships or snooker china open or one of the lesser tennis tournaments.
Was a statement rather then a reply to yourself.
It appears some people get angry at the attention the tour gets, over say the giro, and feel the need to bad mouth the race.
Not you specifically.

Anywho, whenever I speak to someone about cycling... seriously 99% of the time they say... "Oh the tour de france.. that lance Armstrong best ever..." needless to say I facepalm'd and walked off :p

I don't even think some people understand there are races outside of the tour. The tour is -if it be the best race or not- the face of cycling to the average joe. And most people I speak to do recognize the tour. It is most definitely a bigger event then the sports you listed in your exaggeration technique, and the average joe even recognizes this.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
whittashau said:
It's just marketing really. If I were to compare it to football i'd say it's like that the premier league is always the most popular and well watched league but theew has been times when la liga or Serie A were actually better but unless you were a die hard football fan you wouldn't know it.
It's really not anything to do with marketing (at least in any of our lifetimes). There has never been a time when the Giro has been as big and prestigious as the Tour.
 
El Pistolero said:
Tour of 2007 >>>>> Giro 2007
I dunno on that one. Giro 2007 was pretty spectacular. Some ferocious climbs. TdF 2007 receives undue credit from the whole Chicken affair.

Of course, Contador vs. Chicken was a battle worth watching. All, in all, maybe edge to the TdF, but not by much.

Agree with you on the rest.
 
Skip Madness said:
I understood the bit about someone only liking the Tour, the bit I didn't understand was why you describe him with a homophobic slur.
Skip Madness has a very good point, even if it is off topic.

I'm surprised that the obvious gay slur was allowed on the thread. A while back one poster had a bit of a go at me for my love of Klodi (though not that kind of love) which I simply found amusing. This was followed up by another poster (a HUGE Kloden fan:D) having a big go back at him - such a go that I thought it hysterical. But anyway, within half a day or so, that post was mostly deleted because it was considered offensive.

Getting back to the Giro and TDF; the comparison to the English, Spanish and Italian football is a nice one. The premier league has been the most hyped since it's inception in the early '90's, yet for many years quality of football was generally higher in Italy and Spain, as highlighted by the results in the Champions League. In more recent years the premier league has lived up to its hype.
 
Captain_Cavman said:
Sorry, you've lost me.

Grand National = Poor quality field, (historically) difficult course, greatest public awareness.

Cheltenham Gold Cup (for example) = Best field, more prestigious within the sport, less difficult course and less public awareness.

Which are you comparing to the Tour and which to the Giro?
I see what you did there.

Did the football analogy compare the turf at various football grounds?

As someone who doesn't know much about horse racing, I had no idea that the CGC was more prestigious than the GN. General public perception, huh?
So, I guess it does serve in the context of this debate, even in your amended form, whether intended or not.
 
Mambo95 said:
It's really not anything to do with marketing (at least in any of our lifetimes). There has never been a time when the Giro has been as big and prestigious as the Tour.
I think that is debatable. Many consider that the Giro was the premier event both pre WW2 and immediately after.
It certainly was in 1940 and 1946!

Marketing is a huge factor in making the Tour the biggest event on the calender.
If, not, what chance has the ToC, for example got of growing into a top event, given it's lack of history?
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Moose McKnuckles said:
I dunno on that one. Giro 2007 was pretty spectacular. Some ferocious climbs. TdF 2007 receives undue credit from the whole Chicken affair.

Of course, Contador vs. Chicken was a battle worth watching. All, in all, maybe edge to the TdF, but not by much.

Agree with you on the rest.
I don't know that Tour was just crazy... Contador attacking from 50km out and stuff like that.

Contador's attacks on Peyresourde and on Briançon(that whole stage was epic) are still one of the most epic attacks of the decade in GTs.
 
The Hitch said:
Why would I hate the race?:confused:



I dont think they do get any attention.

Compared to a lot of other ****, this is absolutely nothing. Nothing. On the last day of the Tour after the presentation I checked newspapers around the world, NA SA, Africa, Asia Europe, and 90% of them had some F1 race over the Tour. Many of them had nothing about the Tour. During the Tour itself almost none of them had anything about the Tour.


In my home country and my country of birth the Tour gets no attention. Alberto Contadors name recognition is between 1 and 3 %. Even in the major cycling countries it hardly dominates the sporting news. To me the Tour is important because im a cycling fan, but to the wider world its no more popular than the nordic skiing world championships or snooker china open or one of the lesser tennis tournaments.
Unfortunately true. Even though it is the biggest annual sporting event from an organisational point of view. If someone kicks their toe in the sport of football, basketball, tennis or golf etc........it is all over the newspapers, internet and TV. In cycling you have to go off a mountain pass to get five seconds on the news and they will probably mis-pronounce the rider's name as well.
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
I see what you did there.

Did the football analogy compare the turf at various football grounds?

As someone who doesn't know much about horse racing, I had no idea that the CGC was more prestigious than the GN. General public perception, huh?
So, I guess it does serve in the context of this debate, even in your amended form, whether intended or not.
I wasn't trying to be clever or put you down in any way, I just didn't know what your comparison was trying to say. Still don't.
 
Captain_Cavman said:
I wasn't trying to be clever or put you down in any way, I just didn't know what your comparison was trying to say. Still don't.
Simply that Joe Public is conscious of The Tour/Grand National.
They may view/follow results/ place a bet etc, while having no interest
in either sport beyond these individual events.
I was only making the comparison in terms of public perception.

As you pointed out, the CGC might have a better field, but does not attract the same level of public interest.
The Giro has better parcours, but doesn't etc etc.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
I think that is debatable. Many consider that the Giro was the premier event both pre WW2 and immediately after.
It certainly was in 1940 and 1946!

Marketing is a huge factor in making the Tour the biggest event on the calender.
If, not, what chance has the ToC, for example got of growing into a top event, given it's lack of history?
Admittedly the Tour lost it's way somehow in the early forties. Possibly the French were distracted somehow.

But reading an article in ProCyling his month about Valetti's two wins - in 1938 Barali, Italy's biggest star, skipped the Giro to compete in (and win) the Tour. Post war, the likes of Jean Robic weren't doing the Giro.

As to the ToC. Sure it doesn't have any history. But every great event has to start somewhere. In football, the World Cup was seen as a bit of a novelty initially, with the biggest team of the time (England) not entering until 1950 (with humiliating effect). Events need time to grow. Maybe our grandchildren will wonder why some of the big races of today were so respected (like Bordeaux-Paris in the past)

In the words of a notable philosopher: "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it."
 
apart from all the reasons added by folks here, I think the tour is loosing its prestige & attention due to the lack of innovation , whereas the Giro is becoming a much more exiting race to watch & follow. As expressed before, the calender favor enormously the Tour- but nowadays I personally watch it for the wrong reasons-witch apart from the circus & all the BS- I do it simply by default-in contrast to the Giro- I find myself exited & motivated to "make time" to watch it & go through the trouble, because I already know I won't get disappointed.
I think we might recover the old days when the GT's were equal in importance & quality is going to favor those in audience/followers/sponsors if the right ingredients are added to them-regardless any tradition & calender location.
 
I like the tour as much as the giro, although the coverage of le tour in the US is b-movie ridiculous when it comes to the commercials and uninteresting bias. I think the Giro is a more interesting proving ground for GT riders, but the Tour highlights the best sprinters far beyond what the Giro does. Part of this is because the Tour is designed as much for distance as competition, so that merely finishing it makes one share in the glory; hence the lanterne rouge prize and the excitement of the Champs-Élysées. That concentration also makes the location of the stages as important as the competition. I don't get that from the Giro which seems more invested in highlighting Italian cyclists than the country itself.
 
phanatic said:
I like the tour as much as the giro, although the coverage of le tour in the US is b-movie ridiculous when it comes to the commercials and uninteresting bias. I think the Giro is a more interesting proving ground for GT riders, but the Tour highlights the best sprinters far beyond what the Giro does.
This is exactly why the Giro is so much better. Fewer stages where you can go for a nap, wake up and the situation's exactly the same.

Part of this is because the Tour is designed as much for distance as competition, so that merely finishing it makes one share in the glory; hence the lanterne rouge prize and the excitement of the Champs-Élysées.
In 2010 the Tour was nearly 200km longer than the Giro, but then the Giro had four time trials (prologue, TTT, short-distance mountain TT, finishing TT) while the Tour only had 2 (prologue, Bordeaux). In 2009 the difference between them was an almighty 3km. The profile of the Giro is usually far more difficult too - all too often half the Tour stages are simply flat jaunts that are inevitable sprints. The only reason finishing the Tour is made into something is because of the importance of the race meaning the average pace is faster - because we couldn't have unpredictability spoiling that nice carefully constructed finale of ours, now, could we?

This is a relatively recent thing, but I think it's a blight on the Tour. The engineered closing showdown. it's like, they don't want to do anything that breaks the group up to large gaps because they want a final showdown. And that showdown has to be on a 'name' climb - Alpe d'Huez 2008, Ventoux 2009, Tourmalet 2010, Alpe d'Huez 2011. If they're going to keep the race so artificially tight by making the first two weeks less challenging, then why do they have to use the same old climbs again and again? If the racing's going to be so important why should we care if they're climbing to Chamrousse or Port de Larrau instead of the Alpe or Tourmalet?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY