I am struggling to see why 2018 Giro is so high as it was rather ordinary with the exception of 2 stages.
I don't think it was ordinary at all. Plus, the last extraordinary stage was extraextraextraordinary.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I am struggling to see why 2018 Giro is so high as it was rather ordinary with the exception of 2 stages.
I don't think it was ordinary at all. Plus, the last extraordinary stage was extraextraextraordinary.
You mean a "lmao Tour is over in 12 seconds" on the first mountain of the Tour, is better than a GT won by a 50km attack on the penultimate day?Heal: 2015 Tour.
Hurt: 2015 Vuelta.
We cannot have a GT with PSM dramaticness being beaten by a GT won by Fabio Freakin' Aru.
You mean a "lmao Tour is over in 12 seconds" on the first mountain of the Tour, is better than a GT won by a 50km attack on the penultimate day?
If we're gonna do the 'strength of the winner' list I imagine the 2015 Vuelta will be one of probably the first few casualties, but racing wise it was clearly better IMO. Quintana was too busy enjoying the landscape when the potentially race winning move was swimming up the Croix de FerNow that you put it that way....
But it was like a "Let's get ready to rumble" at that Tour. The big four all present and correct. Well, not really correct, only two were in form. But look at the time gaps on that climb!
My argument is based on terms of level, and those who participated. 2015 Dumoulin rode well, but that wasn't quite yet the 17/18 version.
P.S. Nairo also kind of made a race of it in the third week.
If we're gonna do the 'strength of the winner' list I imagine the 2015 Vuelta will be one of probably the first few casualties, but racing wise it was clearly better IMO. Quintana was too busy enjoying the landscape when the potentially race winning move was swimming up the Croix de Fer
I don't think it was ordinary at all. Plus, the last extraordinary stage was extraextraextraordinary.
You mean a "lmao Tour is over in 12 seconds" on the first mountain of the Tour, is better than a GT won by a 50km attack on the penultimate day?
Yates attacked with 1.5km to go on the Etna, Chaves at 5(?) to go, Carapaz at 1.5 to go on Montevergine, Froome at 4 to go on the Zoncolan, Then there were attacks by Froome/Dumoulin at 2km to go on Prato Nevoso and finally some mini attacks from Dumoulin on Cervinia and that's pretty much that.
Seems pretty ordinary to me.
The legendary 2019 Vuelta.What other GT's had meaningful long range GC attacks on more than 2 stages?
Yates attacked with 1.5km to go on the Etna, Chaves at 5(?) to go, Carapaz at 1.5 to go on Montevergine, Froome at 4 to go on the Zoncolan, Then there were attacks by Froome/Dumoulin at 2km to go on Prato Nevoso and finally some mini attacks from Dumoulin on Cervinia and that's pretty much that.
Seems pretty ordinary to me.
What other GT's had meaningful long range GC attacks on more than 2 stages?
2011 Tour got eliminated a long time ago, so I am merely looking for some consistency/trying to understand why one is so much better than the other.
Interestingly, we have in the last couple of days seen people question or challenge the positive ratings of the three races that have seen a comparatively unusual situation: Chris Froome racing from behind. I think that's a large part of why those races are rated positively, in 2014's and 2016's Vueltas he was unsuccessful in his hunt, in 2018's Giro he was successful, but they all had something in common: because the guy and his team who had been seen as sucking the life out of so many other races were not in control, they were much more aggressive in how they raced. 2016's Vuelta's legendary stage is and will forever be Formigal of course, but it's not like Froome rolled over after that. 2014's Vuelta wasn't the most exciting race but it was one of the only times we saw Froome racing hard against Contador with a deficit, and that is perceived more positively than the races where Froome might be defeating Contador on a level playing field but Sky had a vice-like grip on the race. I'd perceive some anti-Froome sentiment in it (especially given the 2015 Tour is - rightfully in my mind - closing in on elimination too), except that in 2018's Giro, he succeeded in his quest to win that race back, and that race is being well received too.I am struggling to see why 2018 Giro is so high as it was rather ordinary with the exception of 2 stages.
Chaves was in the break of the day on the Etna stage which was pretty insane for a guy that had been on two Grand Tour podiums two years before and was looking strong again.
Then the day to Gualdo Tadino happened. A day still talked about in the peloton. Chaves was dropped early and then it was full-on madness the entire day in one of the hardest ridden stages of recent memory.
The Froome-Yates race on the Zoncolan was epic and then the day after Yates just bludgeoned the others from quite far out. And when it all looked decided, Superman did his thing on the shallow percentages on the Pratonevoso which exposed Yates and set up the following day's madness.
Then the Cervinia stage was disappointing.
But all in all it was not ordinary at all.
The 2011 Tour had the GC contenders finishing stage after stage after stage on the same (or as good as) time. The 2018 Giro wasn't like that.
Having said that, I am one who still thinks the 2011 Tour should be surviving in this competition.
P.S. There was also the most dramatic turnaround since Floyd Freakin' Landis. Whereas, in the 2011 Tour, the rider who was favourite to win heading into the Alps still - after admittedly much drama - finished up the eventual winner. 95% of us considered Froome dead and buried in that Giro.
2011 Tour got eliminated a long time ago, so I am merely looking for some consistency/trying to understand why one is so much better than the other.
That was less of a 50km attack by Aru than it was a 50 km drop by Dumoulin. Don't think I've ever seen a team carrying their leader to a gt win this badly.You mean a "lmao Tour is over in 12 seconds" on the first mountain of the Tour, is better than a GT won by a 50km attack on the penultimate day?
About the 2017 Giro. It was alright, it got really close in the end and really could have been won by 3 different guys but it was missing a truly great stage. Blockhaus and Oropa were good but not great. Sh*tgate was a shocker but then there wasn't really that much action till the descent. Then we had our big final 3 mountain stages were we expected Nibali and Quintana to finally properly show their cards and just when we thought the battle would really start they both faded away and the top climbers for the last set of mountain stages were Pinot and Ilnur Zakarin. Despite being so close it felt somewhat anticlimacitic.