Hammer Series

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

myrideissteelerthanyours said:
I enjoy watching cycling and I dont recall anyone complaining about the route changes mentioned in this thread until after an unpopular rider won the event. MSR wasn't too controlled last year it was mass chaos the real problem is a French won.

If someone really wants to get rich from organizing bike event they should make fake cycling races with heels and heros just like wrastlin' in 'murica. WWE had 11% revenue 14% increase in paid subscribers last year.
What? You joking? :lol:
 
Obviously the length of stages.races is not much of a concern for me.. It should be humanely possible as to not to encourage doping and in my opinion the length's of races are quite fine.

What needs to be done is making the races controllble much harder.

Reduction of team sizes is a great way to do that and the Olympic RR has proved it's success. It will also help in to lower the budgets of WT Teams , which is is a big issue nowadays in attracting sponsors.

Banning of Power meters is another sensible idea which has been advocated.

One should also realize that advances in science and technology is also a detriment to attractive racin. With increased knowledge riders now know the most effective methods of riding ( ie riding tempo is more effective than constant accelarations and deaccelarations) but which ulimately results in boring racing , Therefore authorities should manage and regulate technological advances so that things which increases rider safety are abosorbed, but things which leads to negative racing not taken on board.

While sticking purely with tradition and not innovating is not the answer, the Hammer series will only reult in a cheap gimmick which may attract crowds but not a long term fan base for cycling.
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
I enjoy watching cycling and I dont recall anyone complaining about the route changes mentioned in this thread until after an unpopular rider won the event. MSR wasn't too controlled last year it was mass chaos the real problem is a French won.

If someone really wants to get rich from organizing bike event they should make fake cycling races with heels and heros just like wrastlin' in 'murica. WWE had 11% revenue 14% increase in paid subscribers last year.
What? You joking? :lol:
There were maybe 1 or 2 complaints after the course change and dozens after the wrong nationality won. This pattern holds true for all single day and GT races you can find the SAME PERSON who believe GTs have too much or too little TT and it's all based on the relative form of their favorite contender. When AC was competitive everyone here INSISTED that saving the difficult climb till the very finish of a GT stage was the greatest invention EVER.
 
Netserk worded perfectly what I was trying to say.
@Max Rockatansky I don't think making harder stages forces doping. Because people are doping to win.

And my biggest concern with the Hammer Series are that they are advocating short stages.

We have many users with great experience indeed but how can we pitch it to the organizers? I am not too optimistic about that. Perhaps the whole forum can do a peititon for our ideas to be posted as an article on news part.
 
Re: Re:

myrideissteelerthanyours said:
Gigs_98 said:
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
I enjoy watching cycling and I dont recall anyone complaining about the route changes mentioned in this thread until after an unpopular rider won the event. MSR wasn't too controlled last year it was mass chaos the real problem is a French won.

If someone really wants to get rich from organizing bike event they should make fake cycling races with heels and heros just like wrastlin' in 'murica. WWE had 11% revenue 14% increase in paid subscribers last year.
What? You joking? :lol:
There were maybe 1 or 2 complaints after the course change and dozens after the wrong nationality won. This pattern holds true for all single day and GT races you can find the SAME PERSON who believe GTs have too much or too little TT and it's all based on the relative form of their favorite contender. When AC was competitive everyone here INSISTED that saving the difficult climb till the very finish of a GT stage was the greatest invention EVER.
They whined because the podium supposedly wasn't good enough for them, despite a Paris-Nice stage winner (Démare), a former podium finisher (Swift) and a podium finisher at Flanders (Roelandts).
 
Alexandre B. said:
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
Gigs_98 said:
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
I enjoy watching cycling and I dont recall anyone complaining about the route changes mentioned in this thread until after an unpopular rider won the event. MSR wasn't too controlled last year it was mass chaos the real problem is a French won.

If someone really wants to get rich from organizing bike event they should make fake cycling races with heels and heros just like wrastlin' in 'murica. WWE had 11% revenue 14% increase in paid subscribers last year.
What? You joking? :lol:
There were maybe 1 or 2 complaints after the course change and dozens after the wrong nationality won. This pattern holds true for all single day and GT races you can find the SAME PERSON who believe GTs have too much or too little TT and it's all based on the relative form of their favorite contender. When AC was competitive everyone here INSISTED that saving the difficult climb till the very finish of a GT stage was the greatest invention EVER.
They whined because the podium supposedly wasn't good enough for them, despite a Paris-Nice stage winner (Démare), a former podium finisher (Swift) and a podium finisher at Flanders (Roelandts).
Have you ever considered the possibility that people whined because the race was extremely boring?
 
Gigs_98 said:
Alexandre B. said:
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
Gigs_98 said:
If someone really wants to get rich from organizing bike event they should make fake cycling races with heels and heros just like wrastlin' in 'murica. WWE had 11% revenue 14% increase in paid subscribers last year.
What? You joking? :lol:
There were maybe 1 or 2 complaints after the course change and dozens after the wrong nationality won. This pattern holds true for all single day and GT races you can find the SAME PERSON who believe GTs have too much or too little TT and it's all based on the relative form of their favorite contender. When AC was competitive everyone here INSISTED that saving the difficult climb till the very finish of a GT stage was the greatest invention EVER.
They whined because the podium supposedly wasn't good enough for them, despite a Paris-Nice stage winner (Démare), a former podium finisher (Swift) and a podium finisher at Flanders (Roelandts).
Have you ever considered the possibility that people whined because the race was extremely boring?[/quote]
That's what I read somewhere on Italian media after the race. They questioned the race difficulty because of the podium, a podium that wasn't "elite" according to that Italian media.
 
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
I think the old route with the old equipment was harder than the current route with new equipment.

Historically, the race has always been made harder as a reaction to numerous bunch sprints.
So you agree that historically the race has been made harder.

Would you also agree that Milano - San Remo is not the only example of races being made harder throughout the years? Because that's exactly my point. Not every change in cycling has been made to make races easier, as some are suggesting here.

There have been examples of virtuous changes in cycling. There have been new entertaining races added to the calendar (one of which we're about to watch in a couple of days). Some things work, some others don't.
 
Alexandre B. said:
Gigs_98 said:
Have you ever considered the possibility that people whined because the race was extremely boring?
That's what I read somewhere on Italian media after the race. They questioned the race difficulty because of the podium, a podium that wasn't "elite" according to that Italian media.
I was neither talking about the race difficulty nor about the podium. I was one of the persons who complained about MSR last year but that was 100% because the racing was boring. I mean there was only one single attack on the Poggio, and even that cam on the last meters of the climb and was doomed to fail. How can you argue that that was a good race?
 
Gigs_98 said:
Alexandre B. said:
Gigs_98 said:
Have you ever considered the possibility that people whined because the race was extremely boring?
That's what I read somewhere on Italian media after the race. They questioned the race difficulty because of the podium, a podium that wasn't "elite" according to that Italian media.
I was neither talking about the race difficulty nor about the podium. I was one of the persons who complained about MSR last year but that was 100% because the racing was boring. I mean there was only one single attack on the Poggio, and even that cam on the last meters of the climb and was doomed to fail. How can you argue that that was a good race?
An italian journalist claimed, that some 20 years ago a lot of helpers weren't nearly as strong as today, because their jan/feb prep was quite different. The season started later. Nowadays every Poggio attack is doomed. One reason is the strong field, the other is the strong wind in the climb.

I am totally on your side about last year. Basically it is the same as in Amstel. People know every inch of that race, every corner. They know what to do and what not to. Your chances are: Late Poggio attack, descent attack, attack in the flat or sprint.
Most riders left at that point are there for the sprint. Even Cancellara decided to sprint in 2014, Sagan did the same in 2015. He came out of the descend and was clear to go for it. Still he waited. In the end both had a good result, but those calibers are normally racing to win.

The question is - as in many races - how to make it less controllable?

Forever The Best said:
Netserk worded perfectly what I was trying to say.
@Max Rockatansky I don't think making harder stages forces doping. Because people are doping to win.
I know. Just most of the designs and demands remind me of the stages from these times. I just don't get it, why there is a desire to recreate "epic" stuff like Sestriere 1992 to attract younger fans. Almost every product (when you consider it being a product) needs to think about its market. When you are only thinking about the product, you will fail.
 
Making the races easier "to combat doping" is just such fallacious garbage that anybody who still falls on this crutch deserves mockery. People dope to run 100m in a straight line. It may be about survival for some of the domestiques at the back, but the strength of domestiques compared to years ago is one of the reasons racing has become more conservative, so a few more riders racing clean and recording DNFs is not a problem. Those at the front who are cheating aren't doping to survive, they're doping to win, and they'll be doing that regardless of whether the stage lasts 4 hours or 40 minutes.
Gigs_98 said:
I think people here are a bit overreacting. This is one race not the whole cycling calendar. I know people here are complaining because they think changing the format of cycling isn't necessary at all and I as a cycling fan agree, but let race organizers try. I also don't think the Hammer Series will be the 2nd coming of Jesus and if people aren't interested in it it will either disappear or simply become a small event nobody really cares about.
I am a big Alpine skiing fan and there is basically a 2nd alpine skiing racing series which was designed to attract new fans, called ski cross. It's alpine skiing with the only difference that there are 4 athletes skiing the slope at the same time. This discipline kind of reminds me of the hammer series. It also has a "cool" name which has nothing to do with the sport and it wants to be very spectacular. Summed up it's a sport which wants to be alpine skiing but cooler. But still this sport hasn't gained any popularity in the last few years and will definitely not replace old alpine skiing. It's fun to watch a race once in a while but nothing more.
And I think exactly the same will happen to the hammer series. It will probably be fun to watch but even easier to forget. A decent entertainment but nothing more. If you want to complain, complain about the shortening of cycling races, team radio and team sizes. These are real problems cycling has, I doubt the Hammer Series will ever become another one.
Ski Cross is a completely different sport from Alpine though in terms of its events. People who do ski cross don't participate in real Alpine events. It's farcically poor viewing too, in 99% of times the skier who gets out the gate first wins the race. I know I spit feathers about the XC sprints because they take up too much of the calendar, but at least they're not THAT formulaic. Also, Ski Cross is the absolute dirt worst. It is to wintersport what the Olympic BMX is to cycling - a complete and utter joke of a format that none of the best in the actual sport want to risk (as opposed to, say, the XC sprints, which I think are far too many in number and need to be marginalized asap, but do at least attract the elites to participate) so nobody takes seriously.

They want to increase the number of Hammer Series races to 8-10. It apparently won't impinge on the normal calendar, but will take up 8-10 weekends with all the Velon teams participating in this gimmicked crap, race weekends that the traditional races won't have access to those riders.

And they want us to pay to watch this dog and pony show. You, too, can pay to use a fricking festival toilet, pay €6 for a bottle of weak, warm beer, buy popcorn and watch an endurance sport be mutilated into a two hour power show with entrance music and cannons going off! If you want to see the Velon Velo Clown Show, you have to part with your hard-earned cash to watch a crappy version of a sport you can see any other weekend in the Limburg region free of charge!

Last time Velon started putting forward their oh-so-smart ideas for how to move forward with the sport, many lengthy posts like mine went on, before jens_attacks posted the perfect summation of the situation with a simple, perfect three word post. It read simply "*** off Velon". All I can do is add colour to my reasoning for it, I can't say it better than jens.

My only hope is that this stupidity tramples on the toes of a race the ASO is trying to develop and they send Velon's insane clown posse scuttling back to their red wine and cheese party at Vaughters' pad with their tails between their legs, and this Hammer Branding *** Hour Production is cast onto the scrapheap of history where it belongs.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Ski Cross is a completely different sport from Alpine though in terms of its events. People who do ski cross don't participate in real Alpine events. It's farcically poor viewing too, in 99% of times the skier who gets out the gate first wins the race. I know I spit feathers about the XC sprints because they take up too much of the calendar, but at least they're not THAT formulaic. Also, Ski Cross is the absolute dirt worst. It is to wintersport what the Olympic BMX is to cycling - a complete and utter joke of a format that none of the best in the actual sport want to risk (as opposed to, say, the XC sprints, which I think are far too many in number and need to be marginalized asap, but do at least attract the elites to participate) so nobody takes seriously.
Daron Rahlves did. Otherwise agreed, Ski Cross is probably fun to do, but watching it gets boring very quickly.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Tonton said:
...

My Scottish friends would attest that it's not by diluting the whisky that you make a better whisky :) .

...
Maybe not the best example. It's very common to add a drop of water to a dram to bring out the flavours. You'll find a small jug of water at the end of the bar in all good pubs in Glasgow.
Fair enough...I didn't mean it that way though...and you know it :) .

I can imagine the Race Design Thread with this new age of cycling.

Stage 1: 20km ITT while juggling with five balls.
Stage 2: 100km (20 5km loops) unicycle stage.
Stage 3: Hilly 50km stage with riders shooting each other with paintball guns.
Stage 4: 10km downhill ITT with rear wheel facing forward.
Et caetera...

I understand younger spectators (I don't call them fans) wanting something more entertaining, but this Velon circus is no substitute for a GT, a PR or RVV, Strade Bianche, GDL, and many more races...heck the Tour de l'Ain has a Grand Colombier stage: for the locals, wow! And it's free...Velon doesn't like free. So I don't like Velon.
 
And I forgot the best: the Velon monuments.

PR reduced to 30km, finish at the end of the Trouee d'Aremberg, raced with no tires.
RVV, just the Koppenberg to Paterberg stretch, with a fixie and a 70X10 gear.
MSR hanging on to a car the whole way.
GDL with just the Muro di Sormano, up and down, on a pedal cart.
LBL played Monopoly style: he who has the most money wins (Vino suggested that one).

Come on guys/gals... :D
 
I could only see this working in the lower levels of the sport, as a way for young riders, top amateurs, and Conti level pros to get a chance to show off in front of the home crowd. I don't see this making for interesting TV viewing. As an American I love watching racing through the towns, cities, and countryside of Europe. These are things I can't see at home. But here in the US I can watch a ton of crits and circuit races on 4 lane city roads. If this is going to be a thing, do it in a way that has 0 impact on the traditional sport.
 
Re: Re:

Alexandre B. said:
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
Gigs_98 said:
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
I enjoy watching cycling and I dont recall anyone complaining about the route changes mentioned in this thread until after an unpopular rider won the event. MSR wasn't too controlled last year it was mass chaos the real problem is a French won.

If someone really wants to get rich from organizing bike event they should make fake cycling races with heels and heros just like wrastlin' in 'murica. WWE had 11% revenue 14% increase in paid subscribers last year.
What? You joking? :lol:
There were maybe 1 or 2 complaints after the course change and dozens after the wrong nationality won. This pattern holds true for all single day and GT races you can find the SAME PERSON who believe GTs have too much or too little TT and it's all based on the relative form of their favorite contender. When AC was competitive everyone here INSISTED that saving the difficult climb till the very finish of a GT stage was the greatest invention EVER.
They whined because the podium supposedly wasn't good enough for them, despite a Paris-Nice stage winner (Démare), a former podium finisher (Swift) and a podium finisher at Flanders (Roelandts).
They whined because the winner HELD ONTO A F$&KING CAR!!!!!
 
May 24, 2015
92
0
0
It is the way of the world at the moment, people just don't have the attention span for multi day events. Many pro sports are moving to a fast paced format to supplement the longer form of itself. Cricket with T20 matches (all over in 3 hours rather than 5 days), tennis, netball, rugby, nitro athletics etc etc and they are packing out stadiums and the crowds are nuts for it.

I don't think it will ever (and nor should it) replace traditional forms of the sport, hopefully there is room for both. Personally GT's are starting to bore me senseless with the same robotic power meter, race radio controlled pace day after day. There is no flair any more, no heroes (maybe Sagan) but most races end in the predictable bunch sprint after 5 hours of riding tempo. (Some of that may be due to the current "drug free" era of cycling)
 
Libertine, you can crucify me if you want, but I actually don't mind the idea. Of course that is contingent of it taking only 4-5 weekends. If it brings sponsorship to the sport, attracts audience, and becomes a bit of an introduction to cycling (before they move on to the real thing) for younger audience, then that's perfect. As long as it doesn't interfere with the traditional calendar, it is a good thing. We can cry all we want about commercialization of the sport, death of the spirit, etc., but without money more races will have to be removed from the calendar, media coverage of the sport will disappear, and so on. 3-4 weekends for Hammer Series or similar events is a small price to pay in order to avoid such scenario.
 
Re:

Tim B said:
It is the way of the world at the moment, people just don't have the attention span for multi day events. Many pro sports are moving to a fast paced format to supplement the longer form of itself. Cricket with T20 matches (all over in 3 hours rather than 5 days), tennis, netball, rugby, nitro athletics etc etc and they are packing out stadiums and the crowds are nuts for it.

I don't think it will ever (and nor should it) replace traditional forms of the sport, hopefully there is room for both. Personally GT's are starting to bore me senseless with the same robotic power meter, race radio controlled pace day after day. There is no flair any more, no heroes (maybe Sagan) but most races end in the predictable bunch sprint after 5 hours of riding tempo. (Some of that may be due to the current "drug free" era of cycling)
Is it really the case that people don't have the attention span?

Or is it that it's easier for lazy execs to propose shorter, more glamorous crash-bang-wallop versions to potential sponsors (under the bang for your buck principle) than to sell the traditional version of the sport? Because the fans on roadside don't seem to have a problem with the sport as it is. Anybody who is not just cautiously tolerating Velon's idea here, but in fact actively clamouring for endurance races without endurance and more glamour, cannons going off, entrance music for teams and stuff like this Hammer Series either doesn't understand or doesn't respect the sport.

If it becomes like ski cross, and has its own peloton of people who specialise in these two hour dog and pony shows and rarely appear in real cycling, maybe it's not such a problem, but if this horse manure starts to proliferate into more than a one off novelty race and starts to spread like a disease across the calendar with riders who would normally be targeting the traditional events, we can kiss cycling goodbye. It will be gone. It will have sold its soul at the altar of festival toilets and warm beer, giving us an easily translatable format so that they can just up sticks and move to the highest bidder, just so that Jonathan Vaughters could indulge his Bernie Ecclestone fantasies.

And please, the lack of flair is to do with the increased quality of domestiques (the top guys haven't got any better but the depth is bigger) so escaping from their clutches early has become so difficult that riders are too afraid of trying it, race radios controlling everything, and organizers misusing the terrain available to them. Doping is nothing to do with it, it's just a cheap crutch for people like Vaughters to continue to blame to justify dumbing-down. Have you noticed how repetitive the Tour mountains have got? The reason is simple - the mountains themselves have become brands, easily sold to sponsors. That's why we seldom see innovation and they always use a small ring of Pyrenean mountains and put so many of the Alpine stages in copy-paste format. That's why mythical rarities like the Stelvio and Ventoux have suddenly become regular events. And the more often riders use a particular course, the more they know it, and the worse racing becomes on it because everybody knows the right time and place to attack and are looking out for it. Same as how, in the Monuments, each time they change the course there's a couple of years of interesting racing before they get used to the new course and racing settles down again.
 
May 24, 2015
92
0
0
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Tim B said:
It is the way of the world at the moment, people just don't have the attention span for multi day events. Many pro sports are moving to a fast paced format to supplement the longer form of itself. Cricket with T20 matches (all over in 3 hours rather than 5 days), tennis, netball, rugby, nitro athletics etc etc and they are packing out stadiums and the crowds are nuts for it.

I don't think it will ever (and nor should it) replace traditional forms of the sport, hopefully there is room for both. Personally GT's are starting to bore me senseless with the same robotic power meter, race radio controlled pace day after day. There is no flair any more, no heroes (maybe Sagan) but most races end in the predictable bunch sprint after 5 hours of riding tempo. (Some of that may be due to the current "drug free" era of cycling)
Is it really the case that people don't have the attention span?

Or is it that it's easier for lazy execs to propose shorter, more glamorous crash-bang-wallop versions to potential sponsors (under the bang for your buck principle) than to sell the traditional version of the sport? Because the fans on roadside don't seem to have a problem with the sport as it is. Anybody who is not just cautiously tolerating Velon's idea here, but in fact actively clamouring for endurance races without endurance and more glamour, cannons going off, entrance music for teams and stuff like this Hammer Series either doesn't understand or doesn't respect the sport.

If it becomes like ski cross, and has its own peloton of people who specialise in these two hour dog and pony shows and rarely appear in real cycling, maybe it's not such a problem, but if this horse manure starts to proliferate into more than a one off novelty race and starts to spread like a disease across the calendar with riders who would normally be targeting the traditional events, we can kiss cycling goodbye. It will be gone. It will have sold its soul at the altar of festival toilets and warm beer, giving us an easily translatable format so that they can just up sticks and move to the highest bidder, just so that Jonathan Vaughters could indulge his Bernie Ecclestone fantasies.

And please, the lack of flair is to do with the increased quality of domestiques (the top guys haven't got any better but the depth is bigger) so escaping from their clutches early has become so difficult that riders are too afraid of trying it, race radios controlling everything, and organizers misusing the terrain available to them. Doping is nothing to do with it, it's just a cheap crutch for people like Vaughters to continue to blame to justify dumbing-down. Have you noticed how repetitive the Tour mountains have got? The reason is simple - the mountains themselves have become brands, easily sold to sponsors. That's why we seldom see innovation and they always use a small ring of Pyrenean mountains and put so many of the Alpine stages in copy-paste format. That's why mythical rarities like the Stelvio and Ventoux have suddenly become regular events. And the more often riders use a particular course, the more they know it, and the worse racing becomes on it because everybody knows the right time and place to attack and are looking out for it. Same as how, in the Monuments, each time they change the course there's a couple of years of interesting racing before they get used to the new course and racing settles down again.
I think so, the world is in the grips of the "need it now" generation, fast food, instant messaging, instant entertainment, streaming movies etc. Kids are bought up on video games and instant gratification. Families are busy and don't have time, or don't want to make time for long term events. I don't agree with it, but see it every single day. Society has changed, and as much as the romantic notion of traditional cycling is, they need to adapt or get left behind, people will find other ways to satisfy their needs.

I absolutely think some of the dull racing is down to doping or the lack there of, (and other things as you suggest) agreed that the domestiques are stronger, but gone are the days where climbers or GC guys with 60% HCT put in multiple attacks to break each other. (As much as I'm against doping, I do still love the escapades of those days). These days they have one or two little digs for a few hundred metres and then they are gassed, gone, reeled back in to tow the line. Maybe the big guys aren't doping as much, maybe the whole peloton are doping similarly now, but either way, it's boring. The thing is, what is boring to me, may be beautiful to you, it is different for everyone. Some will loathe events like the Hammer series, some will love it, I done have an opinion either way on it yet, merely pointing out that many other sports have successfully gone down this track.
 
Throughout the century, race organisers made efforts to make their races harder (well balanced in the cases of hill races with a softer finale as was mentioned above).

In the classics, there was a big wave in the sixties in this respect due to generalised asphalting: Tour of Lombardy and Paris-Roubaix radically changed routes, we all know that. Before that most races were raced on strade bianche, though every year Paris-Roubaix had less and less cobbles (since 1923).

However this changes were made by race organisers. In 1990 the UCI imposed a shortened distance to all single-day races that did not belong to their insipid World Cup. Walloon Arrow in 1989: 253km and in 1990: 208km! Paris-Brussels in 1989: 294km and in 1990: 246km! Most of the Italian semi-classics underwent the same fate. Is that making the races harder? Not only it is not but the UCI decided to show his contempt for decade-old races in order to promote his ex-nihilo created Wincanton Classic which only last until 1997... In 1989 the arguments were already the same. Cycling needed to change, it's becoming less popular, audience figures dropped, sponsors stayed away, etc. 15 years later we saw the results. The World Cup was so instrumental in giving cycling a new boost that it was scrapped and left the room for what is now called the World Tour...

Nonetheless what made the races easier and more boring since the nineties is not merely the routes and the cut short distances but first and foremost clinical things (I know many people think that doping made the sport more entertaing, that's because they have no taste, they just want to see Pantani lightning attacks, not the faintings of the riders in pain...), then the aero technological advancement on TT bikes in particular but also on in-line race bikes. 33 years after Moser do you find ITT's entertaining or not? Not only it's not but on top of that they are riding on ugly bikes falsifying the races. And you'd tell me that cycling has never changed in 100 years? Well as Maarten said, if only that were true!

Finally of course as suggested by Forever, race radios and powermeters didn't help ... Also the 200-man bunches, way too much for bike racing ...
 
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Have you noticed how repetitive the Tour mountains have got? The reason is simple - the mountains themselves have become brands, easily sold to sponsors. That's why we seldom see innovation and they always use a small ring of Pyrenean mountains and put so many of the Alpine stages in copy-paste format. That's why mythical rarities like the Stelvio and Ventoux have suddenly become regular events. And the more often riders use a particular course, the more they know it, and the worse racing becomes on it because everybody knows the right time and place to attack and are looking out for it. Same as how, in the Monuments, each time they change the course there's a couple of years of interesting racing before they get used to the new course and racing settles down again.
That's just not true. Use of the Ventoux in the Tour:

1950s - 51, 52, 55, 58
1960s - 65, 67
1970s - 70, 72
1980s - 87
1990s - 94
2000s - 00, 02, 09
2010s - 13, 16

Stelvio at the Giro:

1950s - 53, 56
1960s - 61, 65
1970s - 72, 75
1980s - 80
1990s - 94
2000s - 05
2010s - 12, 14

I can hardly see a trend there.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY