Rate the 2016 Tour de France

[kwikki]

Thanks, Billie.

There is a really obvious answer why UK viewing numbers tanked for stage 21. No Cav.

Plus, maybe, newish UK viewers brought to the sport by Wiggins/Sky success have realised the final stage is a borefest. It's only occasionally lit up depending on who is sprinting well.

Nobody really can be bothered to watch a Greipel win, can they?

With regards to Tour as a whole, I think there is a degree of rose-tinted glasses. Whenever you have a generationally dominant rider the Tours tend to be a bit dull. It's only afterwards that mythology sets it.

Don't believe me? Go back and watch Hinault's 5 victories. You'll be surprised at how most of them were duller than 2016. The same is true of Merckx. (Heresy! Kill him!!) Indurain, oh my God.

There are few that stand out with real drama (1989!!!) but most are pretty pedestrian. I know he's loathsome but at least Lance Armstrong was thoughtful enough to take it so far with the drugs that he could actually breakaway from his own Skyborg train and smash the race to pieces. Quite exciting viewing, even though the real battle was being fought by doctors.

In its own way, Cadel Evans's race was exciting, if only because his main rival was his own fractured personality, and never again will we hear "Don't stand on my dog...or I cut your head off"

 

[Jakub]

Re:

not sure what thread to put this in but this one made most sense

Large drop in TV ratings #TDF2016 : -32% Holland -25% Spain -16% Flanders -12% France -10% UK -10% Germany -5% USA

bad numbers for TV.

ASO will surely make changes to liven up the spectacle

That's great! My dream is that Tour will lose it's fame and Giro with Vuelta on the contrary find new viewers. Then in the future the best GC guys could go for Giro and Vuelta and the underdogs for Tour.

 

[SafeBet]

1.
I really can't find a worse GT in my memory.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

With regards to Tour as a whole, I think there is a degree of rose-tinted glasses. Whenever you have a generationally dominant rider the Tours tend to be a bit dull. It's only afterwards that mythology sets it.

Don't believe me? Go back and watch Hinault's 5 victories. You'll be surprised at how most of them were duller than 2016. The same is true of Merckx. (Heresy! Kill him!!) Indurain, oh my God.

Bollocks. How many of those Tours had no attacks until the last km of mountain stages, if at all?

It's not about the final victory being a foregone conclusion. It's also about the racing. It's MOSTLY about the racing.

 

[kwikki]

Yeah. 1982 stage 14....5 minutes ahead. From a time-trial. Next time trial? Repeat. Everyone at the time was moaning about how boring it was.

Did you even watch those tours?

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

What would you have preferred to see in place of back loaded climbing stages?

I always prefer a Tour with at least 5 multi-passes hard stages. That's what I am usually used to from the Tour from a log time. And avoid long or flat sections after the passes. It kills the GC fight.
You can do whatever you want with the rest. Medium mountain is fine. TT's is fine. Sprint stages is fine. I don't care. Don't invent don't do exotic things. Just give those 5 ***** stages.

 

[hrotha]

I wasn't even born in 1982, but I'm not saying previous Tours were a close race. In fact, I explicitly said in my previous post that it wasn't about that.

How many km/minutes of action among the contenders did the key stages of that Tour have? Care to compare to 2016?

 

[kwikki]

Re:

I wasn't even born in 1982, but I'm not saying previous Tours were a close race. In fact, I explicitly said in my previous post that it wasn't about that.

How many km of action among the contenders had the key stages of that Tour? Care to compare to 2016?

Oh, that's handy. You weren't even born, you haven't even seen the races, but you feel qualified to say 'bollocks' to the opinion of somebody on those races who was there.

 

[SKSemtex]

Re: Re:

not sure what thread to put this in but this one made most sense

Large drop in TV ratings #TDF2016 : -32% Holland -25% Spain -16% Flanders -12% France -10% UK -10% Germany -5% USA

bad numbers for TV.

ASO will surely make changes to liven up the spectacle

Just out of interest, what is your source for the viewing figures?

https://twitter.com/vrdaam

Interesting information from this guy. So cycling is really on the edge of TV companies interest. :sad: TV rights for TDF only for 25 mil. It is really not much to share with teams.
I wish every country has his Sagan, Froome.
In Slovakia the viewership of cycling is much higher then one of football and hockey domestic league. Some stages in TDF had more than 300 000 viewers ( population 5,5 mil. )

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

I wasn't even born in 1982, but I'm not saying previous Tours were a close race. In fact, I explicitly said in my previous post that it wasn't about that.

How many km of action among the contenders had the key stages of that Tour? Care to compare to 2016?

Oh, that's handy. You weren't even born, you haven't even seen the races, but you feel qualified to say 'bollocks' to the opinion of somebody on those races who was there.

And I will continue to do so until you show me there were less km/minutes of action than in 2016. Go ahead.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Thanks, Billie.

There is a really obvious answer why UK viewing numbers tanked for stage 21. No Cav.

Plus, maybe, newish UK viewers brought to the sport by Wiggins/Sky success have realised the final stage is a borefest. It's only occasionally lit up depending on who is sprinting well.

Nobody really can be bothered to watch a Greipel win, can they?

With regards to Tour as a whole, I think there is a degree of rose-tinted glasses. Whenever you have a generationally dominant rider the Tours tend to be a bit dull. It's only afterwards that mythology sets it.

Don't believe me? Go back and watch Hinault's 5 victories. You'll be surprised at how most of them were duller than 2016. The same is true of Merckx. (Heresy! Kill him!!) Indurain, oh my God.

There are few that stand out with real drama (1989!!!) but most are pretty pedestrian. I know he's loathsome but at least Lance Armstrong was thoughtful enough to take it so far with the drugs that he could actually breakaway from his own Skyborg train and smash the race to pieces. Quite exciting viewing, even though the real battle was being fought by doctors.

In its own way, Cadel Evans's race was exciting, if only because his main rival was his own fractured personality, and never again will we hear "Don't stand on my dog...or I cut your head off"

kwikki, I think you make a good point.

I would disagree with the Lance Tours which I thought were boring as well. Not so much like this one but close.

So we get a lot more boring Tours than good ones. Depends on who is dominating. When it is open we get the best. That is probably the reason why Giro and Vuelta get an advantage. They try to be more open as to who is going to win.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

I wasn't even born in 1982, but I'm not saying previous Tours were a close race. In fact, I explicitly said in my previous post that it wasn't about that.

How many km of action among the contenders had the key stages of that Tour? Care to compare to 2016?

Oh, that's handy. You weren't even born, you haven't even seen the races, but you feel qualified to say 'bollocks' to the opinion of somebody on those races who was there.

And I will continue to do so until you show me there were less km/minutes of action than in 2016. Go ahead.

It's not my job to educate you. If you want to take issue with my comparison then you at least need to go and watch the Tours that are in the comparison.

Only one of us is speaking from an informed position.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

Thanks, Billie.

There is a really obvious answer why UK viewing numbers tanked for stage 21. No Cav.

Plus, maybe, newish UK viewers brought to the sport by Wiggins/Sky success have realised the final stage is a borefest. It's only occasionally lit up depending on who is sprinting well.

Nobody really can be bothered to watch a Greipel win, can they?

With regards to Tour as a whole, I think there is a degree of rose-tinted glasses. Whenever you have a generationally dominant rider the Tours tend to be a bit dull. It's only afterwards that mythology sets it.

Don't believe me? Go back and watch Hinault's 5 victories. You'll be surprised at how most of them were duller than 2016. The same is true of Merckx. (Heresy! Kill him!!) Indurain, oh my God.

There are few that stand out with real drama (1989!!!) but most are pretty pedestrian. I know he's loathsome but at least Lance Armstrong was thoughtful enough to take it so far with the drugs that he could actually breakaway from his own Skyborg train and smash the race to pieces. Quite exciting viewing, even though the real battle was being fought by doctors.

In its own way, Cadel Evans's race was exciting, if only because his main rival was his own fractured personality, and never again will we hear "Don't stand on my dog...or I cut your head off"

kwikki, I think you make a good point.

I would disagree with the Lance Tours which I thought were boring as well. Not so much like this one but close.

So we get a lot more boring Tours than good ones. Depends on who is dominating. When it is open we get the best. That is probably the reason why Giro and Vuelta get an advantage. They try to be more open as to who is going to win.

I put in Armstrong just for the lols

Yes, I think the point is, myth making takes hold in cycling. It is full of it. People remember Hinault for three things: 5 wins, 1985, and 1986 which wasn't a win but was awesome. Most of the other 4 of those Tours were actually pretty pedestrian and at the time people were saying the same sorts of things as they are now.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

What a lame cop-out, kwikki. You're aware that I can read about stuff, right? And I did watch all the other, non-Hinault Tours you touted as "worse than 2016".

But ok, let it be on record that you refused to address my point.

 

[kwikki]

Re: Re:

What a lame cop-out, kwikki. You're aware that I can read about stuff, right? And I did watch all the other, non-Hinault Tours you touted as "worse than 2016".

But ok, let it be on record that you refused to address my point.

.

Here's a simple analogy. It's like you telling me that Coke tastes better than Pepsi, when you've never actually tasted Coke.

Until you go and watch the Tours you are trying to give opinion on, you haven't got a point

 

[hrotha]

No, "what tastes better" is not objective or factual. Kilometers/minutes of action among the contenders are.

 

[kwikki]

You'll be able to tell us all about it, once you've actually watched the races you know all about

Off you trot

 

[hrotha]

You know what? For the sake of argument, I'll drop the Hinault Tours.

What you said about the Indurain and Armstrong Tours is still bullcrap of the highest caliber.

 

[kwikki]

Whatevs.

 

[Netserk]

The 2005 Tour was actually very good, imo. It's the best Tour I have seen of those where the GC wasn't a contest, even better than some of those where it was.

 

[Armchaircyclist]

The TdF is always good, People are mainly let Down by expecting too much. I was hoping or a good fight between Contador, and Froome, which was a let Down to not get because of crashes.. Was also hoping for a Norwegian stage win, but one can't get everything. There still were many fine moments.

 

[JetSet]

If you look at the top 10 then it was statistically the closest ever TDF. However, although it wasn't the great hyped up showdown it wasn't that bad. Unfortunately, several key stages were badly effected by wind and rain, just one of those things and Contador being taken out very early on didn't help things. Roll on 2017!

Pete

 

[barmaher]

The wind was fortunate (apart from maybe the ITT).

Agree about the rain. Usually I like seeing cycling in the rain, but it didn't add to the spectacle this time round.

 

[kwikki]

History will be kinder to the 2016 Tour.

Especially when people realise that it was in this Tour that the great rivals of the next generation came of age...

 

[Jagartrott]

Re:

Especially when people realise that it was in this Tour that the great rivals of the next generation came of age...

What 'next generation' would that be?
Meintjes and Yates the only riders in the top-20 that are <25 years old.