Rate the 2017 Giro d'Italia

[Gigs_98]

What's your opinion. I think it was above average, but clearly worse than 2015 and slightly behind 2016. Probably a 7 or an 8

 

[Sciocco]

Above average, so 6.

Happy that Dumo won but the route still sucked.

 

[Valv.Piti]

I'd say 6,5, so voting 7 because why not. The route honestly wasn't for that much more IMO, I think the riders all-around did more than you could expect.

 

[Forever The Best]

What's your opinion. I think it was above average, but clearly worse than 2015 and slightly behind 2016. Probably a 7 or an 8

Which stage had action from far out? (Attacks on Gardena, split on Piancavallo stage and Grappa don't count since they were basically neutralized after)
Only Asiago and Bormio stages had around 25-30 kms of GC battle from what I remember. (Asiago had around 25, Bormio had around 30-35)

 

[jaylew]

Didn't like the course but because of poopgate it came down to the wire which made the last week really exciting. I voted 7. Without Tom's issue would have likely been a 4

 

[DBotero]

6.The route just wasn't good enough.Can't blame the riders,they tried hard to make the best of it.

 

[Brullnux]

Solid enough. 7. Could've been better, could've been a lot worse. Although, for me a ten would be an excepetional race with action everyday, so not much is ever going to come close to that.

 

[Red Rick]

8 for me, but Dumoulin won, so have to vote a 10 don't I?

 

[luckyboy]

I saw a Rouleur journalist say this was the best GT of this century, which is just jaw-dropping. Another journalist said it was the best GT since 2011 Tour.
Friebe has is equal-best Giro since 2003, next to 2005, 2014, 2015.

And I thought my memory was bad...

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

8 for me, but Dumoulin won, so have to vote a 10 don't I?

Haven't you already included Dumoulin winning in your rating?

 

[Arredondo]

Between a 7.5 and 8. The route at times was underwhelming, but the riders delivered big time.

At first i was frustrated by the fact nobody could really blown the race into pieces, but the stage to Asagio showed all riders were on the absolute rope.

If only the route was better designed (more medium mountain stages, harder versions of some famous climbs), this Giro could be really really epic. Now it was 'just' very entertaining.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

8 for me, but Dumoulin won, so have to vote a 10 don't I?

Haven't you already included Dumoulin winning in your rating?

Not really. Could be a 7, but with all that has happened, can't really go below an 8. Suspense to the final day is very rare, the last week was great. Only criticism I'd have it that you want to have action earlier than stage 9, and you want a few more opportunistic GC stages in the first 10 days.

 

[Forever The Best]

Re: Re:

8 for me, but Dumoulin won, so have to vote a 10 don't I?

Haven't you already included Dumoulin winning in your rating?

Not really. Could be a 7, but with all that has happened, can't really go below an 8. Suspense to the final day is very rare, the last week was great. Only criticism I'd have it that you want to have action earlier than stage 9, and you want a few more opportunistic GC stages in the first 10 days.

There was suspense to the fianl day in the 2012 Giro too.

 

[Põhja Konn]

A good, above average Giro. Didn't mind that the last week was a battle of attrition instead of all-out action. Poor stage desing and everybody being cooked effectively necessitated it, so my expectations were adjusted accordingly. Soft first week took a point away, but overall a solid 7 from me.

 

[hazaran]

4, first week was terrible, second week was useless, the third week was good but frankly only because nothing had happened in the other two. So it gets 1/3rd of the points and the extra point to 4 is a Dumoulin surprise bonus.

 

[Ramira]

I'm giving it a solid 7. It was entertaining for much of it, but not great at any point.

 

[bassano]

I go for 7, route could be harder considering this was 100th Giro and I expected much more fun in crusical stages and it never happened

 

[portugal11]

This giro shouldn't be above 5... for a centenary giro, this race was crappy as hell. First week was probably the worst first week since 2009 tour. Second week was very average, only because the time trial and oropa really delivered. Last week was good but it was more a "last man standing competition", we didn't see many attacks from the top guys.

 

[hfer07]

7 for me. sadly all the emotions happened in the last week, while the previous ones were somewhat blunt... on the Positive side - the World's introduction of Tom as the next GT contender is always exciting-same goes for Jungels, which is a huge talent on the right path - and of course- The successful campaign of Gavira, winning 4 stages & living up highly to the hype. Other honorable mentions go to Pinot & Nibali- great warriors, great riders that always deliver the goods.

the disappointment? Quintana. It was his race to lose since day one- and he did. I just learned he was ill during the 2nd week with fever, he stated publicly he was not near to his best, but despite the setbacks, Tom did have higher ones to overcome and he did gracefully.

It was a good Giro, but strangely, the lowest rate in my book in the last 5 editions.....

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

7 for me. sadly all the emotions happened in the last week, while the previous ones were somewhat blunt... on the Positive side - the World's introduction of Tom as the next GT contender is always exciting-same goes for Jungels, which is a huge talent on the right path - and of course- The successful campaign of Gavira, winning 4 stages & living up highly to the hype. Other honorable mentions go to Pinot & Nibali- great warriors, great riders & always deliver the goods.

the disappointment? Quintana. It was his race to lose since day one- and he did. I just learned he was ill during the 2nd week with fever, he stated publicly he was not near to his best, but despite the setbacks, Tom did have higher ones to overcome and he did.

It was a good Giro, but strangely, the lowest rate in my book in the last 5 editions.....

Lower than 2012-2014?

 

[LaFlorecita]

7, the first week was really dull.
Maybe I should have rated it an 8 just for the WTF factor of the race leader and eventual winner taking a crap at the side of the road.

 

[Forever The Best]

Lower than 2015 and 2016, higher than 2012 and 2013 (I realized how bad was 2013 Giro yesterday, (I totally forgot about that race when writing that this Giro was the worst since 2012).
I don't know where to put this compared to 2014. Val Martello was one of the best stages of this decade but the rest of the race apart from 2-3 stages was horrible.

 

[DFA123]

Really enjoyed the GC battle in the last week - one of the closest and most unpredictable for a long time. It was great to see so many top quality riders absolutely on the limit but still giving it their all for the win. But the first two weeks were mostly horrible. Stage after stage where it was obvious nothing would happen - and nothing happened, not even any top quality sprints.

A GT needs more than one spectacular wee for a high rating imo. 6 overall.

 

[Valv.Piti]

I'd say 2013 Giro definitely was better than 2014, maybe even 2012. We forget just how horribly bad designed the Giro of 2014 was. Val Martello was nice, the Grappa ITT was awesome, but the rest was crap, crap, crap, crap. The mountain stages were so boooooring.

 

[hulkhogansknees]

Weird race.
The racing in itself was pretty unremarkable except for stage 20 imo, none of the pre-race favorites really impressed and the first two weeks were a bit boring. However, the narratives and all the randomness made it a pretty memorable race together with the close final, and an unexpected winner is always good. Before the race, I was fearing that Quintana would steamroll everybody.
I give it a 7.