Rate the 2022 Giro d'Italia Route

[SafeBet]

I see nobody has posted a poll yet so I'm doing it.
Thank me later

 

[Netserk]

Of the ten Giro routes from 2013 to 2022, my first impression is that this one ranks at a similar level to that of the 2014 Giro (at the bottom). With 2015 at the top (it was also rated as highly before it was raced).

 

[gregrowlerson]

6. I don't mind it.

P.S. No 0 option?

 

[OlavEH]

7, but that is being nice. The medium mountain stages are better than in severald years. And both Etna and double Passo Lanciano MTF the first week is good.

The high mountain stages the last half are on the other hand is really medicore. I withdraw at least 2 points for that.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Of the ten Giro routes from 2013 to 2022, my first impression is that this one ranks at a similar level to that of the 2014 Giro (at the bottom). With 2015 at the top (it was also rated as highly before it was raced).

Pretty much this, a 2014 Giro with better medium mountain stages.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

6, mainly because there are a lot of individually good stages in the first two weeks. The last week, combined with the TT shortage, is where it falls apart, as I said in the other thread this could easily have been an 8 or a 9, and therefore probably the best GT route since the 2015 Giro, otherwise.

If I'd be rating it against only other Giros instead of also Tours and Vueltas, otoh...

 

[Netserk]

Pretty much this, a 2014 Giro with better medium mountain stages.

2017 and 2021 also had their flaws, I'm unsure what the best benchmark is. 2013 (as originally presented), 2015, 2016, 2019 and 2020 were all clearly better than this route. We were quite lucky with how 2018 unfolded, but the route had a good overall structure.

 

[motty89]

I gave it a 4

No queen stage, Limited opportunities to attack from far out and hardly any TT.

On the plus side the medium mountain stages are alright and not too backloaded.

The annoying thing is make the tt longer (or change the palermo stage to a tt) and make some minor changes to the mountain stages and the route would be so much better.

 

[BlueRoads]

Upsides: There's a bunch of high class riders who can do well here or win a GT. We will probably have a very open race. A comparatively outsider might even win.
Downsides: I fear the winner might not be held in that high a regard, because he didn't win on the hardest route, his win might be down to seconds and probably won't be from a spectacular exploitation. The stage winners will probably be kind of "no names" again, because all the bigger names will have hopes for a podium for very long.

 

[Mayomaniac]

2017 and 2021 also had their flaws, I'm unsure what the best benchmark is. 2013 (as originally presented), 2015, 2016, 2019 and 2020 were all clearly better than this route. We were quite lucky with how 2018 unfolded, but the route had a good overall structure.

2017 had many mediocre high mountain stages besides the Stelvio-Umbrail stage, but a few hard MTFs and enough kms of ITT that the climbers had to attack. 2019 Had a bad first half, but a really good 2nd half of the race, good but maybe a bit unbalanced. 2018 featured many punchy uphill finishes early on, a throwback to the Di Luca years, but overall the mountain stages were well paced (Sappada right after the Zoncolan was outstanding) and you had potential ambush stages like the one where Chaves cracked or even stage 17 after the ITT (an uncategorized climb of 10kms at 5.3% right at the start).

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

6 for me, same as the TDF route. Not sure if the Cogne stage works, BTW. That is, it may weed out some of the pretenders, but I don't think meaningful attacks are likely to happen on the penultimate climb even though the stage is followed by a rest day.

 

[Axel Hangleck]

I gave it a 5; in my opinion, all GTs should be about finding the best 'all round' rider. Not the best climber, or best TT-er - but the one who can do everything. This is a bit 'average'; too few ITT kms, and no off road/gravel stage.
At least it's not horrendously back loaded, as that is something else I dislike.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

As a cycling fan it's a 6

As a Landismo fan its a 9

 

[Big Doopie]

The lack of TT basically takes it out of being a GT and the winner is already diminished. The contenders that are now being cited are lesser one-dimensional riders and true all-rounders are being encouraged to ride other races instead…Telling.

The greatest, most exciting GT ever had a ton of ITT (TDF 1989: 144.3 kms including a MTT, on top of a 46km TTT). One dimensional riders were minutes back after stage 5 ITT. But we had the absolute best riders fighting it out for the podium with lots of changes in who was wearing the yellow jersey. And, in fact, Fignon’s breakaway stage win in the yellow jersey only happened specifically because he felt he needed more time on Lemond before the last ITT. And he attacked from fairly far out.

Nothing indicates that lessening ITT KMs has made GTs more exciting in recent years. Absolutely nothing. In fact it has encouraged even more defensive riding and last minute attacks for stage bonuses.

 

[Red Rick]

I mean how can I not vote Petulant Whiners United

 

[Big Doopie]

I mean how can I not vote Petulant Whiners United

I did. Only because there was no 0 option.

 

[AlfaLum]

8

i like GTs where the number of TT kilometers is low. TT has been too decisive in so many stage races these last years.

I really like some of the medium mountain stages and the real mountain stages are good but not great.

All in all i think its a route that can provide plenty of spectacle in many stages if we are a bit lucky with the other important factors.

 

[BlueRoads]

8

i like GTs where the number of TT kilometers is low. TT has been too decisive in so many stage races these last years.

I really like some of the medium mountain stages and the real mountain stages are good but not great.

All in all i think its a route that can provide plenty of spectacle in many stages if we are a bit lucky with the other important factors.

I would like a mixture, some GTs with lots of time trialing, some with less. I would like a GT with a 60km time trial again, another of 35km... but I don't need that in every GT, I don't think one with less time trialing is necessarily bad. But overall the relative vanishing of time trialing in GTs isn't something I cheer on, insofar I can understand some people here.

 

[Mayomaniac]

As a cycling fan it's a 6

As a Landismo fan its a 9

That's actually pretty accurate.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

TT has been too decisive in so many stage races these last years.

0 GTs this year would have had a different winner with 0 kms of TT. The same holds true for 2019 and 2018. 2020 was the exception, being the exact opposite... but only because Pogacar lost time in the echelons in the Tour (he outclimbed Roglic over the race as a whole) and Roglic lost time on the descent on the way to Formigal in the Vuelta (again, he outclimbed Carapaz over the race as a whole). That leaves the 2020 Giro as the only of the past 12 GTs decided by TTs. Even setting aside the unrepresentativeness of that race, I don't think anyone would argue that that was a TT-centric race given the massive gaps in the mountains. The best and second-best TTists among the GC riders finishing in fourth and third would back that up as well... the last GT won by the GC rider with the best TTing but not the best climbing amongst the GC riders was the 2017 Giro.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

0 GTs this year would have had a different winner with 0 kms of TT. The same holds true for 2019 and 2018. 2020 was the exception, being the exact opposite... but only because Pogacar lost time in the echelons in the Tour (he outclimbed Roglic over the race as a whole) and Roglic lost time on the descent on the way to Formigal in the Vuelta (again, he outclimbed Carapaz over the race as a whole). That leaves the 2020 Giro as the only of the past 12 GTs decided by TTs. Even setting aside the unrepresentativeness of that race, I don't think anyone would argue that that was a TT-centric race given the massive gaps in the mountains. The best and second-best TTists among the GC riders finishing in fourth and third would back that up as well... the last GT won by the GC rider with the best TTing but not the best climbing amongst the GC riders was the 2017 Giro.

To add to this - the only WT stage race this year that would have had a different winner with 0km of TT is the Tour de Romandie, and even that's only because Thomas crashed on the MTF. Of course it would have been quite amusing if that crash had decided the GC, but it's pretty clear that TTs haven't been decisive in smaller stage races this year either.

 

[AlfaLum]

0 GTs this year would have had a different winner with 0 kms of TT. The same holds true for 2019 and 2018. 2020 was the exception, being the exact opposite... but only because Pogacar lost time in the echelons in the Tour (he outclimbed Roglic over the race as a whole) and Roglic lost time on the descent on the way to Formigal in the Vuelta (again, he outclimbed Carapaz over the race as a whole). That leaves the 2020 Giro as the only of the past 12 GTs decided by TTs. Even setting aside the unrepresentativeness of that race, I don't think anyone would argue that that was a TT-centric race given the massive gaps in the mountains. The best and second-best TTists among the GC riders finishing in fourth and third would back that up as well... the last GT won by the GC rider with the best TTing but not the best climbing amongst the GC riders was the 2017 Giro.

I am not talking about GTs only, i am talking about stage races in general. That being said it is a simple analysis you are making. Roglic, Pogacar, Thomas, Froome, Dumoulin these kind of riders can ride defensively from the start of a Tour because they know they will make up for it in the TTs. In that sense having a large number of TT kilometers sets non-tters on the backfoot from the start of a GT. They need to start winning time soon (sometimes even in order to not lose the captaincy within their own team). So those TT KMS can have a non-measurable influence on race results as well in my opinion.

Now I agree with you that with the arrival of Pogacar and Roglic, who are simply the best at everything, it does not matter much anymore. However, I still just like a GT occasionally where the real climbers are also in contention. Similarly I like most one week races to be without TTs in general. It’s just a preference.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I am not talking about GTs only, i am talking about stage races in general. That being said it is a simple analysis you are making. Roglic, Pogacar, Thomas, Froome, Dumoulin these kind of riders can ride defensively from the start of a Tour because they know they will make up for it in the TTs. In that sense having a large number of TT kilometers sets non-tters on the backfoot from the start of a GT. They need to start winning time soon (sometimes even in order to not lose the captaincy within their own team). So those TT KMS can have a non-measurable influence on race results as well in my opinion.

Now I agree with you that with the arrival of Pogacar and Roglic, who are simply the best at everything, it does not matter much anymore. However, I still just like a GT occasionally where the real climbers are also in contention. Similarly I like most one week races to be without TTs in general. It’s just a preference.

You might want to read both of my posts, it's the same pattern for the bigger one-week stage races too.

Generally I think that onedimensional climbers tend to be overrated in climbing ability. I can't think of a single generation where the most successful GC riders weren't also the best climbers, with the possible exception of the 90s with the success of Indurain and the like. Froome usually outclimbed Quintana at the Tour, Thomas was the strongest climber when he won his Tour, Contador also usually outclimbed the Schlecks in addition to being better in the TTs, and Armstrong wouldn't have dominated without also bossing the mountains.

For the last more onedimensional climber to be the best climber of his time, you probably need to go back to Pantani, and he was probably also the best GT rider in the short period that his physical capabilities and mental health were both where they needed to be, so he doesn't form an exception either.

The only thing that Pogacar and Roglic have added to all of that is sprinting ability. And as long as bonifications exist, that would make a Valverdesque style of defensive racing more attractive for them in a world without TTs. Scrap bonifications too, and they still win by virtue of being the strongest climber... but then Thomas still wins his Tour, Froome probably still wins four, and so on.

 

[AlfaLum]

You might want to read both of my posts, it's the same pattern for the bigger one-week stage races too.

Generally I think that onedimensional climbers tend to be overrated in climbing ability. I can't think of a single generation where the most successful GC riders weren't also the best climbers, with the possible exception of the 90s with the success of Indurain and the like. Froome usually outclimbed Quintana at the Tour, Thomas was the strongest climber when he won his Tour, Contador also usually outclimbed the Schlecks in addition to being better in the TTs, and Armstrong wouldn't have dominated without also bossing the mountains.

For the last more onedimensional climber to be the best climber of his time, you probably need to go back to Pantani, and he was probably also the best GT rider in the short period that his physical capabilities and mental health were both where they needed to be, so he doesn't form an exception either.

The only thing that Pogacar and Roglic have added to all of that is sprinting ability. And as long as bonifications exist, that would make a Valverdesque style of defensive racing more attractive for them in a world without TTs. Scrap bonifications too, and they still win by virtue of being the strongest climber... but then Thomas still wins his Tour, Froome probably still wins four, and so on.

Well you are right, I have to admit it.

Still I like the occasional GT without too much TTing. I like some of them one dimensional climbers, and even if they still might not win it, they will have the occasional chance to do well.

 

[vsd88]

A long-time reader here, but this is my first post in this forum

Gave a 6. Was thinking 7 after the mountain stages were revealed, but the pitiful time trial distance (and Vegni's comments about it) made me drop it to 6. The big disappointments are of course the TT kms and the final mountain stage to Fedaia. On the plus side, the first week has a few hard stages, particularly Potenza and Blockhaus, and climbers planning a third week peak may suffer here. This somewhat salvages the route for me.

On a different note, I was just looking at the ITT kms in the past giri and the 2010 to 2012 editions stand out for being very low on flat ITT kms (there were a couple of few MTT). I was curious as to why this was the case and what made the organizers change their mind 2013 onwards.