Christian said:
This year's route changes weren't due to bad weather. The Schiphol disaster wasn't either. Apparently a drop of rain is considered bad weather and it's impossible to get live images at the Giro, whereas in the TdF they manage to get the helis up in the fog of Tourmalet. In this case, I do judge the Giro by TdF broadcasting standarts because they are IMO impeccable.
A drop of rain IS bad weather when you're up in the altitudes. The Tour seldom has this problem because of time of year, but sure it does a better job when it does have to deal with it.
I agree that the Giro has "its own proud history and traditions" but it is exactly that what Zomeg is destroying IMO by always wanting to go bigger, longer, higher, more extreme, more dangerous ... it is him who wants the Giro to be bigger than the TdF, the biggest sports event on the planet, and he doesn't seem to be satisfied with being a good GT among three, he wants to be the best.
So what you're saying is, "live with your lot, don't try and better it, the Tour is better than you, deal with it"? Sounds like a recipe for stagnation. A bit like the Tour, come to think of it.
What should he do instead of what he's doing now? These are a few of my personal suggestions: shorter stages, shorter transfers, a more balanced parcours, better broadcasting.
OK, shorter transfers I get. But shorter stages? There was an 83km stage in 2009. A 100km stage this year. By putting in shorter stages, he can put in longer ones. Super-long epic stages are part of what the Giro is. Maybe another ITT to balance it could have helped; but 2011 is the first 'imbalanced' Giro I've seen since 2004 (which was imbalanced in the opposite direction). 2009 and 2010 a GC guy won the points jersey, sure - but if Tyler Farrar hadn't missed the time cut on Zoncolán it could have been a fight. Bennati won it in 2008. 2008!
Change it up a bit: TTT, MTT, Zoncolan have been done too often in recent years. I know you don't want me to compare the Giro to the TdF but once again I feel like Prudhomme does a better job here: one of the reasons Mt. Ventoux is epic is that it is not raced every year. We had a discussion about this a while ago about how often these "epic" climbs (and Zoncolan is one of them IMO) should be used in GT's and personnally I think it should be every 3 years tops. The same counts for the Strade Bianche. It was great to include them last year, but did they really need to be there this year again? Again please forgive the Tdf comparison, but they don't do the Roubaix pavés every year either and that is again part of the reason why it's so special.
OK, so TdF comparison... how often do they do Alpe d'Huez? Last year was the first time they'd EVER gone 2 straight years without it. Tourmalet? Every damn year. The Tour route is far more predictable, perhaps owing to fewer great climbs (but if the race is tight and intense, who cares if they're riding to Cam Basque or Courchevel instead of Alpe d'Huez or Plateau de Beille?), Ventoux is close to the only truly 'special' climb that is climbed rarely enough yet is legendary enough to have that effect. The Giro has only climbed the Passo dello Stelvio 6 times EVER. This is the second time Colle delle Finestre has been used - 6 years after the 1st. Zoncolán is being perhaps a little overused - but remember that Angliru was used regularly at first in order to establish its mystique, before a six year layoff. Zoncolán has the mystique now... so we should have a few years off. But don't you think the same applies to Aspin, to Tourmalet, to Aubisque, to Alpe d'Huez, and all the other climbs we see year in year out in France?
Some climbs are overused, some are underused. I don't see why Zomegnan is doing a worse job than Proudhomme in that respect. At least Zomegnan is seeking out and using climbs the Giro has either not used before (Rifugio Gardeccia) or seldom used before (Finestre) - where are the new climbs in the Tour? When was the last time a truly new climb was introduced to the Tour?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram