The Benefits of the Finish after a Descent (vs MTFs)

[Descender]

So I thought I'd go on with my personal cause.

-------

The current trend in modern cycling parcourses, especially those of Grand Tours, is that of featuring every year more and more Mountain-Top Finishes. I, however, believe that, while MTFs have their place, mountain stages with a finish after a descent produce on average more spectacle and differences and are therefore more desirable. As an example, let us remember the three GT stages that followed that pattern last year:

All three of them provided us with spectacle and excitement, and what's more important, they did it for a longer time than MTFs. (Even though two of them were pretty much single-climb stages with little to no toughness before the final climb!).


I'll list some of the advantages finishes after a descent have over MTFs:

- Provide on average more show and excitement than MTFs.

- Cause movements and attacks to happen from farther back. Riders can't wait until the last km's to make a move like on MTFs.

- Broaden the scope of contenders, giving chances to climbers but also to roulers or riders who are skilful descending and on the flat and can therefore make up for their losses on the climbs. This often results in exciting chases.

And here's something you're not expecting...

- They help fight doping. Yup, you heard right. While climbing proficiency relies mostly on physical prowess, descending is mostly based on skill and technique, things that you can hardly boost through doping.

I rest my case.

 

[roundabout]

Example 1.

Riders needed to gain back time after the 'great escape'.

Example 2.

I'll give you that.

Example 3.

Without a dropped chain 4 riders who would go on to finish top 4 on GC would have finished together.

Oh, and don't take it as me disagreeing as you gave some good reasons. However in all of the examples the damage was done on the climb and while exciting the gaps only opened up on the descent (except for Samu but he ultimately finished about as far behind as he was over the top)

 

[Descender]

Example 1.

Riders needed to gain back time after the 'great escape'.

Example 2.

I'll give you that.

Example 3.

Without a dropped chain 4 riders who would go on to finish top 4 on GC would have finished together.

Oh, and don't take it as me disagreeing as you gave some good reasons. However in all of the examples the damage was done on the climb and while exciting the gaps only opened up on the descent (except for Samu but he ultimately finished about as far behind as he was over the top)

Well I gave examples for last year as many people here are pretty new to cycling, and we can all remember them well.

I can go back and give more examples from previous years, they (on average, of course) do nothing but back up my claim. Point is, all three stages last year provided us with excitement for more than just some minutes/kms as is the norm otherwise.

 

[Frank Tuesday]

I like stages that end with a descent after a mountain. They provide a different style of race while still placing a lot of importance on climbing. If you have too much flat after the descent, it ruins it completely. Flat should be 15k max.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Agreed.

Also highly underrated and rarely done: a finish on a plateau or hilly section after a serious climb. Kind of like this year's climb to Crans Montana at the Tour de Suisse, except..... after a hard climb. The possibilities for such a stage are by no means endless, but plenty exist in France.

 

[indurain666]

I like stages that end with a descent after a mountain. They provide a different style of race while still placing a lot of importance on climbing. If you have too much flat after the descent, it ruins it completely. Flat should be 15k max.

Even 15 k is a bit excessive IMO.

I prefer finish line right at the bottom of a scary descent such as Morzine at the bottom of Joux Plane! It definitely adds some variety to the mountains stages.

 

[la.margna]

I really liked the Tour de Suisse finish in Grindelwald this year just at the bottom of a tough descent:

What I think is ridicolous and a waste of climbs are the ones that appear regularly in the Tour de France where they have the finish line 40, 50, 60 or more km after a cat. 1 or HC climb. That's a joke.

 

[benpounder]

So I thought I'd go on with my personal cause.

-------
I, however, believe that, while MTFs have their place, mountain stages with a finish after a descent produce on average more spectacle and differences and are therefore more desirable.

I note that all your examples have either a downhill finish, or a challenging short section to the finish. As long as those aspects are maintained, I'd agree. However, when the profile looks like this:

THen the mountains are wasted.

 

[benpounder]

I'll also note that there are two descending finishes this year, interestingly back to back, and just before the two final MTF's.

And that stage into Gap uses the infamous Côte De La Rochette that effectively ended Jose Beloki's career.

 

[Lanark]

I'll also note that there are two descending finishes this year, interestingly back to back, and just before the two final MTF's.

And that stage into Gap uses the infamous Côte De La Rochette that effectively ended Jose Beloki's career.

The problem with these two stages is that they hills don't look nearly tough enough to create any differences between the favorites.

I agree with the general sentiment in this topic. There should be at least two of those finishes (besides the MTF's) in every Tour, they can always give something special . But the mountain has to be really difficult (the stage over the Grand and Petit Saint Bernard was useless), and not too much flat after the descend.

 

[William H]

Steep mountain + short and technical descent does make for a good stage, yes.

 

[Havetts]

Depends on how hard the mountains are before the descent. If its like the Colombiere stage in 2009, then its great. If its just a single mountain its not as good as it can be.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You need to mix and match. There should be some MTFs, but certainly the descent finishes and descent+short flat finishes should be included too. I especially like a finish straight down a descent with no flat whatsoever, such as the 2008 stage from Cuneo to Jausiers; also those that descend but then have a short uphill finish (take for example Briançon finishes, the 2003 Volta a Portugal stage that did Torre followed by Gouveia or the original proposed Malaga stage of last year's Vuelta), though those short uphills can negate small time gaps.

A lot of it depends on how well-designed the stage is before that; the Grappa stage could get away with being a one-climb stage because of the need for the GC hopefuls to drop the L'Aquila 56, whereas the Col de la Madeleine stage was well designed to turn the Madeleine into a worthy position to attack. Similarly, possibly Prudhomme's best designed stage, paradoxically in by far his worst-designed race, was the Le-Grand-Bornand stage in 2009, which didn't include one truly killer climb like Madeleine, but had ones tough enough to merit attacking late on.

MTFs can be overkill (the Giro certainly had that feeling) sometimes, but that's why a broad range of MTFs can make a stage better. Aprica by itself would never open up huge time gaps and would probably be an uphill sprint. But because riders know they've got that climbing to come and the Mortirolo is so hard, it always opens up gaps. Lots of similar ideas with shallow final climbs have been seen, such as Cerler or Pla de Beret, but also the Pontechianale stage in the Giro a few years ago, over Esischie and Sampeyre, and of course Sestrières after Finestre.

Another option in a well-designed, difficult mountain stage is a steep but very short MTF that encourages the race to be blown apart early. Certainly stage 14 last year tried to do that, but I feel more needed to be taken out of the riders before Port de Balès. The Giro, once again, demonstrates this perfectly with the Rifugio Gardeccia stage, and the Vuelta chips in with some decent stages to Peña Cabarga.

 

[benpounder]

...also those that descend but then have a short uphill finish (take for example Briançon finishes, the 2003 Volta a Portugal stage that did Torre followed by Gouveia or the original proposed Malaga stage of last year's Vuelta), though those short uphills can negate small time gaps.

Zomegan certainly does this type of stage well. I really wish ASO would include the short steep ramp into old town Briançon more often.

 

[Descender]

I rest my case.