The Prestige of the Giro?

[Wattie]

Here is a thought about the Giro d’Italia. Until Contador won the race last year it had had eleven successive Italian winners (Di Luca, Basso, Savoldelli x2, Cunego, Simoni x2, Garzelli, Gotti x2, Pantani. Of those winners (arguably) only Pantani ever made an impression on the Tour de France. If you look further back, Italians who win the Giro don’t tend to make much impression on the Tour ,with obvious exceptions such as Bartali, Coppi, Gimondi, Pantani. For example Saronni, Moser, Chioccioli, Visentini, Battaglin, Bertoglio all won the Giro, but what sort of Tour record did they ever have? But by contrast riders who have won the Tour who also ride the Giro have a superb record in the Giro. Or put the other way around non Italians who win the Giro tend to have better Tour records than Italians who win the Giro.

What I am suggesting is that often the Giro is an Italian affair, but when the big non-Italian guns turn up they usually win it. Think of Roche, Indurain, Hinault, Fignon, Contador all of whom didn’t often ride it, but when they did they won it. Indurain 2 wins in 3 participations (and a third place behind Berzin and Pantani) Fignon 1 win (with a second place to a ‘dubious’ winner in Moser), Hinault 3 in 3, Contador 1 in 1 and so on. In fact Contador’s win last year did little for the race’s prestige as he was able to turn up under-prepared at short notice and win relatively comfortably (ahead of what we now know was a drugs cheat).

I suppose what I am getting at is that when the race has a home winner it is usually due to the absence of the very best foreign riders, more than the brilliance of the Italians. Remember when Simoni got all mouthy about how he could beat Armstrong and when he finally turned up to the Tour got an absolute pasting; he did salvage a stage win once he was completely out of the overall equation. If you look at who were on the Giro podium with the likes of Garzelli, Simoni, Cunego or Gotti they are hardly a who’s who of top riders.

With all this in mind it is important for the prestige of the race that it has more foreign winners, or that more of the top foreign riders participate in order to make an Italian winner seem more credible and less parochial. This year had one of the strongest Giro fields I can recall with past tour winners and tour podium finishers (Leipheimer, Menchov – following Kohl’s disqualification – Basso). In some respects Di Luca’s 2nd place to Menchov probably means more than his win against a much weaker field in 2007 (a very young Andy Schleck notwithstanding).

 

[Anonymous]

ok.. so the giro is an italian affair.. italians target it, italians want to win it..
by the same token, the veulta, 6 SPANISH winners in 9 years... so its pretty much the same situation.. it attracts spanish riders, spanish riders want to win it.. if astana had an italian capable of being team leader, they would have done so, by the same token contador is much more likely to be team leader in the vuelta than levi.. its down to the riders as well.. with so many multinational teams, its very often the italian riders, or spanish etc who are going to be given leaders duties if they are the right person for the job..

the only reason the tour de france is so cosmopolitan is cos there hasnt been a decent french challenger since 1066

 

[Anonymous]

i actually think if di luca had been on a different team he would have won..

 

[luckyboy]

Because they would've worked harder to protect him so he could have broken Menchov in the mountains?

 

[mr. tibbs]

I don't think Menchov was beatable by a team effort, dim. Look at what Liquigas's efforts amounted to. The team would be useful in setting a fast pace into the climb, but Menchov proved he had no trouble with that. Di Luca did right by trying the de- and accelerations. I think that was the only way to wear Menchov down.

Maybe if he had another teammate who could have made those pace changes at the front of the group? I dunno...

I will say this about LPR: it was really cool seeing a champion like Petacchi work for Di Luca.

 

[luckyboy]

I will say this about LPR: it was really cool seeing a champion like Petacchi work for Di Luca.

He was only a minute down in the TT today. He doesn't normally TT that well either

 

[Anonymous]

He was only a minute down in the TT today. He doesn't normally TT that well either

di lucas time trial had me worried initially.. .when he was ahead at the first check, i immediately thought dope... this place is rubbing off on me.. thank god he slowed down second half..

aybe if he had another teammate who could have made those pace changes at the front of the group? I dunno...

thats my thought.. i think a stronger team maybe could have put menchov under more pressure... then again, if liquigas hadnt spent all there gas in the first week i think they could have done more

 

[hfer07]

Here is a thought about the Giro d’Italia. Until Contador won the race last year it had had eleven successive Italian winners (Di Luca, Basso, Savoldelli x2, Cunego, Simoni x2, Garzelli, Gotti x2, Pantani. Of those winners (arguably) only Pantani ever made an impression on the Tour de France. If you look further back, Italians who win the Giro don’t tend to make much impression on the Tour ,with obvious exceptions such as Bartali, Coppi, Gimondi, Pantani. For example Saronni, Moser, Chioccioli, Visentini, Battaglin, Bertoglio all won the Giro, but what sort of Tour record did they ever have? But by contrast riders who have won the Tour who also ride the Giro have a superb record in the Giro. Or put the other way around non Italians who win the Giro tend to have better Tour records than Italians who win the Giro.

What I am suggesting is that often the Giro is an Italian affair, but when the big non-Italian guns turn up they usually win it. Think of Roche, Indurain, Hinault, Fignon, Contador all of whom didn’t often ride it, but when they did they won it. Indurain 2 wins in 3 participations (and a third place behind Berzin and Pantani) Fignon 1 win (with a second place to a ‘dubious’ winner in Moser), Hinault 3 in 3, Contador 1 in 1 and so on. In fact Contador’s win last year did little for the race’s prestige as he was able to turn up under-prepared at short notice and win relatively comfortably (ahead of what we now know was a drugs cheat).

I suppose what I am getting at is that when the race has a home winner it is usually due to the absence of the very best foreign riders, more than the brilliance of the Italians. Remember when Simoni got all mouthy about how he could beat Armstrong and when he finally turned up to the Tour got an absolute pasting; he did salvage a stage win once he was completely out of the overall equation. If you look at who were on the Giro podium with the likes of Garzelli, Simoni, Cunego or Gotti they are hardly a who’s who of top riders.

With all this in mind it is important for the prestige of the race that it has more foreign winners, or that more of the top foreign riders participate in order to make an Italian winner seem more credible and less parochial. This year had one of the strongest Giro fields I can recall with past tour winners and tour podium finishers (Leipheimer, Menchov – following Kohl’s disqualification – Basso). In some respects Di Luca’s 2nd place to Menchov probably means more than his win against a much weaker field in 2007 (a very young Andy Schleck notwithstanding).

perhaps it's time to recuperate that old tradition of being able to do two(2) grand tours the same years, as Previous generations did, to abroad the quality of competition all year around. I remember Hinault in an interview complaining how "WEAK" the new generations have become, since everybody seems to believe nowadays that is a "waste" of energy to participate in another grand competitions prior to the Tour....

 

[luckyboy]

di lucas time trial had me worried initially.. .when he was ahead at the first check, i immediately thought dope... this place is rubbing off on me.. thank god he slowed down second half..

I meant Petacchi not The Killer

 

[avantage]

Certainly this was the best Giro in years. Very good field, and intense racing, close general classification.

As for prestige, now it's certainly #2 Grand Tour behind the original.

 

[ElChingon]

Here is a thought about the Giro d’Italia.
...

Well here's the thing. First off who dreams of winning the Giro? Italians who from day one of their cycling career will dream of winning the Giro to be the national hero of their country. Same for the Vuelta. The Tour then takes a more worldwide audience and more riders dream of winning the Tour especially USA born riders who have not GT to dream of locally. We also know that the big guns show up to the Tour de France as its the be all of GT's to most of the cycling world. So if any rider from Spain/Italy will first want to win their countries GT and that is why you have more locals targeting their home country race and rightfully so as they get the accolades that go along with it. At the same time less non-Italians and non-Spaniards show up to the Giro & Vuelta so their chances of winning are less.

I don't think the Giro or Vuelta have less Prestige, its the riders who put up the Prestige to make it so, as we know those who target those races have it up in their Prestige list or they wouldn't go for it, I'm thinking. From a marketing angle they end up having less Prestige because they don't really advertise or are promoted as much as le Tour. We all know that Hamstead is a hero in Italy right, so he's capatalized on it and people say its less Prestige than the Tour, I don't think Hamstead thinks that way. Its all about point of view, and if you only see le Tour on the horizon sure nothing is as Prestige as it, but if your horizon is much more populated you have many more Prestige races to win.

 

[tifosa]

the only reason the tour de france is so cosmopolitan is cos there hasnt been a decent french challenger since 1066

Christ, no wonder.

 

[dgodave]

the only reason the tour de france is so cosmopolitan is cos there hasnt been a decent french challenger since 1066

When Le Tour visited Hastings?
.

 

[Escarabajo]

I don't think Menchov was beatable by a team effort, dim. Look at what Liquigas's efforts amounted to. The team would be useful in setting a fast pace into the climb, but Menchov proved he had no trouble with that. Di Luca did right by trying the de- and accelerations. I think that was the only way to wear Menchov down.

Maybe if he had another teammate who could have made those pace changes at the front of the group? I dunno...

I will say this about LPR: it was really cool seeing a champion like Petacchi work for Di Luca.

+1. I agree. Nowadays, including the Tour de France, there are so many interests among other teams that the race gets a little confusing. Menchov did not have to work too hard in some stages when he should have, just because he found other teams willing to do so. I still think that Menchov was very strong and regardless of the team, in the mountains it is very hard to get rid of someone who is in top form.

 

[Bala Verde]

When Le Tour visited Hastings?
.

What did the leader wear? A finely woven tapestry from Flemish wool?

 

[rhubroma]

That foreign riders have won the event at times is no indication of an inferior status as a "local event." What i mean is that the various Hinault's, Roche's, Fignon's, Indurain's, Contador's were the various best stage racers at the time or year and so the bench mark for such a status was the Tour not the Giro, because the Tour is the biggest event in the world. How many other Irishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards won the Giro, apart from those who also won the Tour? Nobody. Just like the best Italians, that is Coppi, Bartali, Gimondi, Pantani, who also won the Tour, besides the Giro. But that was because they were the best those years period. Because the best stage racer of the year is the Tour winner

That the Giro is more local than the Tour is a well known factor, but in the abscence of a super champion like those mentioned above, it is hard to beat the Italians on their home turf. Few foreigners have been successful, also because they have decided to focus on the Tour. Two grand tours is really tough, Better to focus on the most important. Otherwise the Tour woudn't be the Tour. But in terms of just how difficult the Giro is, just ask Levi Leipheimer, who came to win but failed. Or Carlos Sastre, who wanted the same. The same could be said of the Vuelta being more nationalistic. The diference with the Tour, though, is the concentration of the world's best stage racers who want to win. And this has nulified teh home terf advantage of the French riders, because the Tour isn't really a national event. Or at least since the Lemond it has become much more less so. And this is directly proportional to the international media hype, and consequently economic growth, of the French event since that time. Certainly the first American winner contributed significantly to the economic growth of the event, if anything because the "yankee conquest" meant allot more in this sense than any other nation in the world.

Just look at the difference in terms of status symbol, and what that meant in terms of promoting the sport, between an American winning the Tour and one winning thew Giro...

 

[peloton78]

What could the killer do more?Di luca fought all the stages and won only 6,8 or 13 seconds but menchov won the giro only his ITT perfonmance.There is something wrong here.ITT effects on the grand tour must be lowered so ricco,di luca schleck brothers or other big names will have a chance to win a grand tour.ITTs kills everything...

 

[BikeCentric]

What could the killer do more?Di luca fought all the stages and won only 6,8 or 13 seconds but menchov won the giro only his ITT perfonmance.There is something wrong here.ITT effects on the grand tour must be lowered so ricco,di luca schleck brothers or other big names will have a chance to win a grand tour.ITTs kills everything...

They don't call the ITT "the race of truth" for nothing. Success at the ITT is necessary for any racer to win any stage race, from the lowliest 3-day amateur stage race to the TDF.

This Giro actually had 2 of the most "dumbed down" ITT's in recent memory - the Cinque Terra was an extremely technical and hilly course that nullified the pure horsepower of the top TT'ers. Likewise, Rome was also very twisty and technical although admittedly quite flat.

In races like the TDF you will see longer and flatter ITT's which of course is where pure TT'ers shine.

Bottom line is that ITT's will always be a huge part of stage racing and if you suck at them you can't win a stage race. I like the way this years Giro minimized the ITT's a bit but I think this edition was pretty much the extreme on how said minimization can be done.

 

[nobody]

Or at least since the Lemond it has become much more less so. And this is directly proportional to the international media hype, and consequently economic growth, of the French event since that time. Certainly the first American winner contributed significantly to the economic growth of the event, if anything because the "yankee conquest" meant allot more in this sense than any other nation in the world.

Lemond winning TDF corresponded to the growth of satellitte TV and broadcasting means. It's true for most sports.