The worst Grand Tour you can remember

[Tonton]

You're right. I didn't want to bring him up, he was past his prime, and I would have opened up the discussion about BigMig winning one if he had not slaved for Delgado. Fair.

Now look at the '77 course . And what a race it was...

 

[SKSemtex]

It should not be a problem to make the GC fight interesting till the end. They should make the route
as they would like Nibali or even better Alaphilippe to win. No combo HC climbs first two weeks, just a lot of classic stages with time bonification. Light Climbers can get their chances last week with 2 stages to get some times back but only if they go early and full beserk not only last km.
Where is written they cannot use bus or air for transfers, that they cannot use Italy in the middle of the race for hilly stages etc. TDF is not only french tour anymore, it is too global, too big, too important for all teams and sponzors to be the "boriest" race of world tour calendar in terms of GT fight. It is ridiculous that people switch to Tour of Poland while the race in Tdf is beeing raced.
Then we probably could see that not Sagan but Froome is new Merckx and that with proper training he is able to beat him in his yard. Who knows? Making TDF route just for Conti and Nairo to beat Froome will probably end up always the same , one of the Sky borg will win untill Murdoch decide to have a different hobby.
As somebody said here Salary cap wound't change it. There is no way russian teams would play it Fair.
EDIT: smaller teams, radio bans could help a lot too.

 

[el chava]

No successive mountain stages. As Sean Yates declares in the CN interview no one will attack if they know they will pay for it the next day. And in these days they most likely will.

Maybe one extra rest day as well.

 

[Galic Ho]

No successive mountain stages. As Sean Yates declares in the CN interview no one will attack if they know they will pay for it the next day. And in these days they most likely will.

Maybe one extra rest day as well.

They added extra mountain days to ENCOURAGE attacking.

This is the problem with the Tour. It's spectacle and glamour.

Riders are afraid of losing a top finish if they lose time, and are content with sitting on the group and wondering.

It's foolish and unwarranted.

Still four mountain stage to go in this years Tour to see how it goes. It's been interesting, but the lack of Contador and a somewhat impotent Quintana, has made this kind of boring the last few days.

Plenty of time for that to change...it will.

 

[King Boonen]

Basically every GT I can remember.

 

[Bardamu]

Re:

Basically every GT I can remember.

You skipped most recent Giros and Vueltas?

 

[el chava]

Also: No room for no #2 &#3 on the final podium in Paris. Winner takes all.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Basically every GT I can remember.

You skipped most recent Giros and Vueltas?

No.

 

[kwikki]

The Giro and the Vuelta are nearly always more exciting than the Tour, largely because they are not perceived to be as important, and there is not so much riding on them.

 

[sienna]

1933 was rubbish

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

Basically every GT I can remember.

You skipped most recent Giros and Vueltas?

No.

So, you are basically just a troll now. If you didn't like Giro 2015, I wonder why you watch road racing and GTs in general

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Basically every GT I can remember.

You skipped most recent Giros and Vueltas?

No.

So, you are basically just a troll now. If you didn't like Giro 2015, I wonder why you watch road racing and GTs in general

I answered the question, do you have a problem with that?

2015 Giro... Can't discuss the winner here.

 

[SeriousSam]

So are you unhappy with the very idea of 3 week stage races with the winner usually determined by climbing and time trialing prowess? What else could possibly cause you to dislike them all?

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

So are you unhappy with the very idea of 3 week stage races with the winner usually determined by climbing and time trialing prowess? What else could possibly cause you to dislike them all?

I'm unhappy with races where the winner can usually be picked beforehand or when they aren't even 50% over. Races that need crashes or mechanical failures to make them exciting annoy me and generally I find that the racing in GTs is extremely conservative and predictable. We are constantly promised a real race yet it is almost never delivered. There are of course exceptions, there was some hyperbole in my initial statement, but in general that's how I feel. I watch them for the spectacle but that's it.

Of course I'm aware that my views are probably a minority on here, but I can still air them. If people don't like them they are free to ignore me

 

[BigMac]

Your views are perfectly fine.

 

[Bardamu]

Re: Re:

So are you unhappy with the very idea of 3 week stage races with the winner usually determined by climbing and time trialing prowess? What else could possibly cause you to dislike them all?

I'm unhappy with races where the winner can usually be picked beforehand or when they aren't even 50% over. Races that need crashes or mechanical failures to make them exciting annoy me and generally I find that the racing in GTs is extremely conservative and predictable. We are constantly promised a real race yet it is almost never delivered. There are of course exceptions, there was some hyperbole in my initial statement, but in general that's how I feel. I watch them for the spectacle but that's it.

Of course I'm aware that my views are probably a minority on here, but I can still air them. If people don't like them they are free to ignore me

What sort of races do you like? (I'm new here so don't know everyone's viewpoints yet )

 

[carton]

As somebody said here Salary cap wound't change it. There is no way russian teams would play it Fair.

Hadn't thought about this angle. What's stopping someone's Jersey marketing subsidiary from depositing x amount of money into the Virgin Island account of a rider's Panamanian image rights' holding company? This is cycling, after all. Wouldn't single out Russian teams, I don't see someone like Vino even going through that much trouble. He'd might just find Astana a new wet-bag sponsor.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

So are you unhappy with the very idea of 3 week stage races with the winner usually determined by climbing and time trialing prowess? What else could possibly cause you to dislike them all?

I'm unhappy with races where the winner can usually be picked beforehand or when they aren't even 50% over. Races that need crashes or mechanical failures to make them exciting annoy me and generally I find that the racing in GTs is extremely conservative and predictable. We are constantly promised a real race yet it is almost never delivered.

I actually agree completely with your criteria, so in some sense, all the GTs are falling short of the standard we both wish they had. Especially the Tour.

The difference between us, I suppose, is that I've re-anchored my expectations and call those GTs 'good' that deliver the most even if ultimately they don't deliver much. Though the decisive twist in this year's Giro was brought about by a crash, the uncertainty over who would win preceding that crash was still much greater than it typically is for the Tour (as my graphs show ).

 

[sienna]

I think 2006.

 

[The Barb]

Unfortunately for the spectacle Froome is the best climber, best time trialler (of the GC contenders) and has the best team; so it has become quite pedestrian.

However, people seem to forget how tedious the Indurain era was. The Armstrong era (with a couple of exceptions, mostly 2003) wasn't great either. The good old days really weren't that good.

 

[Laggard]

Re:

Unfortunately for the spectacle Froome is the best climber, best time trialler (of the GC contenders) and has the best team; so it has become quite pedestrian.

However, people seem to forget how tedious the Indurain era was. The Armstrong era (with a couple of exceptions, mostly 2003) wasn't great either. The good old days really weren't that good.

Amen. As long as there has been the TDF there has been someone complaining that the current edition is without a doubt the most boring one yet.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

So are you unhappy with the very idea of 3 week stage races with the winner usually determined by climbing and time trialing prowess? What else could possibly cause you to dislike them all?

I'm unhappy with races where the winner can usually be picked beforehand or when they aren't even 50% over. Races that need crashes or mechanical failures to make them exciting annoy me and generally I find that the racing in GTs is extremely conservative and predictable. We are constantly promised a real race yet it is almost never delivered. There are of course exceptions, there was some hyperbole in my initial statement, but in general that's how I feel. I watch them for the spectacle but that's it.

Of course I'm aware that my views are probably a minority on here, but I can still air them. If people don't like them they are free to ignore me

I agree. One day races on good parcours are simply far more interesting and a purer expression of what road racing is all about. i.e. good road cycling is premised on a bit of unpredictability and chaos. GT's since the Ferrari days have literally been reduced to a scientific formula - they're a matter of controlling the variables and implementing the formula. Add in mega-rich teams who can truly control most of the variables and you're basically watching a bank running a science lab. It would be easier and cheaper just to get drones to do it. Yeah - why not just automate the whole tdf circus? Complete the evolution.

Okay last bit = my hyperbole.

Had some good moments in the Giro, and the Vuelta will no doubt give us something. But nothing like this years PR.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

So are you unhappy with the very idea of 3 week stage races with the winner usually determined by climbing and time trialing prowess? What else could possibly cause you to dislike them all?

I'm unhappy with races where the winner can usually be picked beforehand or when they aren't even 50% over. Races that need crashes or mechanical failures to make them exciting annoy me and generally I find that the racing in GTs is extremely conservative and predictable. We are constantly promised a real race yet it is almost never delivered. There are of course exceptions, there was some hyperbole in my initial statement, but in general that's how I feel. I watch them for the spectacle but that's it.

Of course I'm aware that my views are probably a minority on here, but I can still air them. If people don't like them they are free to ignore me

What sort of races do you like? (I'm new here so don't know everyone's viewpoints yet )

One day races, mainly the Monuments but a lot of the classics too and even some of the newer races (Strade Bianche being the obvious stand-out of the new races). While the big favourites will almost always prevail you get upsets a fair few times too. The racing is also tactical, it's not about who can hire the best train and refine their power to weight ratio, you have to be able to read a race, know when to go and when to sit back, judge your opponents and so on.

I favour the Monuments mainly because you know the people turning up on the start line are there to race. They're not training rides, the are the most prestigious races you can win. For me the real cycling season starts with Milano-Sanremo, which is supposedly the most boring of the Monuments, yet every year we seem to end up with a surprise winner.

So are you unhappy with the very idea of 3 week stage races with the winner usually determined by climbing and time trialing prowess? What else could possibly cause you to dislike them all?

I'm unhappy with races where the winner can usually be picked beforehand or when they aren't even 50% over. Races that need crashes or mechanical failures to make them exciting annoy me and generally I find that the racing in GTs is extremely conservative and predictable. We are constantly promised a real race yet it is almost never delivered.

I actually agree completely with your criteria, so in some sense, all the GTs are falling short of the standard we both wish they had. Especially the Tour.

The difference between us, I suppose, is that I've re-anchored my expectations and call those GTs 'good' that deliver the most even if ultimately they don't deliver much. Though the decisive twist in this year's Giro was brought about by a crash, the uncertainty over who would win preceding that crash was still much greater than it typically is for the Tour (as my graphs show ).

That's fair enough, I can remember back to 1991 so I think this is probably why I have never seen a GT that has delivered what was promised, especially when compared to one day racing. I have tried to adjust my perspective but I just can't (have the same problem with golf, tennis, boxing, cricket and a few other sports, I just find them boring).

The Tour is certainly the worst, because a top 10 (maybe even top 20) result in the Tour can set a rider up for life, the money involved makes everyone overly conservative in their riding and the things that should animate them Tour, the climbs themselves, are much more suited to climbing-trains than those in the Giro and Vuelta.

I agree. One day races on good parcours are simply far more interesting and a purer expression of what road racing is all about. i.e. good road cycling is premised on a bit of unpredictability and chaos. GT's since the Ferrari days have literally been reduced to a scientific formula - they're a matter of controlling the variables and implementing the formula. Add in mega-rich teams who can truly control most of the variables and you're basically watching a bank running a science lab. It would be easier and cheaper just to get drones to do it. Yeah - why not just automate the whole tdf circus? Complete the evolution.

Okay last bit = my hyperbole.

Had some good moments in the Giro, and the Vuelta will no doubt give us something. But nothing like this years PR.

So others definitely feel the same as me

 

[Carols]

Re: Re:

Top 10 of the worst GTs:

1. Tour 2005
2. Tour 2004
3. Tour 2003
4. Tour 2002
5. Tour 2001
6. Tour 2000
7. Tour 1999
8. Tour 2016
9. Tour 2015
10. Tour 2013

Those who haven't seen the Tour before 1999 simply have no idea what this race is supposed to look like. Back then you didn't know beforehand who was going to win. When Rominger or Chiappucci attacked, Indurain had to chase them down by himself, dropping Bugno in the process. There was suspense for yellow in the mountain stages of the final week. There was a sportive battle between individuals.

Since 1999 this race has been killed by US Postal and their carbon copy Team Sky. When five of the ten best climbers are in the same team it's like watching a bad movie, when you secretly hope that one of the bad guys is going to win but you know it's not going to happen. Henao, Poels and Landa are cowards. If they were the leader of another team this race might be worth watching. If one rich team can buy all of them to become helpers of the "hero" it turns the Tour de France into bad entertainment, unbearable to watch.

Seriously dude, what the hell are yo smoking? :surprised: If you didn't even like the 2003 Tour, maybe road cycling simply is the wrong sport for you.

See bolded above. I would change the 'is supposed' "what this race is supposed to look like" to 'used to'. There were royal battles between individuals for supremacy, there was so much more Suspense!! Teams became irrelevant much earlier in decisive stages. It was a Grand Racing! I think it was Cipo that even had the first real sprint train and there were No mountain trains. It was pretty awesome actually

 

[jalep]

Agree with what Carols and Pantani_lives say:

Although I wasn't watching cycling in the 90's, I did catch enough of US Postal in their day, and Sky the past years to understand what a kill-joy super mountain trains are to Grand Tour action and excitement.
Worst GT's I've seen:
1. Tour 2016
2. Tour 2015
3. Tour 2013
4. 2005
5. 2004
6. 2003