The worst Grand Tour you can remember

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Pricey_sky said:
El Pistolero said:
The Tour needs to ride over the entire route of Paris-Roubaix and then over the route of Tro-Bro Leon. Sky can't control classics, so make a chaotic Tour.
To be fair of all the GC contenders id say Froome wouldn't be that inconvenienced compared to some others.
The rider who is prepared and in best shape, flies over any sort of road, even cobbles.
 
Tonton said:
Eshnar said:
Tonton said:
More ITT, flat, come on. I lived the BigMig years. Stage 9 and the race is over. Luxembourg anyone?
Since you lived in those years you should have realized that Chiappucci was never gonna attack on the Saises, had he not gotten 5 minutes in Luxembourg.

Pantani was not gonna attack on the Mortirolo if he was at less than 30" from Berzin. Indurain was not gonna follow him if he could say the same.

Pantani also was not gonna attack on the Galibier if he wasn't at 3' from Ullrich.

But we live in the Froome era now, where things have improved a lot. Now we get to stage 9 and the race is...over? But on the GC the gaps are smaller and it looks good I guess.
Nice racing indeed, but you give examples of guys fighting for second place though, if you except '98 and the miracle at L2A.

Man, if it wasn't for Virenque and his quest for a podium, I would have stopped watching at some point during the BigMig years. The guy was an animal. I remember watching the Luxembourg ITT. Game over. Every year, before the mountains even began, the best climbers (Pantani, Virenque) were 4, 5, 6 minutes behind. And he'd follow in the mountains. BigMig didn't have a train, like USPS and Sky, but always a couple of very strong, Porte-caliber helpers, such as Bernard, De Las Cuevas, Gorospe...

So yes, it looks better. Had "the decision" not been made, it would be even better. But not that much better: Sky is a steamroller, even great teams like Astana and Movistar look pale in comparison. When they attack, they are the ones who eventually explode.

I don't know man...it's messed up. Maybe a Tour du Benelux, with back to back monuments and classics. Echoes would love it :) .
He had Delgado, who could've still contended for a podium place had he been the leader of his own team, and finished 9th, 6th, and 9th again in his final tours while always being present on the climbs.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
el chava said:
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.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
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.
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
Bardamu said:
King Boonen said:
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.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
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?
 
Re:

SeriousSam said:
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 :)
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
SeriousSam said:
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 )
 
SKSemtex said:
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.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
SeriousSam said:
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 :p ).
 
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.
 
Mar 22, 2009
15
0
0
Re:

The Barb said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
SeriousSam said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

Bardamu said:
King Boonen said:
SeriousSam said:
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.

SeriousSam said:
King Boonen said:
SeriousSam said:
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 :p ).
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.

The Hegelian said:
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 :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY