It's not fair that 98% of the riders have not a chance to win anything. Next year move the race to Nepal and go for Mount Everest. Then only 0.1 % can win. This is not a fair competition and not exiting for any wievers. Suggest 50% mountains and 50% no mountains. This is more fair for all the riders and will be much more exiting for us to see.
The aim is to produce a balanced parcours which allows everybody to have a chance. 50% mountains and 50% no mountains only leaves two types of riders that can win: sprinters and climbers, and the former are going to stand no chance over a full GT because they can't gain enough. Hell, Rik van Looy didn't manage to win the Vuelta when they gave a full minute's bonus for stage wins and the biggest and baddest mountain in the race was the Puerto del Escudo.
A proper balanced parcours includes stages that are completely flat, stages which are genuine multi-col queen stages, and, most importantly,
everything in between.
There are a lot of issues at present driven by parcours trends and by perceptions of how to deal with that. ASO believe that a close battle = a good battle, therefore they seek to minimise time trial mileage and super-steep mountains until late in the race; the flip side of that is that, shorn of any reason to have to attack from deep, riders often play the tempo game and we get absolute dreck like Mont Aigoual and Grand Colombier in the Tour. Flat stages also have the problem of, especially now the stages are broadcast in full rather than just for the last hour, chronically poor audience figures in comparison to the big mountain stages that are much more likely to be important. Sprint stages, unless there is some reason to believe there may be echelons, tend to be very interchangeable, disposable and forgettable, whereas you never know if a mountain stage might turn into an epic like Pontechianale '03, Aprica '10, Pajares '05, Aubisque '07, Gardeccia '11 or Jafferau '18, or if that intermediate stage might completely turn the fabric of the race upside down like Cercedilla '15, Pfalzen '04, L'Aquila '10 or Fuente De '12.
The other issue now is that the kind of elite climber that used to light up the mountains trying to wrestle their way back into contention the way we historically saw from José Manuel Fuente, Lucho Herrera, Claudio Chiapucci, Marco Pantani, José María Jiménez and their ilk, winning the GPM by trying to earn the right to contest the GC. Now the best climbers have zero reason not to believe they automatically have a right to contest the GC. This is because in parallel to the marginalisation of the ITT, there has been a rapid increase in the professionalism of the péloton leading to a much smaller gap between the best and worst rider in any given race. The flaky, pint-sized grimpeurs who would have been fulfilling that role before are the people like Miguel Ángel López, Nairo Quintana, Egan Bernal and Romain Bardet. Nowadays they are better protected, rather than losing 20 minutes in a bunch of flat stages and a 50km ITT before the race sights a proper mountain. The sprint trains are also better drilled and more cohesive, meaning it's harder to see classics-style racing in a GT flat stage as we would in the 80s or 90s.
This is why the 2010 Giro is so beloved and won the Grand Tour Elimination Game. Because it turned a lot of conventions on its head, and saw a complete overhaul of the type of controlled racing we're used to. The Dutch flat stages saw echelon chaos, so time gaps were opened up almost immediately. One of the favourites - Evans - had an incredibly weak support cast on 2010 BMC which meant they struggled to control the race when leading it. The weather also played ball in the Strade Bianche stage, plus blind adherence to the unwritten rules went out the window when some GC irrelevances from Milram attacked after Nibali's crash. Vino's Astana team wasn't that strong, and failed to control a large breakaway group on the L'Aquila stage until it was so big it spiralled out of control. The team that acquired the maglia rosa after that stage was happy just to have it, meaning it didn't control the flat stages well enough for the sprinters' liking, enabling that unexpected breakaway with Pozzato, Basso and Scarponi in it to stay away making an expected sprinters' day a GC relevant one like we might see in the 80s. The riders then charged with controlling the race in the high mountains were an inexperienced Rigoberto Urán and Arnold Jeannesson, as Caisse d'Epargne's best option other than Arroyo had been Marzio Bruseghin and he left the race on stage 3. The nearest thing the race had to a superteam was Liquigas, and even then it wasn't
that super, it just had Nibali and Basso. And they were having to try to make up several minutes of deficit across the mountains of week 3.
Modern racing has the problem of being too formulaic in a lot of types of stage, and I don't blame organisers for tipping the balance in favour of formulaic racing that attracts viewers as against formulaic racing that doesn't.