"Tour de Bore"

[Duartista]

And put a TTT of 40 Kms and two ITTs of 60 KMs each.

Does he give any indication of next years' parcours?

Not really, other than to say it has pretty much been decided already. Still, I think it is a fairly open secret that their will be more mountains next year.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Why exactly is everyone saying the TT were over represented.
Looking at the TOp 10 i see.

1. The best TTler and the second best climber of the Tour
2.The second best TTler and the best climber
3. The third best climber and a Top 15 TTler
4. A Top 7 climber and a mediocere TTler
5. A Top 10 climber and a Top5 TTlist
6. A top 10 climber and a mediocere TTler
7. A Top 10 climber and a mediocere TTler (in this Tour)
8. A top 5 climber and a weak TTler
9. A Top 10 climber and TTler
10. A top 10 climber and weak TTler


So how exactly were the TTkm ove represented in this Tour again?
Please i wait for explanations

 

[gthx_gthx_]

Why exactly is everyone saying the TT were over represented.
Looking at the TOp 10 i see.

1. The best TTler and the second best climber of the Tour
2.The second best TTler and the best climber
3. The third best climber and a Top 15 TTler
4. A Top 7 climber and a mediocere TTler
5. A Top 10 climber and a Top5 TTlist
6. A top 10 climber and a mediocere TTler
7. A Top 10 climber and a mediocere TTler (in this Tour)
8. A top 5 climber and a weak TTler
9. A Top 10 climber and TTler
10. A top 10 climber and weak TTler


So how exactly were the TTkm ove represented in this Tour again?
Please i wait for explanations

When Sky (or really any other team) has the best TTer and the best climber

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I meant Evans leading the whole peloton to limit losses on Andy Schleck on Galibier stage.
And yes Evans rode the same as Wiggo without his train , and on this particular stage it was very interesting to watch.

Ok. That is one stage.

To counter: When Rolland won that mountain stage, Froome attacked, Wiggins was isolated, Evans dropped... well, that was exciting. And we had separation in many stages, unlike the most boring GT all of us ever witnessed, when 30-Men groups, led by Szmyd, hit the final km: The Giro 2012.

Again TdF 2012 was better than expected. Plus it was better than last year (i take back the "lightyears", giving you the point ), and still lightyears ahead of the Giro...

 

[the asian]

Sorry but that's flat out Bull****.
Nobody of them was capable to drop Wiggins that's the reality.

For you guys a cycling race is only great if the race is close and a pure climber wins it at the end.
You have the Giro for this, the Tour was never like this.

It isn't a necessecity for a pure climber to win, but a climber must have a decent chance to win. only then would the race be interesting. Of Course the Tour has never been like that. That exactly is my point. It has contributed to domination by two riders who have won 12 of the past 22 Tours, generally with big time gaps, with the result a foregone conclusion.
That doesn't make a race interesting.
The only instances a pure climber who cannot TT well has won the Tour are Pantani and Sastre and if you include Andy's win in 2010, you get three. That's a big imbalance heavily favouring the Time Triallers.
It may have not been much of a problem in the 70s and 80s where the Good Time Triallers like Merckx, Hinault and Lemond were also attacking riders, but when the Time triallers are conservative riders who rarely attack, are controlled by their DSs and have super strong teams who easily nullify other attacks, It only results in boring tours where the result is almost a foregone conclusion.

 

[the asian]

Why exactly is everyone saying the TT were over represented.
Looking at the TOp 10 i see.

1. The best TTler and the second best climber of the Tour
2.The second best TTler and the best climber
3. The third best climber and a Top 15 TTler
4. A Top 7 climber and a mediocere TTler
5. A Top 10 climber and a Top5 TTlist
6. A top 10 climber and a mediocere TTler
7. A Top 10 climber and a mediocere TTler (in this Tour)
8. A top 5 climber and a weak TTler
9. A Top 10 climber and TTler
10. A top 10 climber and weak TTler


So how exactly were the TTkm ove represented in this Tour again?
Please i wait for explanations

Why not include the Time Gaps as well?

 

[Bavarianrider]

It isn't a necessecity for a pure climber to win, but a climber must have a decent chance to win. only then would the race be interesting. Of Course the Tour has never been like that. That exactly is my point. It has contributed to domination buy two riders who have won 12 of the past 22 Tours, generally with big time gaps, with the result a foregone conclusion.
That doesn't make a race interesting.
The only instances a pure climber who cannot TT well has won the Tour are Pantani and Sastre and if you include Andy's win in 2010, you get three. That's a big imbalance heavily favouring the Time Triallers.
It may have not been much of a problem in the 70s and 80s where the Good Time Triallers like Merckx, Hinault and Lemond were also attacking riders, but when the Time triallers are conservative riders who rarely attack, are controlled by their DSs and have super strong teams who easily nullify other attacks, It only results in boring tours where the result is almost a foregone conclusion.

A climbers has to ahve achance but a TT not?
Didn't Froom have a chance to win this Tour if he wasn't riding for sky?
There siply were no climbers better thean Froom and Wiggins in this race

 

[Bavarianrider]

Why not include the Time Gaps as well?

9 out of the Top 10 riders would have been in the Top 10 without a single TTkm.

But yeah you guys are right tT was overreprsented

 

[Magnus]

The only instances a pure climber who cannot TT well has won the Tour are Pantani and Sastre and if you include Andy's win in 2010, you get three. That's a big imbalance heavily favouring the Time Triallers.

And the only instance of a pure TT'ist who can't climb well has won the tour was never so that's an even bigger imbalance favouring the climbers.

To win a GT you should be an all-rounder. Why should pure climbers get this special status of the right to win GT's even though they're one trick ponies? What's next? GT's for pure sprinters?

 

[the asian]

A climbers has to ahve achance but a TT not?
Didn't Froom have a chance to win this Tour if he wasn't riding for sky?
There siply were no climbers better thean Froom and Wiggins in this race

One reason for Wiggins to able to climb well was that there were very few proper mountain stages. There were only 3 MTF and only one of it was a Hors category climb. Another MTF would have resulted in a more closer and more exciting race, without the foregone conclusion after the 1st ITT with perhaps Wiggins winning by a lesser margin.

 

[Anonymous]

It is quite clear to me that Wiggins could have reeled in Froome to an extent that would have largely nullified or even completely nullified his brief accelerations which in any case were near to the summits and also Wiggins had proved stronger on lower slopes with real stamina showing.

I really think people (I admit I am just someone who watched the whole thing, as opposed to an expert) need to replay those climbing stage videos and ask themselves who is the class act.

The answer is 'they both are' and Brailsford is the classiest act of them all.

 

[mr. tibbs]

A climbers has to ahve achance but a TT not?
Didn't Froom have a chance to win this Tour if he wasn't riding for sky?
There siply were no climbers better thean Froom and Wiggins in this race

That's true. SKY would have won this race in the mountains without any TT kms. I think Wiggins and Froome proved themselves to be the best all-around riders. It's hard to argue with what happened in the Pyrenees.

 

[the asian]

And the only instance of a pure TT'ist who can't climb well has won the tour was never so that's an even bigger imbalance favouring the climbers.

To win a GT you should be an all-rounder. Why should pure climbers get this special status of the right to win GT's even though they're one trick ponies? What's next? GT's for pure sprinters?

So what do you want?? Every Tour to be decided by the First ITT??
it's easier for Time triallers to hang in on the mountains because of Super Strong teams who pace their leaders up the climbs.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A climbers has to ahve achance but a TT not?
Didn't Froom have a chance to win this Tour if he wasn't riding for sky?
There siply were no climbers better thean Froom and Wiggins in this race

The idea is that you strike a balance.

A guy who can do nothing but climb, like a Pozzovivo, should be able to contend at a race like the Giro... but ultimately come up short unless they're a once-in-a-lifetime freak talent like José Manuel Fuente or Lucho Herrera. A guy whose side of GT racing is where they can do nothing but TT (you know, the Leipheimers of this world), should similarly be able to contend... but ultimately come up short.

The time gaps are the key. They are why it was boring. The time gaps were big enough that any time somebody DID attack... it was meaningless. To take us back to the Lance years... by the time we got to the mountains, Lance held all the cards - there'd usually have been a prologue and a TTT, so he was already ahead of his opponents. This meant they HAD TO attack, regardless of whether they felt good or not, because they were already losing. Meaning they attacked when they didn't feel good, bonked and lost MORE time to Armstrong.

No, nobody was going to beat Froome and Wiggins in this event. But like our debate over the 2011 Paris-Nice, it's that guys who CAN TT and CAN climb, like Evans and Nibali, were attacking from way out... and guys like Wiggins could afford to give them a little "see you later" wave, knowing that they were far enough down that it didn't matter, Richie fricking Porte was going to bring them back single handedly.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

[/B]

That's true. SKY would have won this race in the mountains without any TT kms. I think Wiggins and Froome proved themselves to be the best all-around riders. It's hard to argue with what happened in the Pyrenees.

But without the ITT it would have been a lot more exciting to watch it happen. Winning the race in the mountains is far more fun to watch than winning it in the ITT.


And I don't get why anyone can say this Tour was better than last year. Anything good about this Tour, we had last year too, but better.

 

[Magnus]

So what do you want?? Every Tour to be decided by the First ITT??

Since most races start with an itt I think that would be a bit boring. I guess some people would say that this TdF was decided after the prologue. Judging by your on posts I guess you weren't so sure yourself about the outcome of the race, even after it had passed through the Alps:

The arrogance of these delusional Brits is unbelievable. The tour is yet to reach the Pyrenees, there are two mountain stages to come which could shake up the general classification, and yet they are talking about winning margins.
Why are they so confident, that a rider who has never podium the tour before, has only one third place in a grand tour behind his own domestique, and who has shown weaknesses in the high mountains previously, as well as in this years' tour
will win the Tour, and that too by a huge margin?

 

[the asian]

To further hammer home the point, five of Armstrongs' 7 wins were over a 5 Minute time gap, and the 6th was 4.40 to Basso. Four out of 5 Indurains' wins were over 4 minutes while the other one was over 3 minutes.
In Ulrichs' 1997 win, the time gap was over 9 minutes.
Compare that to two recent editions where there was excitement right down to the wire, where in 2008 Sastre beat Evans by 58 Sec or in 2011 when Evans (the better TTer) beat Andy(the better climber) by 1.34 Min with Andy holding the yellow jersey at the start of the ITT.

A course which gives both a TTer and a climber a chance of success will result in more exciting battles than a course designed purely to suit the TTers which will only result in total domination by TTers and foregone conclusions.

 

[Magnus]

A course which gives both a TTer and a climber a chance of success will result in more exciting battles than a course designed purely to suit the TTers which will only result in total domination by TTers and foregone conclusions.

You seem to ignore that not only was Wiggins and Froome the fastest TT'ists. They were also the fastest climbers.

 

[the asian]

One reason for Wiggins to able to climb well was that there were very few proper mountain stages. There were only 3 MTF and only one of it was a Hors category climb. Another MTF would have resulted in a more closer and more exciting race, without the foregone conclusion after the 1st ITT with perhaps Wiggins winning by a lesser margin.

You seem to ignore that not only was Wiggins and Froome the fastest TT'ists. They were also the fastest climbers.

Refer above. and Libertines' post in the previous page.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

But without the ITT it would have been a lot more exciting to watch it happen. Winning the race in the mountains is far more fun to watch than winning it in the ITT.


And I don't get why anyone can say this Tour was better than last year. Anything good about this Tour, we had last year too, but better.

We had the same this year, only minus the long range attack of ASchleck.

BUT we had racing in the mountains, while last year there was NONE in the THREE Pyrenees stages last year.

I don´t get how anyone can rate last years tour higher, especially if we just remind all ourselves annoyance in the Schleck depreciation thread.

 

[Magnus]

Refer above.

The above makes no sense what so ever. Since when does a riders'climbing ability depend on the number of climbs in a GT?

 

[roundabout]

Occasionally Wiggins didn't look too good on the climbs. Peyragudes and Toussuire.

So yeah, it does make certain sense.

 

[the asian]

The above makes no sense what so ever. Since when does a riders'climbing ability depend on the number of climbs in a GT?

and the difficulty of climbs.
Ever seen people cracking in the 3rd week, or after 3 consecutive Mountain stages??

 

[the asian]

We had the same this year, only minus the long range attack of ASchleck.

BUT we had racing in the mountains, while last year there was NONE in the THREE Pyrenees stages last year.

I don´t get how anyone can rate last years tour higher, especially if we just remind all ourselves annoyance in the Schleck depreciation thread.

First two weeks were boring as hell, but the third week was exciting and the GC result went down to the wire.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

First two weeks were boring as hell, but the third week was exciting and the GC result went down to the wire.

You see. While this year, there was racing with the start of the first mountain stage.

And if you (like many others) decide excitement on time gaps, then well... the Giro 2012 must have been one of the best ever, while all those great GT´s of the 80´s must have been crap.

You can´t have GT´s decided by seconds all the time, unless you cut every stage to 100 km and flat. I hope nobody wants that (at least those who remember the greaties 80s)...