Armchair cyclist said:
Why?
Not wanting to be argumentative, but genuinely wondering what makes this such a bad route? Genuine time gaps before middle of first week; enough for the sprinters/rouleurs/power merchants in crosswinds for teams to have reason to bring a variety of riders; variety of finish types; relatively short, punchy stages; multiple uphill finishes of differing lengths; no major mountains neutralised by long flats afterwards.
If this is the epitome of what a parcours should not be, what makes a good one?
There is not a single stage where the hardest climb isn't the last one, which encourages the already prevalent conservative riding style. This time riders don't even have the
chance to launch an attack from afar!
There is only one ITT and TEN uphill finishes. Monotony at its best.
You say there are no major mountains neutralised by flats afterwards... well that is because there just
aren't any major mountains that aren't stage finish! The only exception is the Cuitu Negru stage, where there are two major mountains (San Lorenzo and Cobertoria) which
are neutralised by major flats afterwards.
This route is not worthy of a GT. It caters to the current trend of anti-cycling in cycling, where nothing happens for hours and then action begins when the finish line is already within sight.