Vuelta: the most viewed Vuelta of the last years

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The Hitch said:
no i was reffering to laquilla (hence the bit about them then switching to the tour of cali - well es did anyway).
I see. The lack of apostrophe threw me off. :p

I don't think the L'Aquila stage was just a tedious TTT between two groups though. Seeing the leaders pull from the peloton themselves is something you don't see every day.
 
Aug 23, 2012
1,114
1
0
Descender said:
I see. The lack of apostrophe threw me off. :p

I don't think the L'Aquila stage was just a tedious TTT between two groups though. Seeing the leaders pull from the peloton themselves is something you don't see every day.
No attacks. Any uphill stage of the Vuelta is better.... I.mode off. So guys you also think Montalcino was a tedious stage because it didnt finish in the top of a climb or werent many attacks?
 
Aug 31, 2012
349
0
0
I love to see uphill sprints when the best cyclists of the race fight better than the sprints of the flat stages of the Tour.
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
Jason_Mercier said:
No attacks. Any uphill stage of the Vuelta is better.... I.mode off. So guys you also think Montalcino was a tedious stage because it didnt finish in the top of a climb or werent many attacks?
Montalcino was exciting in the same way than Valdezcaray: the leader crashed and the others kept on racing. Just change the wind by rain and mud. Oh, and Montalcino is on top of a hill as well.
 
Jason_Mercier said:
No attacks. Any uphill stage of the Vuelta is better.... I.mode off. So guys you also think Montalcino was a tedious stage because it didnt finish in the top of a climb or werent many attacks?
This is yet another folly. People found the Tour boring because the GC was boring. People are finding the Vuelta exciting because the GC was exciting.

The Vuelta route is stupid, and repetitive. There is a whole thread, with contributions from many of the people you're now accusing of only wanting MTFs, dedicated to complaining about the route here.

The Tour had stages that had more going on than at any Vuelta stage except yesterday... but the Vuelta has had more action that is relevant. At the Tour, Sky were so dominant that it hurt the spectacle. Evans or Nibali could afford to go on a long one, and Sky could wave "see you later" at them because they were far enough ahead on the GC that it didn't matter if those guys picked up some time. At the Vuelta, the stages have typically only mattered for a few minutes, but every attack or acceleration has felt like it means something. There is suspense. The Tour had none. There were good stages, but there was no suspense, no feeling that this could be the day it all changed... it wasn't going to change.

The Tour has the opposite problem to the Vuelta too, in that the Tour puts too many climbs too far from the finish for people to make moves because it's ultimately futile.
 
Aug 23, 2012
1,114
1
0
Libertine Seguros said:
This is yet another folly. People found the Tour boring because the GC was boring. People are finding the Vuelta exciting because the GC was exciting.

The Vuelta route is stupid, and repetitive. There is a whole thread, with contributions from many of the people you're now accusing of only wanting MTFs, dedicated to complaining about the route here.

The Tour had stages that had more going on than at any Vuelta stage except yesterday... but the Vuelta has had more action that is relevant. At the Tour, Sky were so dominant that it hurt the spectacle. Evans or Nibali could afford to go on a long one, and Sky could wave "see you later" at them because they were far enough ahead on the GC that it didn't matter if those guys picked up some time. At the Vuelta, the stages have typically only mattered for a few minutes, but every attack or acceleration has felt like it means something. There is suspense. The Tour had none. There were good stages, but there was no suspense, no feeling that this could be the day it all changed... it wasn't going
to change. The Tour has the opposite problem to the Vuelta too, in that the Tour puts too many climbs too far from the finish for people to make moves because it's ultimately futile.
And i agree with you. The problem here is that some underestimate extremely the TDF. And not only in this forum. So i respect the other opinions but i dont understand why some people prefer some stages of the Vuelta until some stages of the Tour.
Why. Why they can appreciate so much stages like Jaca, Gallina, Arrate, Èzaro, Valdezcaray... all the same. A youtube cycling (I know suspense is relevant but at what level?) And then say wow, what a Vuelta España,
so exciting. Lol. The GC contenders make differences only of 10 seconds most of the days... What is so exciting? I think my opinion is clear. I prefer by far a race like the TDF this year until the Vuelta a España and not for anything special.
 
Aug 31, 2012
349
0
0
Jason_Mercier said:
And i agree with you. The problem here is that some underestimate extremely the TDF. And not only in this forum. So i respect the other opinions but i dont understand why some people prefer some stages of the Vuelta until some stages of the Tour.
Why. Why they can appreciate so much stages like Jaca, Gallina, Arrate, Èzaro, Valdezcaray... all the same. A youtube cycling. And then say wow, what a Vuelta España,
so exciting. Lol. The GC contenders make differences only of 10 seconds most of the days... What is so exciting? I think my opinion is clear. I prefer by far a race like the TDF this year until the Vuelta a España and not for anything special.
I prefer the youtube cycling to the 8, 9 or 10 stages of boring flat stages where you know nothing is going to happen. What about the mountain stages with 40 km until the end of the stage where nothing is going to happen too?. How depressing is to watch 60 cyclist or even more climbing Tourmalet all together and we have seen that many times.

It's funny when people say Vuelta is too repetitive and what about the Tour?. Always the same stages structure, always the same 8 or 9 flat stages, always the same climbs, always mountain stages to finish with the last ridiculous 40 kms flat where nothing happens.

I really believe Vuelta has improved a lot these last years and it's ready to assume more risks and discover beautiful places.

A long attack can bring you a diference of minutes too high between the best ciclists of peloton and the spectacle to know who is going to win the race is missing.

We have been watching more than 10 stages with the most important ciclist fighting between them, suffering a lot in really hard climbs, running really fast, beautiful stages, a really epic stage and you don't know who is going to win the Vuelta until the end. What more do you want?. :eek:
 
Jason_Mercier said:
And i agree with you. The problem here is that some underestimate extremely the TDF. And not only in this forum. So i respect the other opinions but i dont understand why some people prefer some stages of the Vuelta until some stages of the Tour.
Why. Why they can appreciate so much stages like Jaca, Gallina, Arrate, Èzaro, Valdezcaray... all the same. A youtube cycling (I know suspense is relevant but at what level?) And then say wow, what a Vuelta España,
so exciting. Lol. The GC contenders make differences only of 10 seconds most of the days... What is so exciting? I think my opinion is clear. I prefer by far a race like the TDF this year until the Vuelta a España and not for anything special.
And at what point in the Tour de France did the GC contenders make differences? The gaps were too big. A lot of it meant nothing.

The Vuelta route this year was awful, but the riders made the most of the parcours they had, and we got everything we could have reasonably hoped for from the race... and yesterday we had more too. The Tour had a bad route too, but didn't deliver more than anticipated. In terms of GC-relevant spectacle it offered less, in fact. Non-GC-relevant spectacle was not in short supply, and Pinot's stage win was downright awesome.

The Vuelta hasn't been a great race. But it's been better than expected, and after a chronically dull Giro where the GC guys didn't start competing until they suddenly realised it was stage 20, and a chronically dull Tour where the GC was settled after one week so that anybody wearing a jersey that wasn't black with a stupid white square on the back was deemed totally irrelevant to it, actually seeing three (four for the first half of the race) guys who are close enough to each other on the GC for each acceleration and sprint to actually mean something is a pleasant tonic. In a year other than 2012, this Vuelta doesn't get the praise it has received. But this year has been pretty chronically awful for stage racing, so something that outperforms expectations is treated like un milagro.
 
Aug 23, 2012
1,114
1
0
Asturiano said:
I prefer the youtube cycling to the 8, 9 or 10 stages of boring flat stages where you know nothing is going to happen. What about the mountain stages with 40 km until the end of the stage where nothing is going to happen too. How depressing is to watch 60 cyclist or even more climbing Tourmalet all together and we have seen that many times.

It's funny when people say Vuelta is too repetitive and what about the Tour. Always the same stages structure, always the same climbs, always mountain stages to finish with the last ridiculous 40 kms flat where nothing happens.

I really believe Vuelta has improved a lot these last years and it's ready to assume more risks and discover beautiful places.

A long attack can bring you a diference of minutes too high between the best ciclists of peloton and the spectacle to know who is going to win the race is missing.

We have been watching more than 10 stages with the most important ciclist fighting between them, suffering a lot in really hard climbs, running really fast, beautiful stages, a really epic stage and you don't know who is going to win the Vuelta until the end. What more do you want?. :eek:
What i want is medium mountain stages with 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 climbs, 100 kms of ITT for provoke action until the
last climb, mountain stages that not finish in the top of the final ascent... All type of stages that not only suit Valverde and Purito.
 
Asturiano said:
It's funny when people say Vuelta is too repetitive and what about the Tour?. Always the same stages structure, always the same 8 or 9 flat stages, always the same climbs, always mountain stages to finish with the last ridiculous 40 kms flat where nothing happens.

I really believe Vuelta has improved a lot these last years and it's ready to assume more risks and discover beautiful places.
While the Vuelta has been pretty repetitive with its stage layouts (far too many ~150km stages with only a single relevant climb), finding new climbs and challenges isn't a criticism we should really be levelling at it - La Rabassa was new in '08, Bola del Mundo in '10, Cotobello in '10, La Farrapona in '11, Cuitu Negru this year, plus Ancares was new to the route in '11, Peña Cabarga was long-forgotten until being brought back in '10, and it's still not that long since La Pandera and Angliru were introduced to the world.

There are still huge numbers of climbs I wish they'd use - Pico de los Reales, Coll de Pal, Haza del Lino, Fonte da Cova, Sierra de San Miguel de Áralar and so on - but there's only really Navacerrada, Sierra Nevada and Lagos de Covadonga that are the "oh, there again" climbs now. The Tour has so many of those it's unbelievable, probably because they insist on using the same part of the Pyrenées and the same part of the Alps every year, and the less said about their use of the Massif Central the better.
 
Jason_Mercier said:
What i want is medium mountain stages with 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 climbs, 100 kms of ITt for provoke action until the last climb, mountain stages that not finish in the top of the last climb ... All type of stages that not only suit Valverde and Purito.
There's a difference between "mountain stages that don't finish on the top of the last climb" (to this I would add "mountain stages that finish on an easy climb after hard ones before it", as Aprica, for example, is a legendary finish, as is the Citadel in Briançon) and "mountain stages that have 40km of flat or more between the last climb and the finishing line".

Stage 17 in 2009 is still the best stage Prudhomme's ever put out.
 
Aug 31, 2012
349
0
0
Jason_Mercier said:
What i want is medium mountain stages with 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 climbs, 100 kms of ITT for provoke action until the
last climb, mountain stages that not finish in the top of the final ascent... All type of stages that not only suit Valverde and Purito.
The stages of Cuitu, Bola del Mundo are like that. If ciclists don't want to attack before the final climb it's not Unipublic's fault.

The only thing you can complain is about so many final ascents. Agree with you at that point. The problem is when many of the big climbs of Spain (La Bola, Cuitu, Angliru) are not allowed to pass-through, so you have to finish the stage there.

Anyway, I would use the final ascents on the first days of the Vuelta. As much as the flat stages. I think is not a bad thing the fight between the best riders of peloton to enjoy more than sprints of the flat stages.
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
While the Vuelta has been pretty repetitive with its stage layouts (far too many ~150km stages with only a single relevant climb), finding new climbs and challenges isn't a criticism we should really be levelling at it - La Rabassa was new in '08, Bola del Mundo in '10, Cotobello in '10, La Farrapona in '11, Cuitu Negru this year, plus Ancares was new to the route in '11, Peña Cabarga was long-forgotten until being brought back in '10, and it's still not that long since La Pandera and Angliru were introduced to the world.

There are still huge numbers of climbs I wish they'd use - Pico de los Reales, Coll de Pal, Haza del Lino, Fonte da Cova, Sierra de San Miguel de Áralar and so on - but there's only really Navacerrada, Sierra Nevada and Lagos de Covadonga that are the "oh, there again" climbs now. The Tour has so many of those it's unbelievable, probably because they insist on using the same part of the Pyrenées and the same part of the Alps every year, and the less said about their use of the Massif Central the better.
To be fair, Sierra Nevada 2009 was a new variant never done before. And the variant whose profile Descender uses as avatar is still waiting to be used. Apart from all those you listed, we need Spanish TV commentators to keep saying how hard is Pan do Zarco and put the pressure on Unipublic :)
 
hrotha said:
+∞

I also wonder what'll happen in a few years, when Purito, Valverde and Contador aren't contenders anymore. Not many young Spanish riders with the potential to win a GT right now.
Thats what they questioned after Indurain too. And as far as the rise of the colombian empire goes is this something that has been promised since Mejia.

In other words. I am not the slightest worried.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
This is yet another folly. People found the Tour boring because the GC was boring. People are finding the Vuelta exciting because the GC was exciting.

The Vuelta route is stupid, and repetitive. There is a whole thread, with contributions from many of the people you're now accusing of only wanting MTFs, dedicated to complaining about the route here.

The Tour had stages that had more going on than at any Vuelta stage except yesterday... but the Vuelta has had more action that is relevant. At the Tour, Sky were so dominant that it hurt the spectacle. Evans or Nibali could afford to go on a long one, and Sky could wave "see you later" at them because they were far enough ahead on the GC that it didn't matter if those guys picked up some time. At the Vuelta, the stages have typically only mattered for a few minutes, but every attack or acceleration has felt like it means something. There is suspense. The Tour had none. There were good stages, but there was no suspense, no feeling that this could be the day it all changed... it wasn't going to change.

The Tour has the opposite problem to the Vuelta too, in that the Tour puts too many climbs too far from the finish for people to make moves because it's ultimately futile.

Fully agree. It's the closeness in the GC race and the willingness of the favourites to attack that makes this Vuelta exciting.
 
Feb 20, 2011
396
0
0
No_Balls said:
Thats what they questioned after Indurain too. And as far as the rise of the colombian empire goes is this something that has been promised since Mejia.

In other words. I am not the slightest worried.
You are right, we just have Landa, Madrazo, Izaguirre brothers, Carlos Verona... is going to be difficult to have in a few years a masive champion...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS