What in your mind makes for a great Tour de France?

[red_flanders]

I came into the stage 14 thread quite late having been busy all day. Watched the race on Tivo in the afternoon, and enjoyed it quite a bit. I posted as such in the stage 14 thread, and then went back and read through a lot of the comments–let's just say my views were not universally shared! That's OK, but it got me wondering what people think makes for a great Tour de France.

So I got to thinking about which Tours I enjoyed most, and I came to the conclusion that I FREAKING LOVE IT EVERY YEAR! You just can't beat the scenery, the ambiance, and the beauty of the peloton snaking through that beautiful country. Add in the drama and it's just great stuff. However, some stand out, and I got to wondering why, so here are my favorites and why they stood out.

What are yours?

Mine are as follows:

1989
Reasons:
• My guy won in unbelievable fashion
• Three giants of the sport battled back and forth
• The racing was up and down, guys had good days and bad, you never knew what was going to happen and as soon as you did, it changed
• The final TT which spoke for itself
• LeMond's stage win in Aix-Le-Bain

1999
Reasons:
• An American came out of nowhere to win
• I now had an American to root for
• An unexpected attack on Sestriere FTW
• He won in dominating fashion, riding with panache and surviving some great attacks (Escartin)
• Watching an American team (with actual Americans in it) defend yellow successfully

2003
Reasons:
• 2 great champions did great battle
• Armstrong came through suffering and hell to win
• Even though I was rooting against Armstrong it was a close, exciting race with great stages and attacks from Vino
• Exciting 'till the last stage

1986
Reasons:
• My guy, an American won
• Great battle between 2 legends
• My dislike (at the time) and begrudging respect for the Badger
• Great stages to Superbagneres and the Alpe
• Hampsten emerges as a great rider

2009
Admittedly not in the class of the previous 4, but:
• Great rides by Contador, especially Arcalis and Verbier
• Armstrong living up to and exceeding his billing as a petty, vindictive ******bag, giving me a true villain and foil for the guy I was rooting for
• Great stage wins by Voeckler and by Brice Feillu at Arcalis
• Shocker ITT at the end with Contador beating Cancellara
• The emergence of Andy Schleck as a hope for a foil for AC

I guess those 5 stand out to me miles above any others, so for me I guess a great Tour is made up of:

• An American rider I'm rooting for winning or one I'm not rooting for in contention
• A great battle between big champions
• A close race for GC
• Big battles in the mountains
• Favorites showing weakness and having bad days
• Suspense and drama

What makes it for you? What are your favorites?

 

[El Pistolero]

Cavendish failing the time cut. Or not having 7 flat stages and still have the nerve to call that little.

 

[vcampbell]

What? When the Tour is like the Giro was in 2010 or in 2011 (I mean the route).

 

[Thomsena]

Watched the race on Tivo in the afternoon, and enjoyed it quite a bit. I posted as such in the stage 14 thread, and then went back and read through a lot of the comments–let's just say my views were not universally shared!

That's pretty much what this forum is about I'm afraid... It' either a '****ing boring stage' a 'wheelsucker' who won the stage or too conservative riding from riders who without a doubt are fried on the mountain.. Be careful with the positives...

 

[jens_attacks]

i'll explain mines in images,they say more than my words will ever can.

1998

two words:marco pantani

2000

"la grande sfida tra armstrong e pantani"

2003

attacks over attacks.my two favourites ulle and vino nearly had destroyed the boss.

2007

vino still racing with destroyed knees like a warrior.rasmussen and contador putting in scene one of the greatest battles known to man.

 

[VeloGirl]

1) No opening prologue/ITT. I like a nice 200k hilly stage with a nice uphill finish, not too hard.

2) Bring back time bonuses on mountain top finishes. It promotes racing. No more Andy and Frank looking for each other. No more Cadel and Alberto riding defensively.

3) If you're gonna have a pancake flat stage - it doesn't need to 250k. Make it shorter. A nice technical finish, or a straight flat finish, I don't care. It doesn't need to be over 165k

4) Don't waste a mountain like Ventoux was wasted.

5) I really don't mind long descents to end a stage, but make them memorable. The Col d'Aubisque is a lovely way to end a stage. That was done correctly.

 

[red_flanders]

i'll explain mines in images,they say more than my words will ever can.

1998

two words:marco pantani

2000

"la grande sfida tra armstrong e pantani"

2003

attacks over attacks.my two favourites ulle and vino nearly had destroyed the boss.

2007

vino still racing with destroyed knees like a warrior.rasmussen and contador putting in scene one of the greatest battles known to man.

Awesome post!

 

[LaFlorecita]

One word: Time bonusses (actually that's two words). We all saw how it worked out in the Giro.

Edit: Oh, and of course Alberto destroying the opposition by 8 minutes.

 

[SirLes]

Certainly better if the guy you're rooting for does well.

There has been so much negativity on these boards regarding routes and riders. I think people are expecting way too much. Cycling is rarely edge of your seat exciting. It's a slow burner but when something does happen it's all the more exciting because of it. I think people expect 1989 every year! Also if you got into cycling in the mid eighties as many English speakers did you were spoilt by several good tours 1985,1986,1987 and 1989

Today's stage was a perfect one to go and watch out on the road. Shame the weather wasn't nicer but the route and timing were perfect for the spectator on the ground to sit out and enjoy the day waiting for the Tour.

The perfect Tour should have good weather and picturesque views and some memorable moments, be they sprints, breakaways, attacks or climbs. Maybe I set my standards lower than others. Mind you I like watching cricket.

My favs are 1987, 1989 and 2003. I love watching the 2003 DVD when turbo training in winter. I was in France that summer and it was so hot. You can feel the heat coming from the TV. As you get a sweat on you could almost be there!

 

[The Hitch]

Close GC battle.

Lots of mountain stages.

Some suggestions:

Turning right just before this Sestrieres nonesence and doing ther Colle delle Finneste.

Going staight forward a hundred k and doing Le Zoncolan.

Going straight forward a hundred k and doing Monte Crostis.

 

[No_Balls]

1992 Tour De France - the beginning

Not a very good tour (Mig was rampant) but it marked something different, something "extraterrestial".

*Luxembourg time-trial was a crime-scene. Three minutes to the second placed rider on a dead-flat course was something i will not forget in a hurry.

*This lead to a desperate Chiappucci attacking on driving solo for nearly 200 kms over some cols alone when, before Mig turned up the heat, Mig could defend himself and putting in the needed minutes.


1996 Tour de France - the end

This had it all:

*Many chrashes thanks to awful weather during the first week
*One stage was shortened thanks to snow on the climb, it opened up for a very active stage.
*The sixth victory was virtually considered as a formality. On the first mountain stage the big man looked at ease over two massive climbs but fell short with three slender kilometers to go over a not so hard climb, Les Arcs. The Hog chrashed down in a ravine that day, Zulle fell twice and Jalabert dropped 13 minutes. A dramatic stage and a dramatic tour.
*We saw the birth of Jan Ullrich taking almost two minutes of Riis in the last time-trial to Bordeaux.
*And of course the spectacular death of a king.

I didn´t liked it back then, but hell it had it all.

1998 - The rise of Pirata

*When we thought Ullrich (after his destroying 1997-win) could go on a dominate the sport forever we saw the little italian emerge and destroyed both him and the entire field the day of the attack to Les Deux Alpes. It was a rainy and awful day and i have randomly seen such a devastated reigning champ as Ullrich that day. He lost some 8 minutes to Pantani that day.

*But Ullrich wasnt gone. He recovered very well and attacked at Col de la Madeleine the next day with Pantani glued to his wheel. He outsprinted the coming victor that stage.

2007 - the new order

*In many ways a shameful Tour but it certainly didn´t lack any drama and the fights were down to the very core. A then 24-year old new kid on the block put the much older dane Rasmussen to the sword and one wondered how good the young spaniard would be. Four years later and he hasn´t looked back.

Absolutely outstanding fights between (then) equals in the mountain. Some seconds here and there separated them between stages and there was always a willingness to attack.

(Yes, i have skipped the Armstrong years but it was hardly good Tours back then, with the possible exception of perhaps 2000/2003).

 

[Sophistic]

A long, flat ITT in the first week, thats what fuels the dynamic of the race.

And the absence of it is the main reason why 09/10/and 11 so far sucked.

 

[ericthesportsman6]

IMO people have just gotten used to bashing the Tour. I have thoroughly enjoyed it so far.

 

[Gingerale]

from my relatively limited experience watching an entire TdF since 2009:

2009 arcalis when contador broke ranks and climbed and his ITT sold me on him. that TdF is so far my favorite and made me watch in 2010.

but after TdF 2010, i was hungry for the racing, the pelaton, the 3 week drama, the landscape of a country with a language and culture i've never seen. i had to watch the vuelta d' espana. the vuelta lead to watching these amazing athletes in 2011 LBL, the giro d'italia, the ToC, and ToS. i'm hooked, lol... must make room for watching cycling.

and i'm getting an opinion.

i do not want to watch cunego lose an ITT to leipheimer after a week of admiring cunego's attacking, descending, hanging close in the sprint stages, and then get pipped by seconds for the tour win by a rider who was not impressive during as many stages in the way cunego was. levi did not ride a spectacular ITT but miserly did just enough to snag the win.

the point: now dread such a win. it doesn't matter who or where the rider was born. even tejay winning like levi ToS would be depressing.

my opinion is that the vuelta 2010 design with the queen mountain stage the day before the ride into madrid, inspired a performance at the top of a mountain from a rider who rode a challenging ITT ( nibali had time for a mechanical!); a rider i wasn't cheering to win but he made a fan out of me. nibali showed great heart and courage. and i had been cheering for frank schleck after andy was thrown out by riis.

a big mountain top finish following the ITT prevents the calculated but dull style overall win or at least brings out attacking and courageous mountain performance from the defending leader post ITT. i may be getting ahead of things.

a 3 v 1 week tour, surviving the extended time in itself perhaps makes me respect the win no matter how it's done. i'll suspend judgement and watch

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

How about something happens GC-wise (other than contenders crashing) before stage 12 or stage 14 or whenever the sad sacks who call themselves contenders try to do something this year? They might as well chop off the first two weeks and make the Tour de France a one week stage race.

GC-wise, this year's route is terrible. That is due to the race director trying to engineer a close finish. It is the same reason that we got the joke of a course that was used in 2009.

 

[icefire]

All my favorite editions have something in common: GC contenders battling back and forth, losing time one day to gain it again the next day. The sort of thing we rarely see nowadays. Climbers could lose more 5 minutes in the flat stages of the first week and still get to podium or close.

1989 Need I say more?

1987 First 4 men in final GC wore the yellow jersey at some time in the race

1983 Insane course: cobbles, a 300kms flat stage, 1 long TTT, 2 long ITT, 2 MTT and 3 mass start mountain stages (only 1 MTF). Only two former winners in the race, and they were both 36 yrs old. Contenders following these old farts' wheels in the first mountain stage just to realise later that they were the wrong wheels to follow while youngsters like Delgado and Fignon did their own race and placed themselves in contention. The arrival of Colombian riders to the Tour.

 

[Boeing]

a route that isn't consumed with group team tactics that lead to nothing more than group tempo for 18 days leading to the ITT.

"enough of this Sunday Stroll"

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A GC battle between riders who are actually battling. It can be only between a couple of riders (2007) or an ensemble cast (2008), but no formation riding by the GC men.

Some level of pacing that means the péloton aren't all defending what they have for half the race - something that sorts out the GC men from the boys early on, and leaves people needing to make time up rather than everybody being so close you can throw a blanket over them.

The key stages being placed at optimal times for the viewers - no more placing pointless flat stages on the penultimate weekend.

Fewer stages that are designed solely with sprints in mind. The sprinters can have their day in the sun, but it makes sense to make the finishes slightly trickier, just enough obstacles to tempt attacks and break up the momentum of trains, making the sprint less predictable. Something like the stage of the Giro that Ventoso won or the Tropea stage - both are ideal. The sprinters can, and usually will, still get the wins, but it's not such a foregone conclusion that everybody's setting up for the sprint from 80k out.

Less obvious routes. The selection of climbs is so completely predictable these days, it's like "well, throw out Tourmalet, Alpe d'Huez, some other iconic climbs. People will accept it as a legendary route cos of these legendary climbs!" - these climbs are great, but they're overused. Throw a curveball out there - use Le Grand Colombier, Mont du Chat or something. Actually use Alpes-Maritimes too - the Tour rarely goes there, but some good climbs that would introduce some variety to the route too. The cobbles last year was a good example. It shouldn't be a regular thing, but once in a while, shift the focus and give the riders a different challenge.

I think a major problem with the Tour is that it's so big, and so important, that it kind of scares people. There's so much riding on it that too many people ride to protect what they've got rather than risk losing it in a do or die attempt to win. That's something they'll always struggle with.

An early ITT to break the contenders up, like Cholet in 2008. No TTT. Ever.

And last, but most importantly, and 2009 I am looking directly at you here, but what makes for a great Tour de France is a race where the drama is made on the bike, not in the team hotel. Where the racing is the subject of discussion, not team politics.

 

[Jeanne]

Many riders willing to attack (including GC guys), trying something, not afraid of losing.

 

[Gingerale]

also i appreciate a cycling forum like this one... the pictures and descriptions from past TdF's

not enough time to look into how all those unfolded but i'm suspecting this may not be my favorite TdF if whoever wins doesn't defend the yellow jersey on the road during some stages but gets it after the ITT and simply rides into paris wearing yellow.

cheering for voeckler and europcar! go tommy V!

 

[pedaling squares]

I loved 2003 because I really didn't know what was going to happen next. Even though I didn't enjoy the end result, I enjoyed day after day of exciting racing. Save for Beloki & Hamilton to a degree, the leaders stayed healthy even though the top guys each had a bad day.

I liked 2008 because there was no clear favourite and again, I didn't know what to expect. And I liked that it was largely won by an attack instead of by defending incremental gains. Not that such tactics are unworthy, but they don't make great theatre.

I like this year's route, especially after the last couple, but any route can be great or terrible depending on how the riders choose to ride. Stage 14 could have been incredible, but given the amount of leaders who have retired and some defensive tactics by those who remain, it was just ok.

I guess at the end of the day I really wish to see riders who try to win le tour instead of trying not to lose it. That makes for a great Tour de France.

 

[RedheadDane]

Gotta say I kinda liked 2006. Armstrong was out and the guys everyone thought was going to fight for the win were... out too! Regardless of the reason they were out you can't deny it made for a lot more open race. And later the winner was busted for doping. Whooopsie!"

Also 2008 but that might have had something to do with the Saxo success. The most colourful team in the peloton...

 

[Sem Travões]

I think more pure climbers, a team like Cafe Colombia or something like that, let's face it if they make teams with trains for sprinters (or sprinter), why not one with trains for climbers .
Well in my view those type of riders will put on a jolly good show in the mountain stages, and who knows they might spread an attacking virus.

 

[The Barb]

Agree with those who have mentioned time bonuses. There is no downside to them as far as I can see.

I understand the reason they say they don't want them is that time bonuses are artificial and they want the riders' times to represent precisely the time they have actually spent on the road. If that is the case then why do they still give time penalties (rather than fines) for feed zone infractions etc.

 

[Pilgaard]

There are many different things, which makes it a great TdF. First and foremost, unlike the Indurain and Armstrong-years (minus 2003), the overall victory has to be interesting throughout the race.
Because of that, I actually think the editions post-Armstrong has been quite thrilling.
2006 was exciting - quite a close race, and I'll never forget the stage to Morzine, when Landis rode away from the peloton like it was the 1950's once again. True, he was banned for PED afterwards, but I remember the stage itself as absolutely thrilling
2007 was excellent because of Rasmussens emergence (disclaimer: I am Danish, so I'm perhaps biased) from contending the maillot a pois, to becoming a serious contender. The battles in the Pyrenees was quite interesting, especially the Plateau de Beille-stage, in which I recall Contador attacking numerous times, and Rasmussen just being able to hang on. When Rasmussen was ejected from the race, then the interesting ITT, when Evans and Leipheimer almost caught up with Contador in the GC.
2008 due to the many numbers of contenders all the way until the final mountain stage to the Alpe d'Huez. THough, somewhat weaker than the other years
2010 because Contador and Andy was close throughout - the uncertainty was quite interesting.

As someone already has pointed out, what I remember is a few good stages, which dominates my perception of the various editions. This year however, I really think the race has been excellent throughout the race, as the first week was much, much better than the usual 8 days of flat stages.

Ultimately, I think that variety, and close competition, is the best way to create the best circumstances for a great TdF. When the Tour-organisers use a few hills at the end of the stage, like the Mur de Bretagne this year. When they use the hills and cobbles from the Spring Classics. When they use either the Massif Central or the Mont Ventoux, instead of only the Pyrenees and Alps.

But ultimately, it is the riders who create the races. Was it better in the 90s and 00s, when the winner often won by 5+ minutes, with extraordinary time-trials or attacks on the last climb ? Or has it been better the past few years, with many contenders, and no one being minutes ahead of the others?

For my part, I prefer the latter.