Tennis was good to watch in the 80's but now it just irritates me. Also, some ppl like to repeatedly refer to tennis on a cycling forum.What's wrong with tennis?
Tennis was good to watch in the 80's but now it just irritates me. Also, some ppl like to repeatedly refer to tennis on a cycling forum.What's wrong with tennis?
Tennis was good to watch in the 80's but now it just irritates me. Also, some ppl like to repeatedly refer to tennis on a cycling forum.
I wouldn't know. I'm clean from watching tennis for years. I think I'll stick to watching re-runs of Alaphilippe's masterpiece at last year's wcrr (pure cycling porn).It's certainly good to watch now, too...
And yet, the 2012 Giro is the complete antithesis of what you usually call for - very small gaps resulting in very cagey, defensive racing until the very final road stage - and even then if it hadn't been for the very real possibility that their appalling lack of racing intent for three weeks would enable them to lose the GC to Thomas de Gendt, the only man who could emerge from that race with his head held high (other than Matteo Rabottini as mentioned before), they likely leave it until the last kilometre again, as Purito tried his utmost to. The Giau stage of that race is the ultimate stage for the negative side of 'the riders make the race'. The organisers gave the riders a lot of options around how to make great racing on that stage. They refused to.just fyi I 100% agree with this in its entirety. And u can find my many posts that say this verbatim. I guess the forumites wanting suspense to the very end at all costs appear way more vocal in all other threads always complaining. I feel like I read that ALL THE TIME.
we disagree on 2012. Not the greatest. But, damn, that Stelvio stage was absolutely epic. 2022 Torino was good and great race design. None of the contenders are “epic”, all similar and rode defensively until the last three kms of stage 20. It was absolutely abysmal.
That is a good question. How high can GT be rated solely based on action on mountain stages and a top GC battle? A full 10? 9? Or lower?It's not just GC action which constitutes a good or bad GT - The last two editions of the Giro have also suffered from average course design and the quality and quantity of breakaway wins.
Yet the style of racing has completely changed. Big gaps, small gaps, what does It matter? As Hinault once said: "As long as I breath, I attack!"And yet, the 2012 Giro is the complete antithesis of what you usually call for - very small gaps resulting in very cagey, defensive racing until the very final road stage - and even then if it hadn't been for the very real possibility that their appalling lack of racing intent for three weeks would enable them to lose the GC to Thomas de Gendt, the only man who could emerge from that race with his head held high (other than Matteo Rabottini as mentioned before), they likely leave it until the last kilometre again, as Purito tried his utmost to. The Giau stage of that race is the ultimate stage for the negative side of 'the riders make the race'. The organisers gave the riders a lot of options around how to make great racing on that stage. They refused to.
You have 100+ Tours throughout the history of TDF and just 10 grades. This means it’s impossible for every Tour to get its own grade. It’s also highly unlikely that all Tours with the same grade are completely equal quality wise…
Since we are not grading Tours best-to-worst but assigning grades 1 to 10, you are bound to have some events which are not completely equal quality wise having the same grade…
Because you don't have an indefinite number of different grades, obviously.
My grades to student analogy should clarify that quite clearly...
Except I never said other Tours cannot given the same grade as the 89 Tour. I thought it was clear that I said whilst this Tour was good, it was not close enough to the 89 Tour to be given the same grade. There are arguably other Tours closer to the quality of the 89 race than this years edition.
I don't care if the GC is close or not. I don't care who wins the race, either. I care about entertainment value.and 2017 was good too, lol. How can u not like Dumoulin? And it was the perfect balance between the strong TTer all-rounder against the climbers. And four riders with a chance to win in the very last ITT! And Dumo and the sh!t during the double Stelvio stage…
I do find it interesting. So many people here wanting suspense to the last moment. Willing to have routes designed to artificially keep certain riders in play. Frankly I think it is because they want their personal favorite rider to win. If they are kept in play, it becomes more interesting, but when they lose at the end then the GT was awful, no matter how close. Lol!!
I was responding to the following part of your post:Except I never said other Tours cannot given the same grade as the 89 Tour. I thought it was clear that I said whilst this Tour was good, it was not close enough to the 89 Tour to be given the same grade. There are arguably other Tours closer to the quality of the 89 race than this years edition.
So why would you give equal values for 89 and some other Tour (not 2022) if they are not equal?why on earth would I give them equal value when I know they are not equal?
I don't care if the GC is close or not. I don't care who wins the race, either. I care about entertainment value.
The GC was close in both the 2012 and 2017 Giros but the racing was boring. Nothing of interest until the last climb of every stage. This year's Torino stage was better than anything either of those Giros had to offer. This year's Giro was not good but one really good stage beats Giros with zero.
When people talk about that one race it's like when old people ramble on about The Beatles. It's a little tiring because all you can experience now is some grainy pixelated youtube footage. What I have learned about the 1889 TDF: on halloween Greg Lemon in a grizzly bear costume was shot by some hunters omg Laurent Fignon the unusual man with the eye glasses lost overall cause of a pony omg omg Bernard Hinault was super mad all the time argh Pedro Delgado was so sleepy omg. Sounds like a fun race but I didn't watch it.
I was responding to the following part of your post:
So why would you give equal values for 89 and some other Tour (not 2022) if they are not equal?
Look - you were posting a rhetoric question why would you give equal grade to things that are not equal. I quoted this part in my previous post. Me and @tobydawq explained that in the 1-10 grading system, things that are not equal are bound to get the same value/grade. For our discussion, it's completely irrelevant which tours we are comparing here. It's possible for 2022 Tour to get the same grade as 1989 Tour even if it was worse, as long as it's in the same percentile range... If you feel 2022 Tour is not in the 91-100 prcentile range, then it desn't get a 10. I don't care about that, it's your opinion and I think we're all fine by that. But your initial claim is that if 2022 Tour is worse than 1989 Tour, it can't get the same value. That is not true and I stand by it.This is like some weird rabbit hole now. Where did I say I would give equal status to other Tours? Of all the Tours I have followed, the 89 edition was easily the best. This year was one of(if not)the best I have watched since, but still not on the level of 89. There may be other Tours that I have not seen that were better than this year, and people may argue they are equal to 89(in particular 86 and 87), but as i only saw a bit of the 87 version i cannot compare. I can only compare the Tours I have witnessed and recognise that the general consensus in the cycling world is that 89 was the greatest edition.
This started as a pretty simple observation, but apparently Tours from a long time ago are irrelevant to judging how good a modern Tour is.
Look - you were posting a rhetoric question why would you give equal grade to things that are not equal. I quoted this part in my previous post. Me and @tobydawq explained that in the 1-10 grading system, things that are not equal are bound to get the same value/grade. For our discussion, it's completely irrelevant which tours we are comparing here. It's possible for 2022 Tour to get the same grade as 1989 Tour even if it was worse, as long as it's in the same percentile range... If you feel 2022 Tour is not in the 91-100 prcentile range, then it desn't get a 10. I don't care about that, it's your opinion and I think we're all fine by that. But your initial claim is that if 2022 Tour is worse than 1989 Tour, it can't get the same value. That is not true and I stand by it.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Thought this year was the best Tour in a long time, but if this year was a 9, what would 89 be? Would have to go all the way to 11.
Tour way ahead of Giro/Vuelta this year and I really liked the lack of big bunch finishes at the Tour. Again reminding me of the early Tours I followed. Long may it continue .
I don't understand how people can say the Tour sucked for GC.
i think that hindsight is making some forget what we felt at the time.
it’s easy now to look back and say oh well GC was basically over after Granon.
the reality however at the time was different, largely because we all thought Pog was invincible, we were unsure that Vingo could defend, and pog was also willing to attack at all costs. That left us wondering probably up until hautacam was done and dusted.
and the Granon stage was likely the greatest single GC stage battle in a very long time. Only one that comes close that I can remember immediately (other than 1989) is the Galibier stage of 2011.
I guess perhaps the fact the top 2 were so significantly better than the rest hurts it for some, but I feel it's nitpicking to complain about the GC battle between Vingegaard and Pogačar. I suppose maybe the fact there was no real battle for the podium meant there was only really the two riders that had any real relevance to it? There was a clear gulf from the top 2 to Thomas, but he was also clearly the next best in the race thus meaning there was no battle for third and so everybody else was rendered an afterthought; only all Thomas really could do was hang on to them a bit longer than the rest, kind of the reverse problem to the Giro where again the top 3 were the clear best 3 riders in the race, but whereas in the Tour the top 2 absolutely went tooth and nail at each other, in the Giro the only one that was providing any attacks was Landa, and he was clearly the 3rd strongest of them.I don't understand how people can say the Tour sucked for GC.
Jumbo threw everything including the kitchen sink at Pogacar, and they did so several times. When he lost yellow, Pogacar did the same. Even flat stages were GC battles.
Were you not entertained? What more do you want? Dragons?