I remember reading that Edwin van Hooydonck said it’s harder to win Ronde than the Tour. The thinking being that there are only maximum 10 guys who can win the Tour, so that’s all you have to watch. Whereas at a one-dayer any of 30 guys could conceivably win (or more; how far down the list was Bettiol before the start this year?) and you have to pick the right one to follow.
Absolutely.
The Tour is 21 days of a little bit of action each day, but normally just that little bit. And because it's 21 days, only a handful of people are actually able to win it, so you only have to watch these.
The Ronde - any big classic, but the Ronde in particular - has more or less full-on action from 80-100 km out. You hardly ever see that in a GT.
In fact, I would say that the mano-a-mano action between the possible winners in a GT is usually limited to the finishing climb (and even there, it's becoming less and less), with many days (sprint stage, or a big breakaway up front) not seeing any GC action at all, just a procession.
If you have 5-7 mountain stages and a couple of hilly stages, that normally amounts to just over 100 km of GC favourite racing. Add the time trials, and you have 150 km ... spread across three weeks. In a classic, you have almost as much (sometimes just as much) in
one day.
I've sometimes joked that anyone can win the Tour. This is obviously exaggerated, but if you take a good GC rider, have him train well, give him the best possible surroundings, best available teammates etc., he will perform in the GT he's targeting more often than not. And if he doesn't, it's big news.
In a classic, you can have a previous winner lining up, with the best team, and not have any shot at winning that day. Just ask Tom Boonen. Okay, Devolder was his teammate, so he was 'locked' once Devolder was away ... but upsets like that are much less likely in GTs.