Classics and Grand Tours

teagar
teagar Posts: 2,100
edited May 2009 in Pro race
Now that we've had a good spell of both Classics and Grand Tours, here comes the inevitable question:

Which do you prefer and why? Classics or Grand Tours?
Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.

Comments

  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    I'll put my vote in for the Grand Tours for a variety of reasons - but I love the classics too. reasons include:

    a) Like most my introduction to cycling was from Le Tour
    b) My favourite racing is the big mountain stages
    c) Grand Tours have a stories which run through the race and a certain soap opera quality
    d) I play hockey and the easter period is very busy, so I don't see too many classics live (only Roubaix and LBL this year).

    I really love Paris-Roubaix though - my favourite classic.

    One week Tours do little for me.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • stagehopper
    stagehopper Posts: 1,593
    Where's the "all of them" option? :wink:
    @stagehopper
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    stagehopper wrote:
    Where's the "all of them" option? :wink:

    It's a good job all that cycling has hardened your ass - must hurt sitting on the fence! 8)
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • greasedscotsman
    greasedscotsman Posts: 6,962
    I'll vote for the classics as I don't have to explain to workmates why the rider who has just won a stage isn't wearing the yellow jersey...
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    I like the classics, but my vote goes to the grand tours. I agree with Rich's 3rd point - it's easier to get "involved" in the grand tours because they go on for so long and you follow the different threads of each classification.

    The classics are good for a couple of hours in the front of the telly, but the GTs are really what interest me.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    I like bike racing.
  • Le Commentateur
    Le Commentateur Posts: 4,099
    afx237vi wrote:
    I like the classics, but my vote goes to the grand tours. I agree with Rich's 3rd point - it's easier to get "involved" in the grand tours because they go on for so long and you follow the different threads of each classification.

    The classics are good for a couple of hours in the front of the telly, but the GTs are really what interest me.

    Exactly, there are certain scenarios that evolve during a multi-week race, such as this Pellizotti vs Basso leadership thing at Liquigas. Or, in last year's Tour de France, can Cadel cope with all the pressure? One-dayers can't do that to the same extent, you're just thinking that so-and-so may be a good bet based on races weeks beforehand.
    Un uomo solo al commando
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    I much prefer the classics. I genuinely get really excited when watching the classics. I find myself jumping up and down, shoting at the TV really going for it. I like the fact that everyone knows the course, and the tactics etc are always interesting. Most days in the GC are either dull flat stages, even duller TTs, or blasts up the final climb of the day. A good mountain stage in a GT comes close to an average classic, but you can't beat a good classic!

    None of this boring calculating, "I can loose so much to him blah blah", just all out!

    Not that I don't like GTs, but nothing gets me more excited than a classic.

    I also think that the on the road tactics are much more exciting and complicated in classics.

    GTs you get more tactical dilemas, but they're more straightforward, and it's often more down to the legs than the head.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    NapoleonD wrote:
    I like bike racing.

    No sh!t, I like eating but I prefer pasta to rice.. :roll: What's your point?
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    I'd go for GTs for no other reason that some of the stages they contain are akin to the Classics (at least the Ardennes ones)!
    Contador is the Greatest
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    frenchfighter wrote:
    I'd go for GTs for no other reason that some of the stages they contain are akin to the Classics (at least the Ardennes ones)!

    They're not ridden like classics though...
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    teagar wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    I'd go for GTs for no other reason that some of the stages they contain are akin to the Classics (at least the Ardennes ones)!

    They're not ridden like classics though...

    Some of them are ridden a bit like Fleche Wallone or Amstel Gold... ie piano for the first 5 and a half hours then all-out for the last 5k.
  • redddraggon
    redddraggon Posts: 10,862
    I like Cobbles
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    afx237vi wrote:
    teagar wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    I'd go for GTs for no other reason that some of the stages they contain are akin to the Classics (at least the Ardennes ones)!

    They're not ridden like classics though...

    Some of them are ridden a bit like Fleche Wallone or Amstel Gold... ie piano for the first 5 and a half hours then all-out for the last 5k.

    I disagree. They're always much harder.

    There's none of this sitting in the group all day. I don't like it when only a third of the race has even an interest in doing anything other than as little as possible.

    I'm pretty sure if you ask riders who rode the smaller big classics (la Fleche, Gold) they'd say they were harder than a similar profile stage race day.

    I still like GTs though.. Just you end up watching hoping that that day's stage will end up as good as a classic is.
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    teagar wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    Some of them are ridden a bit like Fleche Wallone or Amstel Gold... ie piano for the first 5 and a half hours then all-out for the last 5k.

    I disagree. They're always much harder.

    There's none of this sitting in the group all day. I don't like it when only a third of the race has even an interest in doing anything other than as little as possible.

    I'm pretty sure if you ask riders who rode the smaller big classics (la Fleche, Gold) they'd say they were harder than a similar profile stage race day.

    I still like GTs though.. Just you end up watching hoping that that day's stage will end up as good as a classic is.

    Not sure that's any different between classics and grand tours, is it? Most of the peloton in a classic is there to do a job for their leader, same as in a grand tour. But in a grand tour you can sometimes have different goals for different days all within the same team. Like LPR in the Giro, one day for Di Luca, next day for Petacchi.

    I voted for GTs, but don't get me wrong, I still love the classics.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    afx237vi wrote:
    teagar wrote:
    afx237vi wrote:
    Some of them are ridden a bit like Fleche Wallone or Amstel Gold... ie piano for the first 5 and a half hours then all-out for the last 5k.

    I disagree. They're always much harder.

    There's none of this sitting in the group all day. I don't like it when only a third of the race has even an interest in doing anything other than as little as possible.

    I'm pretty sure if you ask riders who rode the smaller big classics (la Fleche, Gold) they'd say they were harder than a similar profile stage race day.

    I still like GTs though.. Just you end up watching hoping that that day's stage will end up as good as a classic is.

    Not sure that's any different between classics and grand tours, is it? Most of the peloton in a classic is there to do a job for their leader, same as in a grand tour. But in a grand tour you can sometimes have different goals for different days all within the same team. Like LPR in the Giro, one day for Di Luca, next day for Petacchi.

    I voted for GTs, but don't get me wrong, I still love the classics.


    It's a big difference when the team leader you're working for intends on doing as little as humanly possible without losing time rather than trying to win the stage! In the classic everyone's working to get their team a victory or at least the best exposure you can get.

    There's a good reason why a time gap of 10 seconds at the end of a classic counts for an awful lot more than 10 seconds at the end of your average GT stage.

    The fact that people can carry on riding in the grupetto losing time every day with quite persistant injury and problems like broken collar bones etc in GTs is telling. The difficulty is cumulative, not the sheer pace of the day!
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    teagar wrote:
    It's a big difference when the team leader you're working for intends on doing as little as humanly possible without losing time rather than trying to win the stage! In the classic everyone's working to get their team a victory or at least the best exposure you can get.

    They do that in GTs too... it just takes them 21 days instead of 6 hours :P
    There's a good reason why a time gap of 10 seconds at the end of a classic counts for an awful lot more than 10 seconds at the end of your average GT stage.

    The fact that people can carry on riding in the grupetto losing time every day with quite persistant injury and problems like broken collar bones etc in GTs is telling. The difficulty is cumulative, not the sheer pace of the day!

    Again, that's just a different facet of the sport. The fact that a rider can finish one day in the grupetto, hauling himself over huge mountains just to scrape inside the time-cut, only to be right up there the next day fighting for a stage win in a mad bunch gallop.

    To use another sport as an analogy:- Some people like the excitement and the razzmatazz of 20/20 cricket. It has big-hitting, run-outs, cheerleaders and all that jazz. Others like the fine art of the test match. Slow paced, sometimes a bit dull, but ultimately a better test of who plays the best cricket. Neither one is better, both are good to watch.
  • teagar
    teagar Posts: 2,100
    afx237vi wrote:
    teagar wrote:
    It's a big difference when the team leader you're working for intends on doing as little as humanly possible without losing time rather than trying to win the stage! In the classic everyone's working to get their team a victory or at least the best exposure you can get.

    They do that in GTs too... it just takes them 21 days instead of 6 hours :P
    There's a good reason why a time gap of 10 seconds at the end of a classic counts for an awful lot more than 10 seconds at the end of your average GT stage.

    The fact that people can carry on riding in the grupetto losing time every day with quite persistant injury and problems like broken collar bones etc in GTs is telling. The difficulty is cumulative, not the sheer pace of the day!

    Again, that's just a different facet of the sport. The fact that a rider can finish one day in the grupetto, hauling himself over huge mountains just to scrape inside the time-cut, only to be right up there the next day fighting for a stage win in a mad bunch gallop.

    To use another sport as an analogy:- Some people like the excitement and the razzmatazz of 20/20 cricket. It has big-hitting, run-outs, cheerleaders and all that jazz. Others like the fine art of the test match. Slow paced, sometimes a bit dull, but ultimately a better test of who plays the best cricket. Neither one is better, both are good to watch.


    Well duh!

    That's my point.... :roll:

    I want the excitement!
    Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.

Categories