Le Tour - The Only Race That Matters?

pedro118118

The season is barely underway, yet much of the talk is about what will happen at the Tour.

Riders are interviewed after races and maintain that their 'objectives' are based around a July peak in form.

Armstrong (he must be to blame again!) has long adopted the approach of using the first 6 months of the season as selective training. Even the likes of Evans - and now Wiggins - base their seasons/careers around a good placing at the Tour over success in other races; in which they would be very capable.

Why is that?

iainf72

Because it's the most important race. It's the only race the general punters might know or show an interest in.

I wish the big names in the sport would try to engage the public in the other races but they don't. Of course, someone countries are more engaged with cycling and understand / appreciate it more, but I think for the english speaking world it's the Tour that counts.

LangerDan

Its the "only race that matters" in the same sense that the Grand National is the "only (horse) race that matters."

iainf72

LangerDan wrote:

Its the "only race that matters" in the same sense that the Grand National is the "only (horse) race that matters."

you mean it's cruel and really not that good all things considered?

teagar

Depends who you ask!!

See: Stijn Devolder.

moray_gub

GT riders like Armstrong,Evans,Contador etc get interviewd and say they are focusing on the Tour which is fair enough been that way for years but for the few of them that have a chance of wiining in July there are far more focusing on the Spring cobbled/tarmac classics.

moray_gub

LangerDan wrote:

Its the "only race that matters" in the same sense that the Grand National is the "only (horse) race that matters."

The big difference is that horse racing in the UK is massive industry and followed by millions even without the Grand National so i dont think the comparison holds up.

dennisn

The whole TDF thing reminds me of baseball and The World Series. During the "regular season" results are only posted in the sports pages and only get a small write up.
However, once The World Series starts we are talking front page headlines. Even the major network news gets in on the act, and they rarely report on sports during the "regular season". The "big events" get the glory.

afx237vi

Moray Gub wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

Its the "only race that matters" in the same sense that the Grand National is the "only (horse) race that matters."

The big difference is that horse racing in the UK is massive industry and followed by millions even without the Grand National so i dont think the comparison holds up.

The Tour and the Grand National are the only events in their respective sports that capture the public interest.

Sure the Gold Cup may have prestige in horse racing circles, but how many people in the street could tell you who won last year? Same as Paris-Roubaix or the Giro for cycling.

teagar

Moray Gub wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

Its the "only race that matters" in the same sense that the Grand National is the "only (horse) race that matters."

The big difference is that horse racing in the UK is massive industry and followed by millions even without the Grand National so i dont think the comparison holds up.

Cycling is not a niche sport in any Western continental nation...

nick hanson

Moray Gub wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

Its the "only race that matters" in the same sense that the Grand National is the "only (horse) race that matters."

The big difference is that horse racing in the UK is massive industry and followed by millions even without the Grand National so i dont think the comparison holds up.

Not a bad comparison,I thought.
Anyone who knows very little (& cares even less) about horse racing has heard of the Grand National.
ergo,anyone who knows very little (& cares even less) about cycling has heard of the Tour De France

The press will ALWAYS talk up the TDF,as it's where the public interest is.
The general public will not have heard of,say,Paris Nice,Paris Roubaix,etc,so there is no percieved value for a journalist to rattle on about these races as the press editors will not include these items in their papers.You've only got to look in the back of any tabloid to see that the general public Only cares about football,& then horse racing :roll:

moray_gub

dennisn wrote:

The whole TDF thing reminds me of baseball and The World Series. During the "regular season" results are only posted in the sports pages and only get a small write up.
However, once The World Series starts we are talking front page headlines. Even the major network news gets in on the act, and they rarely report on sports during the "regular season". The "big events" get the glory.

The TDF is no different from other massive sporting events when it comes to getting publicity and focus. Olympics ,The Superbowl,World Cup Final,Tennis Grand Slams,Golf Grand Slams etc all get extra exposure.

moray_gub

nick hanson wrote:

ont think the comparison holds up.

Not a bad comparison,I thought.
Anyone who knows very little (& cares even less) about horse racing has heard of the Grand National.
ergo,anyone who knows very little (& cares even less) about cycling has heard of the Tour De France

The press will ALWAYS talk up the TDF,as it's where the public interest is.
The general public will not have heard of,say,Paris Nice,Paris Roubaix,etc,so there is no percieved value for a journalist to rattle on about these races as the press editors will not include these items in their papers.You've only got to look in the back of any tabloid to see that the general public Only cares about football,& then horse racing :roll:[/quote]

See thats the point i was making in the UK Horse racing is massive and it doesnt matter if the National doesnt exists it makes no odds as so many people follow it, where as in the UK so little follow cycling that if the TDF got no publicity then that would amount to next zero coverage of the sport. The UK comparison that really is similiar is the forthcoming Superbowl.

calvjones

I suspect to compare the TdF to the Superbowl is about right.

It doesn't capture the public's interest at all, except with a British victory/performance (same as sailing, say) or with a stand-out athlete and PR machine (hello LA). When Wiggo, Cav and Sky shuffle off we'll go back to getting a small piece on the news on the Champs Saturday.

Conversely, this thread would be thought laughable on a Flandrian Bikeradar...

pedro118118

Public perception is one thing.

Rider focus is something else - or perhaps they two are interralated?!

What I was getting at is there is a large group of stage-racers, who are 100% focussed on peforming well at the Tour. For some (say, Wiggo, VandeVelde, Kloden), this means a Top 10 placing. For others (say Armstrong, or Evans, or Levi) this means a Top 5 or a podium place. It's the Tour or nothing.

As a rider, I would rather have Vuelta or Giro winner..........or even Paris Nice, Dauphine, Romandy etc.

Contador, I can understand, as he's an overwhelming favourite and stands a very good chance of winning. The Schlecks seem to give the Classics due respect, but can't really think of others. Sanchez? Valverde?

pontarlier_pete

pedro118118 wrote:

The season is barely underway, yet much of the talk is about what will happen at the Tour.

Riders are interviewed after races and maintain that their 'objectives' are based around a July peak in form.

Armstrong (he must be to blame again!) has long adopted the approach of using the first 6 months of the season as selective training. Even the likes of Evans - and now Wiggins - base their seasons/careers around a good placing at the Tour over success in other races; in which they would be very capable.

Why is that?

Someone said to me once that it was something to do with limited amounts of blood bags, but I don't really understand what he was talking about. :?

Of course, it's in LA's interest to build the Tour up as the "one and only", so then his victories are worth more and he can make more money from them.

mercsport

Curiously, no one's mentioned the booty that comes with winning the tdf.

Even the secondary players get a fistful ( I think? :? ). Might that be the main reason for concentrating solely on that as the season's no.1 objective? Also, in most cases it defines a cyclist's career for good or ill. It seems to the benchmark for all of cycling. Even the other tours, the track and the olympics are small beer in comparison.

Personally- a bit of an italophile, I far prefer the Giro.

Garry H

mercsport wrote:

Curiously, no one's mentioned the booty that comes with winning the tdf.

Even the secondary players get a fistful ( I think? :? ). Might that be the main reason for concentrating solely on that as the season's no.1 objective? Also, in most cases it defines a cyclist's career for good or ill. It seems to the benchmark for all of cycling. Even the other tours, the track and the olympics are small beer in comparison.

Personally- a bit of an italophile, I far prefer the Giro.

The prize-money is normally distributed among the team though, isn't it? Far more money os made from post-tour crits and endorsements for the foolowing year, "Tour winning shoes" and the like.

VinceEager

my own preference is for the classics.

Ben6899

LangerDan wrote:

Its the "only race that matters" in the same sense that the Grand National is the "only (horse) race that matters."

Your thick-as-two-short-planks receptionist also picked Contador out of the work sweepstake?

Monty Dog

I like Dennis' analogy with the World Series - another event who's leading exponents have established their reputations through institutionalised doping with little regard for the public! The TDF might be the only 'bike race' in the eyes of the media, but apart from the dozen or so leading contenders, I expect it's a bit of a circus for everyone else.

thegibdog

pedro118118 wrote:

Public perception is one thing.

Rider focus is something else - or perhaps they two are interralated?!

What I was getting at is there is a large group of stage-racers, who are 100% focussed on peforming well at the Tour. For some (say, Wiggo, VandeVelde, Kloden), this means a Top 10 placing. For others (say Armstrong, or Evans, or Levi) this means a Top 5 or a podium place. It's the Tour or nothing.

As a rider, I would rather have Vuelta or Giro winner..........or even Paris Nice, Dauphine, Romandy etc.

Contador, I can understand, as he's an overwhelming favourite and stands a very good chance of winning. The Schlecks seem to give the Classics due respect, but can't really think of others. Sanchez? Valverde?

The Tour gets the most publicity and therefore carries the most kudos with the public. Therefore more riders will target this event, and the more riders that target the event the more important it becomes. The more important it becomes the more riders will target it and the more publicity it will get, and so on. It's self perpetuating.

dennisn

Monty Dog wrote:

........with little regard for the public!.........

I've always felt that the athletes never have given a d*mn about the fans despite all
the claims of "we love our fans" and the usual 2 or 3 "fan appreciation days". In sports
it has always seemed to me that all they want is your money to get through the door and then buy their overpriced beer and food. I guess that if I owned a football team that would be all I cared about also. Show me the money.

sherer

the thing is the TdF and even the Grand National are all followed by people who don't actually follow the sport.

I never watch horse racing or take an interest in it yet I do watch the GN every year. The same is true for people with the TdF and cycling. They will only watch that and no other race, my dad who never watches cycling on TV will watch the tour