Giro better than the Tour?

andrewgturnbull

paulcuthbert wrote:

Nope. If it's not on tv it's no good to me!

Paul - are you trying to make a comparison between a race that you have watched, and one that you haven't?

How does that work then?

Cheers, Andy

iainf72

Tom Butcher wrote:

I'm taking it that you thought the Giro was rubbish because you think DiLuca and perhaps the other major contenders weren't clean rather than the racing itself ?

Racing really - It was over after the TT. And the fact the only guy who seemed to take it to Vienna Dennis was an obviously tooled up git didn't help. So both

paulcuthbert

andrewgturnbull wrote:

paulcuthbert wrote:

Nope. If it's not on tv it's no good to me!

Paul - are you trying to make a comparison between a race that you have watched, and one that you haven't?

How does that work then?

Cheers, Andy

I'm not comparing last years Tour to anything- just giving my opinion of it.

Cheers, Paul

blazing_saddles

paulcuthbert wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The Giro is a 16YO Islay malt.
The Tour is a supermarket blend.
One is for the connoisseurs, the other, for the mass market.

Isn't that a kinda snobbish attitude to it though? Because it's not as accessible doesn't make it less quality surely!

Why is everything snobbish, just because it may take a bit more effort?
Both races take place in the same time zone.

Unless you:
a) Haven't got Sky
b) Haven't got broadband
c) Live on the moon
You can access the Giro as easily as the Tour.
Maybe it's snobbish to expect your commentary to automatically come in English?

andrewgturnbull wrote:

Paul - are you trying to make a comparison between a race that you have watched, and one that you haven't?

How does that work then?

Cheers, Andy

I think we were assuming Paul had watched the Giro, but maybe you are right. In which case.............

finchy

iainf72 wrote:

.

Last years Tour was crap. Crap route resulted in a crap race. Last years Giro was also rubbish. The Tour is quite often not-that-good, but all the hoo-ha around it makes up for it. Since the 05 Giro I'd say the best stage races tended to be Paris-Nice or the Dauphine.

They could have had any route last year and it still would have been crap unless Contador had fallen/had a mechanical/forgotten to eat at some point.

When a rider can climb better and TT better than any of the other contenders you get a boring procession.

Hopefully this year some of the younger riders will mount a serious challenge for the yellow jersey.

paulcuthbert

johnfinch wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

.

Last years Tour was crap. Crap route resulted in a crap race. Last years Giro was also rubbish. The Tour is quite often not-that-good, but all the hoo-ha around it makes up for it. Since the 05 Giro I'd say the best stage races tended to be Paris-Nice or the Dauphine.

They could have had any route last year and it still would have been crap unless Contador had fallen/had a mechanical/forgotten to eat at some point.

When a rider can climb better and TT better than any of the other contenders you get a boring procession.

Hopefully this year some of the younger riders will mount a serious challenge for the yellow jersey.

Kreuziger!!!

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

I'm taking it that you thought the Giro was rubbish because you think DiLuca and perhaps the other major contenders weren't clean rather than the racing itself ?

Racing really - It was over after the TT. And the fact the only guy who seemed to take it to Vienna Dennis was an obviously tooled up git didn't help. So both

Lucky that the Tour was totally clean and only had the big tool, not his usual equipment. (Copyright P McQuaid 2009)
Just imagine: Being tooled up and turning out that turd of a race.

Remind me.........why do we watch, again? :P

dougzz

The Tour is going to struggle with the route whilst they value commercialism over the race itself. The 09 Grand Depart in Nice always meant the route would be impossible given they didn't want to go straight into the Alps, and given the formula of Alps and Pyrenees with a separation between them. The route felt like an artificial meander to kill time before the mountains. They should have made much better use of rolling terrain and coastal roads that introduce wind as a factor. Also, until they finish mountain stages immediately following an ascent there's not enough of a reward for the serious climbers to make attacks, if the want the cash from the finish town more than the mountain top finish they'll always be sacrificing route for commercialism..

moray_gub

mpd62 wrote:

The Giro is for cycling fans,The Tour is for those who enjoy cycling for 3 weeks of the year and jornalists obsessed with doping stories

I think thats an innacurate generalisation, i suspect most cycling fans love both races in varying degreees. I prefer the Giro for the racing,parcours,scenery etc but the Tour is something special as well.

RichN95.

The basics of it are:

The Giro has more imaginative route and the tougher climbs. This makes for more exciting racing.

But, the Giro doesn't have the field (local race for local people). The Tour has everyone who matters. It's the one race that the stars don't miss (there are some exceptions).

To make a not entirely appropriate analogy - 20/20 Cricket is all action and exciting, but the really quality players (the ones who will be remembered), excel at Test cricket, which is often boring for a lot of the time.

blazing_saddles

I didn't find myself crying out for "big names", yesterday. I more impressed by the quality of racing, rather than the quality of the field.

Maybe a better analogy for that would come from the movies.
Big budget epics always have/had stellar cast lists, but they don't normally end up as the best films.

rick_chasey

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Maybe a better analogy for that would come from the movies.
Big budget epics always have/had stellar cast lists, but they don't normally end up as the best films.

Without wanting to go off on a tangent, I'd suggest the actors in big budget epics are pretty poor...


Anyway, is there some credence to the argument that because the Giro matters a little less, and the differences between the overall contenders are bigger, that riders are more likely to ride agressively?

I know that the Giro has a rep of throwing up the odd 'tranquillo' stage, because riders are just too tired - something that the Tour never has. Surely that kind of racing leaves a little more energy over for some more agressive racing?

I'd also suggest that the quality of teams are lower which makes it much more difficult for one or two very strong teams to shut it down in the same way that the big teams do in the Tour.

Anonymous

Rick Chasey wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Maybe a better analogy for that would come from the movies.
Big budget epics always have/had stellar cast lists, but they don't normally end up as the best films.[/quote]

Without wanting to go off on a tangent, I'd suggest the actors in big budget epics are pretty poor...


Anyway, is there some credence to the argument that because the Giro matters a little less, and the differences between the overall contenders are bigger, that riders are more likely to ride agressively?

I know that the Giro has a rep of throwing up the odd 'tranquillo' stage, because riders are just too tired - something that the Tour never has. Surely that kind of racing leaves a little more energy over for some more agressive racing?

I'd also suggest that the quality of teams are lower which makes it much more difficult for one or two very strong teams to shut it down in the same way that the big teams do in the Tour.

Prove it. Back up what I have put in bold type.

timoid.

dmclite wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Maybe a better analogy for that would come from the movies.
Big budget epics always have/had stellar cast lists, but they don't normally end up as the best films.[/quote]

Without wanting to go off on a tangent, I'd suggest the actors in big budget epics are pretty poor...


Anyway, is there some credence to the argument that because the Giro matters a little less, and the differences between the overall contenders are bigger, that riders are more likely to ride agressively?

I know that the Giro has a rep of throwing up the odd 'tranquillo' stage, because riders are just too tired - something that the Tour never has. Surely that kind of racing leaves a little more energy over for some more agressive racing?

I'd also suggest that the quality of teams are lower which makes it much more difficult for one or two very strong teams to shut it down in the same way that the big teams do in the Tour.

Prove it. Back up what I have put in bold type.

Avatar. Worst film ever.

calvjones

Clerks. Best film ever. $25,000.

Monty Dog

Big budget race = big budget preparation programme.

What was noticeable yesterday was the complete absence of teams setting tempo and when it came down to the final selection, it was only a handful of riders who could hang in there.

Wait 'til July and we'll see a number of teams riding tempo on cat 1 climbs setting up the leaders for the final pitch.

paulcuthbert

Monty Dog wrote:

Big budget race = big budget preparation programme.

What was noticeable yesterday was the complete absence of teams setting tempo and when it came down to the final selection, it was only a handful of riders who could hang in there.

Wait 'til July and we'll see a number of teams riding tempo on cat 1 climbs setting up the leaders for the final pitch.

Maybe that's to do with teams sending their "best" and most-drilled 9 riders to the Tour though

micron

I agree Rich - I think the weather has also played its part this year - the Strade Bianchi wouldn't have been as epic had the rain stayed away.

I'd like to see the TdF take more chances and perhaps they are moving that way with the parcours. Unfortunately, I think they're a victim of their own success - but I also think it's too early to write it off either. The Armstrong years did the race no favours and the Giro has had the advantage of not having had a dominant figure in the modern era. Ultimately, though, I think it's apples and oranges - come Tour time there'll be something just as epic to keep us all breathless. Having said which this first week at the Giro has been superb.

squired

As others have suggested, the Tour only needs minor modifications to make it a better race. A "mountain" stage where the last mountain is 70km from the finish is pointless. Having a penultimate mountain where there is 20km of valley before the final climb means that no-one will do anything until the final climb.

In this year's Tour we have something like 3 mountain top finishes. I'll put money on at least one of those climbs having a headwind, which results in hardly any attacking. So, the opportunities are slim for the climbers. We will then have a bunch of stages that are pan flat to the finish. In the past you felt like you had to watch a stage in full because things happened. These days I know I can turn on with 10km to go on a flat stage and at the base of the final climb on a mountain stage.

If the biggest race of the year, which most people who don't know the sport will take as a reference point for cycling as a whole, is boring, how will the sport ever grow?

knedlicky

RichN95 wrote:

But, the Giro doesn't have the field (local race for local people). The Tour has everyone who matters.

Isn’t the Tour also a local race for local people – think how many French riders take part. And whether the Tour has everyone who matters is surely just a matter of perspective.

I like the Tour as a spectacle, I like certain of its regular passes, and I like the way it’s like a local public holiday and day out for even grandma in the area it’s passing through - which I haven’t found to be quite so much the case in Italy, the Italians are still thinking football when the Giro begins.

But, apart from the racing, route, and scenery, there are other reasons to favour the Giro instead - less domination by leading riders and the uncertainty of the eventual winner ...
- the 4 Tour riders who have worn the most yellow jerseys have worn it 314 times total between them; the equivalent total for the 4 Giro riders who have worn the most pink jerseys is only 243.
- last year’s victory was by 41 secs and the 10th closest in Giro history; only 5 Tour victories have been by this margin or less.
- in post-WW2 years, only 3 riders have won the Giro 3 times or more compared, to 7 riders having won the Tour 3 times or more.

deejay

dmclite wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Maybe a better analogy for that would come from the movies.
Big budget epics always have/had stellar cast lists, but they don't normally end up as the best films.[/quote]

Prove it. Back up what I have put in bold type.

How about pharmstrong as the biggest celebrity in the cycling world.
With the Giro stage 7 this week showing you a vintage GT stage that has not been seen for many a year and an education to most of you.
My question is that if this type of vintage stage had occured more often in 1999/2000/2001 then would the texan have been so keen to break the 5 time record. ???
Indurain not included but the other 5 time TDF winners all had to put up with stages and weeks of atrocious roads and also weather conditions.
That is why we call the others "Great" and the texan we shrug our shoulders and say, yup he won 7, so what he should with a bigger/better team and roads than any other before.

I have followed the magic of all the GT's and I am annoyed at the UCI when they move the Giro this early (the Vuelta would finish May 19) and not wait for the snow to clear and the football to finish.

The TDF has evolved from a cycle race to a mobile Carnival that brings so much more money to the event. (anybody here remember the Michelin Tyre men on motorbikes)
We saw in the TDF 2009 where the Carnival (Money) became more important than the cycle race with a start in Monaco and then a ride through Provence and past the "Giant of Provence" to come back to it nearly 3 weeks later as a finale.
You cannot argue that all along the French mediteranian in July is where the money is and after that what was left to make some sort of cycle race.
The other problem with that race was again the UCI allowing a guest rider into a team without the sponsors wanting him and the media following this guy as though he was a team captain.
Again the money took over with the cycle race behind it.
The result was a farce and I hope Wiggins improves a bit more than Bobby Julich did from another non memorable tour.

Pross

paulcuthbert wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

The Giro is a 16YO Islay malt.
The Tour is a supermarket blend.
One is for the connoisseurs, the other, for the mass market.

Isn't that a kinda snobbish attitude to it though? Because it's not as accessible doesn't make it less quality surely!

Jeez, it's that word again! Plus I think you are arguing against your own case there aren't you - i.e. the Giro is not as accessible but it doesn't mean it is less quality :? Or did you mean because the Tour is more accessible doesn't mean it is less quality?

I really wish the Giro was shown on TV as it would stop me worrying about my mental health as I'm sure I sat down and watched it yesterday or does "being on TV" mean an hour long travel show with brief highlights of a bike race and comments from the Unofficial LA Fan Club?

blazing_saddles

dmclite wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Maybe a better analogy for that would come from the movies.
Big budget epics always have/had stellar cast lists, but they don't normally end up as the best films.[/quote]

Without wanting to go off on a tangent, I'd suggest the actors in big budget epics are pretty poor...


Anyway, is there some credence to the argument that because the Giro matters a little less, and the differences between the overall contenders are bigger, that riders are more likely to ride agressively?

I know that the Giro has a rep of throwing up the odd 'tranquillo' stage, because riders are just too tired - something that the Tour never has. Surely that kind of racing leaves a little more energy over for some more agressive racing?

I'd also suggest that the quality of teams are lower which makes it much more difficult for one or two very strong teams to shut it down in the same way that the big teams do in the Tour.

Prove it. Back up what I have put in bold type.

I see some have already beaten me to it.

Uuuum, OK, how about this famous turkey.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059245/
Pretty stellar Hollywood cast, including Big John Wayne, who is remembered for this gem:
John Wayne: `Truly this man was the son of God.'
Director George Stevens: `No, John! Say it with awe....'
John Wayne: Aw, truly this man was the son of God!'

DavMartinR

I think the geography of Italy lends itself better to a race organiser than France. In Itay you only have to turn left or right ( depending which coast your on) and you can throw a couple of hils into any stage if you want to mix things up. In France you'd have to put in a couple of transition stages to get to the big mountains.

But I suppose we are lucky to have them both and the Vuelta.

RichN95.

knedlicky wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But, the Giro doesn't have the field (local race for local people). The Tour has everyone who matters.

Isn’t the Tour also a local race for local people – think how many French riders take part. And whether the Tour has everyone who matters is surely just a matter of perspective.

Participation levels wasn't really what I was referring to with the 'local' comment. I was more about who was winning. There was an 11 Giro period from 1997-2007: Italians won all 11 of these races, two thirds of the podiums were Italian, nine of the points competitions were won by Italians and over 60% of the stages were too.

During this period, it wasn't far off being a race just for Italians.To my mind this lowered it's status somewhat. Fortunately things seem to have improved in the last couple of years.

As to whether the Tour has everyone who matters - very few riders miss it voluntarily. Last year, I think only Basso, Cunego, Sanchez, Gilbert and EBH.

Kléber

The Giro has the best route but the Tour has the best riders. But comparing them too hard is not necessary, they do not compete directly and as a fan of the sport, I enjoy them both, albeit for slightly different reasons.

knedlicky

RichN95 wrote:

I was more about who was winning. There was an 11 Giro period from 1997-2007: Italians won all 11 of these races ... During this period, it wasn't far off being a race just for Italians.

It wasn’t the Italians who prevented several ‘international’ names from taking part and trying to get on the podium in the Giro over this 11-year period, but those ‘international’ names chose to avoid it - which in a way was giving the Giro high tribute.

DaveyL

knedlicky wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I was more about who was winning. There was an 11 Giro period from 1997-2007: Italians won all 11 of these races ... During this period, it wasn't far off being a race just for Italians.

It wasn’t the Italians who prevented several ‘international’ names from taking part and trying to get on the podium in the Giro over this 11-year period, but those ‘international’ names chose to avoid it - which in a way was giving the Giro high tribute.

It was? How does that work?

paulcuthbert

deejay wrote:

We saw in the TDF 2009 where the Carnival (Money) became more important than the cycle race with a start in Monaco and then a ride through Provence and past the "Giant of Provence" to come back to it nearly 3 weeks later as a finale.

Don't know if you've ever been to Provence, but Ventoux is quite a long way from Marseille/La Grande Motte - and the route between these towns on stage 3 didn't really pass the Ventoux at all.

I stayed in Grans 2 years ago, which is a little village about a kilometre from the outskirts of Salon de Provence (both these towns were passed on the route to La Grande Motte) and Ventoux was an hours drive away from there. Although it's giant, you can't see it until you're on the hills (5km) or through the valley to the north of Salon at Cavaillon (20km).

As the crow flies, the Ventoux was about 50-60km from the route of stage 3...

Le Commentateur

The Giro sometimes suffers from being a little bit early in the summer for a three week tour, especially when they get to the big mountains. I suppose this year may be one of those, what with the cold spring we've had and the World Cup shunting the schedule of the final week back from its usual early June.

In these days of worldwide internet coverage, cable TV and budget airlines it is easily forgotten that just 10 years ago getting to see the Giro wasn't quite so easy. I followed it though Italy in the late 1990s, the Pantani/Gotti/Tonkov years, and though that's not really so long ago, even then it felt really old school compared with the Tour de France — minimal security between public & riders, hardly any merchandise except what the local spivs had knocked out beforehand, etc.

In those days the TdF definitely had the better PR but now — so long as the organisers don't get greedy again and overcharge for TV and webcast rights — it's profile has risen considerably.