Which was better (Giro Vs Tour)?

DLH1985

So, which do you think was better? Personally, I preferred the drama of the Giro, the Tour seemed too predictable (summed up by the Tourmalet stage where nothing surprising happened). I'm interested to see what other people think.

Anonymous

Giro.

petejuk

Giro as a complete race, although I thought the first week of the TdF was superb. Its a shame the rest didn't match up - more to do with the nature of the cycling than the route.

Neil McC

Giro for me too

blazing_saddles

The Big G.

Squaggles

Giro , but I usually prefer it anyway

paulcuthbert

Tour de France

iainf72

This year you'd have to be a bit demented to think any race this season matched the Giro for excitement and quality.

paulcuthbert

Well I didn't watch the Giro, so I can't compare it to any other race. Only one's I've watched this year are the Tour, Tour of Flanders, Paris-Roubaix and Liege-Bastogne-Liege

secretsqirrel

Giro...........no comparison.

It was the mud what did for me. Never seen anything like that before :shock: .

Monty Dog

Generally the Giro beats the Tour for difficulty of course and the fact that the GC isn't often sorted until the last couple of days because the course is so hard. The Tour is 'spoilt' by lack of decent mountain finishes and lack of imagination by ASO. The riding on this year's Giro was exceptional, particularly the 'L'eroica' stage in Tuscany with Evans and Vino going elbow to elbow and Basso grovelling in the dirt.

campagone

The Giro as a race was miles ahead, it's just a shame it dosen't have the glitz and glamour of Le Tour, it's not even broadcast in proper HD and to me seems to be put together on the cheap, but I suppose that's down mainly to the host broadcaster RAI.

frenchfighter

Monty Dog wrote:

Generally the Giro beats the Tour for difficulty of course and the fact that the GC isn't often sorted until the last couple of days because the course is so hard. The Tour is 'spoilt' by lack of decent mountain finishes and lack of imagination by ASO. The riding on this year's Giro was exceptional, particularly the 'L'eroica' stage in Tuscany with Evans and Vino going elbow to elbow and Basso grovelling in the dirt.

Agreed. The Giro's course is much better, more exciting, more challenging, more varied and more favourable to climbers.

The riders make the race too and in the Giro it appears more open and the riders seem to be more aggressive leading to bigger and more varied time gaps. A real selection of the fittest. The Tour just seems to be ridden defensively and although there are great individual events and moments, the overall isn't as good imo.

frenchfighter

campagone wrote:

it's just a shame it dosen't have the glitz and glamour of Le Tour

If you mean to the riders then I agree. Otherwise I think this hampers the Tour in some ways.

ms_tree

Definitely Il Giro tho' it's hard to choose between the cobbled stage of Le Tour and the strade bianche stage of Il Giro.

afx237vi

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Giro...........no comparison.

It was the mud what did for me. Never seen anything like that before :shock: .

+1

Not just the mud, though, but proper balls-out racing from Evans, Vino et al. Best day's racing I've seen for years.

ScottieP

Another +1 for the Giro here - I thought it was a much better race than the Tour ... which was pretty dull in the end apart from "chaingate".

secretsqirrel

afx237vi wrote:

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Giro...........no comparison.

It was the mud what did for me. Never seen anything like that before :shock: .

+1

Not just the mud, though, but proper balls-out racing from Evans, Vino et al. Best day's racing I've seen for years.

That's what I was talking about. It was a race, not a stage. Only those with supreme bike handling skills need apply. It mattered like life matters.

Evans, Vinokourov, Cunego attack, survive and attack again.

Also, it was the day that Vino turned a corner and earned some respect when he with, Scarponi, tried to neutralise the escape following the crash of the Maglia Rosa.

Ah yes, that stage had it all.

blazing_saddles

I am amazed that not just one, but seven people found this year's Tour more exciting and enjoyable than the 2010 Giro.
The only conclusions I can reach is that they didn't actually see the Italian epic, or they prefer watching specific riders to racing. :?

DaveyL

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I am amazed that not just one, but seven people found this year's Tour more exciting and enjoyable than the 2010 Giro.
The only conclusions I can reach is that they didn't actually see the Italian epic, or they prefer watching specific riders to racing. :?

I don't know - I can see why some people would vote that way. For example, a lot of people were saying the Tour's first week was as good as the Giro (just go back and look at the comments in the spoiler threads for the first week's stages in the Tour), and Stage 3 of the Tour was excellent, kind of a counterpoint to the strade bianche stage of the Giro.

The GC came down to the final TT between Schleck and Contador, and there was only 39 seconds separating them in the end. So even if there wasn't a lot of attacking in the mountains, there was still a lot of tension as to who was going to win the GC.

The Giro became a bit dull when Ivan the Terrible Liar cruised away from Evans on the Mortirolo, as it became clear who was going to win the overall then, but the Zoncolan stage was truly excellent. I guess the mountain stages of the Tour were missing some attacking, but that was because Schleck and Contador were so evenly matched, I think, and couldn't, or didn't want to, launch big attacks. Maybe time to bring back time bonuses, as a few folk have suggested.

There was plenty of good racing and good stories in the Tour. I think the Giro was probably better, but not by much.

Perhaps if they let a bunch of dodgy, charged-up eye-talians ride the Tour, it would also be as exciting as the Giro

Edit: I think the Giro also benefitted from the unusual situation where the massive break went away, and Arroyo ended up in the pink jersey, so we had another sub-plot to the race, seeing if/for how long, he could hold on to the lead.

As a general point, I don't think the harder course makes for a better race - it's how well-matched the riders are, and how willing they are to attack. If you had a really hard course with a lot of mountain top finishes, and one really superior rider, you would just end up with them miles ahead (see the 2006 Giro for example...).

stjohnswell

Another for the Giro. Bit worried that it might now seem simply too tough and we'll see even more big names soft pedalling in California as preparation for July.

rick_chasey

The spring classi.....oh...


Giro it is then.

RichN95.

I was the guy who voted for no difference. I thought they were both terrific races. Aficionados annually tend to favour the Giro in the same way that serious film fans think Magnolia is a better film than Raiders of the Lost Ark - which it's not). I can, however, sympathise with this view.

I'll play devil's advocate here and defend Le Tour.

The startlist: The Tour had everyone who is anyone, at least in GC terms. A true summit of the heads of state. The Giro had Basso, an undercooked Nibali, Evans, Vino, Scarponi and Sastre. That's just about it. The Tour had maybe 17 genuine podium contenders.

The GC race: Amongst those contenders mentioned, Basso always had the upper hand in the mountains. The GC race eventually came down to Basso chipping away at Arroyo's lead. By contrast the Tour had the two best GC riders head to head until the final time trial.

The maverick stage: Fortune favoured the Italians here. Rain on the Strade Bianche, dry on the Roubaix cobbles. Both great stages, but the luck of the weather made the Italian version the most epic stage for many a year.

The mountain stages: The Italians went for the steep, long and epic mountains as much as possible. Basso was the best, with the support of an A-team amongst B-teams. Mostly there was no attacking, just a slow grind up monstrous climbs.

Flat stages: The Giro didn't really give us much in the sprints (I know some of you hate the sprints, but some, like me, love them). The Giro was a mish-mash of winners. Farrar did well to get two,but they didn't provide the fall and rise story that Cavendish provided at the Tour. Also, in Bordeaux and Paris, he provided us with genuine 'wow' moments. Weylandts and Goss didn't manage that.

Controversy: This has always been a big part of pro sports, The Tour gave us Renshaw, the neutralised stage and the chain incident. In the Giro, the pinbki jesrsey crashed on two consecutive days and no-one cared.


Don't get me wrong here. I thought the Giro was brilliant. But I also thought the Tour was fantastic too. Let's hope the Vuelta can match them (it's a bonkers course so they might)

blazing_saddles

DaveyL wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I am amazed that not just one, but seven people found this year's Tour more exciting and enjoyable than the 2010 Giro.
The only conclusions I can reach is that they didn't actually see the Italian epic, or they prefer watching specific riders to racing. :?

I don't know - I can see why some people would vote that way. For example, a lot of people were saying the Tour's first week was as good as the Giro (just go back and look at the comments in the spoiler threads for the first week's stages in the Tour), and Stage 3 of the Tour was excellent, kind of a counterpoint to the strade bianche stage of the Giro.

Thanks for the long and thoughtful post. Plenty of material to debate.
My take on week 1.
St 1/prologue v prologue: Little or no difference
Stage 2/1: Wiggins dramatic loss of the Maglia Rosa > The final sprint crashes of Bruxelles.
Stage 3/2: 100kms of Giro echelons and crashes. Evans alone > The dramatic Spa crash and subsequent neutralisation of the stage.
Stage 4/3: The Giro TTT < The Tour's most explosive stage over the cobbles. GC shaping stuff.
Stage 5/4: Jerome Pineau's amazingly holding off the peloton, breakaway win > Petacchi taking Cav to the cleaners.
Stage 6/5: Mattie Lloyd's mini mountain epic breakaway victory > Cav's first stage win.
Stage 7/6 The Giro's best. The Strada Bianche > Cav's 2nd stage win.
Stage 8/7 The Terminillo shadow boxing < Station des Rousses undercard interest.

Of course, others will feel differently, but to me, there is a chasm between the respective first weeks.

Moomaloid

Giro, the most exciting GT for some time. And Evans' ride was inspiring...

Gingerflash

The Giro was pretty exciting but it's always going to play second fiddle simply because it doesn't have the same prestige, so the start list isn't as good, loads of riders say they're only there for training or prep for the tour, it clashed with California etc.

No-one goes into the Tour half-heartedly and every team sends its absolute best squad. You're guaranteed to see the best riders in peak form, giving it their all.

The Giro was great to watch, but you can't help but think "would it be different if X or Y was here?".

jimmythecuckoo

The giro was better to watch as a spectacle (and scenary too I reckon).

Having said that there was some compelling stuff first week of the Tour and on the Tourmalet.

Pross

paulcuthbert wrote:

Well I didn't watch the Giro, so I can't compare it to any other race. Only one's I've watched this year are the Tour, Tour of Flanders, Paris-Roubaix and Liege-Bastogne-Liege

Then why say the Tour was better? Surely you need to have seen both to comment? :?

Giro by a long way for me, I thought it had everything a race needs. It seems less controlled which is a good thing IMO. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the Tour, the first week was very good and the top two were well matched but it was still pretty much predicatable from week two onwards.

TheStone

This year's Giro was the best tour of my lifetime.
This year's Tour was not.

The tour was fine. First week interesting and can't take anything away from Contador/Schleck,
(just a pity they were so evenly matched).

The giro had it all. The wind, the mud stage, the wind, the massive break, the unfancied
leaders, the Zoncolon....

Anywhere I can get a DVD of this year's Giro?

Monty Zoncolan

I can understand why some people preferred the Tour but for me it was the Giro hands down.

Whether it was the strada bianchi stage, the field getting turned on its head on the way to Aquilla, the mano a mano war of attrition on the Zoncolan or just seeing all-round tough nuts such as Vino and Evans seemingly on the verge of blubbing like babies, this year's Giro had it all.

donrhummy

The Giro, easily. And if I could've watched the Giro in HD, it would have been even farther ahead of the TDF. Zomegnan needs to start getting his due as one of the best tour organizers of the last 20 years. He's really done some amazing work at keeping the Giro fresh, exciting and a competition for a full 3 weeks.