Giro Consistently Outshining the Tour

Berk Bonebonce

That format of a three week race with two visits to the mountains is so worn out now. In contrast, decisive days in the Giro come more frequently and this consistently makes for a better race.

I suppose if you are American or Japanese you have probably only ever heard of one bike race, but I'd rather watch the Giro any day.

Kléber

That's true but France doesn't have the mountains to use every third day. It's the Pyrenees or the Alps with not much in between. But 2011 looks better, with the Massif Central and plenty of mountains all the way, including some uphill finishes in the first week.

The best thing is you can watch the Giro and then the Tour, it's not like you have to decide between them.

magliaceleste

I'm a Giro fan too, but yeah it's all good. Anyone know if DVDs/ Blu-Rays of this years Giro going are going to be releaased? Just something to watch over the winter...

gsk82

i think the giro has to be harder to try and challenge the tour. ASO know they can do pretty much whatever they want with the tour since its so big

epc06

Kléber wrote:

The best thing is you can watch the Giro and then the Tour, it's not like you have to decide between them.

Agree totally

Giro does not always attract ALL the best riders so loses points for that

DaveyL

Yeah, but, you know, the Giro is this cool Italian race that only real cycling fans know about. And if you're one of the ones that knows it's the best grand tour, then you're, like, cooler, and different from all the others....

blazing_saddles

Kléber wrote:

That's true but France doesn't have the mountains to use every third day. It's the Pyrenees or the Alps with not much in between. But 2011 looks better, with the Massif Central and plenty of mountains all the way, including some uphill finishes in the first week.

Yes.
I think Prudhomme has noticed how the Giro's use of intermediate hills has made the race a better overall spectacle. For many years, the Tour was hamstrung by it's slavish desire to adhere to a circular route. Using the Massif has broken this trend and hopefully will provide the necessary excitement to pep up the transitonal stages.
Now all he has to do is add a few "citadel" finishes and he may have cracked it.

I don't think it is necessarily cool to want to enjoy an exciting three week race, rather than a huge production.

iainf72

The problem for the Tour is there is so much at stake. So people will ride to come 7'th as if it has some actual value.

If the Giro is Miles Davis, the Tour is Kenny G. The Vuelta is that guy at tube stations who dresses as Sylvester the cat and plays along to "Part time lover" on some kind of horn.

nicensleazy

I love the Giro and I love the tour!

disquieting_museeuws

I am put in mind (somewhat) of a fable of Aesop.

A female Hyaena was laughing at a Lioness. 'You only have one cub, whereas I have a litter of four!'

'Just one', replied the Lioness, 'but a Lion'.


I think both the Giro & Tour routes are very promising this year FWIW, but I'm a little sceptical about the massif central as these 'moyenne montagne' stages haven't always worked in the recent past.

RichN95.

It's like in football comparing the Premiership and the Championship.

The Championship may often have more excitement and more unpredictability, but you know all the best players are in the Premiership and it's the one most people watch.

I like them both, but if I was cursed to only watch one of them, it would be the Tour every time because it's the one (almost) everyone turns up for.

donrhummy

Berk Bonebonce wrote:

That format of a three week race with two visits to the mountains is so worn out now. In contrast, decisive days in the Giro come more frequently and this consistently makes for a better race.

I suppose if you are American or Japanese you have probably only ever heard of one bike race, but I'd rather watch the Giro any day.

Thanks for your steretyping and Xenophobia, it really added to the conversation you started. :roll:

Here in the U.S. a number of us cycling fans are BIG into the Giro. I've stated many times on here about how I enjoyed it far more than the TDF and how great a race it is. I don't know that I fully agree with your simple "reasons" for it being better, but certainly Zomegnan has done a phenomenal job at putting the route together over the last 4-5 years - much better than the TDF. And I love that he takes risks which the TDF organizers seem to be afraid of doing with the route.

However, the Giro could benefit from some of the superior event handling of ASO (better video shots, HD quality, TV licensing, getting the best riders - some of this is due to TDF history -- surrounding events, rider transfers...)

Berk Bonebonce

donrhummy wrote:

I don't know that I fully agree with your simple "reasons" for it being better, but certainly Zomegnan has done a phenomenal job at putting the route together over the last 4-5 years - much better than the TDF. And I love that he takes risks which the TDF organizers seem to be afraid of doing with the route.

I am pleased that we could agree that I am right.

And just to continue with the 'xenophobia', I think too many North Americans, both pro's and fans, see cycling too much in terms of just the Tour, and this is perhaps one reason for the media obsession with it and its thoroughly unwarranted and massive popularity over both the Vuelta and the Giro.

I dunno? What do people watch bike racing for? Because all the 'big names' are in a certain race, as in the Tour. Or for the racing itself. I've seen a whole lot more bike racing in the Giro than the Tour. And how about all those silly wotsits that turn up at the Tour in fancy costume and the like?

RichN95.

Berk Bonebonce wrote:

And just to continue with the 'xenophobia', I think too many North Americans, both pro's and fans, see cycling too much in terms of just the Tour, and this is perhaps one reason for the media obsession with it and its thoroughly unwarranted and massive popularity over both the Vuelta and the Giro.

I'm one who thinks the Tour is better.

The Tour is the 'World Cup' of cycling. Everyone turns up for it, no-one uses it as training. Few (just Gilbert really) willingly give it a miss.
Want to be seen as great GC rider? - do it at the Tour, not the Giro
Want to be the best TTer? - do it the Tour, not the World Champs
Want to be the best sprinter? - they're all going to be at the Tour.

The Giro is inventive with its route (as befits its geography), but for years it was a 'local race for local people'. In the last three years it's been a little more international, but still only Basso/Nibali, Sastre, Vande Velde and Evans were the best GC riders in their teams this year (Wiggins wasn't trying to win).

With the mentally hard course in 2011, it will be whoever Liquigas put up vs. Ricco, with second stringers filling out the start list.

Sport is at it's best when the best come up against each other, and that happens at the Tour. If you want all action attacking racing, then why aren't you raving about women's cycling or the GB domestic scene, rather than the Giro?

LJAR

The things is that the mountains of the Giro are that much tougher than the tour.

When was the last time a tour stage finished on a summit up unpaved roads, or had a mountain TT with an average gradient over 10%?

The route is just mental and it makes those who do it that much more legendary for me.

Kléber

iainf72 wrote:

If the Giro is Miles Davis, the Tour is Kenny G. The Vuelta is that guy at tube stations who dresses as Sylvester the cat and plays along to "Part time lover" on some kind of horn.

Although as others say, nobody rides the Tour for training but the Giro has been used as a warm up by some, plus it's also home for those who think "I'll get spanked in July, I might as well try and win in Italy instead".

The Tour does benefit from its prime spot on the calendar and no other races being on at the same time. The Giro sees the Dauphiné and California overlap. But one change is the Vuelta in 2011 is going to start in August, something like the 22nd. So we might see a few Spaniards using July was a warm-up rather than going all out.

simon_e

iainf72 wrote:

If the Giro is Miles Davis, the Tour is Kenny G.

Ooooh, that's a bit unfair. Perhaps the Tour may end up looking like Kenny G but has other aspirations too - they just get lost in the razzmatazz of the caravan and the media scrum. Blame the guy behind the drumkit, he always plays too loud.

Kléber wrote:

Although as others say, nobody rides the Tour for training but the Giro has been used as a warm up by some

Those who rode both Giro and Tour this year fell a good way short of expectations in the Tour (though Cadel is the exception, he was wearing yellow before the elbow). It wasn't a course to use as training for anything.

Kléber wrote:

it's also home for those who think "I'll get spanked in July, I might as well try and win in Italy instead".

Maybe, and why shouldn't they? They can't all win at the Tour. We'd moan it was boring if all the jerseys and stages were hoovered up by 4 riders that outlcassed everyone everwhere. This year's Giro had both a good collection of top riders and more than its share of great racing, despite clashing with some two-bit suntan-topup event around California (just kidding Cav, old mate )

cajun_cyclist

At least one year, all 3 grand tours were shown on TV in the US.

The Vuelta has fine racing and mountains are not as good, it's up there with the Gran Boucle. The Giro was better last year because Lance Armstrong rode in it.

All of those canals and meadows though make the Tour as well. They can't be beat though the other countries have their beauty too.

TheStone

A fair bit of luck too.

As good as the course was in the Giro this year, the excitement really stemmed from the cross-winds, the massive breakaway and the rain on the muck (can't think of the Italian name for those roads?)

When is the DVD out ... best tour ever?

armstrongisking

I can imagine Tour of California overtaking the Giro in a few a years if it continues its growth. It has all what it takes to attract the regular fans, something the Giro is not able to.

8 out of top 15 "Sporting hierarchy of teams for 2011" have sponsor interests in USA, and that says a lot.

When California steps up in 2012 to the WorldTour, we'll see even more B-squads in the Giro, and all the regular fans will run away.

andyp

armstrongisking wrote:

I can imagine Tour of California overtaking the Giro in a few a years if it continues its growth. It has all what it takes to attract the regular fans, something the Giro is not able to.

8 out of top 15 "Sporting hierarchy of teams for 2011" have sponsor interests in USA, and that says a lot.

When California steps up next year to the WorldTour, we'll see even more B-squads in the Giro, and all the regular fans will run away.

Yeah, yeah. :roll:

RichN95.

armstrongisking wrote:

I can imagine Tour of California overtaking the Giro in a few a years if it continues its growth. It has all what it takes to attract the regular fans, something the Giro is not able to.

8 out of top 15 "Sporting hierarchy of teams for 2011" have sponsor interests in USA, and that says a lot.

When California steps up next year to the WorldTour, we'll see even more B-squads in the Giro, and all the regular fans will run away.

It depends what you mean by 'overtake'. In terms of prestige, that's decades away at best - if ever. A Grand Tour is a Grand Tour after all.
In terms of interest amongst general cycling fans - again, nowhere near

But it terms of big names, ToC had the better field last year (IMO), although some (I'm looking at you Saxo Bank) treated it as a holiday.

I'd support ToC becoming a WorldTour event (it's not there for 2011), but they need to make the parcours a little more interesting.

By contrast, the Giro organisers seem to be intent on plotting the most mental route possible, which is scaring off those riders who are expected to deliver at the Tour. This reduces it to a local race for local people (which may be what they want, and had for a decade), which is going to hurt their 'brand'.

blazing_saddles

What happened to the TOC joining the World Tour, this year, as scheduled?

I am assuming the stumbling block is where do the home squads fit in, if the race moves up?
There is a lot of talk about sponsorship being the key to the race's growth and prestige.
Many of the top squads have no commercial interest in the US, while all these smaller US teams obviously do.
It is already a local race for local people. It needs to be, in order to survive.

To me, it's the Catch 22 question for the race and a natural limiter to how big the race becomes.
They haven't, as yet, even increased the number on team invites; the first step towards WT status.
Telling or no?

armstrongisking

They don't wish to exclude all the American teams, and as Messick said: "it’s our intention to move up to ProTour (WorldTour) in 2012".

They want to give the Continental teams more time to step up as Professional Continental teams.

And it's going in the right direction, 4 out of the 8 Continental teams who rode the Tour of California 2010, are going to be a Professional Continental team in 2011.

I'm not sure if Pat McQuaid will grant California WorldTour status with its current slot on the calender though. In a press conference he said: "If the Tour of California wants to be part of the World Calendar and join the ProTour, then we may have to consider another date for it."