Originally Posted by
totalnewbie
i am curious, if heritage and tradition were set aside and all the races are viewed primarily from the physical standpoint, how would one rank the difficulties/challenges of each tour.
I've ridden the course for a full stage of the TDF, and ridden a number of the HC climbs. I've ridden all the stages of last year's US Pro Cycling Challenge, ahead of the actual race, so I've got a pretty good idea of the topography.
I'd say the climbs are about a wash. Climbs tend to be steeper in France than in Colorado, but the climbs in Colorado go to higher altitude than France and can be longer.
As to the races themselves, there is simply no comparison. The TDF is dramatically harder. First, it's 3 weeks instead of one. There is an order of magnitude difference between racing one week and racing 3 weeks. Second, the competition is tougher in the TDF than any race in the world. THe best teams in the world are there, i.e. all the Pro Tour teams, not a smattering of pro tour teams, and then PRo Continental and Continental teams. Third, everyone there is motivated to win. It's the biggest race in the world, and riders don't use it for a training race, virtually everyone is targeting it as a major goal and is trying to win GC, win a stage, have a showing to get a contract for next year, or is working for teamates to win.
The TDF is the hardest race in the world,even harder than the Giro, or the Veulta, which typically will have tougher topography, because the racers make it the hardest race.