Professional Cycling For the Fans - Anybody else disappointed with the mountain stages this year??

The commentators and organizers keep pointing to the Pyrenees but looking at the upcoming stages and the ones ridden so far, I'm really disappointed in the mountain stages so far. There's really only been dramatic riding on one mountain stage so far and we're on stage 12 already. I'm not saying that the tour should be a race up Everest but this really seems to be mild compared to years past. Stages 15 and 16 will give us 3 beyond category climbs but only the Tourmalet looks like a real challenge with the other two being long(ish) 6 and 7% average gradients. In my mind that means that either Schleck cracks Contador on the Tourmalet to gain time or AC wins the tour on the time trial at stage 19. Not much drama there I think. Am I wrong?

Mike

surely this is a parody thread.

Oh yeah, big time parody... Look at the end of today's stage. It ended with a short but brutal 10% gradient and we had fireworks better than anything I saw on the 4th. That's what I want to see in the tour. If you want to win it you've got to beat your opponent to the top. I love the tactics and speed of the sprints, but for me the powerful riding required to beat the mountains simply makes the tour for me.

Worst. Tour. Ever.

Yesturdays stage rode past many great alpe climbs.

But my biggest problem is the Tourmalet is in twice, and its in most years anyway.

^i dont know France geography, but assume the tourmalet is so frequently included because of the logistics of getting places in that part of the world, i.e. rural, mountainous, not many roads, gotta go over the tourmalet to get from point a to point b.

The commentators and organizers keep pointing to the Pyrenees but looking at the upcoming stages and the ones ridden so far, I'm really disappointed in the mountain stages so far. There's really only been dramatic riding on one mountain stage so far and we're on stage 12 already. I'm not saying that the tour should be a race up Everest but this really seems to be mild compared to years past. Stages 15 and 16 will give us 3 beyond category climbs but only the Tourmalet looks like a real challenge with the other two being long(ish) 6 and 7% average gradients. In my mind that means that either Schleck cracks Contador on the Tourmalet to gain time or AC wins the tour on the time trial at stage 19. Not much drama there I think. Am I wrong?

Mike

You shouldn't be complaining about the route, you should be complaining about Schleck and Contador being so much better than everyone else.

surely this is a parody thread.

+1. Sunday was a good stage. Tuesday was a great stage. This has been a great tour so far, and has the potential to get better.

On Sunday, we saw that perhaps Schleck could put some time into Contador.

On Tuesday we saw repeated attacks from Schleck, and Contador matched them all. Then you saw the two of them, with help from Jens Voigt in awesome effort, just eliminate almost all the rest of the GC contenders, catch the break, and Schleck even have a go at the stage win.

If you didn't find any of that compelling, you may just not like bike racing.

Stages 14, 15, 16, and 17 will give the OP what he/she's looking for. No worries. Big time gaps to come, though not necessarily between the top two riders. You never know, though.

I'm not saying that the racing isn't compelling. The sprints have been good and watching the carnage on the cobbles also. Just disappointed in the climbs so far. Maybe the Pyrenees will shine. Whatever they do, I'm going to watch.

No spoilers, but I thought today's (Stage 12) was pretty entertaining.

As soon as it hit 10% and that's my point. None of the big contenders can make a move on the flats and smaller climbs. Put them on a long climb with a good gradient and let the sparks fly.

+1. Sunday was a good stage. Tuesday was a great stage. This has been a great tour so far, and has the potential to get better.

On Sunday, we saw that perhaps Schleck could put some time into Contador.

On Tuesday we saw repeated attacks from Schleck, and Contador matched them all. Then you saw the two of them, with help from Jens Voigt in awesome effort, just eliminate almost all the rest of the GC contenders, catch the break, and Schleck even have a go at the stage win.

If you didn't find any of that compelling, you may just not like bike racing.

correct, if this TdF was any better it would be the Giro (or the Vuelta).

Answer to the question in the thread title:

No.

The thing is, every stage cant be a climb like this or the race would start with about 50 cyclists not 200. They have to mix the stages to get the other types of riders involved.

I actually really like this years tour and its route and course selection save for the Pave.

Am I wrong?

Everything you say and do is wrong.

Compared to last year the mountain stages are pretty good so far

I also enjoyed the climb of Laurent Jalabert the most out of all the climbs in the Tour so far and it's just rated a cat two..

Just proves that doesn't have to be a steep HC mountain top finish for a climb to be exciting.

I also enjoyed the climb of Laurent Jalabert the most out of all the climbs in the Tour so far and it's just rated a cat two..

Just proves that doesn't have to be a long HC mountain top finish for a climb to be exciting.

ftfy. The steepest climbs in th eTDF are not the HC's. Anumber of 1 and 2 climbs are steeper,but just not long enough to be HC's.

Also I think there is a tendency to blur together multiple Tours in to one memory - there has never been a Tour with 10 incredibly difficult and hotly contested mountain stages... it's always 2 or 3 in the Alps and then 2 or 3 in the Pyrenees. And it's always been one or two in any Tour that really have any serious drama.

This year's has been a good race so far.

I think the tour has been really good so far. I think it's been the best one in recent years(though the mountains last year where it was the Schleck's vs Alberto vs Lance was epic). Even some of the flat stages have been interesting. I'd like to give credit to people like Chavanel and Vino for being aggressive and putting everything they got in to make it this way.

would a couple of fatalities/near-fatalities liven things up for everyone just enuff so that we could then collectively suffer through the *yaaawwwn* pyrenees?

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!

I'm flying to France tomorrow to throw a stick into AC's spokes...

Another lousy dissapointing mountain stage yesterday.

I'm just going to save my time and not watch Stage 17.

Well if the definition of an exciting mountian stage is one that Lance wins then this has been a very boring year.

By any other definitin it seems pretty exciting.

Well if the definition of an exciting mountian stage is one that Lance wins then this has been a very boring year.

By any other definitin it seems pretty exciting.

This is only my 3rd time watching a complete TDF, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I also think the majority of the mountain stages have been anti-climatic. Not saying that they havent been exciting. They are. The build up is great, the pace is brutal and selection happens almost instantly, but in the end the result of the GC clasification has been as expected. Shleck and Contador take it easy for 90% of the stage and then sit on each other's tails, and trying to shake each other with quick bursts. Didnt we see this for most of last year's tour? Or am I supposed to get excited about Menchov and Sanchez battling for 3rd? I want to see Shleck and Contador destroy each other out there, but they dont. I want to see their faces and eyes bulge out like Jens Voigt's did when he led Andy to the top during a previous stage. But I know that wont happen...so in the end its just anti-climatic.

The length of the stages has almost its significance because all the top guys take it easy and are almost equally protected until the very last moment. The peleton is just too big. For the elite its like riding on a cloud.

The way I see it, the Tour is too big and if I was king, I would start only the top 20-30 premier guys and watch the sparks fly. No teams. Every man for himself. Survivor style. Isnt that how it all started?

Think about the advantages - you would get to know every rider closely and know who the winners are. Loosers would rally together to work against the leaders. There would be alliances and a tribal council. Ok, scratch the last part...

But seriously, who's with me? What this obsession with teams anyways? Cycling is supposed be an individual sport...

This is only my 3rd time watching a complete TDF, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I also think the majority of the mountain stages have been anti-climatic. Not saying that they havent been exciting. They are. The build up is great, the pace is brutal and selection happens almost instantly, but in the end the result of the GC clasification has been as expected. Shleck and Contador take it easy for 90% of the stage and then sit on each other's tails, and trying to shake each other with quick bursts. Didnt we see this for most of last year's tour? Or am I supposed to get excited about Menchov and Sanchez battling for 3rd? I want to see Shleck and Contador destroy each other out there, but they dont. I want to see their faces and eyes bulge out like Jens Voigt's did when he led Andy to the top during a previous stage. But I know that wont happen...so in the end its just anti-climatic.

The length of the stages has almost its significance because all the top guys take it easy and are almost equally protected until the very last moment. The peleton is just too big. For the elite its like riding on a cloud.

The way I see it, the Tour is too big and if I was king, I would start only the top 20-30 premier guys and watch the sparks fly. No teams. Every man for himself. Survivor style. Isnt that how it all started?

Think about the advantages - you would get to know every rider closely and know who the winners are. Loosers would rally together to work against the leaders. There would be alliances and a tribal council. Ok, scratch the last part...

But seriously, who's with me? What this obsession with teams anyways? Cycling is supposed be an individual sport...

Read a little history. Watch the Tour, and other bike races for a few years and report back.

Essentially you're saying the sport is boring because neither Schleck nor Contador can drop the other. If you need a TDF where 2 leaders are trading the Yellow in the mountains everyday to enjoy it, you're going to have a long wait.

The Armstrong years, save 2003, would have been deadly boring, save 2003 by your criteria.

Realize there are so many layers to the onion, and start peeling them back before you discount the value of the TDF as currently formated.


And if you want something more like you're positing go watch a Kermesse or a Nascar Race.

This is only my 3rd time watching a complete TDF, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I also think the majority of the mountain stages have been anti-climatic. Not saying that they havent been exciting. They are. The build up is great, the pace is brutal and selection happens almost instantly, but in the end the result of the GC clasification has been as expected. Shleck and Contador take it easy for 90% of the stage and then sit on each other's tails, and trying to shake each other with quick bursts. Didnt we see this for most of last year's tour? Or am I supposed to get excited about Menchov and Sanchez battling for 3rd? I want to see Shleck and Contador destroy each other out there, but they dont. I want to see their faces and eyes bulge out like Jens Voigt's did when he led Andy to the top during a previous stage. But I know that wont happen...so in the end its just anti-climatic.

The length of the stages has almost its significance because all the top guys take it easy and are almost equally protected until the very last moment. The peleton is just too big. For the elite its like riding on a cloud.

The way I see it, the Tour is too big and if I was king, I would start only the top 20-30 premier guys and watch the sparks fly. No teams. Every man for himself. Survivor style. Isnt that how it all started?

Think about the advantages - you would get to know every rider closely and know who the winners are. Loosers would rally together to work against the leaders. There would be alliances and a tribal council. Ok, scratch the last part...

But seriously, who's with me? What this obsession with teams anyways? Cycling is supposed be an individual sport...

You simply do not understand stage racing. Or bike racing in general. There are many different types of bike races. The grand tours are one, albeit the most publicized. Try watching some the monuments or spring classics. You'll begin to understand that the professional road bike season is very long and varied.

It is very hard to win a grand tour. A lot of it is surviving to the finish. Its very long and difficult to even finish a grand tour. Contador isn't going to destroy himself to beat Schleck because he has a distinct advantage in the time trial. So he marks him in the mountains. You mentioned Voigt's effort. But what happened to him? He blew up and darned near came to a dead stop on the road. Then lost huge time. That's what happens when you try to destroy someone and fail. Don't think Schleck wasn't trying to drop AC. That is a helluva lot easier said than done. There's a reason Contador is on the verge of winning the 5th straight grand tour he's competed in. Contador is more experienced now. He's doing what is necessary to win the race. He's not out to impress us jokers sitting on the couch watching the race on TV.