Professional Cycling For the Fans - What is the point in long stages?

Here is a stupid question, what is the point of long stages when the actual race only begins in the last 10-25% of a given stage? In most stages, at least those without monster climbs, you have one big group for the majority of the race and then near the end you begin to see the tactics and attacks come out.

So what was the point of the previous 75% of the stage? Just to wear riders out? And from a spectator standpoint, television that is, how many people can dedicate 4 hours a day to watching a race, especially one that is for the most part quite boring until the very last section of a given stage? Sorry if I seem dense, and to be clear, I'm not complaining but I'm clearly missing something here.

Without the long stages, you'll have the Annual French Criterium Circuit. Remember the origins of the Tour. It was a publicity getter, sending people off to do something that most people thought was impossible - riding around the entire country.

Why do NBA/NFL games have 4 quarters?

One could say the same for a lot of sports, but especially basketball. If the game is any good, it really comes down to the last 5 minutes of the game. And if it is a blowout, what is the point in watching at all?

Have you ever been in a race? If so think about how much pain you have to go through to even make it to the last 25%. There are a lot of tactics involved and they are involved in the entire race, not just the last 25% or so.

Yep, basketball should start immediately with the 4th quarter. And the NHL season should only start with the 2nd round of the playoffs.

Seriously, the Tour is shorter than it used to be. Look at the 1926 Tour with 11 stages of 200+ miles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_Tour_de_France

They shortened the stages to make it more 'humane' for the riders. The Vuelta also started shortening the stages with the idea that it would make for more aggressive riding.

There are many things going on in a bicycle race. In a stage, for example, there is a kinda war of attrition going on. And what better scenario for a war of attrition than a reasonably long stage. Sometimes, it's even better to let your opponent "win" but wear himself out doing it. So he wins a stage or leg, but he's then so cooked that he becomes irrelevant in subsequent stages.

Do not forget, strategy first, then tactics.

So what was the point of the previous 75% of the stage? Just to wear riders out?
Mostly, yes. Road racing is a sport of endurance, as well as speed, tactics and luck. Same with a marathon, why run 26 miles when you can just sprint 100 meters and get it over with quick?



And from a spectator standpoint, television that is, how many people can dedicate 4 hours a day to watching a race, especially one that is for the most part quite boring until the very last section of a given stage?
If you think that's bad, keep in mind that spectators on the Tourmalet today have been camping out for 3 days to get a brief glimpse of the riders as they go by.

My guess is that most spectators don't spend 4+ hours a day watching, they tune in for the final hour or so, and may skip days when they know the GC won't change.

Plus, we've had these weird things called "VCR's" and "DVR's," since, oh, the early 80s or so? Helps a bit.

And, of course, we are talking about Europeans for the most part. They get like a month paid vacation a year....

Additionally, there are a whole bunch of things going on, tactic wise that you don't see on TV. For one tihng it's often not so easy to get in that early break, and a number of breaks are often formed, and caught, before the break with the right mix to succeed forms.

And tell Armstrong, or anyone else in the break on Stage 16 that the race didn't start till the last climb. Awhole bunch of **** happened along the way. Some wasn't shown on the truncated Versus show, and some wasn't obvious to the unitiated, but a lot of stuff was going on.

Simply becaue the GC favorites often hold their punches to late in the race does not mean that **** is not happening.

Why do they make us cat 3s do 70+ mile road races? Can't they just start us a mile from the finish and have us sprint it out???

Here is a stupid question

:innocent:

I'm not complaining but I'm clearly missing something here.

Clearly.

The race came first, the tactics came later.

BMX races are pretty short. Maybe you should watch those.

Or take it a step further... the guy who gets out of the gate fastest past the 5 meter mark wins. Great for folks who only have 4 seconds a day to watch a race on TV.

Why do NBA/NFL games have 4 quarters?

Why do hockey games have three periods?

College basketball games have two halves?

Why does the sun rise in the east and set in the west?

Why, why, why?

Why do they make us cat 3s do 70+ mile road races?

Because you are not Cat 2's?

:)

think about the towns the tour goes through each year generating tourism and all that some of them rely on the tour to survive:) and the lone breakaways:) great to see a guy go out early and stay out all day and hang on to pip the bunch at the last minute:)

Why, why, why?

Zactly!

I'm just guessing that if they shortened some of the stages I bet the "good part" would still only occupy the last 10-15% of the stage unless it was a time trial. I also agree there's a lot going on the rest of the 85% of the race as well with breakaways, attacks, team tactics etc...

think about the towns the tour goes through each year generating tourism and all that some of them rely on the tour to survive:) and the lone breakaways:) great to see a guy go out early and stay out all day and hang on to pip the bunch at the last minute:)

Think about the smaller teams who get their airtime being in the breaks going through those towns.

This is Pro sport, if the smaller teams do not get something out of it they do not survive. If they (collectively) don't survive in the long run the sport does not survive.

This applies to long classics also.

From a business point of view it's so you'll see the sponsors and the beautiful countryside they hope you'll want to visit. I don't know about cycling but they have Nascar spotters who count the seconds a sponsors name appears on the t.v.

From a business point of view it's so you'll see the sponsors and the beautiful countryside they hope you'll want to visit. I don't know about cycling but they have Nascar spotters who count the seconds a sponsors name appears on the t.v.

It's not just NASCAR there's a whole indsutry that produces reports on a regular basis about how much exposure a brand gets and they define what is "identifiable" as an advertisiment as in how long it has to be seen and how much of it has to be visible etc..in all types of sports and product placement in TV shows/movies and a host of other stuff.

The bottom line is that with any sporting event, ad especially endurance events, the length of the event changes how you approach it, how you meter your effort, etc. More time for something to happen (good or bad), more effort required so that the best participants [generally] rise to the top.

Actually, there is a bit of point to the thread. There used to be longer stages in the Tour, some close to or over 200 miles. More recently, they've cut out the really long stages, and you don't see many stages much over 100 miles or so.

One purported reason was to make the racing more aggressive, and interesting.

Another was to shorten the TDF somewhat to alleviate the alleged need for riders to take PED's (that one seems to be working well.:rolleyes:)

Actually almost all of the stages are over 100 miles.

100 miles = 160km

1, 223km
2, 201km
3, 213km
4, 153km
5, 187km
6, 227km
7, 165km
8, 189km
9, 204km
10, 179km
11, 184km
12, 210km
13, 196km
14, 184km
15, 187km
16, 199km
17, 174km
18, 198km
19, 52km (ITT)
20, 102 (Champs-Élysées)

So only stage 4, the ITT of stage 19, and the final parade into Paris are under 100 miles.

^ ok so typical stage in the last 10 years or so is 110-120 miles or so ( I guess depends on how you define "much over".

If you go back a little farther there used to be some 300k plus stages.

For example the 1967 TDF was 4758 km, with one stage of 359km.

In 1987 the Tour was 4237km.

This year's tour is 3642km.

Most Americans dont really understand cycling at all. So its not a stupid question, and those who know something about still havent really experienced it either, its simply not an American sport.

Professional cycling as most cultures know it, is not a race, its a journey. Its a quest, its an endeavor, its a voyage. Thats why they (and I) dont like LA overseas, because he never won embracing that philosophy (sure he put together some PR videos edited together to try and show this, but it was all tactical victories). The long solo break against the rain, snow and elements is the romance of bike racing. This is what makes a race. The longer the journey, the more epic it is, the more endearing the victory, and if a rider does it alone, then you have the most romantic win.
Thats why the crowd will always cheer the lonely guy who gets caught 300 meters from the line after being out alone for 230km.

As someone mentioned, the Tour was created to achieve what most thought was impossible. It is a symbol. A symbol that represents the long, determined quest of a tiny man on a tiny bicycle. A symbol that represents the traveler, far away from home with nothing in the world except for his dream and love for his bicycle. With conditioning of big shiny lights, 90 thousand commercials, endorsements, products and profits, most Americans fail to capture the meaning/essence of cycling.

I would like longer stages, so the tour goes though more of france each year. It didnt go close enough to my home this year!

I say frack it, just ask the octopus and call it a day. Who's with me?