Lance and the TDF climbers
 

I watched yesterday’s podcast. Lance is stuck on climbers having to be the show. Climbers being the only real cyclists on the tour. He doesn’t appear to like this years route. He doesn’t like the downhills after the big climbs.

Why does the TDF have to be based primarily on the climbers every year? I think this years tour has been better. The stages were planned perfectly.

Again I have to say it..... you ain’t really a climber if you sit in a slipstream of teammates for miles and miles and then do a few miles of solo efforts on the tops of the big climbs. Other riders could do that too.

other riders can sprint too but not as fast or as long as "the experts." teams gotta pamper their supastarz, regardless of the discipline/specialty.

Everyone can do it, just not as fast as the climbers.

I half-agree with Lance here, I always respected the climbers more than the sprinters or TT experts. But that's just me, and because I like climbing too. I think it's easier for the casual fan to associate winning a climb as a big accomplishment, it's singularly grueling and blatantly obvious who's suffering and who's strong. The casual fan won't associate the reality of what the team did for the climber in order to get them to the base of the climb w/as much ease as possible, or how they worked over their rivals - such is the life of the under-recognized, but invaluable, domestiques.

TTs and GC are so much more "bigger picture" and involving team tactics, and honestly a bit boring, compared to sprints and climbs.

Sprints are so short, it's easy for the casual observer to not understand all the factors the sprint has to take in, such as when to make the move, where to be in a group, who he's riding against, and all that happened to get to that point; and it's over very quickly.

So while sprints, TTs, and GC are in reality just as important, climbing might be the best way to involve the casual fan. And right now, maybe that's Lance's biggest listener demographic?

I wish there was a bit more TT mileage in the tour. I'd like to see it swing back to being a bit more of an all-around competition than something focused almost entirely on climbs.

I also really like stages that are like the classics. Cobbles, wind, short climbs that people can attack on. These often seem to make for exciting TV and shake up the race.

When the race is designed to let a climber win, the winner and the main contenders all look like 98 lb weaklings, and during years like that, I care a lot less about which of the lookalike emaciated stick men ends up wearing the yellow jersey in Paris. When the eventual winner can at least pass on the street as a normal person, I think that's a good thing.

Great champions like Merckx, Hinualt, Lemond, Indurain, and Armstrong did not look like freaks while off the bike, and I think that counts for something with fans, to have a hero they can relate to, not some alien creature like Marco Pantani. And that to me is one reason not to tilt the race so that only a climber can win.

This

who cares what Lance says

His tainted legacy (and subjective likeability) doesn't diminish his undeniable experience, knowledge, perspective, etc, as far as being a highly capable commentator goes. At the end of the day, TV sports is still just ratings-based entertainment, and for better or worse, controversy, personality, and drama do factor in.

Because climbing is where the separations happen. That and TT.

Climbing stages that end in a descent + flat neutralize the separations.

As a small-boned, weight-challenged person (BMI 18.8), I take offense from this characterization.

Are the guys who ride in a draft for 80 miles then climb for 20 miles actually the best climbers?

could others who have to pull the load at the front/get water bottles, etc climb just as well if they could also ride in a slipstream for those 80 miles?

No. If they could, they would be the protected riders for their respective teams.

Should you ever find yourself in contention for a top 5 GC spot in Tour de France, then I shall owe you an apology, sir.

Armstrong at 165 pounds was among the heaviest of the great climbers. Weight is very important, of course. But more accurately it is mostly about the power to weight ratio and sustainable power which is why the preceding is the most common trait among the great TdF winners or those that win and or come close to winning. Those skinny little guys that excel as climbers lack the other traits. So it is the former that wins the Tour and not the latter, or not very often.

For reference, Armstrong won Alpe d’Huez twice. Once as a time trial and once as the finishing climb at the end of a long stage. On the time trial, he fluctuated between 475 and 500 watts. On the climb as the end of the stage, he was only 24 seconds slower up the climb than he was on the TT.

Lance wasn't a great climber. He was a great doper.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Tour organizers put on more difficult time trials next year to test Egan Bernal.

Anything for a French win - but Pinot, Bardet and Barguil are outclassed by Ineos' Bernal + Froomie (?).


I could enjoy a Tour with less climbing and more rolling stages with a couple of Cat 3 climbs. Put the GC teams more in play on those 'breakaway' stages, maybe that requires the stronger teams to work harder every day.

Rephrased = He was a better doper than climber.
Doping was widespread in all teams. Lance's teams were likely better at it.
To me, Lance's major offense was the damage to many and the extent of his deception and lies to protect his obvious guilt.


I really hate people who self-promote based on lies and deception - especially when the facts are so clear to thinking people. :notamused:

In general, I don't care for descents, especially long very fast ones that with sweeping and some sharp turns in them. They are just way too dangerous and disproportionately influence outcomes in comparison to climbs. Making up significant time on descents that were lost on climbs does not proportionately measure, test or reward the different skill levels between the Grand Tour Pros. (Look at how much of a long descent is coasting.) You can find more than a few high-level amateur cyclists that are not pros that would be just as fast as the pros on those descents. On the other hand, you are not going to find any amateurs that can climb like the excellent climbing pros.

I bet the climbing detractors in here also love having a max of 30 feet per mile on their group rides, cause wuss and cause heavy.

Bernal is true climber (I think) that won the tour

Thomas won last year and is not a true climber or a true sprinter

Froome won the 4 before that and he's not a true climber or a true sprinter

No way Bernal wins this year if he was part of another team. My point is that it's the team that is the major factor in who wins. Peter Sagan will never win the tour despite being considered a great cyclist (a world champ even), Kittel, Ewan, Cavendish, Griepal, etc. will never win the tour. Does that diminish them as cyclists? Not in my mind

The tour is the tour. Climbing is a huge part of the tour and always will be. You cannot be a bad climber and win the tour

I sure can't think of any. Lots of pretty awful sprinters though.

I don’t even like France but I think it’s far past time for a Frenchman to win the tour.

What don't you like about France?