Was this the most boring Tour De France you've seen?

I have to agree with this. They really haven't been the same in recent years. It was always great theater to see who would get thrown out for doping on the second rest day.

HRH wrote:

Reluctant to say it, but I thought the Tour was far more exciting during the Armstrong years.

Johnny Karate wrote:

I have to agree with this. They really haven't been the same in recent years. It was always great theater to see who would get thrown out for doping on the second rest day.

HRH wrote:

Reluctant to say it, but I thought the Tour was far more exciting during the Armstrong years.

The funny thing is that when the Armstrong years were happening, at least the last 3 or so, the complaint was that they were too boring, USPS/Disco too strong, they'd just tempo the mountains until no one was left to challenge Armstrong.

People remember Armstrong giving Ullrich "the look" (2001) and the crash Joseba Beloki had that forced Armstrong off the road (2003), but by and large the Armstrong tours were about total control.

polka dots & moonbeams wrote:

Coach wrote:

Yeah one second off the podium and a minute separating a few of the leading riders was boring. And those summit finishes as also mentioned.

Can't tell if you're becing sarcastic but the race was straight dog$hit; Froome was never in trouble nor seriously challenged. The downhill from the summits finishes sucked and the "hard" stages were too short / not hard enough.

I don't like Froome and I despise Sky but "Le Tour" sure produced the winner it "deserves."

You might need to go back and watch some of the stages again if you think froome was never challenged.

Ive watched the tour for yrs. You cant make it much more exciting for ppl sitting at home.

The ONLY excitement in a tour are:

1. the mountains, seeing them climb and watching who cracks.

2. 5-10min before the final sprint in each stage.

3. The TT if there are top contenders who are close.

Outside of that its HOURS of endless boredom. And Im someone who loves the tour.

I can't understand why people expect TDF riders to make risky attacks on every mountain in the name of "excitement." If a football team doesn't throw the ball deep every play, is it boring? If a tennis player didn't try to hit a winner on every shot, is it boring?

oh please wrote:

Johnny Karate wrote:

I have to agree with this. They really haven't been the same in recent years. It was always great theater to see who would get thrown out for doping on the second rest day.

The funny thing is that when the Armstrong years were happening, at least the last 3 or so, the complaint was that they were too boring, USPS/Disco too strong, they'd just tempo the mountains until no one was left to challenge Armstrong.

People remember Armstrong giving Ullrich "the look" (2001) and the crash Joseba Beloki had that forced Armstrong off the road (2003), but by and large the Armstrong tours were about total control.

Exactly, and also it was more like a video game than real life with cyclists doped to the gills.

wow. I guess I'll go out on a lump and say it was one of the most exciting in years. it definitely proved Frio me was the best. it would have been a little more exciting if from me wasn't so damn good. but nearly every stage in the last two weeks had good drama.

my wife and I were glued to the set.

limb.

oh boy.

limb.

oh boy.

Yes it was boring and close and we knew it would be boring and close before it even started because it had the least TT distance, the fewest mountain stages, and the fewest uphill finishes in TDF history.

It could have been more exciting. I don't think Froome was the best climber this year (and with Mikel Landa going to another team next year he'll have another rival). He lost time repeatedly to several rivals on uphill finishes. So there was drama. I think it was a little bit more boring in tours past when he was the best climber and best (or nearly) time trialist. We also had a large number of injuries and out of form riders this year. Quintana didn't show up, Contador didn't show up, Porte was injured, Landa was his teammate.

It wasn't a mechanical that gave Aru the yellow jersey. Froome struggled up that hill and lost it

Sky and its big budget is too strong. The tour should reduce team sizes from 9 riders to 6 or 7. Too much reliance on domestiques these days

polka dots & moonbeams wrote:

I don't like Froome and I despise Sky but "Le Tour" sure produced the winner it "deserves."

Why?

HRH wrote:

Reluctant to say it, but I thought the Tour was far more exciting during the Armstrong years.

Totally agree! Back then, someone would go off the front and leave the field. Just try and do that when you are climbing a hill at max effort. It's not possible. You don't see that now. It is so much more evenly matched.

moanswers wrote:

HRH wrote:

Reluctant to say it, but I thought the Tour was far more exciting during the Armstrong years.

Totally agree! Back then, someone would go off the front and leave the field. Just try and do that when you are climbing a hill at max effort. It's not possible. You don't see that now. It is so much more evenly matched.

i take that back. i read that wrong. i actually totally disagree for the reasons i state. you realize now that what they were doing then was not possible. we are seeing parity in the playing field now.

Doped to the gills or not, I miss the pirate

I love the TDF but agree with the poster who noted that there are long periods of it that are incredibly boring (e.g., long flat stages that end in sprint finishes in the last 5-10 minutes). I'd like to see a few changes that might help. First, shorten stages to about 60-90 miles in length to encourage more aggressive racing from the drop of the flag. Second, more mountain top finishes since the long downhills in this year's TDF helped negate any gains on the climbs. Third, longer time trials to reward more well-rounded riders rather than pure climbers. Fourth, eliminate race radios on riders. Fifth, reduce the number of team members to 4 or 5 so the race is more about the strength of individual riders rather than the team and the overall strength of riders in the peloton is higher.

EAH wrote:Fourth, eliminate race radios on riders.

I want to agree, but I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle on that. It'd be nice if the riders didn't know exactly what they need to do to catch the breakaway within a kilometer of the finish. I'd like to see a better chance of the break making it all the way or more groups trying different stuff, but the teams will still have the computers and I bet they'd figure out a way to tell the riders what to do.

I think they're all boring. Make it every man for himself, like track.

EAH wrote:

I love the TDF but agree with the poster who noted that there are long periods of it that are incredibly boring (e.g., long flat stages that end in sprint finishes in the last 5-10 minutes). I'd like to see a few changes that might help. First, shorten stages to about 60-90 miles in length to encourage more aggressive racing from the drop of the flag. Second, more mountain top finishes since the long downhills in this year's TDF helped negate any gains on the climbs. Third, longer time trials to reward more well-rounded riders rather than pure climbers. Fourth, eliminate race radios on riders. Fifth, reduce the number of team members to 4 or 5 so the race is more about the strength of individual riders rather than the team and the overall strength of riders in the peloton is higher.

I like that you're thinking but I mostly disagree :/

1. Shorter stages mean higher average speeds can be sustained, which means it's harder to form breakaways (because of the benefit of drafting) and fatigue is less of a factor. So longer stages are generally better for variability (assuming they're not totally flat...).

2. I agree, more mountain top finishes would be good. The long downhills are fun and epic and I wouldn't want to get rid of them completely...

3. Froome wasn't the best climber this year and he won. So I'm not sure more TTs are the answer.

4. This is talked about a lot... Race radios are mostly a safety and logistics issue. The riders are told the gaps to the break by the motorbikes even when race radios are down.

5. I think I disagree here again. If you want the strongest/fittest rider to win, you want to minimize the effects of weird adverse events (mechanical issues, crashes, crazy spectators, etc), and you want the riders to be well-hydrated and fed (although less of an issue if the stages are shorter as you propose). The best way to do that is to have lots of riders on each team so that they can help their leaders with all of the knucklehead stuff. I agree it looks bad when you have four team Sky riders on the final climb ramping up the pace, but setting tempo for Froome can be advantageous for other riders as well (and limiting the number of riders on their team isn't going to change things very much).

Like I said before, I don't get the point of 3 weeks of racing if you're only going to have three decisive stages.