Most boring Tour of France ever?

We've already gone over this.

1. He broke no rules. There is no rule about running without a bike. Phil Liggett was caught offguard by this and thought it was against the rules when it all happened unexpectedly since he had never seen anything like it before. The only rule regarding running or biking is that you must proceed on your own power and must cross the finish line with a bike, whether on it or with it.

2. Whenever a crash happens in the final 3k, the referees always make a ruling out of fairness. They did the same on an earlier stage for Adam Yates when the overhead 1k banner collapsed causing him to crash. They didn't allow Yates to lose time due to that either. Regarding Froome's crash, it was caused by 2 motorcycles, not his own personal error. And Froome and Porte were awarded the same time as Mollema since all 3 had been riding together when the crash occurred.

3. The riders in the tour are more concerned about winning than entertaining the public. This tour started more exciting with Froome attacking on a descent and attacking with Sagan into a headwind on a straightaway, instead of just waiting til a mountain climb.

This tour could've been more exciting if Contador hadn't crashed early and DNF'ed. Or if Porte hadn't lost time early. Or if Quintana had been stronger and attacked more. Or if Tee Jay had been stronger. It is what it is.

The Indurain era tours were far more boring. In 1994 he was the highest placed GC contender after the prologue, and he took the overall lead at Stage 9. At no point was the conclusion in doubt.

Stage 19 was anything but boring.

As explained above, you're wrong about that stage, but in general it has been a pretty boring tour. I've still enjoyed watching it, but there hasn't been much actual racing drama. Yesterday was one of the few stages where you saw some movement and some uncertainty in the GC standings, but that was mostly due to falls.

When TdF is being watched for the crashes (like NASCAR), it sorta shows what it's degenerated to.

There was a lot more to it than just crashes. But if that's all you saw, you weren't really watching.

Sagan leading the climb right now, is that of interest to you?

That is like asking "most boring watching paint dry ever?"

All we learned in this tour is that Chris Froome has a better motor in his bike than anyone else does.

Track may not be a clean sport, but how can people possibly enjoy watching cycling knowing that these cheating f*cks are putting motors in their god damn bicycles?

Sprint finish wrote:

When TdF is being watched for the crashes (like NASCAR), it sorta shows what it's degenerated to.

NASCAR isn't watched for the crashes either, that's just something that someone who is not a fan and knows nothing about it says.

I enjoy watching the TdF even if this year is less exciting than some years.

I'm a big fan of T&F and road racing, but the most boring TdF stage is more visually interesting than a track event or road running race.

ish wrote:

All we learned in this tour is that Chris Froome has a better motor in his bike than anyone else does.

Track may not be a clean sport, but how can people possibly enjoy watching cycling knowing that these cheating f*cks are putting motors in their god damn bicycles?

Because they're not. The race is scanning the bikes and it's pretty easy to control.

Try to keep up.

HRH wrote:

Stage 19 was anything but boring.

Might as well say lap 17 of some 10k was a real thriller.

Tour is most boring GT of the year. Cycling is going through the same self reflection atgletics is: how do we make a more interesting product?

Some people are packaging it in different ways and putting a bigger price tag on it. Others are more innovative. Tour of Poland has 6-man teams; the race is always exciting. The Giro balances the kinds of climbs throughout the race better, making the GC battle more relevent more often. Ther stage races have moserate hills, creating tension for which sprinters make it to the finish, and if so, how michblick they have left.

The Tour doesn't though. ASO knows the Tour has enough inertia to power through 3-weeks regardless of whether there is any substance or not.

Yes. Most boring Tour in years. And the Tour is the most boring GT, every year.

Jeff Albertson wrote:

That is like asking "most boring watching paint dry ever?"

Thank you for letting us know you are a simpleton.

Say what you will about Armstrong, but those ~5 years when he was racing the German and the Italian (1998-2002?) were straight up awesome. So much fun to watch. I've been watching the past few years but it's not the same. I felt like with Armstrong and (was it Pantani and Ulrich?), there was crazy drama on every stage. Granted, they were all doped to the gills but surely that racing can be duplicated without the drugs, no?

I'm not a cyclist so I'm sure I miss a lot, but I still enjoy it. But there is no denying that Armstrong brought a lot to the sport.

Yes, I know he is terrible, but my point stands. There was always a sense of "can he do it?", edge of your seat drama.

Do you not remember Nibali's win a couple years ago? That was the real snooze fest.

It's not boring! OK, the result has never been in doubt, since before the start of the race if we are being honest, but there are other things to look.

The Green Jersey points competition, the King of the Mountains competition were invented for just this sort of tour - one where the overall winner is known well before the end of the three weeks.

It is slightly worryng that the dominance of Team Sky is so total. Their depth of resources, both financial and human (the two go together) means a much less talented rider than Froome would have a good chance of winning with the support from this team. Froome is being helped in the mountains by domestiques who would be team leaders in most other teams. If Sky continues to target the tour like this other teams will admit defeat and switch their attention to other tours as their main goal for the year. This will ultimately damage Le Tour and the sport itself.

I think it has been boring since the Armstrong days. Super teams that have it completely figured out. No drama. Sky leaders tend not to have bad days.

Knausgaarder wrote:

Say what you will about Armstrong, but those ~5 years when he was racing the German and the Italian (1998-2002?) were straight up awesome. So much fun to watch. I've been watching the past few years but it's not the same. I felt like with Armstrong and (was it Pantani and Ulrich?), there was crazy drama on every stage. Granted, they were all doped to the gills but surely that racing can be duplicated without the drugs, no?

I'm not a cyclist so I'm sure I miss a lot, but I still enjoy it. But there is no denying that Armstrong brought a lot to the sport.

Yes, I know he is terrible, but my point stands. There was always a sense of "can he do it?", edge of your seat drama.

They are still using drugs, just not as much. And to answer your question no that type of racing can't be replicated with fewer drugs. What made it great was the constant attacks and the ability to go all the way to the well and then recover and do it again. It made for mountain battles day in and day out. There are still attacks now, but its possible to slowly bring them back and once someone goes to the well they typically have to tuck back in and ride up.

So when Lance won by 5+ minutes it was fun?

No American to root for, No Africans to hate = boring race for Letsrunners.