Tour Specialists Ruin the Tour

I am open to feedback about this topic, however, it seems to me that since
the advent of "Tour Specialists" the TDF is pretty boring. This year was an
anomaly, and pretty exciting at times, however, I believe the points
competition was overall more exciting. Unfortunately, most people don't
follow the points competition.

If you look at Tours prior to the Lemond / specialization era, it seemed the
races were much more animated, spontaneous, surprising, and exciting. Am I
wrong?

Also, look at the top tour finishers today verses pre-Lemond. It seems
pre-Lemond, the top tour riders would race the Giro, the Worlds, Tour of
Spain like ROCHE WITH A TRIPLE!! I doubt today's top tour riders would even
consider a triple, let alone doing the other races. The argument that one
cannot stay at such form for so long is not accurate either. One simply
cannot "peak out" therefore, the times etc. may be slower, but likely more
equal.

Perhaps the UCI should require participants in the big tours, e.g. Giro,
TDF, Spain, Swiss to compete in other races as well. Perhaps a minimum
number of UCI points and events for the team leaders to qualify for the big
Tours?

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't like it when riders race only
one event each season.

Snjr wrote:
I am open to feedback about this topic, however, it seems to me that
since the advent of "Tour Specialists" the TDF is pretty boring. This
year was an anomaly, and pretty exciting at times, however, I believe
the points competition was overall more exciting. Unfortunately, most
people don't follow the points competition.
If you look at Tours prior to the Lemond / specialization era, it seemed
the races were much more animated, spontaneous, surprising, and
exciting. Am I wrong?
Also, look at the top tour finishers today verses pre-Lemond. It seems
pre-Lemond, the top tour riders would race the Giro, the Worlds, Tour of
Spain like ROCHE WITH A TRIPLE!! I doubt today's top tour riders would
even consider a triple, let alone doing the other races. The argument
that one cannot stay at such form for so long is not accurate either.
One simply cannot "peak out" therefore, the times etc. may be slower,
but likely more equal.
Perhaps the UCI should require participants in the big tours, e.g. Giro,
TDF, Spain, Swiss to compete in other races as well. Perhaps a minimum
number of UCI points and events for the team leaders to qualify for the
big Tours?
I don't know what the answer is, but I don't like it when riders race
only one event each season.




First off, Roche's triple was the Giro, Tour, and Worlds - I don't think
he raced the Vuelta that year and he sure as hell didn't win it.

I don't think specialization hurts the Tour - between Indurain and
Armstrong we had Riis, Ullrich, and Pantani - none of whom really made
the Tour their only focus for their year and I don't think the races
were any more exciting. Their may be ways to make the Tour more
exciting and to make the other races more appealing to spectators and
racers, but I don't think some scheme to force riders to diversify
makes any sense at all.

Tour invitations come from both UCI team rankings, previous Tour
entries, and wildcards so there already is some requirement to produce
results during the rest of the season. I think potential 5-time Tour
winners are few and far between and it's just an anomaly that Armstrong
came so close after Indurain.



--
Check out my bike blog!

http://diabloscott.blogspot.com

--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

"snjr" wrote in message
...
I am open to feedback about this topic, however, it seems to me that since
the advent of "Tour Specialists" the TDF is pretty boring. This year was
an
anomaly, and pretty exciting at times, however, I believe the points
competition was overall more exciting. Unfortunately, most people don't
follow the points competition.

If you look at Tours prior to the Lemond / specialization era, it seemed
the
races were much more animated, spontaneous, surprising, and exciting. Am
I
wrong?

Also, look at the top tour finishers today verses pre-Lemond. It seems
pre-Lemond, the top tour riders would race the Giro, the Worlds, Tour of
Spain like ROCHE WITH A TRIPLE!! I doubt today's top tour riders would
even
consider a triple, let alone doing the other races. The argument that one
cannot stay at such form for so long is not accurate either. One simply
cannot "peak out" therefore, the times etc. may be slower, but likely more
equal.

Perhaps the UCI should require participants in the big tours, e.g. Giro,
TDF, Spain, Swiss to compete in other races as well. Perhaps a minimum
number of UCI points and events for the team leaders to qualify for the
big
Tours?

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't like it when riders race only
one event each season.


Don't blame the riders for something that is becoming a mandate of sponsors.
Lance frequently says he wants to win the Tour de France because it is what
motivates him, but he ALSO reiterates that it is all that matters to his
sponsor as well. Johan would be stupid to jeopardize his chance to win the
TdF by mandating that Lance ride the Giro or the Vuelta. His sponsor would
want him fired immediately.

"DiabloScott" wrote in message
...

Tour invitations come from both UCI team rankings, previous Tour
entries, and wildcards so there already is some requirement to produce
results during the rest of the season. I think potential 5-time Tour
winners are few and far between and it's just an anomaly that Armstrong
came so close after Indurain.



Dumbass -

The first 5-time winner (Anquetil) won his first Tour in 1961.


Since then, there have been him and 4 others - nearly half of the Tours
since 1961 have been won by 5-time winners.


Therefore, 5-time winners are the norm. We have had 1 per decade for the
last 5 decades: (60's: Anquetil, 70's: Merckx, 80's: Hinault, 90's:
Indurain, 00's: Armstrong).


Please examine the evidence before talking out your ass.


thank you very much.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:
Dumbass -

The first 5-time winner (Anquetil) won his first Tour in 1961.

uhhh... yeah, did he only do the TDF those years or did he do other races as
well like the Giro, Worlds?

Therefore, 5-time winners are the norm. We have had 1 per decade for the
last 5 decades: (60's: Anquetil, 70's: Merckx, 80's: Hinault, 90's:
Indurain, 00's: Armstrong).

Yes, but the riders prior to Indurain also did many more races throughout
the season didn't they? I believe Indurain even raced more often than the
current "tour specialists".

Please examine the evidence before talking out your ass.

You have a real pre-occupation with my ass... are you gay? Not that there
is anything wrong with that, but I don't think you should come out of the
closet on rbr. By the way I am hetrosexual, so you should seek someone
else.

thank you very much

Times change. Get a grip.

It's only been the last couple of decades that riders started making enough money that they don't
need to ride themselves into the ground by racing constantly. They used to exist by "hand-to-mouth"
earnings from appearance fees, winnings, etc. The salaried teams you see now, offer much more
stability to the rider's lives and well-being. The idea that any current rider would prefer being
forced to race throughout the year is naive.

Another advance over time, has been in training knowledge and implementation. Pre-80's, whoever
heard of VO2max and Lactate Threshold much less knowing how to properly train specific systems.
Even if they did have the money to take time out to train, they couldn't do it as efficiently as
today's athletes.

Besides, exactly who is racing "only one event each season"? Ok, Lance only races one grand tour
each year, but pay closer attention to his early season schedule and you might find a few other
"real" races he does as well.


snjr wrote:

I am open to feedback about this topic, however, it seems to me that since
the advent of "Tour Specialists" the TDF is pretty boring. This year was an
anomaly, and pretty exciting at times, however, I believe the points
competition was overall more exciting. Unfortunately, most people don't
follow the points competition.

If you look at Tours prior to the Lemond / specialization era, it seemed the
races were much more animated, spontaneous, surprising, and exciting. Am I
wrong?

Also, look at the top tour finishers today verses pre-Lemond. It seems
pre-Lemond, the top tour riders would race the Giro, the Worlds, Tour of
Spain like ROCHE WITH A TRIPLE!! I doubt today's top tour riders would even
consider a triple, let alone doing the other races. The argument that one
cannot stay at such form for so long is not accurate either. One simply
cannot "peak out" therefore, the times etc. may be slower, but likely more
equal.

Perhaps the UCI should require participants in the big tours, e.g. Giro,
TDF, Spain, Swiss to compete in other races as well. Perhaps a minimum
number of UCI points and events for the team leaders to qualify for the big
Tours?

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't like it when riders race only
one event each season.

Mack Mad wrote:

Don't blame the riders for something that is becoming a mandate of sponsors.

I agree with not blaming the riders. Blame the sponsors for messing up
the sport.

Lance frequently says he wants to win the Tour de France because it is what
motivates him, but he ALSO reiterates that it is all that matters to his
sponsor as well.

Is being equivocal considered a good thing in Texas?

Johan would be stupid to jeopardize his chance to win the
TdF by mandating that Lance ride the Giro or the Vuelta. His sponsor would
want him fired immediately.

I think the point was that it shouldn't be Johan dictating that, it
should be the TdF organisers. In most other sports, if you just want to
concentrate on the major events, you've at least got to qualify for
them. Lance's amazing achievment is lessened by his concentration on the
single goal of the tour, compared to previous five time winners who have
competed all year IMHO.

--
Jim Price

http://www.jimprice.dsl.pipex.com

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

"snjr" wrote in message
...
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:
Dumbass -

The first 5-time winner (Anquetil) won his first Tour in 1961.

uhhh... yeah, did he only do the TDF those years or did he do other races
as
well like the Giro, Worlds?

Therefore, 5-time winners are the norm. We have had 1 per decade for the
last 5 decades: (60's: Anquetil, 70's: Merckx, 80's: Hinault, 90's:
Indurain, 00's: Armstrong).

Yes, but the riders prior to Indurain also did many more races throughout
the season didn't they? I believe Indurain even raced more often than the
current "tour specialists".

Please examine the evidence before talking out your ass.

You have a real pre-occupation with my ass... are you gay? Not that there
is anything wrong with that, but I don't think you should come out of the
closet on rbr. By the way I am hetrosexual, so you should seek someone
else.




Dumbass -


I wasn't replying to your post. I was replying to Diablo Scott.


Please learn how to use your newsreader correctly. You will reduce your
Fredliness a tiny bit that way.


thank you very much for your cooperation.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

Dumbass -

The first 5-time winner (Anquetil) won his first Tour in 1961.

Dumbass -

Anquetil's first victory was in 1957.

thank you very much.

Well said, Bryan.

Roger B

"Bryan Boldt" wrote in message
...
Times change. Get a grip.

It's only been the last couple of decades that riders started making
enough money that they don't
need to ride themselves into the ground by racing constantly. They used
to exist by "hand-to-mouth"
earnings from appearance fees, winnings, etc. The salaried teams you see
now, offer much more
stability to the rider's lives and well-being. The idea that any current
rider would prefer being
forced to race throughout the year is naive.

Another advance over time, has been in training knowledge and
implementation. Pre-80's, whoever
heard of VO2max and Lactate Threshold much less knowing how to properly
train specific systems.
Even if they did have the money to take time out to train, they couldn't
do it as efficiently as
today's athletes.

Besides, exactly who is racing "only one event each season"? Ok, Lance
only races one grand tour
each year, but pay closer attention to his early season schedule and you
might find a few other
"real" races he does as well.


snjr wrote:

I am open to feedback about this topic, however, it seems to me that
since
the advent of "Tour Specialists" the TDF is pretty boring. This year
was an
anomaly, and pretty exciting at times, however, I believe the points
competition was overall more exciting. Unfortunately, most people don't
follow the points competition.

If you look at Tours prior to the Lemond / specialization era, it seemed
the
races were much more animated, spontaneous, surprising, and exciting.
Am I
wrong?

Also, look at the top tour finishers today verses pre-Lemond. It seems
pre-Lemond, the top tour riders would race the Giro, the Worlds, Tour of
Spain like ROCHE WITH A TRIPLE!! I doubt today's top tour riders would
even
consider a triple, let alone doing the other races. The argument that
one
cannot stay at such form for so long is not accurate either. One simply
cannot "peak out" therefore, the times etc. may be slower, but likely
more
equal.

Perhaps the UCI should require participants in the big tours, e.g. Giro,
TDF, Spain, Swiss to compete in other races as well. Perhaps a minimum
number of UCI points and events for the team leaders to qualify for the
big
Tours?

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't like it when riders race
only
one event each season.