Didn't watch the Tour

[russ46]

Why not gravel or dirt as we call it in New England?

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by jlwdm

Without watching the Tour all of the time how do you know when the interesting parts are?

The route this year made for a great tour. If there was a long ITT Quintana would have been way behind.

On gravel? You have to be kidding.

Jeff

Question of how I watch the race. Pretty easy.

Volume up, video in small window.

When I hear the announcers say something of interest, make the video window bigger and pay attention.

On the issue of ITT. So you're suggesting no ITT in future editions? You need Time Trials, in my opinion, in a grand tour the same way you need mountains.

Gravel: Why do I have to be kidding? It would be less onerous on the riders and bikes than the cobbles. And frankly, a stage with a long stretches of unpaved roads would be both more accessible to more riders and more interesting to watch than the watered down cobbles they included this year.

There is plenty of precedent for including unpaved roads in grand tours. Certainly in the past it was common, and more recently also. So I'm not sure why I have to be kidding.

Colle delle finestre in this year's Giro.




Bartali on the Tourmalet in 1948


Strade Bianche

[FlashUNC]

Its served the Giro well, leading to some interesting racing.

Or even a call back to the Tour's own history.

Here's Louison Bobet on some decidedly not paved track on the Izoard.

[cloudguy]

Hahahahah. Love it.

[jlwdm]

Originally Posted by Anarchist

Why do you care so much whether other people have chosen not to watch?

Some "rustic" roads would be fabulous.

I don't care if other people do not watch, but some of their reasons are not valid and I do not see their point in posting about it for three weeks.

Why post over and over in stage threads about not liking the tour or doping.

Jeff

[Anarchist]

Originally Posted by jlwdm

I don't care if other people do not watch, but some of their reasons are not valid and I do not see their point in posting about it for three weeks.

Why post over and over in stage threads about not liking the tour or doping.

Jeff

Their reasons are their reasons. They are therefore valid.

You may not like them, or agree with them, that does not make them invalid.

[earlfoss]

Some views are so stupid but because they're on the internet they get more attention than they should. lol crazy is as crazy does. Posting about not watching it over the course of three weeks starts to border on mental illness territory.

Seriously though, I didn't watch much live or recap coverage this year. My insane reason is that I'm waiting to watch that stuff during trainer season in the basement so that it's fresh. I still followed the live ticker while at work and read the written recaps and coverage.

[ntb1001]

If they got rid of race radios, they would have rely more on instinct rather than just react to orders. I think radios are the biggest reason for boring grand tours.

[93legendti]

Unicycles would make it interesting...


The Indurain years were pre radios and they were similar to the Lance years or the Fromme era

Fwiw, the radio issue has been studied:

http://inrng.com/2011/03/race-radios...om-365-stages/

By the look of the crowds, the race seems to be doing just fine.

Imo, riders make the course.

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

I've been studying the Dunning-Kruger effect as it applies to cycling, with my focus on why it happens. Why would someone with no practiced or tested skills assume they are in the 70th percentile? One part of that is ease of assumption - watch the pros in the Tour, does that look hard to you? They're just riding their bikes, it's not a hard assumption for the viewer to make that they could do that too. If there were juggling chainsaws it might be different... Another reason (which Dunning-Kruger covers) is the lack of actual testing. Nobody goes from watching the tour to jumping in a pro race. If they did, the opinions about what happened in the Tour would be very different.

Dunning-Kruger as discussed in another thread here, that people think they know more than they know until they have to explain it and then they come up blank.

As you point out, this is a inevitable byproduct of a spectator sport culture. The television brings viewers in close to the action and, for many, that is all the sport is about. The preparation, practice, training, knowledge, discipline, genetics, intensity and focus that goes into athletic endeavor is all foreign to the second hand, voyeuristic world of the sports spectator. Tastes great, less filling!

Any sport, any activity. There will be some that think they are good at everything. Easy to know lots but can actually do squat. Gotta give 'em credit - why shortchange yourself in your own fantasy.

I disagree with you only on your point that riders that ride "just for fun" are exhibiting Dunning-Kruger because I don't hear them implying that they are better at climbing than they are. And although technique helps, it is hardly the predominant factor in ascent rate up the hill as it is mostly a result of specific output i.e. watts/kg. Technique to me always takes a secondary role to fit & position for sport cycling. I'd even say fit & position is less important to a racer because in that instance the racer is extremely motivated and will suffer any fit & position imbalance through sheer force of determination in the drive to go faster.