|
Giro d'Italia 2016 - Week 1 (6th - 15th May)
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:21
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Stromeon wrote:
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Ok.
So, throwing a hill in on 3-4 stages that previously would have been completely flat is shitty? Fine you disagree, but I would appreciate if you refrain from calling an idea shitty because it doesnt float your boat. 
I call it shitty because it is. You find flat stages boring. That was your main argumentative. Whether it has a small hill in the middle or not doesn't make any difference - espacially not when looking at those stages you just highlighted as being "pancake flat".
You need to determine what you really mean, otherwise it is impossible to discuss anything.
Having 3 stages suited for Kittel, Greipel and Cavendish would mean one thing: None of them would show up. Simple as that. And normally you won't find more than 3 stages - perhaps 4 - where there are no troubles in anyway. Either there are hills, cobbles or potentially echelons involved if there are more than 4 flat stages.
But it simply needs to be balanced, otherwise the Tour isn't "Grand". It's quite simple. And I think you overestimate your idea as being unique and totally discount the fact that those persons involved in designing the route are experts in making the best possible riders participate - And thus making most people follow the race.
I think you're slightly misinterpreting the argument; just because you put a bump in at the end of the stage doesn't automatically mean that it's definitely not going to end in a sprint, it just means that there is actually a chance that it will result in an attacker winning rather than being a totally predictable sprint (barring misjudgements liked in that stages in the Giro last year which happen every so often). Greipel and Cavendish (not so much Kittel) have won plenty of these stages in the past, and I'm fairly sure it wouldn't stop them turning up to a GT just because they might have to work ever so slightly harder for their wins. If we're following your line of argument, it would have been totally illogical for Cavendish to turn up to the 2011 Giro, say, as there were only 2-3 properly pan-flat stages there. As for your last paragraph: if anything, it makes it more balanced as it means there are more riders and a variety of riders with different skillsets who are able to win the stages.
Glad that someone stopped the tag teaming strategy and actually took the time to read the arguments I layed out properly. Stromeon, my man. |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:22
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Riis123 wrote:
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Ok.
So, throwing a hill in on 3-4 stages that previously would have been completely flat is shitty? Fine you disagree, but I would appreciate if you refrain from calling an idea shitty because it doesnt float your boat.
I call it shitty because it is. You find flat stages boring. That was your main argumentative. Whether it has a small hill in the middle or not doesn't make any difference - espacially not when looking at those stages you just highlighted as being "pancake flat".
You need to determine what you really mean, otherwise it is impossible to discuss anything.
Having 3 stages suited for Kittel, Greipel and Cavendish would mean one thing: None of them would show up. Simple as that. And normally you won't find more than 3 stages - perhaps 4 - where there are no troubles in anyway. Either there are hills, cobbles or potentially echelons involved if there are more than 4 flat stages.
But it simply needs to be balanced, otherwise the Tour isn't "Grand". It's quite simple. And I think you overestimate your idea as being unique and totally discount the fact that those persons involved in designing the route are experts in making the best possible riders participate - And thus making most people follow the race.
Ok, Im just gotta ignore that then.
There are 5 "pancake flat" stages and at least 1 more for the pure sprinters, possibly 2.
3-4 pure sprint stages doesnt necessarily mean that those are the only Kittel and Cav can win, but it means that a sprint is inevitable and the result of a sprint in the end is a given.
I think 3-4 pure sprint stages is balanced, but that depends on what your aspect is. And dont give me that the persons involving in designing the route are experts - last year the Tour saw 14 kilometres of ITT and the Vuelta have seen +10 hilltops/MTF's the last freaking 5 years. That the completely opposite of balanced route.
Right. The designers are amateurs. You got me. A multimillion business is planned by retards. It can't be any other way.
|
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:23
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Ok.
So, throwing a hill in on 3-4 stages that previously would have been completely flat is shitty? Fine you disagree, but I would appreciate if you refrain from calling an idea shitty because it doesnt float your boat.
I call it shitty because it is. You find flat stages boring. That was your main argumentative. Whether it has a small hill in the middle or not doesn't make any difference - espacially not when looking at those stages you just highlighted as being "pancake flat".
You need to determine what you really mean, otherwise it is impossible to discuss anything.
Having 3 stages suited for Kittel, Greipel and Cavendish would mean one thing: None of them would show up. Simple as that. And normally you won't find more than 3 stages - perhaps 4 - where there are no troubles in anyway. Either there are hills, cobbles or potentially echelons involved if there are more than 4 flat stages.
But it simply needs to be balanced, otherwise the Tour isn't "Grand". It's quite simple. And I think you overestimate your idea as being unique and totally discount the fact that those persons involved in designing the route are experts in making the best possible riders participate - And thus making most people follow the race.
Ok, Im just gotta ignore that then.
There are 5 "pancake flat" stages and at least 1 more for the pure sprinters, possibly 2.
3-4 pure sprint stages doesnt necessarily mean that those are the only Kittel and Cav can win, but it means that a sprint is inevitable and the result of a sprint in the end is a given.
I think 3-4 pure sprint stages is balanced, but that depends on what your aspect is. And dont give me that the persons involving in designing the route are experts - last year the Tour saw 14 kilometres of ITT and the Vuelta have seen +10 hilltops/MTF's the last freaking 5 years. That the completely opposite of balanced route.
Right. The designers are amateurs. You got me. A multimillion business is planned by retards. It can't be any other way.
So, wait, are you telling me that ASO are making balanced routes in the Tour and the Vuelta? |
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:24
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Stromeon wrote:
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Ok.
So, throwing a hill in on 3-4 stages that previously would have been completely flat is shitty? Fine you disagree, but I would appreciate if you refrain from calling an idea shitty because it doesnt float your boat.
I call it shitty because it is. You find flat stages boring. That was your main argumentative. Whether it has a small hill in the middle or not doesn't make any difference - espacially not when looking at those stages you just highlighted as being "pancake flat".
You need to determine what you really mean, otherwise it is impossible to discuss anything.
Having 3 stages suited for Kittel, Greipel and Cavendish would mean one thing: None of them would show up. Simple as that. And normally you won't find more than 3 stages - perhaps 4 - where there are no troubles in anyway. Either there are hills, cobbles or potentially echelons involved if there are more than 4 flat stages.
But it simply needs to be balanced, otherwise the Tour isn't "Grand". It's quite simple. And I think you overestimate your idea as being unique and totally discount the fact that those persons involved in designing the route are experts in making the best possible riders participate - And thus making most people follow the race.
I think you're slightly misinterpreting the argument; just because you put a bump in at the end of the stage doesn't automatically mean that it's definitely not going to end in a sprint, it just means that there is actually a chance that it will result in an attacker winning rather than being a totally predictable sprint (barring misjudgements liked in that stages in the Giro last year which happen every so often). Greipel and Cavendish (not so much Kittel) have won plenty of these stages in the past, and I'm fairly sure it wouldn't stop them turning up to a GT just because they might have to work ever so slightly harder for their wins. If we're following your line of argument, it would have been totally illogical for Cavendish to turn up to the 2011 Giro, say, as there were only 2-3 properly pan-flat stages there. As for your last paragraph: if anything, it makes it more balanced as it means there are more riders and a variety of riders with different skillsets who are able to win the stages.
Yeah, I agree - But that isn't what he wants. If this was what he wanted, then it already works like that and it would make no sense to argue about it.
|
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:25
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
SotD wrote:
Stromeon wrote:
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Ok.
So, throwing a hill in on 3-4 stages that previously would have been completely flat is shitty? Fine you disagree, but I would appreciate if you refrain from calling an idea shitty because it doesnt float your boat.
I call it shitty because it is. You find flat stages boring. That was your main argumentative. Whether it has a small hill in the middle or not doesn't make any difference - espacially not when looking at those stages you just highlighted as being "pancake flat".
You need to determine what you really mean, otherwise it is impossible to discuss anything.
Having 3 stages suited for Kittel, Greipel and Cavendish would mean one thing: None of them would show up. Simple as that. And normally you won't find more than 3 stages - perhaps 4 - where there are no troubles in anyway. Either there are hills, cobbles or potentially echelons involved if there are more than 4 flat stages.
But it simply needs to be balanced, otherwise the Tour isn't "Grand". It's quite simple. And I think you overestimate your idea as being unique and totally discount the fact that those persons involved in designing the route are experts in making the best possible riders participate - And thus making most people follow the race.
I think you're slightly misinterpreting the argument; just because you put a bump in at the end of the stage doesn't automatically mean that it's definitely not going to end in a sprint, it just means that there is actually a chance that it will result in an attacker winning rather than being a totally predictable sprint (barring misjudgements liked in that stages in the Giro last year which happen every so often). Greipel and Cavendish (not so much Kittel) have won plenty of these stages in the past, and I'm fairly sure it wouldn't stop them turning up to a GT just because they might have to work ever so slightly harder for their wins. If we're following your line of argument, it would have been totally illogical for Cavendish to turn up to the 2011 Giro, say, as there were only 2-3 properly pan-flat stages there. As for your last paragraph: if anything, it makes it more balanced as it means there are more riders and a variety of riders with different skillsets who are able to win the stages.
Yeah, I agree - But that isn't what he wants. If this was what he wanted, then it already works like that and it would make no sense to argue about it.
I honestly think you have a problem. |
| |
|
|
| Strydz |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:25
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5894
Joined: 02-08-2011
PCM$: 1625.00
|
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Ok.
So, throwing a hill in on 3-4 stages that previously would have been completely flat is shitty? Fine you disagree, but I would appreciate if you refrain from calling an idea shitty because it doesnt float your boat.
I call it shitty because it is. You find flat stages boring. That was your main argumentative. Whether it has a small hill in the middle or not doesn't make any difference - espacially not when looking at those stages you just highlighted as being "pancake flat".
You need to determine what you really mean, otherwise it is impossible to discuss anything.
Having 3 stages suited for Kittel, Greipel and Cavendish would mean one thing: None of them would show up. Simple as that. And normally you won't find more than 3 stages - perhaps 4 - where there are no troubles in anyway. Either there are hills, cobbles or potentially echelons involved if there are more than 4 flat stages.
But it simply needs to be balanced, otherwise the Tour isn't "Grand". It's quite simple. And I think you overestimate your idea as being unique and totally discount the fact that those persons involved in designing the route are experts in making the best possible riders participate - And thus making most people follow the race.
Ok, Im just gotta ignore that then.
There are 5 "pancake flat" stages and at least 1 more for the pure sprinters, possibly 2.
3-4 pure sprint stages doesnt necessarily mean that those are the only Kittel and Cav can win, but it means that a sprint is inevitable and the result of a sprint in the end is a given.
I think 3-4 pure sprint stages is balanced, but that depends on what your aspect is. And dont give me that the persons involving in designing the route are experts - last year the Tour saw 14 kilometres of ITT and the Vuelta have seen +10 hilltops/MTF's the last freaking 5 years. That the completely opposite of balanced route.
Right. The designers are amateurs. You got me. A multimillion business is planned by retards. It can't be any other way.
Well RCS and the Giro doesn't have the greatest record with the people running it so I wouldn't go as far as calling them retards but dodgy/incompetent is an apt way to describe them
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald
https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/ |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 26-11-2024 16:54
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:26
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Riis123 wrote:
Stromeon wrote:
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Ok.
So, throwing a hill in on 3-4 stages that previously would have been completely flat is shitty? Fine you disagree, but I would appreciate if you refrain from calling an idea shitty because it doesnt float your boat.
I call it shitty because it is. You find flat stages boring. That was your main argumentative. Whether it has a small hill in the middle or not doesn't make any difference - espacially not when looking at those stages you just highlighted as being "pancake flat".
You need to determine what you really mean, otherwise it is impossible to discuss anything.
Having 3 stages suited for Kittel, Greipel and Cavendish would mean one thing: None of them would show up. Simple as that. And normally you won't find more than 3 stages - perhaps 4 - where there are no troubles in anyway. Either there are hills, cobbles or potentially echelons involved if there are more than 4 flat stages.
But it simply needs to be balanced, otherwise the Tour isn't "Grand". It's quite simple. And I think you overestimate your idea as being unique and totally discount the fact that those persons involved in designing the route are experts in making the best possible riders participate - And thus making most people follow the race.
I think you're slightly misinterpreting the argument; just because you put a bump in at the end of the stage doesn't automatically mean that it's definitely not going to end in a sprint, it just means that there is actually a chance that it will result in an attacker winning rather than being a totally predictable sprint (barring misjudgements liked in that stages in the Giro last year which happen every so often). Greipel and Cavendish (not so much Kittel) have won plenty of these stages in the past, and I'm fairly sure it wouldn't stop them turning up to a GT just because they might have to work ever so slightly harder for their wins. If we're following your line of argument, it would have been totally illogical for Cavendish to turn up to the 2011 Giro, say, as there were only 2-3 properly pan-flat stages there. As for your last paragraph: if anything, it makes it more balanced as it means there are more riders and a variety of riders with different skillsets who are able to win the stages.
Glad that someone stopped the tag teaming strategy and actually took the time to read the arguments I layed out properly. Stromeon, my man.
I am not tag teaming you. I have no idea who you are - buy your points are simply stupid, hence me telling you so.
You seem like a nice person, but you see ghosts, and don't seem like understanding the basics about building up a cycling race. That is a bad combination, and probably the reason why very few people give you a thumbs up for "your idea".
|
| |
|
|
| SotD |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:31
|
World Champion
Posts: 12188
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 2980.00
|
Riis123 wrote:
SotD wrote:
Stromeon wrote:
SotD wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Ok.
So, throwing a hill in on 3-4 stages that previously would have been completely flat is shitty? Fine you disagree, but I would appreciate if you refrain from calling an idea shitty because it doesnt float your boat.
I call it shitty because it is. You find flat stages boring. That was your main argumentative. Whether it has a small hill in the middle or not doesn't make any difference - espacially not when looking at those stages you just highlighted as being "pancake flat".
You need to determine what you really mean, otherwise it is impossible to discuss anything.
Having 3 stages suited for Kittel, Greipel and Cavendish would mean one thing: None of them would show up. Simple as that. And normally you won't find more than 3 stages - perhaps 4 - where there are no troubles in anyway. Either there are hills, cobbles or potentially echelons involved if there are more than 4 flat stages.
But it simply needs to be balanced, otherwise the Tour isn't "Grand". It's quite simple. And I think you overestimate your idea as being unique and totally discount the fact that those persons involved in designing the route are experts in making the best possible riders participate - And thus making most people follow the race.
I think you're slightly misinterpreting the argument; just because you put a bump in at the end of the stage doesn't automatically mean that it's definitely not going to end in a sprint, it just means that there is actually a chance that it will result in an attacker winning rather than being a totally predictable sprint (barring misjudgements liked in that stages in the Giro last year which happen every so often). Greipel and Cavendish (not so much Kittel) have won plenty of these stages in the past, and I'm fairly sure it wouldn't stop them turning up to a GT just because they might have to work ever so slightly harder for their wins. If we're following your line of argument, it would have been totally illogical for Cavendish to turn up to the 2011 Giro, say, as there were only 2-3 properly pan-flat stages there. As for your last paragraph: if anything, it makes it more balanced as it means there are more riders and a variety of riders with different skillsets who are able to win the stages.
Yeah, I agree - But that isn't what he wants. If this was what he wanted, then it already works like that and it would make no sense to argue about it.
I honestly think you have a problem.
If I do, you are most like it. Other than that I'm fine.
|
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:34
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ok, but people are. Waghlon is being childish along with his crew and are grabbing any remote possibility to like/dislike anything they can find for some reason. Find with me.
Can you tell me where me and Stromeon's point differentiate? What I have pointed out basically is the consensus among traceurs, stage makers, on CN. Some of those people knows x10 as much about stage making than Prudhomme. I kid you not.
I would also like you to say one more time ASO and Unipublic are making balanced routes. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:37
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Riis123 wrote:
Ok, but people are. Waghlon is being childish along with his crew and are grabbing any remote possibility to like/dislike anything they can find for some reason. Find with me.
The idea Waghlon has a bunch of cronies to argue for him, that's just brilliant.
|
| |
|
|
| Strydz |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:39
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5894
Joined: 02-08-2011
PCM$: 1625.00
|
I don't agree 100% with what Riis123 is saying but do respect that he has thought out his ideas and they certainly do have some merit and even if I didn't think that I like hearing differing opinions. I don't understand why we can't as a forum have a debate without it ending in people slagging each other off.
Stoooooopid internet forums 
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald
https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/ |
| |
|
|
| Riis123 |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:40
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5075
Joined: 07-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Riis123 wrote:
Ok, but people are. Waghlon is being childish along with his crew and are grabbing any remote possibility to like/dislike anything they can find for some reason. Find with me.
The idea Waghlon has a bunch of cronies to argue for him, that's just brilliant.
You're the moderator, right?
I told him how I felt about his posting style, not anything else. He could have dealt it with like a man, but has decided to take the childish way of disliking and tag teaming, facebook-style. |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:40
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Strydz wrote:
Finished 8th today and there were some splits in the peloton on that final circuit so maybe some guys ahead of him were caught out
Edit: Actually that does seem strange, didn't realise he was 1:01 down in the GC at the start of the day so how did he climb to 10th after finishing 8th today
10th on PCS in today's result. I just find it strange because Mohoric has done basically nothing since he won WC U23, 3(?) years ago. Glad he is away from that Vaughter's club. Seems like he much prefers italian surroundings.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Tilion |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:42
|
Free Agent
Posts: 116
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Couldn't see the stage, any GC contender lost time today? |
| |
|
|
| Strydz |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:44
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5894
Joined: 02-08-2011
PCM$: 1625.00
|
Shonak wrote:
Strydz wrote:
Finished 8th today and there were some splits in the peloton on that final circuit so maybe some guys ahead of him were caught out
Edit: Actually that does seem strange, didn't realise he was 1:01 down in the GC at the start of the day so how did he climb to 10th after finishing 8th today
10th on PCS in today's result. I just find it strange because Mohoric has done basically nothing since he won WC U23, 3(?) years ago. Glad he is away from that Vaughter's club. Seems like he much prefers italian surroundings.
Yeah it does seem odd unless him and Modolo swapped bikes at some stage? PCS has Modolo finishing 49th but yeah if he did finish 10th then that is a good result. Agree that it's good he's away from Vaughters as he did look like a big talent in the U23 ranks and he is still only 21!
Edited by Strydz on 08-05-2016 16:45
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald
https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/ |
| |
|
|
| Strydz |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:44
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5894
Joined: 02-08-2011
PCM$: 1625.00
|
Tilion wrote:
Couldn't see the stage, any GC contender lost time today?
Nope they all finished together
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald
https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/ |
| |
|
|
| Shonak |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:45
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15615
Joined: 16-07-2013
PCM$: 350.00
|
Modolo and Mohoric switching bikes makes way more sense than that 10th place by him.
"It’s a little bit scary when Contador attacks." - Tommy V
|
| |
|
|
| Stromeon |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:46
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3507
Joined: 06-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
SotD wrote:
Right. The designers are amateurs. You got me. A multimillion business is planned by retards. It can't be any other way.
They're not retards, it's just their primary function is probably to turn a multimillion business into a multibillion business, rather than design great routes - route design for the GTs seems to be a case of:
Prudhomme: "Ok, so which towns and ski resorts want to cough up some money this year?"
Andorra Arcalis: "Me! I want to! I'll give you all the $$$."
Prudhomme: Well, you're a pretty unremarkable climb in the wrong country that last time you were in the Tour produced an incredibly dull stage, but you're the highest bidder so we'll design something round that I'm sure." (to be fair they've done an OK job of that this year)
Sometimes this results in great routes along the way, like last year's Giro or this year's Tour, and sometimes we get terrible routes, like last year's Tour or this year's Vuelta. It's all a bit of a lottery really. 
|
| |
|
|
| alexkr00 |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:47
|
World Champion
Posts: 13915
Joined: 05-08-2008
PCM$: 300.00
|
Nippo already 18 minutes down in the team rankings 
|
| |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 08-05-2016 16:50
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7694
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Oi, SotD, guido mukk and strydz: Are you really a part of my crew? Why didn't you tell me?
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
 |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
