This race you envision: I think it's called the Vuelta a España.

Also, historically, one cannot win a grand tour with out being able to TT really, really well.
So, maybe, what are you getting at?

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

This tells you the dominance of sky when you have a guy like yourself (cycling fan and appreciate the sport) coming up w/ wonky ideas on how to keep the race interesting: take out the individual time trial which has been in the race for ever.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Smaller teams, no race radio, shorter stages....that is what you need to open up the racing.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Agreed, but this formula of largely defending in the mountains (aside from perhaps a single mtn attack) and really padding it in the TT was first was applied by Lemond and then Indurain, then Lance, Pretty well every 5 years you get a guy who is a bit taller with great top line watts and good watts per kilo to keep up with the pure climbers, and who has a team with a deep budget who can buy out many rivals who think they don't have a chance as team leaders and will play super domestique for a big guranteed salary. Then it's all over.

Title of the thread was a bit controversial. You'd still have a prologue, a late TTT and maybe a short ITT on week 2. If we want to stick with tradition, we can also go back to riding on unpaved roads too, but they don't do that anymore.

Or maybe all you have to do is remove radio communication to riders from team cars and it blows open the tactics on the road when the only way of knowing how far the breakaway guys are is when the guy on the moto shows you the delta on a chalk board!

How small woudl the teams need to be? 6-7 person?

Don't think you could get teams to agree to 6....even 7 would be tough, but I think that is a good number.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

haha....what about adding a mountain bike stage ....or a canoe stage?.......anything to even it up.....

Well we had running this year!!!

That's kinda what they did last year with a 13.8km prologue and 28km team time trial. The yellow jersey and polka dot jersey essentially became the same thing, as Froome won both jerseys.

"The amount of time gained on the TT's make it impossible to gain back on other stages"
That's not the fault of the TT, but instead an indication of the lack of competition to Froome at the moment. A couple years ago, I feel Contador was right there with Froome. I think the GC is already biased towards climbers. For example, there are plenty of below average TT-ers in the Tour de France top 10, but there is rarely a below average climber.

It seems like the only way the Tour can become "wide open" again is if they minimize the value of TT's.

Why not maximize the value of TTs? Take these puny climbers out of the equation. Only flat roads, TTs every other day. Road stages give substantial time bonuses. Only TTers and sprinters have a chance, who will win? Ok, Sagan. Probably. Now we just need to come up with a new scheme to disadvantage him. ;)

If Froome dominates both TTs and climbs, oh well. That's what it means to be a champion. If you want drama, then focus on the race for 2nd and 3rd.

Mountains in France are more of a "constant W/kg climb" instead of a climber's challenge.

Just look at the Giro's Mountain ITT.

I thought the race that Froome put on was awesome for 16 days. He totally deserved to win. Last 5 stages were about watching the GC shake out (closest GC ever for the top 10). You do have a good point that if you have a flatter course, and long TT's and big time bonuses on flat stages you could totally change things in favour of the larger riders. Not a bad idea. I think in the early 80's the Giro was very much like that when Saronni and Moser were beating up on each other. Moser was winning (Or competitive) in the Giro while also winning Paris Roubaix. I think the organizers "flattened the course" so that him and Saronni could go head to head and they awarded big time bonuses for flatter stages.

"We're the ASO! We're telling you, six riders per team. If you don't like it, don't bother to come!"

They could invite 30 teams (180 riders total) vs. the current 22 teams (198 riders total).

You'd still have all of the UCI WorldTeams but then you could have more Pro Conti teams. (Making it possible to attract more sponsors?)

You'd start the race with fewer riders on the road. (Fewer crashes?)

The "bottom 3" riders on most teams (maybe not for Sky) are simply spear carriers. (Nice to have, but not absolutely essential.) Everyone would still have five riders to support the team leader or to set up their sprint leadout train but it wouldn't be as easy to have one team grinding away at the front of the peloton for 200 kilometers day after day.

Two guys per room so you only need to book three hotel rooms for a team's riders. (With nine riders (an odd number), who are the unlucky ones who get stuck in a three person room?)

Fewer bikes for each team to maintain/carry around on the team car. (Save the "poor" teams a few euros?)

Riders "left off" the TdF squad would be "available" to ride the Giro and/or Vuelta. (More "star power" for those races?)

Bottom line. This is pro cycling. They'll never change.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

Makes it more wide open for guys who can't tt ;)

They more or less did that 2 years ago where it only had a prologue (ish) TT to start and it didn't change any results. What they need is varied terrain and to move past the script of TTs and mountains to decide things. I'm thinking specifically 2 years ago where Paris Nice had neither. Best 1 week race in a while by a long shot and won by Betancur.

Adding stages like cobbles (Roubaix and Flanders type), LBL type routes, Mur DE Huy finishes and you force riders to learn things other than pure w/kg, produce more complete champions, and make it more interesting to watch. Those two stages where Froome took time on the descent and in the win were refreshing to see. Design the course to force these types of moves.

And most of all if you're going to do short mountain stage to force action, don't put in a 20km valley between your mountains.

I wouldn't mind seeing a flatter TDF, the format is a bit stale how it is. Few flat stages, Pyrenees and then Alps every single year, no chance of an all round strong man ever winning.

If they had a flatter tour on the mountain side, and then offered big time bonuses (like 45,30, 15, 10, 5 seconds) on the intermediate sprints and if there are enough of those, that could make it wide open

Can't buy off on that idea at all....stage races should be won on the road, not through time bonuses. I don't mind time bonuses early in a race to liven up the flat stages, but once you get into the meat of the racing, they should be over and done with.

And there was a relatively "flat" tour in 2012....and it was insanely boring. Adding huge time bonuses would just mean that you have 160K processional stages where breaks are never allowed to get away and the inevitable bunch gallop takes place.

I honestly can't think of a worse format.

If you want to minimize the impact of TT's, then simply shorten them. Time gaps between riders will be smaller, which will then encourage animated racing on the road. Shorten some of the mountain stages and you will have an attacking race.

Super-long and mountainous stages don't encourage active racing, it encourages defensive riding. Further, since the strongest rider normally wins a stage race, they will also dominate a stage like that. Shorter stages are more wide open since riders' legs are fresher.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I wouldn't have it pancake flat, throw in some medium mountains, cobbles and cross winds :)
I agree that the flat sprinters stages can be a bit boring, but so are these super long mountain stages where the GC riders go on the easy side until 2km to go on the final climb. They need more 70-80km stages, little bit of flat leading to a single mountain top finish, I'm sure they did that with Ventoux a few years back.

IMO that would suck. All around strong men have plenty of other races tailored for their strengths. The TdF is the world championship of all around climbing, TT ability, and endurance. Note that the first two tend to be at odds with each other. A dominant winner like Froome is far from one dimensional.

I'd argue that out of the grand tours, the tdf isn't the climbing world champs, it probably has the weakest climbs.

It doesn't matter how tough the climbs are. What matters is who shows up to win. At the TdF that is the best riders in the world. Not so at the other tours.

Indeed. I distinctly remember a Liggetism where he remarked on Pantani, something to the effect of "he exploded the modern myth that climbers couldn't win grand tours by winning two."

Time Trials have been instrumental for a very long time.

A few thoughts i've always had. Why not finish every mt stage with a mt top finish. I get that descending is a critical skill, but it would seem to me to have 2 mt top passes back to back where someone could attack knowing that if they stayed away or atleast pushed the descend, they would only have to climb again. How many times have we seen the Tours won on descending skills? I'd say very very few in terms of it mattering because more times than not, the mass of the group with the long run into town finishes, leaves the time gaps smaller. Never understood why they'd have a HC climb and then a 25k run in down to the town finish, and majority of the time, riders would close any gaps that formed on the climb....and i'll say again, yes i understand descending is a skill and should be used. They can use it on every other mountain climb that builds to the ultimate mt. top finish for mountain stages.

I actually thought it was badass to have the final day iTT. Of course that leaves everyone on edge until the very end, and maybe the riders like the 'free' day that the final stage has finally become. So my question is, why did they have last stage as iTT and what caused them to go away from it?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Sorry master, you are always correct, the TDF is so superior and is the world champs for hill climbing and the best riders.
I mean, people like Alberto or Quintana wouldn't race the Giro or Vuelta would they.

I sometimes forget this is a mostly American forum, TV coverage and the Armstrong factor are strong.

I'm amazed people {likely europeans} gets all bent out of shape when people {likely americans} say the Tour is where almost all the GC guys peak for with most teams. I said this earlier this week, Americans aren't saying the Tour is the end all be all of cycling. How most the top GC guys prepare for a season shows how important the Tour is. I always assumed that was the acceptable case in cycling, where the top GC guys were always priming for the Tour, and yes would race other key races, but *always* with an eye to the Tour. Again that wasn't taking away from other great races, just that cycling itself plays up the Tour, not some american tv. How GC teams prepare their teams, their rosters, etc. And yes there are the classic teams that will likely forgo a GC guy for a sprinter guy at times, or there will be an italian who only dreams about the Giro.

How many times did Contador do the Giro and yet the talk would always include if it would let him do the 'double'. OR how many riders do the Vuelta, only AFTER a shitty TOUR. i've never heard a top GC guy 'oh yeah mate, i'm just riding this tour as a warm up for the vuelta'. Yes they'll double back, but it seems only after a disappointing exit at Tour.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Everyone who follows cycling knows this. Doesn't matter where they live.

Your claim was that the tdf was hill climbing world champs, not that it is the bigger race. For hill climbing the Giro is superior, the TDF has the better marketing and field's some years.

The giro is more what the tdf used to be before it became a hype fest that is often predictable.

Strawman much? Go back and read what I wrote.

And in the future when I just ignore you, please be assured it isn't by accident.

Lmao
You go into every thread and say "you're wrong" bet plenty ignore you to.

It's a thread of opinions, just the other complaining about the commentators and the other asking if the sport is on the decline. Obviously some people are a bit tired of the format, flat, Pyrenees, Alps and Paris with the same commentators year after year.

No, no, no.
You've got it all wrong. The whole race every stage should be an ITT. Long, short, hilly, windy everything. They did it about a century ago, and they could do it again. 200km stages, all alone on road bikes only. TT bikes for designated TT stages (ie stages less than 50km).
It'd be a disaster to watch, but very interesting. And I reckon someone like Matt Hayman or Luke Durbridge could win as they just chug along on the front for hours anyway.

200k? you mean 400+k? they also generally had a restday after every stage from what i've been told. but yah, as you said, not very spectator friendly. should the riders also carry their spare tubies around their bodies? ;) and bring carbon patches to mend their frames in case of breakage

Hey Brooks, the only real reason why they don't have many of those stages finishing on the mountain top is because there is literally nothing in terms of infrastructure on those mountains. It's really just an ancient billygoat trail paved over with nothing there in many cases or a single "building" that has a restaurant. No parking lot, no space for Tour caravan or fans. A few years ago when they has the summit finish on Galibier I think they literally just had a "line" at the finish with some timing and the riders immediately coasted down the other side around 5K down where the rest of the support could be parked. There is literally only a narrow road at the top. Yesterday on Joux Plane (and every time they have used it), the finish is down in Morzine where they have a town and infrastructure. I am still boggled by how they pulled off the finish on Galibier a few years ago wrt logistics. Most of the mountain top finishes have to happen at ski resorts which are typically a fair climb up from the valley (in that part of Europe, the valley is often green all winter, and you have to go 2000-3000 feet up to get on snow, thus the long switchback roads to the resorts like Alpe d'Huez or Megeve or Les Deux Alpes.

I do agree that it would be cool to have a final day ITT. At least that would keep us all on edge as you said. They did this a few times in recent memory in the Giro.

Personally I'd like to see ITT's replaced with TTT's. A team time trial really is a wonderful event. Very technical, more than meets the eye. It would give smaller guys like Quintana a better shot in the overall.

...or

You could make the ITT's way more technical. Have them take place in urban settings with 90 degree turns and U-turns to make it less of an overall power game (favors taller/bigger guys on flat courses) and more of a test of the rider's entire power curve in addition to their technical skills (though they all are top notch in that regard).

You don't need to change the race, you need to change the governance and financials of the sport of professional cycling.

Sky has the biggest budget, therefore they have the best chance of winning the TdF. End of story.

This^^^^ Did anyone catch the Tinkoff owners ' comments at the end of his interview with Christian, Bob and co. He kept saying the sport needed to be fixed financially to be more like soccer or other US team sports where the teams are not just paid for by the sponsors. His final comments after asking if he was speaking to an American audience were pretty funny too.

I hear you guys on Sky having the largest budget, but rather than everyone becoming more poor, what if there were 20 teams with $30M budgets...that would be better for the sport then everyone becoming equally poor and rider financial payouts being low. As it stands WTC pays out more in prize money in its series than the ASO pays out in 21 days at the Tour. Teams are definitely not getting a reasonable piece of the TV rights.

Couple of thoughts....

1) I don't think you can find enough sponsors to cover 20 teams @ $30M a pop.

2) prize money has always been of secondary consideration in cycling. Riders make their money from their salaries. Prize money is split up amongst the team members.

3) totally agree re: TV rights.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Is the TOUR broken? Why does it need fixing?

If you implement new rules....what is your intent? Are you trying to bring a larger number of riders into the mix? At what cost (to the riders who've dedicated their professional lives to training for the way it's always been done)? Is that "fair" - because it brings more riders into contention?

Sounds like affirmative action, to me.

Depends on what your motives are.

Is it pure racing or is their an entertainment side of things? For most sports, viewership matters in terms of the product on the field, and things are constantly evolving to improve the product.

That happens all the time in sports, hockey changes rules to improve scoring, football (NFL) has changed rules to be more offensive minded, baseball is speeding up the game, etc.

That's the nature of sports.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

They have other races that cater to other types of riders. The Olympics are a good example.

Every country has a TT and road champion. They even have grand tours that don't follow the same format as the TdF.

My only point was/is.......it's the most popular (at least on this side of the pond) cycling race in the world. If you change the format, are you doing it to identify the greatest all-around cyclist in the world......or, are you doing it to get more ratings (by allowing more people to be competitive)?

What's next?......Cavendish wins the TdF?.....lol

D'Wife & I were watching the finish on Sunday [well, mostly I was], and as they were winding up for the final sprint:

"How many more days are left?"
"About a minute, actually"
"Where's Froome?"
"In the back"
"Is he gonna lose?"
"Nah, it's all over"
"So who won"
"He did"
"Then who's the guy in the white shirt who crossed the finish first"
"Andre Greipel, they call him the Gorilla"
"So, he just won?"
"Yeah, he won for today"
"But Fromme won the whole thing? Even though he's in the back"
"Yep"
"That's fucking stupid"
"And that green shirt is that wheelie guy you like"
"Yes, Peter Sagan"
"What's the green shirt for?"
"Points. He finished near the front for more days than the rest; won a couple days too"
"Even though Froome was in the back, again?"
"Yep"
"That's really fucking stupid"

There ya go

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

What about the team component and tactics?

A number of well placed GC riders, Yates, Valverde, Porte etc. all said, that on the big mountain stages they had thoughts and intentions of, being more animated and aggressive, but because SKY set such a wicked tempo, just prior to and early on, on the big climbs in the GC group, because you were already near the limit, attacking them/Froome was next to useless.

And we saw that, any attempted attacks, typically went no where and when they, really did stick and get some ground and stick for at least bit, the rider would invariably blow up (Mollema).

The only attacks and moves of any kind that had an impact on the GC were Bardet's late move to win a stage and move up to 2nd, and Kreuzinger's savvy, early move, with some massive help from Sagan, to leap up a few places and into the top-10.

Otherwise, for those in the top-10 on the GC, it was an exercise, of ounce there, just sit in the Yellow Jersey group for as long as you can, on every mountain stage! I have the hugest respect for Nairo Quintana, but he never went on the offensive ounce, just stayed steady, and on wheels for the most part, right into 3rd place.

What's odd is that, while Froome won by 4+ minutes, it was one of the closest TDF's ever from 2nd - 10th! But there really was not that much action among the final 2nd - 10th places.

More on this here - http://cyclingtips.com/...gc-battle-so-boring/

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I don't necessarily disagree with your wife :)

I find it highly fucking stupid that a person HOURS down in the standings is lauded for being fast for a few hundred meters of a 21 day race. I just don't get it (MY issue). It's like hitting a home run.....flipping your bat.....and taking 2 minutes to round the bases........when you're down by 12 runs.

Yeah, I can't stand Ryan Howard, either

Only hits them when they do absolutely zero good

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

. . . ."Even though Froome was in the back, again?"
"Yep"
"That's really fucking stupid"


. . and this explains why, the Tour de France, and bike racing in general is so poorly understood, generally in North America. It also explains why when Lance Armstrong was winning the Tour de France there was a huge surge in interest in and engagement in road cycling, at least in the conetxt of the Tour de France. This - they could understand. Lance wins the Yellow jersey. It's easy to get.

If Armstrong had won 7-Green Jerseys(?), I'm guessing the impact would have been now where near what it was.

For me and for the many true fans of bike racing, there are the winners which needed to be honored but there are so many other nuanced things going on, in any bike race, that are beyond the comprehension of North Americans. The concept of being the absolute hero of the race, but not the winner, is something that is lost on them.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I like watching the tour and will continue to do so as is... that said, Froome and Sky are heads and shoulders above other teams right now. Once he got the yellow... Contador exited, Quintana couldn't take off in the mountains... it was a done deal unless Froome crashed out.

He really rode an awesome race this year. The Tour is fine as is... if I changed anything I'd say the safety issues that came up this year could be addressed... less motorcycle and crowd control in some areas.

if I changed anything I'd say the safety issues that came up this year could be addressed... less motorcycle and crowd control in some areas.

And some rule that time will not be lost in the last few km of a sprint stage so the GC guys don't have to have lead out trains too.

Yeah, I have long advocated taking the GC time @ 3K to go so the GC guys and their teams can GTF out of the way. Having the 3K rule giving riders the same time only if there is an incident doesn't solve the problem of too many riders trying to get up front....if there is a gap and no incident, you lose time.

Take the GC time @ 3K to go....such an easy change to make.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

This exchange kinda made my day.
Out of curiosity, have you ever tried to explain the rules/format? Or is that time better spent drinking beer?

---

----------------------------------------------------------------
Life is tough. But it's tougher when you're stupid. -John Wayne

GC Team leader: "Shit, we're not gonna catch them"
Loyal Domestique:"What do we do?"
GC:"The 3K banner is right up ahead. When we get there, fall down"
LD: "What?"
GC: "Fall down, crash out, take a dive"
LD: "But I could get hurt, that could end my race"

They pass under the 3K banner. GC leader shoves LD into the fence. He bounces off and rebounds back into the peloton, causing a major pile-up

GC [shouting over his shoulder as they ride away]: "Thanks buddy! We owe you one! See ya back at the bus!!!"

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

I really feel the introduction of Team Sky a few years ago closed the door on the Tour being wide open. Dave Brailsford has done quite a bit for British Cycling, and we are seeing what the Brits are doing on the road and on the track.

Just before Team Sky, I remember it being far more exciting just a few years ago with the likes of Contador, Cadel, Lance, Andy Schleck, etc. Even then, these guys were mostly great TT riders (except Schleck), but you still had the excitement in the mountains because these GC guys had 1 maaaaybe 2 guys with them on the climbs. They didn't have a whole convoy of riders. There was far more attacking up until the Team Sky initiation.

That being said, unless another team tries tackling the same team structure as Sky, it feels like they will win the Tour 3 out of every 4 years.

IF your a private business, you absolutely do what it takes to make your product better, more visible and better for viewers. Why do you think the Tour starts in all these other countries now. So, if your a business and yes the TOUR is big business for ASO, and you can make your product better, most smart business people adapt and make it better. Most of the changes that many on here are saying aren't ground breaking changes, it's not going to drastically cause sky to fall back to the pack. But what I think it can do is improve the overall competitiveness.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Maybe they'll play The Masters in Florida, sometime?

Bobby Jones couldnt break 80 on today's course, that's how different it is from the "past". So things change, you either are cool with it or not. But things change all the time.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

How good do you think Phil would do with Hickory and gutta percha?

I guess you missed the pink font. No worries.

No I saw the pink and you addressed masters moving to Florida. my response was more that the course that bobby jones built in his cow pastures has completely changed from the equipment to the course design. Par 4's now would have played par 5's in his day, but the board at Augusta made the decisions to "tiger proof" the course and turn it into a bombers delight. Adding rough though has atleast given the shot makers a chance, small one but they have addressed generational how to adapt. It may be time for the Tour to do likewise.

The only thing that has stayed the same is the southern charm that the course has.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Are you advocating for the tour to Froome-proof? :)

Augusta wasn't the only course to add length. They could have fallen in-line with the other major venues or watch the records fall (again, due to modernization of the equipment).

I don't see the TdF as a corollary. People seem to be advocating the rules of the game (TdF) need to be changed.......not the course. It's a great discussion topic, I'm just not one who's bored by watching someone dominate (or, a team). And, I wouldn't be in favor of them changing the rules, just because someone learned how to play THE game - really well. The problem is, someone will learn the new game and dominate it. Plus, you have history to answer to (tradition).

Like I said.....no disrespect at all (of your opinion). Interesting topic.

I agree. The only rules I'd be in favor of changing (or adding) would be for the riders safety, and not to "even out" the playing field. I also personally enjoy watching the ass-whoopin that Sky puts on. If the other "contenders" want to compete, they need to do work.

and this complexity is why those who understand it, love it so much.
sure, you could simplify it so the great unwashed could tune in for 5 minutes and understand everything, but then its just like every mainstream sport, except less established and poorer. and you've lost all the real fans

except it doesn't work that way. if they're already behind then they stay behind - only time gaps created by crahs or mechanical after that point are neutralised

 
I thought this tour was very interesting. Everyone complains that Froome just waits till the very end of a big climb to walk away and get his time, but he did not to that at all this year. Rather, he proved that he was the best rider in the tour by attacking on that descent when no one expected him to, he then attacked again and gained time on a sprinter's stage (no one saw that coming either), he did his thing in the mountains, and he absolutely crushed the TT's. Team Sky is a big part of his success, but he made his own time gap this year as well.

Quintana was boring as hell, follow a wheel around all week and hope someone has a mechanical or a crash. He never attacked, never thought outside the box, never made something out of an opportunity. Bardet did and it got him 2nd place. Porte would have been challenging Froome if not for absolute rotten luck all tour long.

Froome and Sky train to win the tour, if a rider doesn't think he can compete with the way the tour is set up, there are lots of other races to compete in. I wouldn't change anything about this year's tour other than smacking the shit out of the spectators.

Or my wife's response,

"That TV has been playing the Tour de France for 3 week straight either live or 24x7 replays. It all looks the same to me except the mountains and chateaus seem to change. But that guy in Yellow, you say he's leading, but he's always behind a bunch of guys in black and blue and now they seem to be side by side in black and gold way behind everyone else. So who won?"

It all kind of reminds me of a quarter back that seems really good, but actually he has a great offensive line that lets him make the plays.

---

Pactimo brand ambassador, ask me about promo codes

My son and I discussed the nuanced aspect....same deal with North Americans who don't get soccer or Europeans that don't get American Football. I think to some degree, unless you did a sport, you lose the finer points. My son grew up playing soccer and thinks that NFL is beyond stupid. He does not understand how I stay glued to those games. Having done both sports, basically all day on weekends there is sport on TV in the background in between training (Soccer morning and afternoon from Europe, NFL afternoon and evening). My son get's the nuances of cycling because he also rides (well, maybe I say he used to, because he is not riding much), so he can sit in front of the TV and get what is going on with the jerseys. My wife can "get" the nuances of basketball and pro tennis since she played both but rolls her eyeballs at another TdF stage! I find basketball to be the most boring thing to watch since the superlatives of constant superlatives make them kind of boring after a while....I'd rather watch paint dry in an Ironman or 120 minutes of 0-0 EURO cup action with the anticipation that it goes to penalties!