Seems like the tour always has a rider come along every decade who scoops up 5 of those years for himself. For the hardest most prestigious endurance race on the planet there's sure a lot of domination going on. Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain and Monsieur Lance add up to 27 victories out of the last 51. If Lemond hadn't suffered the hunting accident he most likely would have one 4 if not 5 himself.

I might be wrong, and someone can point it out to me where it occurs, but what other international event has this problem? Personally I think it robs the Tour of its mystique as the hardest and the toughest, the most of the most, etc..., How good can it be if one guy and his team can demolish the race for years and years and it keeps happening again and again. New decade, different guy, same results.

So what is it about establishing yourself as the "boss" that leads to more and more victory in this race of races? Talent likes those mentioned above gathers money and consequently builds stronger and stronger teams, this also adds an intimidation factor which weaker teams succumb to. Yet still it seems strange to me that this pattern should emerge since this race overshadows everything else on the calender and the rewards for winning are so high. It's literally the only bike race that garners world wide recognition and respect in even the least interested corners of the world.

I can't help thinking that the Tour could be so much better if there was some way of staving off this year-to-year domination by a single rider and opening it up to a more spontaneous mix of victors. I have a pet theory that commercialism is the reason; Perhaps it's the narrow focus of regional sponsors that are to blame, e.g. Belgians need Classic wins in the spring, Italians focus on the Giro and the later Classics like Lombardy, Spain = Vuelta, etc.... Teams spend all their energies towards these more achievable and probably more commercially valuable goals and this negates the competition we might have under the TdF big tent. Well that's an idea anyway.

What do you think about this phenomena? Is it a problem? If so then why and what should be done to change these results? Obviously simply changing the parcours from year to year by emphasizing one discipline, like TT vs. climbing, doesn't seem to add up to much. I wonder what would happen if the Tour returned to inviting only national teams like every four years or so. This might make things more interesting

Thoughts?

The tour gets the best teams and riders who value it above all else. If a rider is head and shoulders( or just head) above his peers and focuses all of his energies to his number one goal then chances are they will win it. Also, on classics and one day races somebody on a super day can win, or wins can be flukes. Staying strong for three weeks and being resilient to attacks from other top riders take an amazing champion.

The guys who have dynastys are also the guys who win with 5 minute margins.

A one day race, even the monuments, have a large degree of chance / luck / chaos involved.

Over time (say, 20 stages or so), a pattern can emerge, such that the strongest rider shines thru. Even if he's only a hair stronger, it's enough.

The other reason is, once a guy wins, it's easier to have a team build around him, so the slight edge is bolstered.

The reason you don't see this in the Giro or Vuelta, is - the best guys do not build their teams and seasons around the Giro or Vuelta. (Ok, maybe some Italian / Spanish guys, but not "the very best guys on the planet")

And, since the course tends to be pretty similar from year to year, a certain rider type will be more likely to win. Whether it's "balanced" or not, or whether that's even the right way to set up the race, is a separate and moot debate. It's ASO's choice, not ours.

Re: other cases like this, start looking for season-long points series, or long multi-day events. Michael Schumacher comes to mind - how many world points titles did he win?

Closer to home - look at Bruno Risi in six-day racing. Before him, Merckx and his frequent partner Patrick Sercu, or Danny Clark.

If you broaden the scope to "winning streaks" you'll see it's very common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_streak_%28sports%29

I bet there are more people that have won multiple GTs as opposed to those who just have one. As everyone said, it's harder to be "lucky" in a three week race, so unless there is a very unusual stage or accident, the strongest usually win.

A one day race, even the monuments, have a large degree of chance / luck / chaos involved. Over time (say, 20 stages or so), a pattern can emerge, such that the strongest rider shines thru. Even if he's only a hair stronger, it's enough.

Yes yes yes but a Tour is somehow protected from this chance phenomena? Really? If anything 3 week tours give a rider nothing but opportunity to overcome earlier setbacks. Just ask the ghost of Fausto Coppi.



The other reason is, once a guy wins, it's easier to have a team build around him, so the slight edge is bolstered. The reason you don't see this in the Giro or Vuelta, is - the best guys do not build their teams and seasons around the Giro or Vuelta. (Ok, maybe some Italian / Spanish guys, but not "the very best guys on the planet")

I think I pointed this out already.

And, since the course tends to be pretty similar from year to year, a certain rider type will be more likely to win. Whether it's "balanced" or not, or whether that's even the right way to set up the race, is a separate and moot debate. It's ASO's choice, not ours.

Fine but still over 50 years we got like 5 or 6 guys completely dominating. I don't understand why this is good from a sporting perspective. While pointing out the reasons is a good thing I wonder about the end result. Who wants to see the same guy win over and over again? Especially if the prize is so high? Much better to see real rivalries and an up and down result if one is a spectator no?

Re: other cases like this, start looking for season-long points series, or long multi-day events. Michael Schumacher comes to mind - how many world points titles did he win?

Closer to home - look at Bruno Risi in six-day racing. Before him, Merckx and his frequent partner Patrick Sercu, or Danny Clark.

If you broaden the scope to "winning streaks" you'll see it's very common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_streak_%28sports%29

I just looked at the winning streak scenario and I don't see any sport that is subject to serial winning streaks like the TdF is except maybe boxing but that's hardly a good comparison all things considered.

I guess what I'm getting at is that 5 Tour wins is supposed to be a stratospheric accomplishment yet it has happened every decade for the last 50 years like clockwork. Once in a great while it's a wonderful thing to see have such a thing occur but I'm more than a little concerned here about what the Tour de France is supposed to represent. Perhaps I'm a little romantic here but I'd much rather see this race be a truer contest than what it has become. Wouln't it be better to see a wilder contest where 1 win is remarkable, 2 wonderful, 3 astonishing, 4 puts you in the pantheon and 5 is only mentioned w/ the greatest reverence? But this is clearly not the case.

I'm suggesting that the Tour has a problem and wonder what could be done to change it.

...
I'm suggesting that the Tour has a problem and wonder what could be done to change it.

Cheez then why didn't ya say so the first time? Took ya like 14 paragraphs to get to that?

I'm suggesting that the Tour has a problem and wonder what could be done to change it.
The Tour has suffered with this affliction for 40-50 years and still remains the biggest race of the year, like it or not. Makes me wonder if it is really that much of a problem.

This coming year will be the third straight year with a different winner. The reasons why may not be ideal but currently you are having what you wish.

Fine but still over 50 years we got like 5 or 6 guys completely dominating.

Well, it depends on your perspective. One could also argue that over the past 50 years, there has been just as many "randoms" winning 23 of the years as there are "greats".

I think the Lance years where boring at times, no question, but I do believe it is entertaining to have a Goliath in the race that everyone else chips at. It builds more suspense, and is easier to understand for the casual cycling fan because they don't have to know every teams roster, but just a few of the major contenders.

there are other dominating factors/individuals in other sports. Tiger Woods, Federer, Michael Schumacher, Bayern Munich, NE Patriots.
I think the TdF could benefit from more teams, with 5-6 riders. If one guy goes, they loose 20 percent of their team, which opens up the opportunity for another individual/team to win. It would emphasize the strength of the overall team.
I'm sure there's a thousand holes that can be shot thru it, but I think it could help the GT's a bit.

award to consistency not brilliance
you have 18-2o days to make up for the bad one
it is just far easier to keep in the mix because finishing with the group means something
you can win a GT without winning a stage

Yes....I'm suggesting that the Tour has a problem and wonder what could be done to change it.

Just keep banning the winner..... :rolleyes:

it's not a problem-sports are at their peak popularity when there's a dominant team/player-just look at the NFL last year. Half the crowd is there to see the dominant team/player crush thei opponents and the other half is there for the big upset. Either way it's a win for the sport. Same with the tour, with Fignon-Hinault, Lemond-Hinault, Fignon-Lemond, Indurain-Lemond, Armstrong-Ullrich.

I think the most relevant reason for one rider/team dominating the Tour has less to do with the rider/team being head and shoulders above the rest and more because the Tour itself is head and shoulers above the other races in terms of importance. If a rider rises to that level than he and his team will focus everything on winning the Tour as long as they can because it is the most beneficial race to win in every way.

It doesn't happen in the other GT's because when a rider wins one of them they change their focus to the TdF, at least for a couple of years (Simoni and now Cunego are examples), because of the reasons above.

What do you think about this phenomena? Is it a problem? If so then why and what should be done to change these results? Obviously simply changing the parcours from year to year by emphasizing one discipline, like TT vs. climbing, doesn't seem to add up to much. I wonder what would happen if the Tour returned to inviting only national teams like every four years or so. This might make things more interesting

Thoughts?

It's not a phenomena.

It's a result of serious PED's (namely EPO) in the peloton starting with Indurain and continuing through Lance.

Basso would have been the next dominate force if he didn't get busted.


So yes, it is a problem cuz they have been turning humans into Super Humans..

dominant riders have been a feature of the tour throughout its history so the PED explanation isn't right. In the postwar era, there was Bobet and then Anquetil and then Merckx etc. The reason has already been given: it's the biggest tour by far so is the focus of the best riders and its format selects the best overall rider.