On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:18:29 -0600,
[email protected] wrote:
>> "The Giro seemed endless, and yet it is over. ... It was
>>a difficult Giro d'Italia: it gave us some days of boredom;
>>other days, it is undeniable, of profound dejection; but
>>there were also moments of unforgettable emotion;
>>and even we, who are hardened by professional routine,
>>experienced hours of elation, almost as great as that
>>of the fans on the Pordoi, Abetone and Ghisallo. Many
>>times we cried out for it to end, but now that it has ended,
>>we're sorry that it's over; now that it's gone, we miss it.
>> "How many kilometers in tomorrow's stage? There is
>>no stage tomorrow. A real shame!"
>>
>>(from Dino Buzzati, "The Giro d'Italia: Coppi vs Bartali at
>>the 1949 Tour of Italy")
>
>Dear Ben,
>
>Enjoy the spectacle.
>
>Revel in the details from the television, newspaper, and internet.
>
>But remember that the riders themselves need radios and chalkboards
>held up by motorcycle passengers to know what's going on.
>
>For non-competitors, the further away we are from the Tour, the more
>we think we know about it.
Distance does lend perspective. As your next example makes clear.
>If you were just standing at the finish line on Day 9, watching half
>the Tour flash past in a pack tight enough to receive the same time,
>what could you really say was happening without referring to radio,
>tv, loudspeakers, or notes?
>
>Day 9: first 84 of 170 riders awarded same finishing time:
>http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10331.0.html
But they arent' the same riders that had the same finishing time the day before
and they aren't the same as will finish together tomorrow. It is a subtle game,
but no more difficult to follow than NASCAR, which it resembles more than many
fans would want to admit.
>Many of us enjoy the Tour, but it's fair to say that a great deal of
>what we enjoy is what we're told we're seeing by commentators, not
>what we see.
Hmmmm. Maybe this is important.
The TdF was created for and presented by written word in a newspaper. For
generations fans knew only what was written and what was written was often
brilliant. Literature with a capital "L," even. It begs to be described. It
demands and inspires comment.
Over In RBR (and even in venues not populated by dumbasses) people write and
read over and over in detail what was seen and what was done, even when all have
watched it themselves in whatever detail modern sports television can provide.
There is more to it than can be seen. And much of it that can be related with so
few words. It's no harder to follow the tour in print than it is for a baseball
fan to recreate a game from the box score. Neither has the precision of chess
notation, but it tells enough to let the mind fill in the rest.
>The commentators, of course, are often viciously criticized and
>dismissed as incompetent idiots here on RBT and on RBR. Snarling at
>the commentators makes some people feel superior. Since the
>commentators are paid for their work and ignore newsgroups, I suppose
>it's harmless, but I often think that it would be fun to have the
>critics try to provide 4 hours of unrehearsed coverage.
That would be cruel. Deserved and just, but cruel.
>Despite the bombast, the boasting, and the keen sense of well-informed
>appreciation, few posters would watch even 4 straight hours of the
>Tour with the sound turned off, much less 80+ hours. The typical
>action consists chiefly of hour after hour of a hundred or more
>closely packed bicycles in a rolling traffic jam.
That's like saying a baseball game is just guys standing around for hours
briefly scurrying once in awhile. Accurate but unfair to the point of becoming
untrue.
Ron
