Discussion:
Magilla: What is your position on Italian babes with cold sores?
(too old to reply)
Max Payne
2007-10-05 17:10:58 UTC
Permalink
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/worlds07/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worlds07/worlds074/fs068
GoneBeforeMyTime
2007-10-05 17:42:22 UTC
Permalink
"Max Payne" <maxxxxx-***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:LltNi.34$***@newsfe06.lga...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/worlds07/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worl
ds07/worlds074/fs068

One thread should be enough on that if you must, but it's unfortune that the
Italians have not said a single word about her marvelous solo breakaway in
their forum. She earned it, and it reminds me about what they say in 1992
when Watt won. They called it an evil lesson that any rider can win against
all odds, not just the creme at the front. A lesser relatively unknown rider
went solo off the front taking the gold and the glory. More then likely it
will be the highlight of her cycling career, but what an inspiring finish, I
though she had the right stuff! However, Marta should try out some Banana
boat Aloe Vera with vitamen E, great stuff to use on hot sunny days, and
would of hidden that from the camera!

http://tinyurl.com/duhlc

GBMT
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-06 16:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Payne
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/worlds07/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worl
ds07/worlds074/fs068
One thread should be enough on that if you must, but it's unfortune that the
Italians have not said a single word about her marvelous solo breakaway in
their forum. She earned it, and it reminds me about what they say in 1992
when Watt won. They called it an evil lesson that any rider can win against
all odds, not just the creme at the front. A lesser relatively unknown rider
went solo off the front taking the gold and the glory. More then likely it
will be the highlight of her cycling career, but what an inspiring finish, I
though she had the right stuff! However, Marta should try out some Banana
boat Aloe Vera with vitamen E, great stuff to use on hot sunny days, and
would of hidden that from the camera!
http://tinyurl.com/duhlc
GBMT
Well, not to get too philosophical, but another lesson that can be
gleaned is that one day race results are meaningless. But we already
know this from Fondriest's rainbow jersey. They amount to a roll of the
dice. However, in a big Tour, you can't fake it over 2-3 weeks.

So was Watt a worthy champion? Well, given that she could never really
repeat her performance in Barcelona, I would say no. Same with Sara
"I've sucked since Athens" Carrigan. Carrigan's win was a fluke - much
like Alexi Grewal's gold medal against a diluted "Olympic" field. When
Grewal went to Europe, he was clearly out of his league.

Yeah, those cole sores or whatever it is on Marta's upper lip should
have been dealt with by her handlers prior to propping her up on the
podium. It was probably just a bad case of chapped lips, I'm sure, but
it shows incredible ignorance of marketiing PR on a worldwide stage by
her people.


Magilla
stig
2007-10-06 18:55:38 UTC
Permalink
s***@gmail.com
2007-10-06 19:42:00 UTC
Permalink
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-07 04:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Magilla;
Fondriest's career was not to bad (even though he got the Rainbow
Maurizio Fondriest1988 World Pro Road Race
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
1990 Giro di Lazio
1991 World Cup Winner
1993 Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Championship of Zurich
Giro dell'Emilia
Tirreno - Adriatico
GP du Midi Libre
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
World Cup Winner
1994 Giro di Lazio
1995 1 stage, Giro d'Italia
TTFN.
Remember, this is the same guy who said all Eddy Merckx ever beat was
a bunch of factory workers.
Smokey
If Eddy Merckx raced today in his prime, he wouldn't be riding off the
front like he did when the competition were a bunch of part-time pros
who made $5,000/year and worked in factories in the off-season.

The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.

You people in here always try to pawn off victories in eras with weak
competition as if they could pull that same shit today.

No way, José.


Magilla
s***@gmail.com
2007-10-07 05:05:16 UTC
Permalink
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-07 07:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Magilla;
Fondriest's career was not to bad (even though he got the Rainbow
Maurizio Fondriest1988 World Pro Road Race
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
1990 Giro di Lazio
1991 World Cup Winner
1993 Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Championship of Zurich
Giro dell'Emilia
Tirreno - Adriatico
GP du Midi Libre
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
World Cup Winner
1994 Giro di Lazio
1995 1 stage, Giro d'Italia
TTFN.
Remember, this is the same guy who said all Eddy Merckx ever beat was
a bunch of factory workers.
Smokey
If Eddy Merckx raced today in his prime, he wouldn't be riding off the
front like he did when the competition were a bunch of part-time pros
who made $5,000/year and worked in factories in the off-season.
The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.
You people in here always try to pawn off victories in eras with weak
competition as if they could pull that same shit today.
No way, José.
Magilla- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Lance Armstrong for one has been quoted as saying Merckx is the
greatest of all time. I think he knows a little more about cycling
than you do.
Smokey
Lance is wrong. He probably says it out of some misguided Euro-thing
because if he didn't say that he would piss off 15 million zealots in
Europe. In this respect, Lance is the consummate politician.

Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.

Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack shit. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.

Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.

Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.

You people who beleive Merckx was the best of all time also believe in
Jesus. Somebody told you to beleive in Jesus and so you do. There's no
other fucking analyis that goes into it other than repeating that Jesus
was the son of God simply because you MUST believe that. Your parents
told you it's true and that's all the prooof you need.

But smart people know that Jesus and God just aren't reality. They're
just some fucked up fantasy society made up thousands of years ago to
help them deal with death, misery, and is perpetuated to this day by
idiots who can't think for themselves.

A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins and your entire belief
system is hardly more complex than repeating myths you've heard others
say. There's no independent analysis and your entire argument and logic
sounds like someone in the Manson Family car on the way to Sharon Tate's
house.


Magilla
b***@mambo.ucolick.org
2007-10-07 08:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.
Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack shit. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.
Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.
Ape of the Century,

Eddy Merckx never raced up l'Alpe d'Huez in his prime.
It was used in the 1952 Tour and the stage was won by
Coppi (who presumably also you'd point out was not a
patch on LANCE, but had much more style, admit it).
L'Alpe did not reappear in the Tour until 1976, when
Joop Zoetemelk won the stage. Merckx did not ride
the 1976 Tour; his Tour career was already on its way
out, as his last Tour victory was in 1974. In 1975
he finished 2nd and got punched in the kidney.
In 1977 the Tour went up L'Alpe and Merckx rode it;
I don't know his time, but he finished 6th in the Tour.
It was the last Tour he rode, and he retired in 1978.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

Of course, maybe you were talking about Axel Merckx's
time up L'Alpe. I don't know that either.

It is interesting that LANCE's best time on L'Alpe
is usually given as 37:36 (in an ITT, not at the end
of a long stage) and Coppi's 1952 time is claimed to
have been 45:22. 8 minutes difference is an eternity
in bike racing, but when Coppi rode it, the road wasn't
even paved.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
This cuts to the chase. Who cares who did the fastest
time up Alpe d'Huez? You ride against the other people
in the race, not some clock or a number in a record
book. That's for triathletes. All this stuff about
what would happen if Eddy raced now or LANCE raced
then is for people who spend too much time playing
fantasy baseball.
Post by MagillaGorilla
You people who beleive Merckx was the best of all time also believe in
Jesus. Somebody told you to beleive in Jesus and so you do.
I believe in Jesus. I think I met him the other day at
work - I live in Arizona and there's several tens of
thousands of people named Jesus.
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins
I have to admit that the phrase "dumb as napkins"
redeems your entire post for me.

Ben
dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy
Howard Kveck
2007-10-07 09:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@mambo.ucolick.org
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins
I have to admit that the phrase "dumb as napkins"
redeems your entire post for me.
Let's just hope he didn't mean sanitary napkins.
--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Donald Munro
2007-10-07 13:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Kveck
Post by b***@mambo.ucolick.org
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins
I have to admit that the phrase "dumb as napkins"
redeems your entire post for me.
Let's just hope he didn't mean sanitary napkins.
Dumbass,
Sanitary napkins are smart enough to go places you can't.
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-07 16:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@mambo.ucolick.org
Post by MagillaGorilla
Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.
Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack shit. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.
Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.
Ape of the Century,
Eddy Merckx never raced up l'Alpe d'Huez in his prime.
It was used in the 1952 Tour and the stage was won by
Coppi (who presumably also you'd point out was not a
patch on LANCE, but had much more style, admit it).
L'Alpe did not reappear in the Tour until 1976, when
Joop Zoetemelk won the stage. Merckx did not ride
the 1976 Tour; his Tour career was already on its way
out, as his last Tour victory was in 1974. In 1975
he finished 2nd and got punched in the kidney.
In 1977 the Tour went up L'Alpe and Merckx rode it;
I don't know his time, but he finished 6th in the Tour.
It was the last Tour he rode, and he retired in 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
Of course, maybe you were talking about Axel Merckx's
time up L'Alpe. I don't know that either.
It is interesting that LANCE's best time on L'Alpe
is usually given as 37:36 (in an ITT, not at the end
of a long stage) and Coppi's 1952 time is claimed to
have been 45:22. 8 minutes difference is an eternity
in bike racing, but when Coppi rode it, the road wasn't
even paved.
Ben
dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy
-------------

Okay, so we know Merckx finished 6th in the Tour in 1977. Do you really
think if Lance rode the 1977 Tour he would have finished 7th or worse?

Even in his [prime Lance would have kicked the crap out or Merckx and
dropped him like a bad habit. Everyone knows this. The idea that
Merckx would drop today's top riders is a joke.

It's a myth people perpetuate because they have been told by others that
Merckx was the best. So they repeat it.

Heck, Merckx wasn't even the best in 1977.

Magilla
Kyle Legate
2007-10-07 18:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Okay, so we know Merckx finished 6th in the Tour in 1977. Do you really
think if Lance rode the 1977 Tour he would have finished 7th or worse?
As a 6 year old I think he would have finished much worse than 7th.
Steven Bornfeld
2007-10-08 21:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@mambo.ucolick.org
Post by MagillaGorilla
Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.
Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack shit. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.
Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.
Ape of the Century,
Eddy Merckx never raced up l'Alpe d'Huez in his prime.
It was used in the 1952 Tour and the stage was won by
Coppi (who presumably also you'd point out was not a
patch on LANCE, but had much more style, admit it).
L'Alpe did not reappear in the Tour until 1976, when
Joop Zoetemelk won the stage. Merckx did not ride
the 1976 Tour; his Tour career was already on its way
out, as his last Tour victory was in 1974. In 1975
he finished 2nd and got punched in the kidney.
In 1977 the Tour went up L'Alpe and Merckx rode it;
I don't know his time, but he finished 6th in the Tour.
It was the last Tour he rode, and he retired in 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
Of course, maybe you were talking about Axel Merckx's
time up L'Alpe. I don't know that either.
It is interesting that LANCE's best time on L'Alpe
is usually given as 37:36 (in an ITT, not at the end
of a long stage) and Coppi's 1952 time is claimed to
have been 45:22. 8 minutes difference is an eternity
in bike racing, but when Coppi rode it, the road wasn't
even paved.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
This cuts to the chase. Who cares who did the fastest
time up Alpe d'Huez? You ride against the other people
in the race, not some clock or a number in a record
book. That's for triathletes. All this stuff about
what would happen if Eddy raced now or LANCE raced
then is for people who spend too much time playing
fantasy baseball.
Post by MagillaGorilla
You people who beleive Merckx was the best of all time also believe in
Jesus. Somebody told you to beleive in Jesus and so you do.
I believe in Jesus. I think I met him the other day at
work - I live in Arizona and there's several tens of
thousands of people named Jesus.
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins
I have to admit that the phrase "dumb as napkins"
redeems your entire post for me.
Ben
dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy
Ben--

You didn't hear about all the genetic engineering done on competitive
cyclists in the past 30 years since Merckx retired?

Steve
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 01:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by b***@mambo.ucolick.org
Post by MagillaGorilla
Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.
Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack shit. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.
Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.
Ape of the Century,
Eddy Merckx never raced up l'Alpe d'Huez in his prime.
It was used in the 1952 Tour and the stage was won by
Coppi (who presumably also you'd point out was not a
patch on LANCE, but had much more style, admit it).
L'Alpe did not reappear in the Tour until 1976, when
Joop Zoetemelk won the stage. Merckx did not ride
the 1976 Tour; his Tour career was already on its way
out, as his last Tour victory was in 1974. In 1975
he finished 2nd and got punched in the kidney.
In 1977 the Tour went up L'Alpe and Merckx rode it;
I don't know his time, but he finished 6th in the Tour.
It was the last Tour he rode, and he retired in 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
Of course, maybe you were talking about Axel Merckx's
time up L'Alpe. I don't know that either.
It is interesting that LANCE's best time on L'Alpe
is usually given as 37:36 (in an ITT, not at the end
of a long stage) and Coppi's 1952 time is claimed to
have been 45:22. 8 minutes difference is an eternity
in bike racing, but when Coppi rode it, the road wasn't
even paved.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
This cuts to the chase. Who cares who did the fastest
time up Alpe d'Huez? You ride against the other people
in the race, not some clock or a number in a record
book. That's for triathletes. All this stuff about
what would happen if Eddy raced now or LANCE raced
then is for people who spend too much time playing
fantasy baseball.
Post by MagillaGorilla
You people who beleive Merckx was the best of all time also believe in
Jesus. Somebody told you to beleive in Jesus and so you do.
I believe in Jesus. I think I met him the other day at
work - I live in Arizona and there's several tens of
thousands of people named Jesus.
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins
I have to admit that the phrase "dumb as napkins"
redeems your entire post for me.
Ben
dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy
Ben--
You didn't hear about all the genetic engineering done on
competitive cyclists in the past 30 years since Merckx retired?
Steve
Not genetic engineering, but better genes due to a larger gene pool.
Did you skip Watson & Crick statistics in college? It's a numbers game
and it's repeated throughout every sport that keeps objective statistics
like track & field, weightlifting, and swimming.

Or do you think the track stars, weight lifters, and swimmers from the
1960's are just as good as the top athletes in those sports today?

So your little genetic engineering jab doesn't really hold water, now
does it?

Magilla
Steven Bornfeld
2007-10-09 02:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by b***@mambo.ucolick.org
Post by MagillaGorilla
Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.
Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack shit. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.
Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.
Ape of the Century,
Eddy Merckx never raced up l'Alpe d'Huez in his prime.
It was used in the 1952 Tour and the stage was won by
Coppi (who presumably also you'd point out was not a
patch on LANCE, but had much more style, admit it).
L'Alpe did not reappear in the Tour until 1976, when
Joop Zoetemelk won the stage. Merckx did not ride
the 1976 Tour; his Tour career was already on its way
out, as his last Tour victory was in 1974. In 1975
he finished 2nd and got punched in the kidney.
In 1977 the Tour went up L'Alpe and Merckx rode it;
I don't know his time, but he finished 6th in the Tour.
It was the last Tour he rode, and he retired in 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
Of course, maybe you were talking about Axel Merckx's
time up L'Alpe. I don't know that either.
It is interesting that LANCE's best time on L'Alpe
is usually given as 37:36 (in an ITT, not at the end
of a long stage) and Coppi's 1952 time is claimed to
have been 45:22. 8 minutes difference is an eternity
in bike racing, but when Coppi rode it, the road wasn't
even paved.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
This cuts to the chase. Who cares who did the fastest
time up Alpe d'Huez? You ride against the other people
in the race, not some clock or a number in a record
book. That's for triathletes. All this stuff about
what would happen if Eddy raced now or LANCE raced
then is for people who spend too much time playing
fantasy baseball.
Post by MagillaGorilla
You people who beleive Merckx was the best of all time also believe in
Jesus. Somebody told you to beleive in Jesus and so you do.
I believe in Jesus. I think I met him the other day at
work - I live in Arizona and there's several tens of
thousands of people named Jesus.
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins
I have to admit that the phrase "dumb as napkins"
redeems your entire post for me.
Ben
dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy
Ben--
You didn't hear about all the genetic engineering done on
competitive cyclists in the past 30 years since Merckx retired?
Steve
Not genetic engineering, but better genes due to a larger gene pool. Did
you skip Watson & Crick statistics in college? It's a numbers game and
it's repeated throughout every sport that keeps objective statistics
like track & field, weightlifting, and swimming.
Or do you think the track stars, weight lifters, and swimmers from the
1960's are just as good as the top athletes in those sports today?
So your little genetic engineering jab doesn't really hold water, now
does it?
Magilla
The gene pool has expanded to the extent that countries that did not
compete back then can and do now. I'd say that drugs rather than a hugh
gene pool were responsible for the sudden success of Chinese female
swimmers a few years back. Their prominence faded as soon as drug
testing was instituted.
Of course, cycling was a fringe sport in the U.S. for many years, but
track cycling was big time a century ago, including organized betting.
So it's quite likely that if Frank Kramer or Major Taylor were to
return, they might be even more dominant today.

Steve
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 03:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by b***@mambo.ucolick.org
Post by MagillaGorilla
Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.
Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack shit. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.
Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.
Ape of the Century,
Eddy Merckx never raced up l'Alpe d'Huez in his prime.
It was used in the 1952 Tour and the stage was won by
Coppi (who presumably also you'd point out was not a
patch on LANCE, but had much more style, admit it).
L'Alpe did not reappear in the Tour until 1976, when
Joop Zoetemelk won the stage. Merckx did not ride
the 1976 Tour; his Tour career was already on its way
out, as his last Tour victory was in 1974. In 1975
he finished 2nd and got punched in the kidney.
In 1977 the Tour went up L'Alpe and Merckx rode it;
I don't know his time, but he finished 6th in the Tour.
It was the last Tour he rode, and he retired in 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez
Of course, maybe you were talking about Axel Merckx's
time up L'Alpe. I don't know that either.
It is interesting that LANCE's best time on L'Alpe
is usually given as 37:36 (in an ITT, not at the end
of a long stage) and Coppi's 1952 time is claimed to
have been 45:22. 8 minutes difference is an eternity
in bike racing, but when Coppi rode it, the road wasn't
even paved.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
This cuts to the chase. Who cares who did the fastest
time up Alpe d'Huez? You ride against the other people
in the race, not some clock or a number in a record
book. That's for triathletes. All this stuff about
what would happen if Eddy raced now or LANCE raced
then is for people who spend too much time playing
fantasy baseball.
Post by MagillaGorilla
You people who beleive Merckx was the best of all time also believe in
Jesus. Somebody told you to beleive in Jesus and so you do.
I believe in Jesus. I think I met him the other day at
work - I live in Arizona and there's several tens of
thousands of people named Jesus.
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins
I have to admit that the phrase "dumb as napkins"
redeems your entire post for me.
Ben
dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy
Ben--
You didn't hear about all the genetic engineering done on
competitive cyclists in the past 30 years since Merckx retired?
Steve
Not genetic engineering, but better genes due to a larger gene pool.
Did you skip Watson & Crick statistics in college? It's a numbers
game and it's repeated throughout every sport that keeps objective
statistics like track & field, weightlifting, and swimming.
Or do you think the track stars, weight lifters, and swimmers from the
1960's are just as good as the top athletes in those sports today?
So your little genetic engineering jab doesn't really hold water, now
does it?
Magilla
The gene pool has expanded to the extent that countries that did not
compete back then can and do now. I'd say that drugs rather than a hugh
gene pool were responsible for the sudden success of Chinese female
swimmers a few years back. Their prominence faded as soon as drug
testing was instituted.
Of course, cycling was a fringe sport in the U.S. for many years,
but track cycling was big time a century ago, including organized
betting. So it's quite likely that if Frank Kramer or Major Taylor were
to return, they might be even more dominant today.
Steve
In all sports with decades of competitive history - track & field,
weightlifting, swimming - the athletes from the 1960's and 1970's would
get their ass kicked by today's elite athletes in those very same sports.

Why would cycling be any different?

Magilla
Howard Kveck
2007-10-09 06:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
In all sports with decades of competitive history - track & field,
weightlifting, swimming - the athletes from the 1960's and 1970's would
get their ass kicked by today's elite athletes in those very same sports.
What makes you think that the athletes of earlier eras are any different
phyiscally from athletes of today? The big difference, it seems to me, are training
methods and nutrition. The things that allow an athlete to ge the most out of
themselves... I'd think that if one of those athletes was transferred to today and
had time to grow up and the chance to train like they do now (to make it as "equal" a
comparison as possible), they'd be just as effective and fast as present day
athletes. Yeah, it's all very Quantum Leap, but I think you've missed this aspect of
the impossible-to-prove cross generational jock comparison.
--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 16:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Kveck
Post by MagillaGorilla
In all sports with decades of competitive history - track & field,
weightlifting, swimming - the athletes from the 1960's and 1970's would
get their ass kicked by today's elite athletes in those very same sports.
What makes you think that the athletes of earlier eras are any different
phyiscally from athletes of today? The big difference, it seems to me, are training
methods and nutrition. The things that allow an athlete to ge the most out of
themselves... I'd think that if one of those athletes was transferred to today and
had time to grow up and the chance to train like they do now (to make it as "equal" a
comparison as possible), they'd be just as effective and fast as present day
athletes. Yeah, it's all very Quantum Leap, but I think you've missed this aspect of
the impossible-to-prove cross generational jock comparison.
All you Merckx lovers crack me up.

We're not talking about hypotheticals here because to engage in such a
conversation would be frivolous and inaccurate. What I'm saying is if
you took Eddy Merckx in his prime in 1969 and put him in today's
peloton, he wouldn't be riding off the front like he did when he rode
against Snow Valley factory workers of the 1960's.

This comparison can be objectivbely done simply by looking at average
speeds and doing wattage calculations.

I'm not saying Merckx wouldn't be a pro-level rider today. All I'm
saying is he wouldn't be riding off the front today like he did in the
1960's. Given the specialization of sprinters and Tour riders in
today's pro peloton, it's pretty obvious Merckx - an all-arounder -
would likely be just another rider on T-Mobile if he rode today.

And he'd probably be a major doper today given that he doped in the 1960's.

Take that all you Merckx lovers.

Thanks,

Magilla
RicodJour
2007-10-09 19:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
We're not talking about hypotheticals here because to engage in such a
conversation would be frivolous and inaccurate. What I'm saying is if
you took Eddy Merckx in his prime in 1969 and put him in today's
peloton, he wouldn't be riding off the front like he did when he rode
against Snow Valley factory workers of the 1960's.
We're not talking about hypothetical situations so you provide your
hypothetical situation. Good job, Sparky.

R
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 19:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
Post by MagillaGorilla
We're not talking about hypotheticals here because to engage in such a
conversation would be frivolous and inaccurate. What I'm saying is if
you took Eddy Merckx in his prime in 1969 and put him in today's
peloton, he wouldn't be riding off the front like he did when he rode
against Snow Valley factory workers of the 1960's.
We're not talking about hypothetical situations so you provide your
hypothetical situation. Good job, Sparky.
R
It's not really a hypothetical because I said to do the comparison using
average speeds and wattage calculations - objective numbers. That shows
Merckx was not super-human once you crunch those numbers.

Whereas the rest of you jackasses in here want me to compare Merckx to
today's riders using all sorts of created hypothetical variables like
"if Merckx had the same training methods, nutrition, etc." That
involves a lot of hypothetical guess work and suppositions - to which I
reply that Merckx would likely also be a doper.

In fact, Merckx was a doper.

Magilla
Kyle Legate
2007-10-09 22:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Whereas the rest of you jackasses in here want me to compare Merckx to
today's riders using all sorts of created hypothetical variables like
"if Merckx had the same training methods, nutrition, etc." That
involves a lot of hypothetical guess work and suppositions - to which I
reply that Merckx would likely also be a doper.
You can't compare Merckx to todays riders in the way you want unless you
can have them compete against one another. Restricting Merckx to his
diet and training regimens of the 1960s while permitting the riders
today to modern methods is disingenuous and not a real comparison at
all. Of course Merckx would be a doper, the top riders are all doing
something, but they're mostly clever enough to avoid a paper trail as
momentously long as Fuentes' tomes. Given what we know of Merckx's
wattages and competitive drive, any fair and equivalent comparison would
have him wipe the floor with his competition in any event he put his
mind to, in any era of the sport.
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 22:49:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kyle Legate
Post by MagillaGorilla
Whereas the rest of you jackasses in here want me to compare Merckx to
today's riders using all sorts of created hypothetical variables like
"if Merckx had the same training methods, nutrition, etc." That
involves a lot of hypothetical guess work and suppositions - to which
I reply that Merckx would likely also be a doper.
You can't compare Merckx to todays riders in the way you want unless you
can have them compete against one another. Restricting Merckx to his
diet and training regimens of the 1960s while permitting the riders
today to modern methods is disingenuous and not a real comparison at
all. Of course Merckx would be a doper, the top riders are all doing
something, but they're mostly clever enough to avoid a paper trail as
momentously long as Fuentes' tomes. Given what we know of Merckx's
wattages and competitive drive, any fair and equivalent comparison would
have him wipe the floor with his competition in any event he put his
mind to, in any era of the sport.
Merckx's hour record was eclipsed by Chris Boardman and Ondrej Sosenka
and Merckx finished 7th in the 1977 Tour de France. That tells us
something about his true wattage. And when we look at his weight, we
can reasonably deduce he wouldn't be flying up the Hors category climbs
in the recent Tours with the lead group based upon a watts/kg estimate.

Merckx also felt the need to set his hour record at an altitude of over
7,500 feet whereas Boardman and Sosenka were men enough to do it at sea
level. I'm surprised Merckx didn't ask NASA to build a velodrome
inside one of the Saturn rocket boosters so he could try to set thhe
hour record while in zero gravity with no atmosphere.

As for Merckx's competitive drive, all pros have one. So relax with
your nonsense. Merckx's competitive drive was so "great" he took dope.
Wow, that's impressive.

If Merckx would have "wiped the floor" with today's riders how coome he
got 7th in the 1977 Tour? How come some guy named Ondrej Sosenka could
beat him in the ultimate time trial and do it at sea level?

Face it - Merckx was just a great pro who had the luxury of racing
against shallow competition. So he dominated the sport. Big whoop.


Magilla
RicodJour
2007-10-10 00:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by MagillaGorilla
Whereas the rest of you jackasses in here want me to compare Merckx to
today's riders using all sorts of created hypothetical variables like
"if Merckx had the same training methods, nutrition, etc." That
involves a lot of hypothetical guess work and suppositions - to which
I reply that Merckx would likely also be a doper.
Oh, I see now - your hypothetical suppositions aren't suppositions nor
hypothetical. Got it. Sheesh.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Merckx's hour record was eclipsed by Chris Boardman and Ondrej Sosenka
and Merckx finished 7th in the 1977 Tour de France. That tells us
something about his true wattage. And when we look at his weight, we
can reasonably deduce he wouldn't be flying up the Hors category climbs
in the recent Tours with the lead group based upon a watts/kg estimate.
So, in a nutshell, you believe that all athletes operate in a vacuum
(as opposed to a hyperbaric tent). That athletes don't learn from the
successes and failures of others. Excellent thinking - write it up
and send it around, I'm sure you'll be able to get it published. Your
deductive powers are more akin to Lestrade's than Holmes'.

Merckx finished 6th, not 7th, in 1977. What a fookin' _horrible_
result!
Post by MagillaGorilla
Merckx also felt the need to set his hour record at an altitude of over
7,500 feet whereas Boardman and Sosenka were men enough to do it at sea
level. I'm surprised Merckx didn't ask NASA to build a velodrome
inside one of the Saturn rocket boosters so he could try to set thhe
hour record while in zero gravity with no atmosphere.
You're cute when you're stupid. From Merckx's Wiki:

Hour record
Merckx also set the hour record in 1972. On October 25, he covered
49.431 km at high altitude in Mexico City. The record remained
untouched until 1984, when Francesco Moser broke it using a specially
designed bicycle and meticulous improvements in streamlining. Over 15
years, various racers improved the record to more than 56 km (Chris
Boardman). However, because of the increasingly exotic design of the
bikes and position of the rider, these performances were no longer
reasonably comparable to Merckx's achievement. In response, the UCIin
2000 required a "traditional" bike to be used. When Boardman had
another go at Merckx's reinstated record 28 years later, he beat it by
slightly more than 10 meters at sea level. On the other hand, Merckx
had raced a full road season winning the Tour, Giro and four Classics,
while Boardman was a time trial specialist who had retired from road
racing and had prepared specifically for the 2000 Hour Record.)

So 28 years and 10 meters...that works out to just less than a
millimeter per day improvement. This is the guy that whupped Eddy in
your mind? That certainly proves the benefits of modern training and
equipment for me!
Post by MagillaGorilla
As for Merckx's competitive drive, all pros have one. So relax with
your nonsense. Merckx's competitive drive was so "great" he took dope.
Wow, that's impressive.
All of them have one, but they are not all alike. Life is funny that
way.
Post by MagillaGorilla
If Merckx would have "wiped the floor" with today's riders how coome he
got 7th in the 1977 Tour? How come some guy named Ondrej Sosenka could
beat him in the ultimate time trial and do it at sea level?
Maybe because he was at the end of his career? Maybe because even
Eddy wasn't Eddy at the end of his career? He was, what?, 32 in '77 -
he was a super man, but he wasn't Superman. Again, from Wiki:

Setbacks and lesser days
The blackest day in Merckx's career was in 1969, when he crashed in a
derny race towards the end of the season. A pacer and a cyclist fell
in front of Merckx's pacer, Fernand Wambst, causing Wambst and Merckx
to crash. His pacer was killed instantly, and Merckx suffered
concussion and fell unconscious. This accident cracked a vertebra and
twisted his pelvis. He admitted in interviews that, because of his
injuries, his riding was never the same. He would frequently adjust
his saddle while riding and would always be in pain, especially while
climbing.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Face it - Merckx was just a great pro who had the luxury of racing
against shallow competition. So he dominated the sport. Big whoop.
George Hincapie is a great pro. Boonen is a great pro. Eddy was a
great champion. You? A waste of your pappy's sperm. Don't worry,
I'm sure you'll redeem yourself on the next troll. :)

R
bdbafh
2007-10-10 01:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Kyle Legate
Post by MagillaGorilla
Whereas the rest of you jackasses in here want me to compare Merckx to
today's riders using all sorts of created hypothetical variables like
"if Merckx had the same training methods, nutrition, etc." That
involves a lot of hypothetical guess work and suppositions - to which
I reply that Merckx would likely also be a doper.
You can't compare Merckx to todays riders in the way you want unless you
can have them compete against one another. Restricting Merckx to his
diet and training regimens of the 1960s while permitting the riders
today to modern methods is disingenuous and not a real comparison at
all. Of course Merckx would be a doper, the top riders are all doing
something, but they're mostly clever enough to avoid a paper trail as
momentously long as Fuentes' tomes. Given what we know of Merckx's
wattages and competitive drive, any fair and equivalent comparison would
have him wipe the floor with his competition in any event he put his
mind to, in any era of the sport.
Merckx's hour record was eclipsed by Chris Boardman and Ondrej Sosenka
and Merckx finished 7th in the 1977 Tour de France. That tells us
something about his true wattage. And when we look at his weight, we
can reasonably deduce he wouldn't be flying up the Hors category climbs
in the recent Tours with the lead group based upon a watts/kg estimate.
Merckx also felt the need to set his hour record at an altitude of over
7,500 feet whereas Boardman and Sosenka were men enough to do it at sea
level. I'm surprised Merckx didn't ask NASA to build a velodrome
inside one of the Saturn rocket boosters so he could try to set thhe
hour record while in zero gravity with no atmosphere.
" I'm surprised Merckx didn't ask NASA to build a velodrome
inside one of the Saturn rocket boosters so he could try to set thhe
hour record while in zero gravity with no atmosphere."

Suppose that a course was created in space that instead having banked
curves, was a single piece of metal, joined at the seam forming an
oval loop.
The bike of the bike frame would be parallel with the plane of the
track.

Would one still slow down in the sections of least radius?

Imagine a Madison with that arrangement.

-bdabfh
Post by MagillaGorilla
As for Merckx's competitive drive, all pros have one. So relax with
your nonsense. Merckx's competitive drive was so "great" he took dope.
Wow, that's impressive.
If Merckx would have "wiped the floor" with today's riders how coome he
got 7th in the 1977 Tour? How come some guy named Ondrej Sosenka could
beat him in the ultimate time trial and do it at sea level?
Face it - Merckx was just a great pro who had the luxury of racing
against shallow competition. So he dominated the sport. Big whoop.
Magilla
William Asher
2007-10-10 06:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by bdbafh
Suppose that a course was created in space that instead having banked
curves, was a single piece of metal, joined at the seam forming an
oval loop.
The bike of the bike frame would be parallel with the plane of the
track.
Would one still slow down in the sections of least radius?
Imagine a Madison with that arrangement.
Don't stop there, add a twist to the track and you could run the Madison
on a Moebius loop.
--
Bill Asher
Donald Munro
2007-10-10 08:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Asher
Don't stop there, add a twist to the track and you could run the Madison
on a Moebius loop.
Hand slinging in zero gravity could be interesting.
Ewoud Dronkert
2007-10-10 08:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Munro
Post by William Asher
Don't stop there, add a twist to the track and you could run the Madison
on a Moebius loop.
Hand slinging in zero gravity could be interesting.
I already hear the Beautiful Blue Danube.
--
E. Dronkert
Kyle Legate
2007-10-09 06:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Not genetic engineering, but better genes due to a larger gene pool.
The increase in the size of the gene pool is largely attributed to
population explosions in undeveloped countries, which don't have a
cycling culture. The size of the gene pool in Europe is the same as it
was in the 1960s. By your argument the Chinese should soon start kicking
the Belgians' asses in every race they enter. Come back in ten years and
eat crow.

Really, the quality of your troll has slipped dramatically in this
thread. At least try to keep up the appearance of credibility.
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 16:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kyle Legate
Post by MagillaGorilla
Not genetic engineering, but better genes due to a larger gene pool.
The increase in the size of the gene pool is largely attributed to
population explosions in undeveloped countries, which don't have a
cycling culture. The size of the gene pool in Europe is the same as it
was in the 1960s. By your argument the Chinese should soon start kicking
the Belgians' asses in every race they enter. Come back in ten years and
eat crow.
Really, the quality of your troll has slipped dramatically in this
thread. At least try to keep up the appearance of credibility.
Well, if you notice, China has the best hurdler in the world right now.

As for gene pools being the same now as they were in the 1960's, it's
simply not true. With an increase in population size, the gene pool
also increases.

It's probably the main reason why Americans have won more Tours than any
other nation since focusing on cycling.

As for explaining why China isn't dominant given their population size,
a lot of that has to be attributed to political and socio-econonmic
conditions that are not conducive to developing that gene pool. Use
your fucking head.

And another condition might be that the genes for Chinese population
might simply result in an inferior phenotype to those of Europeans for
any given sport.

Magilla
RicodJour
2007-10-07 15:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Lance is wrong. He probably says it out of some misguided Euro-thing
because if he didn't say that he would piss off 15 million zealots in
Europe. In this respect, Lance is the consummate politician.
Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.
Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack shit. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.
Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.
How many variables are you comfortable ignoring? It seems limitless.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
You people who beleive Merckx was the best of all time also believe in
Jesus. Somebody told you to beleive in Jesus and so you do. There's no
other fucking analyis that goes into it other than repeating that Jesus
was the son of God simply because you MUST believe that. Your parents
told you it's true and that's all the prooof you need.
But smart people know that Jesus and God just aren't reality. They're
just some fucked up fantasy society made up thousands of years ago to
help them deal with death, misery, and is perpetuated to this day by
idiots who can't think for themselves.
You have no proof either way. The ability to be certain in the face
of a staggering lack of information is precious. Don't ever change.
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins and your entire belief
system is hardly more complex than repeating myths you've heard others
say. There's no independent analysis and your entire argument and logic
sounds like someone in the Manson Family car on the way to Sharon Tate's
house.
It's nice that you can sound so confident about something entirely
conjectural. While you're on the winning streak, why not surmise what
exactly you'd be if your grandmother had testicles? ...or you, for
that matter.

R
GoneBeforeMyTime
2007-10-08 21:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.
And especially for women, it's incredibly hard to even find enough
information to get a clue. Certainly Burton and Yvonne Reynders stand out,
but more then likely, they would be only average riders today. Burton didn't
do any stage races I know of. She was mostly a track rider. Back then, there
didn't seem to be a yardstick for all around talent which stage races could
measure in climbing, TT, and sprint winners. In American before the first
American national road race in 1966 which Audrey McElmury won, Peter Nye who
wrote books about the early years, told me early women's races were just
hodge podge omniums, where there are a series of misc races and winners, but
nothing really organized like today, where pure logic can be applied, like
the world rankings and such.



GBMT
GoneBeforeMyTime
2007-10-08 21:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
I think there's a good chance Eddy could of surprised us with how many tours
and classics he could of completed today, not win but just complete. He did
compete in a huge amount of races during the season, and won a lot of them.
But like Marino Lejeretta who completed in the TDF, Giro, and the Vuelta
several years in a row, an incredible feat during the 90's, Eddy surely
would of impressed us with his stamina, even today. As they say, it's not
just about winning, but competing that counts. Eddy would of been in the
fight, that's for sure, and all season long!

GBMT
Steven Bornfeld
2007-10-08 21:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
I think there's a good chance Eddy could of surprised us with how many tours
and classics he could of completed today, not win but just complete. He did
compete in a huge amount of races during the season, and won a lot of them.
But like Marino Lejeretta who completed in the TDF, Giro, and the Vuelta
several years in a row, an incredible feat during the 90's, Eddy surely
would of impressed us with his stamina, even today. As they say, it's not
just about winning, but competing that counts. Eddy would of been in the
fight, that's for sure, and all season long!
GBMT
Even on his wood and bone bicycle?

Steve
GoneBeforeMyTime
2007-10-08 22:21:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
I think there's a good chance Eddy could of surprised us with how many tours
and classics he could of completed today, not win but just complete. He did
compete in a huge amount of races during the season, and won a lot of them.
But like Marino Lejeretta who completed in the TDF, Giro, and the Vuelta
several years in a row, an incredible feat during the 90's, Eddy surely
would of impressed us with his stamina, even today. As they say, it's not
just about winning, but competing that counts. Eddy would of been in the
fight, that's for sure, and all season long!
GBMT
Even on his wood and bone bicycle?
Steve
I'll leave that question for Professor Maso! In fact, I would very much be
interested in what his sentiments might be on how Eddy would fair in a full
cycling season in this decade.

Cheers,
GBMT
Carl Sundquist
2007-10-09 00:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
Post by MagillaGorilla
Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.
I think there's a good chance Eddy could of surprised us with how many
tours
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
and classics he could of completed today, not win but just complete. He
did
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
compete in a huge amount of races during the season, and won a lot of
them.
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
But like Marino Lejeretta who completed in the TDF, Giro, and the Vuelta
several years in a row, an incredible feat during the 90's, Eddy surely
would of impressed us with his stamina, even today. As they say, it's
not
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
just about winning, but competing that counts. Eddy would of been in the
fight, that's for sure, and all season long!
GBMT
Even on his wood and bone bicycle?
Steve
I'll leave that question for Professor Maso! In fact, I would very much be
interested in what his sentiments might be on how Eddy would fair in a full
cycling season in this decade.
You're assuming he wouldn't have gone the way of specialization.
RonSonic
2007-10-07 12:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Magilla;
Fondriest's career was not to bad (even though he got the Rainbow
Maurizio Fondriest1988 World Pro Road Race
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
1990 Giro di Lazio
1991 World Cup Winner
1993 Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Championship of Zurich
Giro dell'Emilia
Tirreno - Adriatico
GP du Midi Libre
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
World Cup Winner
1994 Giro di Lazio
1995 1 stage, Giro d'Italia
TTFN.
Remember, this is the same guy who said all Eddy Merckx ever beat was
a bunch of factory workers.
Smokey
If Eddy Merckx raced today in his prime, he wouldn't be riding off the
front like he did when the competition were a bunch of part-time pros
who made $5,000/year and worked in factories in the off-season.
The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.
You people in here always try to pawn off victories in eras with weak
competition as if they could pull that same shit today.
You might be right that Merckx today would not win 500 of 1800 bike races or
come away from all the tours with wins and ALL of the jerseys at any one tour.
That level of dominance is over for anyone. Still there's no question he would
still be one of the greats.

Ron
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-07 16:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by RonSonic
Post by MagillaGorilla
Magilla;
Fondriest's career was not to bad (even though he got the Rainbow
Maurizio Fondriest1988 World Pro Road Race
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
1990 Giro di Lazio
1991 World Cup Winner
1993 Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Championship of Zurich
Giro dell'Emilia
Tirreno - Adriatico
GP du Midi Libre
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
World Cup Winner
1994 Giro di Lazio
1995 1 stage, Giro d'Italia
TTFN.
Remember, this is the same guy who said all Eddy Merckx ever beat was
a bunch of factory workers.
Smokey
If Eddy Merckx raced today in his prime, he wouldn't be riding off the
front like he did when the competition were a bunch of part-time pros
who made $5,000/year and worked in factories in the off-season.
The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.
You people in here always try to pawn off victories in eras with weak
competition as if they could pull that same shit today.
You might be right that Merckx today would not win 500 of 1800 bike races or
come away from all the tours with wins and ALL of the jerseys at any one tour.
That level of dominance is over for anyone. Still there's no question he would
still be one of the greats.
Ron
That's like saying if Margaret Court played tennis today she would be
one of the greats. Absolutely not true.

The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.

He wasn't racing against today's pros.

Magilla
Wayne Pein
2007-10-07 20:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?

Wayne
s***@gmail.com
2007-10-07 20:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.

Smokey
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-07 21:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.
Smokey
Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet. Plus, Merckx never had to pass a WADA
piss test either.

So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
positive dope test.

Magilla
s***@gmail.com
2007-10-08 02:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.
Smokey
Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet. Plus, Merckx never had to pass a WADA
piss test either.
So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
positive dope test.
Magilla- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeah and all of today's pros are squeaky-clean. Hell, they all ride on
milk and cookies, everyone knows that.

Smokey
Donald Munro
2007-10-08 07:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Yeah and all of today's pros are squeaky-clean. Hell, they all ride on
milk and cookies, everyone knows that.
Dumbass,
I put flaxseed oil on my milk and cookies. It tastes almost as
shit as andouillette (and Hampsten won the Gavia stage) but it
works great.
Ewoud Dronkert
2007-10-08 08:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Munro
andouillette
Thanks.

Thanks,
--
E. Dronkert
&s.com
2007-10-08 14:29:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.
Smokey
Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.
As if Mexico City were responsible for either. The fact is, nobody's taking on
the Merckx record and there's a real good reason for that.
Post by MagillaGorilla
So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
positive dope test.
You just did.
Ryan Cousineau
2007-10-08 19:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by &s.com
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.
Smokey
Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.
As if Mexico City were responsible for either. The fact is, nobody's taking on
the Merckx record and there's a real good reason for that.
Argh. It kills me to support Magilla's side of this dumb-ass argument,
but both Boardman and the mysterious Ondrej Sosenka have managed to take
the UCI Hour Record (aka "Athlete's Hour") from Merckx.

http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/sosenka.htm

Sosenka did some weird stuff, like riding a 10-kilo bike (!) including a
3.2 kg rear wheel (!!), but the aero profile of the bike is clearly
within perfectly legit UCI parameters.
Post by &s.com
Post by MagillaGorilla
So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
positive dope test.
You just did.
No matter what the dumb ape says, Merckx' dominance came at a time when
cycling was much more important, relative to other sports, than it is
today. There was less money in all sports (no ESPN or Eurosport) but if
you were a strong cardio athlete in Europe, you'd go into cycling.

The water-carriers may have been part-time factory workers, but Ocana,
among others, never punched a clock in his life. Which is not to say he
had a happy life, mind you....

Indeed, here's the challenge for our Old World simian: name the best
rider who raced against Merckx but needed a non-cycling job to put food
on the table.

Meanwhile, Merckx raced against riders who had the classics as their
strength, and beat them. He raced against GC riders, and betwen 1968 and
1974 won 11 grand tours, picked up 9 subcategory victories (mountains
and points; this doesn't count combination categories, or his virtual
young-rider wins).

Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.

Lance is the best of his era. He went after the most prestigious race in
cycling 7 times, and beat credible challengers (when they weren't on E,
that is). But he never even tried winning the other two GTs, and his
attempt at the hour record was aborted after considerable prep, almost
certainly because he didn't have the watts to do it.
--
Ryan Cousineau ***@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Steven Bornfeld
2007-10-08 21:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Post by &s.com
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.
Smokey
Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.
As if Mexico City were responsible for either. The fact is, nobody's taking on
the Merckx record and there's a real good reason for that.
Argh. It kills me to support Magilla's side of this dumb-ass argument,
but both Boardman and the mysterious Ondrej Sosenka have managed to take
the UCI Hour Record (aka "Athlete's Hour") from Merckx.
http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/sosenka.htm
Sosenka did some weird stuff, like riding a 10-kilo bike (!) including a
3.2 kg rear wheel (!!), but the aero profile of the bike is clearly
within perfectly legit UCI parameters.
Post by &s.com
Post by MagillaGorilla
So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
positive dope test.
You just did.
No matter what the dumb ape says, Merckx' dominance came at a time when
cycling was much more important, relative to other sports, than it is
today. There was less money in all sports (no ESPN or Eurosport) but if
you were a strong cardio athlete in Europe, you'd go into cycling.
The water-carriers may have been part-time factory workers, but Ocana,
among others, never punched a clock in his life. Which is not to say he
had a happy life, mind you....
Indeed, here's the challenge for our Old World simian: name the best
rider who raced against Merckx but needed a non-cycling job to put food
on the table.
I'd love to hear this one. Was this as a pro?

Steve
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Meanwhile, Merckx raced against riders who had the classics as their
strength, and beat them. He raced against GC riders, and betwen 1968 and
1974 won 11 grand tours, picked up 9 subcategory victories (mountains
and points; this doesn't count combination categories, or his virtual
young-rider wins).
Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.
Lance is the best of his era. He went after the most prestigious race in
cycling 7 times, and beat credible challengers (when they weren't on E,
that is). But he never even tried winning the other two GTs, and his
attempt at the hour record was aborted after considerable prep, almost
certainly because he didn't have the watts to do it.
GoneBeforeMyTime
2007-10-08 22:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Ryan Cousineau
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:33:14 -0400, MagillaGorilla
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.
Smokey
Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.
As if Mexico City were responsible for either. The fact is, nobody's taking on
the Merckx record and there's a real good reason for that.
Argh. It kills me to support Magilla's side of this dumb-ass argument,
but both Boardman and the mysterious Ondrej Sosenka have managed to take
the UCI Hour Record (aka "Athlete's Hour") from Merckx.
http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/sosenka.htm
Sosenka did some weird stuff, like riding a 10-kilo bike (!) including a
3.2 kg rear wheel (!!), but the aero profile of the bike is clearly
within perfectly legit UCI parameters.
Post by MagillaGorilla
So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
positive dope test.
You just did.
No matter what the dumb ape says, Merckx' dominance came at a time when
cycling was much more important, relative to other sports, than it is
today. There was less money in all sports (no ESPN or Eurosport) but if
you were a strong cardio athlete in Europe, you'd go into cycling.
The water-carriers may have been part-time factory workers, but Ocana,
among others, never punched a clock in his life. Which is not to say he
had a happy life, mind you....
Indeed, here's the challenge for our Old World simian: name the best
rider who raced against Merckx but needed a non-cycling job to put food
on the table.
I'd love to hear this one. Was this as a pro?
Steve
Another question for Professor Maso. :-)
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Meanwhile, Merckx raced against riders who had the classics as their
strength, and beat them. He raced against GC riders, and betwen 1968 and
1974 won 11 grand tours, picked up 9 subcategory victories (mountains
and points; this doesn't count combination categories, or his virtual
young-rider wins).
Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.
Lance is the best of his era. He went after the most prestigious race in
cycling 7 times, and beat credible challengers (when they weren't on E,
that is). But he never even tried winning the other two GTs, and his
attempt at the hour record was aborted after considerable prep, almost
certainly because he didn't have the watts to do it.
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 01:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.
Smokey
Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.
<snip>
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.
This is a meaningless, self-fuliflling statement. It fails to state who
he was beating: junk riders.

You could say the same for any athlete in the 1950's, 1960's.... in
every sport where objective statistics are kept, no record from the
1960's would stand up to elite performances of today. Not in track &
field, not in swimming, not in weightlifting....

But you would have everyone believe cycling is different, when in fact
it's not.

You're one of these people who has built a delusional foundation in
their mind that Merckx could ride off the front in today's peloton...but
anyone who follows the spport closely knows Merckx wouldn't even be top
10 in the Tour de France if he rode today.

Merckx was simply better than his competitors - that doesn't tell us
anything about how great he was unless we take a close look at WHO he
was beating. We do know his competitors were nowhere near as good as
the riders are today.

For Christ's sake, the pros in 1985 rode the Philly USPRO race 40
minutes slower than they do today...same fucking course. In the late
1960's when Merckx rode they probably would have taken 7 hours to finish
Philly, and Merckx would have finished 10 minutes ahead of them.

Or are you going to telll me the pros went faster in the 1960's than
they did in the 1980's or 90's?

Go take a look at the average speed of the Tour de France..in the 1960's
they rode a pussy pace and Merckx had the tightest pussy. But he was
still loose by today's standards.

Magilla
RicodJour
2007-10-09 04:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.
This is a meaningless, self-fuliflling statement. It fails to state who
he was beating: junk riders.
You could say the same for any athlete in the 1950's, 1960's.... in
every sport where objective statistics are kept, no record from the
1960's would stand up to elite performances of today. Not in track &
field, not in swimming, not in weightlifting....
Statistics? WTF? There are a slew of variables that you conveniently
ignore - why do you think the statistics would do anything more than
confuse you? Ask yourself why Eddy would lose his will to win if he
raced now.

Champions refuse to believe other people can beat them and they'll
rise to the challenge. Eddy still looks at riders and thinks, "I
would have kicked his ass." It's a champion's mindset and it is no
surprise that a whiner wouldn't understand it.

R
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 15:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.
This is a meaningless, self-fuliflling statement. It fails to state who
he was beating: junk riders.
You could say the same for any athlete in the 1950's, 1960's.... in
every sport where objective statistics are kept, no record from the
1960's would stand up to elite performances of today. Not in track &
field, not in swimming, not in weightlifting....
Statistics? WTF? There are a slew of variables that you conveniently
ignore - why do you think the statistics would do anything more than
confuse you? Ask yourself why Eddy would lose his will to win if he
raced now.
Champions refuse to believe other people can beat them and they'll
rise to the challenge. Eddy still looks at riders and thinks, "I
would have kicked his ass." It's a champion's mindset and it is no
surprise that a whiner wouldn't understand it.
R
Yeah, okay. That sounds real objective. The only thing missing from
your post is "Jesus died for our sins."


Thanks,

Magilla
Kyle Legate
2007-10-09 05:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
You're one of these people who has built a delusional foundation in
their mind that Merckx could ride off the front in today's peloton...but
anyone who follows the spport closely knows Merckx wouldn't even be top
10 in the Tour de France if he rode today.
Merckx was simply better than his competitors - that doesn't tell us
anything about how great he was unless we take a close look at WHO he
was beating. We do know his competitors were nowhere near as good as
the riders are today.
Your insistence on comparing riders of the past with riders of today is
completely without merit. Do you think if Eddy Merckx raced today he
would eschew modern training methods for his approach of riding across
Belgium and then sleeping on the train on way back? Nonsense. In the era
of specialization Eddy wouldn't be as dominant as he was in his day, but
he would be better at the races he targets than any rider currently
riding, all training methods and nutritional advances being equal. His
natural talent was likely greater than Lance's and he had equal focus on
winning. He would still be the Cannibal.
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 15:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kyle Legate
Post by MagillaGorilla
You're one of these people who has built a delusional foundation in
their mind that Merckx could ride off the front in today's
peloton...but anyone who follows the spport closely knows Merckx
wouldn't even be top 10 in the Tour de France if he rode today.
Merckx was simply better than his competitors - that doesn't tell us
anything about how great he was unless we take a close look at WHO he
was beating. We do know his competitors were nowhere near as good as
the riders are today.
Your insistence on comparing riders of the past with riders of today is
completely without merit. Do you think if Eddy Merckx raced today he
would eschew modern training methods for his approach of riding across
Belgium and then sleeping on the train on way back? Nonsense. In the era
of specialization Eddy wouldn't be as dominant as he was in his day, but
he would be better at the races he targets than any rider currently
riding, all training methods and nutritional advances being equal. His
natural talent was likely greater than Lance's and he had equal focus on
winning. He would still be the Cannibal.
If Eddy Merckx trained today and used modern European training methods,
his dog's name would appear in the Operacion Puerto dossier.

Thanks,

Magilla
Bob Schwartz
2007-10-09 16:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
If Eddy Merckx trained today and used modern European training methods,
his dog's name would appear in the Operacion Puerto dossier.
Dumbass,

The adaptation of that particular training method for cycling
was pioneered right here in the USA.

Bob Schwartz
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 18:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Munro
Post by MagillaGorilla
If Eddy Merckx trained today and used modern European training
methods, his dog's name would appear in the Operacion Puerto dossier.
Dumbass,
The adaptation of that particular training method for cycling
was pioneered right here in the USA.
Bob Schwartz
Blood doping for increased athletic performance was likely pioneered in
Europe back in the 1960's...well before Lasse Viren's handlers perfected
it for him in the '72 Munich Games.


Thanks,


Magilla
Donald Munro
2007-10-09 19:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Schwartz
Post by MagillaGorilla
If Eddy Merckx trained today and used modern European training methods,
his dog's name would appear in the Operacion Puerto dossier.
The adaptation of that particular training method for cycling
was pioneered right here in the USA.
Tugboat, the pioneer.
Bob Schwartz
2007-10-09 19:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Munro
Post by Bob Schwartz
Post by MagillaGorilla
If Eddy Merckx trained today and used modern European training methods,
his dog's name would appear in the Operacion Puerto dossier.
The adaptation of that particular training method for cycling
was pioneered right here in the USA.
Tugboat, the pioneer.
The guy most closely associated with the early days of blood
doping was named Lassie. Sort of.

Bob Schwartz
Donald Munro
2007-10-10 08:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Schwartz
The guy most closely associated with the early days of blood
doping was named Lassie. Sort of.
And he outdid LANCE at peaking. He only peaked every 4 years and
won everything when he peaked. However Magilla would probably
argue he'd be useless next to modern Kenyans and Ethiopians.

Carl Sundquist
2007-10-10 01:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Munro
Post by Bob Schwartz
Post by MagillaGorilla
If Eddy Merckx trained today and used modern European training methods,
his dog's name would appear in the Operacion Puerto dossier.
The adaptation of that particular training method for cycling
was pioneered right here in the USA.
Tugboat, the pioneer.
VDB's dog was on Clenbuterol back in '02
Howard Kveck
2007-10-10 06:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by Donald Munro
Post by Bob Schwartz
Post by MagillaGorilla
If Eddy Merckx trained today and used modern European training methods,
his dog's name would appear in the Operacion Puerto dossier.
The adaptation of that particular training method for cycling
was pioneered right here in the USA.
Tugboat, the pioneer.
VDB's dog was on Clenbuterol back in '02
VDB's dog is probably on Zoloft by now. Or should be.
--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Ryan Cousineau
2007-10-10 05:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.
Smokey
Ondrej Sosenka and Chris Boardman.
--
Ryan Cousineau ***@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-07 21:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. The days of setting world
records in cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.

Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get them a
better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.

Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour? Sure, Boardman
did it...and that's why he writes bike reviews for magazines now.


Magilla
Carl Sundquist
2007-10-08 03:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Pein
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling financial
or professional reason to do it. The days of setting world records in
cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.
Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get them a
better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.
Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour? Sure, Boardman
did it...and that's why he writes bike reviews for magazines now.
LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting chicks.

Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have overlooked
Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling financial or
professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason that there hasn't
been much interest recently is the split records. How special is it to
break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of Boardman's 56.375, I'd
say not particularly. I'll concede that it's possible in the era of the
sound bite that the hour record may be passe'. Unify the record book to
currently acceptable TT equipment and I think interest would be greater.

Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-08 05:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Wayne Pein
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. The days of setting world
records in cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.
Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get them
a better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.
Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour? Sure,
Boardman did it...and that's why he writes bike reviews for magazines
now.
LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting chicks.
Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have
overlooked Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason
that there hasn't been much interest recently is the split records. How
special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly. I'll concede that it's
possible in the era of the sound bite that the hour record may be
passe'. Unify the record book to currently acceptable TT equipment and I
think interest would be greater.
Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.
Rominger had Testarossa as his motor and that should tell you how he did
what he did. Indurain did it because it was the fad back then. But it
did nothing for him and in fact might have hurt him. Don't forget that
Indurain comes from the doping capital of the world.

But for the most part you hit the nail on the head in that anyone who
beats the traditional hour record of 49 now will still be substantially
slower than the "unlimited" hour of 56 mph. Then there's the altitude
vs. sea level record, indoor vs. outdoor...

The UCI and national cycling federations are great at diluting the
brand. Records use to be a big deal, but they no longer are because
they have so many caveats.

But the main reason why these records have waned amongst pros is because
they don't lead to money. And that's what the bottom line to all proos
is these days. Why add all that stress to your life to train for an
hour record if there's no financial gain for it? Most top pros who can
set a new hour record standard would rather spend their down time
fucking stewardesses in LA or cheating on their wife in Las Vegas.

There's no cashback for a world record. It's just a debit transaction.


Magilla
C.P.A.
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-08 05:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Wayne Pein
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. The days of setting world
records in cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.
Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get them
a better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.
Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour? Sure,
Boardman did it...and that's why he writes bike reviews for magazines
now.
LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting chicks.
Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have
overlooked Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason
that there hasn't been much interest recently is the split records.
How special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre
of Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly. I'll concede that it's
possible in the era of the sound bite that the hour record may be
passe'. Unify the record book to currently acceptable TT equipment and
I think interest would be greater.
Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.
Rominger had Testarossa as his motor and that should tell you how he did
what he did. Indurain did it because it was the fad back then. But it
did nothing for him and in fact might have hurt him. Don't forget that
Indurain comes from the doping capital of the world.
But for the most part you hit the nail on the head in that anyone who
beats the traditional hour record of 49 now will still be substantially
slower than the "unlimited" hour of 56 mph. Then there's the altitude
vs. sea level record, indoor vs. outdoor...
The UCI and national cycling federations are great at diluting the
brand. Records use to be a big deal, but they no longer are because
they have so many caveats.
But the main reason why these records have waned amongst pros is because
they don't lead to money. And that's what the bottom line to all proos
is these days. Why add all that stress to your life to train for an
hour record if there's no financial gain for it? Most top pros who can
set a new hour record standard would rather spend their down time
fucking stewardesses in LA or cheating on their wife in Las Vegas.
There's no cashback for a world record. It's just a debit transaction.
Magilla
C.P.A.
Duh correction:

56 mph = 56 km

Magilla
Carl Sundquist
2007-10-09 00:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. The days of setting world
records in cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.
Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get them a
better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.
Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour? Sure, Boardman
did it...and that's why he writes bike reviews for magazines now.
LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting chicks.
Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have overlooked
Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling financial or
professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason that there
hasn't been much interest recently is the split records. How special is
it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of Boardman's
56.375, I'd say not particularly. I'll concede that it's possible in the
era of the sound bite that the hour record may be passe'. Unify the
record book to currently acceptable TT equipment and I think interest
would be greater.
Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.
Rominger had Testarossa as his motor and that should tell you how he did
what he did. Indurain did it because it was the fad back then. But it
did nothing for him and in fact might have hurt him. Don't forget that
Indurain comes from the doping capital of the world.
How does any of that support your argument of needing financial or
professional reasons to justify a record attempt?
Post by MagillaGorilla
But for the most part you hit the nail on the head in that anyone who
beats the traditional hour record of 49 now will still be substantially
slower than the "unlimited" hour of 56 mph. Then there's the altitude vs.
sea level record, indoor vs. outdoor...
Indoor/outdoor, sea level/altitude records have been eliminated from the
record books for about 15 years or so. The UCI recognized that (unlike
rainbow jerseys) there were too many records for the same thing. Indoor,
outdoor, high, low, amateur, pro have all been consolidated. It's up to you
whether you want to attempt a record at Irpavi (Bolivia), Manchester, or
somewhere in between.
Post by MagillaGorilla
The UCI and national cycling federations are great at diluting the brand.
Records use to be a big deal, but they no longer are because they have so
many caveats.
Such as?
Post by MagillaGorilla
But the main reason why these records have waned amongst pros is because
they don't lead to money. And that's what the bottom line to all proos is
these days. Why add all that stress to your life to train for an hour
record if there's no financial gain for it? Most top pros who can set a
new hour record standard would rather spend their down time fucking
stewardesses in LA or cheating on their wife in Las Vegas.
There's no cashback for a world record. It's just a debit transaction.
I agree, but in a different way. I think riders still want to try it, but
the risk/reward ratio is possibly a little too high. It is perhaps a
potential financial disincentive that keeps top riders from attempting the
record rather than any financial incentive.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Magilla
C.P.A.
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 01:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. The days of setting
world records in cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.
Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get
them a better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.
Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour? Sure,
Boardman did it...and that's why he writes bike reviews for
magazines now.
LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting chicks.
Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have
overlooked Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason
that there hasn't been much interest recently is the split records.
How special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre
of Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly. I'll concede that
it's possible in the era of the sound bite that the hour record may
be passe'. Unify the record book to currently acceptable TT equipment
and I think interest would be greater.
Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.
Rominger had Testarossa as his motor and that should tell you how he
did what he did. Indurain did it because it was the fad back then.
But it did nothing for him and in fact might have hurt him. Don't
forget that Indurain comes from the doping capital of the world.
How does any of that support your argument of needing financial or
professional reasons to justify a record attempt?
Post by MagillaGorilla
But for the most part you hit the nail on the head in that anyone who
beats the traditional hour record of 49 now will still be
substantially slower than the "unlimited" hour of 56 mph. Then
there's the altitude vs. sea level record, indoor vs. outdoor...
Indoor/outdoor, sea level/altitude records have been eliminated from the
record books for about 15 years or so. The UCI recognized that (unlike
rainbow jerseys) there were too many records for the same thing. Indoor,
outdoor, high, low, amateur, pro have all been consolidated. It's up to
you whether you want to attempt a record at Irpavi (Bolivia),
Manchester, or somewhere in between.
That's just another reason why Lance and most pros don't even bother
with these idiotic records. Pretty soon riders will want to fly to the
fucking moon and do the hour in 1/6 gravity with no atmosphere just so
they could ride over 150 km in a goddamn spacesuit.

All these records are meaningless because there is no standard and
factors such as altitude, air temperature, humidity make a huge difference.

Magilla
Carl Sundquist
2007-10-09 02:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. The days of setting world
records in cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.
Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get them
a better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.
Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour? Sure,
Boardman did it...and that's why he writes bike reviews for magazines
now.
LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting chicks.
Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have
overlooked Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason
that there hasn't been much interest recently is the split records.
How special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly. I'll concede that it's
possible in the era of the sound bite that the hour record may be
passe'. Unify the record book to currently acceptable TT equipment and
I think interest would be greater.
Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.
Rominger had Testarossa as his motor and that should tell you how he did
what he did. Indurain did it because it was the fad back then. But it
did nothing for him and in fact might have hurt him. Don't forget that
Indurain comes from the doping capital of the world.
How does any of that support your argument of needing financial or
professional reasons to justify a record attempt?
Post by MagillaGorilla
But for the most part you hit the nail on the head in that anyone who
beats the traditional hour record of 49 now will still be substantially
slower than the "unlimited" hour of 56 mph. Then there's the altitude
vs. sea level record, indoor vs. outdoor...
Indoor/outdoor, sea level/altitude records have been eliminated from the
record books for about 15 years or so. The UCI recognized that (unlike
rainbow jerseys) there were too many records for the same thing. Indoor,
outdoor, high, low, amateur, pro have all been consolidated. It's up to
you whether you want to attempt a record at Irpavi (Bolivia), Manchester,
or somewhere in between.
That's just another reason why Lance and most pros don't even bother with
these idiotic records. Pretty soon riders will want to fly to the fucking
moon and do the hour in 1/6 gravity with no atmosphere just so they could
ride over 150 km in a goddamn spacesuit.
All these records are meaningless because there is no standard and factors
such as altitude, air temperature, humidity make a huge difference.
Magilla
Can I give you a suggestion? In your efforts to sustain your threads (I
know, you didn't start this one), after a couple of replies you start to
become disjointed, unraveling more and more from there. Stick to making an
outlandish statement or two, then move on to the next thread.

In a stage race metaphor, you barely make it to the first mountain stages
before you're toast. Like Boardman, you're better as a prologue specialist.
Ryan Cousineau
2007-10-09 04:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Sundquist
That's just another reason why Lance and most pros don't even bother with
these idiotic records. Pretty soon riders will want to fly to the fucking
moon and do the hour in 1/6 gravity with no atmosphere just so they could
ride over 150 km in a goddamn spacesuit.
All these records are meaningless because there is no standard and factors
such as altitude, air temperature, humidity make a huge difference.
Magilla
Can I give you a suggestion? In your efforts to sustain your threads (I
know, you didn't start this one), after a couple of replies you start to
become disjointed, unraveling more and more from there. Stick to making an
outlandish statement or two, then move on to the next thread.
In a stage race metaphor, you barely make it to the first mountain stages
before you're toast. Like Boardman, you're better as a prologue specialist.
In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls.

In rbt, we coach them.
--
Ryan Cousineau ***@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Ewoud Dronkert
2007-10-09 07:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Cousineau
In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls.
In rbt, we coach them.
Wait, typo or do lead a second life somewhere else?!
--
E. Dronkert
Donald Munro
2007-10-09 07:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ewoud Dronkert
Post by Ryan Cousineau
In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls.
In rbt, we coach them.
We should inject them with flaxseed oil while we're about it.
Post by Ewoud Dronkert
Wait, typo or do lead a second life somewhere else?!
No, he just sees double most of the time.
Ryan Cousineau
2007-10-10 02:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Munro
Post by Ewoud Dronkert
Post by Ryan Cousineau
In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls.
In rbt, we coach them.
We should inject them with flaxseed oil while we're about it.
Post by Ewoud Dronkert
Wait, typo or do lead a second life somewhere else?!
No, he just sees double most of the time.
Sorry guys, I must have been sober when I posted that. rbr, of course.
In rbt, I killfile trolls. Current list:

Ed Dolan, Jim Beam, Jambo, and for some reason, some guy named Kevin. I
can't remember what he did to piss me off.

Need to install that Enemies plugin for Facebook,
--
Ryan Cousineau ***@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 14:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Post by Carl Sundquist
That's just another reason why Lance and most pros don't even bother with
these idiotic records. Pretty soon riders will want to fly to the fucking
moon and do the hour in 1/6 gravity with no atmosphere just so they could
ride over 150 km in a goddamn spacesuit.
All these records are meaningless because there is no standard and factors
such as altitude, air temperature, humidity make a huge difference.
Magilla
Can I give you a suggestion? In your efforts to sustain your threads (I
know, you didn't start this one), after a couple of replies you start to
become disjointed, unraveling more and more from there. Stick to making an
outlandish statement or two, then move on to the next thread.
In a stage race metaphor, you barely make it to the first mountain stages
before you're toast. Like Boardman, you're better as a prologue specialist.
In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls.
In rbt, we coach them.
Yeah, as if there's not enough online coaches in cycling already who
have no fucking idea what they're doing....yet they have no problem in
getting some loser to cough up $300/month just to get a riding schedule
emailed to them.


Magilla
Train With My Banana
GoneBeforeMyTime
2007-10-09 07:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Stick to making an outlandish statement or two, then move on to the next
thread.

Your reply made pepsi spew out of my nose! That was funny!

What's interesting, rbr is the only cycling group which replies number
sometimes in the hundreds, and sometimes although rare in the thousands. In
both the Italian and French groups replies are usally always short and to
the point, and threads rarely have more then a a few dozen replies and
usually much less, say a dozen is the average, and the Italian group is
bigger but they have much more posts and they never linger long in any one
post. It's just not important to them to square off personally with anyone
for very long. They seem more interested in content then contact.

GBMT
Donald Munro
2007-10-09 11:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
What's interesting, rbr is the only cycling group which replies number
sometimes in the hundreds, and sometimes although rare in the thousands.
Its been a long time since the halycon 2 guns days where the posts
may have numbered in the thousands. Perhaps we should invite Lafferty
and this Polger chick in as guest trollers next July.
RicodJour
2007-10-09 13:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
What's interesting, rbr is the only cycling group which replies number
sometimes in the hundreds, and sometimes although rare in the thousands. In
both the Italian and French groups replies are usally always short and to
the point, and threads rarely have more then a a few dozen replies and
usually much less, say a dozen is the average, and the Italian group is
bigger but they have much more posts and they never linger long in any one
post. It's just not important to them to square off personally with anyone
for very long. They seem more interested in content then contact.
Where's the fun in that?

R
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 14:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Sundquist
Stick to making an outlandish statement or two, then move on to the next
thread.
Your reply made pepsi spew out of my nose! That was funny!
What's interesting, rbr is the only cycling group which replies number
sometimes in the hundreds, and sometimes although rare in the thousands. In
both the Italian and French groups replies are usally always short and to
the point, and threads rarely have more then a a few dozen replies and
usually much less, say a dozen is the average, and the Italian group is
bigger but they have much more posts and they never linger long in any one
post. It's just not important to them to square off personally with anyone
for very long. They seem more interested in content then contact.
GBMT
They both also seem more interested in losing World World II.

Magilla
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 14:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. The days of setting
world records in cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.
Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get
them a better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.
Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour? Sure,
Boardman did it...and that's why he writes bike reviews for
magazines now.
LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting chicks.
Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have
overlooked Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. I think part of the
reason that there hasn't been much interest recently is the split
records. How special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With
the spectre of Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly. I'll
concede that it's possible in the era of the sound bite that the
hour record may be passe'. Unify the record book to currently
acceptable TT equipment and I think interest would be greater.
Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.
Rominger had Testarossa as his motor and that should tell you how he
did what he did. Indurain did it because it was the fad back then.
But it did nothing for him and in fact might have hurt him. Don't
forget that Indurain comes from the doping capital of the world.
How does any of that support your argument of needing financial or
professional reasons to justify a record attempt?
Post by MagillaGorilla
But for the most part you hit the nail on the head in that anyone
who beats the traditional hour record of 49 now will still be
substantially slower than the "unlimited" hour of 56 mph. Then
there's the altitude vs. sea level record, indoor vs. outdoor...
Indoor/outdoor, sea level/altitude records have been eliminated from
the record books for about 15 years or so. The UCI recognized that
(unlike rainbow jerseys) there were too many records for the same
thing. Indoor, outdoor, high, low, amateur, pro have all been
consolidated. It's up to you whether you want to attempt a record at
Irpavi (Bolivia), Manchester, or somewhere in between.
That's just another reason why Lance and most pros don't even bother
with these idiotic records. Pretty soon riders will want to fly to
the fucking moon and do the hour in 1/6 gravity with no atmosphere
just so they could ride over 150 km in a goddamn spacesuit.
All these records are meaningless because there is no standard and
factors such as altitude, air temperature, humidity make a huge difference.
Magilla
Can I give you a suggestion? In your efforts to sustain your threads (I
know, you didn't start this one), after a couple of replies you start to
become disjointed, unraveling more and more from there. Stick to making
an outlandish statement or two, then move on to the next thread.
In a stage race metaphor, you barely make it to the first mountain
stages before you're toast. Like Boardman, you're better as a prologue
specialist.
I'm not disjointed - nor am I Boardman.

Sounds like you want me to start another thread on why you don't go
faster around a turn in a velodrome than on the straightaway. I went
apeshit in those threads.

But then I got busted for too much potassium by USADA.


Magilla
Wayne Pein
2007-10-08 15:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Carl Sundquist wrote:

How
Post by Carl Sundquist
special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly.
How special is it to break 56.375 with the spectre of 85.991 of Markham?

I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough that
other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or not.

Wayne
Carl Sundquist
2007-10-08 18:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Pein
How
Post by Carl Sundquist
special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly.
How special is it to break 56.375 with the spectre of 85.991 of Markham?
I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough that
other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or not.
Could or can Markham race that bike in a UCI sanctioned race?
Wayne Pein
2007-10-08 20:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by Wayne Pein
How
Post by Carl Sundquist
special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly.
How special is it to break 56.375 with the spectre of 85.991 of Markham?
I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough
that other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or
not.
Could or can Markham race that bike in a UCI sanctioned race?
The people who care about 85.991 don't care about the UCI, and I suppose
vice versa.

Wayne
Tom Kunich
2007-10-09 01:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by Carl Sundquist
Could or can Markham race that bike in a UCI sanctioned race?
The people who care about 85.991 don't care about the UCI, and I suppose
vice versa.
Why don't you just say that the bike Markham used can barely ride in a
straight line?
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-08 19:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Pein
How
Post by Carl Sundquist
special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly.
How special is it to break 56.375 with the spectre of 85.991 of Markham?
I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough that
other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or not.
Wayne
Get fucking real. Do you really think Lance and top pros sit at home
"wishing" they could break some idiotic record by the Danny Chews of the
world just because it's a record?

If you do, then you are clueless as to what makes these guys tick. And
that is: money, fame, chix. If you notice, "breaking records" isn't on
that list.

The only people who want to break records in cycling are 14 year olds
(and adults who think like 14 year olds).


Thanks,

Magilla
Wayne Pein
2007-10-08 20:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Wayne Pein
I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough
that other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or
not.
Get fucking real. Do you really think Lance and top pros sit at home
"wishing" they could break some idiotic record by the Danny Chews of the
world just because it's a record?
If you do, then you are clueless as to what makes these guys tick. And
that is: money, fame, chix. If you notice, "breaking records" isn't on
that list.
If you could ride at 475 watts for an hour you'd try to break the hour
record. But you can't and neither could Lance and others.
Post by MagillaGorilla
The only people who want to break records in cycling are 14 year olds
(and adults who think like 14 year olds).
There's lots of records men want to break for the fame (200, 1k, 4k,
hr), but like you, they can't.

Wayne
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 01:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Wayne Pein
I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough
that other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward
or not.
Get fucking real. Do you really think Lance and top pros sit at home
"wishing" they could break some idiotic record by the Danny Chews of
the world just because it's a record?
If you do, then you are clueless as to what makes these guys tick.
And that is: money, fame, chix. If you notice, "breaking records"
isn't on that list.
If you could ride at 475 watts for an hour you'd try to break the hour
record. But you can't and neither could Lance and others.
Post by MagillaGorilla
The only people who want to break records in cycling are 14 year olds
(and adults who think like 14 year olds).
There's lots of records men want to break for the fame (200, 1k, 4k,
hr), but like you, they can't.
Wayne
I love listenting to all you clueless people in here who actually think
Lance sits in his mansion in Austin and cries himself to sleep because
he didn't do the hour record.

You probably also think Lance dreams about winning RAAM one day.

Losers,


Magilla
Tom Kunich
2007-10-09 01:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
I love listenting to all you clueless people in here who actually think
Lance sits in his mansion in Austin and cries himself to sleep because he
didn't do the hour record.
You probably also think Lance dreams about winning RAAM one day.
Losers,
I love reading your stuff. Hopefully you'll keep it up because you emphasis
the true ignorance here. Tell me - why do you believe that ANYONE cares what
Lance is doing?
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 02:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by MagillaGorilla
I love listenting to all you clueless people in here who actually
think Lance sits in his mansion in Austin and cries himself to sleep
because he didn't do the hour record.
You probably also think Lance dreams about winning RAAM one day.
Losers,
I love reading your stuff. Hopefully you'll keep it up because you
emphasis the true ignorance here. Tell me - why do you believe that
ANYONE cares what Lance is doing?
That girl at the Tour de Georgia who appeared on "The Lance Chronicles"
who cried and whined outside the Postal team bus cares.

So do all the Livestrong bracelet wearers, which is a large majority of
people in here.

Magilla
Carl Sundquist
2007-10-09 03:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Tom Kunich
I love reading your stuff. Hopefully you'll keep it up because you
emphasis the true ignorance here. Tell me - why do you believe that
ANYONE cares what Lance is doing?
That girl at the Tour de Georgia who appeared on "The Lance Chronicles"
who cried and whined outside the Postal team bus cares.
So do all the Livestrong bracelet wearers, which is a large majority of
people in here.
Boardman,

You could tell 80% of the bracelet wearers that Armstrong won RAAM, the
American version of the Tour, seven times and they would puff out their
chests in pride.
Carl Sundquist
2007-10-09 03:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl Sundquist
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Tom Kunich
I love reading your stuff. Hopefully you'll keep it up because you
emphasis the true ignorance here. Tell me - why do you believe that
ANYONE cares what Lance is doing?
That girl at the Tour de Georgia who appeared on "The Lance Chronicles"
who cried and whined outside the Postal team bus cares.
So do all the Livestrong bracelet wearers, which is a large majority of
people in here.
Boardman,
You could tell 80% of the bracelet wearers that Armstrong won RAAM, the
American version of the Tour, seven times and they would puff out their
chests in pride.
<<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thread/8f48bead6a419bbf/fa846f8467aa6c6d?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#fa846f8467aa6c6d>>
Steven L. Sheffield
2007-10-09 06:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
That girl at the Tour de Georgia who appeared on "The Lance Chronicles"
who cried and whined outside the Postal team bus cares.
So do all the Livestrong bracelet wearers, which is a large majority of
people in here.
I wear Karma Beads ...

http://www.luckyness.com/display_item.cfm?item_id=28

Yeah ... Lame, I know, but better than LiveStrong BS.
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash
RicodJour
2007-10-09 13:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L. Sheffield
Post by MagillaGorilla
That girl at the Tour de Georgia who appeared on "The Lance Chronicles"
who cried and whined outside the Postal team bus cares.
So do all the Livestrong bracelet wearers, which is a large majority of
people in here.
I wear Karma Beads ...
http://www.luckyness.com/display_item.cfm?item_id=28
Yeah ... Lame, I know, but better than LiveStrong BS.
Still, it's a guy wearing a bracelet. Unless you're a gigolo or in a
band and the bracelet is made from hemp, bracelets shouldn't dangle
from a dude. Rolexs are exempt.

R
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-09 14:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by RicodJour
Post by Steven L. Sheffield
Post by MagillaGorilla
That girl at the Tour de Georgia who appeared on "The Lance Chronicles"
who cried and whined outside the Postal team bus cares.
So do all the Livestrong bracelet wearers, which is a large majority of
people in here.
I wear Karma Beads ...
http://www.luckyness.com/display_item.cfm?item_id=28
Yeah ... Lame, I know, but better than LiveStrong BS.
Still, it's a guy wearing a bracelet. Unless you're a gigolo or in a
band and the bracelet is made from hemp, bracelets shouldn't dangle
from a dude. Rolexs are exempt.
R
Nice.

Magilla Gere
&s.com
2007-10-08 14:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Wayne Pein
Post by MagillaGorilla
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
Wayne
A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. The days of setting world
records in cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.
Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get them a
better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.
Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour?
Because there's nothing to be gained by a failed attempt. They know what they
can do. They know the value of the hour. They knew they couldn't beat it.
Bill C
2007-10-07 20:53:20 UTC
Permalink
MagillaGorilla
2007-10-07 21:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by RonSonic
Post by MagillaGorilla
Magilla;
Fondriest's career was not to bad (even though he got the Rainbow
Maurizio Fondriest1988 World Pro Road Race
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
1990 Giro di Lazio
1991 World Cup Winner
1993 Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Championship of Zurich
Giro dell'Emilia
Tirreno - Adriatico
GP du Midi Libre
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
World Cup Winner
1994 Giro di Lazio
1995 1 stage, Giro d'Italia
TTFN.
Remember, this is the same guy who said all Eddy Merckx ever beat was
a bunch of factory workers.
Smokey
If Eddy Merckx raced today in his prime, he wouldn't be riding off the
front like he did when the competition were a bunch of part-time pros
who made $5,000/year and worked in factories in the off-season.
The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.
You people in here always try to pawn off victories in eras with weak
competition as if they could pull that same shit today.
You might be right that Merckx today would not win 500 of 1800 bike races or
come away from all the tours with wins and ALL of the jerseys at any one tour.
That level of dominance is over for anyone. Still there's no question he would
still be one of the greats.
Ron
That's like saying if Margaret Court played tennis today she would be
one of the greats. Absolutely not true.
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Magilla- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I can't believe you've got everyone's panties in a bunch with this.
Bet you can't believe it either.
Let's see. No shit Eddy spanked his competition, but just how good
they were, and how deep is debateable, but he was dominant. I'd argue
that they very well might have been competitive, as a group today, IF
they had come up today. I don't think the human physical differences
are as pronounced in cycling as they are in American football. The
players from the 60s were midgets compared to todays athletes.
I think in cycling the biggest difference is in knowledge, training,
and better chemistry. If Eddy had grown up in this age I still think
he'd be a top racer. Maybe not dominant, but pretty damned good.
Until we can catalog performance based on genetic makeup accurately
these projections are useless for anything other than BSing about.
Your still a virtuoso though.
Bill C
If Eddy Merckx grew up today, his dog's name would appear in the
Operacion Puerto dossier and he'd be fired from T-Mobile.


Thanks,

Magilla
&s.com
2007-10-08 14:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by RonSonic
Post by MagillaGorilla
Magilla;
Fondriest's career was not to bad (even though he got the Rainbow
Maurizio Fondriest1988 World Pro Road Race
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
1990 Giro di Lazio
1991 World Cup Winner
1993 Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Championship of Zurich
Giro dell'Emilia
Tirreno - Adriatico
GP du Midi Libre
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
World Cup Winner
1994 Giro di Lazio
1995 1 stage, Giro d'Italia
TTFN.
Remember, this is the same guy who said all Eddy Merckx ever beat was
a bunch of factory workers.
Smokey
If Eddy Merckx raced today in his prime, he wouldn't be riding off the
front like he did when the competition were a bunch of part-time pros
who made $5,000/year and worked in factories in the off-season.
The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.
You people in here always try to pawn off victories in eras with weak
competition as if they could pull that same shit today.
You might be right that Merckx today would not win 500 of 1800 bike races or
come away from all the tours with wins and ALL of the jerseys at any one tour.
That level of dominance is over for anyone. Still there's no question he would
still be one of the greats.
Ron
That's like saying if Margaret Court played tennis today she would be
one of the greats. Absolutely not true.
The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.
He wasn't racing against today's pros.
Of course not, he was racing against that eras pro's.

And yes there were pro's not just laborers with a side gig.

It's one thing to have a realistic appraisal of Eddie's abilities. It's another
to slag an entire generation of bike racers in order to insult him.
GoneBeforeMyTime
2007-10-08 20:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by MagillaGorilla
The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.
It's flattering, but no, I agree. She might at best be called one of the
best American women of her time, but the 90's produced an explosion of very
good riders. Twigg was certainly very good but she found herself dealing
with some very tough customers during the 90's.

GBMT
GoneBeforeMyTime
2007-10-08 23:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by GoneBeforeMyTime
Post by MagillaGorilla
The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.
It's flattering, but no, I agree. She might at best be called one of the
best American women of her time, but the 90's produced an explosion of very
good riders. Twigg was certainly very good but she found herself dealing
with some very tough customers during the 90's.
GBMT
Which makes me think, who was/is the greatest American women rider of all
times? I would say Dede Barry or perhaps Amber Neben is becoming the best
American ever, she won the Tour De l'Aude twice, a huge accomplishment for
the American. Twigg's palmares certainly are impressive, but needs to be put
into the context of her competition of the times, mostly the 80's, some
early 90's as were Jeanne Golay and Inga Thompson. Laura Charameda certainly
was awesome in the 90's. Mari Holden was good and Kimberly Baldwin short
run. Kristen Armstrong won the worlds TT last year, 2nd this year, won Toona
twice in a row, but Neben is better stage racer.

But to narrow it down, I would think Jeannie Golay, Amber Neben or Dede
Barry, so my vote goes for Dede Barry as the greatest of all times. :-)

Sorry Laura if you are watching!

GBMT
Carl Sundquist
2007-10-06 19:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Well, not to get too philosophical, but another lesson that can be gleaned
is that one day race results are meaningless. But we already know this
from Fondriest's rainbow jersey. They amount to a roll of the dice.
However, in a big Tour, you can't fake it over 2-3 weeks.
Doping proves otherwise.
GoneBeforeMyTime
2007-10-08 20:41:52 UTC
Permalink
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/worlds07/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worl
Post by MagillaGorilla
Post by Max Payne
ds07/worlds074/fs068
One thread should be enough on that if you must, but it's unfortune that the
Italians have not said a single word about her marvelous solo breakaway in
their forum. She earned it, and it reminds me about what they say in 1992
when Watt won. They called it an evil lesson that any rider can win against
all odds, not just the creme at the front. A lesser relatively unknown rider
went solo off the front taking the gold and the glory. More then likely it
will be the highlight of her cycling career, but what an inspiring finish, I
though she had the right stuff! However, Marta should try out some Banana
boat Aloe Vera with vitamen E, great stuff to use on hot sunny days, and
would of hidden that from the camera!
http://tinyurl.com/duhlc
GBMT
Well, not to get too philosophical, but another lesson that can be
gleaned is that one day race results are meaningless. But we already
know this from Fondriest's rainbow jersey. They amount to a roll of the
dice. However, in a big Tour, you can't fake it over 2-3 weeks.
Normally yes, one day race results seem to be meaningless, but the worlds is
a one day slugfest. Even the DNF list is chalk full of talent. It seems like
a lottery, but then not exactly. It's the only race of the year where all
the creme comes together in one place, and the start list is indeed
impressive. Of course the heavy favorites are good choices to place your
bets. While I got 1st and 2nd right on the TT, Vos is the only 1 of 3
choices I made that came up a winner on the RR, she took 2nd. So it's
somewhat predictable if everything goes according to Hoyle. But the worlds
is a war of attrition, and some top riders never race the worlds because of
it's intense pace. Luperini almost never races the worlds because of the
fast pace, and it's usually never selective enough for the climbers like it
was in 1995 at Duitama Columbia.

However stage races are the real test of a great all around rider, so those
winners are the real champions. I think yes, in a way the worlds is a
gimmick to a certain extent much like the road race at the games, in the
sense so much pride and prestige is placed on this one day race. Regina won
the worlds, but she's hardly lived up to the glory and prestige placed on
her shoulders. That's quite a bit of weight to carry, wearing the rainbow
jersey all year long. I think Vos has lived up to expectations, but not
Regina. Arndt has, since she is such a solid rider all year long, great in
every sense. But great team work helped Regina win, as did great team work
helped Marta win. Cantele been strong all year, so she was marked, but Marta
was not taken seriously, after Vos caught Cantele, Marta slipped away and
Vos didn't chase, so it was an evil lesson as they say. Pooley, Worrack,
Melchers, Cantele, especially Pooley did a lot of work at the front all day,
Pooley being the revelation this year, a pure climber in the making, but it
didn't make any difference in the end.

There is so much to be gained by winning the worlds and the games in terms
of market value, same with the world cup, but even the world cup is not a
fair assessment in the world rankings because a number of variables are not
taken into account. I think Alfred and Jeans rankings are more fair and
realistic account of who the best riders are. Geographics play an unfair
role making it easier for some riders to excel or attend all the world cup
events, while others are excluded.
Post by MagillaGorilla
So was Watt a worthy champion?
IMO, I am going to say yes. After she sprinted pass Maria Purvis of Great
Britain, the video shows Watt setting her Advocet for a TT ride. She
obviously planned her move well, and from what I read and heard, Watt should
of been taken seriously because she was riding well all year both in track
and a good TT rider. I don't think the peleton did their homework on Watt or
they would of chased her down. Neither Inga, Leontien or Longo did anything
when Watt left the main field. It could be Watt was keeping a low profile in
her training leading up to the games, but I had read her excellent times
were known to some at the time. There were people who actually favored Watt
to win that race, believe it or not. Watt was away for a very long time and
nobody took up the chase. From the perspective of race officials at the
time, they said all the top riders were sapped, including Inga Thompson.
Only Longo was able to chase. I haven't researched Watt's palmares yet, so I
am not a expert on Watt, but I talked to her several times, and provided her
with a copy of that race on DVD, it was the biggest moment of her life. She
expressed to me that she feels she was a worthy champion.



Well, given that she could never really
Post by MagillaGorilla
repeat her performance in Barcelona, I would say no.
Well, you might of read about all her troubles since that time going into
the next Olympics. CN actually covered Watts troubles in great detail over
several years about her problems with Lucy Tyler, some of the problems with
all the coaches and the Ausse sports institutions and all the endless court
proceedings. Watt went through hell for years, so it's no surprise that she
couldn't fully focus on her racing. I think she was depressed a lot during
the years following Barcelona.



Same with Sara
Post by MagillaGorilla
"I've sucked since Athens" Carrigan. Carrigan's win was a fluke - much
like Alexi Grewal's gold medal against a diluted "Olympic" field. When
Grewal went to Europe, he was clearly out of his league.
Sara raced at Altitude, and really trained hard coming into the games, after
a injury previously. She broke away and keep the pace high until the end
doing quite a bit of work alone, but she did really benefit from drafting
Arndt, enough to recover and easily take the win, but Arndt was spent it
seemed, and not happy with the German Federation obviously the finger thing,
so I don't know why or at what point Arndt gave up at the end, but she
didn't ever try to counter Sara's move for the line, so a combination of
being spent and angry too I guess since her pal Rossner was kept out of the
games, but Sara seemed to have earned this win as well. However, yes, it's a
one day war of attrition and Sara had the right stuff on that day, she
peaked perfectly for that day and made the right move at the right time. But
obviously Sara has not been able to carry that level of racing into the next
year. Sara is not like Arndt, who seems to be good all year long no matter
what. Very few riders are totally awesome all the time so consistently like
Judith Arndt. Many riders rise to the occasion never to be heard of again.
Sara may never have another great event like that ever again, as where
Arndt, you can bet on it! Arndt is one of the greatest all around riders
ever. She's easily in my top ten.
Post by MagillaGorilla
Yeah, those cole sores or whatever it is on Marta's upper lip should
have been dealt with by her handlers prior to propping her up on the
podium. It was probably just a bad case of chapped lips, I'm sure, but
it shows incredible ignorance of marketiing PR on a worldwide stage by
her people.
Yup, pass the lip balm. That does look really bad, they should of fixed
that.
Loading...