Stapleton's kool aid drinking habits revealed
Amit Ghosh
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/stapleton-says-armstrongs-comeback-good-for-cycling
"I think it is very interesting that the biggest name in the sport is
embracing, and indeed passing the mantle, to the second biggest name
in the sport. From Lance to Mark."
According to stapleton cavendish who would get dropped by on a climb
or be beaten in a TT by 150 other tour de france riders is the second
biggest name in the sport.
Uncle Dave
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/stapleton-says-armstrongs-comeback-go...
>
> "I think it is very interesting that the biggest name in the sport is
> embracing, and indeed passing the mantle, to the second biggest name
> in the sport. From Lance to Mark."
>
> According to stapleton cavendish who would get dropped by on a climb
> or be beaten in a TT by 150 other tour de france riders is the second
> biggest name in the sport.
I'm not sure any such opinion has much validity, but it's certainly
true that the top sprinters have always attracted a lot of attention.
They have the advantage of usually being good for more than just one
race every year too which gives them an advantage over Tour contenders
who nowadays tend to be in virtual hibernation eleven months of the
year. Sprinters are all about being first across the line which Joe
Public can identify with. As in "who won that race - the guy first
across the line?" Nope, the guy whose team managed to make sure he
was not too far behind the guy who was first across the line the last
fifteen times.
I'm so old I can even remember when Lance Armstrong was a real racer
and not just a corporate symbol.
UD
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
even the most dumb observer realizes that the mountains are what make
the tour what it is, that is why you see all the fans lining the
mountain roads.
> I'm so old I can even remember when Lance Armstrong was a real racer
> and not just a corporate symbol.
so a corporate symbol can finish 3rd in the tour.
Uncle Dave
I think you meant to write "in my opinion the mountains..." rather
than "even the most dumb observer realizes that..." or do you really
want people to think you're an Armstrong fanboy who thinks cycling was
invented as a sport in 1999?
Each stage is televised so they're pretty much equal when it comes to
coverage, hence, sprinters are going to be well known as in "big
name".
BTW, it depends on what you mean by "make the tour what it is". For
some years, the time trials have tended to be more decisive than the
mountain stages, indeed, some mountain stages in recent tours have
been as boring as shit, in fact without the crowds they would have
been non-events. It makes it more exciting now that the tour leaders
are expected to be able to climb well though I would still take a time
triallist who can climb over a climber who can time trial most years.
UD
WTF
e22a99d9-d352-4be8...@q16g2000vbc.googlegroups.com, "Amit
Ghosh" <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/stapleton-says-armstrongs-comeback-good-for-cy
> cling
>
> "I think it is very interesting that the biggest name in the sport is
> embracing, and indeed passing the mantle, to the second biggest name
> in the sport. From Lance to Mark."
>
> According to stapleton cavendish who would get dropped by on a climb
> or be beaten in a TT by 150 other tour de france riders is the second
> biggest name in the sport.
He would probably lose any bar fit he got into also! How many wins does he
have? That is the point.....
semi-ambivalent
Any podium position at Le Tour is merely mulch for the star maker
machinery that is LA/Livestrong. The REAL money is in a repeat on the
Wheaties box. LA/LS is bigger than cycling, that's why, to understand
the LA/LS Phenomenon, you can't let cycling be the center of your
world or your interest. It's just another tool. For LA/LS even a loss
is spun as a win in The Struggle. Try talking to people who don't give
a damn about the European cycling scene (there's lots of them), they
have some novel ideas about it all. With a single tweet LA can summon
a bigger crowd than the number who attended US Natz. *That's* not
about the bike.
sa
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/stapleton-says-armstrongs-comeback-go...
>
> "I think it is very interesting that the biggest name in the sport is
> embracing, and indeed passing the mantle, to the second biggest name
> in the sport. From Lance to Mark."
>
> According to stapleton cavendish who would get dropped by on a climb
> or be beaten in a TT by 150 other tour de france riders is the second
> biggest name in the sport.
Dumbass -
Of course he's gonna say stuff like that. Part of his job is glossing
his team.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Scott
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/stapleton-says-armstrongs-comeback-go...
>
> embracing, and indeed passing the mantle, to the second biggest name
> in the sport. From Lance to Mark."
>
> According to stapleton cavendish who would get dropped by on a climb
> or be beaten in a TT by 150 other tour de france riders is the second
> biggest name in the sport.
Who won the most races last year?
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
even the UCI understands the sport better than the kool aid drinkers,
which is why contador won the protour classification, not cavendish or
greipel.
Uncle Dave
Hold on, are you implying that winning is important?
UD
Amit Ghosh
> Who won the most races last year?
dumbass,
you sound like a "crit specialist".
Scott
And you sound like a guy who doesn't understand the marketing aspect
of the sport of pro cycling.
BTW, tell me again, who won the most races this year?
Scott
Yes.
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
cavendish - not being able to climb or ride in any breaks ... sounds
like a master fattie hero.
Scott
You really are stupid, aren't you? He's not paid to ride in breaks,
and he only climbs as fast as he needs to. Bottom line is that at the
moment, he's the hotshot sprinter and he gets headlines, thus the
declaration by Stapleton of him being a big name.
Amit Ghosh
> You really are stupid, aren't you? He's not paid to ride in breaks,
> and he only climbs as fast as he needs to.
dumbass,
so if he was paid to he would win decide to win liege-bastogne-liege
or alpe d'huez ?
sounds like more "sprint specialist" rationalization.
Uncle Dave
What gets me is that people slag off sprinters for not being able to
climb and so on but seem perfectly happy with the fact that most Tour
contenders only enter other races as training for "the main event".
To my mind, modern Tour specialists are makeweights in the grand
scheme of things, the Tour de France being increasingly organised as a
spectacle rather than a serious race, although I was pleased to see
the Schleck brothers doing their best to be proper bike riders this
season. Unlike certain other people I could mention...
UD
Amit Ghosh
> What gets me is that people slag off sprinters for not being able to
> climb and so on but seem perfectly happy with the fact that most Tour
> contenders only enter other races as training for "the main event".
dumbass,
are you the guy with 100 $20 bikes ? cycling isn't baseball, the
quality of the win matters. there is only one RVV or LBL or tour a
year, but there are lots of meaningless flat stages.
if people wanted to watch guys who are afraid of climbs or driving a
break i they would watch cat 5 racing.
Uncle Dave
> On Dec 26, 12:09 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > What gets me is that people slag off sprinters for not being able to
> > climb and so on but seem perfectly happy with the fact that most Tour
> > contenders only enter other races as training for "the main event".
>
> dumbass,
>
> are you the guy with 100 $20 bikes ? cycling isn't baseball, the
> quality of the win matters. there is only one RVV or LBL or tour a
> year, but there are lots of meaningless flat stages.
Your argument that flat stages are meaningless is illogical. In order
to be able to win a mountain stage you need to be able to climb well,
in order to win a flat stage you need to be able to sprint well or
stay away. There is nothing to say that a flat stage has any more or
less value than one in the mountains. I'm not convinced that the
crowds are bigger on mountain stages either, sure you get big crowds
at the top of each climb but there's hardly anybody on the down
slopes. On flat stages crowds are dispersed pretty evenly around the
course, mostly - but not exclusively - in centres of population.
Mountain stages are of no real importance because they only riders who
are 1) capable of winning them or 2) in with a podium chance actually
bother to compete and they usually cancel themselves out. Sure,
overall placings might change but that can - and does - happen on any
stage. The number of riders who actually compete on those stages is
very few which is why they rarely (leastwise nowadays) provide much
excitement.
There are always more riders in with a chance of winning a flat stage
because a break might stay away or it might come down to a bunch
sprint. This is why mountain stages are, by comparison, so bloody
boring because they are entirely predictable. You know at the start
of the day who's likely to be there at the end or, in the event of a
long break, you know by about half way that it's yet another flop.
The other thing is that most people with any idea about it will
correctly guess 3 of the top 5 riders overall (drugs busts and
injuries notwithstanding) as soon as the route is announced, so
mountain stages are only really there to provide a bit of specatcle
for the unwashed masses who know fuck all about cycle racing.
In fact, it's time trials that have decided the Tour for many years
now. Stop swalllowing the mass media propaganda and forget those
silly mountains! You know it makes sense...
UD
Scott
No, I'm not saying he could do those things if he were paid to, I'm
saying he's NOT attempting to do them 'cause he's paid to do something
else.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> On Dec 26, 5:20 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 26, 12:09 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > > What gets me is that people slag off sprinters for not being able to
> > > climb and so on but seem perfectly happy with the fact that most Tour
> > > contenders only enter other races as training for "the main event".
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > are you the guy with 100 $20 bikes ? cycling isn't baseball, the
> > quality of the win matters. there is only one RVV or LBL or tour a
> > year, but there are lots of meaningless flat stages.
>
> Your argument that flat stages are meaningless is illogical. In order
> to be able to win a mountain stage you need to be able to climb well,
> in order to win a flat stage you need to be able to sprint well or
> stay away. There is nothing to say that a flat stage has any more or
> less value than one in the mountains. I'm not convinced that the
> crowds are bigger on mountain stages either,
<snip>
Dumbass -
The flat stages are not meaningless, however:
1) the crowds definitely are bigger on the mountain stages. Moreover,
a good portion of the fans will get there days ahead of time to ensure
a good spot.
2) the mountain stages are more anticipated and therefore more
important than the flat stages. The reason is: most of the time they
are critical to who gets the yellow jersey. The flat stages are
determinant for the green jersey. The way to measure their relative
importance in the grand scheme of things is to look at the importance
of the yellow jersey compared to the green jersey. As the yellow
jersey is to the green jersey, so is the mountain stage to the flat
stage.
The green jersey is not meaningless, however, it's not the same as the
yellow jersey.
Fred Fredburger
> dumbass,
>
> are you the guy with 100 $20 bikes ?
Great. Another dumbass who believes that the quality and quantity of the
bikes you own determines your bicycle racing knowledge.
You must be an engineer too.
Sandy
puis a déclaré...:
You're watching it on TV (the economic reason it depends on), not live.
On TV, or live, the mountain stages give you a look for a much longer
time at each rider. Live, flat stages don't really give more than a 30
second look at the parade, or add a little if there's a break. On TV,
flat stages are time for commentary and reminiscence.
Besides, if TV said flat stages were more exciting, they would cook up
reasons to watch them more closely. It's hard to provide constant
statistics to encourage attention, but in the mountains, usually as the
arrival can be calculated more slowly, they can spiel off forever about
every smallest detail.
Most ways these days, the TdF is somniferous.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
Uncle Dave
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:32 am, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 5:20 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 12:09 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > > > What gets me is that people slag off sprinters for not being able to
> > > > climb and so on but seem perfectly happy with the fact that most Tour
> > > > contenders only enter other races as training for "the main event".
>
> > > dumbass,
>
> > > are you the guy with 100 $20 bikes ? cycling isn't baseball, the
> > > quality of the win matters. there is only one RVV or LBL or tour a
> > > year, but there are lots of meaningless flat stages.
>
> > Your argument that flat stages are meaningless is illogical. In order
> > to be able to win a mountain stage you need to be able to climb well,
> > in order to win a flat stage you need to be able to sprint well or
> > stay away. There is nothing to say that a flat stage has any more or
> > less value than one in the mountains. I'm not convinced that the
> > crowds are bigger on mountain stages either,
>
> <snip>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> The flat stages are not meaningless, however:
>
> 1) the crowds definitely are bigger on the mountain stages.
Source?
UD
Tom Kunich
news:2f26018c-a5c9-4de0...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
The problem is that on the flat stages people are out all along the course
and so the crowds look much smaller. On the mountain stages the majority of
fans are on the relatively short climbs.
Uncle Dave
> "Uncle Dave" <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote in message
My point entirely. The increasing incidence of drunken lunatic young
men and the difficulty in getting there limits the number of
spectators on mountain stages. It is only ever the summits that get
really crowded, the downhill stretches are virtually deserted. There
is also the simple fact that mountainous areas are less populated and
although around 20% (IIRC) of spectators are foreigners the bulk of
the remaining 80% are going to be locals. Even if the 20% foreigners
were to make up for the lack of locals on mountain stages (a
reasonable assumption as many of them can neither take their booze nor
behave with any respect) I would happily wager that a headcount would
show flat stages average bigger crowds than mountain stages. Bein
unemployed and thanks to the wonders of satellite TV (Eurosport only
tends to be live for the last few hours most days) I watched several
stages from start to finish this year and spectators are rare in the
mountains and that's a fact.
UD
WTF
af6ed587-7483-4f30...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, "Amit
Ghosh" <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
You pricks are really getting fuckin stupid and cracked when you call the
worlds best sprinter a "Masters Fattie"? Kinda puts everything posted here
in perspective doesn't it?
Tom Kunich
news:C75BEFCC.72A1A%rbr...@dslextreme.com...
>
> You pricks are really getting fuckin stupid and cracked when you call the
> worlds best sprinter a "Masters Fattie"? Kinda puts everything posted
> here
> in perspective doesn't it?
Are you just discovering that?
Amit Ghosh
> > dumbass,
>
> > cavendish - not being able to climb or ride in any breaks ... sounds
> > like a master fattie hero.
>
> You pricks are really getting fuckin stupid and cracked when you call the
> worlds best sprinter a "Masters Fattie"? Kinda puts everything posted here
> in perspective doesn't it?
dumbass,
i didn't say he is a masters fattie, but he seems to be a hero to
them.
Amit Ghosh
>
> The problem is that on the flat stages people are out all along the course
> and so the crowds look much smaller. On the mountain stages the majority of
> fans are on the relatively short climbs.
dumbass,
why would you say that is ? is 1 km of a hill shorter than 1 km or
flats ? what about descents ?
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
according to the kool aid drinkers a win is a win and garbage stage
wins in missouri or california are the same as winning LBL or mont
ventoux - even though you will never see cavendish at the front there.
Scott
Amit, let's see if we can get you back on track here. The discussion,
prior to your derailing it, was about Cav being a big name, perhaps
the 2nd biggest name in pro cycling at the moment. The discussion was
not about who was the second best pro cyclist or who won the more
difficult races.
If you look at who gets the most coverage, who gets the most press,
who is it that the typical observer recognizes as a 'winner', IOW,
when it comes to who's the biggest name in pro cycling, winning LBL or
a stage on Mont Ventoux or a garbage stage in the Tour of Missouri are
pretty much equal. In that regard, Cav is arguably the 2nd biggest
name in the English-speaking world.
I hope that helps.
WTF
42701ab3-a672-48a2...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "Amit
Ghosh" <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you do a fattie poll? You "seem" to be an idiot........
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
It's simply common sense. When the Tour of California went up Mt.
Palomar, a group of us made the trek up to Palomar Mountain to check
it out. Us and the rest of the very substantial crowd (parked cars
lined the road for miles and miles) were there 4 hours early. It was a
full-day excursion. If they would've just ridden down the coast, none
of us would've bothered unless we lived a few blocks from the route.
We've all seen plenty of "pelotons" riding around in together - the
mountain climb was something totally new (need a big enough race to
get the CHP to close the road up Palomar). However, since you do ask
for a source, I will humour you.
From:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/346646/cw-s-tour-de-france-spectator-s-guide.html
If you are lucky enough to be visiting France to watch the Tour de
France in the flesh, here are some handy hints to help you get the
most from the experience.
VANTAGE POINTS
There are plenty of different and interesting places to watch the Tour
de France and if you are planning a trip that will last several days,
it’s great to vary how and where you see the race.
• On a climb
Obviously the most dramatic place to watch the race is when they are
climbing. The harder the climb, the more stretched out the bunch is
the better the spectacle.
<snip><end>
Amit Ghosh
> Amit, let's see if we can get you back on track here. The discussion,
> prior to your derailing it, was about Cav being a big name, perhaps
> the 2nd biggest name in pro cycling at the moment. The discussion was
> not about who was the second best pro cyclist or who won the more
> difficult races.
>
> If you look at who gets the most coverage, who gets the most press,
> who is it that the typical observer recognizes as a 'winner', IOW,
> when it comes to who's the biggest name in pro cycling, winning LBL or
> a stage on Mont Ventoux or a garbage stage in the Tour of Missouri are
> pretty much equal.
dumbass,
it's not equal from a sporting perspective. riding a classic (not
milan-san remo), a mountain top finish or a TT requires a rider to
ride at or near threshold for an extended period of time - something
cavendish does at a level below the avg. protour rider.
just because the cycling press is retarded about sprint wins or who is
wearing the yellow jersey (another not very meaningful accomplishment)
doesn't mean you have to be.
by your logic liz hatch is a better cyclist than the 100 or so women
who finished in front of her everyday in the giro donne since she
generates more publicity with her blogs and twitters.
so, instead of aiming high or being good at something everyone should
do what it takes to get their 15 minutes.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> by your logic liz hatch is a better cyclist than the 100 or so women
> who finished in front of her everyday in the giro donne since she
> generates more publicity with her blogs and twitters.
<snip>
Dumbass -
From a sporting definition, no.
From a business perspective, yes.
Sponsors are looking for publicity so they can brand their product.
Anonymous wins are useless to a sponsor. Winless publicity is useful.
Scott
In your case, dumbass isn't a strong enough term.
bjwe...@gmail.com
This entire thread is retarded because people
are trying to discuss the merits of Cavendish,
sprinting versus winning LBL, how many spectators
per mile on flat stages versus mountains, and other
fact-based arguments.
That's retarded because you started the thread to
complain about Stapleton issuing puff-piece statements
about how great his team is gonna be this year.
If you want to complain about that, just write to
Jesus Fucking Christ and ask him to perform a
miracle that causes team owners and managers
in all sports to speak frankly instead of beginning
each season with meaningless blather about what
a great group of athletes they have assembled and
how they really like their chances.
Look at the NFL, there are truly craptastic teams in the
NFL every year - sometimes the same teams for years -
and every year I guarantee their management started
off by talking about how they're really looking forward
to the season. Even the Detroit Fucking Lions say that.
Complaining about it is like wishing that professional
sports were something else that didn't have bloviation,
motivational speaking, and optimistic puffery. I'm trying
to think of an example of something that doesn't have
that. Most human competition is ruled out. Certainly not
corporate reports or accounting audits. Or scientific
grant applications. Non-partisan congressional
budget analyses? Nah. Maybe Joy Division lyrics?
So let he who is without retardation cast the first stone.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Ben
Michael Press
<af6ed587-7483-4f30...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
Bicycle racing, or perhaps only this here message board,
is unique in hating the sport and participants.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
Sandy <leu...@free.fr> wrote:
So what if the commentary during flat stages is dull?
Flat stages are interesting, and full coverage would
make them so to the casual viewer. The second or third
most interesting part of a flat stage is the opening 30
km. Who tries to break away and why? Who is not allowed
to break away and why? Who is feinting, and why? Who
really is trying to get into a break? Who in the
peloton is working to influence the break? This entire
drama is not even televised. Watching the end of a flat
stage this way cannot be interesting because the
dramatic tension is not established.
--
Michael Press
Uncle Dave
No it isn't. Saying something is "common sense" is just as damaging
to your argument as saying "the crowds are definitely bigger" but
providing no evidence except yor own opinion to support it. Common
sense would say that less people are going to watch a mountain stage
because of the logistics of getting there. Which is how it actually
is. The fact that mountain tops are filled with drunken eejits
doesn't make up for the dearth of spectators elsewhere. Count 'em
sometime, you'll see I'm right.
UD
Amit Ghosh
wrote:
> Look at the NFL, there are truly craptastic teams in the
> NFL every year - sometimes the same teams for years -
> and every year I guarantee their management started
> off by talking about how they're really looking forward
> to the season. Even the Detroit Fucking Lions say that.
>
dumbass,
people who watch football and discuss football talk about who the best
players are. they don't shrug and say the person that gets the most
publicity is the one getting the job done.
cavendish is the equivalent of a field goal kicker that has a 99.999%
success rate from the 15 yard line but cannot ever make a field goal
from beyond 35 yards - even though there a many other kickers in the
league that often make field goals from 50 yards and beyond. but on
rbr cavendish would be considered the best if he made the most number
of field goals even though he would have a 0% success rate when it
came to making some of the most important and difficult field goals
that his team needed.
nobody that watches football would say that a kicker who cannot hit a
field goal from 35 yards out is better than the ones that routinely do
it because it's the number of field goals that's important and they
would take the 15 yard field goal specialist on their team. this means
that they would have to always play so that they got into 15 yard
field goal range, but if they fail to do that forget it because
cavendish will never hit a field goal from 40 or 45 yards out.
Uncle Dave
An analogy that doesn't serve your purpose because you can use it
equally well (or badly IMHO) against any specialist, e.g. mountain
climbers. If you're saying that Cavendish is unlikely to win the Tour
nobody is going to disagree with you, but you seem to be saying that
being a specialist sprinter is in some way less honourable, or less of
an achievement, than being a podium contender which is nonsense. Not
all riders have the ability to win a grand tour, very few in fact, but
this doesn't mean everyone else is rubbish or that their achievements
in their own specialisation are in any way flawed because of it.
My own opinion, not shared by many I'll readily admit, is that the
Tours have become so devalued through drugs, dominant one race teams
and individual specialisation that winning one is really not a big
deal.
UD
Fred Fredburger
Tom Brady can't kick field goals at all. He really sucks.
Amit Ghosh
> you seem to be saying that
> being a specialist sprinter is in some way less honourable, or less of
> an achievement, than being a podium contender which is nonsense.
dumbass,
that is exactly what i am saying. sitting on wheels, not attacking and
going into survival mode on climbs is for cat 5s. it is boring for the
rider and it is boring for spectators and shouldn't be encouraged at
any level.
> Not
> all riders have the ability to win a grand tour, very few in fact, but
> this doesn't mean everyone else is rubbish or that their achievements
> in their own specialisation are in any way flawed because of it.
you're right, not every rider has the ability (whether because of
genetics or conditioning) to ride at a high sustained power - those
riders are not as good.
Uncle Dave
Yeah, I saw him at Wembley in October and he was shit. All he could
do was throw the ball. He wasn't very good at that either. Out of 32
attempts only 23 were caught. I can do better than that in my
backyard.
UD
bjwe...@gmail.com
> On Dec 27, 3:13 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Look at the NFL, there are truly craptastic teams in the
> > NFL every year - sometimes the same teams for years -
> > and every year I guarantee their management started
> > off by talking about how they're really looking forward
> > to the season. Even the Detroit Fucking Lions say that.
>
> dumbass,
>
> people who watch football and discuss football talk about who the best
> players are. they don't shrug and say the person that gets the most
> publicity is the one getting the job done.
Jesus Fucking Christ says even he can't help you
fix all the problems with that analogy.
NFL players play in front of paying ticket holders
and wear numbers on their chests, and have TV
revenue sharing.
Cavendish works for a team whose budget is paid
by an advertiser and he has a logo on his chest.
His responsibility is to cross the line, throw his arms
in the air, and get that logo into the picture and into
the newspaper or on the web. Nobody expects
him to win stages from 30 km out, just like nobody
expected Jerome Bettis (for example) to kick field goals
or make 70 yard punt returns (or even 70 yard touchdown
runs from scrimmage).
Metric football players do have logos on their chests,
but otherwise the economics of their sport are more
like the NFL than like cycling.
By the way, field goal kickers don't get much respect
from fans or teammates even when they are good, only
hate when they fuck up, which is another reason your
analogy is busticated.
To be clear:
I don't think you are a retard for arguing that Cavendish
is not the best cyclist (he's clearly not), I think you are a
retard for criticizing Stapleton for saying Cavendish is
the best cyclist. That's Stapleton's job. If you don't like
hype, watch something other than professional sports.
Take up chess, it worked for Lafferty.
With best retards,
Ben
Uncle Dave
> On Dec 27, 12:21 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > you seem to be saying that
> > being a specialist sprinter is in some way less honourable, or less of
> > an achievement, than being a podium contender which is nonsense.
>
> dumbass,
>
> that is exactly what i am saying. sitting on wheels, not attacking and
> going into survival mode on climbs is for cat 5s. it is boring for the
> rider and it is boring for spectators and shouldn't be encouraged at
> any level.
Again, you're failing to recognise that exactly the same argument can
be applied to those riders who are in survival mode for the flat
stages. It is equally boring for the spectator that they never show
up till the climbing starts. It doesn't matter how long or loudly you
argue, your contention that sprinters are in some way inferior to
mountain climbers remains nonsensical and purely your preference.
UD
Amit Ghosh
>
> Again, you're failing to recognise that exactly the same argument can
> be applied to those riders who are in survival mode for the flat
> stages.
dumbass,
the flat stages of tours are a parade for the most part, but races
like het volk or paris-roubaix are relatively flat and they still
involve sustained effort to win or place well.
in fact when cavendish isn't around (either not in the race or out of
contention), like at eroica, gent-wevelgem and a couple giro stages;
columbia was an exciting team to watch since they have strong riders
that can attack and win solo or from a small group.
> It is equally boring for the spectator that they never show
> up till the climbing starts.
you were just arguing that the climbs are boring because "the same
riders" are at the front on climbs - but i assumed that was just shit
talk anyways.
Donald Munro
> If you don't like hype, watch something other than professional sports.
> Take up chess, it worked for Lafferty.
I thought he took up chess cos he liked that Polgar chicks breasts
(could they be better than Liz's).
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Again, you're failing to recognise that exactly the same argument can
> > be applied to those riders who are in survival mode for the flat
> > stages.
>
> dumbass,
>
> the flat stages of tours are a parade for the most part, but races
> like het volk or paris-roubaix are relatively flat and they still
> involve sustained effort to win or place well.
<snip>
Dumbass -
Bad examples. Those races have cobbles.
The only "classic" that regularly (but not always) ends in a bunch
sprint is Paris-Tours.
Uncle Dave
Just been watching him against Jacksonville and he hasn't improved.
Still throwing it all the time. Hasn't kicked it once. Hopeless.
Absolutely hopeless.
UD
Uncle Dave
> On Dec 27, 1:20 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Again, you're failing to recognise that exactly the same argument can
> > be applied to those riders who are in survival mode for the flat
> > stages.
>
> dumbass,
>
> the flat stages of tours are a parade for the most part
So are the mountain stages for the vast majority of those competing,
one might even suggest more so than the flat stages as there are more
teams trying to get their sprinter to the line first than there are
trying to get their man over the top first. The thing is Ghoshy old
chap, that if you insisit on talking bollocks you can never win a
rational debate. You're a mountain fanboy, that's fine - grab your
flag and run alongside your heroes whoopin' and a hollerin' and leave
the rest of us to appreciate the real racing...
UD
bar
> On Dec 26, 12:09 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > What gets me is that people slag off sprinters for not being able to
> > climb and so on but seem perfectly happy with the fact that most Tour
> > contenders only enter other races as training for "the main event".
>
> dumbass,
>
> are you the guy with 100 $20 bikes ? cycling isn't baseball, the
> quality of the win matters. there is only one RVV or LBL or tour a
> year, but there are lots of meaningless flat stages.
>
> break i they would watch cat 4 racing.
fixed. I've seen more breaks in cat 5 races (where fitness and skill
levels are quite varied) than in the 4s (where folks are just strong
enough to ride around together all day, chasing down everything,
including teammates).
bar
>
> > are you the guy with 100 $20 bikes ?
>
> bikes you own determines your bicycle racing knowledge.
>
> You must be an engineer too.
Check him for junk miles. That's the leading indicator nowadays ...
A. Dumas
Michael Press
<420bb2fb-4319-45eb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Uncle Dave <david...@t-online.de> wrote:
I agree. Count the house at any stage finish line. Huge. I remember in
particular Flecha winning on a lone exploit rolling into Toulouse;
and the route lined forever. (stage 11, 2003 TdF)
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
<29692b81-d1fb-46b9...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
> in fact when cavendish isn't around (either not in the race or out of
> contention), like at eroica, gent-wevelgem and a couple giro stages;
> columbia was an exciting team to watch since they have strong riders
> that can attack and win solo or from a small group.
With Cavendish they were great fun to watch. They were
awesome sometimes. They were well directed. They were
smart. They had a clear achievable goal, and
accomplished it almost every time. They were powerful,
and other teams had to pay attention to them.
--
Michael Press
Donald Munro
> fixed. I've seen more breaks in cat 5 races (where fitness and skill
> levels are quite varied) than in the 4s (where folks are just strong
> enough to ride around together all day, chasing down everything,
> including teammates).
They should pay royalties then since FMs have a patent on chasing down
teamates.
Scott
Dumbass
First, your analogy re: field goal kickers is meaningless unless we
all agree that Cav is a short-range kicker, and I'm not sure we do.
Second, no one but YOU has said anything about the guy getting the
most press being the guy that's getting the job done, to use your
phrase. The point from the very beginning is that Cav is a big NAME,
perhaps the second biggest name in the sport right now, at least
according to his team's owner. Nobody said he's the best, or even
second best, pro racer.
Please tell me you understand this very simple point.
Scott
> On Dec 27, 12:21 pm, Uncle Dave <davidco...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> > you seem to be saying that
> > being a specialist sprinter is in some way less honourable, or less of
> > an achievement, than being a podium contender which is nonsense.
>
> dumbass,
>
> that is exactly what i am saying. sitting on wheels, not attacking and
> going into survival mode on climbs is for cat 5s. it is boring for the
> rider and it is boring for spectators and shouldn't be encouraged at
> any level.
No, dumbass, this is what a rider who's paid to win sprints does.
There are other riders paid to attack, or paid to chase, or just paid
to fetch bottles for the guy who's sitting in. It's all part of the
sport.
All any team that doesn't want to sprint against Cav has to do is to
split the field or get a breakaway established, then drive it like
hell so that Cav's team can't bring it back. Sometimes the suspense
of the chase is the most exciting part of the race, or perhaps its
watching his train line up, with other teams trying to put together
their train, too, and perhaps a solo sprinter fighting for wheels, and
let the best man win. The last two or three km of those sorts of
races are sometimes the most exciting.
Amit Ghosh
<kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Bad examples. Those races have cobbles.
>
> The only "classic" that regularly (but not always) ends in a bunch
> sprint is Paris-Tours.
>
dumbass,
not all those races have cobbles. races like het volk and GP E3 don't
have significant cobbles, but winds and narrow roads mean that riders
have to work to get in the front group and often one has to bridge to
the front groups or ride in small breaks.
but even when those challenges aren't present the strongest riders can
string it out until the weaker riders get gapped. this happen in pro/
1/2 crits, but less often in the tour or something - because even the
lousiest bbox domestique can probably sit in on cancellara's wheel.
Ryan Cousineau
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
This is a stupid argument and you are stupid for making it.
a) rbr hates everything
ii) the Vancouver Canucks newsgroup hates the Canucks (and especially
the coach, and especially half the players, and especially the other
half of the players), their opponents, the NHL Board of Governors, Gary
Bettmann, at least one now-retired Canuck who is in the Hockey Hall of
Fame, large chunks of the fanbase, statistics, the salary cap, and I
think at least one regular may be holding out for the reinstatement of
the Rover position. As far as I can tell, this is roughly typical of
most reasonably passionate fan agglomerations. Except Philly, where the
fans are expected to hate everyone and everything including themselves.
I think they'd boo Rocky.
3. Unlike most other sports, the theoretically monolithic sport of road
cycling is contested in wildly different events that favor completely
different types of competitors. NASCAR and some other motorsports
approach this sort of diversity, but I can think of no other sports
where the competitors can be divided up into five or six different major
specializations, each trying to win a different, substantial class of
events, and with several kinds of specialists overlapping in some events.
Just as examples: a well-balanced Road Worlds course could conceivably
pit Cancellara against Boonen against Cavendish*, each attempting a
different winning tactic at a different point in the race. And of course
Cancellara is also a major threat at TT Worlds, but Boonen and Cav
aren't. On the other hand, only Cav is a Green Jersey danger man, and
none of those three are a serious threat for Yellow, and only Boonen is
really credible as a Spring Classics racer, et cetera.
This is unlike football or baseball, where venue effects are relatively
minor, where all teams are expected to be ready to win at all "events,"
and while individual team members are specialized in their positions,
there aren't really events that predictably favor one type of special
position over another (though weather can mess this theory up a little
in football).
*it is, on the other hand, ridiculous to think a rider like Evans could
win Road Worlds. He has not the talent set or the inclination to do so.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Donald Munro
> ii) the Vancouver Canucks newsgroup hates the Canucks (and especially
> the coach, and especially half the players, and especially the other
> half of the players), their opponents, the NHL Board of Governors, Gary
> Bettmann, at least one now-retired Canuck who is in the Hockey Hall of
> Fame, large chunks of the fanbase, statistics, the salary cap, and I
> think at least one regular may be holding out for the reinstatement of
> the Rover position. As far as I can tell, this is roughly typical of
> most reasonably passionate fan agglomerations. Except Philly, where the
> fans are expected to hate everyone and everything including themselves.
> I think they'd boo Rocky.
<http://vancouversux.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.phillysucks.com/>
Scott
>
> 3. Unlike most other sports, the theoretically monolithic sport of road
> cycling is contested in wildly different events that favor completely
> different types of competitors. NASCAR and some other motorsports
> approach this sort of diversity, but I can think of no other sports
> where the competitors can be divided up into five or six different major
> specializations, each trying to win a different, substantial class of
> events, and with several kinds of specialists overlapping in some events.
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
This is one of the truly beautiful things about bicycle racing, that
you don't have to meet the perfect specs to go against those who do,
and perhaps you can still prevail.
Amit Ghosh
>
> Just as examples: a well-balanced Road Worlds course could conceivably
> pit Cancellara against Boonen against Cavendish*, each attempting a
> different winning tactic at a different point in the race. And of course
> Cancellara is also a major threat at TT Worlds, but Boonen and Cav
> aren't. On the other hand, only Cav is a Green Jersey danger man, and
> none of those three are a serious threat for Yellow, and only Boonen is
> really credible as a Spring Classics racer, et cetera.
>
dumbass,
cancellara won paris-roubaix, so he is a credible spring classics
racer. he also won milan san remo and won the tour of switzerland this
year which has actual mountain stages.
he can win on terrain where cavendish is no where to be seen and he
can win the same kinds of races/stages that cavendish wins, albeit not
as often.
cavendish, like a lot of sprinters is limited not only by terrain, but
also by race situation, he needs the shelter of the big pack to make
it to the finish in the front group. he will probably become bored of
this and try to expand his talents like other sprint specialists did
(like moose did, though he had the help of wasps and sliced loafs).
Michael Press
<rcousine-A31277.02490728122009@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <rubrum-96FBD6....@news.albasani.net>,
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <af6ed587-7483-4f30...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 26, 11:34Â am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 26, 9:16Â am, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 26, 1:54Â am, Scott <hendricks_sc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Who won the most races last year?
> > > >
> > > > > dumbass,
> > > >
> > > > > you sound like a "crit specialist".
> > > >
> > > > And you sound like a guy who doesn't understand the marketing aspect
> > > > of the sport of pro cycling.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, tell me again, who won the most races this year?
> > >
> > > dumbass,
> > >
> > > cavendish - not being able to climb or ride in any breaks ... sounds
> > > like a master fattie hero.
> >
> > Bicycle racing, or perhaps only this here message board,
> > is unique in hating the sport and participants.
>
> This is a stupid argument and you are stupid for making it.
oh
> a) rbr hates everything
>
> ii) the Vancouver Canucks newsgroup hates the Canucks (and especially
> the coach, and especially half the players, and especially the other
> half of the players), their opponents, the NHL Board of Governors, Gary
> Bettmann, at least one now-retired Canuck who is in the Hockey Hall of
> Fame, large chunks of the fanbase, statistics, the salary cap, and I
> think at least one regular may be holding out for the reinstatement of
> the Rover position.
He is an autistic, cousin-marrying, slope-faced, mouth-breathing
sheep stealer. Everybody knows that the ice surfaces are not large
enough to accommodate a rover. Drooling imbecile.
--
Michael Press
Ryan Cousineau
<b747f585-655b-4887...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
I had some inkling that I was barking up the wrong tree when I named
Cancellara as a classics no-hoper, but I was hoping that the obvious
"Evans could never win Worlds" jest would allow me enough cover to claim
that the Cancellara references were also a joke.
But yes, my specific example is a bit cocked up. No wait, it's a joke!
Which you didn't get! Dumbass tag bounces off me and sticks to you!
Amit Ghosh
wrote:
>
> By the way, field goal kickers don't get much respect
> from fans or teammates even when they are good, only
> hate when they fuck up, which is another reason your
> analogy is busticated.
>
dumbass,
that is my point. in football a guy that just made 15 yard field goals
or led the league in touchdown conversions wouldn't be a big deal. no
one would buy the logic that the kicker is the best player on the team
because he scored the most points, but the equivalent of that in
cycling is an idol because "he has the most wins".
this is just another example of the retarded logic that pervades in
this sport.
Uncle Dave
I do wish you'd stop using the word "logic", because logic cannot be
applied where there is no basis for doing so. It is not possible to
make valid conclusions from the premises being bandied about here,
ergo, your use of the word logic is illogical. Please stop it before
one of us goes blind.
UD
Scott
You're wrong on this point, in that regardless of how the points are
scored, it is the total points that matter. You can not put any more
emphasis on the first points scored vs the last points scored. It's
the total that matter.
However, in cycling the equivalent to most points scored IS the first
guy over the line. All the work that goes into getting the sprinter
to the line and in position to win the race is important, much like
each point scored in a football game adds to the total. But, the
critical aspect when it's all over is the total outcome. In cycling,
the total outcome is represented by the sprinter himself. Not saying
it's right, but that's how it is.
bjwe...@gmail.com
Dumbass,
They call analogies that because they aren't literal
correspondences. The FG kicker gets no respect because
he isn't a big guy who runs into people, he only plays a few
plays per game, and he tackles like a gurl. He's a necessary
embarrassment.
Sprinters on sprinters' teams in cycling don't have these
problems. For some reason, possibly having to do with
money, the other team riders regard them as a legitimately
protected rider and are happy when the sprinter wins, like so:
http://www.cyclelicio.us/uploaded_images/9665.14242.f.jpg-788347.jpg
You are free to argue that Jesus Fucking Christ should
come down and rearrange cycling so that it doesn't
have this emphasis on getting wins, but in the meantime
arguing that Stapleton and Cavendish should humbly
accept the world as you want it to be, rather than the
world as it is, is retarded.
Ben
William Asher
> Sprinters on sprinters' teams in cycling don't have these
> problems. For some reason, possibly having to do with
> money, the other team riders regard them as a legitimately
> protected rider and are happy when the sprinter wins, like so:
>
> http://www.cyclelicio.us/uploaded_images/9665.14242.f.jpg-788347.jpg
>
There are those who argue that Zabel is not celebrating the win. Of
course, I would not be one of them since that would debase both the sport
and Zabel, and the only person who doesn't like Zabel is Schwartz
(ironically, Schwartz is also the only person who won't argue that Zabel is
not celebrating the win).
--
Bill Asher
--D-y
In order to do that kick that gets Cavendish over the line first
(talking stage race sprint wins), all else is sacrificed.
I'm comfortable with that <g>.
It's like winning from a small break, or riding the ITT, the TTT,
going for mountain top finishes-- one kind of "event" so to speak in a
big show that has several different arenas for "specialists"-- and
smart/aggressive/lucky bastard riders of many stripes.
Yes, Cavendish was reported to be "hanging on for dear life" on the
last climbs in MSR, but like all good bike racers, "found his way to
(teammate) Hincapie's wheel", and took care of bizness in the sprint.
Big win, lotta cred for that, especially for a young guy, he showed he
has some grit with that ride.
Cavendish has star power that Hushovd, as able a bike racer as he is,
and likeable as he seems to be, doesn't. Just sayin', not a knock on
Thor. C'est la vie! --D-y
Scott
>
> Cavendish has star power that Hushovd, as able a bike racer as he is,
> and likeable as he seems to be, doesn't. Just sayin', not a knock on
> Thor. C'est la vie! --D-y
One thing that's necessary for a sprinter to really establish star
power, as you put it, is to win a LOT. Not once in awhile (ala
Hushovd) but to win so often and so dominantly that you are the guy
that everyone keys off (ala Cavendish). Of course, Hushovd's cred
went waaay up with lots of fans when he went on that long breakaway
hunting sprint points that day in the Tour. He risked an awful lot
that day.
Howard Kveck
Scott <hendric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's the "winning a lot" that makes Cavendish exactly what Stapleton said: the
second biggest name in cycling. Here's why: The general public knows the Tour is the
biggest race and whoever wins it is going to be known. But a guy who gets his name in
the paper and on the news by winning over and over starts to get name recognition in
the public. It's also why Armstrong was the biggest name in cycling even when he was
retired. I'm just a bit surprised that Amit is basing his argument on the suggestion
that Stapleton is claiming that Cav is "the second best cyclist," as that's plainly
not what he said.
Oh, I agree with you on Thor.
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Ryan Cousineau
<3f218c56-af60-414f...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:41�am, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 1:20�pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > By the way, field goal kickers don't get much respect
> > > from fans or teammates even when they are good, only
> > > hate when they fuck up, which is another reason your
> > > analogy is busticated.
> >
> > dumbass,
> >
> > that is my point. in football a guy that just made 15 yard field goals
> > or led the league in touchdown conversions wouldn't be a big deal. no
> > one would buy the logic that the kicker is the best player on the team
> > because he scored the most points, but the equivalent of that in
> > cycling is an idol because "he has the most wins".
> >
> > this is just another example of the retarded logic that pervades in
> > this sport.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> They call analogies that because they aren't literal
> correspondences. The FG kicker gets no respect because
> he isn't a big guy who runs into people, he only plays a few
> plays per game, and he tackles like a gurl. He's a necessary
> embarrassment.
Domoor,
How you managed to write all that without saying "irreplaceability" (or
a synonym) is quite remarkable.
FG kickers get no respect because there's about 30 or 40 similarly
capable kickers in the world, their talents overlap a lot, and there's
not a lot to choose from among them.
More to the point, FG kickers just do the clean-up work after the glory
boys and the offensive line have done the hard job of getting into field
goal range.
A bad (but NFL-employed) kicker probably doesn't consistently make kicks
exceeding 45 yards, or misses a few PATs per year. Maybe you can extract
a few bits of goodness or badness from this mess:
http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-44726
3-o=2&statisticPositionCategory=FIELD_GOAL_KICKER&tabSeq=1&d-447263-p=1&d
-447263-s=KICKING_FG_PCT_50&d-447263-n=1
I suppose I should have just said "Ben's right" and ended this post, but
that seemed like less fun.
> Sprinters on sprinters' teams in cycling don't have these
> problems. For some reason, possibly having to do with
> money, the other team riders regard them as a legitimately
> protected rider and are happy when the sprinter wins, like so:
>
> http://www.cyclelicio.us/uploaded_images/9665.14242.f.jpg-788347.jpg
By contrast, there are very few sprinters who can win ProTour races; far
fewer than one per team, and it's quite clear that in any year there are
few or (sometimes) even one outlier who can gobble up the lion's share
of lions and laurels.
The team with the third-best sprinter in cycling doesn't just win fewer
races than Team Cavendish, they win almost nothing.
(Nobody needs to read this; the post is over, but I thought I'd add a
bit of parenthetical obviousness: a good lead-out man is somewhat more
common, and can be either the third-best sprinter or any one of a set of
capable water-carriers. The rest of the train is also a lot easier to
dig out of a peloton; they're not so much a collection of extraordinary
(by pro cycling standards) talents as they are a collection of riders
especially committed to positioning one racer.)
Amit Ghosh
> By contrast, there are very few sprinters who can win ProTour races; far
> fewer than one per team, and it's quite clear that in any year there are
> few or (sometimes) even one outlier who can gobble up the lion's share
> of lions and laurels.
>
> The team with the third-best sprinter in cycling doesn't just win fewer
> races than Team Cavendish, they win almost nothing.
>
dumbass,
a road race is anywhere from say 70km (or less for amateurs) to almost
300 kms long, and if the entire peloton arrives at the finish together
that is a degenerate situation.
suppose you have a tie in hockey after regulation time and the winner
is decided by penalty shots - it is an ad hoc way to break a tie, but
it is an ultimately unsatisfying conclusion since penalty shots is a
different activity.
if you went to a hockey game and the players just skated around lazily
passing the puck back and forth until they could decide the game in
penalty shots - you would be bored and angry, the coaches would be
angry and the players would be bored.
so, a bunch sprint is just a way to decide a winner when you have a
degenerate situation, but it should not actually be considered a
desirable outcome by anyone in the sport.
Scott
Okay, we get it, YOU don't like races that end in sprints. Fine.
Doesn't change a damn thing about the fact that the public identifies
with winners, and when it comes to winning, Cav does it a lot and he
does it with authority. The public likes that. Face it, he's a big
name. And, he couldn't ride a breakaway group off his wheel if his
life depended on it. We all agree on that.
z
Furthermore, there isn't a single person in here who doesn't wish they
could sprint like Cav.
A. Dumas
> Furthermore, there isn't a single person in here who doesn't wish they
> could sprint like Cav.
I wish I could ride hills like Cav.
Tom Kunich
news:4b3bff99$0$22913$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Not many people here seem to realize just how good those pros are. So good
that Cav could win most top notch amateur climbing races.
heather
>
> if you went to a hockey game and the players just skated around lazily
> passing the puck back and forth until they could decide the game in
> penalty shots - you would be bored and angry, the coaches would be
> angry and the players would be bored.
>
> so, a bunch sprint is just a way to decide a winner when you have a
> degenerate situation, but it should not actually be considered a
> desirable outcome by anyone in the sport.
Before I write anything at all, I should say that if a stage race like
the tdf decided to eliminate all flat stages, I would still watch, but
if they eliminated all mountain stages (and kept the flat ones) I would
not be interested any more.
Some bunch sprints occur just like your lazy-skating hockey analogy,
(like a boring throwaway piano stage near the end of the tdf) but not
all of them are like that. Racers do attack and try to stay away,
sometimes successfully, but sometimes they get caught and the race ends
in a bunch sprint. I wouldn't consider that situation degenerate myself,
and maybe it's not what you are talking about in your post, (and of
course it's just my personal opinion).
It is hard to stay away on a flat course from a large, determined, and
chasing peloton (I realize you are aware of this obvious thing, but I'm
sayin' it to explain my thought process). And as I'm more easily amused
than you, I find the fight on long flat races between the peloton and
the breakaways occasionally interesting, along with the little politics
of just who should be doing the work in either group, and if it all
comes back together in the end, then the sprint finish is very exciting
(to me) to watch. I can see how you might get tired of it (you seem
more "mental" than I am in how you watch sports. I watch football to see
the quarterback throw an amazingly long pass to a receiver in the
endzone. You watching the same thing are probably pondering why they
didn't blitz, or use superduper double coverage, etc, while I am jumping
around yelling "whoohoooooooooooo", making it hard for you to think)
If all this is already an obvious given, sorrysorry, :(
h
dave a
I feel the exact same way and this is why we all love h.
- dave a
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
> Amit Ghosh wrote:
>
> > if you went to a hockey game and the players just skated around lazily
> > passing the puck back and forth until they could decide the game in
> > penalty shots - you would be bored and angry, the coaches would be
> > angry and the players would be bored.
>
> > so, a bunch sprint is just a way to decide a winner when you have a
> > degenerate situation, but it should not actually be considered a
> > desirable outcome by anyone in the sport.
>
> Before I write anything at all, I should say that if a stage race like
> the tdf decided to eliminate all flat stages, I would still watch, but
> if they eliminated all mountain stages (and kept the flat ones) I would
> not be interested any more.
<snip>
Dumbass -
If a three week tour were all mountain stages, it wouldn't be fair to
the all but a handful of teams who don't have the best climbers.
There's only be about a half dozen teams whom would be able to do
anything. The other teams would probably boycott if they introduced
such a course and justifiably so.
One of the interesting things about bike racing is that, unlike nearly
all other endurace sports, it encompasses a very wide range of skills.
There might be 8 or 10 types of specialists one could categorize.
Narrowing it down to a bunch of moutain goats for a three week tour
would be a grave disservice to what makes cycling special.
It'll never happen because the three week tour organizers aren't as
stupid as you and Kunich.
Happy New Year!
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Amit Ghosh
> Some bunch sprints occur just like your lazy-skating hockey analogy,
> (like a boring throwaway piano stage near the end of the tdf) but not
> all of them are like that. Racers do attack and try to stay away,
> sometimes successfully, but sometimes they get caught and the race ends
> in a bunch sprint. I wouldn't consider that situation degenerate myself,
> and maybe it's not what you are talking about in your post, (and of
> course it's just my personal opinion).
dumbass,
i used the term degernate because that is what it is called in physics
when you have a bunch of different states all having the same energy.
i do think that the set up for the sprint and the sprint itself is fun
to watch, but when the entire pack comes into the finale together
after say 180 kms of racing - no matter what transpired during the
race (breakaways, chase backs, splits, whatever) i think, well what
was the point of all that? we are right back where we started. so the
result of a 3, 4 or 6 hour race is decided only by what happens in the
final 20 seconds to maybe 2 minutes - which is somehow frustrating -
like that whole season of Dallas that was a "dream".
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Those breaks getting caught in the last kilo aren't gonna happen as
often when they don't have the radios this year. Which is good.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
bjwe...@gmail.com
Dumbass,
I don't think the degenerate state as in physics
is a great analogy. The reason is that actual
degenerate states are really identical (in energy level)
and usually derive from a symmetry. If you change
the conditions so the symmetry is broken, even
slightly, then the states are no longer degenerate
in energy. An example of this is Zeeman splitting of
the energy levels of an atom by a magnetic field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect
Another example is the manipulation of conduction
bands in semiconductors by doping (Heh heh,
Beavis, he said "doping").
Why is the degenerate/symmetric situation a bad
analogy for sprinting? Well, it's not degenerate.
A whole bunch of guys are there at the same time,
but there's only a few who have a respectable
chance of winning, and most seasons there is one
who is just that tiny bit better than all the others and
predictably wins a lot of races. Zabel, Cipollini,
Mackie Wen, Petacchi, last year it was Cavendish ...
If it was more random Zabel wouldn't have transitioned
so sharply from reliable winner to Eternal Second.
To go back to your analogy about field goal kickers,
being the second best FG kicker in the NFL is a fine
thing, but being the second best sprinter at the TdF
makes you the butt of rbr jokes.
Sure it is just the last 10 seconds of the race, but
there is also some level of talent involved in staying
fresh over long stages - if you put a US crit monkey
in a flat TdF stage, he isn't going to be duking out
at the finish.
Ben
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<amit....@gmail.com> wrote:
>so, a bunch sprint is just a way to decide a winner when you have a
>degenerate situation, but it should not actually be considered a
>desirable outcome by anyone in the sport.
Sometimes. And sometimes it comes after several teams have duked it
out in attacks and counterattacks that have brought everyone back
together. Your distaste for sprinters ignores that this often happens
and the team that arrives at that finish without a sprinter, all other
dramatics that may have happened before, is a team that fired all of
its ammo and has nothing left to work with. A very good argument can
be made that two or three teams with superb sprinters or one over
powering sprint-based team can force more dramatics from the other
teams in the race and enliven a race. If that doesn't happen in a pro
race, its because the race or stage is inconsequential, the course was
poorly chosen, or you didn't pay attention to what happened before the
finish.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
heather
> On Dec 30, 6:37 pm, heather <cle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Amit Ghosh wrote:
>>
>>> if you went to a hockey game and the players just skated around lazily
>>> passing the puck back and forth until they could decide the game in
>>> penalty shots - you would be bored and angry, the coaches would be
>>> angry and the players would be bored.
>>> so, a bunch sprint is just a way to decide a winner when you have a
>>> degenerate situation, but it should not actually be considered a
>>> desirable outcome by anyone in the sport.
>> Before I write anything at all, I should say that if a stage race like
>> the tdf decided to eliminate all flat stages, I would still watch, but
>> if they eliminated all mountain stages (and kept the flat ones) I would
>> not be interested any more.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> If a three week tour were all mountain stages, it wouldn't be fair to
> the all but a handful of teams who don't have the best climbers.
>
> There's only be about a half dozen teams whom would be able to do
> anything. The other teams would probably boycott if they introduced
> such a course and justifiably so.
DingleDongle,
Never fear, I don't actually want all mountain stages. I just wouldn't
be interested in a three week tour with no mountain stages. I think I
would still like one without any flat, mostly "non-selective" stages.
It's mainly a mental thing to figure out how I feel about the subject.
> One of the interesting things about bike racing is that, unlike nearly
> all other endurace sports, it encompasses a very wide range of skills.
> There might be 8 or 10 types of specialists one could categorize.
> Narrowing it down to a bunch of moutain goats for a three week tour
> would be a grave disservice to what makes cycling special.
>
> It'll never happen because the three week tour organizers aren't as
> stupid as you and Kunich.
When I am in charge of organizing the tour, it's going to be 21 straight
days of 40k time trials. Over the same course every day. Finally we will
really know who the best best bestest cyclist is!!!!!!!!!!!!
h
heather
>
> I feel the exact same way and this is why we all love h.
>
> - dave a
I almost always regret the posts I make ("what I should have said was
nothing..") It's a self-hatred kinda thing. So you're nice to write
something nice (in rbr!)
heather
Uncle Dave
You must have loved the Indurain years then. Everyone knew months
beforehand who was going to win. After a couple of years, the
Armstrong era was like that too. Is there a name for this condition
you have that means you need to be excited all the time? Have you
considered letting your brain do the work and appreciating the nuances
of a flat stage (there is always a lot more happening on a flat stage
than in the mountains) instead of jumping up and down waving your flag
at the TV as a handful of riders fight out the mountain top finish and
the rest enjoy the scenery half an hour behind?
UD
heather
> dumbass,
>
> i used the term degernate because that is what it is called in physics
> when you have a bunch of different states all having the same energy.
> i do think that the set up for the sprint and the sprint itself is fun
> to watch, but when the entire pack comes into the finale together
> after say 180 kms of racing - no matter what transpired during the
> race (breakaways, chase backs, splits, whatever) i think, well what
> was the point of all that? we are right back where we started. so the
> result of a 3, 4 or 6 hour race is decided only by what happens in the
> final 20 seconds to maybe 2 minutes - which is somehow frustrating -
> like that whole season of Dallas that was a "dream".
It doesn't frustrate me, but I don't think you're insanely weird for
feeling that way. And if Paris Roubaix came down to a huge bunch sprint,
even I would be wondering wtf?? (I know it's not really going to happen...)
h
heather
>
> all other endurace sports, it encompasses a very wide range of skills.
> There might be 8 or 10 types of specialists one could categorize.
My last post to you was mainly smartass in tone, and I realized in the
shower that I should have added a sincere bit that I agree with you
here. (I also agree that I am stupid, but not in the way you think I am..)
:)
late-to-work-heather
Donald Munro
> You must have loved the Indurain years then. Everyone knew months
> beforehand who was going to win. After a couple of years, the
> Armstrong era was like that too.
Like the nineties when everyone knew beforehand either ARSEnal or
Manchester United were going to win the league ?
Donald Munro
> (I also agree that I am stupid, but not in the way you think I am..)
> :)
Dumbass,
We're all dumbasses here and you can be our goddess but only if you look
like this:
<http://www.edu.pe.ca/rural/class_webs/art/images/venus%20of%20willendorf.jpg>
(Apparently prehistoric people had the same taste in breasts as modern
homo rbr)
Tom Kunich
news:7q3nef...@mid.individual.net...
Also it is VERY unusual. Most of the posters here think that whipping others
is fun.
Tom Kunich
news:4a19187f-a433-4aad...@37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> i used the term degernate because that is what it is called in physics
> when you have a bunch of different states all having the same energy.
And here I supposed that you used the term "degernate" because you couldn't
spell degenerate. Even though you obviously are.
Tom Kunich
news:2fcd467f-ac29-45ba...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> You must have loved the Indurain years then. Everyone knew months
> beforehand who was going to win. After a couple of years, the
> Armstrong era was like that too. Is there a name for this condition
> you have that means you need to be excited all the time? Have you
> considered letting your brain do the work and appreciating the nuances
> of a flat stage (there is always a lot more happening on a flat stage
> than in the mountains) instead of jumping up and down waving your flag
> at the TV as a handful of riders fight out the mountain top finish and
> the rest enjoy the scenery half an hour behind?
According to these people there's nothing at all going on during the flat
stages. They're just filler.
Too bad they can't actually watch them.
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
the classics are the most exciting races, not the grand tours. the
reason is in a GT there are a few critical moments which will
determine GC and the rest of the time is spent riding to defend that
lead. the indurain wins were boring for this reason since he would
build up a lead in the TT and defend in the mountains. in a classic
everything that happens in the last 60 km or so is important to the
outcome and the riders that have the best combination of tactics,
teamwork and conditioning will make the selections.
a classic finale might involve a half a dozen riders. this doesn't
make it less exciting than a bunch finish, it is actually more
exciting, because you know those riders deserve to be there because of
their fitness or tactical sense and you will get to see them duke it
out. when pozzatto won het volk it wasn't because he was the strongest
guy in the break, but because he was the most patient.
the excitement level is commensurate with what is at stake - sure
there are lots of "little things" happening in flat stages, but it's
not the terrain that makes flat stages mostly irrelevant - it's how
they're raced. if the riders were motivated to do it, a flat stage
could be as selective as a mountain stage.
in fact the most interesting races are ones that have a significant
proportion of flat roads and teamwork is important.