Perez vs. Armstrong
Brad Anders
climbing style vs. the current style of Armstrong. Here's Perez on 6%
grades in his big ring, out of the saddle and going to beat hell, and
Armstrong has gone the other way, in the saddle in a little gear,
spinning away. The coverage of the Amstel Gold last night also showed
Armstrong using noticeably smaller gears than Dekker, even on the flat.
And with what looked like a near-locked, pointed-toe foot position.
Armstrong's style looks like the riders of the '60's and '70's, except
he's doing it with the gears of today.
Simoni made it clear that you didn't need to be on the big ring to be up
front, as he caught Perez from behind. And Frigo also looked to be using
a big gear.
What was the deal with Gotti's pedaling on the open downhill sections?
They looked steep enough that a tuck position would have been faster.
Brad Anders
Jeff Jones
> What was the deal with Gotti's pedaling on the open downhill sections?
> They looked steep enough that a tuck position would have been faster.
>
Jeff
Ady
cadence, plus he isn't a natural climber like the Mexican Midget he must
weigh all of 100lbs, where Lance is probably nearer to 150lbs, I don't know
exactly what his weight is but he probably has a power output advantage but
I wouldn't know how the two riders power to weight ratio compares which is
really what comes into play when going uphill, I sometimes think that
Lance's cimbing ability is more to do with mind over matter and pain
thresholds etc..
Ady
Brad Anders <nos...@mycompany.com> wrote in message
news:9f92dv$2...@news.or.intel.com...
Bob VonMoss
> Lance is probably nearer to 150lbs
Maybe you didn't notice, but letour.fr was reporting last year that Lance
weighed more than Jan Ullrich and they're about the same height. Actually
Ullrich is taller and weighed less, at least according to what letour.fr was
reporting.
Lance Armstrong: height 1.77m (5' 10"), weight: 75.0 kg (165 lbs.)
Jan Ullrich: height 1.83 m (6'), weight: 73.0 kg (161 lbs.)
I can't find any weight references on the Giro site. Ullrich doesn't look
heavier this year.
an...@anon.com
<je...@cyclingnews.com> wrote:
He caught the group he was chasing and they were not freewheeling
either.
Ady
when warming up on his turbo before the prologue, but now he has those
sunken cheeks and looks as fit as a fiddle, mission accomplished I'd say. I
think he might show today a bit, I'll bet on third for him in the TT, he
probably doesn't want to show his form too much as with Kev Livingstone.
Ady
Bob VonMoss <bvon...@eurosport.com> wrote in message
news:3B191990...@eurosport.com...
OnThaBeach
One of the points made during Lance's 1999 TdF campaign was that his coaches
had told him to spin up the climbs and stay seated instead of standing up and
grinding. Seems to have worked.
The only number that counts is your general classification number, not your
gear ratio, cadance etc...
Bryan
Randall Shimizu
> At the beginning of the race Ullrich looked a bit thick round the middle
> when warming up on his turbo before the prologue, but now he has those
> sunken cheeks and looks as fit as a fiddle, mission accomplished I'd say. I
> think he might show today a bit, I'll bet on third for him in the TT, he
> probably doesn't want to show his form too much as with Kev Livingstone.
>
> Ady
>
as a great rider. I for one have had great hopes for Ullrich, but his
performance this season has been subpar at best. While I understand
his reason for not contending the Giro being 10 min plus is unworthy
of former TDF winner. If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
Ullrichs really needs to either pull off a major stage win in the
Giro. Or at least contend the Tour of Switzerland. As for the Tour de
France Ullrich had better get his act together. I have to give Lance
credit, despite his lack of leadership he really has a quanatative
training method. On the otherhand a rider like Frigo or Garzelli could
really give Lance a run for his money.
Ullrich has already talked about retiring.
Daniel Connelly
> Unless Ullrich pulls off a major win this year he is largely washed up
> as a great rider. I for one have had great hopes for Ullrich, but his
> performance this season has been subpar at best.
As opposed to 1999 and 2000 when he has won by this point......
final results for these seasons include :
1999 wins Vuelta, wins World ITT championship
2000 wins Olympic RR, slivers in ITT on day where changing winds
inhibited performances of late starters
washed up?
Dan
VoiD
> If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
> form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
>
Exactly the reason why he entered the Giro. How else is he going to get in
shape?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Legate (leg...@mcmaster.ca)
Tower of Tongues -- 10:30-11:30 Thursday nights on 93.3 CFMU
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Experimental radio touched by the hand of Maldoror
live webcast: http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca
Kevin T Lacour
> On 3 Jun 2001, Randall Shimizu wrote:
>
> > If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
> > form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
> >
> Exactly the reason why he entered the Giro. How else is he going to get in
> shape?
Uhhhh ... start his training regimen in December?
Regards -
ktl
chria hazlitt
at rshim...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/3/01 11:30 PM:
> "Ady" <ady_...@farqtwo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<991553948.28004.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> At the beginning of the race Ullrich looked a bit thick round the middle
>> when warming up on his turbo before the prologue, but now he has those
>> sunken cheeks and looks as fit as a fiddle, mission accomplished I'd say. I
>> think he might show today a bit, I'll bet on third for him in the TT, he
>> probably doesn't want to show his form too much as with Kev Livingstone.
>>
>> Ady
>>
> Unless Ullrich pulls off a major win this year he is largely washed up
> as a great rider. I for one have had great hopes for Ullrich, but his
> performance this season has been subpar at best. While I understand
> his reason for not contending the Giro being 10 min plus is unworthy
> of former TDF winner. If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
> form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
>
> Ullrichs really needs to either pull off a major stage win in the
> Giro. Or at least contend the Tour of Switzerland. As for the Tour de
> France Ullrich had better get his act together. I have to give Lance
> credit, despite his lack of leadership he really has a quanatative
> training method.
What? Many people may question his method of leadership (he seems to
require abject devotion), but he is a proven leader. No other team in
recent memory has had a team more committed to the performance of a single
rider than Postal.
>On the otherhand a rider like Frigo or Garzelli could
> really give Lance a run for his money.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Garzelli dropped out of the Giro.
True he won last year, but he won by almost never attacking, and the long
time trial was extremely hilly. A tour winner must either be a good flat
time-triallist (for the TTT alone, if nothing else) or a supremely dominant
climber, and climbers a la Pantani usually need some luck along the way. If
the weather hadn't been wet on that one stage in the '98 Tour, I'm sure Jan
would have won. He lost something like 12 minutes in one day (because his
team fell apart and he didn't have a jacket), then came back the next day to
drag Pantani over several mountain passes, laying waste to the rest of the
field, and still won the stage.
Frigo is definitely a future star (he can time trial and climb, and
obviously has good powers of recovery), but he, Garzelli and Simoni have a
long way to go before they have the talent to win the tour. The Tour cannot
be compared to the Vuelta or the Giro in terms of competitiveness. Guys
like Olano, Jalabert, Zulle, Rominger, Tonkov (it goes on and on) are all
great riders, but in most cases their one and only GT win came in the Giro
or Vuelta because of a lack of competition, not because of their GT
pedigree. Guys who win the Tour don't usually come back the next year to
finish anonymously ('98 was a statistical aberration due to mass abandons),
while Giro and Vuelta winners fail to make an impact in the Tour time after
time.
> Ullrich has already talked about retiring.
Only after he wins another Tour, an idea with which he has repeatedly stated
that he is obsessed.
VoiD
Which he did, thanks for noticing. There's training shape and there's
racing shape. Training shape you can get by riding in December, racing
shape is best attained through, yup, racing. Since his objective this year
happens to be a race, the Giro is better preparation than doing laps
around his neighbourhood.
Scott Hendricks
>in article 581051cd.01060...@posting.google.com, Randall Shimizu
>at rshim...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/3/01 11:30 PM:
>>>
>> as a great rider. I for one have had great hopes for Ullrich, but his
>> performance this season has been subpar at best. While I understand
>> his reason for not contending the Giro being 10 min plus is unworthy
>> form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
>>
While I generally agree w/ most of your post, Chria, I don't think it's
appropriate to include Rominger in your list of semi-greats who just quite
didn't have what it took to win the TdF. It seems that he suffered two
problems, 1- competing in the TdF during the Indurain reign, and 2-
suffering
from serious allergies during the summer months throughout most of his
career.
The one year he had figured out the allergy problem, he made the podium
rather handily, but unfortunately it was one of Indurain's best years.
Rominger was one of only a few grand tour riders who also could dominate one
day races, too. More importantly, he rode like a champion.
To mention Rominger and Olano, Tonkov, Zulle, Jalabert, et al... in the same
breath is an insult to his career.
Kevin T Lacour
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Kevin T Lacour wrote:
>
> > VoiD wrote:
> >
> > > On 3 Jun 2001, Randall Shimizu wrote:
> > >
> > > > If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
> > > > form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
> > > >
> > > Exactly the reason why he entered the Giro. How else is he going to get in
> > > shape?
> >
> > Uhhhh ... start his training regimen in December?
> >
> Which he did, thanks for noticing. There's training shape and there's
> racing shape. Training shape you can get by riding in December, racing
> shape is best attained through, yup, racing. Since his objective this year
> happens to be a race, the Giro is better preparation than doing laps
> around his neighbourhood.
OK - how about starting in December, and sticking with it through July? He picked
the Giro because of the gaps in his training up until now. For whatever reasons -
illness, lack of motivation, lack of focus, etc, all reason reported for his
inability to stick with the program - his form and fitness are lacking right now.
People are saying you can't compare Armstrong to Ullrich right now. Bullcrap. Two
weeks before the Giro, Lance races to win at the Amstel, and ends up in second
place. And he is disappoint with that result. Ullrich has shown absolutely NOTHING
in the Giro - no form, no fitness. He tried to lead out Hondo and failed at that.
He has been nowhere to be seen in the prologue or the TT. He lost 30 minutes on a
mountain stage. And he is seen happily trudging along as pack-filler. Let's say I
buy into the "using the Giro for training" line. He was hopefully training before
it started, and has been training all through it - how about aiming for a stage
win along the way?
The competition in the TdF will not come from Ullrich. I look forward to seeing
Casagrande coming in fit and ready to make things interesting.
Regards -
ktl
Tim McNamara
Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Unless Ullrich pulls off a major win this year he is largely washed up
> as a great rider. I for one have had great hopes for Ullrich, but his
> performance this season has been subpar at best. While I understand
> his reason for not contending the Giro being 10 min plus is unworthy
> of former TDF winner. If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
> form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
I too had high hopes for Ullrich this season and have almost given up
on him (I have about 10% left in terms of hope that he'll show up to
the Tour able to contend). I think that's why I am really disappointed
by his absolutely lackluster showing at the Giro, even the TT in which
he finished behind Pantani IIRC and barely beat Cipollini- both
reknowned TT riders.
> Ullrichs really needs to either pull off a major stage win in the
> Giro. Or at least contend the Tour of Switzerland. As for the Tour de
> France Ullrich had better get his act together. I have to give Lance
> credit, despite his lack of leadership he really has a quanatative
> training method. On the otherhand a rider like Frigo or Garzelli could
> really give Lance a run for his money.
I sure hope somebody can, and I'd really love to see multiple
contentders scrapping it out. I wouldn't put much money of Garzelli
for the Tour, but perhaps Frigo- if he can retain his form for another
month- could shine. I'd be delighted to see Ullrich turn up with good
legs! But I won't hold my breath.
Tim McNamara
<djco...@ieee.org> wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps not, but not able to marshal his resources and be
prepared by the start of the Tour. His form has come far too late for
thepast four years to be a contender in the race he had practically
been anointed to win by right.
Tim McNamara
<Pine.SOL.4.21.010604...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>, VoiD
<leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> Which he did, thanks for noticing. There's training shape and there's
> racing shape. Training shape you can get by riding in December, racing
> shape is best attained through, yup, racing. Since his objective this year
> happens to be a race, the Giro is better preparation than doing laps
> around his neighbourhood.
Interesting then that Armstrong has said he'd rather prepare for the
Tour by training than by racing.
Brad Anders
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:040620011732590116%tim...@bitstream.net...
>
> I too had high hopes for Ullrich this season and have almost given up
> on him (I have about 10% left in terms of hope that he'll show up to
> the Tour able to contend). I think that's why I am really
disappointed
> by his absolutely lackluster showing at the Giro, even the TT in which
> he finished behind Pantani IIRC and barely beat Cipollini- both
> reknowned TT riders.
What did Ullrich do last year (up to the beginning of June) of note
prior to the TdF? IIRC, last year, he was much fatter and out of shape
in the early season, yet somehow he managed to finish 2nd @ 6:02 to
Lance in the TdF and even show superiority to LA on some of the
difficult stages. Given last year's performance, why write him off now?
We were all saying the same thing in 2000 before the TdF.
Brad Anders
Alex Beascoechea
>
> I too had high hopes for Ullrich this season and have almost given up
> on him (I have about 10% left in terms of hope that he'll show up to
> the Tour able to contend). I think that's why I am really disappointed
> by his absolutely lackluster showing at the Giro, even the TT in which
> he finished behind Pantani IIRC and barely beat Cipollini- both
> reknowned TT riders.
I you are talking about stage 15. It would be interesting to see the first
few elapsed times for Ullrich and compared to the top guys. What I saw on TV
was that after a few Kms he was in the middle of a major rain shower. After
that he completely gave up!
Dave Mackey
Though I tend to look at Armstrong as a 'technician'. He's quite focused
on all of the smallest details of his training. It certainly seems to
work, so power to him. Many riders, though very successful, seem to have
a more organic approach to training, as 'race into shape' seems to be
part of that philosophy.
--
Dave Mackey
usenetATmirrorcageDOTcom
"If I die, tell Rolling Stone that my last words were... 'I'm on drugs!'"
-Billy Crudup, "Almost Famous"
Randall Shimizu
> On 3 Jun 2001, Randall Shimizu wrote:
>
> > If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
> > form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
> >
> Exactly the reason why he entered the Giro. How else is he going to get in
> shape?
>
that Ullrich should have been contending and or entering this late in
the season.... The point that I am trying to make that a for a former
World champion and Tour de France winner should set a better example.
Randall Shimizu
Lance gives a lot of his time to charitable causes, but these are
entirely unrelated to racing.
>
> >On the otherhand a rider like Frigo or Garzelli could
> > really give Lance a run for his money.
>
> Where do you come up with this stuff? Garzelli dropped out of the Giro.
> True he won last year, but he won by almost never attacking, and the long
> time trial was extremely hilly. A tour winner must either be a good flat
> time-triallist (for the TTT alone, if nothing else) or a supremely dominant
> climber, and climbers a la Pantani usually need some luck along the way. If
> the weather hadn't been wet on that one stage in the '98 Tour, I'm sure Jan
> would have won. He lost something like 12 minutes in one day (because his
> team fell apart and he didn't have a jacket), then came back the next day to
> drag Pantani over several mountain passes, laying waste to the rest of the
> field, and still won the stage.
I meant that that Garzelli could give Lance a hard time. Illness
however is always a unpredictable factor...
Randall Shimizu
Ullrich's performance so far this season. He has yet to even try and
contend a major race so far... Although it is quite possible that he
will try for another fall comeback...
>
> Dan
Bob VonMoss
I pitty Ullrich when he appears in public. He must feel like he's going down a
gauntlet of self-proclaimed dieticians and trainers. Yet, he's the one who never
finished less than second in the Tour, has won the Vuelta and got 2 Olympic medals. If
these other people know all the secrets, how come they're not out there doing it???
Also, he always manages to control what he says. Just when you expect he's going to
hold a press conference of his own rectal analysis, he's saying how he's going to get
Kloden an Olympic medal--and then does it! That was incredible. On top of all this his
father abandoned him when he was a kid from what I hear. It is painful to see him fall
30 minutes back in the Giro, but he did not even race the Giro last year and crashed
in the Tour of Germany, so I think compared to last year he's doing pretty good. I
doubt we'll see Simoni doing this well in the Tour. Also Lance is older than Ullrich,
so theoretically Ullrich has more opportunity in the future. Maybe Ullrich will get
bored of racing. It's certainly his prerogative.
Bob VonMoss
> I too had high hopes for Ullrich this season and have almost given up
> on him (I have about 10% left in terms of hope that he'll show up to
> the Tour able to contend).
All he has to do is announce he's going to hang out in the Black Forest with
Kloden for a week or two like he did before the Olympics. At the Vuelta he
didn't look at the top of his sport, but then looked great at the Olympics.
Daniel Connelly
Yeah -- his season's shot. Maybe he can salvage a few scraps in the fall
(ie, > 21 Sept). It's over.
So you'll accept my bet that he he finish top 5 in the Tour?
(even money). (the bet was top 3, but with his Giro results, he's now
trading down on the futures market, so I figure I can do better)
Dan
VoiD
> Interesting then that Armstrong has said he'd rather prepare for the
> Tour by training than by racing.
>
Exception that proves the rule. Read any diary from any rider who has
trained with Lance and they praise him on how hard he trains. They often
struggle to hold his wheel on a typical Sunday ride. Armstrong seems to be
a rare breed of rider who can train as hard as a race. Can you?
VoiD
> Ullrich should have been in shape already. There are plenty of races
> that Ullrich should have been contending and or entering this late in
> the season.... The point that I am trying to make that a for a former
> World champion and Tour de France winner should set a better example.
>
Give me three reasons why he should. He's paid to perform well at the
Tour, and he hasn't disappointed (unless you consider 2nd place a
disappointment--many would). Last year he was hobbled by injury and
illness, this year he's avoided injury, but illness has set him back a few
weeks which is why he's doing the Giro. To make it up. If he can avoid the
two I's between now and the Tour, I believe he'll effectively shut you up.
Bob Schwartz
: I sure hope somebody can, and I'd really love to see multiple
: contentders scrapping it out. I wouldn't put much money of Garzelli
: for the Tour, but perhaps Frigo- if he can retain his form for another
: month- could shine. I'd be delighted to see Ullrich turn up with good
: legs! But I won't hold my breath.
We will see many Tour contenders, I don't see a two horse race at
all. My expectation is that Spanish will be the language most
spoken at the front of the peloton in the mountains and that Lance
will be glad to have Heras available to translate.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
chria hazlitt
A 'Fall Comeback'? At this time last year he was much fatter than he is
now. He still managed second at the Tour and for weeks afterward was on
raging form, taking high places in one day races (top five at a World Cup)
and winning one (I forget what it was). Then he polished his fitness by
riding part of the Vuelta, in which he did nothing of note, then promptly
won the Olympic RR. And Silvered in the TT. This is a full season, AFAIC.
All the indicators are that he will have a better season this year. He
*NEVER* rides well in the early season. Even when he won the '97 Tour, just
weeks before he cracked big time in the mountains in the Tour of
Switzerland. I don't think he will beat Lance, but he certainly hasn't done
anything to make me think he won't be competitive.
Terry Pierce
<nos...@mycompany.com> wrote:
>even show superiority to LA on some of the
>difficult stages.
Exactly which stages would these be Mr. Anders?
I recall precisely 1 stage during which Lance bonked, that Ullrich
showed himself to be "superior". And BTW, until Lance bonked on col
de Joux Plane, he was ripping Ullrich's legs off.
Terry Pierce
tpi...@uab.edu
"What am I on? I'm on my bike 6 hours a day, busting my ass. What are you on?
-- Lance Armstrong
Terry Pierce
<leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>If he can avoid the
>two I's between now and the Tour, I believe he'll effectively shut you up.
How? By finishing 2nd again?
Brad Anders
"Terry Pierce" <tpi...@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:3b1d2db2...@sonofmaze.dpo.uab.edu...
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:41:23 -0700, "Brad Anders"
> <nos...@mycompany.com> wrote:
>
> >even show superiority to LA on some of the
> >difficult stages.
>
> Exactly which stages would these be Mr. Anders?
>
> I recall precisely 1 stage during which Lance bonked, that Ullrich
> showed himself to be "superior".
Right. I should have said just one, not "some".
> And BTW, until Lance bonked on col
> de Joux Plane, he was ripping Ullrich's legs off.
Here's where LA made time on Ullrich (+) and vice versa (-):
Prologue: +0:12
Nantes: -0:09 (LA caught behind crash) / +0:03 total
TTT: +0:40 (not entirely Ullrich's fault) / + 0:43
Hautacam: +3:19 / +4:02 + 0:12 bonus = +4:12
Ventoux: +0:29 / +4:41 + 0:14 bonus = +4:55
Courchevel: +2:31 / +7:26
Morzine: -1:37 / +5:37
TT: +0:25 / +6:02
I really don't see that LA was "ripping Ullrich's legs off" all that
much, Hautacam and Courchevel only. And while ultimately beating Ullrich
by 25 seconds in the final TT, Armstrong lost 30 seconds to Ullrich over
the last 20 km's. Of the total 6:02 winning margin, 0:26 was bonus time,
0:40 was TTT, too. It was really a pretty close TdF, won mostly by a
superior effort of LA on Hautacam and his limiting of his losses at
Morzine.
Don't write Ullrich off yet. Winning will be pretty tough for him, but I
still expect him to be on the podium.
Brad Anders
Tim McNamara
<nos...@mycompany.com> wrote:
I am keeping that in mind, and I do indeed hope that he turns up at the
Tour with legs full of fire and a do-or-die attitude. I also recall
that he was not really all that impressive in the Tour for most of the
race and his best performance vis-a-vis Armstrong was when the latter
bonked from not eating enough. Not the stuff of legends as it once
appeared he would be.
I wonder how much this sort of thing has messed with Ullrich's head?
It's not just about power-to-weight and VO max; it's just as much about
self-belief and commitment. Many other riders with the class to be
champions managed to not reach their maximum achievement because of
their heads rather than their legs. I'd hate to see Ullrich go that
way. He has a tremendous amount of class but seems to have trouble
finding the form.
Tim McNamara
<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> And on the 8th day, Tim McNamara said:
> > In article
> > <Pine.SOL.4.21.010604...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>, VoiD
> > <leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Which he did, thanks for noticing. There's training shape and there's
> > > racing shape. Training shape you can get by riding in December, racing
> > > shape is best attained through, yup, racing. Since his objective this year
> > > happens to be a race, the Giro is better preparation than doing laps
> > > around his neighbourhood.
> >
> > Interesting then that Armstrong has said he'd rather prepare for the
> > Tour by training than by racing.
>
> Though I tend to look at Armstrong as a 'technician'. He's quite focused
> on all of the smallest details of his training. It certainly seems to
> work, so power to him. Many riders, though very successful, seem to have
> a more organic approach to training, as 'race into shape' seems to be
> part of that philosophy.
I quite agree. Armstrong has an incredibly precise and detailed
training regimen- to the point that I wonder if he has lost his
spontaneity as a bike racer. Although perhaps spontaneity is more the
province of Classics riders than Tour riders. Classics- and stages-
can be won with a spontaneous attack but it's very unusual to win a
grand tour that way.
I will admit to preferring the "organic" approach, myself. I think it
makes for more interesting racing to have the big names in all the big
races, even if they are not really in contention. But those days are
long gone, I think.
Tim McNamara
Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> VoiD <leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote in message
> news:<Pine.SOL.4.21.010604...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>...
> > On 3 Jun 2001, Randall Shimizu wrote:
> >
> > > If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
> > > form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
> > >
> > Exactly the reason why he entered the Giro. How else is he going to get in
> > shape?
> >
> Ullrich should have been in shape already. There are plenty of races
> that Ullrich should have been contending and or entering this late in
> the season.... The point that I am trying to make that a for a former
> World champion and Tour de France winner should set a better example.
In other words, a grand tour like the Giro d'Italia (arguably a harder
race than the Tour de France) is not a training race? I agree
completely. It is somewhat insulting to the race to treat it as
nothing more than 21 training rides in 23 days. Every rider in that
race should be there to win or to help their team leader to win, not
just to get legs for the next race.
Tim McNamara
Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Ullrichs really needs to either pull off a major stage win in the
> > > Giro. Or at least contend the Tour of Switzerland. As for the Tour de
> > > France Ullrich had better get his act together. I have to give Lance
> > > credit, despite his lack of leadership he really has a quanatative
> > > training method.
> >
> > What? Many people may question his method of leadership (he seems to
> > require abject devotion), but he is a proven leader. No other team in
> > recent memory has had a team more committed to the performance of a single
> > rider than Postal.
> I am refering to his leadership to racing. It is true however that
> Lance gives a lot of his time to charitable causes, but these are
> entirely unrelated to racing.
I'm sorry but I utterly failed to follow your logic in this comment.
How is Armstrong not a leader in racing? And what does the reply to
your first comment have to do with Armstrong's charitable causes?
Tim McNamara
<djco...@ieee.org> wrote:
> So you'll accept my bet that he he finish top 5 in the Tour?
> (even money). (the bet was top 3, but with his Giro results, he's now
> trading down on the futures market, so I figure I can do better)
Heh. I'd put even money on him to finish in the top 5, I think he's
probably capable of that even somewhat off-form. Other than Armstrong
there are few others in the race who can put together the climbing and
TT package over three weeks. Olano will probably have his best Tour
finish just from the decrease in the competition thanks to J-M LeBlanc,
as may Jalabert.
Tim McNamara
<Pine.SOL.4.21.010605...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>, VoiD
<leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > Interesting then that Armstrong has said he'd rather prepare for the
> > Tour by training than by racing.
> >
> Exception that proves the rule. Read any diary from any rider who has
> trained with Lance and they praise him on how hard he trains. They often
> struggle to hold his wheel on a typical Sunday ride. Armstrong seems to be
> a rare breed of rider who can train as hard as a race. Can you?
I've never understood "the exception that proves the rule" since the
exception logically *disproves* the rule.
Armstrong trains extremely hard. Can *I* train as hard as I race?
Occasionally, but then compared to the pros I sprint like a climber and
climb like a sprinter and TT worse than either. OTOH I'm older and
bigger than all those guys (and didn't start racing until the age most
of them look at retirement) so no surprise.
Tim McNamara
<cv...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
A hopeful prediction, Bob, and one I would dearly love to see played
out.
Stella Hackell
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.SOL.4.21.010605...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>, VoiD
> <leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting then that Armstrong has said he'd rather prepare for the
> > > Tour by training than by racing.
> > >
> > Exception that proves the rule. Read any diary from any rider who has
> > trained with Lance and they praise him on how hard he trains. They often
> > struggle to hold his wheel on a typical Sunday ride. Armstrong seems to be
> > a rare breed of rider who can train as hard as a race. Can you?
>
> I've never understood "the exception that proves the rule" since the
> exception logically *disproves* the rule.
One of my favorite topics. WARNING: Off-topic material follows.
The problem comes from the two different meanings of "prove." One
is to establish beyond doubt (or beyond a reasonable doubt). That's
the common meaning of this aphorism: "The exception establishes that the
rule is correct."
The other meaning of "prove" is to put to the proof, or to test.
For example, you prove (or proof) yeast before you mix bread
dough, to make sure it's active; probation is a testing period
in which you must prove ypurself. This is the *real* meaning
of "prove" in this aphorism: "The exception *tests* whether the rule
is correct."
If you think about it, an exception obviously doesn't establish
a rule. This is just a trick to win arguments.
--
Stella Hackell ste...@ncal.verio.com
Exceptio probat regulam.
Dave Mackey
I wonder how much of Armstrong's training really just results in good
headspace. So when he starts the Tour, in the back of his mind he can
say 'I did exactly what I should do to prepare, I will win'. Mind over
matter certainly counts in cycling.
It does seem that the pros are specializing a lot. Armstrong is pretty
much an exclusive TdF rider. He says he doesn't plan to win the TdF 5
times in a row, so perhaps he'll become a classics rider. Or at least be
a friendly blue jersey near the finish for poor George. ;)
I in fact read he said he wasn't going to be around long enough to get
too old to win the TdF. He turns 30 this year, going for his third win,
so, is 2002 the final season of LA, Grand Tour rider? It seems he
intends to quit while he's ahead, instead of actually not winning the
Tour.
--
Dave Mackey
usenetATmirrorcageDOTcom
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity; lick it once and you suck forever.
Tom Kunich
news:9fh2qk$c...@news.or.intel.com...
Come on Brad -- superiority after a day in which Lance kills everyone is not
superiority at all. It is taking advantage of a situation.
Tom Kunich
news:MPG.1585c2734e1eda4a989837@news...
> And on the 8th day, Tim McNamara said:
> > In article
> > <Pine.SOL.4.21.010604...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>, VoiD
> > <leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Which he did, thanks for noticing. There's training shape and there's
> > > racing shape. Training shape you can get by riding in December, racing
> > > shape is best attained through, yup, racing. Since his objective this
year
> > > happens to be a race, the Giro is better preparation than doing laps
> > > around his neighbourhood.
> >
> > Interesting then that Armstrong has said he'd rather prepare for the
> > Tour by training than by racing.
>
> Though I tend to look at Armstrong as a 'technician'. He's quite focused
> on all of the smallest details of his training. It certainly seems to
> work, so power to him. Many riders, though very successful, seem to have
> a more organic approach to training, as 'race into shape' seems to be
> part of that philosophy.
I agree with David on this. Personally I found it impossible to obtain any
sort of fitness comparable to that gotten from racing itself.
Randall Shimizu
Randall Shimizu
> In article <MPG.1585c2734e1eda4a989837@news>, Dave Mackey
> <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > And on the 8th day, Tim McNamara said:
> > > In article
> > > <Pine.SOL.4.21.010604...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>, VoiD
> > > <leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Which he did, thanks for noticing. There's training shape and there's
> > > > racing shape. Training shape you can get by riding in December, racing
> > > > shape is best attained through, yup, racing. Since his objective this year
> > > > happens to be a race, the Giro is better preparation than doing laps
> > > > around his neighbourhood.
> > >
> > > Interesting then that Armstrong has said he'd rather prepare for the
> > > Tour by training than by racing.
> >
> > Though I tend to look at Armstrong as a 'technician'. He's quite focused
> > on all of the smallest details of his training. It certainly seems to
> > work, so power to him. Many riders, though very successful, seem to have
> > a more organic approach to training, as 'race into shape' seems to be
> > part of that philosophy.
>
> I quite agree. Armstrong has an incredibly precise and detailed
> training regimen- to the point that I wonder if he has lost his
> spontaneity as a bike racer.
scientific approach to training. I do think however that training
methods are a tool and not a end in of themselves. Personally I think
that Lance could be accomplishing a lot more victories in his career
if he picked and chose his races carefully.
Although perhaps spontaneity is more the
> province of Classics riders than Tour riders. Classics- and stages-
> can be won with a spontaneous attack but it's very unusual to win a
> grand tour that way.
in the Mountains.
Randall Shimizu
racing. Because of this Lance is the most recognized bike racer.
Riders and the public look to Lance to set a good racing example. Greg
Lemond failed to set a good example for the sport and today what we
have is basically a bunch of specialists.
Randall Shimizu
> In article <581051cd.0106...@posting.google.com>, Randall
> Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > VoiD <leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote in message
> > news:<Pine.SOL.4.21.010604...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>...
> > > On 3 Jun 2001, Randall Shimizu wrote:
> > >
> > > > If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
> > > > form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
> > > >
> > > Exactly the reason why he entered the Giro. How else is he going to get in
> > > shape?
> > >
> > Ullrich should have been in shape already. There are plenty of races
> > that Ullrich should have been contending and or entering this late in
> > the season.... The point that I am trying to make that a for a former
> > World champion and Tour de France winner should set a better example.
>
> In other words, a grand tour like the Giro d'Italia (arguably a harder
> race than the Tour de France) is not a training race? I agree
> completely. It is somewhat insulting to the race to treat it as
> nothing more than 21 training rides in 23 days.
Tim McNamara
<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I wonder how much of Armstrong's training really just results in good
> headspace. So when he starts the Tour, in the back of his mind he can
> say 'I did exactly what I should do to prepare, I will win'. Mind over
> matter certainly counts in cycling.
Whereas Ullrich is probably asking "did I do enough?" I am not sure
than the Giro is going to quiet his mind on this point.
> It does seem that the pros are specializing a lot. Armstrong is pretty
> much an exclusive TdF rider. He says he doesn't plan to win the TdF 5
> times in a row, so perhaps he'll become a classics rider. Or at least be
> a friendly blue jersey near the finish for poor George. ;)
Specialization certainly isn't a new thing, in that there have always
been climbers and sprinters and rouleurs, and riders who tend to do
better in one-day classics and riders who tend to do better instage
races. But there seems to be an *intensification* of the
specialization over the past 10 years- riders don't even want to do the
races that don't suit their specialization. Classics riders skip the
grand tours, tour riders skip the classics, etc.
> I in fact read he said he wasn't going to be around long enough to get
> too old to win the TdF. He turns 30 this year, going for his third win,
> so, is 2002 the final season of LA, Grand Tour rider? It seems he
> intends to quit while he's ahead, instead of actually not winning the
> Tour.
I think Armstrong has deliberately publicly shied away from any hint of
"winning the Tour X times in a row" like Indurain did. He's won it
twice, he seems like the favorite for the hat trick, but he is also
deflecting the pressure somewhat. OTOH he's probably at the top of his
game in terms of maturity and may, like many before him, start to have
less of an edge in another couple of years. After all, he did turn pro
almost 9 years ago, shortly after the 1992 Olympics. He's been pretty
successful all along...
> Beware the lollipop of mediocrity; lick it once and you suck forever.
Hot damn, *that's* funny!
Tim McNamara
Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I really think that Armstrong is quite smart in using a highly
> scientific approach to training. I do think however that training
> methods are a tool and not a end in of themselves. Personally I think
> that Lance could be accomplishing a lot more victories in his career
> if he picked and chose his races carefully.
Well, he *has* picked and chosen his races carefully I'd say. I don't
have a complete list of his palmares off the top of my head, but
winning his second (IIRC) Euro pro road race (Trofeo Laigueglia IIRC)
the World Championships, Ghent-Wevelgem, San Sebastian, nearly taking
the Amstel Gold twice, some minor Euro stage races, the Tour DuPont,
multiple Tour stages (hmmm, 7 I think?) demonstrates that he has been
capable of winning at any time in the season. His early wins in
particular were quite impulsive or "spontaneous" if one prefers. Of
course, he finished dead frickin' last in his *first* Euro pro road
race...
> > Although perhaps spontaneity is more the
> > province of Classics riders than Tour riders. Classics- and stages-
> > can be won with a spontaneous attack but it's very unusual to win a
> > grand tour that way.
> Just look at Hinault he won his fifth Tour by attacking the first day
> in the Mountains.
And lost his 6th Tour doing exactly the same thing. It's very rare to
win a grand tour with an impulsive/spontaneous attack, but it's easy to
lose them that way.
Tim McNamara
> > I'm sorry but I utterly failed to follow your logic in this comment.
> > How is Armstrong not a leader in racing?
> A Tour de France winner is effect the defacto leader and spokesman for
> racing. Because of this Lance is the most recognized bike racer.
> Riders and the public look to Lance to set a good racing example. Greg
> Lemond failed to set a good example for the sport and today what we
> have is basically a bunch of specialists.
I'm still failing to get your point. You are blaming the past decade
of intensifying specialization on Lance Armstrong and Greg Lemond?
Isn't that a bit oversimplified?
Armstrong is a relative latecomer and has only recently been
specialized on the Tour de France- having previously won multiple
top-notch one day races like, oh, the World Championship,
Ghent-Wevelgem, Classica San Sebastian. His specialization as a Tour
rider came from his directeur sportif.
Lemond was a top-flight rider in one-day and stage races, winning a few
World Championships, nearly winning the Tour of Lombardy (losing by
about 2 cm to Sean Kelly) and Milan-San Remo (again losing to Kelly)
and three Tours de France. Later in his career, afte rthe gunshot
accident, he could *only* specialize as he couldn't sustain his form.
He picked and chose the Tour and the World Championships. One can
hardly blame him for picking those two races.
Specialization is a trend that did not begin with Lemond and Armstrong,
will not end with them and is with us to stay. It's been part of the
sport since the beginning, although it has intensified in the past
decade.
Tim McNamara
Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In other words, a grand tour like the Giro d'Italia (arguably a harder
> > race than the Tour de France) is not a training race? I agree
> > completely. It is somewhat insulting to the race to treat it as
> > nothing more than 21 training rides in 23 days.
> My point is that a rider of his stature should be in better shape for the Giro.
Err, did you notice that I was *agreeing* with you?
Paul B. Anders
It's hard to be observant when you're spewing.
Brad "Ape" Anders
Henry Chang
But it's not necessarily true.
Henry
John Verheul
Tim McNamara wrote in message <050620012340197207%tim...@bitstream.net>...
>Well, he *has* picked and chosen his races carefully I'd say. I don't
>have a complete list of his palmares off the top of my head, but
>winning his second (IIRC) Euro pro road race (Trofeo Laigueglia IIRC)
>the World Championships, Ghent-Wevelgem,
That was George, Lance never won Ghent-Wevelgem. You might be thinking of
Fleche-Wallone, a more impressive victory (IMO) than G-W.
>San Sebastian, nearly taking the Amstel Gold twice,
If you include his near wins, Paris-Nice and L-B-L spring to mind.
>some minor Euro stage races, the Tour DuPont,
>multiple Tour stages (hmmm, 7 I think?) demonstrates that he has been
>capable of winning at any time in the season. His early wins in
>particular were quite impulsive or "spontaneous" if one prefers. Of
>course, he finished dead frickin' last in his *first* Euro pro road
>race...
>
>> > Although perhaps spontaneity is more the
>> > province of Classics riders than Tour riders. Classics- and stages-
>> > can be won with a spontaneous attack but it's very unusual to win a
>> > grand tour that way.
>
>> Just look at Hinault he won his fifth Tour by attacking the first day
>> in the Mountains.
>
>And lost his 6th Tour doing exactly the same thing. It's very rare to
>win a grand tour with an impulsive/spontaneous attack, but it's easy to
>lose them that way.
Didn't Lance get his first Tour win by doing exactly this?
John Verheul
Tom Kunich
>
>
> Here's where LA made time on Ullrich (+) and vice versa (-):
>
> Prologue: +0:12
> Nantes: -0:09 (LA caught behind crash) / +0:03 total
> TTT: +0:40 (not entirely Ullrich's fault) / + 0:43
> Hautacam: +3:19 / +4:02 + 0:12 bonus = +4:12
> Ventoux: +0:29 / +4:41 + 0:14 bonus = +4:55
> Courchevel: +2:31 / +7:26
> Morzine: -1:37 / +5:37
> TT: +0:25 / +6:02
>
> I really don't see that LA was "ripping Ullrich's legs off" all that
> much, Hautacam and Courchevel only. And while ultimately beating Ullrich
> by 25 seconds in the final TT, Armstrong lost 30 seconds to Ullrich over
> the last 20 km's. Of the total 6:02 winning margin, 0:26 was bonus time,
> 0:40 was TTT, too. It was really a pretty close TdF, won mostly by a
> superior effort of LA on Hautacam and his limiting of his losses at
> Morzine.
>
> Don't write Ullrich off yet. Winning will be pretty tough for him, but I
> still expect him to be on the podium.
Lance took 3 MNIUTES out of Ullrich on a climb and you say he wasn't ripping
Ullrich's legs off? He takes 25 seconds out of him on a TT and you say,
"Well, Ullrich was coming back in the end." Clearly, after Lance was winning
by so large a margin that he didn't have to worry, one might think that
there was a certain lack of motivation on Lance's part to continue the
drive.
Tom Kunich
>
> I wonder how much of Armstrong's training really just results in good
> headspace. So when he starts the Tour, in the back of his mind he can
> say 'I did exactly what I should do to prepare, I will win'. Mind over
> matter certainly counts in cycling.
Excuse me Dave, but BS! No Tour in history was won by anything other than
legs and the best attitude in the world won't put legs on a goldfish.
Tom Kunich
> In article <MPG.15870c9a463a1931989838@news>, Dave Mackey
> <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > I wonder how much of Armstrong's training really just results in good
> > headspace. So when he starts the Tour, in the back of his mind he can
> > say 'I did exactly what I should do to prepare, I will win'. Mind over
> > matter certainly counts in cycling.
>
> Whereas Ullrich is probably asking "did I do enough?" I am not sure
> than the Giro is going to quiet his mind on this point.
Now that is a number for Posting of the Month.
Brad Anders
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@tality.com> wrote in message
news:9flb9o$mno$1...@news.cadence.com...
Yo, Tom. Try reading. I said that on Hautacam and Courchevel LA was
ripping his legs off. What are you yapping about?
>He takes 25 seconds out of him on a TT and you say,
> "Well, Ullrich was coming back in the end." Clearly, after Lance was
winning
> by so large a margin that he didn't have to worry, one might think
that
> there was a certain lack of motivation on Lance's part to continue the
> drive.
25 seconds isn't a very big margin in a 56 km ITT, and if you don't
think LA was killing himself (especially after Morzine) to win that ITT,
you don't know much about his motivation. And Ullrich clearly came on
very strong at the end of the TT and the end of the TdF. He made this
clear by his post-TdF performances, too.
You LA-worshipers are ridiculous. I fully expect LA to win this year's
TdF, only a fool would bet against him. But to write Ullrich off as
being out of competion is to ignore his history. LA himself has great
respect for Ullrich, and I don't hear Phil and Paul writing him off,
either.
Here's something else to consider - maybe things in this year's TdF
won't go smoothly for LA. He's won 2 TdF's with little if any incidents
of sickness, crashes, or bad luck. Indurain was unreal, going 5 years in
a row the same way. The odds will eventually catch up, and the leader of
the TdF may have some misfortune. Even if Ullrich is in no condition to
contest for the top step, luck or misfortune may push him to it.
Me, I'm willing to wait until the event happens before ruling anyone
out.
Brad Anders
Alex Beascoechea
Olano is NOT going to the TdF. Definitely not this year. He is going to
try to beat the "Hour record" at the end on June.
Rick
He said it "counts", Tom, not that it was the only thing.
Rick
Ohio
Ady
Ady
Randall Shimizu
> In article <581051cd.01060...@posting.google.com>, Randall
> Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I really think that Armstrong is quite smart in using a highly
> > scientific approach to training. I do think however that training
> > methods are a tool and not a end in of themselves. Personally I think
> > that Lance could be accomplishing a lot more victories in his career
> > if he picked and chose his races carefully.
>
> Well, he *has* picked and chosen his races carefully I'd say. I don't
> have a complete list of his palmares off the top of my head, but
> winning his second (IIRC) Euro pro road race (Trofeo Laigueglia IIRC)
> the World Championships, Ghent-Wevelgem, San Sebastian, nearly taking
> the Amstel Gold twice, some minor Euro stage races, the Tour DuPont,
> multiple Tour stages (hmmm, 7 I think?) demonstrates that he has been
> capable of winning at any time in the season.
His early wins in
> particular were quite impulsive or "spontaneous" if one prefers. Of
> course, he finished dead frickin' last in his *first* Euro pro road
> race...
>
To Lance's credit by winning races other than the TDF proves that he
is a true champion.
One could arguably say that he is a greater rider than Lemond. What is
disappointing however
is the gaps in his season.
> > > Although perhaps spontaneity is more the
> > > province of Classics riders than Tour riders. Classics- and stages-
> > > can be won with a spontaneous attack but it's very unusual to win a
> > > grand tour that way.
>
> > Just look at Hinault he won his fifth Tour by attacking the first day
> > in the Mountains.
>
> And lost his 6th Tour doing exactly the same thing. It's very rare to
> win a grand tour with an impulsive/spontaneous attack, but it's easy to
> lose them that way.
Yes,but attacking at on the first climb on a mountain stage takes a
tremendous
amount of confidence and experience. Only a rider who is real champion
is capable
of pulling a feat like this sucessfully. Although I have to give Lance
credit for
attacking in the same manner last year.
Tim McNamara
<BmpT6.67118$4f7.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, John
Verheul <John.an...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote in message <050620012340197207%tim...@bitstream.net>...
> >Well, he *has* picked and chosen his races carefully I'd say. I don't
> >have a complete list of his palmares off the top of my head, but
> >winning his second (IIRC) Euro pro road race (Trofeo Laigueglia IIRC)
> >the World Championships, Ghent-Wevelgem,
>
> That was George, Lance never won Ghent-Wevelgem. You might be thinking of
> Fleche-Wallone, a more impressive victory (IMO) than G-W.
Of course, you are quite right- Armstrong won Fleche-Wallone in very
impressive style, and I believe was also the youngest winner of that
race.
> >San Sebastian, nearly taking the Amstel Gold twice,
>
> If you include his near wins, Paris-Nice and L-B-L spring to mind.
Agreed. Armstrong has demonstrated he has the abilities to contend in
most types of races, although I don't think he has quite the sprint he
had earlier in his career.
> >> > Although perhaps spontaneity is more the
> >> > province of Classics riders than Tour riders. Classics- and stages-
> >> > can be won with a spontaneous attack but it's very unusual to win a
> >> > grand tour that way.
> >
> >> Just look at Hinault he won his fifth Tour by attacking the first day
> >> in the Mountains.
> >
> >And lost his 6th Tour doing exactly the same thing. It's very rare to
> >win a grand tour with an impulsive/spontaneous attack, but it's easy to
> >lose them that way.
>
> Didn't Lance get his first Tour win by doing exactly this?
Eh? He won all three time trials, plus put in a massive attack on the
first mountain stage after the TT, and benefitted from the crash that
put many of the contenders over 6 minutes down. Had it just been the
massive attack in the mountains that won the race for him, I'd agree
with you but I think the TT performances were essential- and very
calculated. The attack in the mountains was possibly even premeditated
given that Armstrong basically said as much after the TT: "my trainers
tell me I'll be better in the mountains than in the TT. You ain't seen
nothin' yet" or words to that effect.
Randall Shimizu
> In article <MPG.15870c9a463a1931989838@news>, Dave Mackey
> <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > I wonder how much of Armstrong's training really just results in good
> > headspace. So when he starts the Tour, in the back of his mind he can
> > say 'I did exactly what I should do to prepare, I will win'. Mind over
> > matter certainly counts in cycling.
to think
that they can ever substitute for good form...
>
> Whereas Ullrich is probably asking "did I do enough?" I am not sure
> than the Giro is going to quiet his mind on this point.
>
> > It does seem that the pros are specializing a lot. Armstrong is pretty
> > much an exclusive TdF rider. He says he doesn't plan to win the TdF 5
> > times in a row, so perhaps he'll become a classics rider. Or at least be
> > a friendly blue jersey near the finish for poor George. ;)
>
> Specialization certainly isn't a new thing, in that there have always
> been climbers and sprinters and rouleurs, and riders who tend to do
> better in one-day classics and riders who tend to do better instage
> races. But there seems to be an *intensification* of the
> specialization over the past 10 years- riders don't even want to do the
> races that don't suit their specialization. Classics riders skip the
> grand tours, tour riders skip the classics, etc.
This is true,but it seems these days the Tour winners skip almost all
other races
to the exclusion of the major tours. I think that cycling as a whole
has been diminished
by this trend. Much of this problem is attributable to the World cup.
The UCI has recognized
this problem and established the council on professional cycling to
address this issue.
> > I in fact read he said he wasn't going to be around long enough to get
> > too old to win the TdF. He turns 30 this year, going for his third win,
> > so, is 2002 the final season of LA, Grand Tour rider? It seems he
> > intends to quit while he's ahead, instead of actually not winning the
> > Tour.
>
> I think Armstrong has deliberately publicly shied away from any hint of
> "winning the Tour X times in a row" like Indurain did. He's won it
> twice, he seems like the favorite for the hat trick, but he is also
> deflecting the pressure somewhat. OTOH he's probably at the top of his
> game in terms of maturity and may, like many before him, start to have
> less of an edge in another couple of years. After all, he did turn pro
> almost 9 years ago, shortly after the 1992 Olympics. He's been pretty
> successful all along...
I think it is very hard for a champion to be consistent over a long
period.
This is especially difficult for a 5 time winner. Even great riders
like Merckx or
Hinault had problems winning 5 in a row.
Tim McNamara
<nos...@mycompany.com> wrote:
> 25 seconds isn't a very big margin in a 56 km ITT, and if you don't
> think LA was killing himself (especially after Morzine) to win that ITT,
> you don't know much about his motivation. And Ullrich clearly came on
> very strong at the end of the TT and the end of the TdF. He made this
> clear by his post-TdF performances, too.
Ullrich's form came about 10-12 days too late for the Tour. He held
his form quite impressively, I thought, in the post-Tour part of the
calendar. Perhaps he is one of those people who doesn't find form
quickly but once he has it, he keeps it for a long time.
> You LA-worshipers are ridiculous. I fully expect LA to win this year's
> TdF, only a fool would bet against him. But to write Ullrich off as
> being out of competion is to ignore his history. LA himself has great
> respect for Ullrich, and I don't hear Phil and Paul writing him off,
> either.
I am hoping he shows up in top form, ready to take on Armstrong at his
best. A race with drama, excitement, tension and without being able to
predict the results after the first TT- as has been the case in all but
about 2 of the Tours since 1990- would be a nice change of pace. Utter
domination is impressive but not all that interesting.
> Here's something else to consider - maybe things in this year's TdF
> won't go smoothly for LA. He's won 2 TdF's with little if any incidents
> of sickness, crashes, or bad luck. Indurain was unreal, going 5 years in
> a row the same way. The odds will eventually catch up, and the leader of
> the TdF may have some misfortune. Even if Ullrich is in no condition to
> contest for the top step, luck or misfortune may push him to it.
This is of course a very real possibility. Of course, it wouldn't be
misfortune from Ullrich's perspective! ;-)
> Me, I'm willing to wait until the event happens before ruling anyone
> out.
A wise perspective. What fun is that? ;-)
Randall Shimizu
> In article <581051cd.01060...@posting.google.com>, Randall
> Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm sorry but I utterly failed to follow your logic in this comment.
> > > How is Armstrong not a leader in racing?
> > A Tour de France winner is effect the defacto leader and spokesman for
> > racing. Because of this Lance is the most recognized bike racer.
> > Riders and the public look to Lance to set a good racing example. Greg
> > Lemond failed to set a good example for the sport and today what we
> > have is basically a bunch of specialists.
>
> I'm still failing to get your point. You are blaming the past decade
> of intensifying specialization on Lance Armstrong and Greg Lemond?
> Isn't that a bit oversimplified?
their racing careers.
> Armstrong is a relative latecomer and has only recently been
> specialized on the Tour de France- having previously won multiple
> top-notch one day races like, oh, the World Championship,
> Ghent-Wevelgem, Classica San Sebastian. His specialization as a Tour
> rider came from his directeur sportif.
Lance is a good friend of Eddy Merckx and he would probably advise against
specialization
> Lemond was a top-flight rider in one-day and stage races, winning a few
> World Championships, nearly winning the Tour of Lombardy (losing by
> about 2 cm to Sean Kelly) and Milan-San Remo (again losing to Kelly)
> and three Tours de France. Later in his career, afte rthe gunshot
> accident, he could *only* specialize as he couldn't sustain his form.
or who nearly one. What is amazing is that Lemond failed to win even one major
classic.
Ewoud Dronkert
> John Verheul <John.an...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > That was George, Lance never won Ghent-Wevelgem. You might be thinking
of
> > Fleche-Wallone, a more impressive victory (IMO) than G-W.
>
> Of course, you are quite right- Armstrong won Fleche-Wallone
Guys, G-W is from Gent to Wevelgem. La Flêche Wallone is *not* from Fleche
to Wallone.
John Cunha
champion like Armstrong shown himself and proven himself so little
except in one big race. Why does he never do the Giro to prove he's
such a great champion? What about the Vuelta? Comparing the Amstel Cup
to the Giro, even if you're in 75th place, is like
apples-to-tangerines. A true master of this sport should be in at
least two major tours annually. Is it possible that he fears not being
able to perform at the top level in two big races per year?
Kevin T Lacour <kevin....@bms.com> wrote in message news:<3B1BDE5A...@bms.com>...
> VoiD wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Kevin T Lacour wrote:
> >
> > > VoiD wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 3 Jun 2001, Randall Shimizu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If Ullrich felt that he was not in reasonable
> > > > > form than he probably should not have entered the Giro.
> > > > >
> > > > Exactly the reason why he entered the Giro. How else is he going to get in
> > > > shape?
> > >
> > >
> > Which he did, thanks for noticing. There's training shape and there's
> > racing shape. Training shape you can get by riding in December, racing
> > shape is best attained through, yup, racing. Since his objective this year
> > happens to be a race, the Giro is better preparation than doing laps
> > around his neighbourhood.
>
> the Giro because of the gaps in his training up until now. For whatever reasons -
> illness, lack of motivation, lack of focus, etc, all reason reported for his
> inability to stick with the program - his form and fitness are lacking right now.
> People are saying you can't compare Armstrong to Ullrich right now. Bullcrap. Two
> weeks before the Giro, Lance races to win at the Amstel, and ends up in second
> place. And he is disappoint with that result. Ullrich has shown absolutely NOTHING
> in the Giro - no form, no fitness. He tried to lead out Hondo and failed at that.
> He has been nowhere to be seen in the prologue or the TT. He lost 30 minutes on a
> mountain stage. And he is seen happily trudging along as pack-filler. Let's say I
> buy into the "using the Giro for training" line. He was hopefully training before
> it started, and has been training all through it - how about aiming for a stage
> win along the way?
>
> The competition in the TdF will not come from Ullrich. I look forward to seeing
> Casagrande coming in fit and ready to make things interesting.
>
> Regards -
> ktl
Steven L. Sheffield
joao...@mediaone.net (John Cunha) wrote:
> With all due respect, I find this stuff incredible. Never has a
> champion like Armstrong shown himself and proven himself so little
> except in one big race. Why does he never do the Giro to prove he's
> such a great champion? What about the Vuelta? Comparing the Amstel Cup
> to the Giro, even if you're in 75th place, is like
> apples-to-tangerines. A true master of this sport should be in at
> least two major tours annually. Is it possible that he fears not being
> able to perform at the top level in two big races per year?
He did do the Vuelta in 1998 ... where he finished 4th, followed by two
4th place finishes at the 1998 World Championships (ITT and road).
Not to mention 2nd at the 1999 Amstel Gold and 2nd at the 2001 Amstel
Gold ... plus high placings in the 1999 and 2000 Dauphine Libere ...
--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at earthlink dot net
http://www.veloworks.com/bookstore.html
VoiD
> Yes,but attacking at on the first climb on a mountain stage takes a
> tremendous
> amount of confidence and experience. Only a rider who is real champion
> is capable
> of pulling a feat like this sucessfully.
>
Wow, Richard Virenque's a champion?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Legate (leg...@mcmaster.ca)
Tower of Tongues -- 10:30-11:30 Thursday nights on 93.3 CFMU
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Experimental radio touched by the hand of Maldoror
live webcast: http://cfmu.mcmaster.ca
Scott Hendricks
>On 6 Jun 2001, Randall Shimizu wrote:
>
>> Yes,but attacking at on the first climb on a mountain stage takes a
>> tremendous
>> amount of confidence and experience. Only a rider who is real champion
>> is capable
>> of pulling a feat like this sucessfully.
>>
>Wow, Richard Virenque's a champion?
>
I think he may have meant to say it takes a real champion to attack on the
first climb, if you attack like you really mean it, and intend to continue
the
attack to the end.
Virenque would attack the first climb to get the polka-dot jersey, then sit
up
and wait for the group. He'd then attack the next climb, get a few more
points, then sit up, etc...
Henry Chang
<sco...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>===== Original Message From VoiD <leg...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> =====
>>On 6 Jun 2001, Randall Shimizu wrote:
>>
>>> Yes,but attacking at on the first climb on a mountain stage takes a
>>> tremendous
>>> amount of confidence and experience. Only a rider who is real champion
>>> is capable
>>> of pulling a feat like this sucessfully.
>>>
>>Wow, Richard Virenque's a champion?
>>
>
>I think he may have meant to say it takes a real champion to attack on the
>first climb, if you attack like you really mean it, and intend to continue
>the
>attack to the end.
When was the last time someone did that, succeeded in winning the
stage AND succeeded in winning the Tour?
I'll bet it was a long time ago.
Henry
chria hazlitt
dron...@varsity.notthis.nl wrote on 6/7/01 3:53 AM:
You mean it doesn't go from 'arrow' to 'Flemish'?
VoiD
Remember the fatal Casartelli stage? Virenque attacked on the first climb
and held it all the way into the finish.
Mike Owens
chria hazlitt wrote:
You mean it doesn't go from 'arrow' to 'Walloon'? I believe the french-speaking
Belgians are known as Walloons (sp?).
-Mike
Tim McNamara
> To Lance's credit by winning races other than the TDF proves that he
> is a true champion. One could arguably say that he is a greater rider
> than Lemond. What is disappointing however is the gaps in his season.
Do you think Armstrong gives a list of the races he wants to win to
Johan Bruyneel at the start of the season? And that some years he's
going to want to win "Paris-Roubaix, Tour of Flanders, Tour of
Switzerland, Tour of Lombardy, Paris-Tour and the World Championships
but let's skip the Tour de France this year, I'm tired of winning it?"
Armstrong's goal for the season- winning the Tour- is/was set by the
team, but the directeur sportif, in accordance with the marketing goal
of the sponsor. Armstrong of course would want to win the Tour, any
professional rider would, but the sole focus being the Tour is the
result of decisions made by/with the team management. Winning the Tour
is what Armstrong is paid to do. With Motorola, winning the Tour de
France was not what he was paid to do- they didn't think he could and
neither did he- whereas winning other races was.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that the riders pick and choose the
races they go for based on their own private motivation. They compete
in the races they are told to by the team and the sponsor. Even greats
like Sean Kelly did this, and they understood that this was part of
being a professional. Of course, teams also hire star riders with the
capabilities of winning the races the sponsor is interested in- hence
Mapei filling the roster with great Classics racers but no Tour
winners, even though they could easily afford to hire someone capable
of winning the Tour.
> > > > Although perhaps spontaneity is more the province of Classics
> > > > riders than Tour riders. Classics- and stages- can be won with
> > > > a spontaneous attack but it's very unusual to win a grand tour
> > > > that way.
> >
> > > Just look at Hinault he won his fifth Tour by attacking the first day
> > > in the Mountains.
> >
> > And lost his 6th Tour doing exactly the same thing. It's very rare to
> > win a grand tour with an impulsive/spontaneous attack, but it's easy to
> > lose them that way.
>
> Yes,but attacking at on the first climb on a mountain stage takes a
> tremendous amount of confidence and experience. Only a rider who is
> real champion is capable of pulling a feat like this sucessfully.
> Although I have to give Lance credit for attacking in the same manner
> last year.
Winning the Tour by attacking at the start of a mountain stage? I hope
you don't have any drug tests coming up soon at work, man, because
you're high! This sort of thing has happened probably less than a
dozen times in Tour history- are you telling us that they are the only
"real" champions? Or that, say, Claudio Chiappucci is a greater
champion than Miguel Indurain because Chiappa attacked from the foot of
the first mountain to win the stage to Sestriere but Indurain *never*
won a Tour by attacking from the first mountain?
Tim McNamara
> > Specialization certainly isn't a new thing, in that there have always
> > been climbers and sprinters and rouleurs, and riders who tend to do
> > better in one-day classics and riders who tend to do better instage
> > races. But there seems to be an *intensification* of the
> > specialization over the past 10 years- riders don't even want to do the
> > races that don't suit their specialization. Classics riders skip the
> > grand tours, tour riders skip the classics, etc.
>
> This is true,but it seems these days the Tour winners skip almost all
> other races to the exclusion of the major tours. I think that cycling
> as a whole has been diminished by this trend. Much of this problem is
> attributable to the World cup. The UCI has recognized this problem
> and established the council on professional cycling to address this
> issue.
I'm not sure that cycling has been diminished by this. We get to see
racers at the top of their games, completely dedicated to *this* race
rather than knackered shadows of their former selves dragging
themselves through yet another bike race. The races are less wars or
attrittion and more sporting events.
The days when someone like Merckx could win from Etoiles Bessages to
Giro de Lombardy are gone, and this may not be a bad thing. There are
more stars and tighter races, with more drama and more interest.
Tim McNamara
Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The only people arguing against specialization, for the most part, are
journalists and self-appointed experts like us. Every pro bike racer
would give up every other race on the calendar to be assured of winning
the Tour de France. It is the most important race on the calendar
every year, bar none.
> > Lemond was a top-flight rider in one-day and stage races, winning a few
> > World Championships, nearly winning the Tour of Lombardy (losing by
> > about 2 cm to Sean Kelly) and Milan-San Remo (again losing to Kelly)
> > and three Tours de France. Later in his career, afte rthe gunshot
> > accident, he could *only* specialize as he couldn't sustain his form.
> Nearly does not cut it...One could go on and on about riders who
> finished second or who nearly one. What is amazing is that Lemond
> failed to win even one major classic.
Oh man. Instead of candy-assing like this, you should go prove it in
Europe. Lemond was one of the last riders who did *not* specialize and
contended in both Classics and grand Tours, until 1989 and later.
Maybe you don't know much about his palmares.
Tim McNamara
Cunha <joao...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> With all due respect, I find this stuff incredible. Never has a
> champion like Armstrong shown himself and proven himself so little
> except in one big race. Why does he never do the Giro to prove he's
> such a great champion? What about the Vuelta? Comparing the Amstel Cup
> to the Giro, even if you're in 75th place, is like
> apples-to-tangerines. A true master of this sport should be in at
> least two major tours annually. Is it possible that he fears not being
> able to perform at the top level in two big races per year?
Maybe because his sponsor/team management has no interest in entering
the other Tours? Armstrong races the events his team tells him to. He
is an employee like any other. He no doubt has some voice in what he
does, but he also is employed to meet the requirements of the team and
the sponsors.
Have you only been following bike racing for a few weeks? Do you have
a clue about the importance of the Classic races? Do you actually know
anything about what Armstrong- who BTW is far from being my favorite
rider- has won in the past?
Tim McNamara
<ste...@veloworks.com> wrote:
> In article <cca1bcc0.01060...@posting.google.com>,
> joao...@mediaone.net (John Cunha) wrote:
>
> > With all due respect, I find this stuff incredible. Never has a
> > champion like Armstrong shown himself and proven himself so little
> > except in one big race. Why does he never do the Giro to prove he's
> > such a great champion? What about the Vuelta? Comparing the Amstel Cup
> > to the Giro, even if you're in 75th place, is like
> > apples-to-tangerines. A true master of this sport should be in at
> > least two major tours annually. Is it possible that he fears not being
> > able to perform at the top level in two big races per year?
>
>
> He did do the Vuelta in 1998 ... where he finished 4th, followed by two
> 4th place finishes at the 1998 World Championships (ITT and road).
>
> Not to mention 2nd at the 1999 Amstel Gold and 2nd at the 2001 Amstel
> Gold ... plus high placings in the 1999 and 2000 Dauphine Libere ...
Including serving as super-domestique for Tyler Hamilton...
Tom Kunich
news:BmpT6.67118$4f7.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Tim McNamara wrote in message <050620012340197207%tim...@bitstream.net>...
> >Well, he *has* picked and chosen his races carefully I'd say. I don't
> >have a complete list of his palmares off the top of my head, but
> >winning his second (IIRC) Euro pro road race (Trofeo Laigueglia IIRC)
> >the World Championships, Ghent-Wevelgem,
>
> Fleche-Wallone, a more impressive victory (IMO) than G-W.
And if there's one thing that is really impressive it's the ability of John
Verheul to tell the difference in the difficulty of Gent-Wevelgem from
Fleche-Wallone.
Come on John, you're better than that. You are usually one of those not
infected with the pompous attitude of Andrew and his anonymous cohorts.
> >San Sebastian, nearly taking the Amstel Gold twice,
>
> If you include his near wins, Paris-Nice and L-B-L spring to mind.
And all of those really dumb stages where he leads out those wheel suckers.
It doesn't matter how someone loses unless it's from some tifosi knocknig
him off of the bike. A loss is a loss. The guy that wins is the guy that
wins and everyone else is an also-ran. No one remembers the races that Eddy
Merckx lost by inches.
> >And lost his 6th Tour doing exactly the same thing. It's very rare to
> >win a grand tour with an impulsive/spontaneous attack, but it's easy to
> >lose them that way.
>
> Didn't Lance get his first Tour win by doing exactly this?
Huh? You think that Lance didn't plan his Tour win? Or you think that all of
that specific training and the taking of all of the TT's was off-the-cuff?
That out-riding the best climbers in the world was something that he did
because it just seemed a good idea at the time?
What sort of posting is this John? Are you posting drunk as Ken is prone?
scottw44
is when he first realized he could win Le Gran Boucle.
And how long it has been since Grand Champions raced to win in
Classics...Hinault comes to mind.
just my .02.
scott
--
reply to:
www.itravelinsured.com
"John Cunha" <joao...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:cca1bcc0.01060...@posting.google.com...
Daniel Connelly
>
> If memory serves, Armstrong returned to form in the 98 Vuelta...perhaps this
> is when he first realized he could win Le Gran Boucle.
>
> And how long it has been since Grand Champions raced to win in
> Classics...Hinault comes to mind.
>
Armstrong, this year's Amstel. Jalabert, every year until this year.
Rominger. Berzin. Zülle. Riis. I'm probably missing a few.
Dan
HajajŽ
Tim McNamara
<djco...@ieee.org> wrote:
What an interesting question this provokes. What makes a grand
champion- winning a Grand Tour (which is certainly one reasonable
definition)? Or is it something about star quality? Are there any
"grand champions" in the peloton today the equivalent of Coppi,
Antequil, Hinault, Merckx?
John Verheul
>And if there's one thing that is really impressive it's the ability of John
>Verheul to tell the difference in the difficulty of Gent-Wevelgem from
>Fleche-Wallone.
That's true. I've never ridden either, nor have I even talked to anyone who
has. Point taken.
>It doesn't matter how someone loses unless it's from some tifosi knocknig
>him off of the bike. A loss is a loss. The guy that wins is the guy that
>wins and everyone else is an also-ran. No one remembers the races that Eddy
>Merckx lost by inches.
I was only bringing up some 2nd places that were of more note than the ones
Tim mentioned.
>Huh? You think that Lance didn't plan his Tour win? Or you think that all
of
>that specific training and the taking of all of the TT's was off-the-cuff?
>That out-riding the best climbers in the world was something that he did
>because it just seemed a good idea at the time?
If you believe his recollection, that's exactly what he did at Sestrieres,
kept the pressure on because it seemed like a good idea at the time. You
can't script every single minute of a TdF. I think he planned to win (the
'99 and '00 Tours), but I don't think he counted on it. I don't think a
champion ever does.
JV
Scott Hendricks
You can't script every single minute of a TdF. I think he planned to win
(the
>'99 and '00 Tours), but I don't think he counted on it. I don't think a
>champion ever does.
>
>JV
>
I think a champion ALWAYS plans on winning. They may not admit it, or boast
about it, but they go to the start line expecting to win.
John Verheul
But you never COUNT on it, PLAN and EXPECT are different. Know what I mean?
Tim Brink
leader's jersey in a major tour kicking the peleton's ass just for the hell
of it since Hinault...and the weather was Hinault-esque too
Randall Shimizu
> In article <581051cd.01060...@posting.google.com>, Randall
> Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > To Lance's credit by winning races other than the TDF proves that he
> > is a true champion. One could arguably say that he is a greater rider
> > than Lemond. What is disappointing however is the gaps in his season.
>
> Do you think Armstrong gives a list of the races he wants to win to
> Johan Bruyneel at the start of the season?
season are. There are of course team goals and the TDF is at the top
of
the list. As for other stage races and classics Lance has enough
influence
to pick what races he will enter.
And that some years he's
> going to want to win "Paris-Roubaix, Tour of Flanders, Tour of
> Switzerland, Tour of Lombardy, Paris-Tour and the World Championships
> but let's skip the Tour de France this year, I'm tired of winning it?"
>
> Armstrong's goal for the season- winning the Tour- is/was set by the
> team, but the directeur sportif, in accordance with the marketing goal
> of the sponsor. Armstrong of course would want to win the Tour, any
> professional rider would, but the sole focus being the Tour is the
> result of decisions made by/with the team management. Winning the Tour
> is what Armstrong is paid to do. With Motorola, winning the Tour de
> France was not what he was paid to do- they didn't think he could and
> neither did he- whereas winning other races was.
>
> Don't delude yourself into thinking that the riders pick and choose the
> races they go for based on their own private motivation. They compete
> in the races they are told to by the team and the sponsor. Even greats
> like Sean Kelly did this, and they understood that this was part of
> being a professional.
There is a big difference between some domestique and a former Tour
winner.
All a rider like Lance has to do if he wants his way is to say that he
will
not renew his contract....
Of course, teams also hire star riders with the
> capabilities of winning the races the sponsor is interested in- hence
> Mapei filling the roster with great Classics racers but no Tour
> winners, even though they could easily afford to hire someone capable
> of winning the Tour.
I think you have forgetten some of your history. In 1986 I believe
Hinault
chose to abstain from the Giro and enter the Columbia RCN. In 1984 or
84
Hinault also chose to visit the Tour of America.
>
> > > > > Although perhaps spontaneity is more the province of Classics
> > > > > riders than Tour riders. Classics- and stages- can be won with
> > > > > a spontaneous attack but it's very unusual to win a grand tour
> > > > > that way.
>
> > > > Just look at Hinault he won his fifth Tour by attacking the first day
> > > > in the Mountains.
> > >
> > > And lost his 6th Tour doing exactly the same thing. It's very rare to
> > > win a grand tour with an impulsive/spontaneous attack, but it's easy to
> > > lose them that way.
> >
> > Yes,but attacking at on the first climb on a mountain stage takes a
> > tremendous amount of confidence and experience. Only a rider who is
> > real champion is capable of pulling a feat like this sucessfully.
> > Although I have to give Lance credit for attacking in the same manner
> > last year.
>
This sort of thing has happened probably less than a
> dozen times in Tour history- are you telling us that they are the only
> "real" champions?
No I am not claiming that they are the only "real champions". What I
am saying is that it takes rider of champion caliber to pull off such
a feat.
What makes this sort of attack so extrodinary is that when Hinault
attacked he already knew that he was strong enough to lead over
several col's. This requires a extrodinary knowledge of ones form. A
attack like this also never a sure thing. Hinault or Lance could very
well have exploded and lost a lot of time on GC.
Or that, say, Claudio Chiappucci is a greater
> champion than Miguel Indurain because Chiappa attacked from the foot of
> the first mountain to win the stage to Sestriere but Indurain *never*
> won a Tour by attacking from the first mountain?
There is a big difference from winning a race like the Tour
offensively as opposed to using defensive tactics. Another factor to
consider is that a
former Tour winner has a lot more to lose than a climbing specialist
like
Chiapucci.
Scott Hendricks
If you mean, did he buy a new house with the money he was 'counting' on
winning, probably not. Did he go to the start line with every intention of
winning, I'd say he did.
Here's an example of what I mean. Back in the late '80s, there was a
triathlete (a friend of mine) down in AZ, raced in the 40+ category, who
went
for 18 months without losing a race, culminating with a world amateur
championship. We were talking one day about how he dealt with the pressure
of
the streak. He said there was no pressure. As he put it, he went to the
start line at every race feeling sorry for his competitors, because they
thought they had a chance, but he knew they didn't. He said he'd look
around
at the swim start, at his competitors, wondering who the first loser (his
term
for second place) would be.
Now, that's what I mean by 'counting' on winning.
Daniel Connelly
> As he put it, he went to the
> start line at every race feeling sorry for his competitors, because they
> thought they had a chance, but he knew they didn't. He said he'd look
> around
> at the swim start, at his competitors, wondering who the first loser (his
> term
> for second place) would be.
>
I still like the quote about the Samurai, who has already resolved that he
will die, and therefore fights to kill rather than survive. It has no
relevance to this discussion, but it's more attractive than thinking
about this guy's supreme arrogance.
Dan
Scott Hendricks
Hey, Dan, how is it that confidence = arrogance? Make that 'supreme
arrogance'.
Have you ever spent much time around someone who truly won a LOT? I've
known
2 or 3 people who have. They are definitely NOT arrogant away from
competition, but they all took on a different perspective when the
competition
started.
Tim McNamara
Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lance works with his directeur sportif to decide what is goals for
> the season are. There are of course team goals and the TDF is at the
> top of the list. As for other stage races and classics Lance has
> enough influence to pick what races he will enter.
You overstimate the power and position of professional bike racers
within teams. Teams tell riders what they're going to races- as
Bruyneel did with Armstrong, changing Armstrong's season goal from
Classics to the Tour as soon as he took over team management.
Armstrong is told his goal, no doubt with his willingness to go along
with it or he'd shop around for another team with different goals, and
his entire season is set up around that goal. His training is
extremely controlled by Carmichael and Bruyneel.
Make no mistake: pro bike racers are employees, hired and paid to do
the job they are told to do. They are not artists or freelancers able
to pick and choose their goals. The team and the sponsors set the goal
the rider meets it, if he can. If Armstrong was to decide that
Liege-Bastogne-Liege was more important, changed his training and won
that but then ended up 24th at the Tour, you can be sure he'd be riding
for some other team fairly shortly.
Tim McNamara
Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Yes,but attacking at on the first climb on a mountain stage takes
> > > a tremendous amount of confidence and experience. Only a rider
> > > who is real champion is capable of pulling a feat like this
> > > sucessfully. Although I have to give Lance credit for attacking
> > > in the same manner last year.
> >
> > This sort of thing has happened probably less than a dozen times in
> > Tour history- are you telling us that they are the only "real"
> > champions?
> No I am not claiming that they are the only "real champions".What I
> am saying is that it takes rider of champion caliber to pull off such
> a feat.
Whereby you damn Lemond, Indurain, Riis, Ullrich and Armstrong with
faint praise. And for that matter, Anquetil. Pantani, following as he
does in the tracks of Chiappucci, might be an exception in your view?
> What makes this sort of attack so extrodinary is that when Hinault
> attacked he already knew that he was strong enough to lead over
> several col's. This requires a extrodinary knowledge of ones form. A
> attack like this also never a sure thing. Hinault or Lance could very
> well have exploded and lost a lot of time on GC.
What made the attack extraordinary is that Hinault colluded with Lucho
Herrera, who led Hinault up every col on that breakaway. When Hinault
tried the same maneuver on his own in 1986, he lost the Tour.
Attacking on the first col takes extraordinary confidence,
extraordinary stupidity and/or extraordinary arrogance. Making it
stick takes extraordinary luck and extraordinary legs. Hinault had the
arrogance and, much of the time, the legs.
> > Or that, say, Claudio Chiappucci is a greater champion than Miguel
> > Indurain because Chiappa attacked from the foot of the first
> > mountain to win the stage to Sestriere but Indurain *never* won a
> > Tour by attacking from the first mountain?
>
> There is a big difference from winning a race like the Tour
> offensively as opposed to using defensive tactics.
Like what? Winning the race is winning the race, and no one wins it
without racing on the offensive. The odds are better for the rider who
intelligently rides aggressively- Armstrong compared to, say, VDB.
> Another factor to consider is that a former Tour winner has a lot
> more to lose than a climbing specialist like Chiapucci.
Like I said, attacking on the first col takes extraordinary confidence,
extraordinary stupidity and/or extraordinary arrogance. Making it
stick takes extrordinary luck and in the case of Chiappucci, the
assistance of Drs. Eryth, Ropo and Etin.
You don't seem to understand that the racing has changed from the days
of Merckx and Hinault. It is no longer possible for the same men to
contend in the Tour de France, the Giro d/Italia and the Classics in
the same season. There were few enough of those at any point in
cycling's history- Coppi, Bartali, Merckx, Anquetil, Gimondi, Moser, P
Anderson, Lemond in his prime, Hinault, Kelly ... it's a short list.
Bart Van Hoorebeeck
>
>
> What made the attack extraordinary is that Hinault colluded with Lucho
> Herrera, who led Hinault up every col on that breakaway. When Hinault
> tried the same maneuver on his own in 1986, he lost the Tour.
>
> Attacking on the first col takes extraordinary confidence,
> extraordinary stupidity and/or extraordinary arrogance. Making it
> stick takes extraordinary luck and extraordinary legs. Hinault had the
> arrogance and, much of the time, the legs.
Yes in Hinault's case you can't say his moves were always based on
extraordinary knowledge alone. He had his temper that's hard to tame,
and there might have been surrounding factors.
Like once in the Giro. He had eaten icecream before a mountain stage and
soon gets terrible cramps. He thinks "if the Italians see I'm not
feeling well, they finish me off today, I'd better go ride out of sight
". So he sets up a very early attack with lieutenant Bernaudeau. They
take a considerable lead, the Italians think Hinault is suicidal, but he
comes through and epicly Hinault and Bernaudeau stay in front. The GC is
assured, the lieutenant gets sthe stage.
Bart
Randall Shimizu
> In article <581051cd.01061...@posting.google.com>, Randall
> Shimizu <rshim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes,but attacking at on the first climb on a mountain stage takes
> > > > a tremendous amount of confidence and experience. Only a rider
> > > > who is real champion is capable of pulling a feat like this
> > > > sucessfully. Although I have to give Lance credit for attacking
> > > > in the same manner last year.
> > >
> > > This sort of thing has happened probably less than a dozen times in
> > > Tour history- are you telling us that they are the only "real"
> > > champions?
>
> > No I am not claiming that they are the only "real champions".What I
> > am saying is that it takes rider of champion caliber to pull off such
> > a feat.
>
> Whereby you damn Lemond, Indurain, Riis, Ullrich and Armstrong with
> faint praise.
champions.
And for that matter, Anquetil. Pantani, following as he
> does in the tracks of Chiappucci, might be an exception in your view?
>
> > What makes this sort of attack so extrodinary is that when Hinault
> > attacked he already knew that he was strong enough to lead over
> > several col's. This requires a extrodinary knowledge of ones form. A
> > attack like this also never a sure thing. Hinault or Lance could very
> > well have exploded and lost a lot of time on GC.
>
> What made the attack extraordinary is that Hinault colluded with Lucho
> Herrera, who led Hinault up every col on that breakaway. When Hinault
> tried the same maneuver on his own in 1986, he lost the Tour.
>
> Attacking on the first col takes extraordinary confidence,
> extraordinary stupidity and/or extraordinary arrogance. Making it
> stick takes extraordinary luck and extraordinary legs. Hinault had the
> arrogance and, much of the time, the legs.
>
> > > Or that, say, Claudio Chiappucci is a greater champion than Miguel
> > > Indurain because Chiappa attacked from the foot of the first
> > > mountain to win the stage to Sestriere but Indurain *never* won a
> > > Tour by attacking from the first mountain?
> >
> > There is a big difference from winning a race like the Tour
> > offensively as opposed to using defensive tactics.
>
> Like what? Winning the race is winning the race, and no one wins it
> without racing on the offensive. The odds are better for the rider who
> intelligently rides aggressively-
Armstrong compared to, say, VDB.
Armstrong did in fact rode offensively by attacking in a mountain
stage.
>
> > Another factor to consider is that a former Tour winner has a lot
> > more to lose than a climbing specialist like Chiapucci.
>
> Like I said, attacking on the first col takes extraordinary confidence,
> extraordinary stupidity and/or extraordinary arrogance. Making it
> stick takes extrordinary luck and in the case of Chiappucci, the
> assistance of Drs. Eryth, Ropo and Etin.
>
> You don't seem to understand that the racing has changed from the days
> of Merckx and Hinault.
People always talk about how times have changed. Personally I think it
is more
a lack of commitment and training these days. If a rider like chance
chose to I believe that he could win several fall classics for
example.
Randall Shimizu
I still disagree with you... A team will not risk losing a defending
winner of the TDF. If Lance chose to leave US Postal they would be
forced to restructure the team. There is also a distinct probability
that they would be forced to seek other major sponsors for the team as
well.