Armstrong in Ronde

"Geraard Spergen" wrote in message news:1100733904.1mTY+N4ctfU7GH5xz6Bu8g@teranews. ..
Makes total sense to me. Being on the list of GT winners with even ONE
monument victory puts him in some pretty elite company. I suspect he's more
motivated by that kind of thinking than he lets on.

Hey, i live inside you.

Kenny

(Randall Shimizu) wrote in message . com...
Well in terms of risk vs reward I feel that Paris-Roubaix is the
better choice.

Winning Paris-Roubaix will always have a more heroic impression. No
doubt about that. But the fact that bad luck (material problem) in PR
has a much bigger influence on the race, makes the Ronde a more honest
classic.

Although the Koppenberg has been improved it still
poses significant risks to the rider.

Where did you get that? Crossing a street is riskier than climbing
the Koppenberg. There is simply no comparison with the old Koppenberg
possible. It's a whole new climb.

While there is a lot of crashes
in Paris Roubaix more riders abandon than anything else.

That is true, but still Paris-Roubaix counts a lot more injured riders
than the Ronde year after year.

Besides Lance's team can better protect him in Paris Roubaix.

You mean the type of riders in his team are more suited for PR. I
agree (though Devolder is terrible on cobblestones). But that won't
"protect" Lance if he isn't able to stay on his bike at
Wallers-Arenberg.


Kenny

(Randall Shimizu) wrote in message . com...
Well in terms of risk vs reward I feel that Paris-Roubaix is the
better choice.

Winning Paris-Roubaix will always have a more heroic impression. No
doubt about that. But the fact that bad luck (material problem) in PR
has a much bigger influence on the race, makes the Ronde a more honest
classic.

Although the Koppenberg has been improved it still
poses significant risks to the rider.

Where did you get that? Crossing a street is riskier than climbing
the Koppenberg. There is simply no comparison with the old Koppenberg
possible. It's a whole new climb.

While there is a lot of crashes
in Paris Roubaix more riders abandon than anything else.

That is true, but still Paris-Roubaix counts a lot more injured riders
than the Ronde year after year.

Besides Lance's team can better protect him in Paris Roubaix.

You mean the type of riders in his team are more suited for PR. I
agree (though Devolder is terrible on cobblestones). But that won't
"protect" Lance if he isn't able to stay on his bike at
Wallers-Arenberg.


Kenny

(Kenny) wrote in message . com...
(Randall Shimizu) wrote in message . com...
Well in terms of risk vs reward I feel that Paris-Roubaix is the
better choice.

Winning Paris-Roubaix will always have a more heroic impression. No
doubt about that. But the fact that bad luck (material problem) in PR
has a much bigger influence on the race, makes the Ronde a more honest
classic.

I don't believe luck is plays a greater role in either race. After all
it can be argued that the Koppenberg depends upon luck. On the
otherhand one can point to winners such as Moser, Madiot and Museeuw
have won on multiple occasions. In both races it depends on riding at
the front to avoid crashes. Paris Roubaix is much harder because of
the weather and cobbles.

Although the Koppenberg has been improved it still
poses significant risks to the rider.

Where did you get that? Crossing a street is riskier than climbing
the Koppenberg. There is simply no comparison with the old Koppenberg
possible. It's a whole new climb.

While there is a lot of crashes
in Paris Roubaix more riders abandon than anything else.

That is true, but still Paris-Roubaix counts a lot more injured riders
than the Ronde year after year.

Besides Lance's team can better protect him in Paris Roubaix.

You mean the type of riders in his team are more suited for PR. I
agree (though Devolder is terrible on cobblestones). But that won't
"protect" Lance if he isn't able to stay on his bike at
Wallers-Arenberg.


Kenny

(Kenny) wrote in message . com...
(Randall Shimizu) wrote in message . com...
Well in terms of risk vs reward I feel that Paris-Roubaix is the
better choice.

Winning Paris-Roubaix will always have a more heroic impression. No
doubt about that. But the fact that bad luck (material problem) in PR
has a much bigger influence on the race, makes the Ronde a more honest
classic.

I don't believe luck is plays a greater role in either race. After all
it can be argued that the Koppenberg depends upon luck. On the
otherhand one can point to winners such as Moser, Madiot and Museeuw
have won on multiple occasions. In both races it depends on riding at
the front to avoid crashes. Paris Roubaix is much harder because of
the weather and cobbles.

Although the Koppenberg has been improved it still
poses significant risks to the rider.

Where did you get that? Crossing a street is riskier than climbing
the Koppenberg. There is simply no comparison with the old Koppenberg
possible. It's a whole new climb.

While there is a lot of crashes
in Paris Roubaix more riders abandon than anything else.

That is true, but still Paris-Roubaix counts a lot more injured riders
than the Ronde year after year.

Besides Lance's team can better protect him in Paris Roubaix.

You mean the type of riders in his team are more suited for PR. I
agree (though Devolder is terrible on cobblestones). But that won't
"protect" Lance if he isn't able to stay on his bike at
Wallers-Arenberg.


Kenny

(Kenny) wrote in message . com...

Where did you get that? Crossing a street is riskier than climbing
the Koppenberg. There is simply no comparison with the old Koppenberg
possible. It's a whole new climb.

It still goes up the same hill :-) It doesn't have quite the same
"kink" in it that it used to have but it's still steep enough. And the
cobbles have started to separate again which makes it hard. It's not
the same Koppenberg as the freshly repaved one two years ago, and it's
not the same as the old one. But it's still a bugger.

As for risky, I've never done it while being pursued by a race
director's car :-) I have done it during the cyclotourist Ronde when
there was a couple getting married at the bottom of it. The traffic
jam that that caused was insane, and there was no way to ride up it.

Jeff

(Kenny) wrote in message . com...

Where did you get that? Crossing a street is riskier than climbing
the Koppenberg. There is simply no comparison with the old Koppenberg
possible. It's a whole new climb.

It still goes up the same hill :-) It doesn't have quite the same
"kink" in it that it used to have but it's still steep enough. And the
cobbles have started to separate again which makes it hard. It's not
the same Koppenberg as the freshly repaved one two years ago, and it's
not the same as the old one. But it's still a bugger.

As for risky, I've never done it while being pursued by a race
director's car :-) I have done it during the cyclotourist Ronde when
there was a couple getting married at the bottom of it. The traffic
jam that that caused was insane, and there was no way to ride up it.

Jeff

(Randall Shimizu) wrote in message . com...
(Kenny) wrote in message . com...
(Randall Shimizu) wrote in message . com...
Well in terms of risk vs reward I feel that Paris-Roubaix is the
better choice.

Winning Paris-Roubaix will always have a more heroic impression. No
doubt about that. But the fact that bad luck (material problem) in PR
has a much bigger influence on the race, makes the Ronde a more honest
classic.

I don't believe luck is plays a greater role in either race. After all
it can be argued that the Koppenberg depends upon luck. On the
otherhand one can point to winners such as Moser, Madiot and Museeuw
have won on multiple occasions. In both races it depends on riding at
the front to avoid crashes. Paris Roubaix is much harder because of
the weather and cobbles.


Why are you always referring to the Koppenberg? It's the hardest
climb in the ronde but it's not at all riskier than the Muur or the
Oude Kwaremont. What's the chance to flatten on the Koppenberg when
they climb it at let's say 17km/h in comparison to doing
Wallers-Arenberg or the Carrefour de l'arbre at 45 km/h? What's the
chance to fall or slip on the new Koppenberg in comparison to doing
the same on a muddy secteur pavee at PR? You cannot convince me:
(bad) luck plays a greater roll in PR. Especially when most of the
crashes in the Ronde happen during the first 180km, before the actual
climbs zone.

And how hard would you consider the Ronde? The same weather and
distance as PR, cobbles (20km) AND 17 climbs (3 of them have a max
gradient of =20%). The fact that PR could be harder is the way of
racing. The final of PR starts much earlier (say 70km to go), you
even have solos of 40km. At the Ronde the final starts at Tenbosse
(25 km to go). So there must be "something" that moves the riders to
ride differently. I guess the fact that 70% of the riders don't feel
well on cobbles, eliminates a large part of the peloton without really
racing for it. This leaves a more select elite group and the big guys
have to compete against each other in an earlier phase in the race.
In the ronde, the first climbs are not taken 100% by the peloton cause
they all know there are 17 to come. So a lot of riders can keep up
with the pace, or can even return a few times after a climb. This
results in a larger peloton for a longer time. The ronde of this year
shows that: 40 riders together at the foot of the Muur.

Kenny

(Randall Shimizu) wrote in message . com...
(Kenny) wrote in message . com...
(Randall Shimizu) wrote in message . com...
Well in terms of risk vs reward I feel that Paris-Roubaix is the
better choice.

Winning Paris-Roubaix will always have a more heroic impression. No
doubt about that. But the fact that bad luck (material problem) in PR
has a much bigger influence on the race, makes the Ronde a more honest
classic.

I don't believe luck is plays a greater role in either race. After all
it can be argued that the Koppenberg depends upon luck. On the
otherhand one can point to winners such as Moser, Madiot and Museeuw
have won on multiple occasions. In both races it depends on riding at
the front to avoid crashes. Paris Roubaix is much harder because of
the weather and cobbles.


Why are you always referring to the Koppenberg? It's the hardest
climb in the ronde but it's not at all riskier than the Muur or the
Oude Kwaremont. What's the chance to flatten on the Koppenberg when
they climb it at let's say 17km/h in comparison to doing
Wallers-Arenberg or the Carrefour de l'arbre at 45 km/h? What's the
chance to fall or slip on the new Koppenberg in comparison to doing
the same on a muddy secteur pavee at PR? You cannot convince me:
(bad) luck plays a greater roll in PR. Especially when most of the
crashes in the Ronde happen during the first 180km, before the actual
climbs zone.

And how hard would you consider the Ronde? The same weather and
distance as PR, cobbles (20km) AND 17 climbs (3 of them have a max
gradient of =20%). The fact that PR could be harder is the way of
racing. The final of PR starts much earlier (say 70km to go), you
even have solos of 40km. At the Ronde the final starts at Tenbosse
(25 km to go). So there must be "something" that moves the riders to
ride differently. I guess the fact that 70% of the riders don't feel
well on cobbles, eliminates a large part of the peloton without really
racing for it. This leaves a more select elite group and the big guys
have to compete against each other in an earlier phase in the race.
In the ronde, the first climbs are not taken 100% by the peloton cause
they all know there are 17 to come. So a lot of riders can keep up
with the pace, or can even return a few times after a climb. This
results in a larger peloton for a longer time. The ronde of this year
shows that: 40 riders together at the foot of the Muur.

Kenny