New virtual Tour de France record

k.j.papai wrote:


1968-1975 is not 1991 - 2004.
Athletes are in twice the shape now and the top 100 now could probably
beat *anyone* back then all things being the same.

I've heard this many times, but don't know how you could test this
position--perhaps ergometer testing.
Obviously all things aren't the same. The equipment is better ,
lighter, more aerodynamic. A more cynical man than I might say the
drugs are better.
It could be that the pro ranks are drawing from a wider field--I
suppose you could find ways to test that. It probably wouldn't make the
top top riders better, but might put more very high level riders right
near the top.

Steve



so, he has retaken the virtual record back

Merckx - 20 wins
Lemond - 7 wins
Armstrong - 6 wins
Coppi/Indurain/Anquetil - 5 wins

I wonder what it would have been like if Merckx's rivals raced with
medicine
droppers?

"k.j.papai" wrote in message
...

"Brenton James" wrote in message
...
"If I raced with a medicine dropper like him, I'd have won the Tour for
at
least twenty years. I've always criticised Lance because he gives little
back to cycling." - Eddy Merckx

1968-1975 is not 1991 - 2004.
Athletes are in twice the shape now and the top 100 now could probably
beat *anyone* back then all things being the same.

All things being the same take a look at the absolute hour record from the
general time period:

http://townsleyb.members.beeb.net/procycle/HOUR1.HTM

and compare it to Chris Boardman's current record. I would like to see
Lance take on this record sometime. I think there's more depth today but
the top guys aren't that much different.

James

"k.j.papai" wrote in message
...

"Brenton James" wrote in message
...
"If I raced with a medicine dropper like him, I'd have won the Tour for
at
least twenty years. I've always criticised Lance because he gives little
back to cycling." - Eddy Merckx

1968-1975 is not 1991 - 2004.
Athletes are in twice the shape now and the top 100 now could probably
beat *anyone* back then all things being the same.

All things being the same take a look at the absolute hour record from the
general time period:

http://townsleyb.members.beeb.net/procycle/HOUR1.HTM

and compare it to Chris Boardman's current record. I would like to see
Lance take on this record sometime. I think there's more depth today but
the top guys aren't that much different.

James

The expression "a cuentagotas" in Spanish is not obscure and is no
euphemism for doping. I remember reading something on OLN.com when the
Tour was going on this year where they pited the Big Five against each
other and, surprise, surprise, it wasn't Merckx, but Boss Hinault that
took the win in the mountains.

The expression "a cuentagotas" in Spanish is not obscure and is no
euphemism for doping. I remember reading something on OLN.com when the
Tour was going on this year where they pited the Big Five against each
other and, surprise, surprise, it wasn't Merckx, but Boss Hinault that
took the win in the mountains.

James P. Spooner wrote:

"k.j.papai" wrote in message
1968-1975 is not 1991 - 2004.
Athletes are in twice the shape now and the top 100 now could probably
beat *anyone* back then all things being the same.

All things being the same take a look at the absolute hour record from the
general time period:

http://townsleyb.members.beeb.net/procycle/HOUR1.HTM

and compare it to Chris Boardman's current record. I would like to see
Lance take on this record sometime. I think there's more depth today but
the top guys aren't that much different.

Compare the year Merckx had in 1972 with the year Boardman had
in 2000. Merckx won everything in sight, Boardman was invisible.

Boardman got the record because he had health issues that were
flushing his regular road career down the tubes. That allowed
him to focus on the hour record, he wasn't giving anything
else up to do it. If he was one of the top guys he never would
have taken the hour record because he would have been too busy
doing other things to prepare properly for it.

Bob Schwartz

James P. Spooner wrote:

"k.j.papai" wrote in message
1968-1975 is not 1991 - 2004.
Athletes are in twice the shape now and the top 100 now could probably
beat *anyone* back then all things being the same.

All things being the same take a look at the absolute hour record from the
general time period:

http://townsleyb.members.beeb.net/procycle/HOUR1.HTM

and compare it to Chris Boardman's current record. I would like to see
Lance take on this record sometime. I think there's more depth today but
the top guys aren't that much different.

Compare the year Merckx had in 1972 with the year Boardman had
in 2000. Merckx won everything in sight, Boardman was invisible.

Boardman got the record because he had health issues that were
flushing his regular road career down the tubes. That allowed
him to focus on the hour record, he wasn't giving anything
else up to do it. If he was one of the top guys he never would
have taken the hour record because he would have been too busy
doing other things to prepare properly for it.

Bob Schwartz

"Bob Schwartz" wrote in message
...
James P. Spooner wrote:

"k.j.papai" wrote in message
1968-1975 is not 1991 - 2004.
Athletes are in twice the shape now and the top 100 now could probably
beat *anyone* back then all things being the same.

All things being the same take a look at the absolute hour record from
the
general time period:

http://townsleyb.members.beeb.net/procycle/HOUR1.HTM

and compare it to Chris Boardman's current record. I would like to see
Lance take on this record sometime. I think there's more depth today
but
the top guys aren't that much different.

Compare the year Merckx had in 1972 with the year Boardman had
in 2000. Merckx won everything in sight, Boardman was invisible.

Boardman got the record because he had health issues that were
flushing his regular road career down the tubes. That allowed
him to focus on the hour record, he wasn't giving anything
else up to do it. If he was one of the top guys he never would
have taken the hour record because he would have been too busy
doing other things to prepare properly for it.

Bob Schwartz


Yes, that's a good argument. Same with LZ, as she spent almost the entire
year to focus on the record, and threw some cash at it to work the
preparation to get it, including the extra pains to put up wind blocks in
Mexico City at the track, tunnel work, etc. How many advantages did Merckx
have or time and money to throw at it while winning just about everything
under the sun at the same time? I think riders are in smarter shape now, and
the gene pool is much better allowing better rivals. Times for the Tours and
Classics have improved but so have better aerodynamics and better bikes. But
how much overall would you subtract from those times based on how many
riders were juiced and forcing unbelievable paces. Greg Lemond on the OLN
special said that when he came back from after his hunting accident, that
the speeds had increased from juicers in the pack and that he was getting
hammered. Lemond credited Cyrille Guimard with turning his career around as
did Van Moorsel who was re-trained by Michael, so you can add better
training to the equation as well. How many riders back then could throw a
lot of money at training and coaches as some were even holding part time
jobs, let alone trainers. I wouldn't say Merckx is average by today's
standards at all, but just that the gene pool is bigger, creating more
rivals for Merckx in today's races. Also more riders are using cutting edge
pharmaceuticals, so to calculate all the factors were be interesting, but I
still think rare individuals with exceptional genes would shine in this era,
with all the advantages the same riders use today, the likes of Merckx,
Longo, etc. Merckx raced against the likes of Da Vlaeminck, Poulidor, Ocana,
Gimondi, Zoetemelk, Van Impe, Thevenet so he had a fair share of rivals, so
it's a pretty complex question that's always been interesting to me. All
things considered the shear volume of races Merckx won is still very telling
to me. :-)



B-

"Bob Schwartz" wrote in message
...
James P. Spooner wrote:

"k.j.papai" wrote in message
1968-1975 is not 1991 - 2004.
Athletes are in twice the shape now and the top 100 now could probably
beat *anyone* back then all things being the same.

All things being the same take a look at the absolute hour record from
the
general time period:

http://townsleyb.members.beeb.net/procycle/HOUR1.HTM

and compare it to Chris Boardman's current record. I would like to see
Lance take on this record sometime. I think there's more depth today
but
the top guys aren't that much different.

Compare the year Merckx had in 1972 with the year Boardman had
in 2000. Merckx won everything in sight, Boardman was invisible.

Boardman got the record because he had health issues that were
flushing his regular road career down the tubes. That allowed
him to focus on the hour record, he wasn't giving anything
else up to do it. If he was one of the top guys he never would
have taken the hour record because he would have been too busy
doing other things to prepare properly for it.

Bob Schwartz


Yes, that's a good argument. Same with LZ, as she spent almost the entire
year to focus on the record, and threw some cash at it to work the
preparation to get it, including the extra pains to put up wind blocks in
Mexico City at the track, tunnel work, etc. How many advantages did Merckx
have or time and money to throw at it while winning just about everything
under the sun at the same time? I think riders are in smarter shape now, and
the gene pool is much better allowing better rivals. Times for the Tours and
Classics have improved but so have better aerodynamics and better bikes. But
how much overall would you subtract from those times based on how many
riders were juiced and forcing unbelievable paces. Greg Lemond on the OLN
special said that when he came back from after his hunting accident, that
the speeds had increased from juicers in the pack and that he was getting
hammered. Lemond credited Cyrille Guimard with turning his career around as
did Van Moorsel who was re-trained by Michael, so you can add better
training to the equation as well. How many riders back then could throw a
lot of money at training and coaches as some were even holding part time
jobs, let alone trainers. I wouldn't say Merckx is average by today's
standards at all, but just that the gene pool is bigger, creating more
rivals for Merckx in today's races. Also more riders are using cutting edge
pharmaceuticals, so to calculate all the factors were be interesting, but I
still think rare individuals with exceptional genes would shine in this era,
with all the advantages the same riders use today, the likes of Merckx,
Longo, etc. Merckx raced against the likes of Da Vlaeminck, Poulidor, Ocana,
Gimondi, Zoetemelk, Van Impe, Thevenet so he had a fair share of rivals, so
it's a pretty complex question that's always been interesting to me. All
things considered the shear volume of races Merckx won is still very telling
to me. :-)



B-