2016 TdF, Stage 16: Moirans-en-Montagne → Bern (209km)

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Slaav said:
saganftw said:
you are comparing NHL in 80s to NHL of today where you dont even need 100 points to win Art Ross Trophy

stop doing it,its a debate that has no answer
A debate with plenty of answers and opinions - just no definitive answers :)
most of them emotionaly driven :lol: its like picking between raquel welch and sophia loren
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
But even if Merckx, Hinault etc had specialised, their palmares aged 26 are a lot more impressive than Sagan's. Merckx's record in cobbled races is more impressive than Sagan's, for example. Sagan is very versatile, but he's not really an all-rounder. Cancellara's been more of one over the last few years, among others.

Also, if you look at Merckx's record and sheer dominance, the debate over GOAT overall isn't really a debate at all.
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
Re: Re:

saganftw said:
most of them emotionaly driven :lol: its like picking between raquel welch and sophia loren
Lets have discussion without emotions, shall we. Because we are people so it's perfectly normal that there are discussions of two kinds: those with emotions and those without them :)
 
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
You're right, De Vlaeminck, Ocana, Fuente, Gimondi, Zoetemelk, and Moser were practically amateurs compared to Kristoff and the rest.
Yep, that's totally what I said :eek:

It's very simple. These days you have > 800 professional bike riders, and hundreds and hundreds of (young) guys training super hard to also become a pro. Now how many pros did you have in the 70's and 80's?

Cycling is also a lot more globalized, meaning the talent pool is much bigger. Back then cycling revolved around the traditional countries (Belgium, France, Italy,...) with just a few outsiders here and there. Today, for example, I read it never happened before that nor Spain, nor France, nor Italy had won a stage in the Tour. This is no coincidence obviously.

It's just using common sense really to conclude the competition is harder today.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re: Re:

Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
You're right, De Vlaeminck, Ocana, Fuente, Gimondi, Zoetemelk, and Moser were practically amateurs compared to Kristoff and the rest.
Yep, that's totally what I said :eek:

It's very simple. These days you have > 800 professional bike riders, and hundreds and hundreds of (young) guys training super hard to also become a pro. Now how many pros did you have in the 70's and 80's?

Cycling is also a lot more globalized, meaning the talent pool is much bigger. Back then cycling revolved around the traditional countries (Belgium, France, Italy,...) with just a few outsiders here and there. Today, for example, I read it never happened before that nor Spain, nor France, nor Italy had won a stage in the Tour. This is no coincidence obviously.

It's just using common sense really to conclude the competition is harder today.
It may seem common sense, but it's misleadingly simplistic. I would argue that back then while cycling was dominated by Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Holland, the interest was a lot more intense, and there was a lot more poverty among the communities which produced the most cyclists. It offered a way out which not much else did. In fact, there were a good number of pros back then.
 
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
You're right, De Vlaeminck, Ocana, Fuente, Gimondi, Zoetemelk, and Moser were practically amateurs compared to Kristoff and the rest.
Yep, that's totally what I said :eek:

It's very simple. These days you have > 800 professional bike riders, and hundreds and hundreds of (young) guys training super hard to also become a pro. Now how many pros did you have in the 70's and 80's?

Cycling is also a lot more globalized, meaning the talent pool is much bigger. Back then cycling revolved around the traditional countries (Belgium, France, Italy,...) with just a few outsiders here and there. Today, for example, I read it never happened before that nor Spain, nor France, nor Italy had won a stage in the Tour. This is no coincidence obviously.

It's just using common sense really to conclude the competition is harder today.
It may seem common sense, but it's misleadingly simplistic. I would argue that back then while cycling was dominated by Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Holland, the interest was a lot more intense, and there was a lot more poverty among the communities which produced the most cyclists. It offered a way out which not much else did. In fact, there were a good number of pros back then.
Seeing all those people alongside the road, I doubt interest in cycling is that much less in the traditional countries. And even if it would be, it's easily compensated by untraditional cycling countries who recently 'discovered' cycling, like Great Britain.
 
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
You're right, De Vlaeminck, Ocana, Fuente, Gimondi, Zoetemelk, and Moser were practically amateurs compared to Kristoff and the rest.
Yep, that's totally what I said :eek:

It's very simple. These days you have > 800 professional bike riders, and hundreds and hundreds of (young) guys training super hard to also become a pro. Now how many pros did you have in the 70's and 80's?

Cycling is also a lot more globalized, meaning the talent pool is much bigger. Back then cycling revolved around the traditional countries (Belgium, France, Italy,...) with just a few outsiders here and there. Today, for example, I read it never happened before that nor Spain, nor France, nor Italy had won a stage in the Tour. This is no coincidence obviously.

It's just using common sense really to conclude the competition is harder today.
It may seem common sense, but it's misleadingly simplistic. I would argue that back then while cycling was dominated by Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Holland, the interest was a lot more intense, and there was a lot more poverty among the communities which produced the most cyclists. It offered a way out which not much else did. In fact, there were a good number of pros back then.
You know what, nostalgia and romanticizing is also pretty simplistic and misleading.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re: Re:

Hakkapelit said:
Cannibal72 said:
Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
You're right, De Vlaeminck, Ocana, Fuente, Gimondi, Zoetemelk, and Moser were practically amateurs compared to Kristoff and the rest.
Yep, that's totally what I said :eek:

It's very simple. These days you have > 800 professional bike riders, and hundreds and hundreds of (young) guys training super hard to also become a pro. Now how many pros did you have in the 70's and 80's?

Cycling is also a lot more globalized, meaning the talent pool is much bigger. Back then cycling revolved around the traditional countries (Belgium, France, Italy,...) with just a few outsiders here and there. Today, for example, I read it never happened before that nor Spain, nor France, nor Italy had won a stage in the Tour. This is no coincidence obviously.

It's just using common sense really to conclude the competition is harder today.
It may seem common sense, but it's misleadingly simplistic. I would argue that back then while cycling was dominated by Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Holland, the interest was a lot more intense, and there was a lot more poverty among the communities which produced the most cyclists. It offered a way out which not much else did. In fact, there were a good number of pros back then.
You know what, nostalgia and romanticizing is also pretty simplistic and misleading.
Which is why I'm not romanticising it at all, you see. Just pointing out that cycling was indisputably more significant then in the major countries than it is now. It's certainly true that the untraditional countries like the UK or Colombia are now picking up the slack, but that doesn't mean the field is stronger than 40 years ago - only roughly equivalent.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re: Re:

Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
You're right, De Vlaeminck, Ocana, Fuente, Gimondi, Zoetemelk, and Moser were practically amateurs compared to Kristoff and the rest.
Yep, that's totally what I said :eek:

It's very simple. These days you have > 800 professional bike riders, and hundreds and hundreds of (young) guys training super hard to also become a pro. Now how many pros did you have in the 70's and 80's?

Cycling is also a lot more globalized, meaning the talent pool is much bigger. Back then cycling revolved around the traditional countries (Belgium, France, Italy,...) with just a few outsiders here and there. Today, for example, I read it never happened before that nor Spain, nor France, nor Italy had won a stage in the Tour. This is no coincidence obviously.

It's just using common sense really to conclude the competition is harder today.
It may seem common sense, but it's misleadingly simplistic. I would argue that back then while cycling was dominated by Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Holland, the interest was a lot more intense, and there was a lot more poverty among the communities which produced the most cyclists. It offered a way out which not much else did. In fact, there were a good number of pros back then.
Seeing all those people alongside the road, I doubt interest in cycling is that much less in the traditional countries. And even if it would be, it's easily compensated by untraditional cycling countries who recently 'discovered' cycling, like Great Britain.
I think I read that two-thirds of those who watch roadside do so for the caravan. And you're right, it's compensated for by GB etc - but that just means it's roughly equal, not that the present peloton is stronger.
 
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
You're right, De Vlaeminck, Ocana, Fuente, Gimondi, Zoetemelk, and Moser were practically amateurs compared to Kristoff and the rest.
Yep, that's totally what I said :eek:

It's very simple. These days you have > 800 professional bike riders, and hundreds and hundreds of (young) guys training super hard to also become a pro. Now how many pros did you have in the 70's and 80's?

Cycling is also a lot more globalized, meaning the talent pool is much bigger. Back then cycling revolved around the traditional countries (Belgium, France, Italy,...) with just a few outsiders here and there. Today, for example, I read it never happened before that nor Spain, nor France, nor Italy had won a stage in the Tour. This is no coincidence obviously.

It's just using common sense really to conclude the competition is harder today.
It may seem common sense, but it's misleadingly simplistic. I would argue that back then while cycling was dominated by Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Holland, the interest was a lot more intense, and there was a lot more poverty among the communities which produced the most cyclists. It offered a way out which not much else did. In fact, there were a good number of pros back then.
Seeing all those people alongside the road, I doubt interest in cycling is that much less in the traditional countries. And even if it would be, it's easily compensated by untraditional cycling countries who recently 'discovered' cycling, like Great Britain.
I think I read that two-thirds of those who watch roadside do so for the caravan. And you're right, it's compensated for by GB etc - but that just means it's roughly equal, not that the present peloton is stronger.
Nope. The fact that you can earn a damn good living by becoming a (good) pro these days, automatically increases the overall level. Because of this, many young guys dream of being a pro and they'll do whatever it takes to become one. You can call it simplistic, but it's true.
 
speaking of surprising perfomances Richeze made top 10,which is probably who Kirby mistook for Kittel...and Kristoff is turning into one hell of a puncheur - he keeps punching those handlebars after every finish
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

spalco said:
El Pistolero said:
Sagan is probaby much more talented than all those you mentioned. You can't compare different era's. What Sagan is doing in the modern era is unheard of, which makes a comparison with Merckx not absurd. Anquetil wouldn't make it inside the time limit in a modern Tour.
Who knows? Probably every previous Tour winner, even from the 20s, was an exceptional endurance sport talent. With modern training and "medicine" I wouldn't put it past any of them to challenge for the GC today.
I know for sure Anquetil wouldn't be able follow a professional diet, just read some of the stories about him. He'd make for a worthless pro in a modern peloton. Eddy Merckx would be interesting to see, yes.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re: Re:

Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
Flamin said:
Cannibal72 said:
Flamin said:
Yep, that's totally what I said :eek:

It's very simple. These days you have > 800 professional bike riders, and hundreds and hundreds of (young) guys training super hard to also become a pro. Now how many pros did you have in the 70's and 80's?

Cycling is also a lot more globalized, meaning the talent pool is much bigger. Back then cycling revolved around the traditional countries (Belgium, France, Italy,...) with just a few outsiders here and there. Today, for example, I read it never happened before that nor Spain, nor France, nor Italy had won a stage in the Tour. This is no coincidence obviously.

It's just using common sense really to conclude the competition is harder today.
It may seem common sense, but it's misleadingly simplistic. I would argue that back then while cycling was dominated by Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Holland, the interest was a lot more intense, and there was a lot more poverty among the communities which produced the most cyclists. It offered a way out which not much else did. In fact, there were a good number of pros back then.
Seeing all those people alongside the road, I doubt interest in cycling is that much less in the traditional countries. And even if it would be, it's easily compensated by untraditional cycling countries who recently 'discovered' cycling, like Great Britain.
I think I read that two-thirds of those who watch roadside do so for the caravan. And you're right, it's compensated for by GB etc - but that just means it's roughly equal, not that the present peloton is stronger.
Nope. The fact that you can earn a damn good living by becoming a (good) pro these days, automatically increases the overall level. Because of this, many young guys dream of being a pro and they'll do whatever it takes to become one. You can call it simplistic, but it's true.
Firstly, the vast majority of pros don't earn a 'damn good living' at all. The superstars earn more than ever before, but everyone else is on very low wages. On a Conti or even ProConti team? You're lucky to make a living at all, let alone a decent one. Even WT teams' budgets, with one or two obvious exceptions, are startlingly low.

Secondly, the traditional heartlands of cycling - Flanders, Brittany, the Basque Country - were poor regions. Merckx himself, who came from a middle-class family, is something of an exception. Hinault - working on a poor farm from an early age - is far more the rule. Nowadays, thanks to tourism (Brittany), services (Flanders), or EU money (all three), these regions are a hell of a lot richer. Nowhere near as many young riders dream of becoming a pro in the regions which provided the vast majority of the pros in Merckx's or Hinault's day.

(Rather a nice parallel is football. From the 1940s onwards, Scotland provided a huge number of pro footballers, culminating in the famous Lisbon Lions team of '67. Why? Because it was the only way out of poverty in the deprived areas of Glasgow. If you read the reminiscences of players like Matt Busby, they explicitly describe this as their reason for trying to get into football. Now, both Celtic and Scottish football are...a bit weaker. Now the British and Western European leagues are considerably more internationalised. Does this automatically make Messi a better footballer than Cruyff? No.)
 
^^
You keep making big claims that are completely anecdotal, just saying. What are your stats on numbers of cyclists in Flanders in 1960 compared to today?

And if we're being anecdotal, how many cyclists in Flanders in the 60s worked fulltime jobs at age 15 besides cycling in their spare time vs. junior training today?
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
spalco said:
El Pistolero said:
Sagan is probaby much more talented than all those you mentioned. You can't compare different era's. What Sagan is doing in the modern era is unheard of, which makes a comparison with Merckx not absurd. Anquetil wouldn't make it inside the time limit in a modern Tour.
Who knows? Probably every previous Tour winner, even from the 20s, was an exceptional endurance sport talent. With modern training and "medicine" I wouldn't put it past any of them to challenge for the GC today.
I know for sure Anquetil wouldn't be able follow a professional diet, just read some of the stories about him. He'd make for a worthless pro in a modern peloton. Eddy Merckx would be interesting to see, yes.
Jan Ullrich says hello... :D
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re:

spalco said:
^^
You keep making big claims that are completely anecdotal, just saying. What are your stats on numbers of cyclists in Flanders in 1960 compared to today?

And if we're being anecdotal, how many cyclists in Flanders in the 60s worked fulltime jobs at age 15 besides cycling in their spare time vs. junior training today?
I do have the stats, but I'm away from my books, as the phrase goes.
 
Re: Re:

Cannibal72 said:
Flamin said:
Nope. The fact that you can earn a damn good living by becoming a (good) pro these days, automatically increases the overall level. Because of this, many young guys dream of being a pro and they'll do whatever it takes to become one. You can call it simplistic, but it's true.
Firstly, the vast majority of pros don't earn a 'damn good living' at all. The superstars earn more than ever before, but everyone else is on very low wages. On a Conti or even ProConti team? You're lucky to make a living at all, let alone a decent one. Even WT teams' budgets, with one or two obvious exceptions, are startlingly low.

Secondly, the traditional heartlands of cycling - Flanders, Brittany, the Basque Country - were poor regions. Merckx himself, who came from a middle-class family, is something of an exception. Hinault - working on a poor farm from an early age - is far more the rule. Nowadays, thanks to tourism (Brittany), services (Flanders), or EU money (all three), these regions are a hell of a lot richer. Nowhere near as many young riders dream of becoming a pro in the regions which provided the vast majority of the pros in Merckx's or Hinault's day.

(Rather a nice parallel is football. From the 1940s onwards, Scotland provided a huge number of pro footballers, culminating in the famous Lisbon Lions team of '67. Why? Because it was the only way out of poverty in the deprived areas of Glasgow. If you read the reminiscences of players like Matt Busby, they explicitly describe this as their reason for trying to get into football. Now, both Celtic and Scottish football are...a bit weaker. Now the British and Western European leagues are considerably more internationalised. Does this automatically make Messi a better footballer than Cruyff? No.)
No, of course not, but the point is that you CAN earn a very nice living. And you don't have to be Sagan or Froome. Van den Broeck, hardly a super talent, for example made 1 million/year during his peak years.

Even if what you say is true, that more young guys dreamt of being a pro back in the day, how many of them actually had the possibility to train properly? Nowadays you see young guys almost training and living like professionals from a very young age.

And no, it does not automatically mean Messi is a better footballer than Cruijff. I didn't say Sagan is better than Merckx either (it seems like that's what you're hinting at with the Messi-Cruijff comparison), only that the overall level is clearly higher, which is why Sagan can never ever build a palmares like Merckx, even he wás better than Merckx.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY