Miburo said:
Mozart92 said:
The_Cheech said:
SkyTears said:
i think Contador pick the worst year to attempt the double
i don't remember any TdF so stacked with top guys
He's been saying he needs a challenge for a while now.
When I read between the lines it all sounds as though he's got enough money in the bank and isn't turned on by a single GT, hence him taking on both, Giro + TdF.
I also think he is being genuine when he says that he wants to retire at the end of next year.
If he pulls it off (wins GdI + TdF) and then goes to the Vuelta, and wins it, then he can say that he is one of the best.
Giro+Tour+Vuelta? Never happened, it's nearly impossible. If he manages to do that he'd be even better than Eddy Merckx. However I'm quite sure no one in moder cycling can pass such a challenge. Giro+Tour is already a terrible task, his legs are going on strike if he asks them to ride a third GT
No way he'll be better than merckx then. Merckx is way too much.
But if he does the double he can make a claim for top5 riders of all time.
Sorry to have to voice my disent, not over Contador not being better than Merckx (which is a futile analogy), but the simple idea that he, Eddie, "is way too much." The concept that any athlete is too hallowed to be "touched" is a bizzare "culture" in this sport, which smacks a bit of provincialism and the type of nostalgia that doesn't want to confront the present reality.
Merckx was simply the best of his era, in an era that still permitted a complete rider who could win on practically every terrain. Yet that era is long since in the past and today it is simply not possible (or at least so unlikely as to be "impossible") for a Grand Tour winner to win races like the Tour of Flanders (for example). In Merckx era they raced so much that nobody could reach the super peaks of form that the science of training and selective appointments have made possible today.
It made me laugh, therefore, when I read a journalist recently ask Merckx if he were racing today would he have won as much, or more?! The obvious answer is he would necessarily have won much, much less, because he'd have to prepare for and target select races and thus race far less, or else he'd get crushed. Then you have to consider that cycling in Merckx's day was basically a Continental sport, whereas today it is global. The field today has thus a wider (geographical) range of talent, for which just to become a pro is much harder than it was in the 60's and 70's, the money is also tighter and the expenses to run a team way more costly. For this reason the pros today have to perform at such a high level in all the races being run that it is truly exasperating. In fact for this reason they race less number of races, but have to be in better shape in the ones the do. A big champion of today for this reason couldn't dream of lining up at the start and winning all the races Merckx did, because it is simply not humanly possible, even if that human is Eddy Merckx.
It's fair to ask, were Eddie racing today, would he be the same overpowering talent that he was in the late 60's and 70's given all this? No way. He'd no doubt be very, very good, but he'd be hard pressed to dominate those who will be going for Yellow in July this year. Beat them, perhaps, but only with great difficulty. And there's no way that he's a more explosive climber than a super Contador.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram