Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread

Page 1112 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Electress said:
Kwibus said:
Ps electress your most welcome ofcourse.

La flo don't be afraid. :)
Sprinting (in the drops?) LOL!
No not in the drops unfortunately :p
Well, I'll take it anyway!

I've been trying to work from my brother's house, and instead, my 3 year old nephew has been demanding 'Bento Contador' videos on youtube. I think my brother thinks I'm brainwashing his kids! :D
 
Re:

BlurryVII said:
As of today, Contador looked really good, for those who didn't watch it he was basically all the time out of the saddle spinning it when the road went up and did a great sprint among punchers.

Looking good so far. Regarding the weight, I'm sure there's some high intensity training planned for the dozen days after RDS, he'll be at least a kilo lighter for the Tour, I feel like that's how it's planned.
You think? I'd imagine to the contrary if this race goes well (even if it should not), then he'd have to be rested for the start of the Tour. I mean high intensity training 12 days before the Tour seems either too late, or risky. As far as weight is concerned its hard to tell from the pictures, although he said in an interview in la Gazzetta dello Sport that after the Giro (unlike during the race) he had to eat little and recover. Surely he did so.

I'd also imagine that high intensity training would create a perception that more calories are needed, when in fact he should eat little and focus on recovery. Of course, weight needs to be a fine balance between gaining vs loosing power.

As per Merckx, how impious of you! :p It must be admitted, though, that on the face of it with his body type it doesn't seem like he'd be able to climb well enough to win a Grand Tour these days. This only demonstrates how much the sport has changed since his day.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Kwibus said:
Ps electress your most welcome ofcourse.

La flo don't be afraid. :)
I am very afraid :p
Be at peace with your admiration for Alberto. Be proud in that you are one of many that can appreciate what he brings to the sport. I'm sure it makes him happy to see his efforts are recognized and appreciated. Just don't scream like a Justin Bieber fan when you meet him. :D We (Contador fans) want pictures!
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
LaFlorecita said:
Kwibus said:
Ps electress your most welcome ofcourse.

La flo don't be afraid. :)
I am very afraid :p
Be at peace with your admiration for Alberto. Be proud in that you are one of many that can appreciate what he brings to the sport. I'm sure it makes him happy to see his efforts are recognized and appreciated. Just don't scream like a Justin Bieber fan when you meet him. :D We (Contador fans) want pictures!
i intend on going early to Utrecht and actually try to get some pictures with riders, allthough im afraid they wont be very accesible due to huge crowds they are expecting. I hope so though!

The reason i dont want to go with friends/family is because I want to go full cyclingnerd ;)
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
cellardoor said:
Alberto looking frisky. Just staying out of trouble or does he harbour secret GC asipirations?

Juul-Jenson also very strong today. I hope the rumours of him leaving aren't true.
He always does, that's one of the reasons he's so awesome.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
2
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
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 :D
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.
Good post. It's the same story in every sport, really. The best of today are simply better than the best of the past (only exception I'm aware of is actually 90s cycling). The real question is, how do we want to define GOAT. The old legends have won more, and will never be surpassed in wins. Riders of today are better in absolute terms (watts). The most sensible thing to do is probably to look at each era in separation and look at how dominant and good they were relative to their peers. But even then, there's a need to take into account how large the pool of competitors was in each era. Being an outlier is more impressive in a large population than in a small one.

Of course, there's some value to treating legends of the past with reverence even if they aren't actually greater.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
De jongh was today investigating the parcours for stage 2 of the tour. Echelon stage and de jongh used to be an absolute beast at it.

I expect saxo to go ham in that stage.
 
Aug 4, 2010
11,337
0
0
Re: Re:

Electress said:
LaFlorecita said:
Electress said:
Kwibus said:
Ps electress your most welcome ofcourse.

La flo don't be afraid. :)
Sprinting (in the drops?) LOL!
No not in the drops unfortunately :p
Well, I'll take it anyway!

I've been trying to work from my brother's house, and instead, my 3 year old nephew has been demanding 'Bento Contador' videos on youtube. I think my brother thinks I'm brainwashing his kids! :D
lol great story :D


good news miburo :)
 
Re: Re:

SeriousSam: Good post. It's the same story in every sport, really. The best of today are simply better than the best of the past (only exception I'm aware of is actually 90s cycling). The real question is, how do we want to define GOAT. The old legends have won more, and will never be surpassed in wins. Riders of today are better in absolute terms (watts). The most sensible thing to do is probably to look at each era in separation and look at how dominant and good they were relative to their peers. But even then, there's a need to take into account how large the pool of competitors was in each era. Being an outlier is more impressive in a large population than in a small one.

Of course, there's some value to treating legends of the past with reverence even if they aren't actually greater.
If we are to classify the greats from each era, relative to how much each dominated in his, then Merckx wins hands down. This is surely why he is considered the "best of all time."

The problem with this approach, however, is that it doesn't take into consideration (as you say) that today's athletes are far superior to those of yesteryear. And no, if you take a past champ like Merckx and give him all the same advancements of today's racers, this does not convert into equal dominance against the contemporary field. These same advancements, as well as the global expansion of the sport, have made the competition far to extream to win all those races he did in the 60's and 70's. In addition, Merckx's physical stature may even have denied him the possibility of winning a Grand Tour in today's field. At any rate he'd be forced to make a choice: classics, or GT's and in today's sport perhaps the former would have been his only option.

The pool has for one grown considerably as in todays cyclists are picked from all over the world, not just Europe. It's a bigger pond and so the big fish have correspondingly bigger talent
 
There are still cyclists who have wins in both classics and grand tours in modern peleton....
I think Merckx in today's peleton would be a Valverde type rider with much better TT and bit better climbing (so pretty much still the best cyclist in the world by quite some margin)
 
Feb 21, 2014
2,133
0
0
Re:

damian13ster said:
There are still cyclists who have wins in both classics and grand tours in modern peleton....
Nothing compared to the 60's, 70's.

I think Merckx in today's peleton would be a Valverde type rider with much better TT and bit better climbing (so pretty much still the best cyclist in the world by quite some margin)
That is completely made up, no one knows. Of course that is Merckx adapting to the new methods and more scientifical approach. Because with his real level from his era, he gets crushed here.

Even adapting, I don't believe one bit he'd climb as good as Valverde.

And Valverde's palmares in GTs is really weak.
 
Re: Re:

BlurryVII said:
damian13ster said:
There are still cyclists who have wins in both classics and grand tours in modern peleton....
Nothing compared to the 60's, 70's.

I think Merckx in today's peleton would be a Valverde type rider with much better TT and bit better climbing (so pretty much still the best cyclist in the world by quite some margin)
That is completely made up, no one knows. Of course that is Merckx adapting to the new methods and more scientifical approach. Because with his real level from his era, he gets crushed here.

Even adapting, I don't believe one bit he'd climb as good as Valverde.

And Valverde's palmares in GTs is really weak.
Also, a quick google suggests that Merckx was 10kg heavier than Valverde, so I'm not seeing the reason to think he'd be a similar type of rider in today's peloton.
 
Re: Re:

cellardoor said:
BlurryVII said:
damian13ster said:
There are still cyclists who have wins in both classics and grand tours in modern peleton....
Nothing compared to the 60's, 70's.

I think Merckx in today's peleton would be a Valverde type rider with much better TT and bit better climbing (so pretty much still the best cyclist in the world by quite some margin)
That is completely made up, no one knows. Of course that is Merckx adapting to the new methods and more scientifical approach. Because with his real level from his era, he gets crushed here.

Even adapting, I don't believe one bit he'd climb as good as Valverde.

And Valverde's palmares in GTs is really weak.
Also, a quick google suggests that Merckx was 10kg heavier than Valverde, so I'm not seeing the reason to think he'd be a similar type of rider in today's peloton.
Also 10cm taller. Comparing the weight without mentioning that is completely useless.
I just have a hard time believing posts saying Merckx wouldn't even come close to winning a GT. There is 3 of them each year so plenty of opportunities, different routes, etc. and the guy is the winningest and the best cyclist in the history.
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
cellardoor said:
BlurryVII said:
damian13ster said:
There are still cyclists who have wins in both classics and grand tours in modern peleton....
Nothing compared to the 60's, 70's.

I think Merckx in today's peleton would be a Valverde type rider with much better TT and bit better climbing (so pretty much still the best cyclist in the world by quite some margin)
That is completely made up, no one knows. Of course that is Merckx adapting to the new methods and more scientifical approach. Because with his real level from his era, he gets crushed here.

Even adapting, I don't believe one bit he'd climb as good as Valverde.

And Valverde's palmares in GTs is really weak.
Also, a quick google suggests that Merckx was 10kg heavier than Valverde, so I'm not seeing the reason to think he'd be a similar type of rider in today's peloton.
Also 10cm taller. Comparing the weight without mentioning that is completely useless.
I just have a hard time believing posts saying Merckx wouldn't even come close to winning a GT. There is 3 of them each year so plenty of opportunities, different routes, etc. and the guy is the winningest and the best cyclist in the history.
"Best rider in history" still needs to be qualified though. I for one don't deny Merckx was great, that he had the best physical capacity of all the riders in his era. What I doubt very much, however, is that his physical capicity today would result anywhere near what that rendered 40 years ago.

In terms of stature, Valverde is an inappropriate comparison. At any rate, the climbing speeds today are so much faster and a guy with his build would probably get dropped by the best if he were racing today.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
SeriousSam: Good post. It's the same story in every sport, really. The best of today are simply better than the best of the past (only exception I'm aware of is actually 90s cycling). The real question is, how do we want to define GOAT. The old legends have won more, and will never be surpassed in wins. Riders of today are better in absolute terms (watts). The most sensible thing to do is probably to look at each era in separation and look at how dominant and good they were relative to their peers. But even then, there's a need to take into account how large the pool of competitors was in each era. Being an outlier is more impressive in a large population than in a small one.

Of course, there's some value to treating legends of the past with reverence even if they aren't actually greater.
If we are to classify the greats from each era, relative to how much each dominated in his, then Merckx wins hands down. This is surely why he is considered the "best of all time."

The problem with this approach, however, is that it doesn't take into consideration (as you say) that today's athletes are far superior to those of yesteryear. And no, if you take a past champ like Merckx and give him all the same advancements of today's racers, this does not convert into equal dominance against the contemporary field. These same advancements, as well as the global expansion of the sport, have made the competition far to extream to win all those races he did in the 60's and 70's. In addition, Merckx's physical stature may even have denied him the possibility of winning a Grand Tour in today's field. At any rate he'd be forced to make a choice: classics, or GT's and in today's sport perhaps the former would have been his only option.

The pool has for one grown considerably as in todays cyclists are picked from all over the world, not just Europe. It's a bigger pond and so the big fish have correspondingly bigger talent
Merckx had the strongest rivals any other champion faced, in all the terrains. Contador is no the half strong that Ocaña was, other thing is his palmares, but, well, after his santion he has never won le Tour, his better place is 4th, maybe I could put Perico as better...
 
Re: Re:

Taxus4a said:
rhubroma said:
SeriousSam: Good post. It's the same story in every sport, really. The best of today are simply better than the best of the past (only exception I'm aware of is actually 90s cycling). The real question is, how do we want to define GOAT. The old legends have won more, and will never be surpassed in wins. Riders of today are better in absolute terms (watts). The most sensible thing to do is probably to look at each era in separation and look at how dominant and good they were relative to their peers. But even then, there's a need to take into account how large the pool of competitors was in each era. Being an outlier is more impressive in a large population than in a small one.

Of course, there's some value to treating legends of the past with reverence even if they aren't actually greater.
If we are to classify the greats from each era, relative to how much each dominated in his, then Merckx wins hands down. This is surely why he is considered the "best of all time."

The problem with this approach, however, is that it doesn't take into consideration (as you say) that today's athletes are far superior to those of yesteryear. And no, if you take a past champ like Merckx and give him all the same advancements of today's racers, this does not convert into equal dominance against the contemporary field. These same advancements, as well as the global expansion of the sport, have made the competition far to extream to win all those races he did in the 60's and 70's. In addition, Merckx's physical stature may even have denied him the possibility of winning a Grand Tour in today's field. At any rate he'd be forced to make a choice: classics, or GT's and in today's sport perhaps the former would have been his only option.

The pool has for one grown considerably as in todays cyclists are picked from all over the world, not just Europe. It's a bigger pond and so the big fish have correspondingly bigger talent
Merckx had the strongest rivals any other champion faced, in all the terrains. Contador is no the half strong that Ocaña was, other thing is his palmares, but, well, after his santion he has never won le Tour, his better place is 4th, maybe I could put Perico as better...
We are talking about states of opinion of course. Not sure, though, given the global pool that cycling has become, that Merckx era rivals are stronger than today's.

Ocana better than Contador? Considering the palmares you refer to, this statement is a joke. As a pure climber Ocana was very good, but that Contador isn't "half as strong" is utter nonesense.
 
In GT, Ocaña, and Fuente, were the only riders he feared, Ocaña did things that Contador is far to do. He was to beat Merkcx on Le Tour before his crash..
In clasiccs Merckx face the better generation of classic riders the history had. Van Looy, De Vlaemick,.. is Contador close to beat Boonen or Cancellara in Roubaix?

Contador is the reference the last 8 years in tours, but I cant even say he is the stronger.

We will have some answers this Tour.
 
Re:

Taxus4a said:
In GT, Ocaña, and Fuente, were the only riders he feared, Ocaña did things that Contador is far to do. He was to beat Merkcx on Le Tour before his crash..
In clasiccs Merckx face the better generation of classic riders the history had. Van Looy, De Vlaemick,.. is Contador close to beat Boonen or Cancellara in Roubaix?

Contador is the reference the last 8 years in tours, but I cant even say he is the stronger.

We will have some answers this Tour.
Yep, Ocana was very special.
Wonderful bikerider, brutally ambitious.

 
Re:

Taxus4a said:
In GT, Ocaña, and Fuente, were the only riders he feared, Ocaña did things that Contador is far to do. He was to beat Merkcx on Le Tour before his crash..
In clasiccs Merckx face the better generation of classic riders the history had. Van Looy, De Vlaemick,.. is Contador close to beat Boonen or Cancellara in Roubaix?

Contador is the reference the last 8 years in tours, but I cant even say he is the stronger.

We will have some answers this Tour.
Keep on with your fantasies.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY