• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Armstrong's competition in his winning tours and losing tour

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Was LA's competition better in winning tourscompared to losing tours?

  • Worse

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
While this myth sounds good those of us who actually followed the sport in the 90's know that it is BS.

Lance, the overweight cyclist. 1995. When he was second at LBL he weighed 163 pounds, not 175.

picture.php

I don't know how to respond other then to say that everything I've ever read has stated that after his cancer, his racing weight was 15 pounds lighter then it was before.

I've never seen "race day weight numbers"... let along those going back to the mid-90's.

He certainly looks about 15 pounds slimmer to me in these two pictures... but I have no way of knowing.

_40418279_roadrace203_270.jpg


_40418291_tdf00203_270.jpg
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
The only time Armstrong looked like he might be "one of the better classics riders" was after he became a client of Dr. Ferrari.

Regardless of the drug issue, a rider who at 25 has won Fleche Wallone and San Sebastian, finished 2nd at Liege twice, won a couple of "classics" type stages in the Tour de France and won a WC has to be regarded as looking like someone who might be one of the better classics riders as he matures.

And Lance had already won the Worlds, won a tour stage and gotten a second at Liege and San Sebastian before working with Ferrari.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
Further proof of where this thread is headed. Indurain was heavier than Lance, didnt prevent him from winning GTs so we can keep going round and round.

Big Mig won his first TdF when he was 27...like Lance...chubby guys take a few extra years to get rolling even when they are genetically gifted.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Does frame matter when it comes to weight for climbing?

I don't know enough about the physics of actually turning the pedals with longer legs... I just wonder (assuming a pro cycling level of leg strength) if it's a bit easier to climb at 180 if you're 6'2" as opposed to 5'10".

Can only so much muscle weight be on the legs... and being shorter at a heavier weight would indicate more upper body muscle in a cyclist?

I'm asking in all seriousness... I just wonder why more truly tiny instead of just very short cyclists aren't out there winning mountain stages. There are a fair number of 6'0" - plus guys that seem to climb pretty well.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
I don't know how to respond other then to say that everything I've ever read has stated that after his cancer, his racing weight was 15 pounds lighter then it was before.

The source for this myth was once place, Ed Coyle's "Research" which has been completely discredited.

The picture I gave makes it clear that Armstrong did not loose 15-20 pounds post cancer.

Don't believe the myth.
 
kurtinsc said:
Does frame matter when it comes to weight for climbing?

I don't know enough about the physics of actually turning the pedals with longer legs... I just wonder (assuming a pro cycling level of leg strength) if it's a bit easier to climb at 180 if you're 6'2" as opposed to 5'10".

Can only so much muscle weight be on the legs... and being shorter at a heavier weight would indicate more upper body muscle in a cyclist?

I'm asking in all seriousness... I just wonder why more truly tiny instead of just very short cyclists aren't out there winning mountain stages. There are a fair number of 6'0" - plus guys that seem to climb pretty well.

It's about lean muscle mass on the legs, oxygen delivery to said lean muscle mass, and power/weight ratio. That's it.
 
kurtinsc said:
Does frame matter when it comes to weight for climbing?

I don't know enough about the physics of actually turning the pedals with longer legs... I just wonder (assuming a pro cycling level of leg strength) if it's a bit easier to climb at 180 if you're 6'2" as opposed to 5'10".

Can only so much muscle weight be on the legs... and being shorter at a heavier weight would indicate more upper body muscle in a cyclist?

I'm asking in all seriousness... I just wonder why more truly tiny instead of just very short cyclists aren't out there winning mountain stages. There are a fair number of 6'0" - plus guys that seem to climb pretty well.

Well, traditionally a lot of the best climbers were little guys, Herrera, Pantani, Van Impe, Millar, Fuente. I think EPO changed the game a lot. All-rounders tended to be bigger but them came Indurain who was a big guy but he could climb with the best of them.

Weight is not a defence for Lance as Indurain was much heavier and bigger, think Cancellara big or bigger.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
The source for this myth was once place, Ed Coyle's "Research" which has been completely discredited.

The picture I gave makes it clear that Armstrong did not loose 15-20 pounds post cancer.

Don't believe the myth.

And the pictures I gave make it look like he did.

No offese... but neither picture proves much... pictures can be taken from any angle. This picture makes him look like he weighs well over 180 pounds... but I'm guessing it's more a matter of the angle of the shot then anything.

armstrong-lemond94a.jpg
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
Well, traditionally a lot of the best climbers were little guys, Herrera, Pantani, Van Impe, Millar, Fuente. I think EPO changed the game a lot. All-rounders tended to be bigger but them came Indurain who was a big guy but he could climb with the best of them.

Weight is not a defence for Lance as Indurain was much heavier and bigger, think Cancellara big or bigger.

I'm thinking more distribution of weight.

If you're 180 and 5'10" with a good chunk of it in your arms, shoulders and abdomen... vs 180 and 6'2" with very little upper body weight and mostly leg muscle... would that be different?

Or is 180 pounds the same regardless of the distribution?

I am really not trying to suggest anything... I don't know. My first hand athletic experience is limited to swimming... where the shape of your body IS a key factor.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
i have been wondering if armstrong was racing against the riders of 2006 to 2010 would he have been as sucessfull in the tour de france and have had as many tour wins (suggesting that other teams would of ridden more agresively)

i guess the question i'm trying to ask is that is Contador, Evans, Schleck, valverde, sastre better than Zulle, pantani, ullrich, beloki or basso.

Yes or No? and Why?

Same.

Evans is Zulle reincarnate.

Valverde & Sastre = beloki and that other spanish dude.

Contador = Pantani.
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Visit site
Willy_Voet said:
beloki and that other spanish.

there were quite a few who finished top 10 during Lance's first reign:)

Fernando Escartín, Abraham Olano, Roberto Heras, Francisco Mancebo, Igor González de Galdeano, Oscar Sevilla, Carlos Sastre, Haimar Zubeldia, Iban Mayo, Óscar Pereiro,
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
And the pictures I gave make it look like he did.

No offese... but neither picture proves much... pictures can be taken from any angle. This picture makes him look like he weighs well over 180 pounds... but I'm guessing it's more a matter of the angle of the shot then anything.

armstrong-lemond94a.jpg

You are comparing pictures from when he was 21 years old. Within the space of a couple years he had lost that weight. It was not until he met Ferrari that his performance showed a dramatic increase. Even this picture when he was 22 it is hard to see an additional 20 pounds.
 
auscyclefan94 said:
I have been wondering if Armstrong was racing against the riders of 2006 to 2010 would he have been as successful in the Tour de France and have had as many tour wins (suggesting that other teams would of ridden more aggressively)

i guess the question I'm trying to ask is that is Contador, Evans, Schleck, valverde, sastre better than Zulle, pantani, ullrich, beloki or basso.

Yes or No? and Why
?



I'll leave the comparisons to how they rode at the Tour.

Evans, Valverde, Sastre are excellent riders, but they have not exhibited the requisite horsepower to dominate on that one mountain stage that is a signature of most Tour winners. You know, the type of stage where they leave everyone in their wake and no one can catch them. Sastre did it, but only once. In his case, once was all it took. What messed him up (and have laid low many a Tour aspiration) was riding the Giro/Tour double last year. That was a mistake that a few potential contenders will make this year, also.

This is not taking anything away from their strengths as climbers, but to ride away from the field on any given mountain stage? Who from this current crop of riders can do it like Contador? Schleck is a strong rider, but his time trialing is abysmal, and he is another one that is not strong enough to leave the field in his wake on a mountain stage. He is strong enough to accelerate and ride with the front runners, but to leave them in the dust? He hasn't been able to do it as of yet. We'll see if this year is different.

Zulle was one of my favorite riders when he rode, but his second place in the 1999 Tour was marred by that crash early on. He would have been closer to Armstrong on time if not for that one mishap. As it was, we will never know because the mind works in funny ways. Armstrong was on a rampage and no one was going to get the better of him on a mountain stage or any of the time trials. But again, he always rode much better at the Vuelta than at the Tour, where he seemed to always go in without the injury problems he suffered at the Tour.

Beloki got taken out of the Tour the very year he was showing signs of coming out of the psychological fog Armstrong had the Tour peloton in, and after his crash he was never the same. So we'll never know, but I loved watching him climb.

As for Basso, he was steadily improving until Opertion Puerto laid him low for two years. Two years of his athletic prime gone. We will never know what type of rider he could of been because his progress was stunted. And we will never know how much of that Giro D'Italia was his coming of age or the fact that he was working with Dr. Fuentes. But he seems psychologically fragile and really has not shown that he can contend for a grand tour since he came back.

Ullrich and Pantani were two riders who were as different as can be. Ullrich had the horsepower but no discipline. Pantani was a gifted mountain climber who managed to time trial well enough to snag himself a couple of grand tours. Bottom line is, both had days where they could light it up like no other rider on the planet.

For me, there is a remarkable difference between the riders you are putting up for comparison, and that difference is one of panache and style. In their primes, I would take Zulle, Pantani, Ullrich and Beloki over Evans, Schleck, Valverde and Sastre. The first group were not only better riders on their good days, but they rode with more style. That is a personal preference. I just prefer watching those guys over someone like Sastre or Evans. They both give me the impression of being damp firecrackers-both promise much but do not have the strength to administer that killer blow, that one epic day that sticks in everyone's minds years after they've retired.

As it is, the only one out of the whole bunch that could have matched Armstrong mano-a-mano is Contador out of both groups you've mentioned. Ullrich never showed up with the proper training, Pantani fell apart just when he could have posed a proper threat and I think those two were the only ones with the talent to take him on and actually beat him aside from Contador.

The problem is it's February and not July. I would hate to have anything happen to either Armstrong or Contador before their showdown takes place at the Tour. Let's wish both riders the best of health and hope nothing derails this epic match-up.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
Visit site
Ulrich was a better rider then Lance. He just did not have Lances brain and killer instincts. Contador is probably better now then Ulrich in Ulrichs prime.
 
Nov 24, 2009
1,602
0
0
Visit site
Polish said:
Big Mig won his first TdF when he was 27...like Lance...chubby guys take a few extra years to get rolling even when they are genetically gifted.

So wait Lance is a chubby guy or isn't? having lost weight or not?

You cannot have it both ways you know.


On another note between 21 and now at 23 I stayed at 6'2, went from c.12% to under 8% body fat lost upper body bulk, but my weight increased. Having been trying to cut to lightweight for crew I went to the doctors to see if they could cast any light and they said it had to do with inceased skeletal mass. I don't how relevant this would be to Prance, but I appear leaner and thinner now, at a heavier weight, at the same kind of age all of this speculation is going on regarding him.
 

Carboncrank

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
623
0
0
Visit site
pmcg76 said:
Seriously, I thought we were trying to keep the Lance threads to the minimum. They are staring to appear again, lets keep it all in the Lance thread. This poll is a bit pointless anyway, cannot compare different races over different generations.

I agree w/ u
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,796
0
0
Visit site
I would say the competition now is harder for Armstrong than the standard of the past.. Except maybe Ullrich in 2003(but i suspect he was doping well that year.. although could be everyone is still now). Contador is a great rider time trials very well and climbs brilliantly and could have won the tour by more if he had wanted to or at least put a fair bit more time into 3rd place on mont ventoux(I think it would have been a great close battle with him and A Schleck if they had both went for it that day).. Andy looks a very good rider and will only get better. Pantani was very bad at time trialling and a bit insane and Ullrich was always inconsistent or badly trained getting sick whatever... So i would say now is tougher mainly because of contador and Andy... I think contador is the best rider armstrong has come up agaisnt in a serious tour battle. I think in the coming years the competition is going to get better and better which is nice :S.
 
Jun 20, 2009
654
0
0
Visit site
Jan Ullrich was the best rival by some margain. Just a pity he couldn't stay away from the wurst and pastries and had the mental toughness of a two year old - otherwise he would have beaten the Uniballer.
 
Aug 6, 2009
1,901
1
0
Visit site
BikeCentric said:
I think that 2002 LA would beat 2007 Contador and that's it.

I just don't see how 2007 Contador beats Lance any time during his prime (except possibly during that one Tour where Lance bonked in the ITT). 2007 Contador won the Tour by 34 seconds IIRC over Leipheimer and Evans. LA beat those two by far larger margins.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
progressor said:
Probably the fairest discussion of LA vs Contador (and Others) in months and you have to post sh!!e like this to inflame it all again. :( :(

Ignore the troll. He has been doing this for months. Ever since he joined the forum. Ignore him. Oh and for the record, Heras was team leader in 2005. Contador helped him until the last few days. AC was held back and eventually finished ahead of his team captain.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
I'll leave the comparisons to how they rode at the Tour.

Evans, Valverde, Sastre are excellent riders, but they have not exhibited the requisite horsepower to dominate on that one mountain stage that is a signature of most Tour winners. You know, the type of stage where they leave everyone in their wake and no one can catch them. Sastre did it, but only once. In his case, once was all it took. What messed him up (and have laid low many a Tour aspiration) was riding the Giro/Tour double last year. That was a mistake that a few potential contenders will make this year, also.

Bold. Wrong, plus you contradict your point in the next sentence. Second bold. Wrong again. It was not the Tour/Giro double that messed Sastre up. How many big climbs did he win in the Giro? Two. It was the day between that lost him a possible win. Why? Because by the Tour, he was on his fourth consecutive grand tour. Overload. Carlos should have skipped the Tour. He was worn out and so was Menchov. Others make that mistake this year? No, they're not that stupid. They will aim for one win/podium. For the other go for a stage win and a nice respectable finish on GC. That will be Cadel and Sastre. Oh, did you forget, BMC aren't invited to the Tour yet?

This is not taking anything away from their strengths as climbers, but to ride away from the field on any given mountain stage? Who from this current crop of riders can do it like Contador? Schleck is a strong rider, but his time trialing is abysmal, and he is another one that is not strong enough to leave the field in his wake on a mountain stage. He is strong enough to accelerate and ride with the front runners, but to leave them in the dust? He hasn't been able to do it as of yet. We'll see if this year is different.

Another inaccuracy. Andy Schleck can ride away from everyone, except AC. He is the bloody front runner the others are gunning for.What was that I saw during stage 15 and 17 last year? The Schleck bros out riding everyone but Contador....that's right! Wake up to yourself! The opposition have to beat him first and claim second. Then go for AC. Abysmal ITT? Yeah, 15 seconds of Armstrong is abysmal. He is very good for his build and size. Both the Schleck's have improved by considerable margins from 2008. Perhaps you feel asleep last year?

The problem is it's February and not July. I would hate to have anything happen to either Armstrong or Contador before their showdown takes place at the Tour. Let's wish both riders the best of health and hope nothing derails this epic match-up.

Delusions and grandeur. Been following Twitter and the Shack? Open your eyes, ears and for your own sake use that brain. There is no Lance and Alberto showdown! Lance has no chance. Contador has stated his opposition is Schleck. That is it. Only Bruyneel and Armstrong are talking up a rivalry. Every sane person knows this and realised last year the Uniballer was outclassed. By July you might have clued in and will avoid the heartbreak when Lance gets blown away in the Alps. Just wait for the Pyrenees. But good luck to the Shack...they need it in mammoth doses to not go home totally demoralised.
 

TRENDING THREADS