Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.

Page 298 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Angliru said:
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
Froome is about 40% fake (2 years ago data) Contador is about 52% fake (using data from 3 years ago) according to twitteraudit.com
Excuse my ignorance but I'm not on Twitter so I have no idea what these stats mean. Would someone with patience please enlighten me? :)
It is a seperate site which attempts to judge the % of fake followers someone has, the issue with these sites is that there is no easy way this can be done automatically like these kinds of sites try to do. They look at language, number of followers, activity etc. so let's say a certain Greek follower of Froome who is a legit user but only has 1 follower and 4 tweets in the last 2 years, all in Greek, such a user would get flagged by this site as a "fake account".
But when an account's percentage of "fake accounts" suddenly shoots up, that can be an indication someone bought followers. However, this site requires you to pay $3.99 to "re-audit" someone - i.e. update the data :)
 
Re: Re:

HelloDolly said:
What a sh*t comment ....don't expect anything less
Thanks mate :) My point is why do they have to compare Froome to Contador and state in how many ways he is better and why riding for him is miles better, they could just praise Froome/Sky without mentioning Contador but no they absolutely have to make a comparison. I wondered why. It was just an observation and I added what I thought could be a likely explanation (Sky asked them to) you don't have to agree :) PS the comment about Roche getting senile was a joke. You know, old dude starts rambling - call him senile. Like Walsh. Joke. Don't get your pants in a twist about it, dude. :p
 
LaFlorecita said:
Angliru said:
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
Froome is about 40% fake (2 years ago data) Contador is about 52% fake (using data from 3 years ago) according to twitteraudit.com
Excuse my ignorance but I'm not on Twitter so I have no idea what these stats mean. Would someone with patience please enlighten me? :)
It is a seperate site which attempts to judge the % of fake followers someone has, the issue with these sites is that there is no easy way this can be done automatically like these kinds of sites try to do. They look at language, number of followers, activity etc. so let's say a certain Greek follower of Froome who is a legit user but only has 1 follower and 4 tweets in the last 2 years, all in Greek, such a user would get flagged by this site as a "fake account".
But when an account's percentage of "fake accounts" suddenly shoots up, that can be an indication someone bought followers. However, this site requires you to pay $3.99 to "re-audit" someone - i.e. update the data :)
Why would anyone care? :confused: Response not necessary.
 
On the whole 'fake follower' debate id probably say most people with 500,000+ followers have around a 50/50 real to fake ratio. That goes for most famous people like sportsman, musicians, actors ect.

Back on the subject of Froome instead of this silly I like rider A and rider A is better than rider B rubbishy: it seems Froome is in a much happier place so far after the birth of his child. Taking the pee out of himself on the Backstage Pass videos for looking at stems, the selfies and photo shoots. He knows he has little to prove after his performance last July where all terrain was no problem for him. It remains to be seen if this is good news or not for the season ahead.
 
Re:

Pricey_sky said:
On the whole 'fake follower' debate id probably say most people with 500,000+ followers have around a 50/50 real to fake ratio. That goes for most famous people like sportsman, musicians, actors ect.

Back on the subject of Froome instead of this silly I like rider A and rider A is better than rider B rubbishy: it seems Froome is in a much happier place so far after the birth of his child. Taking the pee out of himself on the Backstage Pass videos for looking at stems, the selfies and photo shoots. He knows he has little to prove after his performance last July where all terrain was no problem for him. It remains to be seen if this is good news or not for the season ahead.
Training-wise, it seems he made the right decision to spend time in South Africa. But I'm not sure should he be razor-sharp in Catalunya.
By the time for Tenerife Brailsford and Kerrison will know whether Froome took his summertime too easy.
 
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
Training-wise, it seems he made the right decision to spend time in South Africa. But I'm not sure should he be razor-sharp in Catalunya.
By the time for Tenerife Brailsford and Kerrison will know whether Froome took his summertime too easy.
Catalunya won't matter, he did the strange thing last year of using it as a training ride and finished 45 minutes down on Porte. But yes the training camp in Tenerife as they gear up towards the Dauphine will be crucial.
 
Re: Re:

Pricey_sky said:
sir fly said:
Training-wise, it seems he made the right decision to spend time in South Africa. But I'm not sure should he be razor-sharp in Catalunya.
By the time for Tenerife Brailsford and Kerrison will know whether Froome took his summertime too easy.
Catalunya won't matter, he did the strange thing last year of using it as a training ride and finished 45 minutes down on Porte. But yes the training camp in Tenerife as they gear up towards the Dauphine will be crucial.
Wasn't it recovery from the illness that determined the way he raced at Catalunya last year?
 
Re: Re:

That association makes him very disliked in the USA.[/quote]

...by the Armstrong mob. Those in the know in the US can appreciate his talents.[/quote]

We are a minority unfortunately. And it's Not just the LA mob.

Anyway this is the Froome thread. So obligatory Froome comment: Froome sure has turned into one of the best cyclists in the world despite his initial 5 years as an incredibly mediocre pro. Still baffled......[/quote]


no more baffling than Alberto beating the most prolific cheat in history with half his team working against him.
 
Re: Re:

cantpedal said:
That association makes him very disliked in the USA.
...by the Armstrong mob. Those in the know in the US can appreciate his talents.[/quote]

We are a minority unfortunately. And it's Not just the LA mob.

Anyway this is the Froome thread. So obligatory Froome comment: Froome sure has turned into one of the best cyclists in the world despite his initial 5 years as an incredibly mediocre pro. Still baffled......[/quote]


no more baffling than Alberto beating the most prolific cheat in history with half his team working against him.[/quote]

Yep talented from the very beginning and it just continued :)
 
Re: Re:

cantpedal said:
That association makes him very disliked in the USA.
...by the Armstrong mob. Those in the know in the US can appreciate his talents.[/quote]

We are a minority unfortunately. And it's Not just the LA mob.

Anyway this is the Froome thread. So obligatory Froome comment: Froome sure has turned into one of the best cyclists in the world despite his initial 5 years as an incredibly mediocre pro. Still baffled......[/quote]


no more baffling than Alberto beating the most prolific cheat in history with half his team working against him.[/quote]

-------------------------

That is not true, Froome in his first Tour, coming from Africa, was with the best in the quuen stage and did very good ITT. contador, at the ame age, in his first Tour could do that, Just he didnt to work and he was regular, always around 40-50. he was at the level of kloden in some ITT in opther races, and he was at the level ops the best in Mont Faron. He showed talent several times. By now condition are better and he has as well improve his knowledges , experience and of course quality, becouse he is older now, at the best age.

In his first Tour the people talked more about his team mate Augustyn, becouse he was the forst to climb the highest climb of France, la Bonnete, but froome showed more potentail for the overall in 3 weeks.

if most of people following cycling didnt realized about that things in another issue, but some people did. His next 2 years where more disapointed, but he had to work and anyway he did some important results, as this one:

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=17758

And of course much more those 5 year as that one, but you need to know how the races unveiled and what mistakes did Froome, becouse he was at 20 taking cycling as a hobby while studing.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=10427 working for Soler, if you consider that mediocre...
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=16897
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=17928
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=11453
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=10875
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=10559

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=7018
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=7065 (mediocre?)
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=7440

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=8024
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=8201 (he is not a man for one day races, he just arrived in the important races)
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=10162

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=5298 victory, with Mollema, rui costa,... mediocre?
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=5533 victory
http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/race.asp?raceid=6238

There are more examples of good performance, but I would need to wexplain the circuntances.

If you consider that incredibly mediocre pro, considering when he started and he came from Africa (you can compare that to Pinot, Contador), the most of the peloton is much worse than incredibly mediocre.

Do you consider Carlos Verona performances mediocre now? He is 23. He has nothing similar to be 3 in Mont Faron, and of course he has not any similar ITT I put of Froome those years.

But you will see how good rider he is.

if you think that, we will talk in 2 years.
 
Re: Re:

Carols said:
cantpedal said:
That association makes him very disliked in the USA.

...by the Armstrong mob. Those in the know in the US can appreciate his talents.
We are a minority unfortunately. And it's Not just the LA mob.

Anyway this is the Froome thread. So obligatory Froome comment: Froome sure has turned into one of the best cyclists in the world despite his initial 5 years as an incredibly mediocre pro. Still baffled......


no more baffling than Alberto beating the most prolific cheat in history with half his team working against him.

Yep talented from the very beginning and it just continued :)
Every talent doent develop at the same way, and every rider has different circunstances. Alberto had the best school posible, ONCE, and the best races from 15 years old. Alberto is more explosive, so he could showed his talent more frecuently at a young age. And more things since young.
 
Re: Re:

Carols said:
cantpedal said:
That association makes him very disliked in the USA.
...by the Armstrong mob. Those in the know in the US can appreciate his talents.
We are a minority unfortunately. And it's Not just the LA mob.

Anyway this is the Froome thread. So obligatory Froome comment: Froome sure has turned into one of the best cyclists in the world despite his initial 5 years as an incredibly mediocre pro. Still baffled......[/quote]


no more baffling than Alberto beating the most prolific cheat in history with half his team working against him.[/quote]

Yep talented from the very beginning and it just continued :)[/quote]


Sorry Carols, (and anybody else in this chain) - I screwed up trying to edit down the number of quotes. I did not intend to make it look like you had doubts about Alberto.
 
Re:

rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
There was an internal rider rating chart (based on their perceived potential) that Sky had released that had been posted here multiple times that showed Froome rated by in the 2nd from lowest category (pro tour domestique if I recall correctly...or something like that). Even Sky thought that little of Froome until his breakout at the Vuelta. Had he maintained his previous level of performance he likely would not have been re-signed.
 
not that it wouldn't matter, but if one decided to dislike froome once and for all, one will always remind about this transformation. that's a bit of class antipathy. kinda you should develop the way i like or i won't like you.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Re:

rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
Spot on . See clinic :D
 
Re:

rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
You cant see indication of that in that way, at least if you only see result.

Amyway there was some datails in 2008 that indicates that man could become a rider to fight for le Tour.

Good performance as L hotellerie doent indicates he is going to be very good in GT.

Froome did big steps year by year from 2006 to 2008 and ride le Tour very early and he had very good moments at the best level in cycling in leTour and other races.

if you cant see that as a signal is your problem.

Of course he coul be a very good rider or just a good domestique, as a lot of riders of hi good generation, but that is something to resolve later.

Of course year by year biopasport was a help for him and a problem for others.

But his first test were amazing for the tecnhics, as well as later when he started in SKY.
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
There was an internal rider rating chart (based on their perceived potential) that Sky had released that had been posted here multiple times that showed Froome rated by in the 2nd from lowest category (pro tour domestique if I recall correctly...or something like that). Even Sky thought that little of Froome until his breakout at the Vuelta. Had he maintained his previous level of performance he likely would not have been re-signed.
i explained that in: Un unpolished diamond, the story of Chris Froome.

it is an uselees argument, that was just a mirrow, it is like to say Contador is a second level rider just watching as his result in 2013. it i jusst a picture of a moment. http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/cqRankingRider.asp
 
Although Sky emphasizes their superb methods to the levels of absurd, there certainly is some ground in belief that Froome couldn't develop his entire potential in Barloworld.
The results are showing he possessed the talent. He practically was a domestic rider in the team, grown on home soil, not so rich in cycling knowledge. There aren't many successful home made cyclist from the third world. Take a look at Katusha, Astana and (to certain extent) Tinkoff. Very few domestic GT talents there.
 
Re: Re:

Taxus4a said:
rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
You cant see indication of that in that way, at least if you only see result.

Amyway there was some datails in 2008 that indicates that man could become a rider to fight for le Tour.

Good performance as L hotellerie doent indicates he is going to be very good in GT.

Froome did big steps year by year from 2006 to 2008 and ride le Tour very early and he had very good moments at the best level in cycling in leTour and other races.

if you cant see that as a signal is your problem.

Of course he coul be a very good rider or just a good domestique, as a lot of riders of hi good generation, but that is something to resolve later.

Of course year by year biopasport was a help for him and a problem for others.

But his first test were amazing for the tecnhics, as well as later when he started in SKY.
In 2008/09 there was probably around 50 other riders that people could have picked for winning a gt before Froome. Everyone can have flashes of brilliance. To go from random moments of greatness (if you really consider his accomplishments from back then great) to being the top GT rider isn't normal no matter what you say.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Taxus4a said:
rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
You cant see indication of that in that way, at least if you only see result.

Amyway there was some datails in 2008 that indicates that man could become a rider to fight for le Tour.

Good performance as L hotellerie doent indicates he is going to be very good in GT.

Froome did big steps year by year from 2006 to 2008 and ride le Tour very early and he had very good moments at the best level in cycling in leTour and other races.

if you cant see that as a signal is your problem.

Of course he coul be a very good rider or just a good domestique, as a lot of riders of hi good generation, but that is something to resolve later.

Of course year by year biopasport was a help for him and a problem for others.

But his first test were amazing for the tecnhics, as well as later when he started in SKY.
In 2008/09 there was probably around 50 other riders that people could have picked for winning a gt before Froome. Everyone can have flashes of brilliance. To go from random moments of greatness (if you really consider his accomplishments from back then great) to being the top GT rider isn't normal no matter what you say.
so that's the reason why you don't want to see froome on top?
 
Re: Re:

dacooley said:
Jspear said:
Taxus4a said:
rhubroma said:
None of those performances though gave any indication that he would become so dominant against riders who showed obvious more class early in their careers.

The transformation is shocking.
You cant see indication of that in that way, at least if you only see result.

Amyway there was some datails in 2008 that indicates that man could become a rider to fight for le Tour.

Good performance as L hotellerie doent indicates he is going to be very good in GT.

Froome did big steps year by year from 2006 to 2008 and ride le Tour very early and he had very good moments at the best level in cycling in leTour and other races.

if you cant see that as a signal is your problem.

Of course he coul be a very good rider or just a good domestique, as a lot of riders of hi good generation, but that is something to resolve later.

Of course year by year biopasport was a help for him and a problem for others.

But his first test were amazing for the tecnhics, as well as later when he started in SKY.
In 2008/09 there was probably around 50 other riders that people could have picked for winning a gt before Froome. Everyone can have flashes of brilliance. To go from random moments of greatness (if you really consider his accomplishments from back then great) to being the top GT rider isn't normal no matter what you say.
so that's the reason why you don't want to see froome on top?
Taxus post makes it seem like it was obvious that Froome would become the rider he is today. My only point is that it wasn't obvious.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS