Climbing Speeds

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
The Hitch said:
Eagerly awaiting the nutty proffessor to tell us that " the historical fact remains that at no point in his entire career did Chris Froome demonstrate a sudden and marked improvement in Climbing or ITT performance"
But even if he did, its possible, because he did it. Just like that long jump guy
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Sorry but I have to say this: everytime I read the title of this thread it makes me thrink of Animal House and when they attack the parade...'RAMMING SPEED!!!

It might just be me though
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
The Hitch said:
Eagerly awaiting the nutty proffessor to tell us that " the historical fact remains that at no point in his entire career did Chris Froome demonstrate a sudden and marked improvement in Climbing or ITT performance"
can you actually point to any evidence to support this claim? Is it based entirely on GC placings? Why is that a measure of performance ability? What can you provide in terms of his ftp, watts/kg from 2007? How does it compare to Froome's SRM data from stage 10 of the 2011 Vuelta, where he beat Wiggins, Cancellara, Phinney with 5.8 watts/kg - and why is that performance suspicious?
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
Long jump is very technical though, unlike cycling up hills. A top long jumper will rarely produce the same performance for their 6 jumps, even in identical conditions, whereas in the same conditions, a cyclist would be expected to produce near identical performances for repeated efforts, allowing for full recovery.

So Beamon's effort was a combination of favourable environmental conditions - altitude, tail wind, temperature, humidity - and everything being right technically.

There's a couple of other top long jumpers (Mike Powell and Robert Emmyan) whose second best jump was 25cm shorter than their best, which is roughly the same as the amount of Beamon's improvement that isn't down to environmental factors.
So Beamon got himself together technically and had a great year (w/ one really outstanding jump), whereas Wiggins got himself together training-wise and had a great year (but w/o any such breakthrough performance). <shrug>

In all seriousness: based on many of the comments here, I have to wonder how many of those posting ever competed at a high level in any sport, and/or personally know those who have. The fact of the matter is that what largely sets the elites apart from the non-elites is their physiology, not their motivation/mental toughness. It is therefore quite possible for someone to perform at a very high level while at the same time not taking maximum advantage of their talents, then find the resolve/life situation/what-have-you to take their game up a notch. It is also equally possible - indeed, quite common - for athletes to have ups-and-downs due to such factors (e.g., injuries), such that they might have one (or a couple) of really stand-out years that exceed everything else they've done before or after.

Using as an example someone I've had the pleasure of meeting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Austin

So here's a guy with obvious potential in his sport (like Wiggins in cycling), but failed to win "the big one" (i.e., the Olympics) when he was the favorite, finishing only 8th in 1992. He then spent the next 4 y lost in the weeds with little-to-nothing to show for his efforts, then was down to his last jump in 1996. If he misses, that's it...but instead, he jumps 7'10" to set a new Olympic record and win the gold medal. By the standards of this forum, he clearly must have been doping, 'cause he seemingly came out of nowhere that year. What I see, though, is someone who had the ability all along (like Wiggins in cycling...recall the critical power analysis I did), but hadn't really been able to showcase it due to intervening factors (in Austin's case, injury, whereas in Wiggins' case, lack-of-focus on the road).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
sittingbison said:
both he and acoggan have taken a dozen posts (with many insults by krebs that have been redacted) to convince us that NOBODY, not the experts and sports scientist and certainly not ill educated and ignorant bone idle lazy w*nker internet keyboard warriors can spot a doper merely by looking at their physiologically impossible performance.
You seem to be confused. As I pointed out a few pages back, Kreb's cycle and I disagree on whether or not it is possible to identify an "impossible" performance based on physiology/power output/climbing speed.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
The Hitch said:
Ok, i think its time for.you to pack it in with this faux "expert" card. im sure it was fun but you have no one to blame but yourself for taking it too far with foolish comments like the one above. If it makes you feel better no one actually ever believed you were an expert anyway.
There is nothing foolish about Kreb's cycles comment. The fact is that how well someone places relative to others is a completely unreliable means of determining whether their power output has increased or not.
 
acoggan said:
What I see, though, is someone who had the ability all along (like Wiggins in cycling...recall the critical power analysis I did), but hadn't really been able to showcase it due to intervening factors (in Austin's case, injury, whereas in Wiggins' case, lack-of-focus on the road).
Make something else up. Wiggins focused a lot on the road before Beijing and Athens. And only when he becomes Lances bff and Goodwill ambassador for Omerta does he find climbing easy.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
acoggan said:
So Beamon got himself together technically and had a great year (w/ one really outstanding jump), whereas Wiggins got himself together training-wise and had a great year (but w/o any such breakthrough performance). <shrug>
I was more thinking about the greater degree of things that need to go right to maximise performance in a highly technical event such as the long jump.

Jonathan Edwards in the triple jump is another example. He was apparently no slower and actually stronger in years subsequent to 1995, but only once jumped over 18m in these years. (His WR is 18:29 from 1995, and he also did 18:43 that year, albeit with a +4m/s tail wind.)

Such events frequently have big names, who have been in good form all season, who fail to make it out of qualifying, or have people who post stellar performances in qualifying but then fail to deliver in the final a day or so later. This can only really be due to failing technique.

Contrast this to road cycling, where things are much more predictable.
 
acoggan said:
There is nothing foolish about Kreb's cycles comment. The fact is that how well someone places relative to others is a completely unreliable means of determining whether their power output has increased or not.
Usually it does. Generally when someone goes from finishing 130th to 1st they have made some sort of an improvement. The fact that theoretically its possible for someone to make that jump by standing still, doesnt change the fact that 99% of the time its because the 1 rider made massive improvements and not 129 guys becoming crap.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
I'm confused, where are the statements from your buddies saying that Armstrong, Riis et al. were frauds, Krebs?
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
mastersracer said:
can you actually point to any evidence to support this claim? Is it based entirely on GC placings? Why is that a measure of performance ability? What can you provide in terms of his ftp, watts/kg from 2007? How does it compare to Froome's SRM data from stage 10 of the 2011 Vuelta, where he beat Wiggins, Cancellara, Phinney with 5.8 watts/kg - and why is that performance suspicious?
I believe Krebs cycle made that claim.

But to be fair to you and the believers, Froome did have a great TT in 2007 only to be beaten by no less then Hai Jun Ma. Guess Ma was at 6 w/k to beat Chris.

But, in those days he still was hampered by the bilharzia of course, that is bad for anyone's climbing speed, let alone TT- ing.

acoggan said:
So here's a guy with obvious potential in his sport (like Wiggins in cycling), but failed to win "the big one" (i.e., the Olympics) when he was the favorite, finishing only 8th in 1992. He then spent the next 4 y lost in the weeds with little-to-nothing to show for his efforts, then was down to his last jump in 1996. If he misses, that's it...but instead, he jumps 7'10" to set a new Olympic record and win the gold medal. By the standards of this forum, he clearly must have been doping, 'cause he seemingly came out of nowhere that year. What I see, though, is someone who had the ability all along (like Wiggins in cycling...recall the critical power analysis I did), but hadn't really been able to showcase it due to intervening factors (in Austin's case, injury, whereas in Wiggins' case, lack-of-focus on the road).
With all due respect but your analogies are really bad mister Coggan. Comparing technical sports with endurance sports? You should, and guess you do, know better.

Ask Eric Boyer, Wiggi's manager on Cofidis, on his abilities, for the matter, ask him about his fitness level, body fat and all.

But I am glad Wiggins has found the answer for his former flaws, he is now focussed, has the right cadence, has the UCI on his hand. But still is able to smoke a joint every now and then.

Mister Coggan, how do you asses the cyclists of now when you try to compare them to Hinault/LeMond/Hampsten/Delgado/Roche? I left out Fignon, obviously cause he was a rampant doper. You rode in the eighties yourself, that is why I am asking.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
I believe Krebs cycle made that claim.

But to be fair to you and the believers, Froome did have a great TT in 2007 only to be beaten by no less then Hai Jun Ma. Guess Ma was at 6 w/k to beat Chris.
In other words, you don't actually have an answer that doesn't rely on relative performance. I beat Floyd Landis in a training race when he was planning his come back - guess that makes me a doper.

Riis' performance was suspicious not simply because of an increase, but because he was producing 6.8 watts/kg. An increase to 5.8 not so much.
 
Mar 18, 2009
221
0
0
The Hitch said:
The fact that theoretically its possible for someone to make that jump by standing still, doesn't change the fact that 99% of the time its because the 1 rider made massive improvements and not 129 guys becoming crap.


________________Come on, don't you believe in Miracles? Oh wait,
you're Christopher Hitchens--of course you don't believe in miracles!
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
del1962 said:
Yeah but Boyer doesn't fawn over Brad like he did over the hyper charged KOM man.
Perhaps Virenque is just nicer. Willy Voet seemed to like him.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
The Hitch said:
Make something else up. Wiggins focused a lot on the road before Beijing and Athens.
Perhaps, perhaps not...but what can be said is that he's training differently now (thanks, in part, to some of my ideas).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,553
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
Contrast this to road cycling, where things are much more predictable.
I'd say that road racing is anything but predictable, at least compared to other endurance sports (e.g., running). Now stage racing in particular might be a different story...in which case, I find it rather telling that Wiggins garnered all (or almost all) of his Vs last year simply by TTing well then not giving that time back on climbs.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
acoggan said:
<blah blah>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Austin

So here's a guy with obvious potential in his sport (like Wiggins in cycling), but failed to win "the big one" (i.e., the Olympics) when he was the favorite, finishing only 8th in 1992.
If Wiggins had done a progression, in the Tour de France, and come 8th, in say 2008, 4th in 2009, and been good enough to place top 20 before that, as your man Charles Austin clearly did or HE WOULDN'T BE AT THE OLYMPICS (duh), then we would have close to no issue with Wiggins whatsoever.

Instead, he was pack fill autobus woeful at TdF.

If Charles Austin never made it to the Olympics then in his first real appearance came 4th then won every single meet from Feb to August 3 years later, you better believe we'd think it was due to doping.

Too much lab time, is what I fear you are suffering from. Or a distinct inability to comprehend what people are writing here.

Or, an inability to come up with a meaningful analogy. Here's a hint: longjump is not an endurance sport.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
If Wiggins had done a progression, in the Tour de France, and come 8th, in say 2008, 4th in 2009, and been good enough to place top 20 before that, as your man Charles Austin clearly did or HE WOULDN'T BE AT THE OLYMPICS (duh), then we would have close to no issue with Wiggins whatsoever.

Instead, he was pack fill autobus woeful at TdF.

If Charles Austin never made it to the Olympics then in his first real appearance came 4th then won every single meet from Feb to August 3 years later, you better believe we'd think it was due to doping.

Too much lab time, is what I fear you are suffering from. Or a distinct inability to comprehend what people are writing here.

Or, an inability to come up with a meaningful analogy. Here's a hint: longjump is not an endurance sport.
You should submit your brilliant ideas to the UCI/WADA:

1, anyone who finishes in the top 10 in a grand tour should be suspended for doping because it is obvious they must be doping to do so well.

2. anyone who places more than 10 GC places above their previous year's finish rank shoudl be suspended for doping because such sudden improvements in performance obviously require doping.

Brilliant work.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
mastersracer said:
You should submit your brilliant ideas to the UCI/WADA:

1, anyone who finishes in the top 10 in a grand tour should be suspended for doping because it is obvious they must be doping to do so well.

2. anyone who places more than 10 GC places above their previous year's finish rank shoudl be suspended for doping because such sudden improvements in performance obviously require doping.

Brilliant work.
Are you having a go? Or is your calculator broken and you have to do the sums on your fingers?

I said: nowhere (last) to 4th.
You said: improve 10 places.

So Wiggins was 14th at some stage, was he?

Let's see

2006:123rd
2007: 133rd before DNS

Huh.

Which alternate reality are you posting from?
 
mastersracer said:
You should submit your brilliant ideas to the UCI/WADA:

1, anyone who finishes in the top 10 in a grand tour should be suspended for doping because it is obvious they must be doping to do so well.

2. anyone who places more than 10 GC places above their previous year's finish rank shoudl be suspended for doping because such sudden improvements in performance obviously require doping.

Brilliant work.
I love how everytime someone points out that Wiggins is suspicious, you joachim and a few other trolls do the whole - oh so coming top 100 is doping, or - oh being a cyclist is doping, dance.

Nice deflection tactics, but no Wiggins and Froome arent 2 decent riders who on their day got a "top 10 in a gt". They are 2 previously very weak riders who absolutely destroyed last years Tour, beating everyone in the mountains and making a mockery out of everyone in the tts.

But of course - "anyone who midway/late into their 20s goes climbing with Cav to winning gts, is probably doping" doesnt sound quite as ridiculous.

So you act as if the people making these observations are merely trying to tar the entire sport with the doping brush:rolleyes:

There are plenty of riders who used to have 10 times the gt skulls of Wiggins and Froome who are still only managing top 10 in gts. To say that they are as suspicious as UK Postal is either trolling or delusional.

PS Wiggins didnt rise 10 places. He rose 120 places, but who's counting, right?:rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS