Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Parker]

Re: Re:

To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica

you might want to check Kelly's first years as a pro palmares against Froomes. Everyone knew Kelly was going to win big. No one predicted what Froome was going to do.

Kelly won a TdF stage in 2nd years as a pro. Froome won the Tour of Mauritius. To compare Kelly's 1st four years as a pro with Froome's 1st four years, they are millenia apart in talent.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

<<snipped>>>
Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica

And yet Sky wanted rid of him. The team that left no attention to detail unturned missed Froome's alleged illnesses and alleged talent.

Sorry still not buying it.

 

[noddy69]

Re: Re:

To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica

You cannot compare Froome to Kelly......lets copy and paste the first 4 years for each shall we (Wiki)

Sean Kelly
1977
1st Stage 1 Tour de Romandie
1st Stage 4 Étoile des Espoirs
1978
1st Stage 6 Tour de France
Setmana Catalana de Ciclismo
1st Stage 1a (TTT) & 1b
1st Stage 3 Tour Méditerranéen
1st Stage 5a Étoile des Espoirs
1979
Vuelta a España
1st Stages 1 & 8a
1st GP de Cannes
9th Road race, UCI Road World Championships
10th Omloop Het Volk
1980
1st Jersey white.svg Overall Three Days of De Panne
1st Stage 2
Tour de France
1st Stages 19 & 21
1st Stage 3a Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
1st Stage 4 Ronde van Nederland
2nd E3 Prijs Vlaanderen
2nd De Brabantse Pijl
2nd Tour du Haut Var
3rd Amstel Gold Race
3rd Omloop Het Volk
3rd Kuurne–Brussels–Kuurne
4th Overall Vuelta a España
1st Jersey green.svg Points classification
1st Sprints classification
1st Stages 1, 2, 14, 17 19 & 21
4th Milan–San Remo

Chris Froome
2007
1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Mi-Août en Bretagne
1st Stage 5 Giro delle Regioni
1st Stage 6 Tour of Japan
2nd Berg en Dale Classic
2nd Silver medal blank.svg Time trial, UCI B World Championships
3rd Road race, All-Africa Games
8th Tour du Doubs
2008
2nd Overall Giro del Capo
3rd Giro dell'Appennino
4th Overall Herald Sun Tour
6th Overall Volta ao Distrito de Santarém
2009
1st Stage 2 Giro del Capo
1st Anatomic Jock Race
4th Road race, National Road Championships
9th Gran Premio Nobili Rubinetterie
2010
2nd Time trial, National Road Championships
5th Time trial, Commonwealth Games
9th Overall Tour du Haut Var

Ridiculous comparison and at this point I believe you're trolling with no genuine belief Froome is clean..or you just have no idea what you're on about

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica

You cannot compare Froome to Kelly......lets copy and paste the first 4 years for each shall we (Wiki)

Sean Kelly
1977
1st Stage 1 Tour de Romandie
1st Stage 4 Étoile des Espoirs
1978
1st Stage 6 Tour de France
Setmana Catalana de Ciclismo
1st Stage 1a (TTT) & 1b
1st Stage 3 Tour Méditerranéen
1st Stage 5a Étoile des Espoirs
1979
Vuelta a España
1st Stages 1 & 8a
1st GP de Cannes
9th Road race, UCI Road World Championships
10th Omloop Het Volk
1980
1st Jersey white.svg Overall Three Days of De Panne
1st Stage 2
Tour de France
1st Stages 19 & 21
1st Stage 3a Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
1st Stage 4 Ronde van Nederland
2nd E3 Prijs Vlaanderen
2nd De Brabantse Pijl
2nd Tour du Haut Var
3rd Amstel Gold Race
3rd Omloop Het Volk
3rd Kuurne–Brussels–Kuurne
4th Overall Vuelta a España
1st Jersey green.svg Points classification
1st Sprints classification
1st Stages 1, 2, 14, 17 19 & 21
4th Milan–San Remo

Chris Froome
2007
1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Mi-Août en Bretagne
1st Stage 5 Giro delle Regioni
1st Stage 6 Tour of Japan
2nd Berg en Dale Classic
2nd Silver medal blank.svg Time trial, UCI B World Championships
3rd Road race, All-Africa Games
8th Tour du Doubs
2008
2nd Overall Giro del Capo
3rd Giro dell'Appennino
4th Overall Herald Sun Tour
6th Overall Volta ao Distrito de Santarém
2009
1st Stage 2 Giro del Capo
1st Anatomic Jock Race
4th Road race, National Road Championships
9th Gran Premio Nobili Rubinetterie
2010
2nd Time trial, National Road Championships
5th Time trial, Commonwealth Games
9th Overall Tour du Haut Var

Ridiculous comparison and at this point I believe you're trolling with no genuine belief Froome is clean..or you just have no idea what you're on about

I think you're being unfair...the anatomic jock race.......SA's equivalent to the Avenir :lol:

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

Ok, but if we follow your logic (which I agree with) then we also have to admit that Froome was both a) riding full gas and b) well rested compared to rivals and c) focusing entirely on that stage in the 2008 Alpe d'huez stage. And yet he only came 32nd and considered that some sort of great accomplishment.

A few years later he is very ill, so much so that he is just "hanging on" and is focusing on the gc the entire race, and has expanded a lot of energy riding harder throughout the race. And on the same mountain he rides both much better relative to his competition and faster objectively speaking.

Its cos everyone else stopped doping right?

No. Although that helps.

In 2008 he was a first year pro who had never done a stage race bigger than the Tour of Britain before riding on shoestring team with no coaching. And, according to him, he didn't eat properly. Even so he showed in that Tour that he could be climb and time trial well and was generally thought of as a future GC rider.

He didn't ride it again until his sixth season. The time you mention was his eighth season.

Now here's a little secret for you - you may notice it yourself as you learn more about the sport. Cyclists progress physically and mentally through the early years of their career. It's very unusual for any champion to be a world beater in their first season. In fact almost unheard of.

Climbing stages:
169th
73rd
142nd
46th
115th
125th
136th
30th

He finished 11'41" behind the winner on Alpe d'Huez. The riders who finished immediately after him were largely domestiques (Ten Dam, Lopez, Vansummeren, Popovych, Astarloza, etc).

All Froome showed in 2008 was that he wasn’t entirely out of his depth. Let’s look at what some other first year pros achieved:

Jan Ulrich: National TT Champion, 2nd Tour de Limousin at 21

Alberto Contador: 1st Tour de Pologne ITT, 4th Vuelta Castilla y Leon at 22

Andy Schleck: National TT Champion, 3rd National RR, 7th GP de Wallonie, 9th 4 Days of Dunkirk at 20

Cadel Evans: 1st Tour of Austria + 2 stages, 1st Brixia Tour + stage, 6th Giro dell Appenino, 8th Bayern Rundhfart at 23

Vincenzo Nibali: 2nd stage 6 Tour de Suisse, 4th National TT, 6th Milan-Torino at 20

Nairo Quintana: mountain class. Volta Catalunya, 15th Vuelta Castilla y Leon at 21

THIS is what talent looks like.

Or that is what doping early in your career looks like. Lets be fair here, we are calling out how obvious it was Chris started late in life and how ridiculous it is that he hasn't been caught due to that. The list above have probably taken more over their careers, they were clever/lucky enough t belong to the old brigade where doping was the norm from the off-rather than the unusual route Froome took. All doping bar none. In fact Schleck is like Froome in reverse...doped to the gills early and a tragic descent later on for no apparant reason.

Umm, Andy's descent was due to a career ending injury.

Edit: Deleted sentence was confrontational.

 

[heart_attack_man]

Re: Re:

To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica

If Froome's progress was so astronomical, why were Sky going to de-list him?

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Re:

That Graph is fabulous. Cant see it enough. Wigan's doesn't even make top 5 of their predictions either and Froome, jeepers, that is embarrassing to place no higher achievement then pro conti podium..... :lol:

I hope Froome has that framed in his house.

It doesn't show predictions. It shows actual performances from 2010.

Brailsford never said that it shows actual performances from 2010.

Froome doesn't even fall into the 'potential' or 'future star' category. He isn't mentioned at all by Brailsford:

1. The guys on the left of the chart are being paid for what we believe they can do in the future. It’s quite difficult but people gamble. Someone like Edvald is obviously a great talent. It could be unbelievable if he goes on to fulfil all that potential, or it could be that he doesn’t quite. But you’re betting on the future.

You want to concentrate your coaching on these guys. They are your future. We found that last year, we probably didn’t give these guys – the likes of Swift, Stannard, Kennaugh – everything we could because of the challenges of setting up the team. Also the sickness at the Vuelta meant they missed out on the goal they had been working towards.

The key here is to get people who are ahead of the curve – performing at a higher level for their age. The ideal scenario is that they outperform their salary. A great example would be Richie Porte at Saxo Bank. He was seventh at the Giro as a neo-pro but there were guys who finished much lower than that getting paid a lot, lot more.

This is the area we want to invest in. We hired Alex Dowsett because we believe he has a lot of potential and he had a super season. We looked at Luke Rowe but felt he needed another year in the [British Cycling] academy. Rigoberto Uran has come in. He’s a young rider but he’s been around a while. He’s punchy so he gives us something we didn’t have, which is a rider for the Ardennes. This is where we concentrate our coaching and development.

Instead, Froome fall into the 'borderline' category. Nowhere near a GC contender:

5. Riders in this area are borderline for us. As you get older, the potential for improvement disappears and so it’s much more a judgement call. A rider might bring something to the team in terms of his personality that makes him a good guy to have around.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Ok, but if we follow your logic (which I agree with) then we also have to admit that Froome was both a) riding full gas and b) well rested compared to rivals and c) focusing entirely on that stage in the 2008 Alpe d'huez stage. And yet he only came 32nd and considered that some sort of great accomplishment.

A few years later he is very ill, so much so that he is just "hanging on" and is focusing on the gc the entire race, and has expanded a lot of energy riding harder throughout the race. And on the same mountain he rides both much better relative to his competition and faster objectively speaking.

Its cos everyone else stopped doping right?

No. Although that helps.

In 2008 he was a first year pro who had never done a stage race bigger than the Tour of Britain before riding on shoestring team with no coaching. And, according to him, he didn't eat properly. Even so he showed in that Tour that he could be climb and time trial well and was generally thought of as a future GC rider.

He didn't ride it again until his sixth season. The time you mention was his eighth season.

Now here's a little secret for you - you may notice it yourself as you learn more about the sport. Cyclists progress physically and mentally through the early years of their career. It's very unusual for any champion to be a world beater in their first season. In fact almost unheard of.

Climbing stages:
169th
73rd
142nd
46th
115th
125th
136th
30th

He finished 11'41" behind the winner on Alpe d'Huez. The riders who finished immediately after him were largely domestiques (Ten Dam, Lopez, Vansummeren, Popovych, Astarloza, etc).

All Froome showed in 2008 was that he wasn’t entirely out of his depth. Let’s look at what some other first year pros achieved:

Jan Ulrich: National TT Champion, 2nd Tour de Limousin at 21

Alberto Contador: 1st Tour de Pologne ITT, 4th Vuelta Castilla y Leon at 22

Andy Schleck: National TT Champion, 3rd National RR, 7th GP de Wallonie, 9th 4 Days of Dunkirk at 20

Cadel Evans: 1st Tour of Austria + 2 stages, 1st Brixia Tour + stage, 6th Giro dell Appenino, 8th Bayern Rundhfart at 23

Vincenzo Nibali: 2nd stage 6 Tour de Suisse, 4th National TT, 6th Milan-Torino at 20

Nairo Quintana: mountain class. Volta Catalunya, 15th Vuelta Castilla y Leon at 21

THIS is what talent looks like.

At 20, not 22

 

[miguelindurain111]

Re: Re:

That Graph is fabulous. Cant see it enough. Wigan's doesn't even make top 5 of their predictions either and Froome, jeepers, that is embarrassing to place no higher achievement then pro conti podium..... :lol:

I hope Froome has that framed in his house.

It doesn't show predictions. It shows actual performances from 2010.

Brailsford never said that it shows actual performances from 2010.

Froome doesn't even fall into the 'potential' or 'future star' category. He isn't mentioned at all by Brailsford:

1. The guys on the left of the chart are being paid for what we believe they can do in the future. It’s quite difficult but people gamble. Someone like Edvald is obviously a great talent. It could be unbelievable if he goes on to fulfil all that potential, or it could be that he doesn’t quite. But you’re betting on the future.

You want to concentrate your coaching on these guys. They are your future. We found that last year, we probably didn’t give these guys – the likes of Swift, Stannard, Kennaugh – everything we could because of the challenges of setting up the team. Also the sickness at the Vuelta meant they missed out on the goal they had been working towards.

The key here is to get people who are ahead of the curve – performing at a higher level for their age. The ideal scenario is that they outperform their salary. A great example would be Richie Porte at Saxo Bank. He was seventh at the Giro as a neo-pro but there were guys who finished much lower than that getting paid a lot, lot more.

This is the area we want to invest in. We hired Alex Dowsett because we believe he has a lot of potential and he had a super season. We looked at Luke Rowe but felt he needed another year in the [British Cycling] academy. Rigoberto Uran has come in. He’s a young rider but he’s been around a while. He’s punchy so he gives us something we didn’t have, which is a rider for the Ardennes. This is where we concentrate our coaching and development.

Instead, Froome fall into the 'borderline' category. Nowhere near a GC contender:

5. Riders in this area are borderline for us. As you get older, the potential for improvement disappears and so it’s much more a judgement call. A rider might bring something to the team in terms of his personality that makes him a good guy to have around.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615

And nowadays we know that Brailsford hadn't a clue who will perform well and who won't. It looks like Team Sky perform well despite of the mastermind not because of him :lol:

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica

If Froome's progress was so astronomical, why were Sky going to de-list him?

Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....

And some don't have any! Potential is something that is obvious, but that somehow doesn't translate into results. Think Schleck, Ulrich, Zulle, Tejay van Gerderen, mini Phinney, countless sprinters, Hincapie at Roubaix, etc, etc. Froome was a serious nobody with no potential.

John Swanson

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....

And some don't have any! Potential is something that is obvious, but that somehow doesn't translate into results. Think Schleck, Ulrich, Zulle, Tejay van Gerderen, mini Phinney, countless sprinters, Hincapie at Roubaix, etc, etc. Froome was a serious nobody with no potential.

John Swanson

No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.

So what you're saying is that everyone on a WT team has "potential". Potential for what? For most, reaching the WT was the fulfillment of their potential. I think a better term would be minimum level of talent. Everyone at the WT has the minimum required level of talent. And that described Froome. Until he inexplicably started winning GTs. Before that he had no potential beyond what he had already achieved.

John Swanson

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....

And some don't have any! Potential is something that is obvious, but that somehow doesn't translate into results. Think Schleck, Ulrich, Zulle, Tejay van Gerderen, mini Phinney, countless sprinters, Hincapie at Roubaix, etc, etc. Froome was a serious nobody with no potential.

John Swanson

No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.

the use of 'potential' is using the WT as a base...not an end point

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

To ride a bike is not about production lines. Ireland produced 2 highly talented class riders from a minority of a minority sport in the 80s. Class is there in cycling or not. Just because Froome was a little later than others doesn't explain the massive jump in ability in 2 weeks in 2011.

Roglic moved sport at what age? 21?

And Kelly didn't get on the podium of a monument until he was 27

Roglic spent three years riding at Continental level before turning pro.

Froome went from the WCC to the Tour de France in less than a year after half a season at Konica

If Froome's progress was so astronomical, why were Sky going to de-list him?

Because they'd spent a couple of years trying to bring out his potential and it just wasn't happening for reasons unknown. Maybe.

Potential is a funny thing, its certainly no guarantee of success. Some people reach their potential. some people don't....

the scientists at GSK and non-psuedo scientist and contributor to this forum know exactly why he didn't reach his potential

he "just lost the fat"

so, SKY spent two years unsuccessfully trying to get him to lose weight????? :lol:

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

That Graph is fabulous. Cant see it enough. Wigan's doesn't even make top 5 of their predictions either and Froome, jeepers, that is embarrassing to place no higher achievement then pro conti podium..... :lol:

I hope Froome has that framed in his house.

It doesn't show predictions. It shows actual performances from 2010.

You are deluding yourself if you believe Froome didn't jump out of the ground at the 2011 Vuelta - This is the same rider who had no contract for 2012 and was being hawked around to other teams with little or no interest - How and why he 'jumped out of the ground' is another discussion point.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.

So what you're saying is that everyone on a WT team has "potential". Potential for what? For most, reaching the WT was the fulfillment of their potential. I think a better term would be minimum level of talent. Everyone at the WT has the minimum required level of talent. And that described Froome. Until he inexplicably started winning GTs. Before that he had no potential beyond what he had already achieved.

John Swanson

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.

I was responding to your direct, unqualified statement of 'no potential'. I can come closer to agreeing with your revised term 'minimum level of talent'.

No talent refers to someone like me, with a Vo2 max in the low 70's i had 'no' potential of ever getting anywhere near the WT. No amount of doping would ever bridge the gulf between my natural talent and that needed to even just survive in the WT.

My point was this, people who make it to WT level certainly have potential as a cyclist. With a VO2 max in the mid 80's Froome certainly had potential. The potential that put him within a range where with the right development, and the right response to a doping programme, he could become one of the worlds best cyclists.

Note that i still believe, on the balance of probability, that he was a particularly high responder to some form of doping in order to make the jump to where he has eventually ended up. I don't believe and have never said that he showed the potential to become what he has become naturally.

I guess we're perhaps arguing the same point, i'm just less scathing about his natural talent, or lack thereof.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

No potential?? Seriously?

I think that's going a bit far. No scratch that, its a ridiculous statement.

You don't reach the WT with 'no' potential. No amount of chemical assistance can bridge that gap.

Don't get me wrong, im not necessarily suggesting he ever showed or even had the potential to go on and achieve what he has since without some 'assistance' along the way, but claiming he had 'no' potential is just silly.

So what you're saying is that everyone on a WT team has "potential". Potential for what? For most, reaching the WT was the fulfillment of their potential. I think a better term would be minimum level of talent. Everyone at the WT has the minimum required level of talent. And that described Froome. Until he inexplicably started winning GTs. Before that he had no potential beyond what he had already achieved.

John Swanson

This ^^^

To get to the WT you have to be a seriously good rider. I have raced against active WT pros and even against most Pro Conti riders they can just about do whatever they want, and I only raced against them over the summer when they’re coming out of the off season.

I’ve seen Jay McCarthy bridge a 20sec gap to a 5 man break of 2 Drapac riders and 3 strong Conti/NRS guys in a couple of minutes, riding an entire peloton off the wheel in the process, barely breaking a sweat - in November! He just rode them down and went straight to the front of the group like it was another interval.

Just getting to the WT places you in the top 2-3 percent...

 

[The Hegelian]

Let's just say: "potential to win GT's."

How many young pros now have this expectation/burden thrust upon them? A very select few. And they are all unequivocally seen/watched through the ranks before even turning pro. Of those select few, most do not fulfill this potential.

Froome - like the vast majority of WT riders - had precisely zero potential to win a GT before 2011. He was nowhere near that select few who have that expectation/burden/paycheck thrust upon them.

And that is why there is 1200+ pages on this thread.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Let's just say: "potential to win GT's."

How many young pros now have this expectation/burden thrust upon them? A very select few. And they are all unequivocally seen/watched through the ranks before even turning pro. Of those select few, most do not fulfill this potential.

Froome - like the vast majority of WT riders - had precisely zero potential to win a GT before 2011. He was nowhere near that select few who have that expectation/burden/paycheck thrust upon them.

And that is why there is 1200+ pages on this thread.

well summarised

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

OK, as you wish lets use your friend Google as the Arbiter here:

"having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future"

So using the terminology which you yourself borrowed from Google, we can probably agree that he never showed the potential to become a multiple GT winner, but what we now know without doubt, is that Chris Froome has won 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta. The act of someone achieving something by default proves that the potential to achieve was there. Therefore what we also now know without doubt is that Chris Froome did always have the potential to win a GT.

So i stand by my original refutal of your statement that Froome had no potential

Of course the above is really just bickering over terminology; the golden question, the one which has generated 1256 pages and rising on this thread, is to what means and length did he resort to fulfil this potential.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

OK, as you wish lets use your friend Google as the Arbiter here:

"having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future"

So using the terminology which you yourself borrowed from Google, we can probably agree that he never showed the potential to become a multiple GT winner, but what we now know without doubt, is that Chris Froome has won 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta. The act of someone achieving something by default proves that the potential to achieve was there. Therefore what we also now know without doubt is that Chris Froome did always have the potential to win a GT.

So i stand by my original refutal of your statement that Froome had no potential

Of course the above is really just bickering over terminology; the golden question, the one which has generated 1256 pages and rising on this thread, is to what means and length did he resort to fulfil this potential.

you're confusing google with language

the important part is 'future'....you're applying in retrospect to our hapless hero....

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Yes, i am saying everyone who reaches WT level has 'some' potential.

Hmmm. Nope. The first Google result for "potential" is: "having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future".

Making it to the big leagues only says you have the minimum level of required ability or talent. Your results beyond that indicate your ceiling. Thus has it been and how it always will be. Name a champion, any champion, and their "potential" is as obvious as their destiny. Hinault, three years after being a neo-pro won his first attempted Tour and Vuelta. Before that he had already won Liege, and Gent-Wevelgem. At the age of 23. Talent doesn't "emerge" as you approach 30. It's on fire and ready to explode by time you're 23. At that point it's only a matter if you can handle the work load and pressure.

John Swanson

OK, as you wish lets use your friend Google as the Arbiter here:

"having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future"

So using the terminology which you yourself borrowed from Google, we can probably agree that he never showed the potential to become a multiple GT winner, but what we now know without doubt, is that Chris Froome has won 4 Tours and 1 Vuelta. The act of someone achieving something by default proves that the potential to achieve was there. Therefore what we also now know without doubt is that Chris Froome did always have the potential to win a GT.

So i stand by my original refutal of your statement that Froome had no potential

Of course the above is really just bickering over terminology; the golden question, the one which has generated 1256 pages and rising on this thread, is to what means and length did he resort to fulfil this potential.

you're confusing google with language

the important part is 'future'....you're applying in retrospect to our hapless hero....

Google wasnt my choice, but it was used by others to try and illustrate a point. I'm not confused but maybe i'm confusing others :lol:

The original debate was around a statement of no potential, which in the context of what we now know was a historical assumption, not a future forecast. Retrospect is the only absolute proof or disproof of historical assumptions. Therefore retrospect is being correctly and justifiably applied here.

This is becoming a circular argument with no likelihood of any meaningful conclusion.

Shall we move on :Neutral: