Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[martinvickers]

The four minute mike is not a good example. Everyone knows Landy as well as Bannister. Not because Landy was 2nd to do it but because both of them were competitors of each other across the Commenweath but both trying to break the barrier at the same time.

Who would be first? The Brit or the Australian?

Even though Bannister got there first no one forgets Bannister or Landy because of the Mircle Mile at the Empire Games. Worth watching on youtube in fading black & white.

The unknown athlete was the American who took a payment for running and was suspended. He was probably the best athlete or the 3 who were all trying for the four minute mile. And I can't remember his name.

Although there was no Internet back then all 3 names were in the papers in each country.

As a side note (Dr) Bannister just like Sky used science, marginal gains and pacemakers to break the record whereas Landy was trying to break it in a traditional race set up.

Maybe Bannister blood doped and used EPO for the record?

Sorry, Hog, I can't agree. A certain generation would remember the battle between the two - and Landy was the better runner, though Bannister was smarter - but as time has passed, the battle has been relegated behind the achievement.

It's not ALWAYS the case. If the narritive is strong enough, second gets remembered - Like Scott to the South Pole. Who was second to the North?

AS for 'marginal gains' - it's almost the exact same story as Coe/Ovett - Ovett old school, Coe absolutely up to the second sports science, and to an extent Obree/Boardman - though that was a rather more complex story - Obree wasn't so much old school as no school at all, a 'mad' genius - but boardman was all about the marginals - indeed, he was Peter Keen's proof of concept.

Mind you, 'marginal gains' have never really recovered from the Drago/Balboa battle gave them such a bad name

 

[roundabout]

Heh, there is a debate who was the first so the North Pole is not a good example.

 

[martinvickers]

Bradley Wiggins was the first person in history to win the tour de France?

If not, none of these comparisons have any merit whatsoever, and I'm surprised to see you used them. Hint: Hillary, Armstrong and Banister were the first people ever to accomplish those feats, not first people from their country to do it after those feats had been accomplished 98 times before by about 40 different people.

Ps, also, winning the tdf is not really perceived as a barrier for humanity. It's an organized sporting event which produces 1 winner every year. I know wiggo's fans love their guy and try to hype him as much as possible, but lets leave comparisons to the 1969 moon landing out for now. As a momentous occasion for mankind I would rank the latter a little bit higher, even if some on here would disagree.

Oh for goodness sake

NO-ONE is suggesting winning a flippin' bike race compares to walking on the flippin' moon! Strawman, anyone?

The point being made is only about narrative - that if you make a big deal about being the first to do something - as was made out of BW being the first brit to win LE Tour (and see the" year in yellow" doc - it's the entire sell, and was for the whole SKy outfit), then the guy who does it second soon after doesn't fit the narrative, and his publicity machine will suffer accordingly, except for rare exceptions who become famous FOR being second - like Aldrin, or RF Scott - or the sidekick, like Norgay

And the same thing will happen if a brit happened to follow Andy Murray, or whoever succeeded Ben Ainslie in winning an america's cup, or whatever.

In narrative terms, for the british, Wiggins slew the dragon. After that, it's just a race again.

 

[martinvickers]

Heh, there is a debate who was the first so the North Pole is not a good example.

I know, but do a quiz, and the answer is Peary. No quiz ever asked who was second, thousands of quizzes have asked for second man on moon - the point is that unusually it's just a bigger part of the cultural 'common knowledge" than most 'seconds'

 

[ebandit]

santa

Heh, there is a debate who was the first so the North Pole is not a good example.

santa knows

as to 'myth busted?' while LS puts much effort into their post is it the whole
story?

no team can buy the best riders due to $ constraints just the best riders to gel together to create a winning team

big spending bmc failed here

hoggy posts off topic with mile runners but their frail physiques are very froome like

Mark L

 

[the sceptic]

guess no americans cared when Lance won the tour either, if I understand the Martinvickers theorem correctly.

 

[roundabout]

First cancer survivor to win the Tour?

 

[The Hitch]

Oh for goodness sake

NO-ONE is suggesting winning a flippin' bike race compares to walking on the flippin' moon! Strawman, anyone?

The point being made is only about narrative - that if you make a big deal about being the first to do something - as was made out of BW being the first brit to win LE Tour (and see the" year in yellow" doc - it's the entire sell, and was for the whole SKy outfit), then the guy who does it second soon after doesn't fit the narrative, and his publicity machine will suffer according
.

Wiggins was the story because the sport isn't built up in this country. So Wiggins and his celebrity was made the story not the sport itself. No-one knew how he won it.they knew he had sideburns. They knew he was a really nice guy (cos the media said so). They knew he looked like a mod and that he won this thing called the tour de France. Who was his opponent? How many minutes roughly did he win by. what was the most triumphant moment? Uhmm no one knew that. By contrast ask people who Murray's opponent was in both his finals and everyone will tell you the answers.

No one cared about cycling, and only after he had sealed the win did it gather any attention. as a result, Wiggins had to be the story. Him, his celebrity, not the sport.
And once Wiggins falls the whole interest falls with him.

If sky had built up the sport in this country before dominating then there would be media interest in the tdf, not just in Wiggins. And as a result the 2013 tdf with Wiggins absent, froome would have been given his moment, just as much as wiggins, because the media interest and the fan interest would have been there.
Instead the media had to again, try to build up the person-froome, and try to make him popular because the sport itself is 0.

At the end of the day sport is about the here and now.
Really it is no matter how much commentators try to talk about history. Sampras's face isn't all over tennis shops, Federer and Nadal and Djokovic are. And 10 years later someone else will. Your football team has won 20 or whatever titles jn as many years but at the end of the day it's just a number. The only thing that really matters is winning the next one. Lance was always about winning the next tour, similarly fed cries like a kid everything he loses a gs.
That's why people, if they cared about cycling would love froome just as hard as wiggins after his first tdf, and more once he won 2. It's about the now,and they love whoever is winning now.

ly, except for rare exceptions who become famous FOR being second - like Aldrin, or RF Scott - or the sidekick, like Norgay
And the same thing will happen if a brit happened to follow Andy Murray, or whoever succeeded Ben Ainslie in winning an america's cup, or whatever.

In narrative terms, for the british, Wiggins slew the dragon.

2flawed assumptions here.

1 that being the first person from a country to do something is similar to being the first person in the world to do something.
2 that the reaction to winning an organized sporting event follows a similar curve (even if smaller) as breaking a Human barrier.

They don't.
Being the first person to accomplish something for mankind has historical value.
Winning an organized sport event does not. It's purely business and any achievement declines in value every moment after it passes.

The victors end up quickly after they retire looking for cheesy commercials.

The 2 are not comparable and here is why. If you ask people who was the first person to win the (insert accomplishment) and who was the last, with sporting events far more people will know who was last than who was first.
With the moon landing, or Everest, far more.people will know who was first than last.

And that's working with people who were actually first to do something and not the forced first person from a certain media market, version. Who was more famous, lemond or Armstrong. Ocana or Indurain? Argentina 1978 team or the 1986 team?

 

[DirtyWorks]

2) Sky demonstrably did not succeed simply due to purchasing "the top riders" as they have purchased riders from all kinds of success levels.

And was able to miraculously transform some.

The follow-on question for me is how often in the long history of cycling have average international elite riders transformed themselves into grand tour champions?

If one picks a conservative time cutoff by querying every rider prior to Hinault, then you don't see it.

Please understand that I'm not disagreeing with your lengthy and informative post, but posting a question.

 

[thehog]

Mind you, 'marginal gains' have never really recovered from the Drago/Balboa battle gave them such a bad name

Drago had the first power meter known to man. His punch was 500 watts!

Balboa was running through the snow and lifting tree stumps above his head.

In today's terms Nibali is Balboa. Froome Drago (just as boring mind you). Nibs preferring to race and train on sensation. Froome with wires strapped to his head.

Nibali may attempt rope a dope on Froome? Get him to accelerate full *** mode on the first climb?

The Shark

The Dawg

 

[thehog]

In Eastern Europe no one has even heard of Armstrong or Aldrin.

Gagarin and Leonov.

First man in space and first space walk. Both Russian and far more significant feats than walking on the moon.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

And was able to miraculously transform some.

The follow-on question for me is how often in the long history of cycling have average international elite riders transformed themselves into grand tour champions?

If one picks a conservative time cutoff by querying every rider prior to Hinault, then you don't see it.

Please understand that I'm not disagreeing with your lengthy and informative post, but posting a question.

Ah, but if they purchase riders of varying levels who suit their plans and who they think they will be able to mould to transform into these top level riders due to various characteristics, then that would make them no different to any other team and make the "they have the most money so they buy the best riders" argument redundant.

My post was directed at that argument, as we have seen it many times, that Sky bought the best riders and that justifies why they are dominant. It is quite demonstrable that they in fact did not buy the best riders, and when they did those riders have usually either stagnated or failed to produce at their prior level while at Sky, therefore I consider the argument not to be a valid point as a justification for Team Sky's ability to dominate several major races consecutively. "Sky bought the best suited riders to adapt to their style" or "Sky developed the best riders" are different arguments which would merit different considerations.

 

[martinvickers]

guess no americans cared when Lance won the tour either, if I understand the Martinvickers theorem correctly.

You clearly don't then. Quelle Surprise.

 

[the sceptic]

You clearly don't then. Quelle Surprise.

Ball not man Martin.

I know you love your british heroes, but I think you got a bit carried away, as shown by Hitch posts. Try to avoid the personal attacks though.

 

[martinvickers]

In Eastern Europe no one has even heard of Armstrong or Aldrin.

Gagarin and Leonov.

First man in space and first space walk. Both Russian and far more significant feats than walking on the moon.

I am reminded of a line of irish poetry

" I inclined
To lose my faith in Ballyrush and Gortin
Till Homer's ghost came whispering to my mind.
He said: I made the Iliad from such
A local row.
Gods make their own importance. "

Narrative isn't really about an objective analysis of merit. Past or Present. It's the story. The tale well told. And casual viewers, still the majority among British cycling fans, follow the story. Of course, everyone likes a news story, the latest thing. But importance is not so linear.

Hitch talks of the 20 titles won by mufc as if it explains the fan base of the club, as if the fans care only for what's next - and maybe some do - but the club was massive even when it was a relative laughing stock in the 70's and 80's -

Why? Because it some basic, narrative sense, it was first; the first to play in the european cup,and the first to win it. Liverpool have won more leagues AND EC, hell, in 1998, Nottm Forest had still won more EC!

But United were first, and, tragically, had the narrative - the team that died, the boy that lived (charlton) and the long road back to Wembley.

They won it again, in bizarre circumstances in 99, and again in 2008. I saw both, cheered both. But 2008 doesn't have the meaning 1999 does - it had it's own bizarre narrative - nor, in honesty does it have the meaning of 68.

history doesn't mean everything. But it doesn't mean nothing either.

Frankly, if it did mean nothing, cycling wouldn't be such a bitter sport to follow right now, would it....

 

[martinvickers]

Ball not man Martin.

I know you love your british heroes, but I think you got a bit carried away, as shown by Hitch posts. Try to avoid the personal attacks though.

where's the attack? You said "if you understood" - I simply confirmed you clearly don't. Which is, after all, no surprise.

Where's the attack.

As opposed to the little highlighted piece of baiting in your reply.

Again, no surprise.

 

[The Hitch]

In Eastern Europe no one has even heard of Armstrong or Aldrin.

I'm from Eastern Europe and this is just a dumb comment

 

[thehog]

I'm from Eastern Europe and this is just a dumb comment

Clearly not from Mother Russia

(just teasing )

 

[the sceptic]

where's the attack? You said "if you understood" - I simply confirmed you clearly don't. Which is, after all, no surprise.

Where's the attack.

As opposed to the little highlighted piece of baiting in your reply.

Again, no surprise.

The attack is that you imply that it isnt a surprise that I didnt understand, which means im stupid, which after all is a personal attack.

Do you agree Martin?

I feel like I need to alert the overlords to this breach of posting protocol if you dont stop with the personal attacks.

 

[martinvickers]

The attack is that you imply that it isnt a surprise that I didnt understand, which means im stupid, which after all is a personal attack.

Do you agree Martin?

No. Quelle Surprise.

I feel like I need to alert the overlords to this breach of posting protocol if you dont stop with the personal attacks.

Feel free.

 

[BroDeal]

The attack is that you imply that it isnt a surprise that I didnt understand, which means im stupid, which after all is a personal attack.

Do you agree Martin?

I feel like I need to alert the overlords to this breach of posting protocol if you dont stop with the personal attacks.

Forget about Vickers. This clown is always insulting people then bawling to the mods when people do the same to him.

 

[Netserk]

It's the same as with the dopers. Some of us (here) don't really mind the cheating, but the hypocrisy.

 

[the sceptic]

Forget about Vickers. This clown is always insulting people then bawling to the mods when people do the same to him.

Yeah I know. Just fun to see him trying to vortex his way out of it when its pointed out to him.

 

[Netserk]

Clearly not from Mother Russia

(just teasing )

It'd be easier, if you wrote when you didn't

 

[gooner]

On topic, Froome isn't on the Queen's honour list. So too isn't Murray BTW.