FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Froome OTOH jumped from average 60th to 2nd in his low 20s. Is that unusual? ****ing yeah. But unprecedented? No.
What about Lagutin going from back fodder (104, 91) to
only 9 mins down on the final CG winner in a super hard GT aged 29 3/4?
You guys do your cherry picking, I do mine.
Not only is it cherry picking. Here's my analysis of your analysis:
1. Froome went to 2nd in his low 20s. Um no. 26 1/3 is not low 20s. It's mid twenties at least.
2. Froome's GT was (implied) a "normal hardness" GT. Um no. It's exactly the same GT Lagutin finished 9 minutes down on, the one you label "super hard".
3. You compare average position to absolute position. Um. No. Compare averages, or compare absolutes. % improvement, etc isn't working too well, imo.
4. You feel it pertinent to add 3/4 to Lagutin's age, but miss off the 1/3 for Froome's.
5. You compare average position for Lagutin, to absolute time from winner as indication of improvement. Um. What the feck dude. That's not apples to oranges, that's apples to pink VW automobiles.
6. Your idea of a "super hard GT" is somewhat ... interesting. For my money, a GT's hardness would be evidenced in how closely the top ~20 riders finished together, assuming there are 20 teams, and their leaders are all vying for top placings. In 2011, top 20 ended 20 minutes down at the Vuelta. In the 2013 Tour, which Froome won by over 4 minutes, top 20 is over 40 minutes down. (Granted some teams are there for non-GC reasons, obviously, but I'd like to see at least some form of definition for GT difficulty before accepting your labeling of same).
Your analysis needs work.
ETA: And you wonder why people think you believe Froome is clean, or you are defending Froome. Eesh!