Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[FoxxyBrown1111]

This blatant trolling surely should result in a ban. No one in their right mind can come up with this stuff.

You are funny. Starting with insults (not the first time) and then asking for a ban. Cry baby...

 

[the sceptic]

I love it.

Pinotti vs Froome for starters (I mean we´ll have years to come to discuss these careers in and out, back and forth )

Pinotti;
age 26 (virtually a no show) until peak (age 32; I would call that a very late bloomer, almost LA-like );
from 33 points to 724 (= + 2.094 %)

Froome;
age 25 (pre-transformation) until peak (age 28);
from 126 points to 2.766 (= + 2.095 %)

So while Pinotti (a cyclist "pampered" from youth trou Amateur to pro in western cycling clubs) needed 10 years to improve his bikehandling skills () until he reached his peak as a GT T-10 rider (others at that age declined!), Froome did it only 4 years into the top level at an age where it is normal.

using your theorem on Horner from pre transformation (2012) to peak (2013) and he is only at 78% increase.

Thus, he is 26 times more belivable than Froome, so there is no way he can be doping.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Hopefully there's someone with 0 points who then scores 1 point the following year and we can all hound him for his infinite improvement.

What a completely ridiculous comparison.

Like saying a company who doubled their profits from 1M to 2M dollars (100% increase) is doing better than a company that only improved by 10% (10billion to 11billion).

Good grief.

Praise Allah for ignore.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

using your theorem on Horner from pre transformation (2012) to peak (2013) and he is only at 78% increase.

Thus, he is 26 times more belivable than Froome, so there is no way he can be doping.

Pure gold. Did you ever go to school?

 

[Afrank]

Just a reminder, attack the post, not the poster.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Hopefully there's someone with 0 points who then scores 1 point the following year and we can all hound him for his infinite improvement.

What a completely ridiculous comparison.

Like saying a company who doubled their profits from 1M to 2M dollars (100% increase) is doing better than a company that only improved by 10% (10billion to 11billion).

Good grief.

Praise Allah for ignore.

Did I start with "CQ points"? I just tried to show that numbers can be used in different ways, the same would happen with anymore release of Froome data. Point driven home?

BTW, in your example the smaller company did indeed better than the big one... in efficiency growing. But do we know who´s better? No. We need to see the whole picture (as in the Froome vs Horner case for example). Is company A working in a small market segment. Is it the leader, is it a start up, did it grow all of a sudden after 10 so so years, etc, etc

 

[Afrank]

As far as the Pinotti/Froome discussion, IMO you don't need any kind of calculation or theorem to determine who had a greater rise. Just look at each of their points over their whole career.

Looking at this, Pinotti's rise and variations in CQ points looks a lot more normal and gradual then Froomes.

Then you also have to consider the fact that Froome went from a grupetto rider to a GT contender. And most of Pinotti's points through the years are coming from the TT's. As far as quality goes, the quality of races Froome has got his points in has improved dramatically.

 

[the sceptic]

Hopefully there's someone with 0 points who then scores 1 point the following year and we can all hound him for his infinite improvement.

What a completely ridiculous comparison.

Like saying a company who doubled their profits from 1M to 2M dollars (100% increase) is doing better than a company that only improved by 10% (10billion to 11billion).

Good grief.

Praise Allah for ignore.

This theory fails on so many levels, most obviously because the difference between two riders with 33 and 126 points is much smaller than two riders with 2766 and 724 points.

If hypothetical riders A goes from 1 point to 500 points, he has had a bigger transformation than rider B who went from 10 to 4000 points, even though rider B won every race on the calendar.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

As far as the Pinotti/Froome discussion, IMO you don't need any kind of calculation or theorem to determine who had a greater rise. Just look at each of their points over their whole career.

Looking at this, Pinotti's rise and variations in CQ points looks a lot more normal and gradual then Froomes.

Then you also have to consider the fact that Froome went from a grupetto rider to a GT contender. And most of Pinotti's points through the years are coming from the TT's. As far as quality goes, the quality of races Froome has got his points in has improved dramatically.

To the bolded: With an extreme jump at an high age (past peaking)... And I tell you one thing; I was surprised when Pinotti made it possible to stay within the T-20 in a GT at age 31. But even more so when he got even better, being in the T-10 in a very hard GT age 34. He wasn´t known for being a GT contender...

While Froomes rise is more extreme if we look at any 4 year span of both riders, Pinottis is more extreme if we look at the age he did transform from pure TTler to GT contender...

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I thought this thread couldn't get more ridiculous. The forum needs to have a function to ignore threads.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I thought this thread couldn't get more ridiculous. The forum needs to have a function to ignore threads.

It does, it's called don't click on the thread and it won't open and you won't have to read the crazy going on in it. It does require a little self control.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

It does, it's called don't click on the thread and it won't open and you won't have to read the crazy going on in it. It does require a little self control.

Self control is the hard part. Foxxy from germania coming with ridiculous comparisons takes the cake or dope by the way.

 

[Granville57]

What is the criteria (Question @ all)? I would say a rider around age 26 having his first GT podium, then prolongs for a successful career, but was unheared of before his first GT podium. Is that ok?

I would say not only would this mystery rider have to have been unheard of, they would have to show a documented history, as does Froome, of being so far down in the standings that NO ONE would've bet a penny on them ever achieving GT glory.

If you can find such a rider whose story also includes a mysterious parasite, then I will pay for your beers...

Criteria:

1) Post World War 2 rider, at least, because cycling has changed a hell of a lot. To keep it as comparable as possible, the riders can't be almost centuries apart.

2) Clean. No Armstrongs, Riises, Indurains or Chiappuccis here.

3) No top level podiums in track cycling, MTB or other endurance sports on two wheels until the age of at least 25.

4) Went from pack fodder to GC contender within a very short time period. Lets say within six months or less.

5) Capable of winning TTs and mountain stages consistently after the meteoric rise.

6) Career path not that of a typical top level cyclist.


Find that rider.

P.S.: That Pinotti thing that was posted is awesome. I can use his example for the next few years here.
I thought I would have to go back to 1900ish to fulfil my promise for Granville to look for a rider transformation like Froome.
Mission accomplished.

I'm not quite ready to concede that much has been accomplished yet, but I am willing to buy you a few beers just for this gem:

There is no such things with Froome. All we have with him is an explosion at an relative young age after an unusal career path...

Thank you. The beers are on me.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I'm not quite ready to concede that much has been accomplished yet, but I am willing to buy you a few beers just for this gem:
Thank you. The beers are on me.

Good to hear that you enjoyed it. But I have the feeling it wasn´t as good as last time. I think your part was missing.
Anyway, the Froome explosion must be seen in context with some footage...
When you see it, you know I really earned my beer.

 

[Arrowfarm]

To the bolded: With an extreme jump at an high age (past peaking)... And I tell you one thing; I was surprised when Pinotti made it possible to stay within the T-20 in a GT at age 31. But even more so when he got even better, being in the T-10 in a very hard GT age 34. He wasn´t known for being a GT contender...

While Froomes rise is more extreme if we look at any 4 year span of both riders, Pinottis is more extreme if we look at the age he did transform from pure TTler to GT contender...

To make a fair comparison I think we need to look at a span no larger than 4 weeks, since that was the amount of time it took Froome to go from grupetto to podium.
just because it happened a few years ago doesn't mean it took a few years.

I dont know how long it took Pinotti to improve his "skills", but I my first guess would be "longer than 4 weeks".

 

[Gung Ho Gun]

Pinotti was never a "pure TTer"
Pinotti never became a "GT contender"
The guy finished top-10 in a single GT, 15 minutes behind Basso which would've been more counting only mountain stages
I don't see any comparison to Froome

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

To make a fair comparison I think we need to look at a span no larger than 4 weeks, since that was the amount of time it took Froome to go from grupetto to podium.
just because it happened a few years ago doesn't mean it took a few years.

I dont know how long it took Pinotti to improve his "skills", but I my first guess would be "longer than 4 weeks".

If we would look at a 4 week span, we´d find 100+ riders. Take Lagutin for example. 104th and 91st in previous GTS, and then all of a sudden he transforms into a GT contender at age 30, only 9 mins down to the winner Cobo. And for every Lagutin, there is also a DeGendt or PVelits or old agers like Horner, Pinotti, Mosq...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Pinotti was never a "pure TTer"
Pinotti never became a "GT contender"
The guy finished top-10 in a single GT, 15 minutes behind Basso which would've been more counting only mountain stages
I don't see any comparison to Froome

Pinotti on average 68th in GTs pre Giro 2007, then twice T-20 (the best being 9th). And in 2012 he hung in there until the last few days when he cracked... If that isn´t contenting for a good GT overall finish, I don´t know what it is then? Why does he suffer for 2 1/2 weeks before breaking? AFAIR he even said he targets a T-10 in the 2012 Giro, at age 36

 

[Digger]

Pinotti on average 68th in GTs pre Giro 2007, then twice T-20 (the best being 9th). And in 2012 he hung in there until the last few days when he cracked... If that isn´t contenting for a good GT overall finish, I don´t know what it is then? Why does he suffer for 2 1/2 weeks before breaking? AFAIR he even said he targets a T-10 in the 2012 Giro, at age 36

Three weeks before this he was getting dropped in that notoriously tough race Poland...less than mid pack.

He came 85th - over 26mins down.

Here he is three weeks later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIRIAinJo0E

 

[42x16ss]

Pinotti on average 68th in GTs pre Giro 2007, then twice T-20 (the best being 9th). And in 2012 he hung in there until the last few days when he cracked... If that isn´t contenting for a good GT overall finish, I don´t know what it is then? Why does he suffer for 2 1/2 weeks before breaking? AFAIR he even said he targets a T-10 in the 2012 Giro, at age 36

Targeting a top 10 at Giro or Vuelta is not the same as gunning for the win at the TdF - something that Pinotti never once spoke of doing, let alone attempted. How you can sling so much mud at so many riders, yet ignore the same thing, done MUCH better, in a far more condensed time frame is fascinating.

It reminds me of this:

 

[del1962]

Three weeks before this he was getting dropped in that notoriously tough race Poland...less than mid pack.

He came 85th - over 26mins down.

Here he is three weeks later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIRIAinJo0E

The twitter freak show brings in irrelevent data, shouldn't you be busy trolling Michelle Cound on twitter

 

[EnacheV]

Three weeks before this he was getting dropped in that notoriously tough race Poland...less than mid pack.

He came 85th - over 26mins down.

Here he is three weeks later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIRIAinJo0E

lol Nibali, from gruppeto to 2nd in vuelta.

i'm sure you are reffering to Nibali in 2013 tour of Poland right?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Targeting a top 10 at Giro or Vuelta is not the same as gunning for the win at the TdF - something that Pinotti never once spoke of doing, let alone attempted. How you can sling so much mud at so many riders, yet ignore the same thing, done MUCH better, in a far more condensed time frame is fascinating.

So you trust all those riders, yet believe Froome is the evil? Welcome in the club I am not a member of.

The Clinic, a place I love since the Voeckler days... before that I took it serious.

 

[Arrowfarm]

If we would look at a 4 week span, we´d find 100+ riders. Take Lagutin for example. 104th and 91st in previous GTS, and then all of a sudden he transforms into a GT contender at age 30, only 9 mins down to the winner Cobo. And for every Lagutin, there is also a DeGendt or PVelits or old agers like Horner, Pinotti, Mosq...

Well...
Lagutin was 15th... hardly podium. not grupetto, but nowhere near the podium.
DeGendt has a podium in the Giro and... not that much more in GTs, so my guess is that he fails some of the other criteria. (ie the one about remaining a serious contender)
Velits fails the criteria about not winning anything. he's showed results from an early age.
Horner... come on.
Pinotti is already in play. cant make comparisons with the same guy twice.
Mosq... not sure if you mean the convicted doper, so I'll not comment on him...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

lol Nibali, from gruppeto to 2nd in vuelta.

i'm sure you are reffering to Nibali in 2013 tour of Poland right?

LOL. A nice one, even though we had this issue before... But still: