You have good insight. Knowledgeable.
However tell me, what are your current or up-coming projects?
I assume you have switched focus?
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Taxus4a said:I think you didnt read the article... first becouse the best year is 86, and I said, 85 and 86, two years in a row are exceptionals, not good, exceptional, but yes, as well 90 is exceptional, and even 89.
All of them are quite above the Gauss bell line, but to aseverate 90 is better, we need to wait more years... so far the data said they are similar, not better.
Jakob747 said:You have good insight. Knowledgeable.
However tell me, what are your current or up-coming projects?
I assume you have switched focus?
The Hitch said:What article? You are not reffering to that worthless babble in your blog are you? To call that an article is taking self aggrandizement to a new level.
Anyway since you are clearly totally clueless on cycling, I will give you a list of names of riders born in 1970 and 1971 so that you can look them up on wikipedia and understand why 1985 and 1986 are nowhere near "the golden generation in history"
Marco Pantani
Jan Ullrich
Erik Zabel
Gilberto Simoni
Abraham Olano
Ivan Gotti
Francesco Casagrande.
Chris Horner
Lance Armstrong
Davide Rebellin
Peter Van Petegem
Michele Bartoli
El Chava Jimenez
Erik Dekker
Serhiy Honchar
Tyler Hamilton
Fabio Casartelli
And thats just counting guys who won major classics and all but 2 won a monument at the least. Not even counting guys like Piepoli, Voigt,Moreau, Jullich.
Compare that to Pierre Rolland Remi di Gregorio, lolololol.
Jurgen Roelands
Taxus4a said:All the list are big doppers
That change some things, specially for Ullrich, he has very good result in his career.roundabout said:Ullrich is 73 and Gotti is 69
Taxus4a said:I have made a generational analysis of this era of cycling, throught the 2013 CQR ranking best 500 riders.
You can see this grafic in it, and I have reached some conclusions:
http://patrimoniociclista.blogspot.com.es/2013/10/analisis-generacional-golden-years.html
You have the option to read it in english in a bad translation, but I think enpugh to read the conclusions.
You can see as well a list of the forst 500 CQR riders sorted by age
CycloAndy said:I suggest you do some statistical tests to rule out chance. You could do what's called a chi-squared test to compare the proportion of top-500 riders in 2013 aged 27/28 (i.e born in 85/86) to the proportion of top-500 riders in any other year who were aged 27/28 at that time. Or you could do a t-test to compare the mean cq ranking in 2013 of top-500 riders aged 27/28 to the mean Cq ranking in other years of top-500 riders who were aged 27/28 at that time. Only then can you rule out random variation and in anyway suggest that you have evidence that the 85/86 generation are 'golden'. My guess is that you are reading too much into a minor blip that occurred mainly through chance/random variation. Technically you should also include those born in 87 as that was your original hypothesis and otherwise you're just picking an choosing data to 'prove' your hypothesis. My PhD involves a lot of stats and while I'm no expert, as there is probably more complex analysis that can be done, I don't like seeing stats being used incorrectly. Hope that helps and I hope you get the answer you were looking for!