Generational analysis 2013

[Jakob747]

You have good insight. Knowledgeable.

However tell me, what are your current or up-coming projects?

I assume you have switched focus?

 

[The Hitch]

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.

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]

You have good insight. Knowledgeable.

However tell me, what are your current or up-coming projects?

I assume you have switched focus?

Thank you.

I dont know my next project in the blog, it could be just one single thing about a race or a rider, or maybe a new big analysys or study, but I am a little bit tired about that... I wanted to write about Lombardía before the race, but I was a little bit bussy those days, but anyway it was not an especial edition for me, despite two spanish, Purito and Valverde were in the higher part of the podium, and I am happy for them, Valverde is really talented and Purito is not less, I have talked with Purito several times and he is always very symphatic and sincere, a very normal person, Valverde is more serious, not very glad, more in his way, more like an star.

The problem is that I consider I have some talent to writte in spanish, but now I am not more in an spanish forum where I could interchange opinions, so I am less motivated about cycling than before, thougt I consider myself an expert in 85,86 and 87 born cyclist, that are now dominating, and in general in current cycling, so I have a lot to say...and although I enjoy it more as sport becouse these days the result are more fair then ever IMO.

And to writte in english is difficult for me, it would be something like: me Tarzan, you Jane... , and that is not talented, so I will see.

If you are interested in something, you can tell me...

The initial idea was analyze cycling joining as possible with heritage, or trying to give a poetical or literate sign, and that is my intention (that if I writte in english it is not possible so far), but anyway I will writte about things that I considered I have something to contribute or I will be motivated about it...or If I read something in forums that I am not agree and it is not easy to reply just in a post or forum discussion, becouse need to put in a perspective or it is long.

When you do something for free, it is difficult to talk about the future.

 

[Taxus4a]

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

You put there just 17 riders for two years. They are all big names, but you need a lot of more to can just compare that with the 85,86. Not just the next four you mention.

Of course anyway that is an exceptional generation, and is good to read your contribution.

I just said, maybe of History, not I said for sure... It is excepcional, the same as 90-89 looks excepcional, and the same that m 70, 71 are exceptional. The difference for me now it is the globalization, that give more names.

That names have finished his careers, This two golden years are still to writte

I dont compare that with Di Gregorio (Is it that trolling?, moderators must decide), I compare them to a lot of big names, including (just that two years) Froome, Cavendish, Tony Martin, Porte, Rui Costa, Dan Martin... but if you talk of really big starts, you can get more maybe in 70,71 (so I understand your point) but the list of riders as Mollema, Roelants, Van Avermaet, Goss, Kangert, Thomas, De Gendt, Andy Schleck, Gesink, Kreuziger, Rolland, Fulgsang, Castroviejo, Velits, Ciolek, Spilak, Intxausti... is long, really long...and that is what make the difference.

 

[Taxus4a]

And you miss Berzin (1970)

The list is amazing, of course, I will try to get more about those 70 and 71.

All the list are big doppers (now I understand why horner had difficult to show he was the best those years ) but that doent change at a fors glance the evaluation...except in the unlikely case that only people from 70 or 71 doped those years...

Anyway, that generation came with the blood doping, so some influence it had, of course, without doping Hampstein will race more years and some of that names will be nobody today. And you cant find there colombian riders... why?? Now we have good colombian riders every year. Of course 72, 73, 74... doped as well... so, it is a really good generation considering two years in a row.

(I know it is not allowed to talk of doping here, but we are talking of a fact and a possible explanation, I dont have problem, to disscus this post about generations as well in the clinic and delete this post. I realized at the end an edit, sorry)

 

[The Hitch]

All the list are big doppers

Cos your entire list is clean

This isn't the clinic. If you want to discuss who you think is doping and who you think is clean go to the clinic.

 

[roundabout]

Ullrich is 73 and Gotti is 69

 

[roundabout]

More 71s

Blijlevens, Guesdon (!), Camenzind (!!!), Knaven, Totschnig, Beat Zberg

 

[Taxus4a]

Ullrich is 73 and Gotti is 69

That change some things, specially for Ullrich, he has very good result in his career.

Well, he miss Zarrabeitia as well (1970),a very especial rider for me.

In CQR:

1970, 303 riders.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/searchRiders.asp

1971, 377 riders

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/ge...0&opyearbirth=2&yearbirth=1971&activestatus=0


the difference before a better analysys is the number of riders, among other reasons for globalization

1986, 1063 riders

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/searchRiders.asp

1986, 1098 riders.

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/searchRiders.asp

If what you consider are the best 10 riders of every year, maybe 1970 and 71 are better, I am not sure, we will see later...but if you consider the best 40 riders every year, things changed for sure...

 

[roundabout]

Belli and Guerini for the 70s as well

Steels and Wesemann for 71s

 

[CycloAndy]

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

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!

 

[Alpechraxler]

Did some of you consider state development programs for riders as well ? That might be pushed in good years and reduced in others.

 

[Taxus4a]

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!

Yes, you are right, last year someone did a similar analysis, not like this, but similar, and 87 was weaker than 85, 86, and similar than others, that way I say is good but not deserve to be treated as golden.

But I would be interesting if I do the same for 2012 or 2011...or even for 2000 to see if the peak was as well at 27 age.

I will do it if people is interested, or any other people could do it as well...

Two years ago, I did a similar study, but gathering for generations, In my old forum, golden were 85,86, 87,... Venus 88, 89 and 90, and platinum dudes: 80,81, 82 (someone said that platinum were clearly better, and put a list of big names: Cancellara, Boonen, Contador, Gilbert, Wiggins, Cunego, Greipel,...)

I put together 84 and 83 and always did the caculation with them: x 3/2

I gather as well more years with colours... the brown generation and like that...

And the caculation was kinda complicated...it was count the number or riders of every sheet in CQ (100 every sheet), the forst 500 as well, so 5 sheets, and multiply bya factor... first 100 x5, next x4. and so on...

I painted a gauss bell as well...

And the conclusion was that golden were better than 84,83, and even little bit better to platinum being younger.. with 24-25 years old you are not as with 29-30.

They peaked as well then, and we will see if they will peak next years...

But I was wrong gathering by generations, becouse 84 is not a bad year as 83 is, is just a normal year, and 87 is not so prolific as 85 and 86, even another year the difference could be less...and for 87 there is still more improvement margin, but this golden generation has been always prominent, the same as 1990 from the begining...
So it is better make it year by year and later conclude if there are some years that could gather