How does a classics rider win the Tour?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
MacRoadie said:
I don't think that's quite accurate. Paris Nice has long been considered a test of fitness for those contenders already intending on competing in the Tour later tin the year.

That's a far cry from suggesting that if a rider can win Paris Nice, then he has a good chance of winning the Tour. There are planty of Paris Nice winners who never even saw a Tour podium.

Hell, Sean Kelly won the damned thing seven times in a row from '82 through '88, and his best Tour finish during that span was a 4th in '86. He had a DNF in '87 and finished 43rd in '88.
I said "contender" not winner.
Kelly proves my point. 4th in the tour would be seen as being a contender, winning the Vuelta would also indicate being a pretty good tour rider wouldnt it?
Paris nice success does not guarantee GT success, but it certainly a good indicator.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
andy1234 said:
I said "contender" not winner.
Kelly proves my point. 4th in the tour would be seen as being a contender, winning the Vuelta would also indicate being a pretty good tour rider wouldnt it?
Paris nice success does not guarantee GT success, but it certainly a good indicator.
Merckx won LBL and MSR the same year he won the Tour in '69, '71, and '72, and Paris Nice the same year in '69, '70, and '71. So why not consider those a "good indicator' too?

Hinault never won Paris Nice, neither did Indurain...

All a good showing at paris Nice means is that if (and a big if) you are a Tour contender, then you have some level of confidence that your form is coming on at the right time. Beyond that, it has no greater significance than success at any other race during the same time frame.
 
MacRoadie said:
Merckx won LBL and MSR the same year he won the Tour in '69, '71, and '72, and Paris Nice the same year in '69, '70, and '71. So why not consider those a "good indicator' too?

Hinault never won Paris Nice, neither did Indurain...

All a good showing at paris Nice means is that if (and a big if) you are a Tour contender, then you have some level of confidence that your form is coming on at the right time. Beyond that, it has no greater significance than success at any other race during the same time frame.
Statistically it is significant. Take a look at the podiun finishers at Paris Nice for the past 30 years. It is an indicator of GT potential. Other races less so.

Oh and you'd better give big Mig a call, because he's fairly sure he won it twice. ;-)
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
I'm sure Lance doped. Really no question in my mind. Forgetting about the climbing side, the drastic change in time trial ability stands out more then anything.

But I don't consider the ability to go from classics to being able to ride well in GT's outisde the ordinary at the time. Yeah, many of the others were probably drug aided as well, but it is what it is.

If classics specialists like Moreno Argentin or Sean Kelly can finish on the podium of a GT, I don't think Lance's turning into a GT contender is totally unheard of.

Being able to go from doing well in short-steep climbs like LBL to be able to handle longer climbs is not as ridiculous to me as doing that while improving by huge margins in flat ITT's.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Merckx won LBL and MSR the same year he won the Tour in '69, '71, and '72, and Paris Nice the same year in '69, '70, and '71. So why not consider those a "good indicator' too?

Hinault never won Paris Nice, neither did Indurain...

All a good showing at paris Nice means is that if (and a big if) you are a Tour contender, then you have some level of confidence that your form is coming on at the right time. Beyond that, it has no greater significance than success at any other race during the same time frame.
Hinnault did place in the top 3 of P-N twice. I doubt it was high on his list of priorities when he was doubling up with the Giro/Tour though.
 
kurtinsc said:
I'm sure Lance doped. Really no question in my mind. Forgetting about the climbing side, the drastic change in time trial ability stands out more then anything.

But I don't consider the ability to go from classics to being able to ride well in GT's outisde the ordinary at the time. Yeah, many of the others were probably drug aided as well, but it is what it is.

If classics specialists like Moreno Argentin or Sean Kelly can finish on the podium of a GT, I don't think Lance's turning into a GT contender is totally unheard of.

Being able to go from doing well in short-steep climbs like LBL to be able to handle longer climbs is not as ridiculous to me as doing that while improving by huge margins in flat ITT's.
Interestingly, The TT in the 96 Paris Nice, was also probably the best TT Armstrong had done up to that point (albeit a short one)

Result:

1. Chris Boardman (Gbr) en 21'16"
2. Lance Armstrong (Usa) à 24"
3. Laurent Jalabert (Fra) à 29"
4. Laurent Brochard (Fra) à 32"
5. Frank Vandenbroucke (Bel) à 33"
 
andy1234 said:
Interestingly, The TT in the 96 Paris Nice, was also probably the best TT Armstrong had done up to that point (albeit a short one)

Result:

1. Chris Boardman (Gbr) en 21'16"
2. Lance Armstrong (Usa) à 24"
3. Laurent Jalabert (Fra) à 29"
4. Laurent Brochard (Fra) à 32"
5. Frank Vandenbroucke (Bel) à 33"
Interestingly, by this time he had started working with Ferrari.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
andy1234 said:
Statistically it is significant. Take a look at the podiun finishers at Paris Nice for the past 30 years. It is an indicator of GT potential. Other races less so.

Oh and you'd better give big Mig a call, because he's fairly sure he won it twice. ;-)
You're quite right. I was cross-referencing TdF win years so I steamrolled over Big Mig's wins (which both occurred in years he DIDN'T win the Tour).

Curiously, aside from Contador's wins last year and in 2007, the last rider to WIN Paris-Nice and the Tour in the same year was Merckx in'71, nearly 40 years earlier.
 
MacRoadie said:
You're quite right. I was cross-referencing TdF win years so I steamrolled over Big Mig's wins (which both occurred in years he DIDN'T win the Tour).

Curiously, aside from Contador's wins last year and in 2007, the last rider to WIN Paris-Nice and the Tour in the same year was Merckx in'71, nearly 40 years earlier.
I'll say it again, its an indication of being a tour contender, not a guaranteed winner!
My point being that Armstrong showed some Tour potential before the wonder drug turned up.

Also..... What about Landis in 2006
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
andy1234 said:
I'll say it again, its an indication of being a tour contender, not a guaranteed winner!
My point being that Armstrong showed some Tour potential before the wonder drug turned up.
And I'll continue to argue that Armstrong's performances, in a race HE NEVER WON, show little correlation to future Tour potential. Especially, in light of the fact that the vast majority of people in the last 40 years who DID win that same race (and obviously performed better than Armstrong did), never managed to win even a single Tour.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
kurtinsc said:
Hinnault did place in the top 3 of P-N twice. I doubt it was high on his list of priorities when he was doubling up with the Giro/Tour though.
Exactly. A strong sign of the capriciousness of those races that occur at that point on the calendar.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
MacRoadie said:
And I'll continue to argue that Armstrong's performances, in a race HE NEVER WON, show little correlation to future Tour potential. Especially, in light of the fact that the vast majority of people in the last 40 years who DID win that same race (and obviously performed better than Armstrong did), never managed to win even a single Tour.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think placing well at P-N means you will win the Tour de France or any other GT.

But I do think it shows you have at least some stage-racing ability unless it happened due to a breakaway or some other odd circumstance (say a profile that is more classics oriented).

I don't know if P-N was a classics-type course that year, or if Lance got some time from a breakaway. But if he didn't, it is a result that indicates at least some ability to ride stage races. And usually that's a pre-requisite to getting a decent finish at a grand tour. It does indicate that a rider may not be "just" a classics rider.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
Armstrong finished on the podium in the 96 Paris Nice. Its not the Tour, but theres a strong correlation between sucess in Paris Nice and being a Tour contender come July.

There is also a strong correlation between being a world road race champion at a young age and becoming a tour contender.

Before world war 3 breaks out, this isnt a suggestion that Armstrong is clean, just that his GT ability didn't suddenly appear at the same time as this wonder drug.
Not the 'wonder drug' but his Paris Nice podium of 96 came after hooking up with Ferrari in the winter of 95.


As for the "but theres a strong correlation between sucess in Paris Nice and being a Tour contender come July"....... no, its more a case of being a Tour contender means that you are also a Paris Nice contender.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Not the 'wonder drug' but his Paris Nice podium of 96 came after hooking up with Ferrari in the winter of 95.


As for the "but theres a strong correlation between sucess in Paris Nice and being a Tour contender come July"....... no, its more a case of being a Tour contender means that you are also a Paris Nice contender.
No arguments on the Ferarri point. Im just postulating that Armstrong didn't turn into a tour contender through use of a wonder drug (just the same dope as everyone else.

On your second point. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Not the 'wonder drug' but his Paris Nice podium of 96 came after hooking up with Ferrari in the winter of 95.


As for the "but theres a strong correlation between sucess in Paris Nice and being a Tour contender come July"....... no, its more a case of being a Tour contender means that you are also a Paris Nice contender.
Correlation doesn't mean causation. There's a correlation between purchases of beer and diapers in supermarkets. The cause really isnt' important... but the relationship exists.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
No arguments on the Ferarri point. Im just postulating that Armstrong didn't turn into a tour contender through use of a wonder drug (just the same dope as everyone else.

On your second point. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Sure, same dope as everyone else but when your programme is run by a hematologist we can see where the advantage came from.

Comparing PN with any GT is futile - one climb of a GT can be longer than a Mountain stage of PN.
PN is only a good indicator when viewing new talent as possible contenders for stage racing, although a better indicator are 10 day stage races like the Dauphine or a mountainous Tour de Suisse.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
PN is only a good indicator when viewing new talent as possible contenders for stage racing, although a better indicator are 10 day stage races like the Dauphine or a mountainous Tour de Suisse.

We have a winner!
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Sure, same dope as everyone else but when your programme is run by a hematologist we can see where the advantage came from.

Comparing PN with any GT is futile - one climb of a GT can be longer than a Mountain stage of PN.
PN is only a good indicator when viewing new talent as possible contenders for stage racing, although a better indicator are 10 day stage races like the Dauphine or a mountainous Tour de Suisse.
No, its not futile . Paris Nice has always been a testing ground for tour contenders, so in order to compete,'you have to be on a par with tour contenders.
Regardless off the terrain, number of stages in PN etc etc, the stats dont lie.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
andy1234 said:
No, its not futile . Paris Nice has always been a testing ground for tour contenders, so in order to compete,'you have to be on a par with tour contenders.
Regardless off the terrain, number of stages in PN etc etc, the stats dont lie.
tha'ts why 7 time PN winner Sean Kelly won the TdF how many times?:rolleyes:
 
Benotti69 said:
tha'ts why 7 time PN winner Sean Kelly won the TdF how many times?:rolleyes:
Bennotti, it seems your not entireley switched on at times. Let me put this simply....

Reread the thread.PN success predicts tour potential, not a guaranteed winner. Its not rocket science.

Kelly finished as high as 4th in the tour, he won the Vuelta, he won the tour of Switzerland twice.
That is stage racing pedigree in anyones world- apart from your own it seems
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
andy1234 said:
Bennotti, it seems your not entireley switched on at times. Let me put this simply....

Reread the thread.PN success predicts tour potential, not a guaranteed winner. Its not rocket science.

Kelly finished as high as 4th in the tour, he won the Vuelta, he won the tour of Switzerland twice.
That is stage racing pedigree in anyones world- apart from your own it seems
oh i am a big Kelly fan, even though he doped and he doped big i bet to twin the Vuelta.

But your argument that it predicts tour potential, man ,the guy who won PN 7times based on the prediction must have like at least won the TdF 3 or 4 times. as you say it aint rocket science to figure.

But then Kelly didn't ride the in full blown EPO era and if he did maybe he'd have won the TdF lots;)
 
Benotti69 said:
oh i am a big Kelly fan, even though he doped and he doped big i bet to twin the Vuelta.

But your argument that it predicts tour potential, man ,the guy who won PN 7times based on the prediction must have like at least won the TdF 3 or 4 times. as you say it aint rocket science to figure.

But then Kelly didn't ride the in full blown EPO era and if he did maybe he'd have won the TdF lots;)
WOW, no arguing with logic like that.
 
Jul 23, 2010
1,695
0
0
andy1234 said:
Armstrong finished on the podium in the 96 Paris Nice. Its not the Tour, but theres a strong correlation between sucess in Paris Nice and being a Tour contender come July.

There is also a strong correlation between being a world road race champion at a young age and becoming a tour contender.

Before world war 3 breaks out, this isnt a suggestion that Armstrong is clean, just that his GT ability didn't suddenly appear at the same time as this wonder drug.
Hi again. This forum is so interesting. With regard to this topic I'd like to make this comment (and hope that world war 4 doesn't begin) :) :

I own this book, The Official Tour de France Centennial 1903-2003. The book is written mainly like a race report and reproduces the names of the first-placed 20 riders in the tours on the same page as that year's report.

Up to and including 1998 Lance's name isn't listed in the top 20. Twice it appears in the list of riders who won a stage – in 1993 and 1995.

Then, in 1999 he won the entire race by more than 6 minutes ahead of second-placed Alex Zulle of Switzerland. Then, as we know, he came first six more times in a row.

Just looking at the list order, I am having difficulty understanding how a person could be a tour contender when for years he couldn't come in the top 20. I hope this comment would not be taken as incendiary, it's only the logic of it I'm looking at. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about it, since I'm a cycling fan who's still learning about the techniques of the sport. :)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A The Clinic 135

ASK THE COMMUNITY