LeMond: Ullrich is the best rider of his generation, he would have won every Tour

[red_flanders]

@ Red Flanders:
What makes you think Froome is doping?

Best discussed in the Froome thread. I've given my thoughts in it a few times there.

 

[andy1234]

Great post. While I agree completely with Hrotha that the 48:00 time up ADH was not representative due to the day's tactics, the overall point is exactly on target. LeMond at his best (or Hinault or Fignon or Delgado) would be essentially anonymous today if they rode clean or "low octane" as it was back I the day. The times on all the climbs over their career and their TT times tell this story clearly.

None of them came close to the "clean" times of today.

Those times up ADH are meaningless.
Coppi is reported as having a time of 45 mins.
Did LeMond really climb ADH 3 minutes slower than Coppi

These statistics simply misrepresent the gap between the generations.

 

[Merckx index]

Those times up ADH are meaningless.
Coppi is reported as having a time of 45 mins.
Did LeMond really climb ADH 3 minutes slower than Coppi

These statistics simply misrepresent the gap between the generations.

Did you read all of his post?

the 48:00 time up ADH was not representative due to the day's tactics

Did you read the other posts? It's acknowledged that Lemond almost certainly could have done better than 48 mins, probably better than 45 mins. There is no reason to believe that he could have done better than 42 min., however, which would still put him behind the top five climbers last year. In fact last year there were a couple of dozen or more riders who finished under 45 mins. Lemond transported from the 80s probably would have been doing well to finish top 20 on that stage last year.

 

[hrotha]

I just don't see the point in extrapolating from one climb that wasn't representative when LeMond did many other climbs that could be used instead and which paint the same picture. It just creates an unnecessary opening for anti-LeMond types.

 

[pmcg76]

What’s the problem? I said at least 10%. That was based on comparing Pantani’s fastest time with Herrera’s, which seems to be the fastest time ever recorded before the 90s; the difference was about 12%. There are some other fairly fast times pre-1990 that as far as I can tell haven’t been officially recorded because the rider didn’t win. In at least one case, IIRC, the rider might have recorded a faster time than the winner, because the winner went into the climb with a lead. In any case, as you well know, pre-1990, there is a great deal of uncertainty in most times.



Given that we don’t know who they are, how exactly do you propose that we view current performances with that in mind? I think what you’re intending to say is that a standout rider today could very well be clean. But are you aware that a rider today performing as Lemond did in the past would be off the back of the peloton? His best recorded time up ADH was 48', which would be a complete joke today.

I think it’s likely he could have done better, but probably not so much better that he would have been among the top climbers today. The best recorded time up ADH prior to the EPO era was about 42', with typical best times thought to be in the range of 43-45'. Quintana and Rodriguez broke 40' last year (on the second pass, no less), putting them in the company of known dopers like Pantani, Riis, LA, Ulle, and (not proven, but come on) Indurain. Despite struggling, Froome was about a minute behind, along with Porte, who actually waited for Froome, and Valverde. So those five riders climbed ADH faster, by about 1-2 minutes, than it's generally accepted that any rider ever did pre-EPO.

Are climbs like that possible clean? It seems so, the VAM suggests about 6.0 watts/kg, and most observers think that is quite possible clean. You can actually plug in V02max values lower than Lemond's into the power equation, and depending on assumptions you make about efficiency and lactate threshold, you can get watts/kg values this high.

But then why could riders pre-EPO never climb that fast? Are the bikes today that much better? Is the training better? Never had tailwinds in the 80s? I don't know, but it seems that if there is a rider today with Lemond’s talent, he is either a) doping, and performing even better than Lemond did, or b) not doping, and not doing well enough to stand out. In either case, I don’t see how we’re going to recognize him.

You are right, it is impossible to say who the big talent might be currently but to rule out the possibility of such a talent existing as so many here do is plain ridiculous. Why can there not be other athletes as talented if not more so than LeMond. People talk about LeMond and his VO2 max but if it were so superior to everyone else, why did he fail to dominate the classics as well a la Merckx.

When looking at Alpe times as a form of compariosp, we need to look at Alpe times from the 60s to make a fair comaparison over the same time frame as 80s to present.

 

[Netserk]

You are right, it is impossible to say who the big talent might be currently but to rule out the possibility of such a talent existing as so many here do is plain ridiculous. Why can there not be other athletes as talented if not more so than LeMond. People talk about LeMond and his VO2 max but if it were so superior to everyone else, why did he fail to dominate the classics as well a la Merckx.

When looking at Alpe times as a form of compariosp, we need to look at Alpe times from the 60s to make a fair comaparison over the same time frame as 80s to present.

Did Merckx dope?

Did Lemond's opposition dope?

Did Lemond dope?

I think the answers: Yes, yes and no answer your question (though quite telling, you left out the question mark)

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

But are you aware that a rider today performing as Lemond did in the past would be off the back of the peloton? His best recorded time up ADH was 48', which would be a complete joke today.

Really? He didn't climb AdH faster than 48 minutes in -89, -90 or -91?

Did you read all of his post?



Did you read the other posts? It's acknowledged that Lemond almost certainly could have done better than 48 mins, probably better than 45 mins. There is no reason to believe that he could have done better than 42 min., however, which would still put him behind the top five climbers last year. In fact last year there were a couple of dozen or more riders who finished under 45 mins. Lemond transported from the 80s probably would have been doing well to finish top 20 on that stage last year.

Almost? Probably? He actually did climb AdH way faster than 48 minutes and 45 minutes so there's no need to speculate.

 

[andy1234]

Did you read all of his post?



Did you read the other posts? It's acknowledged that Lemond almost certainly could have done better than 48 mins, probably better than 45 mins. There is no reason to believe that he could have done better than 42 min., however, which would still put him behind the top five climbers last year. In fact last year there were a couple of dozen or more riders who finished under 45 mins. Lemond transported from the 80s probably would have been doing well to finish top 20 on that stage last year.

Yes I read the post. Using a time that has no meaning, is well, meaningless.
So why bother?

If we are going to use guesswork....

If Lemond, theoretically, could have climbed in 44mins, then a modern bike and clothing would probably save him in the region of 2mins, which puts him in the ballpark for stage contenders in the current era.

 

[Merckx index]

Really? He didn't climb AdH faster than 48 minutes in -89, -90 or -91?



Almost? Probably? He actually did climb AdH way faster than 48 minutes and 45 minutes so there's no need to speculate.

I wish you would write to some of the people listing times. Yes, this was exactly what I was referring to when I pointed out to Jens that sometimes top times are not listed because the rider didn’t win. Thanks for pointing this out and putting me on the right track.

In 1989 Lemond is reported to have finished 1:19 behind Bugno and Fignon, neither of whom themselves won the stage, but had a faster time up Alpe than the winner. Fignon is reported to have done it in 41:50, which would put Lemond at 43:09, but Bugno was 25 seconds slower. So apparently Bugno started the final climb ahead of Fignon. Whether Lemond was with him or Fignon at the time I don’t know, but 43:09 would seem to be lowest estimate of his time.

In 1990, Bugno won the stage, but Greg finished in the same time. According to Jens, Breuknik, who also finished in the same time, did 43:15.

In 1991, Bugno won with a time of 39:44, according to Wiki, but 40:27 according to Jens. Lemond was 1:58 behind, so assuming they started the climb together (?), he did it in 41:42 (Wiki) or 42:25 (Jens)

So in 1989 and 1990, Lemond did it in a little over 43 mins, while in 1991 it seems he did it faster, maybe less than 42 mins or maybe not. Whatever the time was, AFAIK, that was Greg's fastest time ever up Alpe, which would still put him behind the fastest five riders last year. But in the same ballpark, yes.

Here are the fastest times last year, assuming they all started the final climb together. This may not be the case, and someone may be able to correct this:

Quintana 39:50
J-Rod 39:53
Porte 40:56
Froome 40:56
Valverde 41:00
Nieve 41:53
Fuglsang 41:53
Contador 41:53
Kreuziger 42:07
Rogers 42:21
Talansky 42:25
Serpa 42:54
Bardet 43:06
Anton 43:06
Gadret 43:08
DeMarchi 43:13

Based on these times, Greg at his best would have finished sixth (using the Wiki time), or just out of the top 10 (using Jens' time), and at his more typical in the top 10-20 range. And it's worth repeating that prior to 1991, the fastest time ever recorded was 41:44.

 

[red_flanders]

Those times up ADH are meaningless.
Coppi is reported as having a time of 45 mins.
Did LeMond really climb ADH 3 minutes slower than Coppi

These statistics simply misrepresent the gap between the generations.

Here's the part of my post which you quoted that you seem to have missed:

While I agree completely with Hrotha that the 48:00 time up ADH was not representative due to the day's tactics, the overall point is exactly on target.

Yes, LeMond (and Hinault) did really ride ADH about 3 minutes slower than Coppi's best time. Why do you ask?

I'm not basing my opinion around 1 climb up one mountain, rather trends and times in both TT's and climbs...as I said. You must have missed that too.

The times on all the climbs over their career and their TT times tell this story clearly.

 

[andy1234]

I wish you would write to some of the people listing times. Yes, this was exactly what I was referring to when I pointed out to Jens that sometimes top times are not listed because the rider didn’t win. Thanks for pointing this out and putting me on the right track.

In 1989 Lemond is reported to have finished 1:19 behind Bugno and Fignon, neither of whom themselves won the stage, but had a faster time up Alpe than the winner. Fignon is reported to have done it in 41:50, which would put Lemond at 43:09, but Bugno was 25 seconds slower. So apparently Bugno started the final climb ahead of Fignon. Whether Lemond was with him or Fignon at the time I don’t know, but 43:09 would seem to be lowest estimate of his time.

In 1990, Bugno won the stage, but Greg finished in the same time. According to Jens, Breuknik, who also finished in the same time, did 43:15.

In 1991, Bugno won with a time of 39:44, according to Wiki, but 40:27 according to Jens. Lemond was 1:58 behind, so assuming they started the climb together (?), he did it in 41:42 (Wiki) or 42:25 (Jens)

So in 1989 and 1990, Lemond did it in a little over 43 mins, while in 1991 it seems he did it faster, maybe less than 42 mins or maybe not. Whatever the time was, AFAIK, that was Greg's fastest time ever up Alpe, which would still put him behind the fastest five riders last year. But in the same ballpark, yes.

Here are the fastest times last year, assuming they all started the final climb together. This may not be the case, and someone may be able to correct this:

Quintana 39:50
J-Rod 39:53
Porte 40:56
Froome 40:56
Valverde 41:00
Nieve 41:53
Fuglsang 41:53
Contador 41:53
Kreuziger 42:07
Rogers 42:21
Talansky 42:25
Serpa 42:54
Bardet 43:06
Anton 43:06
Gadret 43:08
DeMarchi 43:13

Based on these times, Greg at his best (using the faster Wiki time) would have finished sixth, and at his more typical in the top 10-20 range.

Take 4kg off his bike and clothing, and you have a time that would challenge for the win in todays field.

The gulf between todays times and the pre EPO era, simply isn't there.

I will remind you of your earlier statement.

"Given that we don’t know who they are, how exactly do you propose that we view current performances with that in mind? I think what you’re intending to say is that a standout rider today could very well be clean. But are you aware that a rider today performing as Lemond did in the past would be off the back of the peloton? His best recorded time up ADH was 48', which would be a complete joke today."

Will you agree that this simply isn't the case, and given like for like equipment, a rider of LeMonds ability would more than likely be contending for the win, or at least climbing with the other GT contenders?

 

[Race Radio]

Those times up ADH are meaningless.
Coppi is reported as having a time of 45 mins.
Did LeMond really climb ADH 3 minutes slower than Coppi

These statistics simply misrepresent the gap between the generations.

Coppi's climb ended at the town, the upper part was not built yet. Greg's ended at what we would consider the traditional ending. He was also not going full gas.....as has been explained

 

[red_flanders]

Take 4kg off his bike and clothing, and you have a time that would challenge for the win in todays field.

The gulf between todays times and the pre EPO era, simply isn't there.

His best time ever equals Talansky's...maybe. Not clear at all.

Help me understand where you get 4 kg for this carbon fiber bike and clothes(!!). There is no difference in clothes. That's 8.8 pounds for the bike.

Here's Greg on the day in question. What you're saying is that this custom carbon fiber bike is 23.75 pounds. What are we looking at here, a 53 cm frame? Maybe 54?

All this aside, one climb doesn't tell the story. You're not actually suggesting EPO didn't make a difference are you? Not sure what your point is.

 

[andy1234]

Coppi's climb ended at the town, the upper part was not built yet. Greg's ended at what we would consider the traditional ending. He was also not going full gas.....as has been explained

Yes, we all understand that.
As I said, why use it to prove a point, when the data is meaningless?

 

[red_flanders]

Take 4kg off his bike and clothing, and you have a time that would challenge for the win in todays field.

The gulf between todays times and the pre EPO era, simply isn't there.

His best time ever equals Talansky's...maybe. Not clear at all.

Help me understand where you get 4 kg for this carbon fiber bike and clothes(!!). There is no difference in clothes. That's 8.8 pounds for the bike.

Here's Greg in the 1991 tour. Had a photo from the day in question but it was HUGE! What you're saying is that this custom carbon fiber bike is 23.75 pounds. What are we looking at here, a 53 cm frame? Maybe 54?

All this aside, one climb doesn't tell the story. You're not actually suggesting EPO didn't make a difference are you? Not sure what your point is.

 

[Merckx index]

Take 4kg off his bike and clothing, and you have a time that would challenge for the win in todays field.

The gulf between todays times and the pre EPO era, simply isn't there.

I will remind you of your earlier statement.

"Given that we don’t know who they are, how exactly do you propose that we view current performances with that in mind? I think what you’re intending to say is that a standout rider today could very well be clean. But are you aware that a rider today performing as Lemond did in the past would be off the back of the peloton? His best recorded time up ADH was 48', which would be a complete joke today."

Will you agree that this simply isn't the case, and given like for like equipment, a rider of LeMonds ability would more than likely be contending for the win, or at least climbing with the other GT contenders?

I don't have a problem that there might be a Lemond-like talent today or at any time. The problem is that there seem to be not one or two Lemonds or Hinaults or Fignons, but quite a lot of riders with that kind of performance or better today. It does not seem that any of the very best climbers of the 80s would be more than a contender, and quite often second tier, today.

I also don't have a problem that there are improvements in technology, but I don't know where you are getting the notion of a 4 kg decrease in weight as a result of it. I think you are seriously overestimating that effect, unless you want to provide some numbers to back this up.

So no, I really don't back off from my original claim (which, to repeat, was made fully aware that the 48 min time was not representative, even though I hadn't found better data at the time). A rider like Lemond, if clean, would be somewhat lost in a large group of competing climbers. He could be a guy who occasionally finishes top 10 in a climb clean (let's say, and no, I'm not saying I know for sure he's clean, Talansky). Or he could be a Lemond-like talent who is doping and doing much better.

The times today do suggest that the degree of performance enhancement from doping is not as much as it was in the 90s and the early 00s. But that just means that a hypothetical rider with Lemond's talent could be dominating without times that come close to those of the 90s. Put Lemond in the passport era, where riders usually can raise their HT only a few % safely, and you might get a time like Quintana/J-Rod's.

 

[andy1234]

His best time ever equals Talansky's...maybe. Not clear at all.

Help me understand where you get 4 kg for this carbon fiber bike and clothes(!!). There is no difference in clothes. That's 8.8 pounds for the bike.

Here's Greg on the day in question. What you're saying is that this custom carbon fiber bike is 23.75 pounds. What are we looking at here, a 53 cm frame? Maybe 54?



All this aside, one climb doesn't tell the story. You're not actually suggesting EPO didn't make a difference are you? Not sure what your point is.

Forgive the snip of the pic, I'm not sure the forum could stand another pic of that size

The difference in weight for clothes will mainly be the shoes, admittedly only half a pound.
That is a 1991 team bike, and Carbon fibre or not, his bike will probably have been around the 21lb mark vs 15lb today, so about 6lbs.

So apologies, more like just under 3 kilos.
3 kilos will make a significant impact on a time up a 40 odd minute climb like ADH, not to mention the vast improvement in rigidity.

What I'm suggesting, going back to my original point, is that there will be physical equivalents to LeMond(or close enough) in the peloton today. If Lemond could have performed at the pointy end of todays peloton as a clean rider, then it stands to reason it is possible for someone else to do the same.

Because of this, performances should be viewed with this in mind,

 

[Merckx index]

Forgive the snip of the pic, I'm not sure the forum could stand another pic of that size

The difference in weight for clothes will mainly be the shoes, admittedly only half a pound.
That is a 1991 team bike, and Carbon fibre or not, his bike will probably have been around the 21lb mark vs 15lb today, so about 6lbs.

So apologies, more like just under 3 kilos.
3 kilos will make a significant impact on a time up a 40 odd minute climb like ADH, not to mention the vast improvement in rigidity.

What I'm suggesting, going back to my original point, is that there will be physical equivalents to LeMond(or close enough) in the peloton today. If Lemond could have performed at the pointy end of todays peloton as a clean rider, then it stands to reason it is possible for someone else to do the same.

Because of this, performances should be viewed with this in mind,

My understanding is that Lemond rode a bike in the 1990 Worlds that weighed 18-19 lbs. When I bought my first racing bike in the mid 80s it was I think 20-21, and hardly the same as what the pros were using.

I think maybe 1.5 - 2 kgs is more like it. Which is not insignificant, it might add a minute to the time of a 65 kg rider. That still does not make Greg the best climber in today’s peloton. Maybe he’s more consistently top 10. And of course the weight is essentially irrelevant when it comes to time trialing, where we have previously discussed how times went way down in the beginning of the EPO era.

I don’t really disagree with you that a clean Lemond could compete today—I think that’s a testament to how good he was--my original point was and remains that we wouldn’t have any way of telling who he is. He would not stand out the way Greg did in his time, unless he was doping. So again, I ask you, just what do you mean when you say we should take this into account in judging today’s riders?

Do you mean that Froome could be today's Lemond? Beyond the fact that he doesn't have the history of being exceptional that Lemond and generally most great GC riders have had, he is still exhibiting performances that are beyond what a clean Lemond would do. Maybe he is even more naturally talented than Lemond, but again, the fact that this talent didn't show up until fairly recently suggests probably not. I don't want to sidetrack this thread into a Froome discussion, but his supporters sometimes seem to forget the knock on him is not so much that what he's doing is not possible clean, but not possible for someone with his particular history to do clean.

If all you mean is that it's possible for an exceptional rider to make a decent living in today's peloton while riding clean, I won't argue with you. But beyond that, I don't think we can draw any conclusions.

 

[andy1234]

My understanding is that Lemond rode a bike in the 1990 Worlds that weighed 18-19 lbs. When I bought my first racing bike in the mid 80s it was I think 20-21, and hardly the same as what the pros were using.

I think maybe 1.5 - 2 kgs is more like it. Which is not insignificant, it might add a minute to the time of a 65 kg rider. That still does not make Greg the best climber in today’s peloton. Maybe he’s more consistently top 10. And of course the weight is essentially irrelevant when it comes to time trialing, where we have previously discussed how times went way down in the beginning of the EPO era.

I don’t really disagree with you that a clean Lemond could compete today—I think that’s a testament to how good he was--my original point was and remains that we wouldn’t have any way of telling who he is. He would not stand out the way Greg did in his time, unless he was doping. So again, I ask you, just what do you mean when you say we should take this into account in judging today’s riders?

Do you mean that Froome could be today's Lemond? Beyond the fact that he doesn't have the history of being exceptional that Lemond and generally most great GC riders have had, he is still exhibiting performances that are beyond what a clean Lemond would do. Maybe he is even more naturally talented than Lemond, but again, the fact that this talent didn't show up until fairly recently suggests probably not. I don't want to sidetrack this thread into a Froome discussion, but his supporters sometimes seem to forget the knock on him is not so much that what he's doing is not possible clean, but not possible for someone with his particular history to do clean.

If all you mean is that it's possible for an exceptional rider to make a decent living in today's peloton while riding clean, I won't argue with you. But beyond that, I don't think we can draw any conclusions.

To be clear, no, I don't believe Froome is today's LeMond.
Yes I do belive an exceptional rider can make an impact, and even win iin today's Peloton.
My point with regards to judging today's riders, is that races can be won by the most talented clean riders, regardless of what doping is currently going on.

It needs highlighting, because some posters simply will not accept this possibility. Unfortunately, exceptional talent is impossible to differentiate from doping.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This is getting to be a non - discussion. Reallly, bike weights? Herrera already had a carbon bike in the eighties people.

What I do agree with some here is the non - voice of LeMond when he was still in the peloton about doping, but hey, who did?

PS: 2 pounds extra equals 20 seconds on a hors category climb like Alpe. Just trolling here of course.

PS2: Herrera's carbon bike was about 17 pounds when he set his best time, people please do the maths.

PS3: for some more LeMond bashing I suggest peeps go to the appropriate threat.

Cheerio.

 

[red_flanders]

I think maybe 1.5 - 2 kgs is more like it. Which is not insignificant, it might add a minute to the time of a 65 kg rider.

Maybe, but more like it. No difference in shoes–look at what he's wearing. A gram or two? Probably. 1/2 a pound? No chance. Shoes? Really? Got to be kidding.

If that bike is over 18 lbs I'll eat the seatpost. My 525 steel Steelman Stage Race with Chorus at 60 cm. from 1998 is 19.2 pounds. It's powder coated not painted.

Cycling didn't start in the year 2000 folks, people have been weight weenies for as long as it's been around.

 

[red_flanders]

If Lemond could have performed at the pointy end of todays peloton as a clean rider, then it stands to reason it is possible for someone else to do the same.

Because of this, performances should be viewed with this in mind,

He couldn't. It's not really close.

 

[jens_attacks]

luis ocana had a 7 kg bike in the at the beginning of the 70's for christ sake. actually many blamed his crash/crashes because he rode such a light bike

 

[andy1234]

This is getting to be a non - discussion. Reallly, bike weights? Herrera already had a carbon bike in the eighties people.

What I do agree with some here is the non - voice of LeMond when he was still in the peloton about doping, but hey, who did?

PS: 2 pounds extra equals 20 seconds on a hors category climb like Alpe. Just trolling here of course.

PS2: Herrera's carbon bike was about 17 pounds when he set his best time, people please do the maths.

PS3: for some more LeMond bashing I suggest peeps go to the appropriate threat.

Cheerio.

Herrera's bike 17lbs? not a chance.
You think carbon fibre frames 25 years ago, have any resemblance to today's frames?
The weight difference is significant, and would make a significant difference in ascent times. Play it down all you like, it just highlights your ignorance.

LeMond bashing?....give me a break.

 

[andy1234]

He couldn't. It's not really close.

He could, it really is close.