No, as I explained to you already the bigger sample evens out the variables.BigMac said:He beat Gilbert's record who had beat the previous record set by whoever beat the record before that. Of course if he beat Gilbert's 2011 time, he set the record. Isn't it only logic that we compare the new record with the previous one?
Election polls don't use a sample of 50 voters, they use a sample of 500. The bigger the number the smaller the margin of error.
What you are doing and what others have tried to do with other riders, is pushing to one side all the other ascents and trying to make the discussion into nothing but a direct one on one comparison between 2011 and 2014.
Then once you turn the comparison between 10 ascents into a comparison between 2, it becomes very easy attack the suggestion that climbing speeds mean anything, by simply pointing out how many hundreds of different variables exist.
Because of course its possible that one year there was a massive tail wind, the surface was smoother, climate better, better fan support etc and the other there was a massive headwind, poor surface, rain etc etc etc
But when we take into account the other years as well the variables even themselves out. It becomes highly unlikely that 2014 was the only year they had this massive tail wind and great everything, and all the other years conditions were awful.
I'm not comparing it to pre 2004. I already explained it was raced different many years. That still leaves a big enough sample.A quick look at Jens' site tells us that since 2004, the peloton has reached the base of the Mur in compact formation, so we should cont out all other years out as it would not be logical nor coherent to compare them.