-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
Re: Re:
Cav won six GT stages and was unlucky not to win more how are the Giro and Tour lesser races?
MacBAir said:
Cav won six GT stages and was unlucky not to win more how are the Giro and Tour lesser races?
Re: Re:
Today was indeed all great; fantastic; inspiring. Totally awesome Sagan-ery in evidence, that nobody else could pull off, and no-one can sensibly question.
Right up until 1200m to go, when he bought the stage from Albasini.
tomorrow said:
Today was indeed all great; fantastic; inspiring. Totally awesome Sagan-ery in evidence, that nobody else could pull off, and no-one can sensibly question.
Right up until 1200m to go, when he bought the stage from Albasini.
Re: Re:
Of course, he is riding against high level athletes that are also physically stronger than any rider from previous eras, and cycling is a very specialized sport where many factors play a huge role on the outcome.
We don't have 5 to 6 guys winning races from february to october, and the track, and mountain bike anymore, while others are useless cannon fodder. It happens.
A guy like Peter is better than a guy like Merckx on every single metric even remotely related with physical ability.
The Andrej Susenkas of this world would've been "Merckx" too, if they had their own team, were racing against farmers, everyone did the same race that was always nothing more than a basic endurance contest, and so on.
I see older cyclists as true warriors, but amateurs. In fact, I don't relate with the circus that was cycling before the modern era, and just laugh when someone says that Merckx was the best of all time. I mean, best at what? Could he even dream of holding Peter or Fabian's wheel in any terrain? Or Kittel and Cav in a sprint? Dawg up the Alpe?
No, but maybe he was good as a masseur.
Different sports.
What makes you think that he isn't? I'm talking about an athlete. From any even remotely scientific and objective POV Peter is a much better cyclist than any of those guys could ever be.PremierAndrew said:
Of course, he is riding against high level athletes that are also physically stronger than any rider from previous eras, and cycling is a very specialized sport where many factors play a huge role on the outcome.
We don't have 5 to 6 guys winning races from february to october, and the track, and mountain bike anymore, while others are useless cannon fodder. It happens.
A guy like Peter is better than a guy like Merckx on every single metric even remotely related with physical ability.
The Andrej Susenkas of this world would've been "Merckx" too, if they had their own team, were racing against farmers, everyone did the same race that was always nothing more than a basic endurance contest, and so on.
I see older cyclists as true warriors, but amateurs. In fact, I don't relate with the circus that was cycling before the modern era, and just laugh when someone says that Merckx was the best of all time. I mean, best at what? Could he even dream of holding Peter or Fabian's wheel in any terrain? Or Kittel and Cav in a sprint? Dawg up the Alpe?
No, but maybe he was good as a masseur.
Different sports.
I think he is no favourite to win the worlds. The only problem is that he hasn't teammates to help him.
Re: Re:
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the modern era? I mostly agree with you too, very different times.
MacBAir said:
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the modern era? I mostly agree with you too, very different times.
MacBAir, let stay level headed here. I completely agree that Sagan is a great rider. He has one rainbow jersey: now comparing his record in monuments, GT stages (or GT wins if you mention Merckx and Hinault) with the legends of the sport, he's not quite there 
. Let's be real. It's like saying that Pinot is greater than Bahamontes: even I wouldn't go there . Even LaFlo doesn't argue that Bertie is better than the Eddy or Nanard...and she wishes she could .
Sagan is still young, he has time to build a huge win record and be considered as, and compared with the legends. Right now, he's not in the Boonen, Cance, or Philippe Gilbert for example. Look at their records...
But be patient, my friend. He'll win more, he'll get there. And he sure is entertaining.
. Let's be real. It's like saying that Pinot is greater than Bahamontes: even I wouldn't go there . Even LaFlo doesn't argue that Bertie is better than the Eddy or Nanard...and she wishes she could .Sagan is still young, he has time to build a huge win record and be considered as, and compared with the legends. Right now, he's not in the Boonen, Cance, or Philippe Gilbert for example. Look at their records...
But be patient, my friend. He'll win more, he'll get there. And he sure is entertaining.
Re:
I doubt that. From the TLMRP thread, I can assure you that he is not joking here, nor is he joking about Porte making the TdF podium.
Forever The Best said:
I doubt that. From the TLMRP thread, I can assure you that he is not joking here, nor is he joking about Porte making the TdF podium.
Re: Re:
Anyway, what if they Merckx and Hinault trained with today's possibilities and so on? Maybe they would still be the best. It isn't like human are getting physically stronger over few decades.MacBAir said:
With the sole exception of crazy adaptive physiology, there hasn't been any significant human evolution in the last few decades. But even adjusting for environmental changes, because its size increased selection into the peloton have changed, the best today are likely physically more gifted than the best of previous eras.
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Merckx would have won as many races if he were competing in today's peloton.
Re:
Sagan is an amazing rider, but Sagan cant climb to have options in the Olimpics. He couldnt with Fiorenze, so he has nothing to do with the hard climb of Rio, nor him not Van Avermaert who climb better, nor a lot of similar people.
What he did yesterday was impresive, but he is very good in that kind of profile, and in Suisse just Matthews is a similar rider close to his level, and I think he is not in top shape. EBH, Van Avermaet, Gilbert and others are not here.
Anyway he did a master class of how a champion must win: Class, technic, strategy, strength and determination.
Everybody was in sspain watching football but I enjoyed a lot Sagan victory.
But when I read things as the olimpics and things like that...even with the better team of the world...anyway he will have some good teammates.
portugal11 said:
Sagan is an amazing rider, but Sagan cant climb to have options in the Olimpics. He couldnt with Fiorenze, so he has nothing to do with the hard climb of Rio, nor him not Van Avermaert who climb better, nor a lot of similar people.
What he did yesterday was impresive, but he is very good in that kind of profile, and in Suisse just Matthews is a similar rider close to his level, and I think he is not in top shape. EBH, Van Avermaet, Gilbert and others are not here.
Anyway he did a master class of how a champion must win: Class, technic, strategy, strength and determination.
Everybody was in sspain watching football but I enjoyed a lot Sagan victory.
But when I read things as the olimpics and things like that...even with the better team of the world...anyway he will have some good teammates.
Re: Re:
Check the start list. Although I am not sure what's happening with him. He was quite dominant in Luxembourg a week ago.
Taxus4a said:
Check the start list. Although I am not sure what's happening with him. He was quite dominant in Luxembourg a week ago.
Re: Re:
You mean Landa climb better then Sagan?Yes I agree with that conclusion.Taxus4a said:
Re: Re:
You see Merckx as an amateur! haha you are truly hilarious. You clearly have no clue about the history of cycling and how talented the top riders were. You say Peter is riding against 'high level athletes that are also physically stronger than any rider from previous eras'- maybe true but then you could say the same about Merckx and his competitors. No matter what the era you have to beat the best cyclists in the world.
You think just because it was the 70s (an era in which I assume you didn't watch any top level bike races) that they were just a bunch of part timers not dedicated to training? Try and read a bit about training techniques back then- it makes todays generally much more time efficient techniques seem a lot less daunting.
Take Merckx hour record for example- if todays riders are so much better then how has his record only been improved upon by 3 miles per hour with better training techniques, better diet, much better bikes, aerodynamics, tyres ect..?? You seriously think Merckx would get blown away by Peter and Fabian on the flat, and then think they had any remote chance of matching him in a GC race?? LOL. Merckx is the best all round cyclist ever, full stop.
MacBAir said:
You see Merckx as an amateur! haha you are truly hilarious. You clearly have no clue about the history of cycling and how talented the top riders were. You say Peter is riding against 'high level athletes that are also physically stronger than any rider from previous eras'- maybe true but then you could say the same about Merckx and his competitors. No matter what the era you have to beat the best cyclists in the world.
You think just because it was the 70s (an era in which I assume you didn't watch any top level bike races) that they were just a bunch of part timers not dedicated to training? Try and read a bit about training techniques back then- it makes todays generally much more time efficient techniques seem a lot less daunting.
Take Merckx hour record for example- if todays riders are so much better then how has his record only been improved upon by 3 miles per hour with better training techniques, better diet, much better bikes, aerodynamics, tyres ect..?? You seriously think Merckx would get blown away by Peter and Fabian on the flat, and then think they had any remote chance of matching him in a GC race?? LOL. Merckx is the best all round cyclist ever, full stop.
3 miles per hour is enormous in pro cycling,dont act like its "only"
i dont know why is this even a debate,athletes 40 years ago were definitely lesser athletes than today - here comes the important part - NOT because they were lazy or less talented,they were simply not given the on and off the bike advantages the current generation has which all counts towards athletic performance
now nobody is saying contador,sagan or froome are better cyclists than merckx,but they are better athletes...just like usain bolt is better athlete than carl lewis and carl lewis was better than jesse owens
in 40 years (unless we hit the max of human performance) there will be better athletes than there are today
i dont know why is this even a debate,athletes 40 years ago were definitely lesser athletes than today - here comes the important part - NOT because they were lazy or less talented,they were simply not given the on and off the bike advantages the current generation has which all counts towards athletic performance
now nobody is saying contador,sagan or froome are better cyclists than merckx,but they are better athletes...just like usain bolt is better athlete than carl lewis and carl lewis was better than jesse owens
in 40 years (unless we hit the max of human performance) there will be better athletes than there are today
But Eddy wasn't competing against iron men behind the Iron curtain...
Anyway, Sagan needs one more Tour of Flanders, two more Rainbow jerseys, three more Paris - Roubaix and seven more MSR to even be considered for a comparison with Merckx. It wouldn't be fair to compare them in hilly Monuments, stage races and GTs, 'cause we all agree it's a different era.
Why are we discussing this ridiculous trolling topic? Sagan hasn't even reached the level of some active riders, yet.
Anyway, Sagan needs one more Tour of Flanders, two more Rainbow jerseys, three more Paris - Roubaix and seven more MSR to even be considered for a comparison with Merckx. It wouldn't be fair to compare them in hilly Monuments, stage races and GTs, 'cause we all agree it's a different era.
Why are we discussing this ridiculous trolling topic? Sagan hasn't even reached the level of some active riders, yet.
Sagan is the opposite of nibali, he has much more potential than nibali but he hasn't many "big wins"
Guys there are two eras
Can't compare them. At all.
Before bernard tapie
After bernard tapie.
Can't compare them. At all.
Before bernard tapie
After bernard tapie.
Re:
It's not a trolling topic, there's a very good chance Sagan is simply better than Eddy physiologically. Hinault was better than Eddy too.
sir fly said:
It's not a trolling topic, there's a very good chance Sagan is simply better than Eddy physiologically. Hinault was better than Eddy too.
Re:
A RVV in 2016 is worth more than a RVV in 1975 for the simple reason that the level of the competition is much higher.sir fly said:
Re: Re:
But I agree there's a good chance... I'd, certainly, rather call Sagan to move me than Merckx.
Physiology that was winning all around cycling calendar for years, whatever era it was, is hard to beat.SeriousSam said:
But I agree there's a good chance... I'd, certainly, rather call Sagan to move me than Merckx.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram