• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Teams & Riders Peter Sagan discussion thread.

Page 83 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
sir fly said:
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.

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.
If Hinault was better, he would have taken the Hour Record.

I don't think Sagan can beat Eddy's time with similar equipment.
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
sir fly said:
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.
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.
Following that logic you can claim you'd have been multiple weight lifting Olympic champion between two wars.
 
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
SeriousSam said:
sir fly said:
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.

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.
If Hinault was better, he would have taken the Hour Record.

I don't think Sagan can beat Eddy's time with similar equipment.

And what about your fav Cancelara. Can he beat his time in similar equipment ? :)
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
PremierAndrew said:
MacBAir said:
PremierAndrew said:
WildspokeJoe said:
Love how Sagan is representing the rainbow jersey.
First guy in forever who has beaten the 'curse'

Lemond Hinault and Merckx winning Tdf in Rainbow. Cav with 14 wins in Rainbow. Boonen winning RVV, E3 and Scheldeprijs in rainbow to name a few...
Hinault and Merckx were lesser athletes racing against much lesser athletes. You know how specialized cycling has become. It's like comparing 2 different sports.

Cav only won lesser, irrelevant races on a lesser, irrelevant way. Boonen was great and the only one comparable. Having said that, that was 10 years ago (our point) and Sagan has everything to have a better season.

You're right, Sagan is better than arguably the two biggest legends of the sport of cycling
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.

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.

Oh man, this is ridiculous! :eek: :confused: You can't compare era's like that. People can't travel through time! You certainly think that C.Ronaldo is better than Pele, Lebron better than Jordan, Djokovic better than Laver, etc. :rolleyes:
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
Oh man, this is ridiculous! :eek: :confused: You can't compare era's like that. People can't travel through time! You certainly think that C.Ronaldo is better than Pele, Lebron better than Jordan, Djokovic better than Laver, etc. :rolleyes:
Much, much better. Pelé played in an era of little tactical discipline in which the average score was 5-3 or something like that.
 

KGB

Apr 16, 2015
480
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
KGB said:
Because we just try to add more pages in Sagan thread.That's all.
So, he's paying by a page?
Contador's paying by a post, I think. Ask Flo.
Not only that.He is paying by the smile,wheelie and even when he pinch women ass.Ridiculous money machine.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
Following that logic you can claim you'd have been multiple weight lifting Olympic champion between two wars.
Olympic weightlifting ain't my speciality.

But yes, the difference is so huge that Tatiana Kashirina (a woman) can lift more weight than Anthony Terlazzo, the (male) gold medallist in the 1936 Olympics.
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
sir fly said:
Following that logic you can claim you'd have been multiple weight lifting Olympic champion between two wars.
Olympic weightlifting ain't my speciality.

But yes, the difference is so huge that Tatiana Kashirina (a woman) can lift more weight than Anthony Terlazzo, the (male) gold medallist in the 1936 Olympics.
You know, it's really interesting you've brought out the comparison between men and women.
But not unexpected that much.
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
sir fly said:
Following that logic you can claim you'd have been multiple weight lifting Olympic champion between two wars.
Olympic weightlifting ain't my speciality.

But yes, the difference is so huge that Tatiana Kashirina (a woman) can lift more weight than Anthony Terlazzo, the (male) gold medallist in the 1936 Olympics.

If you don't know about weightlifting then you shouldn't exemplify with it. To compare men and women, use athletes in the same weight category.

Kashirina is in the +75 kg category and Terlazzo participated in the <60 kg category. In weightlifting the athletes weight has a huge impact.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

carolina said:
If you don't know about weightlifting then you shouldn't exemplify with it. To compare men and women, use athletes in the same weight category.

Kashirina is in the +75 kg category and Terlazzo participated in the <60 kg category. In weightlifting the athletes weight has a huge impact.
The physiological differences that make men fairly stronger than women on average are well-known and backed by scientific observations.
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
carolina said:
If you don't know about weightlifting then you shouldn't exemplify with it. To compare men and women, use athletes in the same weight category.

Kashirina is in the +75 kg category and Terlazzo participated in the <60 kg category. In weightlifting the athletes weight has a huge impact.
The physiological differences that make men fairly stronger than women on average are well-known and backed by scientific observations.

Yes, but when the weight difference between the two is so big the physiological differences start to disappear.

In the 2012 olympics, the heaviest women category lifted more then the lighter mens category:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlifting_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_56_kg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlifting_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_%2B75_kg

The total weight is similar, but the relative weight is not.

Again, if you want to compare men and women, you need to use the same weight category.
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

thiscocks 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.

Maybe I can make you a drawing. Palmares is irrelevant to the point that I'm trying to make, here.

No, Merckx wasn't an amateur. That's my only point. He was a pro, competing against 4 or 5 pros, with the same calendar, targeting the same endurance races, against a bunch of amateurs that couldn't even properly ride a bike.

That's why he has the palmares that he has. Nothing else. About your huge ignorance regarding the rest, 5 Km/h is a huge difference. GCs with hundreds of hours are decided by minutes and seconds, these days. Any modern top rider is faster and better than Merckx was on all terrains on all circumstances.

Being the best in the 60s or 70s meant wining the competing for the giro (every stage), tour (every stage), 5 monuments and worlds in the same year, against mostly the same, weak, competition. What does it mean to be the best today? A modern GC rider would put hours on Merckx best amphetamine/cocktail (that were killing riders left and right) fueled performances.

The hour record? No one gave a serious *** it. Here you have, the best cyclist of an era, trying to compete with everything he has, choosing altitude, making his bike as light as possible, as tech advanced as possible, without any testing... And then you tell to modern riders: You have to ride a kind of bike and circumstances that he thought were the best for him.Here's the testing. Here's the possible dates.

No one cared. Merckx's hour record was destroyed countless times by a huge amount of average riders. Why? Because modern athletes are way superior.

How would Merckx be today? For starters, he would have to chose what kind of cyclist he would want to be, and drug bans don't last weeks, anymore.

A guy like Lance was superior to Merckx on any single metric, too. That's my point.
 
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
thiscocks 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.

Maybe I can make you a drawing. Palmares is irrelevant to the point that I'm trying to make, here.

No, Merckx wasn't an amateur. That's my only point. He was a pro, competing against 4 or 5 pros, with the same calendar, targeting the same endurance races, against a bunch of amateurs that couldn't even properly ride a bike.

That's why he has the palmares that he has. Nothing else. About your huge ignorance regarding the rest, 5 Km/h is a huge difference. GCs with hundreds of hours are decided by minutes and seconds, these days. Any modern top rider is faster and better than Merckx was on all terrains on all circumstances.

Being the best in the 60s or 70s meant wining the competing for the giro (every stage), tour (every stage), 5 monuments and worlds in the same year, against mostly the same, weak, competition. What does it mean to be the best today? A modern GC rider would put hours on Merckx best amphetamine/cocktail (that were killing riders left and right) fueled performances.

The hour record? No one gave a serious **** it. Here you have, the best cyclist of an era, trying to compete with everything he has, choosing altitude, making his bike as light as possible, as tech advanced as possible, without any testing... And then you tell to modern riders: You have to ride a kind of bike and circumstances that he thought were the best for him.Here's the testing. Here's the possible dates.

No one cared. Merckx's hour record was destroyed countless times by a huge amount of average riders. Why? Because modern athletes are way superior.

How would Merckx be today? For starters, he would have to chose what kind of cyclist he would want to be, and drug bans don't last weeks, anymore.

A guy like Lance was superior to Merckx on any single metric, too. That's my point.
So, do you think Sagan will surpass Boonen's achievements, for example?
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
MacBAir said:
thiscocks 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.

Maybe I can make you a drawing. Palmares is irrelevant to the point that I'm trying to make, here.

No, Merckx wasn't an amateur. That's my only point. He was a pro, competing against 4 or 5 pros, with the same calendar, targeting the same endurance races, against a bunch of amateurs that couldn't even properly ride a bike.

That's why he has the palmares that he has. Nothing else. About your huge ignorance regarding the rest, 5 Km/h is a huge difference. GCs with hundreds of hours are decided by minutes and seconds, these days. Any modern top rider is faster and better than Merckx was on all terrains on all circumstances.

Being the best in the 60s or 70s meant wining the competing for the giro (every stage), tour (every stage), 5 monuments and worlds in the same year, against mostly the same, weak, competition. What does it mean to be the best today? A modern GC rider would put hours on Merckx best amphetamine/cocktail (that were killing riders left and right) fueled performances.

The hour record? No one gave a serious **** it. Here you have, the best cyclist of an era, trying to compete with everything he has, choosing altitude, making his bike as light as possible, as tech advanced as possible, without any testing... And then you tell to modern riders: You have to ride a kind of bike and circumstances that he thought were the best for him.Here's the testing. Here's the possible dates.

No one cared. Merckx's hour record was destroyed countless times by a huge amount of average riders. Why? Because modern athletes are way superior.

How would Merckx be today? For starters, he would have to chose what kind of cyclist he would want to be, and drug bans don't last weeks, anymore.

A guy like Lance was superior to Merckx on any single metric, too. That's my point.
So, do you think Sagan will surpass Boonen's achievements, for example?
It's difficult but it's possible. Cancellara will retire this year (his bigger rival), degenkolb had a terrible crash and we don't know when he will return to top shape again.
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
CheckMyPecs said:
sir fly said:
So, do you think Sagan will surpass Boonen's achievements, for example?
He already has.
Cancellara?
The point that I was trying to make has nothing to do with Palmares. Tom was never as athletically strong as Peter is this year.

However, Peter had to battle stronger foes (even Canc became much stronger than he was in 2005 or 6), had a relatively pathetic team without support, etc. Palmares isn't directly correlated with athleticism.

Also, call me an insane person, I have this weird stupid opinion that wining a GW that's explosive, having Fabian in 2nd (that's a sinonim to hard race and hard win) has a totally different value than wining the same race when all favorites crash and it ends on a bunch sprint.

Yeah, for a stupid guy like me, palmares isn't an exact science and not all vitories are the same. Cav might have more wins than Tom. Who was/is the best rider? So, number of vitories alone doesn't matter. Does Demaure's or Ciolek's MSR win has the same value as Cancellara in 2007 or 8?

For me it doesn't and it will never be like that.
 
Re: Re:

ShawnB said:
tomorrow said:
WildspokeJoe said:
Love how Sagan is representing the rainbow jersey.
First guy in forever who has beaten the 'curse'

well, first guy forever who has beaten the 'curse', but the way he's beaten it is even more remarkable.

Today, he could/should have stopped pulling once he bridged the gap, he would still win easily probably. Then, he just even attacks the break. Hard to say, if his riding style is, let's say it midly, not very clever, or it is brilliant. But he certainly has the balls, and that makes it very exciting to watch every race he enters. I could see him in long range attack in RIO. It would hardly come to success, but it would be very interesting, what the climber would then do.

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.

:confused:
 
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
sir fly said:
CheckMyPecs said:
sir fly said:
So, do you think Sagan will surpass Boonen's achievements, for example?
He already has.
Cancellara?
The point that I was trying to make has nothing to do with Palmares. Tom was never as athletically strong as Peter is this year.

However, Peter had to battle stronger foes (even Canc became much stronger than he was in 2005 or 6), had a relatively pathetic team without support, etc. Palmares isn't directly correlated with athleticism.

Also, call me an insane person, I have this weird stupid opinion that wining a GW that's explosive, having Fabian in 2nd (that's a sinonim to hard race and hard win) has a totally different value than wining the same race when all favorites crash and it ends on a bunch sprint.

Yeah, for a stupid guy like me, palmares isn't an exact science and not all vitories are the same. Cav might have more wins than Tom. Who was/is the best rider? So, number of vitories alone doesn't matter. Does Demaure's or Ciolek's MSR win has the same value as Cancellara in 2007 or 8?

For me it doesn't and it will never be like that.
So, what's your criteria?
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
MacBAir said:
sir fly said:
CheckMyPecs said:
sir fly said:
So, do you think Sagan will surpass Boonen's achievements, for example?
He already has.
Cancellara?
The point that I was trying to make has nothing to do with Palmares. Tom was never as athletically strong as Peter is this year.

However, Peter had to battle stronger foes (even Canc became much stronger than he was in 2005 or 6), had a relatively pathetic team without support, etc. Palmares isn't directly correlated with athleticism.

Also, call me an insane person, I have this weird stupid opinion that wining a GW that's explosive, having Fabian in 2nd (that's a sinonim to hard race and hard win) has a totally different value than wining the same race when all favorites crash and it ends on a bunch sprint.

Yeah, for a stupid guy like me, palmares isn't an exact science and not all vitories are the same. Cav might have more wins than Tom. Who was/is the best rider? So, number of vitories alone doesn't matter. Does Demaure's or Ciolek's MSR win has the same value as Cancellara in 2007 or 8?

For me it doesn't and it will never be like that.
So, what's your criteria?
My criteria? A f(x)=x^2 doesn't exist, for this.

You can think for yourself and analyze each case with rationality and objectivity and come to your own conclusions, or you can chose the other options without thinking and go all "Merckx was da man cus he wonz a lotz" mentality.

Ignorant people come to that conclusion because they hear the feats of those legends, and try to extrapolate those feats with today's circumstances and difficulties. I'm way educated and I like cycling way too much for that.
 
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
My criteria? A f(x)=x^2 doesn't exist, for this.

You can think for yourself and analyze each case with rationality and objectivity and come to your own conclusions, or you can chose the other options without thinking and go all "Merckx was da man cus he wonz a lotz" mentality.

Ignorant people come to that conclusion because they hear the feats of those legends, and try to extrapolate those feats with today's circumstances and difficulties. I'm way educated and I like cycling way too much for that.
So, the criteria is your belief?