• 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 84 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
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?
Belief isn't the correct term, because it reeks of irrationality and my POV comes from actually using my brain correctly.

Trying to measure the worth of a cyclist physical ability without taking into account who he was racing against, how the sport is/was, the whole circumstances, that's where belief and irrationality come into play. It is your irrational belief that, for some reason, Peter wouldn't completely demolish lesser athletes like Merckx on any sort of terrain.

Science says you are wrong. Common sense says that you are wrong. Simple math says that you are wrong.
 
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.
Your point sadly not backed up by any actual facts. How was Merckx competing against 4 or 5 pros and the rest ameturs? Lets randomly take stage 4 from the 1971 tour:
1.Jean-Pierre Genet: 6hr 45min 3sec - Pro 1964-1976. 13 tdf starts.
2.José Gomez-Lucas @ 1sec - Pro 1969-1975. 2 tdf starts.
3.Cyrille Guimard @ 5sec - Pro 1968-1976. Nat French champ 1970
4.Roger De Vlaeminck s.t. - Pro 1969-1984. 257 victories
5.Guido Reybrouck s.t. - Pro 1965-1974. Nat Belgium champion 1966
6.Gerben Karstens s.t. - Pro 1965-1978. Dutch Nat Champion 1966. Multiple GT stage winner
7.Walter Godefroot s.t. - Pro 1965-1979. Twice Belgian Champion
8.Gert Harings s.t. - Pro 1969-1976
9.Eddy Merckx s.t.
10.Jan Krekels s.t. - Pro 1969-1978. Gold Medalist

So in just one random stage all the top ten are obviously professionals (not that I needed to check) ,4 national champions and two gold medallists as competition. And that's just in the top 10.

Regarding your point about the hour record, I think you will find quite a few riders gave a *** about it and now the rules have changed, still do. Can you please give the list of all the average riders who 'destroyed' his record?

With the same type bike I have Boardman beating it by 10 metres in 2000 and Ondřej Sosenka in 2005 who was since banned for drugs. Jens Voigt who I assume you would class as one of the superior modern athletes compared to Merckx beat his time by 1800 metres using a modern time trial bike, disc wheels, skinsuit and aero helmet, oh and at much lower altitude.

Sorry to make you look like such a clueless idiot.
 
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
sir fly said:
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?
Belief isn't the correct term, because it reeks of irrationality and my POV comes from actually using my brain correctly.

Trying to measure the worth of a cyclist physical ability without taking into account who he was racing against, how the sport is/was, the whole circumstances, that's where believe and irrationality come to play. It is your irrational belief that, for some reason, Peter wouldn't completely demolish lesser athletes like Merckx on any sort of terrain.

Science says you are wrong. Common sense says that you are wrong. Simple math says that you are wrong.
Do you have some precise data (facts), that would support your claims? If you don't have, I'm afraid the belief is everything you have.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
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.

Well with all this "Sagan is better athlete than Merckx stuff" you're pretty close to that :p

Also Cancellara wasn't 2nd in GW this year...
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
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.

Let me guess, you're from Portugal? ;)

That's a rather frivolous statement. If you really think that, there's something very wrong with your understanding and measuring of someone's sports greatness!
In fact I would struggle to put C.Ronaldo into a top 10 of all-times, cause I could name couple of guys better than him: Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona, Ronaldo (The real one), Zidane and Messi
 
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
CheckMyPecs said:
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.

Let me guess, you're from Portugal? ;)

That's a rather frivolous statement. If you really think that, there's something very wrong with your understanding and measuring of someone's sports greatness!
In fact I would struggle to put C.Ronaldo into a top 10 of all-times, cause I could name couple of guys better than him: Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona, Ronaldo (The real one), Zidane and Messi
Savićević
 
Re: Re:

CheckMyPecs said:
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.

This thread went too far probably.

I have no idea how the duel Sagan - Merckx would end up (to tell the truth I am not still there that Sagan is somewhere close to this legend) but I am pretty sure that Djoko would wiped the court with Lever if he could travel back :)
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
Mr.White said:
CheckMyPecs said:
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.

Let me guess, you're from Portugal? ;)

That's a rather frivolous statement. If you really think that, there's something very wrong with your understanding and measuring of someone's sports greatness!
In fact I would struggle to put C.Ronaldo into a top 10 of all-times, cause I could name couple of guys better than him: Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona, Ronaldo (The real one), Zidane and Messi
Savićević

Il Genio :)
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
CheckMyPecs said:
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.

Let me guess, you're from Portugal? ;)

That's a rather frivolous statement. If you really think that, there's something very wrong with your understanding and measuring of someone's sports greatness!
In fact I would struggle to put C.Ronaldo into a top 10 of all-times, cause I could name couple of guys better than him: Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona, Ronaldo (The real one), Zidane and Messi
Why is pele better than ronaldo? Give me a explanation please. Describe how is pele's skills
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
MacBAir said:
sir fly said:
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?
Belief isn't the correct term, because it reeks of irrationality and my POV comes from actually using my brain correctly.

Trying to measure the worth of a cyclist physical ability without taking into account who he was racing against, how the sport is/was, the whole circumstances, that's where believe and irrationality come to play. It is your irrational belief that, for some reason, Peter wouldn't completely demolish lesser athletes like Merckx on any sort of terrain.

Science says you are wrong. Common sense says that you are wrong. Simple math says that you are wrong.
Do you have some precise data (facts), that would support your claims? If you don't have, I'm afraid the belief is everything you have.
Of course I have. I have average speeds, climbing times, I can see how cycling evolved, etc. What about you? When Merckx is more than 5 km/h slower than modern classics riders, and is 10 min slower up the Alpe D'huez, why do you believe that he would be anything other than cannon fodder today? Religion? Are you old? Belgian, perhaps?
 
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
sir fly said:
MacBAir said:
sir fly said:
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?
Belief isn't the correct term, because it reeks of irrationality and my POV comes from actually using my brain correctly.

Trying to measure the worth of a cyclist physical ability without taking into account who he was racing against, how the sport is/was, the whole circumstances, that's where believe and irrationality come to play. It is your irrational belief that, for some reason, Peter wouldn't completely demolish lesser athletes like Merckx on any sort of terrain.

Science says you are wrong. Common sense says that you are wrong. Simple math says that you are wrong.
Do you have some precise data (facts), that would support your claims? If you don't have, I'm afraid the belief is everything you have.
Of course I have. I have average speeds, climbing times, I can see how cycling evolved, etc. What about you? When Merckx is more than 5 km/h slower than modern classics riders, and is 10 min slower up the Alpe D'huez, why do you believe that he would be anything other than cannon fodder today? Religion? Are you old? Belgian, perhaps?
Do you have some data that would reflect man's contribution to the result instead of machine's?
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
sir fly said:
Mr.White said:
CheckMyPecs said:
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.

Let me guess, you're from Portugal? ;)

That's a rather frivolous statement. If you really think that, there's something very wrong with your understanding and measuring of someone's sports greatness!
In fact I would struggle to put C.Ronaldo into a top 10 of all-times, cause I could name couple of guys better than him: Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona, Ronaldo (The real one), Zidane and Messi
Savićević

Il Genio :)


Isn't it funny that guys like this think that all legends of the sort (most sports) were active in the 60 and 70s? How can people not rationalize that that was the specific timeframe where we had the highest difference between athletes, due to the modernization of those previous baby sports?

We see it time and time again, even with these "legends" in MMA, that would be oh so outclassed today...

But now, the best cyclists are Merckx and everybody else that was eating his scraps, Pele/Eusebio/di stefano/bobby, etc.

No point in arguing.

Guys like Pele wouldn't even last the first 10min of a modern football game. Guys like Merckx would be dropped like stones on the flat. We have data for this, people. It's not rocket science. You people have this sick POV where those worthy accomplishments could take place today.
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

[quote="sir fly"
Do you have some data that would reflect man's contribution to the result instead of machine's?[/quote]
What do you mean? Are you asking if I can take into account how bikes improved, surfaced roads, climate warming meaning less dense air? lol

Are you so desperate and ready to hold on to your irrational-based hope and belief that Merckx the Athlete could even have a pace in today's race? That's like asking, but how do you know that god wasn't taking a *** before the big bang?

Let's focus on what we know, kid.
 
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
[quote="sir fly
Do you have some data that would reflect man's contribution to the result instead of machine's?
What do you mean? Are you asking if I can take into account how bikes improved, surfaced roads, climate warming meaning less dense air? lol

Are you so desperate and ready to hold on to your irrational-based hope and belief that Merckx the Athlete could even have a pace in today's race? That's like asking, but how do you know that god wasn't taking a **** before the big bang?

Let's focus on what we know, kid.
We know that second tire Etixx duo wiped the floor today with superb athlete, Hulk, Wolverine... Sagan.
...kid.
 
Jun 13, 2016
447
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sir fly said:
MacBAir said:
[quote="sir fly
Do you have some data that would reflect man's contribution to the result instead of machine's?
What do you mean? Are you asking if I can take into account how bikes improved, surfaced roads, climate warming meaning less dense air? lol

Are you so desperate and ready to hold on to your irrational-based hope and belief that Merckx the Athlete could even have a pace in today's race? That's like asking, but how do you know that god wasn't taking a **** before the big bang?

Let's focus on what we know, kid.
We know that second tire Etixx duo wiped the floor today with superb athlete, Hulk, Wolverine... Sagan.
...kid.
And Merckx would've beat them or come closer? Based on what?
 
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
sir fly said:
MacBAir said:
[quote="sir fly
Do you have some data that would reflect man's contribution to the result instead of machine's?
What do you mean? Are you asking if I can take into account how bikes improved, surfaced roads, climate warming meaning less dense air? lol

Are you so desperate and ready to hold on to your irrational-based hope and belief that Merckx the Athlete could even have a pace in today's race? That's like asking, but how do you know that god wasn't taking a **** before the big bang?

Let's focus on what we know, kid.
We know that second tire Etixx duo wiped the floor today with superb athlete, Hulk, Wolverine... Sagan.
...kid.
And Merckx would've beat them or come closer? Based on what?
Focus on what you know.
 

TRENDING THREADS