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

Brullnux said:
Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.

It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?

About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.

Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.

If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.
 
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
Brullnux said:
Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.

It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?

About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.

Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.

If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.

I personally don't believe physiological talent increases as an average over time and generations. So, I conclude that the difference in time is own to the rather glaringly obvious variables: training, nutrition etc, which causes the ability put out to be closer to their maximum. It is wrong to say there are facts that they used to be worse because of said variables. It was less specialised and professional, but it changes little - in Merckx's time they all were unspecialised and yet he wiped the floor with all of them all the time. Why? Because he was better. Sagan in a more specialised environment, has never wiped the floor in a Merckx style way, but has won a lot of races at a young age. Why? Because he is better. But he has never dominated in any field the way Merckx dominated in all of his, so I conclude with little doubt Merckx was better.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
Brullnux said:
Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.

It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?

About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.

Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.

If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.

This argument is plain stupid, but unfortunately the most obvious reason it's nonsense is a matter for the Clinic. Worth pointing out, though, that cycling back then was really quite 'professional'.
 
Physiological talent increases over time due to evolution. But in 40 years, this increase would be negligible as it is. Then take into account that evolution works by killing off the weak, whereas modern society has healthcare, which does the opposite. Therefore, realistically, there's next to no increase in physiological talent. The only difference is, as science improves, we know a lot more about good nutrition etc. But if for example Merckx was in this era, he'd be eating much better as well, and at all times every top athlete has had similar diets. So we can ignore this as well when comparing eras. The only major difference is prize money, meaning it is much more viable to have a career in cycling. You can feed your family without being the best in the world, you can now feed your family as a domestique too. This has led to more competition and specialisation.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

MacBAir 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





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.

You have some serious issues, it seems. Who's from 60's and 70's? Maradona? Zidane? Messi? Jordan?

Eddy Merckx, and Pele for that matter, are widely considered the very best athletes of their respective sports, by some serious polls of experts, time and time again. But I guess you know better. You're using common sense according to you. To me it doesn't seems like that.
You can't put someone's performances into some other time, like you have some kind of a time machine. It doesn't go that way. Common sense may help you with this, but I'm afraid you ain't got much of that. You can compare their results, whole careers, level of competition, their dominance, legacy, etc. Variety of cycling historians and experts came to the same conclusion, in fact all of them. That Eddy Merckx is by far the best cyclist of ALL-TIMES (read carefully). Not in all times, they don't know that, like no one does, well except you...
Belgians declared Merckx best sportsman of the 20th century, yet I bet you would tell them that Museeuw was stronger than him, and Frank Vandenbroucke would bury him at La Redoutte. What a bunch of ignorant people.
Italians also, voted Coppi 2nd best athlete of the century. Do they know his level of competition was even weaker than Merckx's? Who voted, some peasants? Heck, anybody could win then, right? Or not :rolleyes:
And regarding competition, do you know the names of Anquetil, Poulidor, Van Looy, Gimondi, Ocana, De Vlaeminck, Zoetemelk, Maertens. Do they ring any bells. No? Well they should, because all of them are still better then our boy here Sagan, for now...
 
Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Physiological talent increases over time due to evolution. But in 40 years, this increase would be negligible as it is. Then take into account that evolution works by killing off the weak, whereas modern society has healthcare, which does the opposite. Therefore, realistically, there's next to no increase in physiological talent. The only difference is, as science improves, we know a lot more about good nutrition etc. But if for example Merckx was in this era, he'd be eating much better as well, and at all times every top athlete has had similar diets. So we can ignore this as well when comparing eras. The only major difference is prize money, meaning it is much more viable to have a career in cycling. You can feed your family without being the best in the world, you can now feed your family as a domestique too. This has led to more competition and specialisation.
I tried to say this. But this is better.
 
Re: Re:

MacBAir said:
Brullnux said:
Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.

It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?

About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.

Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.

If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.
Competitive at what? ITT for starters. He didn't prepare for months for his attempt, a la Wiggo, just showed up, and on a conventional bike, he's still with the best. Doing this in the fall after one of the greatest years ever recorded. Descending. He was every bit as good as the best descenders ever. I could go on and on.

I couldn't help but notice that you bring doping to the discussion. It's a no-no. Be aware :) .

There were many greats during Merckx tenure, legends of the monuments like Van Springel and De Vlaeminck, great GT riders, Poulidor of course, Gimondi, Van Impe, Zoetemelk, Agostinho, Ocana, Thevenet, et caetera.

And at the time, there were a lot of clubs, cycling was much more popular than it is today. The best athletes would not choose bogus sports like they do today, or sports that at the time were expensive like tennis for example. It was not as "pro", but the guys were much tougher. No weather protocol, no 3 km rule, when you see the whiners of today, how many of today's pros would have survived having to race 120 days per year, in all weather, not have Dave on the earpiece, therefore have to be smart, on roads that were nowhere in the shape they are today, on an 11 kg bike with no STI and only five cogs. If you compare eras, try to imagine today's guys back then. Interesting proposition. But pointless.

You don't know about those times, so why try to make a point, defend a position that's not holding water? Sorry but comparing Sagan to Merckx is a bit tough to swallow for those here who actually know about the sport :confused: . Respectfully, you're making a fool of yourself. Sorry :eek:

It doesn't take away the fact that Sagan has won two big races in his life and a lot of smaller ones. And his career is far from over. I'm a fan of his. He'll win more.
 
Cycling in the yesteryears used to be held irrespective of snow, rain and tended towards epic stages. They did not have proper clothing & gear not proper support that now the modern cyclists have. Nowadays even a little bit of snow forces cancellation.
Comparison can be made between the riders of a particular era and since the distribution of talent typically tends to be the same irrespective of eras, anybody wining extensively would be the best irrespective of eras. This applies to Merckx, Hinault, Bradman etc
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
PremierAndrew said:
Physiological talent increases over time due to evolution. But in 40 years, this increase would be negligible as it is. Then take into account that evolution works by killing off the weak, whereas modern society has healthcare, which does the opposite. Therefore, realistically, there's next to no increase in physiological talent. The only difference is, as science improves, we know a lot more about good nutrition etc. But if for example Merckx was in this era, he'd be eating much better as well, and at all times every top athlete has had similar diets. So we can ignore this as well when comparing eras. The only major difference is prize money, meaning it is much more viable to have a career in cycling. You can feed your family without being the best in the world, you can now feed your family as a domestique too. This has led to more competition and specialisation.
I tried to say this. But this is better.
I've said the same few pages ago with these words "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."

Maybe sometimes to use a lot words for describing simple fact is better though.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Visit site
Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Physiological talent increases over time due to evolution. But in 40 years, this increase would be negligible as it is. Then take into account that evolution works by killing off the weak, whereas modern society has healthcare, which does the opposite. Therefore, realistically, there's next to no increase in physiological talent.
If your population is the general population, then yes, you are correct.

However, if your population is the pro cycling peloton, then there has been significant evolution over the last 40 years. The professionalisation of the sport has acted as a driver of "natural selection", ratcheting up the pressure so that only the very best of the best can compete (which was not the case in the 1960s-1970s). As a result, the less fit riders "die" (i.e. have to look for a job outside pro cycling) and the fittest riders "survive" (i.e. get a job inside pro cycling).
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,136
4
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
MacBAir said:
Brullnux said:
Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.

It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?

About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.

Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.

If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.

I personally don't believe physiological talent increases as an average over time and generations. So, I conclude that the difference in time is own to the rather glaringly obvious variables: training, nutrition etc, which causes the ability put out to be closer to their maximum. It is wrong to say there are facts that they used to be worse because of said variables. It was less specialised and professional, but it changes little - in Merckx's time they all were unspecialised and yet he wiped the floor with all of them all the time. Why? Because he was better. Sagan in a more specialised environment, has never wiped the floor in a Merckx style way, but has won a lot of races at a young age. Why? Because he is better. But he has never dominated in any field the way Merckx dominated in all of his, so I conclude with little doubt Merckx was better.
how on earth can you not believe that? not to mention there is tons of genetic scientific evidence to prove it. look no further than the Caribbean, where a race(lack of a better word) of west-africans has basically been breed to physical perfection in 300 years, due to slavery and those who could survive it then had offspring etc. etc. that alone is a reason why runners from jamaica today are much faster than from let's say benin or nigeria. it's a reason why the son of adri van der poel and grandson of raymond poulidor, mathieu van der poel has so much talent. and that is just very short-term. I can't imagine if he had children with marianne vos and their children etc, etc you could create a super cyclist in time
 
Re: Re:

Ryo Hazuki said:
Brullnux said:
MacBAir said:
Brullnux said:
Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.

It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?

About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.

Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.

If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.

I personally don't believe physiological talent increases as an average over time and generations. So, I conclude that the difference in time is own to the rather glaringly obvious variables: training, nutrition etc, which causes the ability put out to be closer to their maximum. It is wrong to say there are facts that they used to be worse because of said variables. It was less specialised and professional, but it changes little - in Merckx's time they all were unspecialised and yet he wiped the floor with all of them all the time. Why? Because he was better. Sagan in a more specialised environment, has never wiped the floor in a Merckx style way, but has won a lot of races at a young age. Why? Because he is better. But he has never dominated in any field the way Merckx dominated in all of his, so I conclude with little doubt Merckx was better.
how on earth can you not believe that? not to mention there is tons of genetic scientific evidence to prove it. look no further than the Caribbean, where a race(lack of a better word) of west-africans has basically been breed to physical perfection in 300 years, due to slavery and those who could survive it then had offspring etc. etc. that alone is a reason why runners from jamaica today are much faster than from let's say benin or nigeria. it's a reason why the son of adri van der poel and grandson of raymond poulidor, mathieu van der poel has so much talent. and that is just very short-term. I can't imagine if he had children with marianne vos and their children etc, etc you could create a super cyclist in time
Well has there been anything even close to what you have said in the last 40 years among cyclists? My point was that the increase in cycling speeds and times is due to professionalism rather than physiological talent, as well as some clinic stuff.

Sorry massively derailed the thread :eek: