Stars and Watercarriers

[silverrocket]

1. Globalization isn't just a matter of nations that were not represented before now are, it is an increase in global cycling popularity which results in a much deeper overall talent pool. The overall level is much higher, so its more difficult to rise head and shoulders above the rest (a la Merckx).

2. Training/diet etc. was much more informal back then. This would lead to much more variation between riders, and the riders doing it "correctly" would see bigger gains. These days everybody knows about anaerobic thresholds, recovery, intervals (no, Sky didn't invent these!), bike fitting, etc. Knowledge has helped level the playing field.

3. Race radios.

 

[El Pistolero]

1. Globalization isn't just a matter of nations that were not represented before now are, it is an increase in global cycling popularity which results in a much deeper overall talent pool. The overall level is much higher, so its more difficult to rise head and shoulders above the rest (a la Merckx).

2. Training/diet etc. was much more informal back then. This would lead to much more variation between riders, and the riders doing it "correctly" would see bigger gains. These days everybody knows about anaerobic thresholds, recovery, intervals (no, Sky didn't invent these!), bike fitting, etc. Knowledge has helped level the playing field.

3. Race radios.

But is cycling more popular in Europe now then in the 70s?

And that doesn't account for the fact that the smallest time differences were all from before the 80s.

Merckx never won his Giri titles with 10+ minutes. In 1973 he won the Giro with a 7 minutes and 42 second difference on Felice Gimondi. That's the biggest margin he won with in the Giro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Giro_d'Italia_general_classification_winners

 

[Capablanca and me]

1. Globalization isn't just a matter of nations that were not represented before now are, it is an increase in global cycling popularity which results in a much deeper overall talent pool. The overall level is much higher, so its more difficult to rise head and shoulders above the rest (a la Merckx).

2. Training/diet etc. was much more informal back then. This would lead to much more variation between riders, and the riders doing it "correctly" would see bigger gains. These days everybody knows about anaerobic thresholds, recovery, intervals (no, Sky didn't invent these!), bike fitting, etc. Knowledge has helped level the playing field.

3. Race radios.

yes, knowledge is power (point 2)
and yes ban race radios, because knowledge is power

 

[Echoes]

And of that whole long list hpow many actually won anything of any note? Altig, Pettersen, Hoban, Thurau and maybe Ritter

Oh I see, a gloryhunter. Documentate please. There are plenty of other stars in my list. Enough fooling yourself. Talking about Eastern Euros or non Euros, you might have been credible but then moving on to the Brits was laughable, then to the Scandinavians was even more and now the Germans well that's beyond imagination. Next what? The Swiss maybe? I'm quite embarrassed here.

You managed to name three North Americans and one Eastern European from that whole period in all races - there have been more teams from those areas in modern races.

The Polish formed a team in several "open" races in the West.

I named more than one Eastern Euro but one was of particular importance Ruharzs Szukorwski (spelling still probably wrong) because he dominated the field on the other side of the curtain.

Some more: Antoine Trus (Poland), Dieter Wiedemann (Germany; Former GDR), Siegfried Adler (Germany; former GDR), Horst Oldenburg (Germany; former GDR), Maryan Polansky (Stateless; Polish descent?), Jiri Daler (Czechoslovakia), Mieczyslaw Nowicki (Poland), Tadeusz Mitnyk (Poland), Tadeusz Zawada (Poland), Lech Tomaszewski (Poland), Jozef Kaczmarek (Poland), Janusz Kowalski (Poland), Jan Brzezny (Poland), Bernard Kreczynski (Poland), Zbigniew Krzeszowiec (Poland), Wojciech Matusiak (Poland), Miloš Fišera (Czechoslovakia), Pavel Krejčí (Czechoslovakia), Jiri Murdych (Czechoslovakia). All these guys had their chance against the best Western Euros of the time.

Also Stablinski and Graczyk were Polish.

In Merckx's last winning Tour in 1974 there were 130 riders. Only six of them came from outside the 'big five' nations.

Hey dude, there are dozens and dozens of races other than Bore de France in a cycling calendar. So check out the startlists of all the major classics of the 70's and then we can start the discussion.

Nowadays a Brit and a Canadian have won Grand Tours and an Aussie and a Kazakh monuments in just this season.

Continental Western Euro standard dropped beautifully.

the best colombian rider (cochise) came to europe well in his 30s. even then he was only allowed to work for gimondi except a few giro stages, which he won and trofeo barachin (duo itt with gimondi). there's a notirous intevriew with cochize where he said gimondi used him to literally pull himself up the climbs, by pushing his arms on him and launching himself everytime until chochise couldn't hold it anymore.

You sent me that interview by e-mail and I still appreciate that despite the fact you've constantly been spitting your hatred on my face on this forum ever since.

I'm still not convinced that had he come to Europe earlier Cochise could've beaten Merckx on a regular basis. There have been many races where he could race for himself. The Giro is not everything. Better than his Giro stages is his Camaiore GP win in 1973, for me !

besides that's not even the point. the point of globalisaiton is that now there are way ebtter cyclists from all over the world. the brits of today are better than then, same with latin americans, north americans, scandinvaians, australians, germans etc etc

You'll have to convince me. And that's exactly the point. Parker said that riders from these nations did not exist at that time and I had to react ...

2. Training/diet etc. was much more informal back then. This would lead to much more variation between riders, and the riders doing it "correctly" would see bigger gains. These days everybody knows about anaerobic thresholds, recovery, intervals (no, Sky didn't invent these!), bike fitting, etc.

But for goodness sake, Coppi invented intervals in the forties or at least brought it to cycling. The method gradually improved and generalized but it was totally generalized in the late sixties. Van Kerrebroeck trained on interval, Berten Van Damme trained on interval, the De Vlaeminck's trained on interval since amateur years, Monseré trained on interval in his first year as amateur.

With regards to training and diet, Bobet, De Bruyne, Van Looy, Geminiani, Adorni owe everything to Coppi.

I have an interview of Louis Caput in the Seventies in which he said that everybody then "did the job", which was not the case in the fifties when he raced, and not the case for himself in particular.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

man I'd rather speak to a brick wall. at least he/she has better arguments

 

[hiero2]

I've already made a thread to debunk this. . . .

yada, yada, yada.

man I'd rather speak to a brick wall. . .

Ok, echo, down in front!

I have to wonder what that list of international participants would look like if you made it today. Hmmmm - I'll betcha it would be a LOT longer.

I liked the quip - there are more TEAMS from outside the main European cycling nations today, than there were riders back then. You see, I'm old enough that I remember John Howard. Did the US have a real presence against Merckx? Not really. Certainly not against Anquetil. Boyer and Lemond were the first real contenders to ride in Europe.

But do tell us, please, as a matter of history's sake. How many one-day classics, or short but major stage races did any riders from the US, Columbia, and Oz win, prior to Lemond?

 

[El Pistolero]

yada, yada, yada.



Ok, echo, down in front!

I have to wonder what that list of international participants would look like if you made it today. Hmmmm - I'll betcha it would be a LOT longer.

I liked the quip - there are more TEAMS from outside the main European cycling nations today, than there were riders back then. You see, I'm old enough that I remember John Howard. Did the US have a real presence against Merckx? Not really. Certainly not against Anquetil. Boyer and Lemond were the first real contenders to ride in Europe.

But do tell us, please, as a matter of history's sake. How many one-day classics, or short but major stage races did any riders from the US, Columbia, and Oz win, prior to Lemond?

How many now? Goss, Gerrans and O'Grady... Nothing to show off about. Considering 2 of those won MSR and the other was from a breakaway.

Does the US have a real presence now? They have Phinney and that's about it anymore these days.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

How many now? Goss, Gerrans and O'Grady... Nothing to show off about. Considering 2 of those won MSR and the other was from a breakaway.

Does the US have a real presence now? They have Phinney and that's about it anymore these days.

 

[El Pistolero]

Do you ever come up with a real argument Ryo? I bet that dolphin in your avatar is smarter than you.

 

[theyoungest]

Belgians trying to convince the world that pro cycling was already extremely global in the days of Merckx... what else is new.

 

[El Pistolero]

Belgians trying to convince the world that pro cycling was already extremely global in the days of Merckx... what else is new.

No, not that. Just saying it's still very much a European sport these days.

Less popular in West-Europe(nowadays), but more popular outside of the traditional European cycling countries. I just don't see this supposed internationality of cycling. It's a European sport down to its core.

Australia and Great Britain have made the greatest leaps since the day of Merckx. USA had great cyclists in the past, but now there's few great American cyclists anymore. But then again, a good friend of Eddy Merckx was Tom Simpson. World champion, Ronde van Vlaanderen winner, Giro di Lombardia winner, Milan-San Remo winner and winner of Paris-Nice. Still the best British cyclist they ever had.

There's still very few Asian and African cyclists and that makes up for a large portion of the world population. Even South-Americans are non-existant in Europe except for Colombia.

If UCI was trying to create a global cycling then they failed. No surprise there.

I'd love to discuss further with you, but I'm afraid you're just going to resort to insults again and bring up my nationality all the time. Doesn't seem you're capable of much more then that.

Overall I would say that cycling is more popular now in Western countries. And East-Europeans now get the chance to ride in West-Europe, but they were always cycling, just behind the iron curtain. And Merckx did go there once in his amateur years and beat all their best riders. Very shameful defeat in sport for the Soviet-Russians.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Do you ever come up with a real argument Ryo? I bet that dolphin in your avatar is smarter than you.

I;m sure he is

 

[Echoes]

Did the US have a real presence against Merckx? Not really.

I'm still waiting for a US successor to Andy Hampsten.

Certainly not against Anquetil.

I don't give a damn about Anquetil. I leave this sad rider to the Frogs, they deserve it, I guess.

Boyer and Lemond were the first real contenders to ride in Europe.

Capital M for LeMond. Boyer raced against Merckx in 1977 and was constantly behind. And after that he had to mix it up with all the former opponents to Merckx + Hinault. Mike Neel and Tom Sneddon raced in Europe.

But do tell us, please, as a matter of history's sake. How many one-day classics, or short but major stage races did any riders from the US, Columbia, and Oz win, prior to Lemond?

For f*** sake, since when do you have to wait a win to assess the international character of a race.

You had riders from Oz, from Columbia, from New-Zealand, from Poland racing against Merckx. They were the best riders of their countries. They were perfectly trained. If they wished to win a major race, all they needed to do is beat Merckx. They did not, so Merckx was the best rider of an intercontinental era. Case closed.

For your information, Sir Hubert Opperman won Paris-Brest-Paris in 1931.

Belgians trying to convince the world that pro cycling was already extremely global in the days of Merckx... what else is new.

A quick look at your username tells me that you know nothing of cycling in the 70's.

 

[Bye Bye Bicycle]

By the way: Ryszard Szurkowski. It's really not that complicated.

 

[theyoungest]

A quick look at your username tells me that you know nothing of cycling in the 70's.

My username comes from a song I was listening to at the moment I signed up for this forum

But if it gives me perpetual youth, I'll gladly accept.

 

[Magnus]

So who would win a fight between a tiger and a lion?

Anyways, the movie is awesome.

 

[silverrocket]

Yes of course more precise training techniques have existed for a long time (eg. Coppi and intervals), but I maintain that there have been a lot of advancements, and a mainstreaming of said advancements. With internet every cyclist, team, DS can access the latest information and many more scientists are studying athletic performance, and so there is a sort of arms race that every cyclist needs to keep up with. Of course we see this has influenced doping in cycling, but that need not be discussed.

Merckx famously quipped that his suggested training technique for young riders was simply "ride lots". These days we have doctors drawing blood at the top of hills to test lactic acid (my home town does this as an annual event, open to the public), supplements, altitude tents, and so on.

My argument is that this has leveled the playing field by minimizing some of the techniques riders might have formerly used to gain big advantages. Here I am drawing parallels with my other favourite sport, hockey, where the games has seen the same patterns in increasing parity.

 

[Echoes]

I've never believed in that quote. Either Merckx said that as a joke or he never said it.

In any case, in his era nobody trained strictly by riding a lot. That was 1930's training. 600km a day at a low pace. Coppi revolutionized this, riding on shorter distances at a higher speed (which was already Francis Pélissier's method but he was ahead of his time, Coppi really influenced later generations), also introducing some early form of interval training.

In Merckx's era, everybody would train on short distance at high speed and on intervals, plus you had power training programmes. Endurance training still existed but was not everything.


Technology has changed but the methods are basically the same.

In any case, you cannot say that training was informal back then. Caput clearly showed that the guys "did the job" seriously in the 70's compared to the 50's where the likes of Magni and Kübler were among the few who "did" it.

 

[coinneach]

Sean Kelly said on Eurosport commentary this year that the biggest difference between his time & now was the fitness of the WHOLE peleton.
In his day, lots were overweight and out of shape at the start of GT's, but now everyone arrives in or near peak condition.
As I remember him saying.

 

[El Pistolero]

Sean Kelly said on Eurosport commentary this year that the biggest difference between his time & now was the fitness of the WHOLE peleton.
In his day, lots were overweight and out of shape at the start of GT's, but now everyone arrives in or near peak condition.
As I remember him saying.

Boonen said something very similar not so long ago, but about the start of the season. And I doubt any big rider was starting the Tour out of shape during Sean Kelly's time. But yeah, of course the whole peloton is now fitter than 40 years ago.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Boonen said something very similar not so long ago, but about the start of the season. And I doubt any big rider was starting the Tour out of shape during Sean Kelly's time. But yeah, of course the whole peloton is now fitter than 40 years ago.

well I'm sure sean kelly is lieing

 

[El Pistolero]

well I'm sure sean kelly is lieing

A cyclist lying.

Ask Kelly about something clinic related and he'll either ignore you or lie.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

he's an idiot. but he isn't a liar

 

[El Pistolero]

he's an idiot. but he isn't a liar

Uhm, I advise you to read a little story about the 1984 Paris-Brussel.

Ps: I never actually called him a liar, even though he is, but was pointing at the fact that maybe someone got the quote wrong.

 

[coinneach]

Uhm, I advise you to read a little story about the 1984 Paris-Brussel.

Ps: I never actually called him a liar, even though he is, but was pointing at the fact that maybe someone got the quote wrong.

May have got quote wrong?
I think Boonen in Waloon would be as easy for me to understand as Kelly in English

Despite the above disparaging comments (well, we are not even in the Clinic) I find him an interesting and knowledgeable commentator, though hopeless on drug issues