Stars and Watercarriers

[El Pistolero]

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

Fair enough.

It's definitely true that cyclists in the 70s and 80s didn't train much during the winter. In fact, Hinault barely ever trained during the winter(if ever). But to say they weren't even in shape for the start of a GT... That I doubt very much. Contador doesn't train a lot during the winter either, he just gets in shape very fast as we saw at San Luis this year. Overweight yet won 2 mountain stages.

 

[silverrocket]

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.

Technology has changed the methods. Nobody had heart rate monitors, nevermind power meters, in Merckx's time, for example.

Also the 60s-70s marked a transition in training techniques. Some still were doing the "ride lots", some only trained by racing lots, while some subscribed to the more precise training programs. De Vlaminck said his training goal was simply to ride more than anybody else, with 400km long training rides.

 

[kurtinsc]

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.

Tejay Van Garderen did just win the white jersey at the tour (5th overall), as well as 5th at Paris-Nice. Andrew Talansky finished second at the Tour of Romandie and 7th in the Vuelta. Peter Stetina hasn't had a great result yet, but finished 21st at the Giro this past year. Not sure if Farrar can get back to competing in mass sprints or morph into a rider who can compete in the cobbled races, but he's been a solid sprinter in the recent past.

The US presence isn't as big as it was under the group of guys now being ushered out of the sport, but it's as big or bigger then any other time.

 

[ultimobici]

Again, two things happened simultaneously.
1. Shimano figured out index shifting.
2. Shimano's rear mech meaningfully improved shifting under all conditions.

Shortly after Shimano's solution, there were other index shifting solutions but none as good as Shimano's because Shimano figured out a better rear mech.



Because the Pro Peloton was still riding French and Italian transmissions. Meanwhile Shimano was innovating, not a big player at all in Pro bicycle stuff and stuck on the low-end of bike culture/industry. Index shifting and the mountain bike group changed that. Sometime after, they had the budget to spend on outfitting a Pro Team., etc.

i think you have it a little mixed up. Shimano simply waited for the patent on Suntour's slant-parallel derailleur design to lapse, then copied it. Shimano has, up until very recently, farmed ideas from the dim & distant past and used modern materials technology to made them work.

Cassette hubs - name esxapes me 1930s
Dual Pivot brakes - Universal 1930s
2 piece cranks - Bullseye late 80s

 

[Echoes]

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.

GT's are not everything in cycling.

I see plenty of riders overweight in any race, today.

Also the 60s-70s marked a transition in training techniques. Some still were doing the "ride lots", some only trained by racing lots, while some subscribed to the more precise training programs. De Vlaminck said his training goal was simply to ride more than anybody else, with 400km long training rides.

De Vlaeminck never said that.

The transition is in the 40's/50's when Coppi came up. Then you had every year more riders training with these "more precise training programmes".

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

GT's are not everything in cycling.

I see plenty of riders overweight in any race, today.



De Vlaeminck never said that.

The transition is in the 40's/50's when Coppi came up. Then you had every year more riders training with these "more precise training programmes".

yes they are. except in belgium

and pls name me overweight riders in grand tours nowdays, save a very few returning from injuries.

 

[silverrocket]

De Vlaeminck never said that.

I was paraphrasing, here's a quote explaining why he put in such huge mileage:

“It was important for me to know that I was doing more than the others.”

 

[El Pistolero]

yes they are. except in belgium

and pls name me overweight riders in grand tours nowdays, save a very few returning from injuries.

Lol, might as well say only the Tour matters then because no one outside real cycling fans and Italy gives a damn about the Giro and the same goes for the Vuelta. Well, a lot of Spaniards don't even care about the Vuelta.

Cavendish has started GTs while being chubby.

Actually, having seen American cycling fans with my own eyes: they don't care about the Giro, they don't care about the Vuelta. They only care for two races: the Tour and Paris-Roubaix.

Anyway what really changed in cycling after the 70s is doping... Read up on Francesco Conconi and Francesco Moser's Hour record of 1994(!).

 

[coinneach]

Anyway what really changed in cycling after the 70s is doping... Read up on Francesco Conconi and Francesco Moser's Hour record of 1994(!).

Well doping went on LONG before the 70s. The biggest doping change was EPO/Blood, (in the 90's-00) which, contrary to the size discussion above, actually allowed big men to get up mountains like they were skinny climbers, without even getting out of the saddle.

 

[El Pistolero]

Well doping went on LONG before the 70s. The biggest doping change was EPO/Blood, (in the 90's-00) which, contrary to the size discussion above, actually allowed big men to get up mountains like they were skinny climbers, without even getting out of the saddle.

Blood doping happened before, so did EPO. Conconi actually introduced EPO into this sport.

 

[Afrank]

Tejay Van Garderen did just win the white jersey at the tour (5th overall), as well as 5th at Paris-Nice. Andrew Talansky finished second at the Tour of Romandie and 7th in the Vuelta. Peter Stetina hasn't had a great result yet, but finished 21st at the Giro this past year. Not sure if Farrar can get back to competing in mass sprints or morph into a rider who can compete in the cobbled races, but he's been a solid sprinter in the recent past.

The US presence isn't as big as it was under the group of guys now being ushered out of the sport, but it's as big or bigger then any other time.

There are also several up and coming American u23's, Dombrowski, Boswell, Rathe, Craddock and Mannion I could see becoming good riders.

Actually, having seen American cycling fans with my own eyes: they don't care about the Giro, they don't care about the Vuelta. They only care for two races: the Tour and Paris-Roubaix.

Not all American cycling fans are like that. I know many racers who are big cycling fans that care about a lot more than just the Tour and Roubaix.

 

[El Pistolero]

There are also several up and coming American u23's, Dombrowski, Boswell, Rathe, Craddock and Mannion I could see becoming good riders.



Not all American cycling fans are like that. I know many racers who are big cycling fans that care about a lot more than just the Tour and Roubaix.

I'm not talking about the type of fan that visits cycling forums.

 

[theyoungest]

I'm not talking about the type of fan that visits cycling forums.

The Tour is the only thing that matters for casual cycling fans the world over. It's not a uniquely American thing.

Basically it's two different sports: the Tour de France (huge all over the world) and regular road cycling (less so).

 

[El Pistolero]

The Tour is the only thing that matters for casual cycling fans the world over. It's not a uniquely American thing.

Basically it's two different sports: the Tour de France (huge all over the world) and regular road cycling (less so).

That's mostly true, but I've noticed a special love from American cycling fans for Paris-Roubaix. If you look at some videos from Tour of California press conference you notice it too. When they talk to Boonen for example they will ask about his Roubaix wins, but almost never mention his wins in the Ronde.

 

[jamiephillips]

Ok slightly but not 100% off topic. I was flicking through an old Watson book about the spring classics. The foreword was written by Sean Kelly and he claimed that when he rode his first Milan-San Remo in 1978 there were 350 starters! I know that M-SR famously has a large field but 350 seems huge.
Anyone know if Kelly's claim is accurate??

"EDIT" Just checked on milansanremo.co.uk and in 1978 there were in fact 225 starters so Kelly is full of s**t!

 

[maltiv]

That's mostly true, but I've noticed a special love from American cycling fans for Paris-Roubaix. If you look at some videos from Tour of California press conference you notice it too. When they talk to Boonen for example they will ask about his Roubaix wins, but almost never mention his wins in the Ronde.

Same in Norway. The average sports fan will only know or care about TDF and P-R. Which is probably why P-R is EBH's nr 1 goal for next season even though the race doesn't suit him at all (I'd give him a better chance of winning LBL...)

 

[Capablanca and me]

read some nice point of view, thx

 

[hiero2]

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

Interesting possibility. The US bike boom in the 70's was VERY big. It is possible it was bigger than the one in the late 80's, or the one in the 2-aughts. What has changed, though, is the general public's awareness of cycling as a sport. In the 70's, there WASN'T any public awareness of it. It was all new. The bike booms in the 80's and the 2-aughts benefit from the earlier knowledge gains. They might SEEM bigger, and not actually BE bigger. I couldn't say - maybe somebody has some numbers.

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. . . .

I can't agree here. There are plenty of great US cyclists today. We're just short a GT winner at the moment.

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. . .

Technology has changed the methods. Nobody had heart rate monitors, nevermind power meters, in Merckx's time, for example.

Also the 60s-70s marked a transition in training techniques. Some still were doing the "ride lots", some only trained by racing lots, while some subscribed to the more precise training programs. De Vlaminck said his training goal was simply to ride more than anybody else, with 400km long training rides.

Absolutely agree. I don't know how anyone can believe it is rational to argue that training was the "same" in Coppi's time as today. Up until the past 20 years or so, sports science barely existed - and what did exist did not have universal following. When Coppi said "this is the best method", you would have somebody else, also a big name, saying, "THIS, over HERE, is the best method". So, it was who you chose to believe, and partisan. A good example is intervals. They started to get attention in the 70's, resulting from the Finn "fartlek" in X-country skiing, compared to the Swedes' LSD training regime. I tell you this from memory, so if somebody comes up with a little more accurate reprise, no skin off my nose. But I don't remember seeing intervals in cycle training until the 80's. Today, with the internet and the advancements in sports science knowledge base, things are a lot different.

 

[hiero2]

You are joining a few things together here that didn't really go together at the time.
At the time, there were 13-26 freewheels. The deal was that the shifting on such a wide block at the time was not great compared to a 13-24. Campag was the gold-medal standard in bike transmissions and Campag shifting wasn't very good at all. Trying to use a 26 only made matters worse.

Shifting just wasn't very good, so wide range gears were pretty much a non-starter in racing.


Again, two things happened simultaneously.
1. Shimano figured out index shifting.
2. Shimano's rear mech meaningfully improved shifting under all conditions.

Shortly after Shimano's solution, there were other index shifting solutions but none as good as Shimano's because Shimano figured out a better rear mech.



Because the Pro Peloton was still riding French and Italian transmissions. Meanwhile Shimano was innovating, not a big player at all in Pro bicycle stuff and stuck on the low-end of bike culture/industry. Index shifting and the mountain bike group changed that. Sometime after, they had the budget to spend on outfitting a Pro Team.

I haven't seen that movie since VHS days, but I recall it being well done and felt like the movie itself held up pretty well over time. Well told story, good editing, etc.

You are saying the same I did, although you are doing perhaps a better job of saying it. And I agree that you left out SunTour. As I recall, they actually did most of the innovation Shimano later built on. But, for our purposes here, a brief history, it doesn't really matter.

While Campy was the "gold standard", my personal fav was the "Crane", for a long-cage rear shift. And, yeah, in comparison to transmissions today, they were pretty clunky. All that extra gearing weighed more too, in an era when riders argued about saving weight measured in grams!

 

[Echoes]

I was paraphrasing, here's a quote explaining why he put in such huge mileage:

“It was important for me to know that I was doing more than the others.”

That quote is correct and not the same as what you said the other day.

I've already said on this forum that De Vlaeminck trained on intervals. There's a detailed description of his training programmes (for cyclocross) in the book "De Flandriens van het Veld". Intervals, Endurance, Fitness/Gym, running. "Intensive and diversified programme", said Wuyts.

The biggest doping change was EPO/Blood, (in the 90's-00)

Agreed. Finally !

The Tour is the only thing that matters for casual cycling fans the world over. It's not a uniquely American thing.

Basically it's two different sports: the Tour de France (huge all over the world) and regular road cycling (less so).

This is the most disgusting display of elitist bull**** I've ever seen on this forum.

If that's what it is to be Dutch, I'd rather be where I am than where you are.

It's a shame that there are mods here that would stop me from insulting you.

A good example is intervals. They started to get attention in the 70's, resulting from the Finn "fartlek" in X-country skiing, compared to the Swedes' LSD training regime. I tell you this from memory, so if somebody comes up with a little more accurate reprise, no skin off my nose. But I don't remember seeing intervals in cycle training until the 80's.

What?? The fartlek vs LSD debate happened in the 30's !!! The Finns used fartlek in the 20's. Paavo Nurmi among others.

Intervals generalized in the mid sixties, as I already mentioned. I have plenty of books to confirm this. Besides the "Flandrien van het veld" mentioned above, the most interesting for me was the book by Mark Van Hamme about Jempi Monseré "Voor altijd 22" in which the late Doctor Derluyn described his partnership with Jempi since amateur years (after Jempi's shock death he collaborated with Maertens).

If thinks only changed in the eighties, why would Geminiani say in his "Mes 5 géants du cyclisme" that Hinault was not an innovator because there was nothing left to innovate (or something like that).

 

[El Pistolero]

Francesco Moser was already using blood doping in 1984. And EPO was most likely introduced in the late 80s.

 

[theyoungest]

This is the most disgusting display of elitist bull**** I've ever seen on this forum.

If that's what it is to be Dutch, I'd rather be where I am than where you are.

It's a shame that there are mods here that would stop me from insulting you.

The elitist is you. The masses don't know most of the races that you care about

You consistently confuse your own point of view with that of the less cycling-educated world, i.e. the majority of people. And curb your anger please, thanks.

 

[DirtyWorks]

great thread!

dont wanna start another so:
what you think? why the gaps between the first places, is so small/minor nowdays in former times gaps was massive or greater(talk about GTs)

Race Radios and the Eurosport feed in the car. End of discussion.