Re: Re:
GuyIncognito said:
If you make several different arguments, be sure I'm going to discuss them one by one.
It's popular precisely because it means people can't get away with one generic reply to one argument while ignoring others. In other words, it ensures what you just accused me of doing can't be done.
Quoting two sentences isn't making a point. This is some twitter-level attention span.
If you want people to not "get away with ignoring other [arguments]" you reply to the argument presented. Fragmenting posts into a bunch of tiny splinters is how you pretty much guarantee that you miss arguments. You've missed plenty as well, as I'm sure was your intent by splintering a few basic points into dozens of them.
GuyIncognito said:
I realize you said that at the end, and I quoted it.
But the rest of your post said the opposite. Each point you tried to make compared Dumoulin favorably to Indurain. Putting in a discardable line at the end saying "but I'm not saying it" doesn't change the fact that you said it
GuyIncognito said:
Now who's picking and choosing "soundbytes"? You took out my main point: that you picked one TT from each guy, the ones that you felt supported the conclusion you wanted, and you decided to compare them as if the rest of their respective careers didn't exist
Let's pay attention here, and stop trying to misrepresent yourself. This is what you said:
GuyIncognito said:
Winning TTs by minutes - Rominger aside since he was a freak of nature himself - crushing everyone on the first climbing stage to establish supremacy, almost never losing any time at all in climbs, never seeming to be pushing hard, that's not Dumoulin.
He won SOME TTs by minutes. But this is a point where you try to say it's not something Dumoulin does. While it's true in very specific examples, it also completely negates several key points:
1.) TT's were much longer in Indurain's day
2.) TT results nowadays are more clustered to begin with (you can see this by comparing the 25th percentile vs 75th percentile in the field), this is due in large part because of technology, power meters, and more advanced tools to ensure that riders are properly aerodynamic and power output is optimal throughout the course.
3.) Clinic Stuff
There are certain kinds of lies. Lies of commission (where you reject facts altogether), lies of influence (where you try to talk about things that look better in order to avoid suspicion), and lies of omission (where you leave off important facts or neglect to mention other factors).
Thus, trying to make a point as how Indurain is a better TT because he "won by minutes" is misleading and incomplete.
Katabatic said:
I'll say it again: feel free to open a topic in the clinic, not here.
It seems like you rather just disagree with the very basis of what clinic things do, in which case it's hardly worthwhile to start this discussion. If you would like to open the topic, feel free.
GuyIncognito said:
You still don't get it. I'm precisely pointing out that you picked the one TT from each guy that you wanted. I picked this one to show you how ridiculous it can get when cherry picking.
And I correctly identified how this is a roundabout and pointless means of argument. You would need to make a compiled list and talk about career averages.
Look, I enjoy talks about advanced statistics in sport. I'm well aware of how things can be misleading and you can't compare tiny samples. This is such an inane point that you can't seem to realize we're making the same one.
GuyIncognito said:
When did I make any of those claims? Any at all? I hardly have Indurain on a pedestal, if anything I think he's overrated. You're the one hyping Dumoulin, although I guess that's to be expected in this topic.
To suggest that Indurain and Dumoulin aren't even able to compared is putting Indurain on a pedestal. Their racing styles are very similar. Dumoulin isn't as good, of course, but it's not like Dumoulin is a terrible rider who has no business being compared either.
GuyIncognito said:
Several riders rode without a helmet that day and it had nothing to do with lack of progress. There was significant climbing that day - Indurain called it harder than the 1993 Giro Sestriere TT - and as is usual in such TTs there were discrepancies in what each rider though was faster. LeMond went without a helmet because he believed it was faster. Several others did.
I like how you just assume I was talking about a specific time trial. LeMond has gone helmet-less for a number of them. 91, 92, 86, just off the top of my head.
And yeah, it's still not an advantage even if there's significant climbing. I'm not really sure what your point is. It seems you were sidetracked by the point of one particular rider going without a helmet and completely ignored that the peloton, in general, have much better aerodynamics now in TT than in the 90s. Which is the larger point being made there.
I'm well aware of LeMond's advocacy of technological improvements.
GuyIncognito said:
1991: That wasn't the first day in the mountains, that was a medium mountain stage where the break of the day was allowed to stay away by minutes. Leblanc was a young rider not considered a danger, Mottet was already minutes down. The next day was the first day in the high mountains and both were shelled quickly. Indurain had a 3 minute lead by the end of it.
LeBlanc rolled into the yellow jersey on the back of this stage, so I would hardly consider him a rider that should have posed no danger. Mottet also surged ahead of Indurain too.
Also, almost every rider would be "minutes down" if the tour opened with 100 TT km's before the first mountain stage. That's entirely the point. Indurain had the freedom to follow only specific riders because he almost always went into the first mountain stage on the back of significant TT km's.
GuyIncognito said:
1993: Everyone was dropped except for Rominger who was 6 minutes down due to the events of the early flat stages. Indurain summarily dispatched anyone who was a GC threat to him
Mejia was in second at the time, and he stuck with Indurain across both the Alps stages.
You are, for the most part, correct here. After the ITTs and Alps stages, there was really no one left that could challenge Indurain.
GuyIncognito said:
1994: Indurain set the pace on the climb - again - and dropped everyone who was a contender. Leblanc was over 8 minutes down even before the stage so Indurain didn't care that Leblanc hung on.
By everybody, I assume you mean Rominger, because that was the only person that remotely had a chance in GC, with everyone else more than 5 minutes down after 130 (!) combined miles of TT. He didn't really drop Pantani by much in the end. Pantani really wasn't going for GC either.
GuyIncognito said:
1995: Zulle was in the break of the day because he'd lost minutes already and everyone was expecting him to abandon due to injuries. On the final climb Indurain took the front - as usual - and rode everyone off his wheel. He sliced Zulle's advantage from 6 to 2 minutes and none of the GC guys finished within 2 minutes of him despite starting the final climb with him
Zulle attacked on the first climb. It was hardly a case of the peloton letting him go. He was 4 minutes and change down, which is substantial but not completely out of contention.
Indurain did a great job of reeling him back in, for sure, but surrendering 2 minutes to the guy who would end up being the nearest step on the podium is not "smashing" them in my book. By this same logic, and using the same language, Dumoulin "smashed" everyone up the Blockhaus, dropping Zakarin, Pozzovivo, and Nibali while giving Mollema a tow up the mountain.
Pantani was largely stage hunting, and would dominate the next day up the Alpe d'Huez.
GuyIncognito said:
As shown above, not really, no. He didn't care about the ones who weren't GC threats, but he was never dropped by any where were threats other than Sestriere 1992 and of course his 11th place finish in 1996
To be quite fair, how many climbers would be GC threats after 100 km of TT?
Spot Dumoulin 5 minutes to Yates, Pozzovivo, Pinot, and then allow him to lose time to any one of them (because he didn't care about non-GC threats) on any given stage, and I'm sure you could go back and spin the same narrative about every time gap so far this Giro.
GuyIncognito said:
In this we agree. But it's like saying Andrea Guardini and Marcel Kittel have the same strategy. The level to which they can execute it differs
If Guardini road well in any grand tour and actually won a few stages in one of them (about the equivalent for a sprinter), sure, we could make the comparison based on similar styles. It wouldn't be silly.
It's silly because Guardini has never won against elite competition on the big stage.
GuyIncognito said:
I didn't ignore it. You ignored my points:
- Dumoulin isn't in the same quality as Indurain
Correct, but close enough that a comparison should not be egregious.
They're both GT winners who have the same gameplan in order to win. That in and of itself is a point of comparison. No one said Dumoulin is as good as Indurain, just that certain stats compare reasonably well.
In general, GT racing has changed so much that Dumoulin will never be as accomplished as Indurain. That said, if the Tour goes back to 2 stages in the high moutains with 200 ITT kms, are you going to bet against him?
GuyIncognito said:
GuyIncognito said:
- I never compared their palmares, I compared Dumoulin and Olano's palmares.
Fair enough. I don't like this comparison because 1.) Olano and Indurain are comparable riders. Olano is Indurain light. and 2.) Olano and Dumoulin have already won the same amount of stages in the Tour, and that includes Dumoulin not having done it since 2016.
GuyIncognito said:
I eagerly await another round of you putting words in my mouth
Passive aggressive to end the post, I almost admire your style.