Tour de France 2011 Stage 7: Le Mans - Châteauroux 218 km

[patrick767]

"Quoting" something someone never said is extremely lame. If you don't agree with someone, fine. But don't be a weasel.

Eh, fair enough. I didn't feel like quoting the lengthy post, but should have put the "paraphrase" as my own text. I will edit the post.

I did make it clear with my first line that he didn't say those words. I disagreed with him. He responded to me with little more than personal attacks. That's not having "a disagreement". It's pathetic. It matters not though. He's on ignore.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Eh, I didn't feel like quoting the lengthy post. I made it clear with my first line that he didn't say those words. Someone responding to me with little more than personal attacks is not "a disagreement". It's pathetic. It matters not though. He's on ignore.

If it's not what he said, why did you use the "quote" function? Or do you not know what a quote means?

Falsely quoting people is pathetic. If you had any common sense, you'd edit your previous post.

 

[Galic Ho]

Leopard-Trek never miss an opportunity to show what absolute muppets they are.

By the way, Sherwen and Liggett had absolutely ZERO clue today, again. Vino gets back in the front group, they comment on it, and then, 10 minutes later..."This is the second group on the road, the group of Vinokourov..."

Seriously, are these guys drunk?

Yes. Phil was good today. I noticed what you said as well. Vino is catching up to the second group, yet I see the race comissars car behind them indicating it was the front peloton. I can also see HTC at the front of it. I swear Paul is ruining any good will Leopard Trek have. He said they were at the front pulling just after Wigans crash. I look at the feed Paul was describing with the wind causing a break amongst the back few riders. It wasn't the lead peloton, it was the chase group with Sky, not Leopard at the front. He's supposed to be on Andy's corner against the evil Spaniard and he still goofs up! If only he knew!

So many stuff ups each day from Paul. Yesterday he was saying Movistar had moved to the front with their "Green helmets." Nope, Liquigas moving Basso up. Then Phil spotted a "buzzard" circling a chateau today. Dirt on the screen he was watching, not a bird.

I know there is a Liggetisms thread, but perhaps there needs to be a Sherwin moments thread as well? I've honestly counted 15-20 rippers the last three days from Paul. How could I forget misnaming Uran the other day? That was one of the best so far.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Thank you. Now let's get back talking about how Tommy Voeckler will smash tomorrow.

 

[Mambo95]

How else to name the greatest sprinter ever? What yardstick do you suggest?

The original poster, who you prompt abused, asked (not said) if he was the 'best' not 'greatest'. There's a subtle difference - best is at their peak, greatest is more of a career thing.

Incidently, the excellent Inner Ring blog had asked the same question, and he's very knowledgeable (although he said greatest): http://inrng.com/2011/07/cavendish-the-greatest-sprinter-of-all-time/

This example is flawed as you omit the holy grail: the world record. That's why you could very well pick Bolt.

The example isn't flawed as the WR is an indication of the fastest at their best, not a reflection of their career acheivements. Yet your argument was the opposite, based purely on career achievements, with no regard to who is actually the fastest.

Cavendish is already the most successful bunch sprinter in Tour history (Darrigade won most of his stages from small groups), it's conceivable he may pass Merckx's 34.
When it comes to Cipo or Petacchi's GT scores he has the disadvantage of not being Italian and getting the course tailored to him (eg there were 12 sprint stages in the 2004 Giro), but he's got a shot.

Your arguements aren't without merit, but when you react to a very reasonable question by calling people stupid fanboys who nothing about the history of cycling, then you're not going to come out of it looking good.

 

[Mambo95]

James Cleveland Owens.

Nice choice, but that's kind of like comparing Contador to Binda.

 

[pedaling squares]

To the mods, consider this an official complaint.

Then hit the 'report post' button and make it official. They don't read all the posts in all the threads.

Just trying to be helpful, please don't go all 12 yr old boy's video game character on me.

 

[Carols]

How did Phil and Paul respond to Radioshack's problems today? Was it "bad strategy", "poor form", or just bad luck? I'd be interested because AC's issues have all been the first two--from Phil and Paul's perspective.

Well it was 'bad luck' of course..same for Wiggans..only non-white non English speaking people are in the wrong place or have poor form!

 

[Franklin]

The original poster, who you prompt abused, asked (not said) if he was the 'best' not 'greatest'. There's a subtle difference - best is at their peak, greatest is more of a career thing.

EVER.

So a darrigade getting eight stages, or Cipolini winning 9 GT stages, a points jersey, MSR and WC are being surpassed already?

Incidently, the excellent Inner Ring blog had asked the same question, and he's very knowledgeable (although he said greatest): http://inrng.com/2011/07/cavendish-the-greatest-sprinter-of-all-time/

Who then goes on about TdF stages as a yardstick *shrug*. His article is clearly inaptly named.

The example isn't flawed as the WR is an indication of the fastest at their best, not a reflection of their career acheivements. Yet your argument was the opposite, based purely on career achievements, with no regard to who is actually the fastest.

It certainly isn't so clear cut:

In Usains case it's all of it. He won all great prices and is the fastest man ever. A case certainly can be made for him.

However Cavendish hasn't broken a record yet.

But now I'll add some more arguments: If we are not looking at palmares, allow me to add the competition in the mix.

How many great sprinters at their prime are there nowadays?

Greipel?
Farrar?

Now compare that with those Mario had to deal with.

Zabel, Mc Ewen, Pettachi

You will agree comparing this is extremely tricky... hence we resort to; palmares.

Your arguements aren't without merit, but when you react to a very reasonable question by calling people stupid fanboys who nothing about the history of cycling, then you're not going to come out of it looking good.

It is stupid because it is without regards of cycling history and certainly has all the ingredients of a fanboy reaction.

Since when is a facepalm reaction so bad? Since when is pointing out the facts so abusive?

I might not come out looking good for those who don't regard facts as important... *shrug*.

 

[Andy99]

If Cav didn't realize there was a crash, it's possible Leaopard didn't realize that Wiggo was hurt when they supposedly "hammered."

I think it is entirely probable. Trek become more irritating by the day.

 

[LaFleur]

Any good highlights for the day? (Went out for the last 70kms or so) The only ones that I could find are the one of the last few kms.

 

[Alberto Attack]

Ahhh so gutted wiggans crashed out, i was really looking forward to see what he could do, he looked in great form, Dammit.

 

[Mambo95]

It is stupid because it is without regards of cycling history and certainly has all the ingredients of a fanboy reaction.

Since when is a facepalm reaction so bad? Since when is pointing out the facts so abusive?

I might not come out looking good for those who don't regard facts as important... *shrug*.

I won't argue about who's best or greatest, because there are valid cases on both sides, we'll judge them when they're all retired. But you could see that.

Pointing out facts isn't abusive. Abusive is a little strong I'll admit, let's say disrespectful (ironically a term Cav's critics use a lot, while being far more disrespectful themselves) .

The following are disrespectful:

"Just having to shake my head at the fanboys"
"Why check out cyclings history when you can idiotic remarks? "

Why not try and debate the subject like an adult, rather than with your reactionary nonsense.

If the Inner Ring blog (possibly the most highly regarded English language Pro
Cycling blog) is asking the question, then it's valid question.

 

[LaFleur]

Just read Taaramäe's blog and he said that after the first crash (I think), he had to go past it on the grass in high speed and got in right behind an Euskaltel guy). He wrote that he instantly reflexes on his head that, f**k, these guys really suck in bike handling. The Euskaltel guy fell on the grass instantly

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Today was just an awful day. I was quite looking forward to seeing what Wiggins and Horner could do.

By the way, a big FU to Wilifred Peeters, Quickstep's DS. Should have pulled Boonen earlier if he cared about his rider's safety. Moron.

 

[Caledon]

I can't even describe how much I hate listening to Cavendish talk.

Turn the sound down or learn to live with it, because Cav is going to keep on winning.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Seemingly off topic, looking at the past 30 pages of posts, but were HTC utterly incredible today or what?

Now that is a sprint train. From about 20km out. Stunning.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

So a darrigade getting eight stages, or Cipolini winning 9 GT stages, a points jersey, MSR and WC are being surpassed already?

What's so importantant about whether you win 9 sprint stages as opposed to 6? Both show you are the utterly dominant sprinter in the race and if there are only 7 sprinter friendly stages then no-ones going to win more than 7 of them.

Who then goes on about TdF stages as a yardstick *shrug*. His article is clearly inaptly named.

You may shrug but what else is a better yardstick than dominance in by far the most important stage race in the sport?

It certainly isn't so clear cut:

In Usains case it's all of it. He won all great prices and is the fastest man ever. A case certainly can be made for him.

However Cavendish hasn't broken a record yet.

But now I'll add some more arguments: If we are not looking at palmares, allow me to add the competition in the mix.

How many great sprinters at their prime are there nowadays?

Greipel?
Farrar?

Now compare that with those Mario had to deal with.

Zabel, Mc Ewen, Pettachi

You will agree comparing this is extremely tricky... hence we resort to; palmares.

You beat what's there. No-one looks great currently because they're completely in Cavendish's shadow.

It is stupid because it is without regards of cycling history and certainly has all the ingredients of a fanboy reaction.

Since when is a facepalm reaction so bad? Since when is pointing out the facts so abusive?

I might not come out looking good for those who don't regard facts as important... *shrug*.

You shrug again but Cipollini won his TdF stages over a number of years in dribs and drabs apart from the year he got 4 - which included 2 by a wheel and a dodgy disqualification.

No-one has dominated the most important race in the worlsd by a huge margin so much, so consistently as Cavendish EVER. And that is a fact. A historical fact. A surprising fact as you would have thought someone else must have been this dominant. But there isn't anyone.

 

[zapata]

Just read Taaramäe's blog and he said that after the first crash (I think), he had to go past it on the grass in high speed and got in right behind an Euskaltel guy). He wrote that he instantly reflexes on his head that, f**k, these guys really suck in bike handling. The Euskaltel guy fell on the grass instantly

I wonder where the idea came from that euskaltels fall over more often than others? It might be true, I haven't been keeping an exact count, but my impression in general, and certainly in this tour, is not that the basques are crashing more often than others. Quite on the contrary, actually.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Cav still has some way to go to match the 2 great Italians, in terms of palmares, and therefore, all time status. In terms of sheer speed, acceleration and dominance though, his 2 Champs Elysees wins and his Bordeaux win last year were a new high in sprinting.

 

[2wheels]

If he’d spent more time riding in Europe this year and not hiding away in the US he might have learnt some better bike handling techniques to ride in such large peloton. Schoolboy error. Training is never a substitute for good racing.

Please. Total bs, unless you were in the peloton at the time and saw his crash in slo-mo-- which I doubt. Just a cheap shot; we know you can do better than this.

 

[H2OUUP2]

Well it was 'bad luck' of course..same for Wiggans..only non-white non English speaking people are in the wrong place or have poor form!

I know Phil, Paul, and Bob are bad, but that's a little far.

 

[luckyboy]

How many great sprinters at their prime are there nowadays?

Greipel?
Farrar?

Now compare that with those Mario had to deal with.

Zabel, Mc Ewen, Pettachi

That's stretching it a bit. Petacchi's was in his prime in 2003-2005 aged 28-30. Cipollini was 36 in 2003 and riding his final Giro.

The only GT's they competed against each other at were Giro 2002, a few stages of the 2002 Vuelta, and 12 stages of the Giro 2003.

Cipollini was fading just as Petacchi was coming to the peak of his powers.


Anyway, Petacchi only started winning big at the age Cavendish is now. He will turn out to be the weak link of these three sprinters once Cav is nearing the end of his career.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well it was 'bad luck' of course..same for Wiggans..only non-white non English speaking people are in the wrong place or have poor form!

You do know that Alberto Contador is white, right?

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

EVER.

So a darrigade getting eight stages, or Cipolini winning 9 GT stages, a points jersey, MSR and WC are being surpassed already?



Who then goes on about TdF stages as a yardstick *shrug*. His article is clearly inaptly named.




It certainly isn't so clear cut:

In Usains case it's all of it. He won all great prices and is the fastest man ever. A case certainly can be made for him.

However Cavendish hasn't broken a record yet.

But now I'll add some more arguments: If we are not looking at palmares, allow me to add the competition in the mix.

How many great sprinters at their prime are there nowadays?

Greipel?
Farrar?

Now compare that with those Mario had to deal with.

Zabel, Mc Ewen, Pettachi

You will agree comparing this is extremely tricky... hence we resort to; palmares.



It is stupid because it is without regards of cycling history and certainly has all the ingredients of a fanboy reaction.

Since when is a facepalm reaction so bad? Since when is pointing out the facts so abusive?

I might not come out looking good for those who don't regard facts as important... *shrug*.

Yup, it's a cooincidence that all Cav's contemporaries will be considered pretty lowly by history, whilst in previous eras there has been visible competition.

Absolutely no causal connection at all...