FlyingPortagee said:So wait a minute before a laugh my *** off. Your saying it matters less if you have a full team in the mountains, but more if the mountain domestiques are there, what about the Time Trial domestiques for a final TT. What is the difference? Thats right, no difference!
FlyingPortagee said:Sorry dude, but a major advantage of having good climbers on your team is to pace you up to the front!!
mr. tibbs said:Let's move the TTT back further than the third week. Let's make it a post-Tour event, like the criterium circuit. That way, it'll finally have the impact on the Tour results that it deserves.
FlyingPortagee said:Sorry dude, but a major advantage of having good climbers on your team is to pace you up to the front!!
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:are you serioulsy that stupid?
if you don't think numbers are important in a TTT you are seriously deluded.
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:dude i said provide support and isolate others.
Support obviously includes pacing.
you seriously can't read pal.
now rather then niotpick on that, how about an actual reply to my point, which I assume you are unable to provide due to ignorance.
you simpy don't understand that a TTT in the final week would skew results to one teams favor way too much. It would not be interesting, but rather unfair. A TTT in the opening week at least allows team to have a some what fair playing ground.
I expect a "it's the same on the mountains" blah blah reply, but if you are unable to see the difference that is your issue.
FlyingPortagee said:Maybe you should learn how to spell SERIOUSLY before you call someone stupid? Are you Stupid?
LOL, your argument is calling me stupidTimmy-loves-Rabo said:oh no I did a type, I forgot this was a grammar forum.
Second reply from you which has been an argument with no relevance.
Please if you are going to argue, at least argue the points made, not grammar and vocab.
FlyingPortagee said:Why would it be terriblel and unfair? Because you said so?
actually I explained in detail why IMO TTT in a 3rd week would be bad, and my thoughts on the comparison between mountain domestiques and such.FlyingPortagee said:LOL, your argument is calling me stupid
Timmy-loves-Rabo said:actually I explained in detail why IMO TTT in a 3rd week would be bad, and my thoughts on the comparison between mountain domestiques and such.
your complete ignorance allowed me to call you delusional, but my post was still on topic. Unlike your fantastic contributions
anyway out of repsect to the moderators and other posters, I will only reply to a relevant post in this thread after this.
the vagabond said:Flying Portagee would make an excellent defense lawyer in America for cases such as the O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony trials. You continually attack all relevant evidence against your case with "but, but, but" and then by being so aggressive and obnoxious, you invite more and more evidence against you until finally somebody comes up with something that is actually slightly refutable and then you use this as evidence that the entire case against you is invalid.
Anybody who thinks a TTT at the end of the Tour makes sense is a blithering idiot who either doesn't understand or doesn't appreciate bike racing.
Barrus said:Lets count the ways in which this is a stupid idea:
1 teams might consist of less than 5 riders in the final week of the tour, this is not a totally imaginary scenario, which would mean that these teams need to withdraw from the tour altogether, or at least give up any ambition for the GC
2 It creates an unfair situation in which certain teams have a significant advantage over other teams solely based on the amount of riders they still have, an advantage that is not present in this extent in a regular stage.
3 Due to these and other factors, including recovery, it would have a significantly greater impact on the final GC, something which in a contest for a title for an individual is not advisable
Anyone who can add more ways, because I am sure there are other ways in which it is stupid as well
FlyingPortagee said:If you can point out the differences about having "an advantage that is not present in this extent in a regular state." I might agree with you. What exactly is the difference?