Could Lance break the "athlete's hour" record?
View Full Version : Could Lance break the "athlete's hour" record?
What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all time.
It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record (49.441
km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of who´s the
greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
karhu <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns93C0E70A8400nospamhotmailcom@
195.54.106.227:
> What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all time.
> It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record
> (49.441 km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
> who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
Hardly.
When Lance:
196) wins all three jerseys at the TDF
197) wins a bunch of classics
198) wins like 50% of the races he enters
199) races from January to October
200) holds the hour record
Then he will be the greatest of all time.
- Boyd S. holding breath
Is that REALLY the test? How much climbing is involved in the one-hour record?
karhu wrote:
>What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all time.
>It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record
>(49.441 km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
>who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations, comparisons cannot be made
with any degree of accuracy. Different era, different caliber riders. For instance, Merckx, won all
those races against riders that were also doing all those races and were probably just as tired as
he, and also, the talent pool is much larger and stronger these days. You can argue, who was most
dominant in their era, which is still meaningless. The only thing we can say for sure, is that they
are the best of their time.
>What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all time.
>It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record
>(49.441 km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
>who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
>
>
>
>
"karhu" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns93C0E70A8400nospamhotmailcom@195.54.106.227...
> What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all time.
> It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record
> (49.441 km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx).
10 m is 10 m...so it would be like going one-on-one with Boardman.
> If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and
> for all.
If Boardman had raced under the new rules with the form he had in setting his ultimate record, the
distance would be out around 51.5-52 km...
Andy Coggan
karhu wrote:
> What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all time.
> It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record
> (49.441 km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
> who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
As Jan Ulrich took 90 s off him in the recent TT in the TdF I think you should be talking about Jan
not Lance.
Jbenkert111 wrote:
> Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations, comparisons cannot be
> made with any degree of accuracy.
True, still...
> Different era, different caliber riders. For instance, Merckx, won all those races against riders
> that were also doing all those races and were probably just as tired as he, and also, the talent
> pool is much larger and stronger these days.
You think?
> You can argue, who was most dominant in their era, which is still meaningless. The only thing we
> can say for sure, is that they are the best of their time.
I'll bet if you asked Lance, he'd have no trouble saying Merckx was the greatest. This business
of Merckx not having any worthy competition is the old canard that hounded him all his career,
and all the years after. Gimondi, Aldig, de Vlaeminck, Pollentier, van Looy, Anquetil--yeah,
some of these guys were past their prime, some not. I still think he was given a bum rap. He is
the greatest because he HAD to win every single race he entered.
Steve
>
>
> >What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all
> >time. It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the
> >record (49.441 km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the
> >issue of who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://www.dentaltwins.com (http://www.dentaltwins.com/)
"Boyd Speerschneider" <bspeerscNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93C0AD10C5D26bspeerscNOSPAM@65.32.1.6...
> karhu <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xns93C0E70A8400nospamhotmailcom@
> 195.54.106.227:
>
> > What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all
> > time. It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the
> > record (49.441 km), but that
is
> > just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue
of
> > who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
>
> Hardly.
>
> When Lance:
>
> 1) wins all three jerseys at the TDF
> 2) wins a bunch of classics
> 3) wins like 50% of the races he enters
33% over a 5 year period. An amazing feat.
"karhu" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns93C0E70A8400nospamhotmailcom@195.54.106.227...
> What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all time.
> It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record
> (49.441 km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
> who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
The "greatest" racer is not the "fastest" racer. There are so many different aspects to road
racing you could never comparatively quantify who is the greatest. If you chose one dimension such
as speed, then what about time. Who decides that the greatest is one who can travel the most
distance over an hour. What about ultra endurance athletes that travel 3000 miles in 9 days, what
about sprinters and track athletes that hit speeds close to 50 mph? The Tour throws out endurance,
individual speed, hill climbing, team speed and tactics and individual rivalries in ways that
can't be quantified. If you're going to be number oriented you miss out on the amazing phenomena
that the Tour is.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:28:47 -0400, Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <bornfeld@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jbenkert111 wrote:
>
>> Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations, comparisons cannot be
>> made with any degree of accuracy.
>
> True, still...
>
>> Different era, different caliber riders. For instance, Merckx, won all those races against
>> riders that were also doing all those races and were probably just as tired as he, and also, the
>> talent pool is much larger and stronger these days.
>
> You think?
Factual evidence. It has become a professional sport, with all the consequences. Or do you believe
that any of the, say, mid-50s basketball teams would have have even a *slight* chance of losing with
less than 20 points to the Spurs, Kings, Lakers, Nets, Mavs? Or, to put it bluntly, the Lakers of
the 40s would go out with a 2-80 record out of the regular season, if two opponents wouldn't show
up. Too slow, too small ...
Gerrit
Gerrit Stolte <stoltegerrit@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:28:47 -0400, Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <bornfeld@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Jbenkert111 wrote:
>>
>>> Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations, comparisons cannot be
>>> made with any degree of accuracy.
>>
>> True, still...
>>
>>> Different era, different caliber riders. For instance, Merckx, won all those races against
>>> riders that were also doing all those races and were probably just as tired as he, and also,
>>> the talent pool is much larger and stronger these days.
>>
>> You think?
>
>Factual evidence. It has become a professional sport, with all the consequences.
In Europe cycling has always been a professinal sport, that in the past was even bigger than it is
now. In the 50s cycling used to attract the kind of crowds that only soccer attracts now. People
like Coppi, Bobet, Van Steenbergen, Kubler were by far the most popular sportsmen of their own
countries. In some aspects - ie the capacity of building hugely acclaimed legends - cycling is less
professional than it once was.
> What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the
>> greatest rider of all time. It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that
>> Boardman holds the record (49.441 km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance
>> could do 50+ then the issue of who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
>
>Hardly.
>
>When Lance:
>
>1) wins all three jerseys at the TDF
>2) wins a bunch of classics
>3) wins like 50% of the races he enters
>4) races from January to October
>3) holds the hour record
and gets tested positive a few times and fails to win the 2 last TdF races he participates in.
>
>Then he will be the greatest of all time.
> What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the greatest rider of all time.
> It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record
> (49.441 km), but that is just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
> who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
stupid posting i've ever read.
> For instance, Merckx, won all those races against riders that were also doing all those races and
> were probably just as
tired as
> he, and also, the talent pool is much larger and stronger these days. You
can
> argue, who was most dominant in their era, which is still meaningless.
The
> only thing we can say for sure, is that they are the best of their time.
>
Merckx won a record of 33 BIG Classics riding against other cyclists who dedicated only for the
Classics and not "as tired as Merckx", and equaled the records in the Giro and Tour (with 5 wins
in both) against very hard opposition from stage race specialists, often with coalition of riders
that worked to see his defeat. He also won the Vuelta in 1973, and 3 times the World Championship.
His list of professional road wins is incredibly wide (525 to be more exact). But he also
contested the Six day races in the winter against the greatest track specialists of the time,
winning them as well.
When he was fighting for his sixth Tour and wearing the maillot jaune, he has been hitten in the
stomach by a French fanatic and fell while climbing the Puy-de-Dome, requiring some medication that
affected his performance in the following stages, allowing French climber Bernard Thevenet to win
the Tour by 2'47". He also had a crash with one week to go and BROKE his jawbone, taking only
liquids or mashed food with great pain during the last week of the race. Everybody told him to quit,
but he said he was going to continue to give Thevenet the satisfaction to see him in the second
place of the podium. Take only this sample (there are many more) to learn why Eddy Merckx was the
greatest rider of all time.
Gerrit Stolte wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:28:47 -0400, Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <bornfeld@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Jbenkert111 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations, comparisons cannot be
>>>made with any degree of accuracy.
>>
>> True, still...
>>
>>
>>> Different era, different caliber riders. For instance, Merckx, won all those races against
>>> riders that were also doing all those races and were probably just as tired as he, and also, the
>>> talent pool is much larger and stronger these days.
>>
>> You think?
>
>
> Factual evidence. It has become a professional sport, with all the consequences. Or do you believe
> that any of the, say, mid-50s basketball teams would have have even a *slight* chance of losing
> with less than 20 points to the Spurs, Kings, Lakers, Nets, Mavs? Or, to put it bluntly, the
> Lakers of the 40s would go out with a 2-80 record out of the regular season, if two opponents
> wouldn't show up. Too slow, too small ...
>
> Gerrit
Why were they small and slow? Do you think it's training, drugs, evolution? Or maybe that
some of the best athletes were systematically prevented from playing the pro game? I agree
with Davide. While there is some truth to what you say, that cycling has become more
international, most of the improvement in (for instance) average speed in pro races has far
more to do with improved roads, riding conditions and equipment than it has to do with gene
pool dynamics.
Steve
In article <3F1DF79A.5030402@earthlink.net>, Steven Bornfeld <marstev2@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I agree with Davide. While there is some truth to what you say, that cycling has become more
> international, most of the improvement in (for instance) average speed in pro races has far more
> to do with improved roads, riding conditions and equipment than it has to do with gene pool
> dynamics.
No credit for better training methods?
-WG
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
