Armstrong's advance retirement notice: why?

Colorado Ryder

Here is my actual and complete post. So that it won't be taken out of context.

"1999-2005 TDF palmares blow away any comparisions to Merckx and Hinault.
Merckx will always be considered the greatest overall cyclist. Armstrong will be the greatest TDF cyclist."

It is obvious I was referring to the TDF. I still maintain Armstrong was a better TDF rider. So sorry no contradiction there.

And referring to the tarnishing comment....apparently sarcasm goes right over your head.

limerickman

More of a Sean kelly fan actually.
More of an Indurain fan too and Jalbert for that matter.

Merckx commands my respect - his achievements are awesome.
But kelly, Jalabert and Indurain : they're my favourites.

wolfix

Of course using this argument of percentages if we applied the same logic to countries, the USA is the superior cycling country when it comes to the TDF. Add in Lemonds & Armstrongs starts, add in Hampstens & company..... And the few others in the past 20 years and you will come up with the highest winning percentage & podium placement . If Armstrong wins this year , the USA has won 50% of the TDF's in the past 20 years......
Of course I do not believe this ..... Again , the comparision to Armstrong and Merckx is impossible...... I am a fan of Merckx.... But ..Think of this....But, Armstrong has never been convicted of drug use and Merckx was a known cheater. Merckx never had to cycle against Americans, and if we apply the logic in the previous percentage post, he may never have won a Tour if he had.The percentages prove Americans simply are better at the TDF. Merckx had a smaller pool of talent to compete against. There were no Soviets or Americans in Merckx's day......

Warning ....Warning ....... Do not stand next to me ...... I just have spoken badly of my cycling God and I know lightening is going to strike me down..... Does my logic in this thread kind of remind everyone of the logic posted in Flyer's threads ????? You know , kind of implying facts then not following thru ??????

limerickman

1999-2005 is apples and pears.
(leave out the 1993-1996 apple. or should that be orange ? What the heck)

No contradiction ? Au contraire, mon ami.
Your words betray ya : see message 56 and message 18.

Sarcasm ? Hmmmmmm.
That's a convenient excuse.

wolfix

rejobako

Compared to Flyer, that logic is freaking Aristotelian. In the meantime, would you mind standing over there?

Crankster

Read again. Comparison is NOT based solely on TDF. Based on TDF as the most competitive tour of the three GT's, Lance wins 6 to 5, maybe even 7 to 5, obviously. I give Eddy #1 ranking for two years when he won Giro but failed to win the Tour. Which I think is arguable. Even though if LA lost this year's Tour but came back to vin Vuelta, I doubt many people would still consider him the best Tour rider of the year, regardless of reasons.

No ambiguous handicapping for days in yellow, multiple jerseys, days spent sick, or number of girlfriends, pets and children.

Very simple criteria:
The best rider of the year is the best rider of the year, is the best rider of the year, is the best rider of the year - PERIOD. Doesn't matter if they win by an hour or a minute - the best rider ranking is what counts.

Merckx doesn't get more than 7. Lance definitely has 6, will likely to get 7.


As to "the best TDF rider" ever - Lance obviously wins, since winning the Tour is the goal, not wearing yellow for most days, or winning in a long solo breakaway, or not entering Tour when not ready - no points for style, winning is what counts, and that's where LA leads Merckx.

Otherwise one could argue that my son's soccer team which won only 5 games but lost 7 against your son's team, is actually a better team, because even though we didn't win as much, we have played a more attacking style of soccer, spent more time on your half of the field and took advantage of penalty shots better. And if you only count the games we "tried" to win, the score is more like 5-2, or maybe 5-3, really.

A win is a win is a win is a win is a win is a win is a win. Very hard to argue with this statement!

wolfix

Screw Armstrong, Vino, and the others..... Writing that post wore me out more then the stage wore them out ...... I need a Guiness....

rejobako

A valiant argument, but you presume that the quality of the criteria are equal. The goal of a TdF GC contender is to be on top of the GC podium in Paris. All achievements such as yellow jerseys and stage wins on the way there are mere building blocks to the ultimate goal. Under your logic, it would be fair to suggest that a rider could win 200 stages, wear the jersey for 500 days, yet never win the GC and be considered a greater TdF cyclist than a 10-time winner.

In fairness, I'll grant you that I think one can make a cogent argument that Eddy is the greater TdF cyclist based upon a conglomeration of all of these criteria. My dispute with you is that you have stated (although you seem to have backed off in recent posts) that Armstrong's dominance of the event for six consecutive years doesn't merit the same claim. Fact is, no one's ever won the event that many times. The only way to put other cyclists on the same level is to use smaller building blocks like stage wins and days in yellow. A pile of those blocks just doesn't have the same power as six huge monuments placed side by side.

Not in my opinion, anyway.

Colorado Ryder

Excuse is when you start referring to how many yellow jerseys and how many stages were won instead of how many TDF's were won.
We can include 1993-1996. Armstrong has still won 6 consecutive, maybe 7, TDF's. How many did Merckx win consecutively? How did Merckx do in his last TDF? When he was only a spry 31? Armstrong at 34 is winning his last.

Sarcasm. It did go over your head.

rejobako

You realize, of course, that asking someone to prove a negative is the most egregiously amateur and sloppy debate tactic. I never said athletes do not dope. As the person who avers that "everyone is doping", it is up to you to prove it. Saying it, with or without appending one of your incoherent rants, does not make it so.

limerickman

Not based only on the TDF : just based on the TDF being the most competitive race of the year.

Apart from the inherent contradiction of your statement : what makes the TDF the most competitve tour in a given year ?
How does one measure the relative competitiveness of a tour compared to another national grand tour ?




No indeed not : the inherent flaw in the Crankster Comparison is sufficient as it is - without throwing in the other variables like days in Yellow, number of stage wins etc.




A very simple Crankster Criteria : one that assumes that the TDF is the measure of the best rider in a given year.
Why not make it a measure of World Champion in a given year ?
Or some other unrepresentative criteria you care to choose, Crankster.

The best rider of the year : that's a good one.



So he didn't manage the goal in 1993 or 1994 or 1995 or 1996.
.
But you disregard this failure to reach the goal and instead only include when he did reach the goal of winning the TDF, in the, ahem, best rider of the year, in the Crankster Criteria for why LA is the greatestest rider of all time.

Is that an apple or a orange, Monsieur ?

Why not include each riders entire TDF record and compare same ?



But no winning it - failing to reach the goal doesn't count.

Right.



and that's exactly what you're doing in your Crankster Criteria Greatest Bike Rider Ever Apples and Oranges comparison.



Yep.
A win is a win.
You start the race to win.

5 wins out of 6 is better than 6 wins out of 10 (or maybe 7 wins out of 11).