Trivia question  

Re: Trivia question

"Andy Mai" <mai@meeker.ucar.edu> wrote in message news:bmi965$etc$1@meeker.ucar.edu...
> From the Letterman interview I got the somewhat surprising (to me) fact
that
> Lance will turn 33 years old before next July. I have heard it said that
no
> one has won the Tour de France beyond age 32 for a long time. I got
curious
> and wondered how long.
>
> After digging around, I found out that Joop Zoetemelk won at the age of 33 in 1980 (he was born 3
> December 1946). Of course he was something of an anomaly. He also won the World Championship Road
> Race at age 39.
>
> Does anyone have a complete list of post-age-32 winners? I'd like to get a feel for how difficult
> this is and thus size up Lance's chances.

Lambot 36 Pélissier 34 Bartali 34 Lambot 33 Scieur 33 Buysse 33 Zoetemelk 33

By the way, Zoetemelk was not yet 39 when he won the World Championship.

Benjo Maso

Re: Trivia question

"Andy Mai" <mai@meeker.ucar.edu> wrote in message news:bmjeep$o36$1@meeker.ucar.edu...
> In article <bmibl0$ngikt$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de>, benjo maso <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote:
> >
> >"Andy Mai" <mai@meeker.ucar.edu> wrote:
> >> Does anyone have a complete list of post-age-32 winners? I'd like to
get a
> >> feel for how difficult this is and thus size up Lance's chances.
> >
> > Tour winners past the age of 32
> >
> > Year Surname Age ---- --------- --- 1919 Lambot 33 1921 Scieur 33 1922 Lambot 36 1923
> > Pélissier 34 1926 Buysse 33 1948 Bartali 34 1980 Zoetemelk 33
> >
> > By the way, Zoetemelk was not yet 39 when he won the World Championship.
>
> Right, he was 38, a few weeks away from his 39th birthday.
>
> Much thanks, Benjo, for the above list. It contains some food for
thought.
> If we throw out the anomaly Zoetemelk, you have to go back to 1948 for the last post-age-32
> winner, Gino Bartali. All the others are from a by-gone
era.
> Thus, based simply on the record, the odds are stacked against Lance in
the
> Tour next year. (Please, no more statistics discussions -- for the most
part,
> you guys don't know anything about it.)
>
> I suppose one could also argue that it is time (or past time) for another post-age-32 winner. But
> from a guy who is also at the same time setting
the
> record for consecutive wins? It seems unlikely to me. Remember: you
heard
> it here first. :-)

Of course age isn't the only important factor. Another is something like "wear". For instance,
Zoetemelk was a very passive rider ("How come Zoetemelk is looking so pale? Because he 's always
riding in Merckx's shadow"), which is without any doubt one of the reasons of his longevity. Other
examples are Poulidor (second at 38, third at 40): never attacking, never in front and Stan Ockers,
wheelsucking incarnated, who at 35 and 36 was stronger than ever). Bartali (4th at 38) was an
attacking rider, but because of WW II he missed some seasons. Of course, Armstrong isn't a
wheelsucker at all, but is taking advantage of modern cycling: the stages are much shorter and even
in mountain stages till a few miles from the finish he is protected by his team (which was
impossible in the pas:after the first climb tehre were usualy only a few riders left in front).
What's more: Armstrong can afford to focus his entire season on the Tour, whereas Merckx (riding in
an Italian team) had to shine from Milan-San Remo to the Tour of Lombardy. In other words: taking in
account factor "wear" Armstrong stands a better chance than riders in the past.

Benjo Maso