Could Lance break the "athlete's hour" record?

karhu <[email hidden]> wrote in news:Xns93C0E70A8400nospamhotmailcom@
195.54.106.227:

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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 said:

Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations, comparisons cannot be
made with any degree of accuracy.

True, still...

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 dentaltwins.comdentaltwins.comOpen ↗

"Boyd Speerschneider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

karhu <[email hidden]> wrote in news:Xns93C0E70A8400nospamhotmailcom@
195.54.106.227:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Jbenkert111 said:

Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations, comparisons cannot be
made with any degree of accuracy.

True, still...

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Jbenkert111 said:

Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations, comparisons cannot be
made with any degree of accuracy.

True, still...

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Then he will be the greatest of all time.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

For instance, Merckx, won all those races against riders that were also doing all those races and
were probably just as

tired as

Quoted message said:

he, and also, the talent pool is much larger and stronger these days. You

can

Quoted message said:

argue, who was most dominant in their era, which is still meaningless.

The

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Jbenkert111 said:

Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations, comparisons cannot be
made with any degree of accuracy.

True, still...

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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