Taylor Phinney Article

Mike G said:

http://www.velodrome.com/CarlSuperman01.jpg

NO HELMET?!?

-rj

Mike G said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.velodrome.com/CarlSuperman01.jpg

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

NO HELMET?!?

One more stake in the heart of the politically correct.

Carl Sundquist said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK. Quick scan of a B/W print.

http://www.velodrome.com/CarlSuperman01.jpg

Mike G.
-

Not impressed until he does it on a fixed gear.

Bret

It isn't any different.

Carl's right.

Magilla

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

Mike G said:

http://www.velodrome.com/CarlSuperman01.jpg

NO HELMET?!?

Don't tug on Superman's cape.

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

Quoted message said:

Why should Hinault be any better of a rider in today's era than Merckx?

Hinault was an attack artist who could often stay ahead. Merckx was probably
stronger and had a lot better judgment.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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

Quoted message said:

Why should Hinault be any better of a rider in today's era than Merckx?

Hinault was an attack artist who could often stay ahead. Merckx was probably
stronger and had a lot better judgment.

Merckx judged that he could win a ton of races, and he did. Merckx
routinely demonstrated what I would call an un-tactical dominance of
races: he was so good that in his five TdF wins, he never finished lower
than 3rd in either the Mountains or Points classifications, winning two
of the former and three of the latter.

In the 1975 Tour, he was punched by a spectator; then later broke his
jaw in a crash, and could not eat solid food after that. He didn't
retire.

On the last stage he attacked, but unsuccessfully. Instead he finished
2nd in all three classifications.

I think better judgment might have been to retire after he broke his jaw.

The point is that at his best, Merckx could simply murder the peloton at
all times and in any terrain. He won 34 TdF stages, which is not the
action of a tactical rider. In 1970 he picked up three of his 8 stage
wins on flat non-TT stages, which is hardly the act of a yellow-seeking
tactician. It's the act of an absurdly dominant rider who, while beating
the world's best riders in the world's most important race, had energy
to spare on, well, beating them extra-hard.

Compare and contrast to the also-dominant Lance Armstrong, who hunted
stages much more conservatively, and pretty much only when it increased
his GC lead.

As usual, we have to make the distinction: Merckx was an outlier. He was
the best cyclist of his era by a greater margin than any other cyclist
was the best of his respective era. There are interesting arguments
about how depth of competitors and such fit into this model, and the
nature of modern cycling (training techniques; the increase in
event-specialization; the reduced racing days of many top riders; etc.)
is different enough that these days, a dominant cyclist is likely to
express their dominance in different ways.

I don't know what Merckx would be like today. We have seen guys like
Indurain, Armstrong, and Boonen show flashes of dominance, but each
pretty much limits themself to a particular racing format, and is
otherwise pretty ineffective. Indurain won TTs, and he won stage races
by TTing, and he did the Hour Record. Not that I blame him for not being
a Classics rider, but Miguel would have inspired no fear in Classics
riders by showing up at the start line in the Fleche Wallone.

Armstrong at least attempted some Classics, and won a few, but he was
hardly a force in those races. His Hour Record project was aborted
early, presumably because he wasn't going to be successful.

Boonen is a danger man in any one-day race or sprinter's stage, but is
about as dominant as Udo Bolts was in stage race GCs or any TT.

Merckx appeared in just about every form of road and track cycling that
existed, and won in just about every form of road and track cycling that
existed.

As a most telling point, look at the history of cycling: before Merckx,
there were GC specialists, climbers, TTists, classics riders, and
trackies.

Then there was Merckx.

Then after Merckx, there were GC specialists, climbers, TTists, classics
riders, and trackies.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Dans le message de
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net],
Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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

Quoted message said:

Why should Hinault be any better of a rider in today's era than
Merckx?

Hinault was an attack artist who could often stay ahead. Merckx was
probably stronger and had a lot better judgment.

Merckx judged that he could win a ton of races, and he did. Merckx
routinely demonstrated what I would call an un-tactical dominance of
races: he was so good that in his five TdF wins, he never finished
lower than 3rd in either the Mountains or Points classifications,
winning two of the former and three of the latter.

In the 1975 Tour, he was punched by a spectator; then later broke his
jaw in a crash, and could not eat solid food after that. He didn't
retire.

On the last stage he attacked, but unsuccessfully. Instead he finished
2nd in all three classifications.

I think better judgment might have been to retire after he broke his
jaw.

The point is that at his best, Merckx could simply murder the peloton
at all times and in any terrain. He won 34 TdF stages, which is not
the action of a tactical rider. In 1970 he picked up three of his 8
stage wins on flat non-TT stages, which is hardly the act of a
yellow-seeking tactician. It's the act of an absurdly dominant rider
who, while beating the world's best riders in the world's most
important race, had energy to spare on, well, beating them extra-hard.

Compare and contrast to the also-dominant Lance Armstrong, who hunted
stages much more conservatively, and pretty much only when it
increased his GC lead.

As usual, we have to make the distinction: Merckx was an outlier. He
was the best cyclist of his era by a greater margin than any other
cyclist was the best of his respective era. There are interesting
arguments about how depth of competitors and such fit into this
model, and the nature of modern cycling (training techniques; the
increase in event-specialization; the reduced racing days of many top
riders; etc.) is different enough that these days, a dominant cyclist
is likely to express their dominance in different ways.

I don't know what Merckx would be like today. We have seen guys like
Indurain, Armstrong, and Boonen show flashes of dominance, but each
pretty much limits themself to a particular racing format, and is
otherwise pretty ineffective. Indurain won TTs, and he won stage races
by TTing, and he did the Hour Record. Not that I blame him for not
being a Classics rider, but Miguel would have inspired no fear in
Classics riders by showing up at the start line in the Fleche Wallone.

Armstrong at least attempted some Classics, and won a few, but he was
hardly a force in those races. His Hour Record project was aborted
early, presumably because he wasn't going to be successful.

Boonen is a danger man in any one-day race or sprinter's stage, but is
about as dominant as Udo Bolts was in stage race GCs or any TT.

Merckx appeared in just about every form of road and track cycling
that existed, and won in just about every form of road and track
cycling that existed.

As a most telling point, look at the history of cycling: before
Merckx, there were GC specialists, climbers, TTists, classics riders,
and trackies.

Then there was Merckx.

Then after Merckx, there were GC specialists, climbers, TTists,
classics riders, and trackies.

Elegant.

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...

Quoted message said:

Lots of noise:

Ryan, if you can't understand Merckx I suggest you not comment on it. It
makes you look the amateur you are.

Tom Kunich said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...

Quoted message said:

Lots of noise:

Ryan, if you can't understand Merckx I suggest you not comment on it. It
makes you look the amateur you are.

Eliza with 'tude...

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...

Quoted message said:

Lots of noise:

Ryan, if you can't understand Merckx I suggest you not comment on it.
It makes you look the amateur you are.

Tom:

Ryan is talking about bicycle racing, something you say is lacking here,
and you say *that* to him? The problem here is not people like me, it's
attitudes like yours.

And they say Americans, even if they are just a piece of crudely crafted
malware, don't do irony.

--
Bill Asher

In article <[email hidden]>, William Asher <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...

Quoted message said:

Lots of noise:

Ryan, if you can't understand Merckx I suggest you not comment on it.
It makes you look the amateur you are.

Tom:

Ryan is talking about bicycle racing, something you say is lacking here,
and you say *that* to him? The problem here is not people like me, it's
attitudes like yours.

And they say Americans, even if they are just a piece of crudely crafted
malware, don't do irony.

Shorter Tom: "Silence, knave!" Oh well, Tom's comment makes him look the
self-absorbed moron he is.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich said:

It makes you look the amateur you are.

The rbr Super Irony post of the month.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Sandy said:

Dans le message de
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net],
Ryan Cousineau <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> Why should Hinault be any better of a rider in today's era than
> Merckx?

Hinault was an attack artist who could often stay ahead. Merckx was
probably stronger and had a lot better judgment.

Merckx judged that he could win a ton of races, and he did. Merckx
routinely demonstrated what I would call an un-tactical dominance of
races: he was so good that in his five TdF wins, he never finished
lower than 3rd in either the Mountains or Points classifications,
winning two of the former and three of the latter.

In the 1975 Tour, he was punched by a spectator; then later broke his
jaw in a crash, and could not eat solid food after that. He didn't
retire.

On the last stage he attacked, but unsuccessfully. Instead he finished
2nd in all three classifications.

I think better judgment might have been to retire after he broke his
jaw.

The point is that at his best, Merckx could simply murder the peloton
at all times and in any terrain. He won 34 TdF stages, which is not
the action of a tactical rider. In 1970 he picked up three of his 8
stage wins on flat non-TT stages, which is hardly the act of a
yellow-seeking tactician. It's the act of an absurdly dominant rider
who, while beating the world's best riders in the world's most
important race, had energy to spare on, well, beating them extra-hard.

Compare and contrast to the also-dominant Lance Armstrong, who hunted
stages much more conservatively, and pretty much only when it
increased his GC lead.

As usual, we have to make the distinction: Merckx was an outlier. He
was the best cyclist of his era by a greater margin than any other
cyclist was the best of his respective era. There are interesting
arguments about how depth of competitors and such fit into this
model, and the nature of modern cycling (training techniques; the
increase in event-specialization; the reduced racing days of many top
riders; etc.) is different enough that these days, a dominant cyclist
is likely to express their dominance in different ways.

I don't know what Merckx would be like today. We have seen guys like
Indurain, Armstrong, and Boonen show flashes of dominance, but each
pretty much limits themself to a particular racing format, and is
otherwise pretty ineffective. Indurain won TTs, and he won stage races
by TTing, and he did the Hour Record. Not that I blame him for not
being a Classics rider, but Miguel would have inspired no fear in
Classics riders by showing up at the start line in the Fleche Wallone.

Armstrong at least attempted some Classics, and won a few, but he was
hardly a force in those races. His Hour Record project was aborted
early, presumably because he wasn't going to be successful.

Boonen is a danger man in any one-day race or sprinter's stage, but is
about as dominant as Udo Bolts was in stage race GCs or any TT.

Merckx appeared in just about every form of road and track cycling
that existed, and won in just about every form of road and track
cycling that existed.

As a most telling point, look at the history of cycling: before
Merckx, there were GC specialists, climbers, TTists, classics riders,
and trackies.

Then there was Merckx.

Then after Merckx, there were GC specialists, climbers, TTists,
classics riders, and trackies.

Elegant.

It's really lame Usenet-wankery for me to say this, but if I was going
to repost this article, I would have left the first paragraph of my
response, and the last three paragraphs, and cut the rest.

That would have been elegant.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...

Quoted message said:

Lots of noise:

Ryan, if you can't understand Merckx I suggest you not comment on it. It
makes you look the amateur you are.

You are Gorilla Magilla and I claim my five pounds.

For once, that's not a compliment,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Donald Munro said:

Tom Kunich said:

It makes you look the amateur you are.

The rbr Super Irony post of the month.

I put a lot of effort into the Irony Generator. As
a favor to Greg.

Bob Schwartz

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...

Quoted message said:

Lots of noise:

Ryan, if you can't understand Merckx I suggest you not comment on it.
It makes you look the amateur you are.

Ryan is talking about bicycle racing, something you say is lacking here,
and you say *that* to him? The problem here is not people like me, it's
attitudes like yours.

For once I have to agree with you. I don't have any idea what I was thinking
about when I wrote that to Ryan. And for what it's worth I offer my
apologies to Ryan.

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-73DD90.23595129012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...

Quoted message said:

Lots of noise:

Ryan, if you can't understand Merckx I suggest you not comment on it. It
makes you look the amateur you are.

You are Gorilla Magilla and I claim my five pounds.

For once, that's not a compliment,

Ryan, I don't understand what I was reading when I posted that remark to
your posting. Re-reading it after Asher's comment, for the life of me I
don't see what I was commenting on.

My apologies for that posting.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-73DD90.23595129012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:rcousine-DE7D33.18001029012008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> Lots of noise:

Ryan, if you can't understand Merckx I suggest you not comment on it. It
makes you look the amateur you are.

You are Gorilla Magilla and I claim my five pounds.

For once, that's not a compliment,

Ryan, I don't understand what I was reading when I posted that remark to
your posting. Re-reading it after Asher's comment, for the life of me I
don't see what I was commenting on.

My apologies for that posting.

No worries. I had merely assumed you were finally getting into the true
spirit of rbr. 🙂

Of course, I'm getting a bit disturbed. At this point, rbr is the
friendly and collegial newsgroup I check out in order to escape the
vitriol and madness that is rbt.

So, like, it's getting weird.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Tom Kunich said:

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

Quoted message said:

Why should Hinault be any better of a rider in today's era than Merckx?

Hinault was an attack artist who could often stay ahead. Merckx was
probably stronger and had a lot better judgment.

Merckx raced against factory workers - riders who were the equivalent of
the Snow Valley team.

Why do I have to repeat myself? Once I say it, it is law.

This isn't a debating forum. This is the way God communicates to the
world. And he uses his Son - Jesus - to do this.

I am Jesus.

Magilla

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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

Quoted message said:

Why should Hinault be any better of a rider in today's era than Merckx?

Hinault was an attack artist who could often stay ahead. Merckx was probably
stronger and had a lot better judgment.

Merckx judged that he could win a ton of races, and he did. Merckx
routinely demonstrated what I would call an un-tactical dominance of
races: he was so good that in his five TdF wins, he never finished lower
than 3rd in either the Mountains or Points classifications, winning two
of the former and three of the latter.

In the 1975 Tour, he was punched by a spectator; then later broke his
jaw in a crash, and could not eat solid food after that. He didn't
retire.

On the last stage he attacked, but unsuccessfully. Instead he finished
2nd in all three classifications.

I think better judgment might have been to retire after he broke his jaw.

The point is that at his best, Merckx could simply murder the peloton at
all times and in any terrain. He won 34 TdF stages, which is not the
action of a tactical rider. In 1970 he picked up three of his 8 stage
wins on flat non-TT stages, which is hardly the act of a yellow-seeking
tactician. It's the act of an absurdly dominant rider who, while beating
the world's best riders in the world's most important race, had energy
to spare on, well, beating them extra-hard.

Compare and contrast to the also-dominant Lance Armstrong, who hunted
stages much more conservatively, and pretty much only when it increased
his GC lead.

As usual, we have to make the distinction: Merckx was an outlier. He was
the best cyclist of his era by a greater margin than any other cyclist
was the best of his respective era. There are interesting arguments
about how depth of competitors and such fit into this model, and the
nature of modern cycling (training techniques; the increase in
event-specialization; the reduced racing days of many top riders; etc.)
is different enough that these days, a dominant cyclist is likely to
express their dominance in different ways.

I don't know what Merckx would be like today. We have seen guys like
Indurain, Armstrong, and Boonen show flashes of dominance, but each
pretty much limits themself to a particular racing format, and is
otherwise pretty ineffective. Indurain won TTs, and he won stage races
by TTing, and he did the Hour Record. Not that I blame him for not being
a Classics rider, but Miguel would have inspired no fear in Classics
riders by showing up at the start line in the Fleche Wallone.

Armstrong at least attempted some Classics, and won a few, but he was
hardly a force in those races. His Hour Record project was aborted
early, presumably because he wasn't going to be successful.

According to your logic, Lance could never win the Giro or Nature Valley
either. And Lance chose not to compete in RAAM because he felt he
couldn't win that "race" either.

You people are mentally handicapped and should park in the blue-painted
spaces from now on.

Magilla