How cool would it be...

Tim Mullin said:

Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote in news:YOURhoward-
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I was curious what it was about '97 that makes Ullrich's win seen
flukey to you.

I don't doubt he has the physical ability. What seems to be lacking is the
mental toughness (will, drive, focus, or whatever you want to call it) that
so many of the greats have had.

You saying Jan's suitcase of courage is just a small package?

[email hidden] wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

You saying Jan's suitcase of courage is just a small package?

No.

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

Quoted message said:

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Jan doesn't deserve to win.

One has to wonder how history will the current era of cycling. What esteem
will Armstrong's accomplishment be held in? Will his dominace be seen as
testament to his greatness, or as a product of the mediocrity of his
competitors? Merckx had to beat Zoetemelk and Thevenet, both eventual
winners
of the TdF (and also the Vuelta for Joop). Hinault had Lemond and Fignon
to
contend with, neither a stranger to the top step of the Tour Podium. So
who
has Armstrong beaten? As much as I like Ullrich, his `97 victory has
always
seemed something of a fluke. Beyond that, has he ever shown the talent of
a
Zoetemelk or Lemond? Pantani had the potential of greatness, but by the
time
he faced Armstrong in 2000, he was but a shadow of the rider he was in
`98.

Don't get me wrong. I believe there are a good number of very good riders
out
there. Indeed, one of the interesting things seems to be the overall
quality
of the riders these days. But I can't help but think there is no really
great
talent out there.

I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step in the
process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from individual
exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition', to a systematic,
scientific development of all the possibilities inherent in the sport.

Benjo

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim Mullin said:

Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote in news:YOURhoward-
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I was curious what it was about '97 that makes Ullrich's win seen
flukey to you.

I don't doubt he has the physical ability. What seems to be lacking is the
mental toughness (will, drive, focus, or whatever you want to call it) that
so many of the greats have had. Even Armstrong--though I feel he's over
rated--has never had to have a team mate follow, admonishing him to, "suffer,
you sow."

Alright, I didn't see that was the angle you were coming from. I
certainly agree with you on that point, though. I wonder if any of that
comes from having the success he has had too early.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

benjo maso said:

I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step
in the process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from
individual exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition',
to a systematic, scientific development of all the possibilities
inherent in the sport.

I think people will see Armstrong's accomplishment as another successful
American business strategy. One which degraded the sport.

You know, you have to play a few games to make it to the national football
championships, against rivals who do the same. All before getting further
along. I think this is true in most sports, except for golf, perhaps, where
one can select the prizes and ignore the rest. Maybe there should be some
sort of pre-qualification for each rider to be allowed to enter. I don't
know. I just don't feel good about the contemporary arrangement.

The Pro Tour has made it easy to have a bad team for a few years, once
licensed, keep upward rider development low, and bang heads with the 3 big
tours, with no positive effect. But it's only one voice ...
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

On 6/19/05 11:28 AM, in article [email hidden],

Sandy said:

benjo maso said:

I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step
in the process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from
individual exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition',
to a systematic, scientific development of all the possibilities
inherent in the sport.

I think people will see Armstrong's accomplishment as another successful
American business strategy. One which degraded the sport.

You are so full of French Poodle dog [censored] I can smell it all the way over
here.....

Sandy said:

benjo maso said:

I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step
in the process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from
individual exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition',
to a systematic, scientific development of all the possibilities
inherent in the sport.

I think people will see Armstrong's accomplishment as another successful
American business strategy. One which degraded the sport.

Dumbass -

That trend of peaking for 1 time/year was started by Lemond and
Indurain, not Armstrong.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

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

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

benjo maso said:

I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step
in the process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from
individual exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition',
to a systematic, scientific development of all the possibilities
inherent in the sport.

I think people will see Armstrong's accomplishment as another successful
American business strategy. One which degraded the sport.

Dumbass -

That trend of peaking for 1 time/year was started by Lemond and
Indurain, not Armstrong.

All the three times Lemond won the Tour, he had rode the Giro before,
altough it's true that his results were not always very impressive (4th in
1986, 39th in 1989 and 105th in 1990). On the other hand, Indurain won the
Giro and the Tour twice in the same year (1992, 1993). In '94 he finished
3th in the Giro before winning the Tour.

Benjo

benjo maso said:

All the three times Lemond won the Tour, he had rode the Giro before,
altough it's true that his results were not always very impressive (4th in
1986, 39th in 1989 and 105th in 1990). On the other hand, Indurain won the
Giro and the Tour twice in the same year (1992, 1993). In '94 he finished
3th in the Giro before winning the Tour.

Dumbass -

As you know, after '94 Indurain quit riding the Giro to concentrate on
the Tour. He used the Dauphine for his tune-up, a schedule now copied
by Armstrong.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Sandy said:

I think people will see Armstrong's accomplishment as another successful
American business strategy. One which degraded the sport.

It might be _seen_ that way, but calling it "American"
deprives Bruyneel and Ferrari of their rightful credit, surely.

Quoted message said:

You know, you have to play a few games to make it to the national football
championships, against rivals who do the same. All before getting further
along. I think this is true in most sports, except for golf, perhaps, where
one can select the prizes and ignore the rest. Maybe there should be some
sort of pre-qualification for each rider to be allowed to enter. I don't
know. I just don't feel good about the contemporary arrangement.

Before the Pro Tour made this redundant, Armstrong's team (or Ullrich's
for example) has generally had enough early-season results that they
could have gotten selected plausibly. The results haven't always been
from Armstrong or (especially) Ullrich, but as far as I can remember,
selection has been team-based and the teams are free to bring whom
they want (just so long as it isn't Rumsas).

Actually, Armstrong has had a few decent pre-Tour spring results, often
doing well in a smaller stage race and placing somewhere in Amstel.
For an average rider these would be considered pretty good, it's
just that he's obviously not an average rider.

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

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

benjo maso said:

I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step
in the process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from
individual exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition',
to a systematic, scientific development of all the possibilities
inherent in the sport.

I think people will see Armstrong's accomplishment as another successful
American business strategy. One which degraded the sport.

Dumbass -

That trend of peaking for 1 time/year was started by Lemond and
Indurain, not Armstrong.

I didn't write about cycling, there, and Armstrong is also not about
cycling.
Like the title : it's not about the bike !
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-seine FR

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

Quoted message said:

benjo maso said:

All the three times Lemond won the Tour, he had rode the Giro before,
altough it's true that his results were not always very impressive (4th
in
1986, 39th in 1989 and 105th in 1990). On the other hand, Indurain won
the
Giro and the Tour twice in the same year (1992, 1993). In '94 he finished
3th in the Giro before winning the Tour.

Dumbass -

As you know, after '94 Indurain quit riding the Giro to concentrate on
the Tour. He used the Dauphine for his tune-up, a schedule now copied
by Armstrong.

Indurain was hardly the first who didn't always ride the Giro and the Tour
in the same year. On the contrary, AFAIK the only other TdF winner not
riding for an Italian team, who did it also three times in a row was
Anquetil (1959-61). So I don't think that Indurain was really starting a
trend of concentrating on the Tour.

Benjo

On 6/19/05 1:12 PM, in article [email hidden],

Sandy said:

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

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

benjo maso wrote:

> I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step
> in the process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from
> individual exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition',
> to a systematic, scientific development of all the possibilities
> inherent in the sport.
I think people will see Armstrong's accomplishment as another successful
American business strategy. One which degraded the sport.

Dumbass -

That trend of peaking for 1 time/year was started by Lemond and
Indurain, not Armstrong.

I didn't write about cycling, there, and Armstrong is also not about
cycling.
Like the title : it's not about the bike !

You mean the "Jack of all trades, master of none" philosophy is more
Frenchy? (PC)

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step in
the process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from
individual exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition', to
a systematic, scientific development of all the possibilities inherent
in the sport.

Agreed, to a point. I have my doubts to how important that step in the
process is in a historic context. Surely Indurain has done more to advance
the scientific development of all the possibilites inherent in cycling than
Coppi, but most consider Coppi a far greater cyclist. Why is that? I have to
believe it is precisely becuase of his indivudal exploits, and that they were
accomplished against great talent.

Sandy said:

Quoted message said:

I think people will see Armstrong's accomplishment as another successful
American business strategy. One which degraded the sport.

Funny stuff.

Tim Mullin said:

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step in
the process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from
individual exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition', to
a systematic, scientific development of all the possibilities inherent
in the sport.

Agreed, to a point. I have my doubts to how important that step in the
process is in a historic context. Surely Indurain has done more to advance
the scientific development of all the possibilites inherent in cycling than
Coppi, but most consider Coppi a far greater cyclist. Why is that? I have to
believe it is precisely becuase of his indivudal exploits, and that they were
accomplished against great talent.

Dumbass -

Coppi's exploits were greater, but they were against lesser talent.
That was the era of racers working day jobs in the offseason and riders
not developing their talent during WW2 which affected their level
afterwards. Granted, Coppi had the same handicap, but the entire era
did not have the same level that the recent era has.

That said, Coppi's achievements were more daring, thus his status.
Indurain nearly always set out to race conservatively, ala Anquetil. He
only took great risk a few times.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Tim Mullin said:

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think Armstrong's accomplishment will be seen as a important step in
the process with dominates the history of bicycling racing: from
individual exploits based on improvisation and so-called `intuition', to
a systematic, scientific development of all the possibilities inherent
in the sport.

Quoted message said:

Agreed, to a point. I have my doubts to how important that step in the
process is in a historic context. Surely Indurain has done more to advance
the scientific development of all the possibilites inherent in cycling than
Coppi, but most consider Coppi a far greater cyclist. Why is that? I have to
believe it is precisely becuase of his indivudal exploits, and that they were
accomplished against great talent.

Coppi also furthered the scientific development of the sport. We just
don't like to talk about it. But he did believe that the fans deserved
to see him at his best and he was very good at that.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Coppi's exploits were greater, but they were against lesser talent.

Gino Bartali, a lesser talent?

Quoted message said:

Granted, Coppi had the same handicap, but the entire era
did not have the same level that the recent era has.

Of course not. That's the folly of comparing racers of different eras.

Quoted message said:

That said, Coppi's achievements were more daring, thus his status.

And that was my point. How one advances sport from a technical standpoint is
rarely given much weight when determining greatness. Take, for example, Bill
Russell. The man changed the way the postion of Center is played, and was in
large part responsable for shaping the way baskeball has been played for the
last three decades. So where does he stack up on the list of all-time great
centers? Never at the top, and often several spots down on the list.

Tim Mullin said:

Quoted message said:

Of course not. That's the folly of comparing racers of different eras.

If we only had the numbers, we'd have the facts.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim Mullin said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Coppi's exploits were greater, but they were against lesser talent.

Gino Bartali, a lesser talent?

Quoted message said:

Granted, Coppi had the same handicap, but the entire era
did not have the same level that the recent era has.

Of course not. That's the folly of comparing racers of different eras.

Quoted message said:

That said, Coppi's achievements were more daring, thus his status.

And that was my point. How one advances sport from a technical standpoint is
rarely given much weight when determining greatness. Take, for example, Bill
Russell. The man changed the way the postion of Center is played, and was in
large part responsable for shaping the way baskeball has been played for the
last three decades. So where does he stack up on the list of all-time great
centers? Never at the top, and often several spots down on the list.

I have always considered him the best. Talent, innovation, ability
to take direction, self-reliance, making his team-mates look good,
seeing the game, shaping the game. Pure genius.

As for Armstrong, it's disrespectful to underrate him by
underrating the competition. Ullrich won the tdf; crikey, what's
the problem? Beloki would certainly have won if Armstrong hadn't
competed every year; as it was he left everything on the course.
There are some very strong riders out there. What would you all be
saying if Armstrong had not been racing and Ullrich and Beloki
each had won four tdf's between them, as they likely would have?
But this is rbr; no gay zone. Smooch.

--
Michael Press