Merckx disappointed with Armstrong..........................................

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Heinz Getzler, Aug 30, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Onefred

    Onefred Guest

    Well, like all sports, the level of tennis played today is much higher than in previous generations,
    but I cannot argue with you reasoning here. I'm no tennis guru.

    Maybe Sampras really is not the greatest tennis player then.

    Dave
     


  2. "Isidor Gunsberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > Borg had to make due with an old wooden frame racket.

    You mean he _chose_ to use a wooden racquet. Didn't McEnroe also prefer wooden racquets?
     
  3. "benjo maso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > "onefred" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Frankly, I think you hit the nail on the head, curt. Merckx is a
    > self-centered arrogant
    > > has-been that doesn't like the spot light being stolen from him.
    >
    > That's utter nonsense. Merckx is never arrogant, but also extremely courtuous and full of praise
    > of all the "greats" who have succeeded him: Hinault, Fignon, Indurain, and also Armstrong. Merckx
    > ' place in cycling history is secure, and he has nothing to fear. Certainly not Armstrong, a great
    > rider but not quite on the same level as his.
    >
    > > If he wants to comment on Lance, then he should say a few positive words or nothing at all
    > because Lance has done
    > > nothing wrong with his career.
    >
    > As I said, Merckx has expressed his admiration for Armstrong many many times. However, Merckx is -
    > rightly - concerned of the consequences of the way Armstrong's is building his career. The truth
    > is that many other races are getting more and more into trouble. For instance, the Société du Tour
    > de France is organizing 20 races, but only the Tour and Paris-Roubaix are making money. All the
    > others, even Liège-Bastogne-Liège and Paris-Tours, are showing a deficit. Of course, this rather
    > dangerous situation isn't helped much when the best rider of these years is deciding to focus his
    > whole season on the Tour. It might be good for Amstrong, but it certainly isn't good for bicycle
    > racing and Merckx should certainly be allowed to express his concern.

    It really points to a much bigger problems with the way the World cup points are structured. The UCI
    needs to demephasize the number of points that are given in the TDF. Another possibility would be to
    do away with points altogether and base the World up on overall time.
    > Benjo Maso
     
  4. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
    > The TIIOYK thing is something that has always been part of rbr legend. I searched for it on
    > google, but couldn't find anything save for Ligget referring to it and also Ilan Vardi.

    > It's on the FAQ, but not attributed to Merckx. One of the old-timers, if they were still around,
    > could probably tell us how it got attributed to him.

    We're still around, and we get cranky when referred to as 'old-timers'.

    Blame Bruce for the attribution:
    http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=l7gsauINNk42%40exodus.Eng.Sun.COM

    It was a bonus question in his contest on the 1992 Tour. It doesn't Google easily because it
    appeared in rec.bicycles before the newsgroup split.

    Bob "Geezerhead" Schwartz [email protected]
     
  5. "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > The TIIOYK thing is something that has always been part of rbr legend. I searched for it on
    > > google, but couldn't find anything save for Ligget referring to it and also Ilan Vardi.
    >
    > > It's on the FAQ, but not attributed to Merckx. One of the old-timers, if
    they
    > > were still around, could probably tell us how it got attributed to him.
    >
    > We're still around, and we get cranky when referred to as 'old-timers'.
    >
    > Blame Bruce for the attribution:
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=l7gsauINNk42%40exodus.Eng.Sun.COM
    >
    > It was a bonus question in his contest on the 1992 Tour. It doesn't Google easily because it
    > appeared in rec.bicycles before the newsgroup split.
    >
    > Bob "Geezerhead" Schwartz [email protected]

    Dumbass -

    I appreciate your clarification.
     
  6. Nev Shea

    Nev Shea Guest

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

    >
    > "Nev Shea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]ead3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

    >> I recall reading somewhere that Merckx missed 1 Giro because the
    > organizers
    >> paid him not to show up hoping that would improve the odds of an
    Italian
    >> winning. Or am I all mixed up?
    >
    >
    >
    > Wasn't that Binda that they paid? So there would be more suspense.

    I was right -- at least about being mixed up. So now that you provided the right name I
    looked it up.

    from: http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/riders/rider_bio.asp?rider_id=7

    "Binda could have possibly won more Giro titles, but was paid the prize money he would have won
    not ride in 1930 because the organizers were worried that it would kill public interest if he
    won again."

    NS
     
  7. Nick Burns

    Nick Burns Guest

    "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > It really points to a much bigger problems with the way the World cup points are structured.

    Why?

    >The UCI needs to demephasize the number of points that are given in the TDF.

    That would change nothing. UCI points are not a top motivator to win the Tour. After all, the points
    are the same for all 3 Grand Tours right down to stage wins. If points were a primary consideration,
    then you would see teams fighting to get in to whichever Tour they thought they could gain the most
    points from (IOW, the easiest Tours to win would be the first priority).

    >Another possibility would be to do away with points altogether and base the World up on
    >overall time.

    No way. Beside, World Cup and UCI points are separate. Also, you would then have to require everyone
    that challenged for the overall to race every event. There is no way anyone would care about the
    overall if that was a requirement. It is rare that any racer races all 10 and only recently have the
    guys even started to care aboutt he overall. It is the individual race wins that count the most.

    The only way to change things (if you do think they need to be changed) would be to have the UCI
    change larger registration fees (it would actually be a franchise fee), and roll that in to much
    larger prizes for the individual and team World Cup prizes and promotions to make it w worthwhile
    objective. They could also include more perks like giving the top 3 WC teams and the team with the
    overall winner automatic entry in to any race for the next season (including the GTs). You would
    then see a lot more teams trying to tackle to World Cup as a strategy to get in to the Tour de
    France (among other things). They could also give more recognition throughout the year to the WC
    contenders (again, both for individuals and teams). The main point here is that the UCI would need
    to gain a lot more power over the events and the teams and it would take on the character of other
    sports that have team franchises.

    Or, we could allow cycling to continue along in the decentralized and unstructured way it has in the
    past and hope for the best.
     
  8. Carl Sundquist wrote:

    > "Isidor Gunsberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    >>Borg had to make due with an old wooden frame racket.
    >
    >
    > You mean he _chose_ to use a wooden racquet. Didn't McEnroe also prefer wooden racquets?

    I preferred wooden racquets. Carbon are just too light and too fast for my tastes. I miss my old
    sledgehammer...
     
  9. "Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Heinz Getzler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    > > It really points to a much bigger problems with the way the World cup points are structured.
    >
    > Why?
    I think that the TDF has unbalanced the overall season. As a result many smaller classics are
    suffering. A lot of this is because many of the races are sponsered by smaller companies. It's
    possible that ASO Armoury and La Gazetta dello sport acquistions of smaller races could have a
    positive impact???
    > >The UCI needs to demephasize the number of points that are given in the TDF.
    >
    > That would change nothing. UCI points are not a top motivator to win the Tour. After all, the
    > points are the same for all 3 Grand Tours right down to stage wins. If points were a primary
    > consideration, then you would see teams fighting to get in to whichever Tour they thought they
    > could gain the most points from (IOW, the easiest Tours to win would be the first priority).

    Ok so why not have a team selection based upon a hybrid point system. One could also require a min #
    of points for a rider to participate in the TDF. I am not sure how this would work, but one could
    have points for participation and bonus points for placing and winning. So a team lets say a team
    gets a intial 10 points for participating. Each rider recieves 20 points for participating. The
    winner recieves 500 point for winning and 100 points for the top 3 finishers. It's all quite
    complicated and the details would have to be worked out so things were fair.

    >
    >
    > >Another possibility would be to do away with points altogether and base the World up on
    > >overall time.
    >
    > No way. Beside, World Cup and UCI points are separate. Also, you would then have to require
    > everyone that challenged for the overall to race every event. There is no way anyone would care
    > about the overall if that was a requirement. It is rare that any racer races all 10 and only
    > recently have the guys even started to care aboutt he overall. It is the individual race wins that
    > count the most.
    >
    > The only way to change things (if you do think they need to be changed) would be to have the UCI
    > change larger registration fees (it would actually be a franchise fee), and roll that in to much
    > larger prizes for the individual and team World Cup prizes and promotions to make it w worthwhile
    > objective. They could also include more perks like giving the top 3 WC teams and the team with the
    > overall winner automatic entry in to any race for the next season (including the GTs). You would
    > then see a lot more teams trying to tackle to World Cup as a strategy to get in to the Tour de
    > France (among other things). They could also give more recognition throughout the year to the WC
    > contenders (again, both for individuals and teams). The main point here is that the UCI would need
    > to gain a lot more power over the events and the teams and it would take on the character of other
    > sports that have team franchises.
    >
    > Or, we could allow cycling to continue along in the decentralized and unstructured way it has in
    > the past and hope for the best.
     
  10. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
    >
    > Damn, that must suck, being right all the time.

    No, it's really rather a burden.
     
  11. "Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    <SNIP>

    > They could also include more perks like giving the top 3 WC teams and the team with the overall
    > winner automatic entry in to any race for
    the
    > next season (including the GTs). You would then see a lot more teams
    trying
    > to tackle to World Cup as a strategy to get in to the Tour de France
    (among
    > other things).

    <SNIP>

    The only guaranteed strategy to get your team into the TdF (outside of being a top ten team) is to
    have a French sponsor.

    -T
     
  12. Fred Marx

    Fred Marx Guest

    > The only guaranteed strategy to get your team into the TdF (outside of being a top ten team) is to
    > have a French sponsor.

    and a team that sucks......
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...