limerickman said:2003 TDF final GC :
1. Lance Armstrong 83:41:12
2. Jan Ullrich at 1'01"
3. Alexandre Vinokourov at 4'14"
4. Tyler Hamilton at 6'17"
2001
Jan at 6m 44s
Beloki 9m 5s
2002
Jan at 6m 2s
Beloki at 10m 4s
limerickman said:2003 TDF final GC :
1. Lance Armstrong 83:41:12
2. Jan Ullrich at 1'01"
3. Alexandre Vinokourov at 4'14"
4. Tyler Hamilton at 6'17"
Jan seems to find a way to lose the Tour. I seriously believe that the east-germany machine burned him out, just like it did for many hundreds of soviet athletes. He never liked racing, he never desired to win. He never liked the pressure that goes with being a winner. He wanted to always be who he was at 16 - a rider with great potential, a future star, someone with a lot of fans and a lot of money.jhuskey said:2001
Jan at 6m 44s
Beloki 9m 5s
2002
Jan at 6m 2s
Beloki at 10m 4s
limerickman said:So second is the same as fourth or ninth, or what exactly ?
You repeat, ad nauseum that first is the only criteria - or maybe you don't like me quoting that bit because 36th or DNF kinda upsets the first being best argument that you repeat, ad naseum here and on the JU fan site that you
occupied.
Do you see any finishing first as being "leaps and bounds" better than finishing second ?
Hey - not true. Don't let a few posters here bias how most Americans talk about European racers. The talk around the hallways at work, the coffee shop, etc. is always highly respectful of the European racers.YIMan said:Exactly. Armstrong fans - typical Yanks, don't even have the good grace to acknowledge anyone else.
The Tour de France and European cycling was around long before Armstrong turned up and will be around long after he is gone.
snyper0311 said:Well, I don't agree with that comment either. If it wasn't Lance, it would have been some other rider. Remember, he lost to Marco P. also. He had that same look then.
I'm not taking anything away form Lance, I think he if he wins this years tour, HE IS THE GREATEST TDF RIDER-EVER!
As I stated above, he seems to not "Want it" enough to do what it takes to win it. There were the 02-03 years where if his team would have helped more, he might have had a chance. Other than that, he just could not, and will not contend.
SteveR2 said:Hey - not true. Don't let a few posters here bias how most Americans talk about European racers. The talk around the hallways at work, the coffee shop, etc. is always highly respectful of the European racers.
Crankster said:Second guy is the first "loser". It's the worst position to be in. Some people who care about Olympics think that finishing forth (out of the medals) is the worst. No. Finishing second is the absolute worst. Because you got to live your life thinking "what if".
Finishing second is worse than finishing 5th or 9th or 36th or DNF. Because if you finish 5th, you could say to yourself: "well, I never meant to win the damn thing anyways. Even if I failed to give 100%, so what - I could have been 4th? Big deal!" You know the second guy gives it all he's got.
The entire discussion about Lance vs. Merckx as the best TdF rider is really a discussion of philosophies - american philosophy that winning is the only thing that counts and european philosophy that the style is what counts, not the win. In other words, beautiful loser is better than ugly winner. Winning by a lot once is better than winning by a little 3 times. Losing while smiling is better than winning while grimacing.
Those who believe that winning record is what should count are those who also believe that by definition 7 is greater than 5. They enjoy "objective" sports like track and field, swimming, weight lifting, cycling, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc.
Those who believe that a combination of various "stylistic" parameters are more important than winning, can also argue that Monaco has a much greater area than Germany, once you take into account all the fun you can have there. They enjoy "judging" sports like figure skating, gymnastics, synchronized swimming and synchronized diving.
To each his own...
Crankster said:Jan seems to find a way to lose the Tour. I seriously believe that the east-germany machine burned him out, just like it did for many hundreds of soviet athletes. He never liked racing, he never desired to win. He never liked the pressure that goes with being a winner. He wanted to always be who he was at 16 - a rider with great potential, a future star, someone with a lot of fans and a lot of money.
Crankster said:I believe without Lance he would have quit already. But Jan likes beer and donuts and girls and ecstacy and disco clubs more than he likes winning. Even Eddy Merckx, limerick's idol agrees with me. It is unfortunate as Jan has the cardiovascular system of a true TdF winner and a brain of a lazy bum. He never once lined up at the starting line ready. He can't control his weight and his team, his DS lost faith in him long time ago.
If Lance didn't fully recover from cancer the way he did we would be talking about amazing TdF winner Beloki and how Jan manages to lose 5 minutes to Joseba in the mountains despite gaining 2 minutes at ITT.
musette said:I agree that coming in #2 at the Tour is worse than coming in #3. It doesn't really matter between #2 and #3 because the cyclist is not #1.
In fact, although this is rather controversial, if I were a cyclist at the Tour, I'd rather be #1 in the Polka Dot Jersey category (or #1 on a given stage) than #2 on GC, although most people obviously would not agree with that (in terms of the commonly understood notions of desirability of different TdF honors).
If I were a cyclist and I had a choice of:
1) 25% chance at #1 GC and 75% chance of outside the top 20
or 2) guaranteed podium spot as #2 or #3
I would definitely pick option #1. I think most teams' DSs would pick option #2, which has contributed to their inability to destabalize DC and the status quo.
limerickman said:So second is the same as fourth or ninth, or what exactly ?
You repeat, ad nauseum that first is the only criteria - or maybe you don't like me quoting that bit because 36th or DNF kinda upsets the first being best argument that you repeat, ad naseum here and on the JU fan site that you
occupied.
Do you see any finishing first as being "leaps and bounds" better than finishing second ?
Where does DNF count (or not count perhaps) ???
Crankster said:Second guy is the first "loser". It's the worst position to be in. Some people who care about Olympics think that finishing forth (out of the medals) is the worst. No. Finishing second is the absolute worst. Because you got to live your life thinking "what if".
Crankster said:Finishing second is worse than finishing 5th or 9th or 36th or DNF. Because if you finish 5th, you could say to yourself: "well, I never meant to win the damn thing anyways. Even if I failed to give 100%, so what - I could have been 4th? Big deal!" You know the second guy gives it all he's got.
Crankster said:t.
The entire discussion about Lance vs. Merckx as the best TdF rider is really a discussion of philosophies - american philosophy that winning is the only thing that counts and european philosophy
.
Crankster said:t.
In other words, beautiful loser is better than ugly winner. Winning by a lot once is better than winning by a little 3 times. Losing while smiling is better than winning while grimacing.
.
Crankster said:.
Those who believe that winning record is what should count are those who also believe that by definition 7 is greater than 5.
musette said:It's obvious that 7 TdF wins is superior. As I have repeatedly argued, focusing on the early DNF (before the cancer and before the 7 wins) is your way of trying to divert from the obvious situation that LA's career has far exceeded that of JU.
.
musette said:Because it's one thing to say that EM has a better record than LA (with which one could agree or not agree). It's at a different level of argument, and arguably contains denial, to assert JU has a better record (not just in the Tour, but everything) than LA.
The trajectory of JU is downward. The trajectory of LA's career is good, then cancer, than amazing.
limerickman said:It was you who took issue with the statement that JU's career has been superb.
Remember.
One statement was made that JU had a superb career by me.
You disputed that assertion and started (as you always do) comparing LA to JU, TM to DC.
Different level of argument indeed.
2nd compared to 36th ? Any thoughts ?
Or first loser as you Americans like to call it, compared to DNF ? Any thoughts
perhaps ?
Hmm ?
jhuskey said:Let me stick my head up at the risk of getting it loped off. I would love to have you guys discussing how I came in 2nd, 3rd or even just finish Le Tour.
I cycled 250 miles a week in the late 70's- 80's to stay in shape for ski season. I had a natural ability at skiing and had always been reasonably athletic.
I might have been fairly competitive ,but I chose another path.
A friend that I skied and competed with went on to join the US SKi Team, unfortunately he had a severe injury his second season which ended his career.
The point is he "went to the show" as did Jan and others in cycling and other sports.
I didn't, and even more-so, squandered the talent I had, even if I would never have been great of even mediocre I will never know what my potential might have been.
I admire these guys, their efforts and what they give up to compete.
I am sure none you of guys have any regrets so tell me what a loser I am.
True. Anyone who even finishes the tour(in any position) deserves respect,let alone someone who has never been lower than 4th and won at their second attempt aged only 23. Jan also does hold one tour record if I'm correct(am I limerickman?). That of most white jerseys(3).limerickman said:You're a loser because you didn't finish first.
That is the logic that some posters here use.
Sorry I'll say that again : you're a loser because you didn't come first in a specific race.
That's they're logic.
Needless to say they're view is flawed - utterly flawed.
thebluetrain said:Very True, Its ok for anyone else to be arrogant but as soon as an American is, you would think it was the end of the world.
Fixey said:See here is the problem! I dont like Lance because he is Lance, I read his first book and listened to a few of his interviews and thought "What a *****" Yet you need to asume I add the fact that he is from the USA to fuel my dislike, not so, I thought Fignon was a ****** along with Delgado, niether where from the USA but I didnt mention them because this thread does not concern them. Bluetrain you need to get used to the fact that not everyone who comes from your country is a nice guy, or that if a yank is getting slammed it is because he is a yank!
Fixey said:See here is the problem! I dont like Lance because he is Lance, I read his first book and listened to a few of his interviews and thought "What a *****" Yet you need to asume I add the fact that he is from the USA to fuel my dislike, not so, I thought Fignon was a ****** along with Delgado, niether where from the USA but I didnt mention them because this thread does not concern them. Bluetrain you need to get used to the fact that not everyone who comes from your country is a nice guy, or that if a yank is getting slammed it is because he is a yank!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.