(Bottom Posted)
Tim McNamara <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<m2fz81c8fk.fsf@Stella-
Blue.local>...
> Luigi de Guzman <
[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:07:45 -0500, Tim McNamara
> > <
[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Of course, for the entire field to have to compete
> >>against Miguel Indurain and then Lance Armstrong is also
> >>an issue, these guys have been unusually dominant. I
> >>think in part that's due to having been very specialized
> >>to compete in the Tour primarily, as the Tour continues
> >>to outweigh the entire rest of the racing calendar in
> >>importance. From 1986 to 2003, there were, what, 13
> >>Tours won by three racers (Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong)
> >>and a scattering of tours won by Roche, Delgado,
> >>Pantani, Ullrich, Riis. If we start from 1990, there's
> >>been only 5 winners of the Tour.
> >
> > True...but didn't Lemond used to race more of the
> > classics back in the day than Armstrong does now?
>
> He did up until the gun shot wound and then after that had
> to narrow his focus. He also did more races than Armstrong
> does; Armstrong tends to do highly focused training rides
> rather than races, and pretty much stops racing after the
> Tour. Lemond raced both the Spring and Fall Classics
> campaigns, even when he wasn't in shape to be competitive.
>
> From the beginning of his career, though, Lemond excelled
> in stage races- 3rd overall in the Tour de Tarn and 4th
> overall in the Dauphine-Libere as a neo-pro in 1981, for
> example. He won the Tour de l'Avenir in 1982 with 3 stage
> wins, 2nd overall in the Tour de Mediteraneen, 3rd overall
> in Tirreno-Adriatico. 1983 was his breakthrough year with
> the World Road Championship, overall in the Dauphine-
> Libere, 4th overall in Tour de Suisse, 2nd in Grand Prix
> des Nations, 4th in Blois-Chauville (Paris-Tours in
> reverse, IIRC) and 2nd inthe Tour of Lombardy. At that
> point it looked like he could be at the top in just about
> any type of race.
>
> After he was shot on April 20th, 1987, Lemond's career
> changed. He was out almost all of 1987 and much of 1988.
> 1989 was a good year- winning the Tour de France and 3
> stages, the World Road Champs- but there is a drop-off in
> the quality of his other placings in major races. He did
> manage a couple of top-10 placings in Paris-Roubaix (I
> think taking 4th the first year that Duclos-LaSalle won),
> but in general he was not at the top except in the Tour in
> 1990 and the World's that year (4th). This trend
> continued, with his last victory being in 1992 at the Tour
> DuPont. He retired in 1994 after spending much of the year
> as a back marker when he did race. ISTR that he dropped
> out of the Tour and did not in fact race again after that.
>
> Armstrong, of course, was seen as a Classics rider in his
> early career pre-cancer. He won several one-day races, the
> Worlds in 1993, Flech Wallone in 1996 (?) and a couple of
> TdF stages- one dramatic one in the wake of the death of
> Fabio Casartelli in 1995 (IIRC). Lance was a hothead and a
> very emotional rider, but inconsistent. Armstrong's body
> was too massive from his years of swimming and triathlon
> to be competitive in the high mountains, though. He lost
> much of that mass (something like 10 kg) during his
> episode with metastatic cancer, and on his return to
> racing seemed to have lost something of his sprint but
> gained in climbing, time trialling and perhaps most
> importantly in emotional control and maturity.
>
> Personally, I think Armstrong is a little too
> calculating. His single-minded focus on the Tour de
> France is detrimental to the sport, in my opinion, and he
> is not alone in that focus. The importance of the Tour is
> highly over-rated (also IMHO) and this too is detrimental
> to the sport as a whole. It creates two classes of
> riders, the Tour contenders and everyone else. But
> perhaps the days of a Merckx, a Hinault- riders able to
> win any race anywhere- are gone for reasons beyond simply
> the racers. (Of course, this is all written as an
> American; in the mainstream media, there is no coverage
> of professional bicycle racing other than the Tour de
> France. And without Lance Armstrong or some other
> charismatic American, there wouldn't even be that).
Well written Tim but I have to add my own cheap two cents.
Pro Racing in 2004 is not Pro Racing in 1994 or 1984.
Money influences so many decisions. Not Lance as you say.
Money sways top talent and GOOD for them who get it.
Sponsors want certain results and find the guys who can
deliver them.
2004 is more competitive thann 1994 and WAY MORE than 1984.
There are more Classics Specialists than there are Tour
Specialists these days.
The top 300 Pro Racers in the world is a Deep Pool of
talent, far deeper than the top 300 of ten or twenty
years ago.
Of course my racing opinions are usually ****! But I do
believe them.
-Ken