TheManxMissile wrote:
Not a time trialer, but equally as bad at mountains
Even in his own books he says he couldnt climb for shit up a mountain.
The lost loads of weight due to cancer, got some dope, and won 7 tours
Wiggins. Couldnt climb for shit.
Lost loads of weight, got some dope, and won the tour
Well, there is a difference between winning 4 km long track events and winning races like Flecha Wallone and San Sebastian who can be seen as quite mountainious.
TheManxMissile wrote:
Not a time trialer, but equally as bad at mountains
Even in his own books he says he couldnt climb for shit up a mountain.
The lost loads of weight due to cancer, got some dope, and won 7 tours
Wiggins. Couldnt climb for shit.
Lost loads of weight, got some dope, and won the tour
Well, there is a difference between winning 4 km long track events and winning races like Flecha Wallone and San Sebastian who can be seen as quite mountainious.
Well, there is a difference between winning 4 km long track events and winning races like Flecha Wallone and San Sebastian who can be seen as quite mountainious.
True they are hilly and not flat, but its still like Gilbert winning GC now. Not going to happen cause he cant climb any where near well enough
Well, there is a difference between winning 4 km long track events and winning races like Flecha Wallone and San Sebastian who can be seen as quite mountainious.
True they are hilly and not flat, but its still like Gilbert winning GC now. Not going to happen cause he cant climb any where near well enough
Yeah, If Gilbert loses some weight who knows. Not that he should do it though as he could easily become a top 10 guy for GT's but not for winning.
Well, there is a difference between winning 4 km long track events and winning races like Flecha Wallone and San Sebastian who can be seen as quite mountainious.
True they are hilly and not flat, but its still like Gilbert winning GC now. Not going to happen cause he cant climb any where near well enough
Yeah, If Gilbert loses some weight who knows. Not that he should do it though as he could easily become a top 10 guy for GT's but not for winning.
I wouldn't say easily but in theory yes he could. But why would he do that when he's the absolute best in something else.
Spilak23 wrote:
Was one of the best timetrialists in the youth category becoming world champion as a junior in 2001. Not a secret anymore that good timetrialists can become good stage racers.
So was Thor Hushovd. So was Marcel Kittel....twice. You don't actually think they can become stage racers?
Spilak23 wrote:
Have not much knowledge from cycling before 1995/1996 but looking at results. Armstrong wasn't a timetrialist either in his pre cancer career. Looking at his results, he was more of an attacking puncher type of rider. This is mainly based on the Oslo and Casartelli wins as CQ ranking only goes back to 1998. Winning races like San Sebastian and Flecha Wallone as well. That's how I see him pre cancer. Not a timetrialer imo.
Here's Induráin catching him for 2 minutes.....10kms after the start
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
issoisso wrote:speaking of WADA, they've just removed McQuaid from their executive board. Been a hell of a long time coming.
Is there a press release attached to that?
Nope, trying to do it quietly.
Spilak23 wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
Spilak23 wrote:
Well, there is a difference between winning 4 km long track events and winning races like Flecha Wallone and San Sebastian who can be seen as quite mountainious.
True they are hilly and not flat, but its still like Gilbert winning GC now. Not going to happen cause he cant climb any where near well enough
Yeah, If Gilbert loses some weight who knows. Not that he should do it though as he could easily become a top 10 guy for GT's but not for winning.
No. Gilbert is brilliant at short efforts. To say he could become great at long efforts such as climbing mountains is the same as saying Cavendish and Greipel can win 55km TTs because they can go fast on the flat for a little bit
TheManxMissile wrote:
If only the Gilbert were still the best
Get him back on Ibarguren's team and I'm sure he'll be amazing again
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
I think the last ones who wrote there need some phisiology/cycling lecture (wasn't aimed at issoisso obviously).
Pursuit implies a high VO2 max, and not much else. Having a high VO2 max potentially (but not necessarily) means that you'll be good during money time.
That doesn't say anything about how much it will harm you to ride at 70 % of that VO2 or at 95 % of it, which means you'll be long dead when the last mountain shows up if you have a poor endurance.
TTing is very technical, so you can be good at it, even a specialist, without having all the biological aspects 100 % favourable. Learn every corner on the road, work your position on the bike (aerodynamics), and that's many seconds per km you've won.
That's where I see Armstrong. He wasn't a genuine TT guy. Ullrich probably was, but didn't work all the technical aspects enough, IMO. That's why JRod, and M. Rich before him can/could perform decently in special occasions. The Schlecks just suck at that.
Being good on a Grand Tour also implies a huge endurance. Endurance is how much exercise time affects your performances. How much of your VO2 max can you still use during 20 minutes after a 6 hour ride ?
To work that : training and more training. And slow twitches in your muscles. Having a high VO2 max (pursuiter) gives you more potential here, but nothing's granted. Plus pursuit requires fast twitches to get the cyclist + bike on the move, which are less favourable to endurance.
Lastly : Armstrong's huuuuge weight lost... Any figure to back it up ? You'll be surprised, really.
Don't buy all his propaganda, he's a liar.
Edited by Aquarius on 07-01-2013 22:42
Aquarius wrote:
I think the last ones who wrote there need some phisiology/cycling lecture.
Pursuit implies a high VO2 max, and not much else. Having a high VO2 max potentially (but not necessarily) means that you'll be good during money time.
That doesn't say anything about how much it will harm you to ride at 70 % of that VO2 or at 95 % of it, which means you'll be long dead when the last mountain shows up if you have a poor endurance.
As Jonathan Vaughters pointed out, he had a significantly higher VO2Max than Bernard Hinault, yet he was just another rider while Hinault was arguably the best of all time because Vaughters could sustain it for half an hour tops while Hinault could ride at 90% for 6 hours if needed
(EDIT: For reference, Vaughters was saying this to explain why a VO2Max test isn't one of the many tests that every rider has to go through before Garmin will sign him. Vaughters says VO2Max by itself is an outdated measurement and useless unless you're looking for track pursuit riders)
Aquarius wrote:
Lastly : Armstrong's huuuuge weight lost... Any figure to back it up ? You'll be surprised, really.
Don't buy all his propaganda, he's a liar.
Very true. This used to be a subject of discussion on Armstrong topics over the years in several forums and the few times that we did actually get access to measurements, his weight in 1994 and 2004 was essentially the same.
Edited by issoisso on 07-01-2013 22:38
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
I think the last ones who wrote there need some phisiology/cycling lecture (wasn't aimed at issoisso obviously).
Pursuit implies a high VO2 max, and not much else. Having a high VO2 max potentially (but not necessarily) means that you'll be good during money time.
That doesn't say anything about how much it will harm you to ride at 70 % of that VO2 or at 95 % of it, which means you'll be long dead when the last mountain shows up if you have a poor endurance.
TTing is very technical, so you can be good at it, even a specialist, without having all the biological aspects 100 % favourable. Learn every corner on the road, work your position on the bike (aerodynamics), and that's many seconds per km you've won.
That's where I see Armstrong. He wasn't a genuine TT guy. Ullrich probably was, but didn't work all the technical aspects enough, IMO. That's why JRod, and M. Rich before him can/could perform decently in special occasions. The Schlecks just suck at that.
Being good on a Grand Tour also implies a huge endurance. Endurance is how much exercise time affects your performances. How much of your VO2 max can you still use during 20 minutes after a 6 hour ride ?
To work that : training and more training. And slow twitches in your muscles. Having a high VO2 max (pursuiter) gives you more potential here, but nothing's granted. Plus pursuit requires fast twitches to get the cyclist + bike on the move, which are less favourable to endurance.
Lastly : Armstrong's huuuuge weight lost... Any figure to back it up ? You'll be surprised, really.
Don't buy all his propaganda, he's a liar.
How do you explain how Armstrong went from being a decent hilly classics rider to winning 7 Tours? Ass far ass i know the drugs before and after his cancer weren't that different, and from what i can tell he started working with Ferrari in 1995 or 1996, so if it was only his work, why didn't we see improvements back then?
I'm just saying, some of all the bullshit may be true? He did loose weight when he had cancer, now wouldn't that give him an oppertunity to rebuild his body the way he saw fit?
Or do you see it all coming down to his change of attitude?
issoisso wrote:No. Gilbert is brilliant at short efforts. To say he could become great at long efforts such as climbing mountains is the same as saying Cavendish and Greipel can win 55km TTs because they can go fast on the flat for a little bit
I wouldn't be too certain about Gilbert. He's been a more than decent time trialist over the past couple of years, which indicates that he's good at hour-long efforts too. I think he could have some GT potential with considerable weight loss. I can see him as potentially a brilliant man for one-climb mountain stages, ala Unipublic's Vuelta design. A bit like Kelly and Jalabert. But he obviously shouldn't switch his focus to GTs, anyway.
Aquarius wrote:TTing is very technical, so you can be good at it, even a specialist, without having all the biological aspects 100 % favourable. Learn every corner on the road, work your position on the bike (aerodynamics), and that's many seconds per km you've won.
That's where I see Armstrong. He wasn't a genuine TT guy. Ullrich probably was, but didn't work all the technical aspects enough, IMO. That's why JRod, and M. Rich before him can/could perform decently in special occasions. The Schlecks just suck at that.
I don't doubt your sports science knowledge, but really? Is that where you see Armstrong? His position on the TT bike was absolutely horrible. I'd say his enhanced aerobic capacity just blew everyone away. Ullrich, on the other hand, was a joy to watch on the TT bike. But not as good as Klöden. The most elegant rider in history. Btw, what's JRod doing in a post about time trialists?
Oh, and Metriz-, the drugs changed. Blood transfusions. And a "license to dope" from the UCI. Btw, Armstrong's 1999 Tour was apparently helped by all the other riders scaling back the doping after Festina, while he went all-in on the sauce. Over the next years, Ferrari worked his blood magic better than anybody else, with a client whose body responded unbelievably well to doping. With that said, I think his attitude and work ethics were excellent. He must have had a great ability to push himself.
I thought Gilbert actually said something along the lines of "once I get bored of winning classics, I'll lose a bit of weight and try to Top 10 a Grand Tour"
I may be mixing it up with someone else, but Im almost certain it was atleast a classics rider or TT specialist that said this.
valverde321 wrote:
I thought Gilbert actually said something along the lines of "once I get bored of winning classics, I'll lose a bit of weight and try to Top 10 a Grand Tour"
I may be mixing it up with someone else, but Im almost certain it was atleast a classics rider or TT specialist that said this.
That was Sagan. The funny part is that to get bored of winning classics, you first have to win one
(Avin talking about Sagan's potential to win all monuments in 2013 in 3, 2.. )
valverde321 wrote:
I thought Gilbert actually said something along the lines of "once I get bored of winning classics, I'll lose a bit of weight and try to Top 10 a Grand Tour"
I may be mixing it up with someone else, but Im almost certain it was atleast a classics rider or TT specialist that said this.
That was Sagan. The funny part is that to get bored of winning classics, you first have to win one
(Avin talking about Sagan's potential to win all monuments in 2013 in 3, 2.. )
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
