SportingNonsense wrote:
His form isnt at 65% - Cunego had made this race his big target of the year. Just accept that he is not good enough in the mountains.
Getting in form is not a mathematical formula. Sometimes in your career, you do screw it up. It happened to Menchov last year as well, just to come back to La vuelta and win it. It happened to Dekker and Danielson this year. It's a normal thing. I would've accept that he's not good enough in the mountains if he had raced like Kirchen, very strong on the hills of the first week. A 100% shape winner of the Giro di Lombardia and Amstel Gold Race in the last 12 months can't be dropped on a third category hill.
On the one hand I agree with most of what you said, on the other hand he has NEVER, not ONCE in his career, EVER shown he could keep up in real mountains.
Edited by issoisso on 23-07-2008 23:14
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
SportingNonsense wrote:
His form isnt at 65% - Cunego had made this race his big target of the year. Just accept that he is not good enough in the mountains.
Getting in form is not a mathematical formula. Sometimes in your career, you do screw it up. It happened to Menchov last year as well, just to come back to La vuelta and win it. It happened to Dekker and Danielson this year. It's a normal thing. I would've accept that he's not good enough in the mountains if he had raced like Kirchen, very strong on the hills of the first week. A 100% shape winner of the Giro di Lombardia and Amstel Gold Race in the last 12 months can't be dropped on a third category hill.
On the one hand I agree with most of what you said, on the other hand he has NEVER, not ONCE in his career, EVER shown he could keep up in real mountains.
Well, top five finishes in the giro every year, only being beaten by dopers. And of course he's as clean as Mathieu Sprick
SportingNonsense wrote:
His form isnt at 65% - Cunego had made this race his big target of the year. Just accept that he is not good enough in the mountains.
Getting in form is not a mathematical formula. Sometimes in your career, you do screw it up. It happened to Menchov last year as well, just to come back to La vuelta and win it. It happened to Dekker and Danielson this year. It's a normal thing. I would've accept that he's not good enough in the mountains if he had raced like Kirchen, very strong on the hills of the first week. A 100% shape winner of the Giro di Lombardia and Amstel Gold Race in the last 12 months can't be dropped on a third category hill.
On the one hand I agree with most of what you said, on the other hand he has NEVER, not ONCE in his career, EVER shown he could keep up in real mountains.
Not saying I'm disagreeing with you, but I seem to remember him doing quite well in the Morzine stage in the 2006 tour. Anyway, he's never been a real climber, and at the moment he seems to have too much muscle in his legs, as well as being out of form . He looks to be kind of demotivated as well.
rovven7 wrote:
Well, top five finishes in the giro every year
Please tell me you are joking?
He wins in 2004 because no-one had heard of him and let him go.
2005 - nothing, especially not top 5
2006 - 4th, fair enough, not bad, but the field was terrible.
2007 - 5th, again not bad, but the only half-decent rider he beat was Ricco
He isn't good in big mountains, he is ok on short steep mountains but proper mountains, no chance
rovven7 wrote:
Well, top five finishes in the giro every year
Please tell me you are joking?
He wins in 2004 because no-one had heard of him and let him go.
2005 - nothing, especially not top 5
2006 - 4th, fair enough, not bad, but the field was terrible.
2007 - 5th, again not bad, but the only half-decent rider he beat was Ricco
He isn't good in big mountains, he is ok on short steep mountains but proper mountains, no chance
He was sick in 2005.
2006, first mountain stage, ends up 2nd, loses only 30 seconds to Basso.
He was there every year, against riders like simoni, piepoli, ricco. He had days when he was stronger than Piepoli, the same Piepoli who was the only one keeping the pace of Ivan Basso, winning a stage this year in Le Tour, and holding on to Menchov in last year's Vuelta. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that if he'd been at 100% he would've won this tour, but he would definetely be good enough for a top five. And yes, that stage to La morzine, he was stronger than Evans, Menchov, Kloden. His best characterestic is recovery, i reckon. I expect him to achieve a top 10 in the last TT this year. Same goes for Samuel Sanchez
questo wrote:
the fact that mister Vandevelde has one good Tour wouldn't make him a great rider, so you really shouldn't change his stats. The irritation reaches maximum right here when mister Soler and mister Sella grows unbelievable fast in their climbing stats, just by taking the climbing tricot.
They have to be deleted. Uhm Ricco has to be. Piepoli as a free rider.
questo wrote:
the fact that mister Vandevelde has one good Tour wouldn't make him a great rider, so you really shouldn't change his stats.
by that exact same logic, F.Schleck should have 76 mountain, Kohl 76, Kreuziger 74.
Does that seem right to you?
F. Schleck has proven his mountain and hill capacities enough times, he even won the Alpe d'Huez stage of the 2006 TdF, remember?
I agree with you about Kohl and Kreuziger, cause they haven't won that much as F. Schleck did. Moreover, they have a lot years to grow, if you look at their age!
No surprise, Schleck put in big attacks in 2006 and kept an effort going. This year the group he was in didnt have a continual pace. It was broken down. Up - Down.
its hard to compare the time of Pantani and Sastre, the stage that Pantani won was very easy and didn't have a major climb before (if i remember very correctly)
mpritch wrote:
In response to the climbing times given for the alpe.
Sastre rode the alpe in 39:31
here are the top 5 ever...
1. Marco Pantani, 37:35, 1997
2. Lance Armstrong, 37:36, 2004 (time trial)
3. Marco Pantani, 38:00, 1994
4. Lance Armstrong, 38:01, 2001
5. Marco Pantani, 38:04, 1995
again: measurements differ so it's complicated. I can, however, guarantee 100% that the 1995 and 2004 times you have there are not over the same distance.
that's the whole problem: it's hard to realise which distance each measurement is for...
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
You should delete the times of Armstrong, and the times of Pantani for sure! These guys used some candy from the banned list, if you ask me..
Don't you think it is conspiciously that riders from the past, with less improved bikes etc, could handle the Aple d'Huez faster than now?
but just because someone has a better bike now, doesn't make them a better bike rider. 5-10 years isn't a ridiculous difference. They were still using 14 lb bikes then...
and just because someone is fast, doesn't make that person a cheater. we'll never know for sure about lance whether it was an unbelievable dedication to training or an unbelievable method of concealment...
mpritch wrote:
and just because someone is fast, doesn't make that person a cheater. we'll never know for sure about lance whether it was an unbelievable dedication to training or an unbelievable method of concealment...
what "unbelievable method"?
Growth Hormone, Blood transfusions and most types of EPO couldn't be traced back then and still can't. there's no concealment, anyone can use them at will.
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
. He looks to be kind of demotivated as well.
