issoisso wrote:
Also, in nearly all sports recent statistical analysis shows that results peak way earlier than most people think they do. At age 27 usually. Moneyball has a chapter about this. I'll bet anything that cycling is the same.
Does anybody have any such statistics (results by age) for cycling?
A quick google and read hasn't turned up anything hugely specific, but this one is close to what you want: https://www.irishp...f-cycling/
The average age of a monument classic winner for the past thirty years is 28.54. Last year’s average age of 26 is the youngest of the past thirty years and a full two and a half years younger than the average winner. Gone seem to be the days of the old classics hard man socking it to the young pretenders. The likes of Andrei Tchmil, Sean Kelly, Gilbert Duclos-Lassalle and Johan Museeuw all won monuments whilst over the age of 35. There are few riders in the current peloton over the age of 35 who are likely to challenge for the win at one of the five biggest one day races on the calendar. The only three names that come to mind are 36 year old George Hincapie who seems destined never to win his beloved Paris-Roubaix, 38-year old Davide Rebellin who has now doped his way into suspension (and probably retirement) anyway and finally Alessandro Petacchi who could challenge at Milan San Remo next March at the age of 36.
The average age of the competitive cyclist is definitely creeping down. In my opinion there are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, riders are retiring earlier. There aren’t that many riders over the age of 35 capable of challenging for a monument classic because there aren’t that many riders over the age of 35 still riding. In the top 500 riders in the world this year (according to Cycling Quotient) only 34 of them are 35 or over. The second and more important reason for the success of younger riders, in my opinion, is that directeur sportifs are trusting their younger riders with more responsibility. I argued in a previous post that the peak age for a cyclist is not 29-32 as is widely suggested, but more like 24-28. The reason why cyclists in the latter age bracket fail to win as many races as the older riders is the idea of a pecking order within a team. A young rider is expected to earn his corn, ride at the service of his older team mates for a number of years, chalking up smaller victories when the opportunity allows. Only after a solid number of years as a domestique may a rider be considered expereinced enoug
Another point to supplement this argument is the age at which cyclists peak in their careers. Many believe that the peak age for a cyclist is in their early thirties. I think that a cyclist peaks much younger. In fact, Merckx won his five Tours between the ages of 24 and 29, Anquetil between 23 and 30 and Hinault won his first four Tours before he turned 28. Why it takes so long for some riders to reach their potential in terms of results is simply the pecking order that lies within a professional cycling team. Why should the established riders in a team bow to the services of a younger rider who hasn’t won anything of note? Conversely, how does a young rider win anything when he is never designated as a team leader for a race? Even though a young rider could have greater fitness and ability than a team leader, it takes time to rack up minor victories and work your way up the pecking order to finally command the respect and services of a team of domestiques.
Ybodonk wrote:
Sorry I cant agree here. With your knowlegde and insight in cycling, the age explanation is a cheap one
Why is it cheap?
Ybodonk wrote:
- especially in a sport like cycling and long distance running. History of endurance sport is a lot the elite are competing between 30's - 40's. All the legends in cycling did compete atleast into the middle of the 30's
Two things:
1. Why are you comparing running with cycling? Different sport entirely.
2. Yes, SOME of them competed into the middle of their 30s. Some. But when did they peak?
He'd declined so much he didn't even make it to "the middle of the 30's"
Peaked at 26, declined steadily after.
I didn't look at Coppi, as he had several years of inactivity due to World War II which of course considerably lengthened his career so he's not valid.
Anquetil:
Best seasons at 27 and 30. After 30 never won any Grand Tour, in fact in 5 years after this he only won a Paris-Nice and a LBL, for a guy who was used to winning at least one Grand Tour and several stage races and classics every year. At "the middle of the 30's" he retired because he hadn't had results in 3 years
De Vlaeminck. Before age 30 several classics every season. After age 30, a MSR at age 31 and another at 32. This may seem impressive, but compared to his previous years those are two very bad seasons.
By the time he reached "the middle of the 30's" he hadn't had a big win in two years and was about to go on a 2 year run with no wins whatsoever.
Maertens: After a couple years winning over 30 races per season, he won 52 when he was 25 years old.
After that he rode for 10 more years. In those ten years he won 6 races.
Although Fignon and LeMond would be excellent examples to support my argument I don't include them because the introduction of EPO played a big part in their decline so just like Coppi they cannot be used
Hinault: By age 31 he'd faded so badly he retired. So he didn't reach "the middle of the 30's".
I don't see anything that supports your view, sorry.
Ybodonk wrote:
Contador in 2010 was at the same level as 2009, and he was equally doped.
He was what now? In 2009 he crushed everyone. His climb of Verbier is one of the highest VAM ever recorded. In 2010 he won the Tour by seconds. He was clearly worse, he wasn't the dominant presence he'd been.
You can't possible compare his dominant 2009 self to his 2010...
Ybodonk wrote:
It is not a natural explanation. Contador will win TDF again.
No chance whatsoever. Mark my words. Next year he'll be struggling to podium in any GT.
Ybodonk wrote:
I predict, if Froome and Sky continue these performances, Contador will get enough of his mediocre riding, and will "marginal gain" his way back to the top
He doesn't have that option. It's not about the drugs.
Is your theory that he stopped taking drugs or reduced his intake after the suspension?
Edited by issoisso on 16-07-2013 15:16
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 would say that it is actually much lower than that in the modern day if you consider the following:
1) Early Tours were quite heavily weighted to older riders
2) Post WWI and WWII there was a generational problem. No young riders were coming through because they had all fought in the war rather than riding their bikes. Look at Bartali winning in both '38 and '48 - there was little young competition.
3) The EPO years extended the amount of time that a rider could be competitive at the top (Riis at age 32, Armstrong well into his 30s) and it also skewed career curves to a ridiculous degree.
All of these contributed to making the data seem older than is true and so don't represent a real idea of a rider's peak.
Edited by CountArach on 16-07-2013 15:17
I would say that it is actually much lower than that in the modern day if you consider the following:
1) Early Tours were quite heavily weighted to older riders
2) Post WWI and WWII there was a generational problem. No young riders were coming through because they had all fought in the war rather than riding their bikes. Look at Bartali winning in both '38 and '48 - there was little young competition.
3) The EPO years extended the amount of time that a rider could be competitive at the top (Riis at age 32, Armstrong well into his 30s) and it also skewed career curves to a ridiculous degree.
All of these contributed to making the data seem older than is true and so don't represent a real idea of a rider's peak.
Tour winners over 31 years of age since world war 2:
Bartali and Coppi due to the reasons you mentioned.
33 year old Zoetemelk in 1980 because with Hinault's domination of the Tour everyone else decided to try the Giro and Vuelta, and Hinault had to abandon that Tour injured (while leading)
32 year old Riis in 1996 because he was the only one to make use of blood transfusions and because while other teams forbade their riders from boosting their HcT to over 55%, Riis went to 64% (the next year when the UCI set a 50% limit he went from dominant winner to not even even top 5)
Armstrong 2005, also 33. A guy who had dominated achieved a far less dominant win, clearly declining. In fact he retired immediately afterwards. And this was a guy who avoided racing much to prolong his career.
Evans 2011. 34yo
Wiggins 2012 also 32, due to....well, see the previous 110 pages
Edited by issoisso on 16-07-2013 15:27
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
Ybodonk wrote:
Sorry I cant agree here. With your knowlegde and insight in cycling, the age explanation is a cheap one
Why is it cheap?
Ybodonk wrote:
- especially in a sport like cycling and long distance running. History of endurance sport is a lot the elite are competing between 30's - 40's. All the legends in cycling did compete atleast into the middle of the 30's
Two things:
1. Why are you comparing running with cycling? Different sport entirely.
2. Yes, SOME of them competed into the middle of their 30s. Some. But when did they peak?
He'd declined so much he didn't even make it to "the middle of the 30's"
Peaked at 26, declined steadily after.
I didn't look at Coppi, as he had several years of inactivity due to World War II which of course considerably lengthened his career so he's not valid.
Anquetil:
Best seasons at 27 and 30. After 30 never won any Grand Tour, in fact in 5 years after this he only won a Paris-Nice and a LBL, for a guy who was used to winning at least one Grand Tour and several stage races and classics every year. At "the middle of the 30's" he retired because he hadn't had results in 3 years
De Vlaeminck. Before age 30 several classics every season. After age 30, a MSR at age 31 and another at 32. This may seem impressive, but compared to his previous years those are two very bad seasons.
By the time he reached "the middle of the 30's" he hadn't had a big win in two years and was about to go on a 2 year run with no wins whatsoever.
Maertens: After a couple years winning over 30 races per season, he won 52 when he was 25 years old.
After that he rode for 10 more years. In those ten years he won 6 races.
Although Fignon and LeMond would be excellent examples to support my argument I don't include them because the introduction of EPO played a big part in their decline so just like Coppi they cannot be used
Hinault: By age 31 he'd faded so badly he retired. So he didn't reach "the middle of the 30's".
I don't see anything that supports your view, sorry.
Ybodonk wrote:
Contador in 2010 was at the same level as 2009, and he was equally doped.
He was what now? In 2009 he crushed everyone. His climb of Verbier is one of the highest VAM ever recorded. In 2010 he won the Tour by seconds. He was clearly worse, he wasn't the dominant presence he'd been.
You can't possible compare his dominant 2009 self to his 2010...
Ybodonk wrote:
It is not a natural explanation. Contador will win TDF again.
No chance whatsoever. Mark my words. Next year he'll be struggling to podium in any GT.
Ybodonk wrote:
I predict, if Froome and Sky continue these performances, Contador will get enough of his mediocre riding, and will "marginal gain" his way back to the top
He doesn't have that option. It's not about the drugs.
Is your theory that he stopped taking drugs or reduced his intake after the suspension?
In Contadors case i just think its cheap. Maybe i didnt get my words right, I will give you that he might have peaked, and he has hit his potential max level. However the guy is a beast, and he will win again. Im 100 %. Furthermore in modern day cycling we have seen many on the podiums being + 30. Not saying they are winning, but they are there.
Contador will bounce back, I cant believe anything else. He will gain the marginals, 5 % or how much it is.
The thing about 2009 and 2010 was, he was forced to attack. He wanted to show everyone in the world who was the best, he was furious because of Armstrong and Bruyneel mental terrorism. Look at him winning the stage in 09 and on the podium afterwards, extremely many motions.
And it was an amazing climb, his abilities (at the time) + adrenalin and furiousness probably made him ride that way that day.
2010 he just hang on to Schlecks wheel. He had the TT in his backhand. And didnt feel to attack really.
Even though its speculation, im very sure that he is less doped. He is nowhere near the old level. I do believe he still and the rest of the elite, might be getting micro-doses of EPO. But not heavy dope like Froome.
Froome is riding like Contador and Schleck used to, and like ARmstrong Ullrich Pantani Heras Mayo. However since everything is relative, visually
the difference between Froome and the rest looks scary. It didnt look so dramatic in 99's and 00's since they where almost equally doped.
It looks like everyone else is less doped today, therefore Froome looks more monstrous. I think you know what i mean.
Furthermore the data, watt + times indicates that everyone is riding slower beside Froome. So thats my argument for them, incl. Contador etc being less doped.
I would say that it is actually much lower than that in the modern day if you consider the following:
1) Early Tours were quite heavily weighted to older riders
2) Post WWI and WWII there was a generational problem. No young riders were coming through because they had all fought in the war rather than riding their bikes. Look at Bartali winning in both '38 and '48 - there was little young competition.
3) The EPO years extended the amount of time that a rider could be competitive at the top (Riis at age 32, Armstrong well into his 30s) and it also skewed career curves to a ridiculous degree.
All of these contributed to making the data seem older than is true and so don't represent a real idea of a rider's peak.
Addition to this - the average age of the winners will keep decreasing, since we are getting younger and younger stars and GT contenders
Ybodonk wrote:
Iso i have one question, after re-reading your post.
LeMond not included. Wasnt he acknowlegded as the latest "clean" TDF winner?
The point isso made bby not including him is that, even though his greatest successes were at the age isso is arguing for, he wasn't included because everyone else was doped to the eyeballs starting the year after that. Thus LeMond's career curve looked absolutely right (his results went down at the right time), but it was for the wrong reason and we have no way to prove whether LeMond was also in natural decline.
EDIT: and isso can obviously correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I took it and this point makes a lot of sense to me.
Edited by CountArach on 16-07-2013 15:48
Ybodonk wrote:
In Contadors case i just think its cheap. Maybe i didnt get my words right, I will give you that he might have peaked, and he has hit his potential max level. However the guy is a beast, and he will win again.
Merckx was a beast. Anquetil was a beast. Hinault was a beast. Maertens was a beast. By your logic they would all win again, yet....nothing.
They won because they had the legs. When they didn't have the legs anymore they didn't win. Contador can't just wish really had and have his peak ability back anymore than 65 year old Merckx can.
Ybodonk wrote:
Im 100 %.
You can't be. It's just idle speculation. I'm sorry but it's ridiculous, riders improve until they decline. Contador improved until he declined. He can't turn back time because he is not Kronos. He can only try to get the best results possible with the lesser abilities he has now.
Ybodonk wrote:
Furthermore in modern day cycling we have seen many on the podiums being + 30. Not saying they are winning, but they are there.
And how many were winning at a major race at 20 years old like Contador?
Ybodonk wrote:
Contador will bounce back, I cant believe anything else. He will gain the marginals, 5 % or how much it is.
Belief is belief, it's not a fact.
You can believe whatever you want, but essentially you're trying to 'sell' me your religion and telling me it must be true because you really believe it in it
Ybodonk wrote:
The thing about 2009 and 2010 was, he was forced to attack. He wanted to show everyone in the world who was the best, he was furious because of Armstrong and Bruyneel mental terrorism. Look at him winning the stage in 09 and on the podium afterwards, extremely many motions.
And it was an amazing climb, his abilities (at the time) + adrenalin and furiousness probably made him ride that way that day.
2010 he just hang on to Schlecks wheel. He had the TT in his backhand. And didnt feel to attack really.
"There were a few days when I wasn't in my best form and that might be why I'm so emotional. Up to the last moment it was a very hard Tour.
(...)
I was scared that I might not beat Andy [Schleck] in the time trial. At one point I got information that I was five seconds behind him and I did think, 'Oh my God, this could be over for me,' when he was just a couple of seconds behind me. I had to go through a lot of suffering
(...)
This year I've not been at my best all the time
(...)
But this year I've not been in my best shape
Ybodonk wrote:
Even though its speculation, im very sure that he is less doped. He is nowhere near the old level. I do believe he still and the rest of the elite, might be getting micro-doses of EPO. But not heavy dope like Froome.
Froome is riding like Contador and Schleck used to, and like ARmstrong Ullrich Pantani Heras Mayo. However since everything is relative, visually
the difference between Froome and the rest looks scary. It didnt look so dramatic in 99's and 00's since they where almost equally doped.
It looks like everyone else is less doped today, therefore Froome looks more monstrous. I think you know what i mean.
Furthermore the data, watt + times indicates that everyone is riding slower beside Froome. So thats my argument for them, incl. Contador etc being less doped.
Two reasons why he can't have stopped doping after the suspension
1. If that were the case it would've been an instant massive decline. Instead it was quite gradual. Peak in 2009, worse in 2010, worse in 2011, worse in 2012, worse in 2013. A little bit worse every year.
2. That theory means he would've continued to dope well after getting caught, never get caught again thus assuring him that he could dope safely. And then suddenly stop doping in 2012 all of a sudden. Makes absolutely no sense. Or alternately you're saying he stopped after his positive, which doesn't fly with him dominating the 2011 Giro.
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
issoisso wrote:
Also, in nearly all sports recent statistical analysis shows that results peak way earlier than most people think they do. At age 27 usually. Moneyball has a chapter about this. I'll bet anything that cycling is the same.
issoisso wrote:
Also, in nearly all sports recent statistical analysis shows that results peak way earlier than most people think they do. At age 27 usually. Moneyball has a chapter about this. I'll bet anything that cycling is the same.
Definitely not case for team sports.
It is for baseball, basketball and football.
Simply when an athlete is considered the best it's usually because of what he did in the past, now what he's doing right now.
Look at the FIFA World Player of the year, there's a reason it's called a reputation award instead of a quality award (of course Messi deserves it on quality too, but he's the exception)
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
Iso im not trying to sell you anything. I have several times said that it is what I personally believe, its a subjective theory nothing else. Its pure speculation.
You are right in most what you say and argue about.
But I still believe Contador will win the Tour and Vuelta/Giro again.
issoisso wrote:
Also, in nearly all sports recent statistical analysis shows that results peak way earlier than most people think they do. At age 27 usually. Moneyball has a chapter about this. I'll bet anything that cycling is the same.
Definitely not case for team sports.
It is for baseball, basketball and football.
Simply when an athlete is considered the best it's usually because of what he did in the past, now what he's doing right now.
Look at the FIFA World Player of the year, there's a reason it's called a reputation award instead of a quality award (of course Messi deserves it on quality too, but he's the exception)
I can't speak about baseball (lack of knowledge), but in basketball usually players have their best seasons at the age of 28-31. Their basic stats don't validate that, but if you look at the efficiency then it is clear that it is higher.
As for football(the real one), I definitely agree with the fact that it is reputation award, but also Messi included. I won't even start how stupid it is to give award to striker, because that's discussion for other forum.
I don't understand. If Froome is training so much harder than anyone else, can't he just train his position on the bike or his downhill skills as well?
alexkr00 wrote:
I don't understand. If Froome is training so much harder than anyone else, can't he just train his position on the bike or his downhill skills as well?
In progress imo...
Die hard fan of Tom Boonen and Quickstep since 2004.
alexkr00 wrote:
I don't understand. If Froome is training so much harder than anyone else, can't he just train his position on the bike or his downhill skills as well?
John Gadret (Ag2r-LaMondiale) has claimed that Team Sky has few friends in the peloton. Speaking in a long interview in L'Equipe, the shaven-headed Frenchman also suggested that there would be little sympathy or support for Froome if something happened to him during the final stages of the Tour.
"All the riders have turned against them because they're rich and because they think control the peloton," Gadret is reported to have said.
"At the Tour de Bavière (Bayern-Rundfahrt) they blocked the road behind the breakaway. But I went to the front with them. At the moment it's our fault, we just need to put our skates on and things would be quickly sorted out."
Asked if Froome could signify a fresh start for the sport, Gadret replied: "In any case, if something happens to him tomorrow (in the future), he will not have any support…"
