ponka00 wrote:
20 points changes it, but I still don't get why they changed it. What was wrong with the old system?
I think they think it increases the entertainment value. I don't see how. We could potentially have two mass sprints per flat stage. I liked the old system. The new KoM system could be interesting though, as you actually need to be a good climber to win it. However, it will probably go to the overall winner, which is not so good.
ponka00 wrote:
20 points changes it, but I still don't get why they changed it. What was wrong with the old system?
I think they think it increases the entertainment value. I don't see how. We could potentially have two mass sprints per flat stage. I liked the old system. The new KoM system could be interesting though, as you actually need to be a good climber to win it. However, it will probably go to the overall winner, which is not so good.
They could very well have two long ITTs again, so the Tour isn't won by the best climber year after year. It might happen that the best climber is also a very good TTer (such as Contador, or Armstrong back in the early 2000s), but it won't be forever like this.
And yes, I take profit of every thing slightly related to this to demand the 1st week ITT to be brought back to the GTs.
kumazan wrote:
They could very well have two long ITTs again
You're not the only one! I couldn't agree more. Before every Tour presentation the last few years, I've been hoping for the return of the 1st or 2nd week ITT, only to be let down each time. I think an extra TT will make the Tour (or any GT, even though the Giro is awesome without it too) a lot more interesting, as the climbers will have to be more aggressive. Besides, I actually enjoy watching time trials.
Anonymer wrote:
I don't think Hushovd will be the sprinter captain anyway, Farrar is the biggest threat to cav
Especially as German you forget about the biggest threat: Andre Greipel
No seriously I don`t see Greipel winning any stage in his first Tour, so you might be right. But there were that many sprinter surprises so far this season so I wouldn`t be surprised if there is also a third or fourth contender in the Tour.
Soler crashed on a descent in Murcia. No news there. He retired but seems to be fine.
Plaza, however, was caught up in the crash and had nowhere to go. He's got a broken leg.
EDIT: The exact same, with the same consequences, happened to Mikel Landa.
And since we're on breaks, Andy Cappelle broke a collarbone in belgium.
Edited by issoisso on 06-03-2011 07:59
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
Alakagom wrote:
We're not alone in criticizing cycling.news
Tejay van Garderen(twitter)
Not to be a hater, but why does the paris-nice results on cyclingnews.com have a pic of Floyd next to it?
Cycling.news fans hit back.
what a whining b*tch
In all fairness, he does seem a whining b*tch with that comment. Specially since Floyd is a previous winner of the race.
But I understand him. Landis has become like cycling's punching bag, and it's fun to attack those kind of people everytime. It's the most extended sport here in Spain.
“Contador is the strongest rider I’ve ever had in my team. Alberto is of the same calibre as Merckx, Armstrong, Hinault and Indurain,” Riis told Gazzetta dello Sport, implying that the Spaniard is better than his former protégés such as Ivan Basso, Andy Schleck, Carlos Sastre and Tyler Hamilton.
Merckx with his early 70's strength would hardly achieve anything in nowadays pelotons...
As for his potential, we can hardly know what he was worth. Different time...
Hinault ? The first wattage measurements started in the end of his career. Roughly 380 W. Riis manage 25 % more, whereas the top 10 French climbers nowadays would drop him on any mountain (you know, those guys who don't train enough). But then again, with nowadays technologies, knowledge of training, etc. he'd be much stronger than he was in his time.
Aquarius wrote:
Merckx with his early 70's strength would hardly achieve anything in nowadays pelotons...
As for his potential, we can hardly know what he was worth. Different time...
Hinault ? The first wattage measurements started in the end of his career. Roughly 380 W. Riis manage 25 % more, whereas the top 10 French climbers nowadays would drop him on any mountain (you know, those guys who don't train enough). But then again, with nowadays technologies, knowledge of training, etc. he'd be much stronger than he was in his time.
Obviously if you were to just pluck the riders from their era and put them in the modern peloton, they'd be as you say. But the way Bjarne was saying it, it's about relativity to the rest of the peloton. That's where I think it's ridiculous to compare El Pistolero to the Cannibal.
Nowaday it's impossible to dominate like Merckx did, so it's hard to compare that, but Contador can and probably will accomplish a lot in his career, so it isn't inappropriate to compare them
Anonymer wrote:
Nowaday it's impossible to dominate like Merckx did, so it's hard to compare that, but Contador can and probably will accomplish a lot in his career, so it isn't inappropriate to compare them
Contador wins GTs and smaller stage races.
Merckx won all that plus every single type of classic several times over. In the same season even.
You can't compare them. You just can't.
And the kicker? Merckx spent most of his career debilitated by a spinal injury. He was never again at his pre-injury level. To give you an idea of that level, he won a Tour by 20 minutes with 8 stage wins and halfway through it he simply stopped trying to gain more time because he didn't care anymore.
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
Anonymer wrote:
Nowaday it's impossible to dominate like Merckx did, so it's hard to compare that, but Contador can and probably will accomplish a lot in his career, so it isn't inappropriate to compare them
Contador wins GTs and smaller stage races.
Merckx won all that plus every single type of classic several times over. In the same season even.
You can't compare them. You just can't.
And the kicker? Merckx spent most of his career debilitated by a spinal injury. He was never again at his pre-injury level. To give you an idea of that level, he won a Tour by 20 minutes with 8 stage wins and halfway through it he simply stopped trying to gain more time because he didn't care anymore.
I think the best comparison would be between a modern day NBA big man, like Shaq, and Wilt Chamberlin. The advantage in quantitative measures between the two, i.e. Wilt's stats to Shaq's stats, or Merckx's win totals vs. Contador's win totals, is immense, and makes it seem like Wilt/Merckx is way better. However, due to major differences in terms of the time periods, the way the sport is played, etc., the gap is actual less than you'd realize. However, in both instances, Wilt vs. Shaq and Merckx vs. Contador, the older guy is the better one, but not by as much as the quantitative measures would have you believe.
And for those scoring at home, Lance would be Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in this example. Won a lot, but gets way too much credit for those wins, and everyone hates his guts because he is an asshole who pisses everyone off...
Anonymer wrote:
Nowaday it's impossible to dominate like Merckx did, so it's hard to compare that, but Contador can and probably will accomplish a lot in his career, so it isn't inappropriate to compare them
Contador wins GTs and smaller stage races.
Merckx won all that plus every single type of classic several times over. In the same season even.
You can't compare them. You just can't.
And the kicker? Merckx spent most of his career debilitated by a spinal injury. He was never again at his pre-injury level. To give you an idea of that level, he won a Tour by 20 minutes with 8 stage wins and halfway through it he simply stopped trying to gain more time because he didn't care anymore.
I think the best comparison would be between a modern day NBA big man, like Shaq, and Wilt Chamberlin. The advantage in quantitative measures between the two, i.e. Wilt's stats to Shaq's stats, or Merckx's win totals vs. Contador's win totals, is immense, and makes it seem like Wilt/Merckx is way better. However, due to major differences in terms of the time periods, the way the sport is played, etc., the gap is actual less than you'd realize. However, in both instances, Wilt vs. Shaq and Merckx vs. Contador, the older guy is the better one, but not by as much as the quantitative measures would have you believe.
And for those scoring at home, Lance would be Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in this example. Won a lot, but gets way too much credit for those wins, and everyone hates his guts because he is an asshole who pisses everyone off...
You can't compare sportmen from different eras. There just isn't a fair way to do so. It's like comparing Messi with Maradona, Fangio with Schumacher, Agostini with Rossi, or even Newton with Einstein, to put a non-sporting example.
In Merckx' era (and Hinault, this era ended with LeMond), riders didn't specialise as much as now, most rode the whole season. With different peaking times for some, but still... So, that way, the strongest rider could win races almost all season long, whereas nowadays that's almost impossible. With specialisation + peaking, the number of races and their kind (sprint, mountains, TT, cobbles, etc.), that's simply impossible.
marble wrote:
I wish the Tour could have another team.
I dont..riders number is already over the limit. Riders knows that ..organizers knows. For example look at grand tours first week. Crash..injury festival. Idea was few years ago that every team should take 8 riders..and that would open places for new teams.
Aquarius wrote:
In Merckx' era (and Hinault, this era ended with LeMond), riders didn't specialise as much as now, most rode the whole season. With different peaking times for some, but still... So, that way, the strongest rider could win races almost all season long, whereas nowadays that's almost impossible. With specialisation + peaking, the number of races and their kind (sprint, mountains, TT, cobbles, etc.), that's simply impossible.
Pity..I would like that. Is there any rider who is reminding us old school all terrain universal rider?
marble wrote:
I wish the Tour could have another team.
I dont..riders number is already over the limit. Riders knows that ..organizers knows. For example look at grand tours first week. Crash..injury festival. Idea was few years ago that every team should take 8 riders..and that would open places for new teams.
Injuries aren't only a major concern in the Grand Tours, it can happen in any race. They can't really avoid that, if they were concerned about crashes they would at least not ban radio communication. That way the riders will be alot more safe, getting information about dangerous things that are coming up. I don't recall it being such a big difference when they changed the amount of riders from 198 to 180 in the Tour. It remains to see if 207 riders will be any worse. But the main reason I wanted another team in the Tour was because nowadays there are so many teams out there that have good riders, it's not like the top 20 teams have all the best riders anymore. All of these teams are deserving of a place in the Tour, but with a 22 team limit at least one of the best teams will most likely not get a wild card, like ASO who decided to give their wild cards to four french teams, if they had one more wild card there's a chance that could've been let's say Geox. When a team with riders like Menchov and Sastre gets left out, and Contador is out with a suspension I don't really see alot of riders that can beat Schleck.
valverde321 wrote:
Good luck adding this to databases. Will probably lead to crashes.
I guess that's something Cyanide has to work out for PCM 2011
