Re: Could Lance break the "athlete's hour" record?

[Boyd Speerschneider]

karhu > wrote in news:Xns93C0E70A8400nospamhotmailcom@
195.54.106.227:

> What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the
> greatest rider of all time. It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy
> Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record (49.441 km), but that is
> just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
> who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.

Hardly.

When Lance:

1) wins all three jerseys at the TDF
2) wins a bunch of classics
3) wins like 50% of the races he enters
4) races from January to October
3) holds the hour record

Then he will be the greatest of all time.

- Boyd S.
holding breath

[Gary]

Is that REALLY the test? How much climbing is involved in the one-hour
record?

karhu wrote:

>What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the
>greatest rider of all time. It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy
>Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record (49.441 km), but that is
>just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
>who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
>
>

[Jbenkert111]

Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations,
comparisons cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Different era,
different caliber riders. For instance, Merckx, won all those races against
riders that were also doing all those races and were probably just as tired as
he, and also, the talent pool is much larger and stronger these days. You can
argue, who was most dominant in their era, which is still meaningless. The
only thing we can say for sure, is that they are the best of their time.


>What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the
>greatest rider of all time. It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy
>Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record (49.441 km), but that is
>just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
>who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS]

Jbenkert111 wrote:

> Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations,
> comparisons cannot be made with any degree of accuracy.

True, still...

> Different era,
> different caliber riders. For instance, Merckx, won all those races against
> riders that were also doing all those races and were probably just as tired as
> he, and also, the talent pool is much larger and stronger these days.

You think?

> You can
> argue, who was most dominant in their era, which is still meaningless. The
> only thing we can say for sure, is that they are the best of their time.

I'll bet if you asked Lance, he'd have no trouble saying Merckx was the
greatest. This business of Merckx not having any worthy competition is the old
canard that hounded him all his career, and all the years after. Gimondi, Aldig,
de Vlaeminck, Pollentier, van Looy, Anquetil--yeah, some of these guys were past
their prime, some not. I still think he was given a bum rap. He is the greatest
because he HAD to win every single race he entered.

Steve


>
>
> >What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the
> >greatest rider of all time. It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy
> >Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record (49.441 km), but that is
> >just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
> >who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
http://www.dentaltwins.com

[Andy Coggan]

"karhu" > wrote in message
7...
> What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the
> greatest rider of all time. It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy
> Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record (49.441 km), but that is
> just 10 meters more than Merckx).

10 m is 10 m...so it would be like going one-on-one with Boardman.

> If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
> who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.

If Boardman had raced under the new rules with the form he had in setting
his ultimate record, the distance would be out around 51.5-52 km...

Andy Coggan

[Davide Tosi]

Gerrit Stolte > wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:28:47 -0400, Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Jbenkert111 wrote:
>>
>>> Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations,
>>> comparisons cannot be made with any degree of accuracy.
>>
>> True, still...
>>
>>> Different era,
>>> different caliber riders. For instance, Merckx, won all those races against
>>> riders that were also doing all those races and were probably just as tired as
>>> he, and also, the talent pool is much larger and stronger these days.
>>
>> You think?
>
>Factual evidence. It has become a professional sport, with all the
>consequences.

In Europe cycling has always been a professinal sport, that in the past was
even bigger than it is now. In the 50s cycling used to attract the kind of
crowds that only soccer attracts now. People like Coppi, Bobet, Van
Steenbergen, Kubler were by far the most popular sportsmen of their own
countries.
In some aspects - ie the capacity of building hugely acclaimed legends -
cycling is less professional than it once was.

[Gerrit Stolte]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:28:47 -0400, Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
> wrote:

>
>
>Jbenkert111 wrote:
>
>> Impossible, as in all sports records and best of "all time" nominations,
>> comparisons cannot be made with any degree of accuracy.
>
> True, still...
>
>> Different era,
>> different caliber riders. For instance, Merckx, won all those races against
>> riders that were also doing all those races and were probably just as tired as
>> he, and also, the talent pool is much larger and stronger these days.
>
> You think?

Factual evidence. It has become a professional sport, with all the
consequences. Or do you believe that any of the, say, mid-50s basketball
teams would have have even a *slight* chance of losing with less than 20
points to the Spurs, Kings, Lakers, Nets, Mavs? Or, to put it bluntly,
the Lakers of the 40s would go out with a 2-80 record out of the regular
season, if two opponents wouldn't show up. Too slow, too small ...

Gerrit

[one of the six billion]

"karhu" > wrote in message
7...
> What do you think? I think he should go for it to prove that he is the
> greatest rider of all time. It would be like going one-on-one with Eddy
> Merckx... (I know that Boardman holds the record (49.441 km), but that is
> just 10 meters more than Merckx). If Lance could do 50+ then the issue of
> who´s the greatest rider would be settled once and for all.

The "greatest" racer is not the "fastest" racer. There are so many
different aspects to road racing you could never comparatively quantify who
is the greatest. If you chose one dimension such as speed, then what about
time. Who decides that the greatest is one who can travel the most
distance over an hour. What about ultra endurance athletes that travel
3000 miles in 9 days, what about sprinters and track athletes that hit
speeds close to 50 mph? The Tour throws out endurance, individual speed,
hill climbing, team speed and tactics and individual rivalries in ways that
can't be quantified. If you're going to be number oriented you miss out on
the amazing phenomena that the Tour is.

[Antonio Sanchez]

> For instance, Merckx, won all those races against
> riders that were also doing all those races and were probably just as
tired as
> he, and also, the talent pool is much larger and stronger these days. You
can
> argue, who was most dominant in their era, which is still meaningless.
The
> only thing we can say for sure, is that they are the best of their time.
>

Merckx won a record of 33 BIG Classics riding against other cyclists who
dedicated only for the Classics and not "as tired as Merckx", and equaled
the records in the Giro and Tour (with 5 wins in both) against very hard
opposition from stage race specialists, often with coalition of riders that
worked to see his defeat. He also won the Vuelta in 1973, and 3 times the
World Championship. His list of professional road wins is incredibly wide
(525 to be more exact). But he also contested the Six day races in the
winter against the greatest track specialists of the time, winning them as
well.

When he was fighting for his sixth Tour and wearing the maillot jaune, he
has been hitten in the stomach by a French fanatic and fell while climbing
the Puy-de-Dome, requiring some medication that affected his performance in
the following stages, allowing French climber Bernard Thevenet to win the
Tour by 2'47". He also had a crash with one week to go and BROKE his
jawbone, taking only liquids or mashed food with great pain during the last
week of the race. Everybody told him to quit, but he said he was going to
continue to give Thevenet the satisfaction to see him in the second place of
the podium.
Take only this sample (there are many more) to learn why Eddy Merckx was the
greatest rider of all time.

[warren]

In article >, Steven Bornfeld
> wrote:

> I agree with Davide. While there is some truth to what you say, that
> cycling has become more international, most of the improvement in (for
> instance) average speed in pro races has far more to do with improved
> roads, riding conditions and equipment than it has to do with gene pool
> dynamics.


No credit for better training methods?

-WG