Magilla: What is your position on Italian babes with cold sores?

In article om,
" wrote:

On Oct 7, 12:04 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins

I have to admit that the phrase "dumb as napkins"
redeems your entire post for me.

Let's just hope he didn't mean sanitary napkins.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:24:49 -0400, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig wrote:

Magilla;

Fondriest's career was not to bad (even though he got the Rainbow
Jersey that was destined for Bauer):

Maurizio Fondriest1988 World Pro Road Race
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
1990 Giro di Lazio
1991 World Cup Winner
1993 Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Championship of Zurich
Giro dell'Emilia
Tirreno - Adriatico
GP du Midi Libre
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
World Cup Winner
1994 Giro di Lazio
1995 1 stage, Giro d'Italia

TTFN.


Remember, this is the same guy who said all Eddy Merckx ever beat was
a bunch of factory workers.

Smokey


If Eddy Merckx raced today in his prime, he wouldn't be riding off the
front like he did when the competition were a bunch of part-time pros
who made $5,000/year and worked in factories in the off-season.

The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.

You people in here always try to pawn off victories in eras with weak
competition as if they could pull that same **** today.

You might be right that Merckx today would not win 500 of 1800 bike races or
come away from all the tours with wins and ALL of the jerseys at any one tour.
That level of dominance is over for anyone. Still there's no question he would
still be one of the greats.

Ron

MagillaGorilla wrote:
A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins

wrote:
I have to admit that the phrase "dumb as napkins"
redeems your entire post for me.


Howard Kveck wrote:
Let's just hope he didn't mean sanitary napkins.

Dumbass,
Sanitary napkins are smart enough to go places you can't.

On Oct 7, 3:04 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Lance is wrong. He probably says it out of some misguided Euro-thing
because if he didn't say that he would **** off 15 million zealots in
Europe. In this respect, Lance is the consummate politician.

Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.

Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack ****. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.

Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.

How many variables are you comfortable ignoring? It seems limitless.

Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
today he wouldn't be jack.

You people who beleive Merckx was the best of all time also believe in
Jesus. Somebody told you to beleive in Jesus and so you do. There's no
other ****ing analyis that goes into it other than repeating that Jesus
was the son of God simply because you MUST believe that. Your parents
told you it's true and that's all the prooof you need.

But smart people know that Jesus and God just aren't reality. They're
just some ****ed up fantasy society made up thousands of years ago to
help them deal with death, misery, and is perpetuated to this day by
idiots who can't think for themselves.

You have no proof either way. The ability to be certain in the face
of a staggering lack of information is precious. Don't ever change.

A lot of you people in here are dumb as napkins and your entire belief
system is hardly more complex than repeating myths you've heard others
say. There's no independent analysis and your entire argument and logic
sounds like someone in the Manson Family car on the way to Sharon Tate's
house.

It's nice that you can sound so confident about something entirely
conjectural. While you're on the winning streak, why not surmise what
exactly you'd be if your grandmother had testicles? ...or you, for
that matter.

R

wrote:
On Oct 7, 12:04 am, MagillaGorilla wrote:


Surely you don't believe that riders in the 1960's were faster than
today's pro peloton? Only a clueless jackass would think that.

Also, even if Lance truly believed that (he doesn't, trust me), it
wouldn't mean jack ****. If you put Lance and Eddy Merckx in a
head-to-head race (i.e. Tour de France) with both in their prime, Merckx
would finish 16 minutes down every time.

Go take a look at Merckx's time up Alpe d'Huez....it's slow as molasses
compared to what riders did in the past 15 years.


Ape of the Century,

Eddy Merckx never raced up l'Alpe d'Huez in his prime.
It was used in the 1952 Tour and the stage was won by
Coppi (who presumably also you'd point out was not a
patch on LANCE, but had much more style, admit it).
L'Alpe did not reappear in the Tour until 1976, when
Joop Zoetemelk won the stage. Merckx did not ride
the 1976 Tour; his Tour career was already on its way
out, as his last Tour victory was in 1974. In 1975
he finished 2nd and got punched in the kidney.
In 1977 the Tour went up L'Alpe and Merckx rode it;
I don't know his time, but he finished 6th in the Tour.
It was the last Tour he rode, and he retired in 1978.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez

Of course, maybe you were talking about Axel Merckx's
time up L'Alpe. I don't know that either.

It is interesting that LANCE's best time on L'Alpe
is usually given as 37:36 (in an ITT, not at the end
of a long stage) and Coppi's 1952 time is claimed to
have been 45:22. 8 minutes difference is an eternity
in bike racing, but when Coppi rode it, the road wasn't
even paved.

Ben
dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy

-------------

Okay, so we know Merckx finished 6th in the Tour in 1977. Do you really
think if Lance rode the 1977 Tour he would have finished 7th or worse?

Even in his [prime Lance would have kicked the crap out or Merckx and
dropped him like a bad habit. Everyone knows this. The idea that
Merckx would drop today's top riders is a joke.

It's a myth people perpetuate because they have been told by others that
Merckx was the best. So they repeat it.

Heck, Merckx wasn't even the best in 1977.

Magilla

RonSonic wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:24:49 -0400, MagillaGorilla
wrote:


wrote:

On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig wrote:


Magilla;

Fondriest's career was not to bad (even though he got the Rainbow
Jersey that was destined for Bauer):

Maurizio Fondriest1988 World Pro Road Race
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
1990 Giro di Lazio
1991 World Cup Winner
1993 Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Championship of Zurich
Giro dell'Emilia
Tirreno - Adriatico
GP du Midi Libre
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
World Cup Winner
1994 Giro di Lazio
1995 1 stage, Giro d'Italia

TTFN.


Remember, this is the same guy who said all Eddy Merckx ever beat was
a bunch of factory workers.

Smokey


If Eddy Merckx raced today in his prime, he wouldn't be riding off the
front like he did when the competition were a bunch of part-time pros
who made $5,000/year and worked in factories in the off-season.

The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.

You people in here always try to pawn off victories in eras with weak
competition as if they could pull that same **** today.


You might be right that Merckx today would not win 500 of 1800 bike races or
come away from all the tours with wins and ALL of the jerseys at any one tour.
That level of dominance is over for anyone. Still there's no question he would
still be one of the greats.

Ron


That's like saying if Margaret Court played tennis today she would be
one of the greats. Absolutely not true.

The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.

He wasn't racing against today's pros.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla wrote:

Okay, so we know Merckx finished 6th in the Tour in 1977. Do you really
think if Lance rode the 1977 Tour he would have finished 7th or worse?

As a 6 year old I think he would have finished much worse than 7th.

On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:

The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.

He wasn't racing against today's pros.

Who among today's pros can top his hour record?

Wayne

On a standard bicycle remember, not one of the "superman" jobs.

Smokey

On Oct 7, 12:42 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
RonSonic wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:24:49 -0400, MagillaGorilla
wrote:

wrote:

On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig wrote:

Magilla;

Fondriest's career was not to bad (even though he got the Rainbow
Jersey that was destined for Bauer):

Maurizio Fondriest1988 World Pro Road Race
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
1990 Giro di Lazio
1991 World Cup Winner
1993 Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Championship of Zurich
Giro dell'Emilia
Tirreno - Adriatico
GP du Midi Libre
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
World Cup Winner
1994 Giro di Lazio
1995 1 stage, Giro d'Italia

TTFN.

Remember, this is the same guy who said all Eddy Merckx ever beat was
a bunch of factory workers.

Smokey

If Eddy Merckx raced today in his prime, he wouldn't be riding off the
front like he did when the competition were a bunch of part-time pros
who made $5,000/year and worked in factories in the off-season.

The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
the best female cyclist in the world.

You people in here always try to pawn off victories in eras with weak
competition as if they could pull that same **** today.

You might be right that Merckx today would not win 500 of 1800 bike races or
come away from all the tours with wins and ALL of the jerseys at any one tour.
That level of dominance is over for anyone. Still there's no question he would
still be one of the greats.

Ron

That's like saying if Margaret Court played tennis today she would be
one of the greats. Absolutely not true.

The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.

He wasn't racing against today's pros.

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I can't believe you've got everyone's panties in a bunch with this.
Bet you can't believe it either.
Let's see. No **** Eddy spanked his competition, but just how good
they were, and how deep is debateable, but he was dominant. I'd argue
that they very well might have been competitive, as a group today, IF
they had come up today. I don't think the human physical differences
are as pronounced in cycling as they are in American football. The
players from the 60s were midgets compared to todays athletes.
I think in cycling the biggest difference is in knowledge, training,
and better chemistry. If Eddy had grown up in this age I still think
he'd be a top racer. Maybe not dominant, but pretty damned good.
Until we can catalog performance based on genetic makeup accurately
these projections are useless for anything other than BSing about.
Your still a virtuoso though.
Bill C

Wayne Pein wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:


The past in most every sport had weak competition compared to today's
athletes and it this total lack of depth of competition that is the
single most important factor in appraising why Eddy Merckx was so
"great." Sure, he was "great," but only when the guys who took the
start line against him were factory workers in the off-season.

He wasn't racing against today's pros.


Who among today's pros can top his hour record?

Wayne


A lot of pros could have topped it, but there was no compelling
financial or professional reason to do it. The days of setting world
records in cycling just for the sake of setting them are over.

Top pros today train for high-profile results that will help get them a
better contract. The hour record doesn't do anything for a pro.

Why do you think both LeMond and Lance skipped the hour? Sure, Boardman
did it...and that's why he writes bike reviews for magazines now.


Magilla