Big Tex's comeback analysed

frenchfighter

I really don't understand why you are all trying to defend Lance. Is it because you find it hard to come to terms with the fact that this fellow thought he could rock up and clean up but failed. That he isn't living up to his TdF past. Just face it - he did jack dorothy this year and should turn his attention to MTB where he still seems to be able to win.

pauln99

frenchfigher

What a genuinely brilliant thread this is that you have created and how well you have continued to express your views.

It's these enlightening, thoughtful, balanced, intelligent posts such as these that bring me back to the forum time and time again.

Legend.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

frenchfighter

How about this for maths:

His efficiency this year, measured by CQ points per km is 6.5.

Now for a little comparison:
Contador = 23
Valverde = 18.5
Cavendish = 12.5
Leipheimer = 8.7
EBH = 12.7
Di Luca = 11.3
Gilbert = 11.3
Andy Schleck = 12.2
Kreuziger = 9.2
Cancellara = 9.4
Evans = 9.7

pauln99

> I bet your maths teachers had a whale of a time with you at school

Did you intend the past tense?

rokkala

Hardly a 'failure' of a season when you look back at his stated aims last year and when he started training again. Then part-way through his build up he is in a crash and breaks his collarbone.

Hardly an ideal preparation for going for wins when his obvious focus (especially after the collarbone) was on the TdF. And 3rd place there was no mean feat either.

I don't really think its a fair comparison to start with for those reasons anyway that you are not taking account of. Your comparing him against his past, and other riders this season.

First of all, his previous seasons were without injury or a 3 year break (discounting the cancer years obviously) to come back from. So next year will probably be a better time to judge against past performance, age aside.

Secondly, how many of his peers were coming back from 3 years out of competition and suffered a major injury in the lead-up to their main objectives, and are getting on in years?

Given the circumstances, stated aims and expectations, i don't see how you can view his season as 'average to poor'. Next season should be interesting though.

Maybe i'm mistaken, but you seem to come across a bit upset that since Armstrongs comeback, the spotlight of world cycling has once again grown brighter, and moved(rightly or wrongly) onto Lance, rather than those you deem more worthy of attention.

frenchfighter

As per usual, the pro Lance camp are incapable of debating with facts so have to result to snide remarks. Soon we will have insults.

I could rise to the bait and explain in detail how my mathematical background would put you to shame but I am beyond that.

rokkala

frenchfighter wrote:

As per usual, the pro Lance camp are incapable of debating with facts so have to result to snide remarks. Soon we will have insults.

I could rise to the bait and explain in detail how my mathematical background would put you to shame but I am beyond that.

Obviously not a reply to my post, do you have one?

frenchfighter

Rokkala wrote:

Maybe i'm mistaken, but you seem to come across a bit upset that since Armstrongs comeback, the spotlight of world cycling has once again grown brighter, and moved(rightly or wrongly) onto Lance, rather than those you deem more worthy of attention.

Yes I would have preferred that he hadn't returned. I am a million times more interested in seeing the young riders for one and the current riders competing, not someone who comes back from retirement on an ego-trip. I also don't like that he has received an inordinate amount of attention when he has achieved nothing, whereas people like EBH have had INCREDIBLE seasons and get little coverage. He showed up and skewed the whole season, imposed himself, and greatly affected the course of events.

I have addressed many of the other points you raise already so will not repeat myself.

redddraggon

frenchfighter wrote:

I could rise to the bait and explain in detail how my mathematical background would put you to shame but I am beyond that.

A B in GCSE Maths

afx237vi

Rokkala wrote:

Maybe i'm mistaken, but you seem to come across a bit upset that since Armstrongs comeback, the spotlight of world cycling has once again grown brighter, and moved(rightly or wrongly) onto Lance, rather than those you deem more worthy of attention.

Ugh, I must be exceptionally bored to get involved in one of these threads, but I think this is the crux of the argument, and why a lot of cycling fans get so annoyed.

Personally, I object to the inordinate amount of coverage that LA receives, and the way he overshadows the sport. It just gets tiresome for the fans who want to talk about cycling instead of talking about Lance Armstrong.

As FF correctly points out, regardless of LA has done in the past, the are numerous riders this year who have outperformed LA, yet are virtually ignored in the cycling press. That is wrong whatever way you look at it.

rokkala

afx237vi wrote:

Rokkala wrote:

Maybe i'm mistaken, but you seem to come across a bit upset that since Armstrongs comeback, the spotlight of world cycling has once again grown brighter, and moved(rightly or wrongly) onto Lance, rather than those you deem more worthy of attention.

Ugh, I must be exceptionally bored to get involved in one of these threads, but I think this is the crux of the argument, and why a lot of cycling fans get so annoyed.

Personally, I object to the inordinate amount of coverage that LA receives, and the way he overshadows the sport. It just gets tiresome for the fans who want to talk about cycling instead of talking about Lance Armstrong.

As FF correctly points out, regardless of LA has done in the past, the are numerous riders this year who have outperformed LA, yet are virtually ignored in the cycling press. That is wrong whatever way you look at it.

I don't agree with it either, but its just the way it is sadly. Although on the basis of this thread it can be assumed FF doesn't mind talking about LA?

It was the exact same thing in Formula 1 with Michael Schumacher. I was never a fan of MS, but i would have been very keen to see how his aborted comeback would have panned out, even if it took the media spotlight away from all others.

Although the specialist motorsport press does seem a lot better than the specialist cycling press.

moray_gub

afx237vi wrote:

Rokkala wrote:

Maybe i'm mistaken, but you seem to come across a bit upset that since Armstrongs comeback, the spotlight of world cycling has once again grown brighter, and moved(rightly or wrongly) onto Lance, rather than those you deem more worthy of attention.

Ugh, I must be exceptionally bored to get involved in one of these threads, but I think this is the crux of the argument, and why a lot of cycling fans get so annoyed.

Personally, I object to the inordinate amount of coverage that LA receives, and the way he overshadows the sport. It just gets tiresome for the fans who want to talk about cycling instead of talking about Lance Armstrong.

As FF correctly points out, regardless of LA has done in the past, the are numerous riders this year who have outperformed LA, yet are virtually ignored in the cycling press. That is wrong whatever way you look at it.

It works both ways though LA is a big story this year and his coming 3rd in the TDF was a remarkable effort and is worthy of debate. The problem comes when people who dont like Lance much try to stifle debate. As much as you and others like you dislike Lance you gotta accept his is a big story in the cyling world and will generate a lot of coverage/debate sometimes at the exclusion of other riders. Do you think when Schumaker was gonna make a comeback he didnt generate a lot of coverage at the expense of others ?

ps didnt see the F1 comment above before posting

SpaceJunk

Look, I'm no LA fan either, but if we are going to 'measure how successful his 2009 season' was, don't we need to consider what his season objectives were?

I'm sure LA would have loved a win or two (especially the Tour), but doesn't his LIvestrong project need to be considered in this as well?

Was his cancer awareness crusade a success?

Plus how much publicity did he give the sport? I can only vouch fro the Tour Down Under, but it was Lance-mania down here. (Sent me mad).

But if that has resulted in more kids riding their bikes, being introduced to the sport etc, etc then that has to be a good thing.

LA certainly did better on the bike than I expected, and with the increased interest in the sport, he gets a pass mark from me.

Monty Dog

I'm perplexed by this Lance getting more people on bikes thing - may be so in the US, but I don't buy it here. Moreover, if there's one thing that stops me buying a magazine is a picture of his holiness on the front cover - like the others, the whole media-hype is tiresome - it genuinely distracts from real bike racing - you know the events that run from March to October rather than 3-weeks in July.

DavMartinR

Odd this? The first person to agree with FF about this would probably be Lance himself. Although peolpe are defending him here I bet he's beating himself up inside and can't wait til next season. Cos 3rd is nowhere in his book.

lloyd_bower

DavMartinR wrote:

Odd this? The first person to agree with FF about this would probably be Lance himself. Although peolpe are defending him here I bet he's beating himself up inside and can't wait til next season. Cos 3rd is nowhere in his book.

Sure, he may disappointed himself, but 3rd in the Tour with his age and time away is far above what most expected. The only disappointments would be few other performances, though 12th in giro is not to be sniffed at, and the injury won't have helped, and not taking a stage win.

There's no way he'll be improving on 3rd next year, a year older.

frenchfighter

Monty Dog wrote:

I'm perplexed by this Lance getting more people on bikes thing - may be so in the US, but I don't buy it here. Moreover, if there's one thing that stops me buying a magazine is a picture of his holiness on the front cover - like the others, the whole media-hype is tiresome - it genuinely distracts from real bike racing - you know the events that run from March to October rather than 3-weeks in July.

Precisely. This is one of the key problems.

I was so annoyed when Cycle Sport had SO many articles on him ALL year. The situation was finally rectified when in the latest issue when they had Contador on the front and an interview with him as the lead article, and included and an article on Lance's total lack of achievement.

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

I'm perplexed by this Lance getting more people on bikes thing - may be so in the US, but I don't buy it here. Moreover, if there's one thing that stops me buying a magazine is a picture of his holiness on the front cover - like the others, the whole media-hype is tiresome - it genuinely distracts from real bike racing - you know the events that run from March to October rather than 3-weeks in July.

Precisely. This is one of the key problems.

I was so annoyed when Cycle Sport had SO many articles on him ALL year. The situation was finally rectified when in the latest issue when they had Contador on the front and an interview with him as the lead article, and included and an article on Lance's total lack of achievement.

That's possibly because cycle sport is rubbish.

HOwever, they probably have a better idea of what shfts magazines than you, and a need to give their advertisers value for money.

frenchfighter

An observation which I think is interesting and revealing:

There are very few super Pro Lance members contributing on this thread like we have seen in others.

I propose two reasons for this:
- Like I and others said, they tend to surface in June/July/Aug then completely disappear just like Lance.
- Lance is not mentioned in the title. Big Tex is a nickname for him known only by some. This was deliberate on my part as I wanted a proper dicussion on his performance this year with people who follow the sport closely and can analyse impartially, and it is likely that these are the type of people who will know who Big Tex is.

frenchfighter

disgruntledgoat wrote:

That's possibly because cycle sport is rubbish.

Cycle Sport is like an elite and every other magazine is a 3rd or 4th cat. That is how good it is.

Your point on shifting mags is correct though, although they cottoned on to the fact that their readers are mostly not pro Lance (as evidenced by the letters).

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

That's possibly because cycle sport is rubbish.

Cycle Sport is like an elite and every other magazine is a 3rd or 4th cat. That is how good it is.

Your point on shifting mags is correct though, although they cottoned on to the fact that their readers are mostly not pro Lance (as evidenced by the letters).

Each to their own, but I find it to be sneery, negative about nearly everyone and facile in it's analysis. Unless of course it's improved, I haven't bought it since their lengthy "Why Valverde is really rubbish and anyone can win Liege-Bastogne-Liege" spread.

bompington

frenchfighter wrote:

Lance is not mentioned in the title. Big Tex is a nickname for him known only by some

I cracked the code! I'm really chuffed, it must mean I'm a Real Cyclist. And look at how my post count is going up!

bompington

Quote from PM:
______________________
From: frenchfighter
To: bompington
Posted: Mon Sep 7, 2009 10:01 am
Subject: Grow up
You want heated debate, you try and goad me. I'm afraid you wont get it. I am able to control myself and demonstrate maturity unlike some, who could be double or even triple my age.

I know many people find it difficult to come to terms with facts and get hot and bothered when I show them. Why this is I cannot understand.

If you or anyone else thinks this obsessive or any other adjective you like to throw my way then so be it.

All you are trying to do is derail threads, clutter them. Why don't you try and debate like a mature and knowledgeable adult.
____________________

To which I can only reply, (in public rather than private, it's much more fun) that it should be fairly clear to any reasonable person that:

1. I'm not remotely interested in heated debate, which is why I like to (gently) tease people who, it's blatantly obvious, are full of heated debate.

2. I'm not that interested in debating these topics like a mature and responsible adult, as one of the characteristics of a mature and responsible adult is the ability to discern what to take seriously and what to laugh at. But if you want rational debate, I could point out that you have indeed posted a lot of facts, many of which no-one would disagree with; but a lot of us would disagree with the meaning, significance or interpretations of these facts. The reason you attract such heated oppostion and, yes, ridicule, is that you appear to attribute to your own interpretations of the facts the same weight as the facts themselves. Since it appears to matter, I should point out that I have a first class degree in Maths, as well as quite a lot of years' experience in dealing with the (rather messier) real world.

There we go, that's enough rational debate, I'm off to a) do some work, and b) ride my bike.

disgruntledgoat

Concur, Bompington.

FFif you didn't want to debate Armstrong's former coreer, why put "he never won much anyway" in the OP? I've said this to Aurelio before, you bring to mind something my father said to me when I was 18 "You regard conversation as a bloodsport".

frenchfighter

bomp. You just showed yourself up badly. You also proved my point completely.

The whole point of sending you a PM was so as not to clutter the thread but your actions have made things worse.

"(in public rather than private, it's much more fun)" - fun is for playgrounds and children. You really have demonstated significant immaturity.

If you are not interested in heated debate why 'tease' people. These two things are at odds.

I couldn't read your 2nd paragraph as it wasn't very well written.

Very sad.

Gazzaputt

I personally cannot see how it can be described as a failure.

3rd in the TDF was a great result maybe 2nd he was never going to beat Contador. Lance knew he wasn't going to win and I really think the 3rd place surprised him.

12th Giro. Not bad at all for a 38year old recovering from a shoulder fracture.

Tour Down under. Wasn't in this for a GC was feeling his way back into the Peleton.

Tour of Ireland. Bollox I'd ride up that hill in the pouring rain with nothing to gain but grief.

Leadville 100. He was gunning for that win.

Overall for first season back I'd give a 8\10.

Big plus were the spontaneous rides in Glasgow and Dublin. What a PR coup.

bompington

frenchfighter wrote:

I couldn't read your 2nd paragraph as it wasn't very well written.

!!!

Then again, my spelling checker does give it a reading age of 18, so here it is in nice easy words:

My posts are usually flippant and silly because I am an adult who spends his working life dealing with real problems, which makes me think that this topic is not worth such serious debate. But you do.
You are not wrong when you claim to present facts. But the way you interpret those facts does not, despite your frequent claims, show as much logic. This is why so many people disagree with you, and even make fun of you. I know about facts and logic, (and Maths too, I have a first class degree in it) and I also know that it is much harder to make anything so clear cut in the real world, where I have spent quite a long time now.

Much better, that's down to 12.5 now, hope that's OK for you.

frenchfighter

I thought you were working and/or riding your bike...

bompington

frenchfighter wrote:

I thought you were working and/or riding your bike...

Chapeau. Now you've got me