Armstrong doing 3 classics

teagar

andyp wrote:

dulldave wrote:

I'm developing an unnerving habit for agreeing with dennis. If he wanted to win one like he wanted to win the tour, he would. But he wants to win one AND win the tour, which is more difficult for him.

1992-1996 anyone?

Remind me how many proper Classics he won then, when he was seen as a Classics rider. One Fleche and the San Sebastian Classic? Any more.

He tried very hard to win a monument but didn't have either the nous or the horsepower to achieve it.

Don't the worlds count as a monument? If not, they bloody well should!

calvjones

teagar wrote:

andyp wrote:

dulldave wrote:

I'm developing an unnerving habit for agreeing with dennis. If he wanted to win one like he wanted to win the tour, he would. But he wants to win one AND win the tour, which is more difficult for him.

1992-1996 anyone?

Remind me how many proper Classics he won then, when he was seen as a Classics rider. One Fleche and the San Sebastian Classic? Any more.

He tried very hard to win a monument but didn't have either the nous or the horsepower to achieve it.

Don't the worlds count as a monument? If not, they bloody well should!

[tinhat] yeah, but how lucky was he in Olso, eh? [/tinhat]

{sorry, where's Olso?}

avoidingmyphd

frenchfighter wrote:

Gesink rotutinely takes part and performs in the Classics.

It will be interesting to see whether that continues when/if he starts to fulfil his potential at the pointy end of grand tours...

afx237vi

teagar wrote:

Don't the worlds count as a monument? If not, they bloody well should!

There only 5 monuments, aren't there? MSR, Flanders, Roubaix, LBL and Lombardia.

I think a worlds win would rank alongside a monument, but they aren't the same thing. The worlds don't have the same buzz and resonance that the monuments have.

teagar

afx237vi wrote:

teagar wrote:

Don't the worlds count as a monument? If not, they bloody well should!

There only 5 monuments, aren't there? MSR, Flanders, Roubaix, LBL and Lombardia.

I think a worlds win would rank alongside a monument, but they aren't the same thing. The worlds don't have the same buzz and resonance that the monuments have.

Fair enough.

The dispute that he hasn't won a monument when he's won a world's is slighty moot then isn't it?

Had he stuck with the classics he'd probably have been in the running for a win for a lot of them. Only riding GT dulls your classics senses in my book though.

dennisn

afx237vi wrote:

teagar wrote:

Don't the worlds count as a monument? If not, they bloody well should!

There only 5 monuments, aren't there? MSR, Flanders, Roubaix, LBL and Lombardia.

I think a worlds win would rank alongside a monument, but they aren't the same thing. The worlds don't have the same buzz and resonance that the monuments have.

The worlds may or may not have the same buzz but the advertisers sure do like to have that jersey in their pictures. I'd bet that the riders consider it a pretty big deal(at least money wise).

afx237vi

teagar wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

teagar wrote:

Don't the worlds count as a monument? If not, they bloody well should!

There only 5 monuments, aren't there? MSR, Flanders, Roubaix, LBL and Lombardia.

I think a worlds win would rank alongside a monument, but they aren't the same thing. The worlds don't have the same buzz and resonance that the monuments have.

Fair enough.

The dispute that he hasn't won a monument when he's won a world's is slighty moot then isn't it?

Had he stuck with the classics he'd probably have been in the running for a win for a lot of them. Only riding GT dulls your classics senses in my book though.

He still had a good sprint when he was winning his Tours, and I'm not sure even the most ardent member of the ALB could accuse him of lacking wiles or road-sense.

People like Valverde, Vinokourov, Di Luca and the Schlecks have all won in April then went gone on to contest the GTs.

Now that I've written that, I'm not sure whether I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you

In summation:- Could he have won a bunch of classics? Possibly. Did he? No.

FJS

andyp wrote:

dulldave wrote:

I'm developing an unnerving habit for agreeing with dennis. If he wanted to win one like he wanted to win the tour, he would. But he wants to win one AND win the tour, which is more difficult for him.

1992-1996 anyone?

Remind me how many proper Classics he won then, when he was seen as a Classics rider. One Fleche and the San Sebastian Classic? Any more.

He tried very hard to win a monument but didn't have either the nous or the horsepower to achieve it.

Not a bit harsh there Andy? He finished 2nd in LBL twice, and was still only 25 in 1996 - it's quite reasonable to assume he had a good chance to bag a classic at some point in his career, although nothing indicated he would be a generation-dominating classics rider. Even Museeuw didn't win a proper classic until he was 27. You could even argue that Fleche Wallonne is a classic, although not a monument.
Armstrong used to have a decent sprint in those years, not anymore post-1998 (losing a sprint to Boogerd?!).

teagar

afx237vi wrote:

teagar wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

teagar wrote:

Don't the worlds count as a monument? If not, they bloody well should!

There only 5 monuments, aren't there? MSR, Flanders, Roubaix, LBL and Lombardia.

I think a worlds win would rank alongside a monument, but they aren't the same thing. The worlds don't have the same buzz and resonance that the monuments have.

Fair enough.

The dispute that he hasn't won a monument when he's won a world's is slighty moot then isn't it?

Had he stuck with the classics he'd probably have been in the running for a win for a lot of them. Only riding GT dulls your classics senses in my book though.

He still had a good sprint when he was winning his Tours, and I'm not sure even the most ardent member of the ALB could accuse him of lacking wiles or road-sense.

People like Valverde, Vinokourov, Di Luca and the Schlecks have all won in April then went gone on to contest the GTs.

Now that I've written that, I'm not sure whether I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you

In summation:- Could he have won a bunch of classics? Possibly. Did he? No.

Agreed with all of that. You'll have to disagreewith me over tactics on the road though.

I feel GT tactics are very different to classics tactics. Not saying he wasn't smart enough, just that spending time only in a peleton, unless it's an all out 45 min blast up the final mountain or a 55min effort in a TT, dulls the senses slightly for THAT decisive break. Had he stuck with classics, it would probably be different. He often didn't get the tactics right in the one-dayers when he was younger, and his Tour tactics were hardly split second decisions.

andyp

FJS wrote:

Not a bit harsh there Andy? He finished 2nd in LBL twice, and was still only 25 in 1996 - it's quite reasonable to assume he had a good chance to bag a classic at some point in his career, although nothing indicated he would be a generation-dominating classics rider. Even Museeuw didn't win a proper classic until he was 27. You could even argue that Fleche Wallonne is a classic, although not a monument.
Armstrong used to have a decent sprint in those years, not anymore post-1998 (losing a sprint to Boogerd?!).

We'll never know, but seeing as he was regularly outfoxed by supposedly inferior riders then I think it's reasonable to suggest that he might not have won a monument.

What galls me is those people who seem to think that a good (or even great) GT rider is automatically a contender for the classics, should they turn their minds to it. They are two very different types of races and just because you're good at one doesn't automatically mean you'll be good at the other. Wasn't it 2005 when Armstrong said he was going to try and win a monument rather than focusing on the Tour only to later change his mind? This forum was full of people making claims that he'd win Flanders without any problem and could do the same in any other race, simply because of who he was. To me that shows how little you understand about cycling as it takes a rare breed to win GTs and monuments, many have tried, very few have succeeded.

micron

spot on, andyp

dennisn

andyp wrote:

FJS wrote:

Not a bit harsh there Andy? He finished 2nd in LBL twice, and was still only 25 in 1996 - it's quite reasonable to assume he had a good chance to bag a classic at some point in his career, although nothing indicated he would be a generation-dominating classics rider. Even Museeuw didn't win a proper classic until he was 27. You could even argue that Fleche Wallonne is a classic, although not a monument.
Armstrong used to have a decent sprint in those years, not anymore post-1998 (losing a sprint to Boogerd?!).

We'll never know, but seeing as he was regularly outfoxed by supposedly inferior riders then I think it's reasonable to suggest that he might not have won a monument.

What galls me is those people who seem to think that a good (or even great) GT rider is automatically a contender for the classics, should they turn their minds to it. They are two very different types of races and just because you're good at one doesn't automatically mean you'll be good at the other. Wasn't it 2005 when Armstrong said he was going to try and win a monument rather than focusing on the Tour only to later change his mind? This forum was full of people making claims that he'd win Flanders without any problem and could do the same in any other race, simply because of who he was. To me that shows how little you understand about cycling as it takes a rare breed to win GTs and monuments, many have tried, very few have succeeded.

I think you're overreacting. No ones saying that he WILL win or loss this or that race. Just that he could. You criticize people for "how little you understand". Well, I say you're wrong. I understand that pretty much anyone in the race has a CHANCE should it just happen to be their day. So I don't buy your "rare breed" theory and I doubt anyone else does either. I can guarantee that people who were not and still aren't considered "rare breeds" have won more than their fair share of these "monuments". If, as you say, these guys are all rare breeds, then name the 1983 winner(without looking it up). You should know. After all we are the dumb ones who don't understand cycling.

Echo et les Boniments

dennisn wrote:

people who were not and still aren't considered "rare breeds" have won more than their fair share of these "monuments".

Hell yeah.

Wampers, Lammerts, Bobrik, Marc Gomez, De Mol, Guesdon, Furlan, Gabriele Colombo, Delion, Maechler... the list goes on and on.

moray_gub

andyp wrote:

To me that shows how little you understand about cycling .

We are not worthy !

dennisn

Echo et les Boniments wrote:

dennisn wrote:

people who were not and still aren't considered "rare breeds" have won more than their fair share of these "monuments".

Hell yeah.

Wampers, Lammerts, Bobrik, Marc Gomez, De Mol, Guesdon, Furlan, Gabriele Colombo, Delion, Maechler... the list goes on and on.

Lots of winners who were just "flashes in the pan" as the saying goes. And I DON'T mean that as a put down on their accomplishments. Happens in every sport, or music, or whatever.

andyp

dennisn wrote:

I think you're overreacting. No ones saying that he WILL win or loss this or that race. Just that he could. You criticize people for "how little you understand". Well, I say you're wrong. I understand that pretty much anyone in the race has a CHANCE should it just happen to be their day. So I don't buy your "rare breed" theory and I doubt anyone else does either. I can guarantee that people who were not and still aren't considered "rare breeds" have won more than their fair share of these "monuments". If, as you say, these guys are all rare breeds, then name the 1983 winner(without looking it up). You should know. After all we are the dumb ones who don't understand cycling.

Were you on this forum back in 2005 Dennis? If so, you'd remember the claims about how other riders shouldn't bother turning up as it was a done deal that Armstrong would win which ever race he chose to ride.

My point remains, riders who won both GTs and one day monuments are few and far between. Of the currently active GT winners, I think only Damiano Cunego and Danilo Di Luca have won a monument. Actually we should add Vino to that list.

As to the challenge, do you want me to name all the winners of 1983 monuments or just Flanders?

Flanders was won by Raas that year I think. Milan-San Remo was won by Saronni, Paris-Roubaix by Hennie Kuiper, Sean Kelly won Lombardy and I think Steven Rooks won Liege but that might have been 1982 so I'd need to check that one. You should have gone for an earlier year, as 1983 was when I really got into cycling.

dennisn

andyp wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I think you're overreacting. No ones saying that he WILL win or loss this or that race. Just that he could. You criticize people for "how little you understand". Well, I say you're wrong. I understand that pretty much anyone in the race has a CHANCE should it just happen to be their day. So I don't buy your "rare breed" theory and I doubt anyone else does either. I can guarantee that people who were not and still aren't considered "rare breeds" have won more than their fair share of these "monuments". If, as you say, these guys are all rare breeds, then name the 1983 winner(without looking it up). You should know. After all we are the dumb ones who don't understand cycling.

Were you on this forum back in 2005 Dennis? If so, you'd remember the claims about how other riders shouldn't bother turning up as it was a done deal that Armstrong would win which ever race he chose to ride.

My point remains, riders who won both GTs and one day monuments are few and far between. Of the currently active GT winners, I think only Damiano Cunego and Danilo Di Luca have won a monument. Actually we should add Vino to that list.

As to the challenge, do you want me to name all the winners of 1983 monuments or just Flanders?

Flanders was won by Raas that year I think. Milan-San Remo was won by Saronni, Paris-Roubaix by Hennie Kuiper, Sean Kelly won Lombardy and I think Steven Rooks won Liege but that might have been 1982 so I'd need to check that one. You should have gone for an earlier year, as 1983 was when I really got into cycling.

Am only disputing your "rare breed" claim. Lots of winners of "monuments" who pretty much came out of nowhere and went right back. Flashes in the pan if you will. Good memory on your part. I meant the P-R winner but forgot to say so. :oops: :oops:

Monty Dog

I'm with andyp on this and I know it's been stated countless times, particulary when a certain rider states his aims to win a monument, his acolytes claim that the opposition needn't turn up as it's a sure fire thing - which just goes to demonstrate how little they understand the sport.

Agreed on Vino, Cunego and DiLuca being the only members of the peloton who've won both GTs and a monument

dennisn

Monty Dog wrote:

I'm with andyp on this and I know it's been stated countless times, particulary when a certain rider states his aims to win a monument, his acolytes claim that the opposition needn't turn up as it's a sure fire thing - which just goes to demonstrate how little they understand the sport.

Agreed on Vino, Cunego and DiLuca being the only members of the peloton who've won both GTs and a monument

In the past, oh say 75 years, has this GT winners only win GT's and monument racers only win monuments been more or less true or is it a sort of phenomena of more recent racing with the advent of the so called specialist?? I ask because I'm not a real stat freak
and this discussion made me wonder. Did the "old guys in the good old days" tend to win
just about anything? And today, well, they just don't make them like that anymore? I'm going to assume that "back then" riders raced everything because, well, that's what they got paid to do and there was more emphasis on ALL the races. Instead of a few.

andyp

dennisn wrote:

Did the "old guys in the good old days" tend to win
just about anything? And today, well, they just don't make them like that anymore? I'm going to assume that "back then" riders raced everything because, well, that's what they got paid to do and there was more emphasis on ALL the races. Instead of a few.

Pretty much exactly that. The sport has changed so that now riders specialise much, much more than they used to.

FJS

andyp wrote:

FJS wrote:

Not a bit harsh there Andy? He finished 2nd in LBL twice, and was still only 25 in 1996 - it's quite reasonable to assume he had a good chance to bag a classic at some point in his career, although nothing indicated he would be a generation-dominating classics rider. Even Museeuw didn't win a proper classic until he was 27. You could even argue that Fleche Wallonne is a classic, although not a monument.
Armstrong used to have a decent sprint in those years, not anymore post-1998 (losing a sprint to Boogerd?!).

We'll never know, but seeing as he was regularly outfoxed by supposedly inferior riders then I think it's reasonable to suggest that he might not have won a monument.

What galls me is those people who seem to think that a good (or even great) GT rider is automatically a contender for the classics, should they turn their minds to it. They are two very different types of races and just because you're good at one doesn't automatically mean you'll be good at the other. Wasn't it 2005 when Armstrong said he was going to try and win a monument rather than focusing on the Tour only to later change his mind? This forum was full of people making claims that he'd win Flanders without any problem and could do the same in any other race, simply because of who he was. To me that shows how little you understand about cycling as it takes a rare breed to win GTs and monuments, many have tried, very few have succeeded.

You're right, we'll never know, and he might well never have won a monument, but on the other hand, he did win one day races early on, including Fleche Wallonne, and like teager writes, would he have contrinued focusing on the classics, he might have developed more of a tactical awareness for those races.

The discussion about whether or not one-day racing requires a special breed is quite interesting (I agree of course with the rare breed idea). What's missing in that discussion is how that rare breed comes about, and that is partly in cycling background and what type of races a rider has grown up doing - in Flanders riders grow up doing one day racing, and it is partly key to why in the old days top riders where more able to combine both.

BTW, I wasn't here in 2005, but agree that expectations of Armstrong sweeping De Ronde would have been completely absurd, don't know why you bring that up in this for the rest quite reasonable discussion.

moray_gub

Monty Dog wrote:

I'm with andyp on this and I know it's been stated countless times, particulary when a certain rider states his aims to win a monument, his acolytes claim that the opposition needn't turn up as it's a sure fire thing - which just goes to demonstrate how little they understand the sport.
t

Are you lot some kind of cycling super beings or what there is hell of a lot of the great i am going on in this thread. BTW i was here in 2005 i cant recall too many if anybody saying what your are claiming.

The Prodigy

Moray Gub wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

I'm with andyp on this and I know it's been stated countless times, particulary when a certain rider states his aims to win a monument, his acolytes claim that the opposition needn't turn up as it's a sure fire thing - which just goes to demonstrate how little they understand the sport.
t

Are you lot some kind of cycling super beings or what there is hell of a lot of the great i am going on in this thread. BTW i was here in 2005 i cant recall too many if anybody saying what your are claiming.

Cycling super beings are out there winning monuments and GT's so I doubt they're posting in this forum. There are some pompous know it all prats on here though.

RichN95.

Monty Dog wrote:

Agreed on Vino, Cunego and DiLuca being the only members of the peloton who've won both GTs and a monument

...and Valverde, too