TDF2015. Time for a Rouleur's Tour
Comments
-
The_Boy wrote:mike6 wrote:
Who took Nibali to win before it started? and who took him to win by over 7 minutes with two Frenchmen on the podium?Paulie W wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Above The Cows wrote:kleinstroker wrote:Seems the TDF has just been getting easier and easier as time goes on, it bears virtually no resemblance to the gruelling monster tour it once was, so I would love to see it become a lot harder than it is at present.
And see a return of drugs?
As someone else once said the Olympic 100 metres is once every 4 years and lasts 10 seconds yet there is as much doping in that as cycling. Making it tougher or making it less tough will have no impact on doping because they aren't doping just so they can finish they are doping to be better than the next rider.
Doping in cycling has its origins in riders just trying to survive, to dull the pain of riding for ridiculous distances and it could be argued that even in the 90s when doping turned also-rans into winners for many it was still just about keeping up, doing your job and getting to the end.
Didn't back Nibali, but was on Peraud weeks before the start @ 251.00. Also took Pinot in-running @ 301.00.
Didn't do so good trying to pick stage winners though.
Top man (Boy, sorry).0 -
And see a big exodus of the top names opting for the Giro and Vuelta no doubt.0
-
Paulie W wrote:As someone else once said the Olympic 100 metres is once every 4 years and lasts 10 seconds yet there is as much doping in that as cycling. Making it tougher or making it less tough will have no impact on doping because they aren't doping just so they can finish they are doping to be better than the next rider.
Doping in cycling has its origins in riders just trying to survive, to dull the pain of riding for ridiculous distances and it could be argued that even in the 90s when doping turned also-rans into winners for many it was still just about keeping up, doing your job and getting to the end.
Keeping up is about performance so yes people do dope to keep up I wouldn't deny that. If you look at lots of sports though there is doping - weight lifting, sprinting, throwing - none of those require doping to finish it's all about being better than the next rider whether to win a competition or to keep a contract. Otherwise the marathon would have more doping than the 100 metres - I suppose it may do but my impression is that there have been many more sprinters caught than marathon runners.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Keeping up is about performance so yes people do dope to keep up I wouldn't deny that. If you look at lots of sports though there is doping - weight lifting, sprinting, throwing - none of those require doping to finish it's all about being better than the next rider whether to win a competition or to keep a contract. Otherwise the marathon would have more doping than the 100 metres - I suppose it may do but my impression is that there have been many more sprinters caught than marathon runners.
Probably because the best drugs for them to use also stay in the bloodstream for longer.0 -
davidof wrote:
Armstrong may have been high as a kite, but there was some panache and tactical progression there at least. (Althought he 60k TTTs didn't help matters). With Indurain it was 'I've beaten you climbers six minutes or more in a 50k TT, what are you going to do about it?".RichN95 wrote:oh my gawd Indurain, now that was boring, huge spaniard on huge gears grinding away up the grand cols. At least Armstrong was a bit mad with all his fratboy staring out other riders before he launched some wacky doped fueled attack to take 10 minutes over a small climb.
I would though say that I have seen many top sportsmen close up, but Indurain was the one that looked like a Greek god to me.
Did either of you watch any of the Indurain Tours? His tactics were fairly simplistic, but he would always go on the attack in the first or second mountain stage, mainly to reduce down the number of riders he needed to watch to two. He also mixed it up, witness his ambush on the 95 Tour to Liege, and then the astonishing attack on La Plagne, where he rode everyone off his wheel and dropped them all for at least two minutes.0 -
andyp wrote:davidof wrote:
Armstrong may have been high as a kite, but there was some panache and tactical progression there at least. (Althought he 60k TTTs didn't help matters). With Indurain it was 'I've beaten you climbers six minutes or more in a 50k TT, what are you going to do about it?".RichN95 wrote:oh my gawd Indurain, now that was boring, huge spaniard on huge gears grinding away up the grand cols. At least Armstrong was a bit mad with all his fratboy staring out other riders before he launched some wacky doped fueled attack to take 10 minutes over a small climb.
I would though say that I have seen many top sportsmen close up, but Indurain was the one that looked like a Greek god to me.
Did either of you watch any of the Indurain Tours? His tactics were fairly simplistic, but he would always go on the attack in the first or second mountain stage, mainly to reduce down the number of riders he needed to watch to two. He also mixed it up, witness his ambush on the 95 Tour to Liege, and then the astonishing attack on La Plagne, where he rode everyone off his wheel and dropped them all for at least two minutes.
I feel Indurain gets a hard time from some cycling fans. He won by making the most of what he was good at, the TT. Climbers win, usualy, by maximising there specialist skill, same thing.
It seems now though that you have to be more of an all rounder to win the Tour, the days of specialist climbers winning are few and far between. I hope Quintana proves me wrong, and rides to a win next year in the mountains, but I bet he is working hard on his TT skills.0 -
Very rarely saw Indurain dropped in the mountains (something I was always suspicious of given his size). OK, he didn't attack there much either but given how easy he usually looked climbing then I suspect he could have if he needed to. The thing I never understood was why the organisers didn't cut the TTs and put more climbs in given Big Mig's domination and the fact there were a few French riders at the time who could have challenged for GC.0
-
mike6 wrote:
It seems now though that you have to be more of an all rounder to win the Tour, the days of specialist climbers winning are few and far between. I hope Quintana proves me wrong, and rides to a win next year in the mountains, but I bet he is working hard on his TT skills.
Have a look at his previous results. Quintana's time trialling is weaker than his climbing but compared to other recent grand tour winners probably only Froome and Wiggins would be clear favourites against the clock.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Pross wrote:Very rarely saw Indurain dropped in the mountains (something I was always suspicious of given his size). OK, he didn't attack there much either but given how easy he usually looked climbing then I suspect he could have if he needed to. The thing I never understood was why the organisers didn't cut the TTs and put more climbs in given Big Mig's domination and the fact there were a few French riders at the time who could have challenged for GC.
Well it is all about power to weight ratio and he produced huge wattage, also he had freakishly large lungs and a resting heart rate rumoured to be one of the lowest measured. He was built for speed endurance, it would seem, so being able to hang on in the mountains is no big surprise.0 -
Throw in maybe triathlon stage to liven things up.?
Or proper point-to-point cyclocross.
MTB stage...?
SS stage?
Each team has one Derny stage...
Make em dance I say.......................0 -
How many pure climbers have won the tour since 1980?
Hinault - Nope
Inurain - Nope
Zootemelk - Nope
Froome - Nope
Contador - Not really, too good a TT rider to be considered a pure climber
Roche - Nope
LeMond - Nope
Fignon - Nope
Ullrich - Definately not
Rijs - Nope
Sastre - Nope
Wiggins - "...you cannot be serious..." quote, un-quote.
That leaves Delgado and Pantani and half the field were missing the year Pantani won after the Festina fiasco.
Next question, How many pure climbers have won the TdF since 1970?
I am not sure I am with you Mike6 - no offence.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
pinarello001 wrote:How many pure climbers have won the tour since 1980?
Hinault - Nope
Inurain - Nope
Zootemelk - Nope
Froome - Nope
Contador - Not really, too good a TT rider to be considered a pure climber
Roche - Nope
LeMond - Nope
Fignon - Nope
Ullrich - definitely not
Rijs - Nope
Sastre - Nope
Wiggins - "...you cannot be serious..." quote, un-quote.
That leaves Delgado and Pantani and half the field were missing the year Pantani won after the Festina fiasco.
Next question, How many pure climbers have won the TdF since 1970?
I am not sure I am with you Mike6 - no offence.
Dont know what you mean????
Did I say a pure climber had won the Tour recently? I commented on the post that said Indurain's wins were boring because he won by being a good TTer. I merely said that climbers win races by being good at what they do. Play to your strengths. :?:
Also you seem to have picked out Ullrich and Wiggins as being particularly poor at getting up mountains. I watched all of Ullrich's Tours, and Wiggins, and I seem to recall they were usually in the front group. Not specialist climbers, sure, but hardly candidates for derision compared to the rest on that list. I seem to recall Ullrich destroying the two best specialist climbers in the race, Pantani and Virenque, in the mountains, when he won his Tour.0 -
Schleck in 2010, albeit belatedly?pinarello001 wrote:How many pure climbers have won the tour since 1980?0
