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

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"Max Payne" <maxxxxx-payne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LltNi.34$y9.7@newsfe06.lga...
>
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/worlds07/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worl
ds07/worlds074/fs068

One thread should be enough on that if you must, but it's unfortune that the
Italians have not said a single word about her marvelous solo breakaway in
their forum. She earned it, and it reminds me about what they say in 1992
when Watt won. They called it an evil lesson that any rider can win against
all odds, not just the creme at the front. A lesser relatively unknown rider
went solo off the front taking the gold and the glory. More then likely it
will be the highlight of her cycling career, but what an inspiring finish, I
though she had the right stuff! However, Marta should try out some Banana
boat Aloe Vera with vitamen E, great stuff to use on hot sunny days, and
would of hidden that from the camera!

http://tinyurl.com/duhlc

GBMT

[MagillaGorilla]

GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:

> "Max Payne" <maxxxxx-payne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LltNi.34$y9.7@newsfe06.lga...
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/worlds07/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worl
> ds07/worlds074/fs068
>
> One thread should be enough on that if you must, but it's unfortune that the
> Italians have not said a single word about her marvelous solo breakaway in
> their forum. She earned it, and it reminds me about what they say in 1992
> when Watt won. They called it an evil lesson that any rider can win against
> all odds, not just the creme at the front. A lesser relatively unknown rider
> went solo off the front taking the gold and the glory. More then likely it
> will be the highlight of her cycling career, but what an inspiring finish, I
> though she had the right stuff! However, Marta should try out some Banana
> boat Aloe Vera with vitamen E, great stuff to use on hot sunny days, and
> would of hidden that from the camera!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/duhlc
>
> GBMT
>
>

Well, not to get too philosophical, but another lesson that can be
gleaned is that one day race results are meaningless. But we already
know this from Fondriest's rainbow jersey. They amount to a roll of the
dice. However, in a big Tour, you can't fake it over 2-3 weeks.

So was Watt a worthy champion? Well, given that she could never really
repeat her performance in Barcelona, I would say no. Same with Sara
"I've sucked since Athens" Carrigan. Carrigan's win was a fluke - much
like Alexi Grewal's gold medal against a diluted "Olympic" field. When
Grewal went to Europe, he was clearly out of his league.

Yeah, those cole sores or whatever it is on Marta's upper lip should
have been dealt with by her handlers prior to propping her up on the
podium. It was probably just a bad case of chapped lips, I'm sure, but
it shows incredible ignorance of marketiing PR on a worldwide stage by
her people.


Magilla

[stig]

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.

[Carl Sundquist]

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe8dp9$orf$1@aioe.org...
>
> Well, not to get too philosophical, but another lesson that can be gleaned
> is that one day race results are meaningless. But we already know this
> from Fondriest's rainbow jersey. They amount to a roll of the dice.
> However, in a big Tour, you can't fake it over 2-3 weeks.

Doping proves otherwise.

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe8dp9$orf$1@aioe.org...
> GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
>
> > "Max Payne" <maxxxxx-payne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:LltNi.34$y9.7@newsfe06.lga...
> >
> >
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/worlds07/index.php?id=/photos/2007/worl
> > ds07/worlds074/fs068
> >
> > One thread should be enough on that if you must, but it's unfortune that
the
> > Italians have not said a single word about her marvelous solo breakaway
in
> > their forum. She earned it, and it reminds me about what they say in
1992
> > when Watt won. They called it an evil lesson that any rider can win
against
> > all odds, not just the creme at the front. A lesser relatively unknown
rider
> > went solo off the front taking the gold and the glory. More then likely
it
> > will be the highlight of her cycling career, but what an inspiring
finish, I
> > though she had the right stuff! However, Marta should try out some
Banana
> > boat Aloe Vera with vitamen E, great stuff to use on hot sunny days, and
> > would of hidden that from the camera!
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/duhlc
> >
> > GBMT
> >
> >
>
> Well, not to get too philosophical, but another lesson that can be
> gleaned is that one day race results are meaningless. But we already
> know this from Fondriest's rainbow jersey. They amount to a roll of the
> dice. However, in a big Tour, you can't fake it over 2-3 weeks.

Normally yes, one day race results seem to be meaningless, but the worlds is
a one day slugfest. Even the DNF list is chalk full of talent. It seems like
a lottery, but then not exactly. It's the only race of the year where all
the creme comes together in one place, and the start list is indeed
impressive. Of course the heavy favorites are good choices to place your
bets. While I got 1st and 2nd right on the TT, Vos is the only 1 of 3
choices I made that came up a winner on the RR, she took 2nd. So it's
somewhat predictable if everything goes according to Hoyle. But the worlds
is a war of attrition, and some top riders never race the worlds because of
it's intense pace. Luperini almost never races the worlds because of the
fast pace, and it's usually never selective enough for the climbers like it
was in 1995 at Duitama Columbia.

However stage races are the real test of a great all around rider, so those
winners are the real champions. I think yes, in a way the worlds is a
gimmick to a certain extent much like the road race at the games, in the
sense so much pride and prestige is placed on this one day race. Regina won
the worlds, but she's hardly lived up to the glory and prestige placed on
her shoulders. That's quite a bit of weight to carry, wearing the rainbow
jersey all year long. I think Vos has lived up to expectations, but not
Regina. Arndt has, since she is such a solid rider all year long, great in
every sense. But great team work helped Regina win, as did great team work
helped Marta win. Cantele been strong all year, so she was marked, but Marta
was not taken seriously, after Vos caught Cantele, Marta slipped away and
Vos didn't chase, so it was an evil lesson as they say. Pooley, Worrack,
Melchers, Cantele, especially Pooley did a lot of work at the front all day,
Pooley being the revelation this year, a pure climber in the making, but it
didn't make any difference in the end.

There is so much to be gained by winning the worlds and the games in terms
of market value, same with the world cup, but even the world cup is not a
fair assessment in the world rankings because a number of variables are not
taken into account. I think Alfred and Jeans rankings are more fair and
realistic account of who the best riders are. Geographics play an unfair
role making it easier for some riders to excel or attend all the world cup
events, while others are excluded.
>
> So was Watt a worthy champion?

IMO, I am going to say yes. After she sprinted pass Maria Purvis of Great
Britain, the video shows Watt setting her Advocet for a TT ride. She
obviously planned her move well, and from what I read and heard, Watt should
of been taken seriously because she was riding well all year both in track
and a good TT rider. I don't think the peleton did their homework on Watt or
they would of chased her down. Neither Inga, Leontien or Longo did anything
when Watt left the main field. It could be Watt was keeping a low profile in
her training leading up to the games, but I had read her excellent times
were known to some at the time. There were people who actually favored Watt
to win that race, believe it or not. Watt was away for a very long time and
nobody took up the chase. From the perspective of race officials at the
time, they said all the top riders were sapped, including Inga Thompson.
Only Longo was able to chase. I haven't researched Watt's palmares yet, so I
am not a expert on Watt, but I talked to her several times, and provided her
with a copy of that race on DVD, it was the biggest moment of her life. She
expressed to me that she feels she was a worthy champion.



Well, given that she could never really
> repeat her performance in Barcelona, I would say no.

Well, you might of read about all her troubles since that time going into
the next Olympics. CN actually covered Watts troubles in great detail over
several years about her problems with Lucy Tyler, some of the problems with
all the coaches and the Ausse sports institutions and all the endless court
proceedings. Watt went through hell for years, so it's no surprise that she
couldn't fully focus on her racing. I think she was depressed a lot during
the years following Barcelona.



Same with Sara
> "I've sucked since Athens" Carrigan. Carrigan's win was a fluke - much
> like Alexi Grewal's gold medal against a diluted "Olympic" field. When
> Grewal went to Europe, he was clearly out of his league.

Sara raced at Altitude, and really trained hard coming into the games, after
a injury previously. She broke away and keep the pace high until the end
doing quite a bit of work alone, but she did really benefit from drafting
Arndt, enough to recover and easily take the win, but Arndt was spent it
seemed, and not happy with the German Federation obviously the finger thing,
so I don't know why or at what point Arndt gave up at the end, but she
didn't ever try to counter Sara's move for the line, so a combination of
being spent and angry too I guess since her pal Rossner was kept out of the
games, but Sara seemed to have earned this win as well. However, yes, it's a
one day war of attrition and Sara had the right stuff on that day, she
peaked perfectly for that day and made the right move at the right time. But
obviously Sara has not been able to carry that level of racing into the next
year. Sara is not like Arndt, who seems to be good all year long no matter
what. Very few riders are totally awesome all the time so consistently like
Judith Arndt. Many riders rise to the occasion never to be heard of again.
Sara may never have another great event like that ever again, as where
Arndt, you can bet on it! Arndt is one of the greatest all around riders
ever. She's easily in my top ten.


>
> Yeah, those cole sores or whatever it is on Marta's upper lip should
> have been dealt with by her handlers prior to propping her up on the
> podium. It was probably just a bad case of chapped lips, I'm sure, but
> it shows incredible ignorance of marketiing PR on a worldwide stage by
> her people.

Yup, pass the lip balm. That does look really bad, they should of fixed
that.

[smokeystrodtman@gmail.com]

On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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

[MagillaGorilla]

smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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.

No way, José.


Magilla

[smokeystrodtman@gmail.com]

On Oct 6, 11:24 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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.
>
> No way, José.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lance Armstrong for one has been quoted as saying Merckx is the
greatest of all time. I think he knows a little more about cycling
than you do.

Smokey

[RonSonic]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:24:49 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
wrote:

>smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe9n2i$k84$1@aioe.org...

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

It's flattering, but no, I agree. She might at best be called one of the
best American women of her time, but the 90's produced an explosion of very
good riders. Twigg was certainly very good but she found herself dealing
with some very tough customers during the 90's.

GBMT

[MagillaGorilla]

smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 6, 11:24 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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.
>>
>>No way, José.
>>
>>Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Lance Armstrong for one has been quoted as saying Merckx is the
> greatest of all time. I think he knows a little more about cycling
> than you do.
>
> Smokey


Lance is wrong. He probably says it out of some misguided Euro-thing
because if he didn't say that he would piss 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.

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.

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.


Magilla

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Oct 7, 12:04 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> 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.

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

This cuts to the chase. Who cares who did the fastest
time up Alpe d'Huez? You ride against the other people
in the race, not some clock or a number in a record
book. That's for triathletes. All this stuff about
what would happen if Eddy raced now or LANCE raced
then is for people who spend too much time playing
fantasy baseball.

> 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.

I believe in Jesus. I think I met him the other day at
work - I live in Arizona and there's several tens of
thousands of people named Jesus.

> 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.

Ben
dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy

[RicodJour]

On Oct 7, 3:04 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> Lance is wrong. He probably says it out of some misguided Euro-thing
> because if he didn't say that he would piss 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

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fea0d8$f50$1@aioe.org...

> 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.

And especially for women, it's incredibly hard to even find enough
information to get a clue. Certainly Burton and Yvonne Reynders stand out,
but more then likely, they would be only average riders today. Burton didn't
do any stage races I know of. She was mostly a track rider. Back then, there
didn't seem to be a yardstick for all around talent which stage races could
measure in climbing, TT, and sprint winners. In American before the first
American national road race in 1966 which Audrey McElmury won, Peter Nye who
wrote books about the early years, told me early women's races were just
hodge podge omniums, where there are a series of misc races and winners, but
nothing really organized like today, where pure logic can be applied, like
the world rankings and such.



GBMT

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fea0d8$f50$1@aioe.org...

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

I think there's a good chance Eddy could of surprised us with how many tours
and classics he could of completed today, not win but just complete. He did
compete in a huge amount of races during the season, and won a lot of them.
But like Marino Lejeretta who completed in the TDF, Giro, and the Vuelta
several years in a row, an incredible feat during the 90's, Eddy surely
would of impressed us with his stamina, even today. As they say, it's not
just about winning, but competing that counts. Eddy would of been in the
fight, that's for sure, and all season long!

GBMT

[Michael Press]

In article <fea0d8$f50$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 11:24 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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.
> >>
> >>No way, José.
> >>
> >>Magilla- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >>- Show quoted text -
> >
> >
> > Lance Armstrong for one has been quoted as saying Merckx is the
> > greatest of all time. I think he knows a little more about cycling
> > than you do.
> >
> > Smokey
>
>
> Lance is wrong. He probably says it out of some misguided Euro-thing
> because if he didn't say that he would piss 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Magilla

And Magilla has The Truth, same as some
backwoods, bible-thumping, mountebank.
Well, almost the same. The mountebank
has the Word of God. Magilla has his
prodigious appetite for bananas.

Here you go
_
_ \'-_,#
_\'--','`|
\`---` /
jgs `----'`



Thanks, no, I'm all right.

______ /
\------//
\ _//
\ (_/
\_/
|
jgs __|__

--
Michael Press

[Howard Kveck]

In article <1191744479.527263.15560@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.co m>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 12:04 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> 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?

[MagillaGorilla]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Oct 7, 12:04 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> 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

[Steven Bornfeld]

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Oct 7, 12:04 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> 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.
>
>> Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
>> today he wouldn't be jack.
>
> This cuts to the chase. Who cares who did the fastest
> time up Alpe d'Huez? You ride against the other people
> in the race, not some clock or a number in a record
> book. That's for triathletes. All this stuff about
> what would happen if Eddy raced now or LANCE raced
> then is for people who spend too much time playing
> fantasy baseball.
>
>> 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.
>
> I believe in Jesus. I think I met him the other day at
> work - I live in Arizona and there's several tens of
> thousands of people named Jesus.
>
>> 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.
>
> Ben
> dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy
>


Ben--

You didn't hear about all the genetic engineering done on competitive
cyclists in the past 30 years since Merckx retired?

Steve

[Donald Munro]

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

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org 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.

[MagillaGorilla]

RonSonic wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:24:49 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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

[Kyle Legate]

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.

[Wayne Pein]

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

[Bill C]

On Oct 7, 12:42 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> RonSonic wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:24:49 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo..com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:42:14 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
wrote:

>RonSonic wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:24:49 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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.

Of course not, he was racing against that eras pro's.

And yes there were pro's not just laborers with a side gig.

It's one thing to have a realistic appraisal of Eddie's abilities. It's another
to slag an entire generation of bike racers in order to insult him.

[smokeystrodtman@gmail.com]

On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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

[MagillaGorilla]

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

[MagillaGorilla]

smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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
>

Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet. Plus, Merckx never had to pass a WADA
piss test either.

So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
positive dope test.

Magilla

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <1191789971.685010.284460@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.c om>,
smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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

Ondrej Sosenka and Chris Boardman.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[MagillaGorilla]

Bill C wrote:

> On Oct 7, 12:42 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:24:49 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Oct 6, 1:55 pm, stig <stig...@yahoo.com> 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
>


If Eddy Merckx grew up today, his dog's name would appear in the
Operacion Puerto dossier and he'd be fired from T-Mobile.


Thanks,

Magilla

[Carl Sundquist]

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:febj16$f5i$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
>>
>
> 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.

LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting chicks.

Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have overlooked
Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling financial or
professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason that there hasn't
been much interest recently is the split records. How special is it to
break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of Boardman's 56.375, I'd
say not particularly. I'll concede that it's possible in the era of the
sound bite that the hour record may be passe'. Unify the record book to
currently acceptable TT equipment and I think interest would be greater.

Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:28:05 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
wrote:

>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?

Because there's nothing to be gained by a failed attempt. They know what they
can do. They know the value of the hour. They knew they couldn't beat it.

[smokeystrodtman@gmail.com]

On Oct 7, 4:33 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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
>
> Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
> Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet. Plus, Merckx never had to pass a WADA
> piss test either.
>
> So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
> positive dope test.
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah and all of today's pros are squeaky-clean. Hell, they all ride on
milk and cookies, everyone knows that.

Smokey

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:33:14 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
wrote:

>smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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
>>
>
>Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
>Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.

As if Mexico City were responsible for either. The fact is, nobody's taking on
the Merckx record and there's a real good reason for that.

>So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
>positive dope test.

You just did.

[Michael Press]

In article <febjar$g5p$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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
> >
>
> Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
> Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet. Plus, Merckx never had to pass a WADA
> piss test either.
>
> So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
> positive dope test.

As somebody (RJ?) mentioned up thread, take a racer
at the end of the season, send him to Mexico City,
or Bogota or Kathmandu and let him ride for an hour
on a seventies bicycle.

--
Michael Press

[Donald Munro]

smokeystrodtman wrote:
> Yeah and all of today's pros are squeaky-clean. Hell, they all ride on
> milk and cookies, everyone knows that.

Dumbass,
I put flaxseed oil on my milk and cookies. It tastes almost as
**** as andouillette (and Hampsten won the Gavia stage) but it
works great.

[MagillaGorilla]

Carl Sundquist wrote:

>
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:febj16$f5i$1@aioe.org...
>
>>>
>>> Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting chicks.
>
> Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have
> overlooked Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling
> financial or professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason
> that there hasn't been much interest recently is the split records. How
> special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
> Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly. I'll concede that it's
> possible in the era of the sound bite that the hour record may be
> passe'. Unify the record book to currently acceptable TT equipment and I
> think interest would be greater.
>
> Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.


Rominger had Testarossa as his motor and that should tell you how he did
what he did. Indurain did it because it was the fad back then. But it
did nothing for him and in fact might have hurt him. Don't forget that
Indurain comes from the doping capital of the world.

But for the most part you hit the nail on the head in that anyone who
beats the traditional hour record of 49 now will still be substantially
slower than the "unlimited" hour of 56 mph. Then there's the altitude
vs. sea level record, indoor vs. outdoor...

The UCI and national cycling federations are great at diluting the
brand. Records use to be a big deal, but they no longer are because
they have so many caveats.

But the main reason why these records have waned amongst pros is because
they don't lead to money. And that's what the bottom line to all proos
is these days. Why add all that stress to your life to train for an
hour record if there's no financial gain for it? Most top pros who can
set a new hour record standard would rather spend their down time
****ing stewardesses in LA or cheating on their wife in Las Vegas.

There's no cashback for a world record. It's just a debit transaction.


Magilla
C.P.A.

[Wayne Pein]

Carl Sundquist wrote:

How
> special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
> Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly.

How special is it to break 56.375 with the spectre of 85.991 of Markham?

I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough that
other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or not.

Wayne

[MagillaGorilla]

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
>>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:febj16$f5i$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Who among today's pros can top his hour record?
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting
>> chicks.
>>
>> Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have
>> overlooked Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling
>> financial or professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason
>> that there hasn't been much interest recently is the split records.
>> How special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre
>> of Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly. I'll concede that it's
>> possible in the era of the sound bite that the hour record may be
>> passe'. Unify the record book to currently acceptable TT equipment and
>> I think interest would be greater.
>>
>> Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.
>
>
>
> Rominger had Testarossa as his motor and that should tell you how he did
> what he did. Indurain did it because it was the fad back then. But it
> did nothing for him and in fact might have hurt him. Don't forget that
> Indurain comes from the doping capital of the world.
>
> But for the most part you hit the nail on the head in that anyone who
> beats the traditional hour record of 49 now will still be substantially
> slower than the "unlimited" hour of 56 mph. Then there's the altitude
> vs. sea level record, indoor vs. outdoor...
>
> The UCI and national cycling federations are great at diluting the
> brand. Records use to be a big deal, but they no longer are because
> they have so many caveats.
>
> But the main reason why these records have waned amongst pros is because
> they don't lead to money. And that's what the bottom line to all proos
> is these days. Why add all that stress to your life to train for an
> hour record if there's no financial gain for it? Most top pros who can
> set a new hour record standard would rather spend their down time
> ****ing stewardesses in LA or cheating on their wife in Las Vegas.
>
> There's no cashback for a world record. It's just a debit transaction.
>
>
> Magilla
> C.P.A.
>
>
>

Duh correction:

56 mph = 56 km

Magilla

[Carl Sundquist]

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fece7a$qo5$1@aioe.org...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> LeMond was too busy hunting turkeys and Lance was too busy hunting
>> chicks.
>>
>> Since you went as far back as the LeMond era, you seem to have overlooked
>> Indurain and Rominger, neither of whom had a compelling financial or
>> professional reason to do it. I think part of the reason that there
>> hasn't been much interest recently is the split records. How special is
>> it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of Boardman's
>> 56.375, I'd say not particularly. I'll concede that it's possible in the
>> era of the sound bite that the hour record may be passe'. Unify the
>> record book to currently acceptable TT equipment and I think interest
>> would be greater.
>>
>> Wonder why Hinault never gave it a try.
>
>
> Rominger had Testarossa as his motor and that should tell you how he did
> what he did. Indurain did it because it was the fad back then. But it
> did nothing for him and in fact might have hurt him. Don't forget that
> Indurain comes from the doping capital of the world.

How does any of that support your argument of needing financial or
professional reasons to justify a record attempt?


>
> But for the most part you hit the nail on the head in that anyone who
> beats the traditional hour record of 49 now will still be substantially
> slower than the "unlimited" hour of 56 mph. Then there's the altitude vs.
> sea level record, indoor vs. outdoor...

Indoor/outdoor, sea level/altitude records have been eliminated from the
record books for about 15 years or so. The UCI recognized that (unlike
rainbow jerseys) there were too many records for the same thing. Indoor,
outdoor, high, low, amateur, pro have all been consolidated. It's up to you
whether you want to attempt a record at Irpavi (Bolivia), Manchester, or
somewhere in between.


>
> The UCI and national cycling federations are great at diluting the brand.
> Records use to be a big deal, but they no longer are because they have so
> many caveats.

Such as?

>
> But the main reason why these records have waned amongst pros is because
> they don't lead to money. And that's what the bottom line to all proos is
> these days. Why add all that stress to your life to train for an hour
> record if there's no financial gain for it? Most top pros who can set a
> new hour record standard would rather spend their down time ****ing
> stewardesses in LA or cheating on their wife in Las Vegas.
>
> There's no cashback for a world record. It's just a debit transaction.

I agree, but in a different way. I think riders still want to try it, but
the risk/reward ratio is possibly a little too high. It is perhaps a
potential financial disincentive that keeps top riders from attempting the
record rather than any financial incentive.


>
>
> Magilla
> C.P.A.
>
>
>

[Ewoud Dronkert]

Donald Munro wrote:
> andouillette

Thanks.

Thanks,

--
E. Dronkert

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <cjfkg35f034a2484us4ivs55fkdpkei0s8@4ax.com>,
Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:33:14 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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
> >>
> >
> >Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
> >Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.
>
> As if Mexico City were responsible for either. The fact is, nobody's taking on
> the Merckx record and there's a real good reason for that.

Argh. It kills me to support Magilla's side of this dumb-ass argument,
but both Boardman and the mysterious Ondrej Sosenka have managed to take
the UCI Hour Record (aka "Athlete's Hour") from Merckx.

http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/sosenka.htm

Sosenka did some weird stuff, like riding a 10-kilo bike (!) including a
3.2 kg rear wheel (!!), but the aero profile of the bike is clearly
within perfectly legit UCI parameters.

> >So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
> >positive dope test.
>
> You just did.

No matter what the dumb ape says, Merckx' dominance came at a time when
cycling was much more important, relative to other sports, than it is
today. There was less money in all sports (no ESPN or Eurosport) but if
you were a strong cardio athlete in Europe, you'd go into cycling.

The water-carriers may have been part-time factory workers, but Ocana,
among others, never punched a clock in his life. Which is not to say he
had a happy life, mind you....

Indeed, here's the challenge for our Old World simian: name the best
rider who raced against Merckx but needed a non-cycling job to put food
on the table.

Meanwhile, Merckx raced against riders who had the classics as their
strength, and beat them. He raced against GC riders, and betwen 1968 and
1974 won 11 grand tours, picked up 9 subcategory victories (mountains
and points; this doesn't count combination categories, or his virtual
young-rider wins).

Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.

Lance is the best of his era. He went after the most prestigious race in
cycling 7 times, and beat credible challengers (when they weren't on E,
that is). But he never even tried winning the other two GTs, and his
attempt at the hour record was aborted after considerable prep, almost
certainly because he didn't have the watts to do it.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Carl Sundquist]

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:470a5205$0$26373$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> How
>> special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
>> Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly.
>
> How special is it to break 56.375 with the spectre of 85.991 of Markham?
>
> I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough that
> other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or not.
>

Could or can Markham race that bike in a UCI sanctioned race?

[MagillaGorilla]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> How
>
>> special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
>> Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly.
>
>
> How special is it to break 56.375 with the spectre of 85.991 of Markham?
>
> I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough that
> other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or not.
>
> Wayne
>


Get ****ing real. Do you really think Lance and top pros sit at home
"wishing" they could break some idiotic record by the Danny Chews of the
world just because it's a record?

If you do, then you are clueless as to what makes these guys tick. And
that is: money, fame, chix. If you notice, "breaking records" isn't on
that list.

The only people who want to break records in cycling are 14 year olds
(and adults who think like 14 year olds).


Thanks,

Magilla

[Wayne Pein]

Carl Sundquist wrote:

>
> "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:470a5205$0$26373$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>>
>> How
>>
>>> special is it to break 49.700 km at this point? With the spectre of
>>> Boardman's 56.375, I'd say not particularly.
>>
>>
>> How special is it to break 56.375 with the spectre of 85.991 of Markham?
>>
>> I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough
>> that other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or
>> not.
>>
>
> Could or can Markham race that bike in a UCI sanctioned race?

The people who care about 85.991 don't care about the UCI, and I suppose
vice versa.

Wayne

[Wayne Pein]

MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:

>>
>> I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough
>> that other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward or
>> not.
>>

>
> Get ****ing real. Do you really think Lance and top pros sit at home
> "wishing" they could break some idiotic record by the Danny Chews of the
> world just because it's a record?
>
> If you do, then you are clueless as to what makes these guys tick. And
> that is: money, fame, chix. If you notice, "breaking records" isn't on
> that list.

If you could ride at 475 watts for an hour you'd try to break the hour
record. But you can't and neither could Lance and others.

>
> The only people who want to break records in cycling are 14 year olds
> (and adults who think like 14 year olds).
>

There's lots of records men want to break for the fame (200, 1k, 4k,
hr), but like you, they can't.

Wayne

[Steven Bornfeld]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <cjfkg35f034a2484us4ivs55fkdpkei0s8@4ax.com>,
> Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:33:14 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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
>>>>
>>> Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
>>> Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.
>> As if Mexico City were responsible for either. The fact is, nobody's taking on
>> the Merckx record and there's a real good reason for that.
>
> Argh. It kills me to support Magilla's side of this dumb-ass argument,
> but both Boardman and the mysterious Ondrej Sosenka have managed to take
> the UCI Hour Record (aka "Athlete's Hour") from Merckx.
>
> http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/sosenka.htm
>
> Sosenka did some weird stuff, like riding a 10-kilo bike (!) including a
> 3.2 kg rear wheel (!!), but the aero profile of the bike is clearly
> within perfectly legit UCI parameters.
>
>>> So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into his
>>> positive dope test.
>> You just did.
>
> No matter what the dumb ape says, Merckx' dominance came at a time when
> cycling was much more important, relative to other sports, than it is
> today. There was less money in all sports (no ESPN or Eurosport) but if
> you were a strong cardio athlete in Europe, you'd go into cycling.
>
> The water-carriers may have been part-time factory workers, but Ocana,
> among others, never punched a clock in his life. Which is not to say he
> had a happy life, mind you....
>
> Indeed, here's the challenge for our Old World simian: name the best
> rider who raced against Merckx but needed a non-cycling job to put food
> on the table.


I'd love to hear this one. Was this as a pro?

Steve

>
> Meanwhile, Merckx raced against riders who had the classics as their
> strength, and beat them. He raced against GC riders, and betwen 1968 and
> 1974 won 11 grand tours, picked up 9 subcategory victories (mountains
> and points; this doesn't count combination categories, or his virtual
> young-rider wins).
>
> Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.
>
> Lance is the best of his era. He went after the most prestigious race in
> cycling 7 times, and beat credible challengers (when they weren't on E,
> that is). But he never even tried winning the other two GTs, and his
> attempt at the hour record was aborted after considerable prep, almost
> certainly because he didn't have the watts to do it.
>

[MagillaGorilla]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> In article <cjfkg35f034a2484us4ivs55fkdpkei0s8@4ax.com>,
> Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:33:14 -0400, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
>>>Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.

<snip>

>
> Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.
>


This is a meaningless, self-fuliflling statement. It fails to state who
he was beating: junk riders.

You could say the same for any athlete in the 1950's, 1960's.... in
every sport where objective statistics are kept, no record from the
1960's would stand up to elite performances of today. Not in track &
field, not in swimming, not in weightlifting....

But you would have everyone believe cycling is different, when in fact
it's not.

You're one of these people who has built a delusional foundation in
their mind that Merckx could ride off the front in today's peloton...but
anyone who follows the spport closely knows Merckx wouldn't even be top
10 in the Tour de France if he rode today.

Merckx was simply better than his competitors - that doesn't tell us
anything about how great he was unless we take a close look at WHO he
was beating. We do know his competitors were nowhere near as good as
the riders are today.

For Christ's sake, the pros in 1985 rode the Philly USPRO race 40
minutes slower than they do today...same ****ing course. In the late
1960's when Merckx rode they probably would have taken 7 hours to finish
Philly, and Merckx would have finished 10 minutes ahead of them.

Or are you going to telll me the pros went faster in the 1960's than
they did in the 1980's or 90's?

Go take a look at the average speed of the Tour de France..in the 1960's
they rode a ***** pace and Merckx had the tightest *****. But he was
still loose by today's standards.

Magilla

[Tom Kunich]

"Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:470a903d$0$24333$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>> Could or can Markham race that bike in a UCI sanctioned race?
>
> The people who care about 85.991 don't care about the UCI, and I suppose
> vice versa.

Why don't you just say that the bike Markham used can barely ride in a
straight line?

[MagillaGorilla]

Wayne Pein wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> I think that if a record exists in a category, it is special enough
>>> that other people want to beat it whether there is financial reward
>>> or not.
>>>
>
>>
>> Get ****ing real. Do you really think Lance and top pros sit at home
>> "wishing" they could break some idiotic record by the Danny Chews of
>> the world just because it's a record?
>>
>> If you do, then you are clueless as to what makes these guys tick.
>> And that is: money, fame, chix. If you notice, "breaking records"
>> isn't on that list.
>
>
> If you could ride at 475 watts for an hour you'd try to break the hour
> record. But you can't and neither could Lance and others.
>
>>
>> The only people who want to break records in cycling are 14 year olds
>> (and adults who think like 14 year olds).
>>
>
> There's lots of records men want to break for the fame (200, 1k, 4k,
> hr), but like you, they can't.
>
> Wayne
>


I love listenting to all you clueless people in here who actually think
Lance sits in his mansion in Austin and cries himself to sleep because
he didn't do the hour record.

You probably also think Lance dreams about winning RAAM one day.

Losers,


Magilla

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"GoneBeforeMyTime" <Fans@EuroForums.com> wrote in message
news:XuSdnUX7BtEVC5fanZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@sti.net...
>
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fe9n2i$k84$1@aioe.org...
>
> > The next thing you're going to tell me is Connie Carpenter Phinney was
> > the best female cyclist in the world.
>
> It's flattering, but no, I agree. She might at best be called one of the
> best American women of her time, but the 90's produced an explosion of
very
> good riders. Twigg was certainly very good but she found herself dealing
> with some very tough customers during the 90's.
>
> GBMT

Which makes me think, who was/is the greatest American women rider of all
times? I would say Dede Barry or perhaps Amber Neben is becoming the best
American ever, she won the Tour De l'Aude twice, a huge accomplishment for
the American. Twigg's palmares certainly are impressive, but needs to be put
into the context of her competition of the times, mostly the 80's, some
early 90's as were Jeanne Golay and Inga Thompson. Laura Charameda certainly
was awesome in the 90's. Mari Holden was good and Kimberly Baldwin short
run. Kristen Armstrong won the worlds TT last year, 2nd this year, won Toona
twice in a row, but Neben is better stage racer.

But to narrow it down, I would think Jeannie Golay, Amber Neben or Dede
Barry, so my vote goes for Dede Barry as the greatest of all times. :-)

Sorry Laura if you are watching!

GBMT

[Steven Bornfeld]

GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fea0d8$f50$1@aioe.org...
>
>> Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
>> today he wouldn't be jack.
>
> I think there's a good chance Eddy could of surprised us with how many tours
> and classics he could of completed today, not win but just complete. He did
> compete in a huge amount of races during the season, and won a lot of them.
> But like Marino Lejeretta who completed in the TDF, Giro, and the Vuelta
> several years in a row, an incredible feat during the 90's, Eddy surely
> would of impressed us with his stamina, even today. As they say, it's not
> just about winning, but competing that counts. Eddy would of been in the
> fight, that's for sure, and all season long!
>
> GBMT
>
>

Even on his wood and bone bicycle?

Steve

[MagillaGorilla]

Steven Bornfeld wrote:

> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
>> On Oct 7, 12:04 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> 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.
>>
>>> Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
>>> today he wouldn't be jack.
>>
>>
>> This cuts to the chase. Who cares who did the fastest
>> time up Alpe d'Huez? You ride against the other people
>> in the race, not some clock or a number in a record
>> book. That's for triathletes. All this stuff about
>> what would happen if Eddy raced now or LANCE raced
>> then is for people who spend too much time playing
>> fantasy baseball.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I believe in Jesus. I think I met him the other day at
>> work - I live in Arizona and there's several tens of
>> thousands of people named Jesus.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Ben
>> dumb as the Brawny paper towel guy
>>
>
>
> Ben--
>
> You didn't hear about all the genetic engineering done on
> competitive cyclists in the past 30 years since Merckx retired?
>
> Steve


Not genetic engineering, but better genes due to a larger gene pool.
Did you skip Watson & Crick statistics in college? It's a numbers game
and it's repeated throughout every sport that keeps objective statistics
like track & field, weightlifting, and swimming.

Or do you think the track stars, weight lifters, and swimmers from the
1960's are just as good as the top athletes in those sports today?

So your little genetic engineering jab doesn't really hold water, now
does it?

Magilla

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13gl9pqpedokdde@corp.supernews.com...
> GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
> > "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:fea0d8$f50$1@aioe.org...
> >
> >> Sorry, Merckx was no doubt a great rider in his day, but if he raced
> >> today he wouldn't be jack.
> >
> > I think there's a good chance Eddy could of surprised us with how many
tours
> > and classics he could of completed today, not win but just complete. He
did
> > compete in a huge amount of races during the season, and won a lot of
them.
> > But like Marino Lejeretta who completed in the TDF, Giro, and the Vuelta
> > several years in a row, an incredible feat during the 90's, Eddy surely
> > would of impressed us with his stamina, even today. As they say, it's
not
> > just about winning, but competing that counts. Eddy would of been in the
> > fight, that's for sure, and all season long!
> >
> > GBMT
> >
> >
>
> Even on his wood and bone bicycle?
>
> Steve

I'll leave that question for Professor Maso! In fact, I would very much be
interested in what his sentiments might be on how Eddy would fair in a full
cycling season in this decade.

Cheers,
GBMT

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13gla04rfk1bq4d@corp.supernews.com...
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <cjfkg35f034a2484us4ivs55fkdpkei0s8@4ax.com>,
> > Hobbes@spnb&s.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:33:14 -0400, MagillaGorilla
<magilla@sandiegozoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Oct 7, 3:25 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> 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
> >>>>
> >>> Merckx set his hour record at altitude in Mexico City...the same place
> >>> Bob Beamon jumped over 29 feet.
> >> As if Mexico City were responsible for either. The fact is, nobody's
taking on
> >> the Merckx record and there's a real good reason for that.
> >
> > Argh. It kills me to support Magilla's side of this dumb-ass argument,
> > but both Boardman and the mysterious Ondrej Sosenka have managed to take
> > the UCI Hour Record (aka "Athlete's Hour") from Merckx.
> >
> > http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/sosenka.htm
> >
> > Sosenka did some weird stuff, like riding a 10-kilo bike (!) including a
> > 3.2 kg rear wheel (!!), but the aero profile of the bike is clearly
> > within perfectly legit UCI parameters.
> >
> >>> So be careful when you try to glorify Merckx. I won't even get into
his
> >>> positive dope test.
> >> You just did.
> >
> > No matter what the dumb ape says, Merckx' dominance came at a time when
> > cycling was much more important, relative to other sports, than it is
> > today. There was less money in all sports (no ESPN or Eurosport) but if
> > you were a strong cardio athlete in Europe, you'd go into cycling.
> >
> > The water-carriers may have been part-time factory workers, but Ocana,
> > among others, never punched a clock in his life. Which is not to say he
> > had a happy life, mind you....
> >
> > Indeed, here's the challenge for our Old World simian: name the best
> > rider who raced against Merckx but needed a non-cycling job to put food
> > on the table.
>
>
> I'd love to hear this one. Was this as a pro?
>
> Steve

Another question for Professor Maso. :-)
>
> >
> > Meanwhile, Merckx raced against riders who had the classics as their
> > strength, and beat them. He raced against GC riders, and betwen 1968 and
> > 1974 won 11 grand tours, picked up 9 subcategory victories (mountains
> > and points; this doesn't count combination categories, or his virtual
> > young-rider wins).
> >
> > Merckx, roughly speaking, was unimaginably dominant in his era.
> >
> > Lance is the best of his era. He went after the most prestigious race in
> > cycling 7 times, and beat credible challengers (when they weren't on E,
> > that is). But he never even tried winning the other two GTs, and his
> > attempt at the hour record was aborted after considerable prep, almost
> > certainly because he didn't have the watts to do it.
> >