Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest [Archive]

MagillaGorilla

12-31-1969, 08:00 PM

To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:

Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.

Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.

Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
event than the elite swimmers of today. One.

Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
matters.

See my ****ing point?

Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
great in 1968" Merckx was different. Even though Merck's hour record
(set at altitude in Mexico City, mind you) wouldn't even stand up today
against the likes of Christina Boardman....and we know Eddy wouldn't be
dropping Lance on climbs. We just KNOW that.

Eddy was great in 1960, fine. But 1960 was an era when all sports were
quite shallow in competition COMPARED TO TODAY.

If Eddy rode today, he'd be just another guy on T-Mobile named in the
Operacion Puerto dossier. Deal with it.

The only exception to this rule is rock guitarists and music. Rock
stars and bands from the 1980's were much better than the current
up-and-coming junk. That's obvious though. Same with actors.

Take that all you Lindsay Lohan fans.

Take care,

Magilla

Andre

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

On Oct 11, 5:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>
> Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
> in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
> Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
> matters.
>
> See my ****ing point?
>
> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
> great in 1968" Merckx was different. Even though Merck's hour record
> (set at altitude in Mexico City, mind you) wouldn't even stand up today
> against the likes of Christina Boardman....and we know Eddy wouldn't be
> dropping Lance on climbs. We just KNOW that.
>
> Eddy was great in 1960, fine. But 1960 was an era when all sports were
> quite shallow in competition COMPARED TO TODAY.
>
> If Eddy rode today, he'd be just another guy on T-Mobile named in the
> Operacion Puerto dossier. Deal with it.
>
> The only exception to this rule is rock guitarists and music. Rock
> stars and bands from the 1980's were much better than the current
> up-and-coming junk. That's obvious though. Same with actors.
>
> Take that all you Lindsay Lohan fans.
>
> Take care,
>
> Magilla

With Lance's modern bike and modern drugs, I still think Merckx would
drop him.

Andre

Andre

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

Wayne Pein

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

On Oct 11, 3:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>
> Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
> in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
> Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
> matters.
>
> See my ****ing point?

Yep, your point is the drugs of today are much better than in the 60s,
70s or 80s.

Eddy still won 525 of the races he entered...Eddy is the man.
>
> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
> great in 1968" Merckx was different. Even though Merck's hour record
> (set at altitude in Mexico City, mind you) wouldn't even stand up today
> against the likes of Christina Boardman....and we know Eddy wouldn't be
> dropping Lance on climbs. We just KNOW that.
>
> Eddy was great in 1960, fine. But 1960 was an era when all sports were
> quite shallow in competition COMPARED TO TODAY.
>
> If Eddy rode today, he'd be just another guy on T-Mobile named in the
> Operacion Puerto dossier. Deal with it.
>
> The only exception to this rule is rock guitarists and music. Rock
> stars and bands from the 1980's were much better than the current
> up-and-coming junk. That's obvious though. Same with actors.
>
> Take that all you Lindsay Lohan fans.
>
> Take care,
>
> Magilla

Phil Holman

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:fem3ai$gfr$1@aioe.org...
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
>
> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
> one.
>
> Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
> stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> event than the elite swimmers of today. One.

Only a perceptionally challenged monkey would compare absolute values
from different eras. Put that in your chuff box and choke on it.

Phil H

amit.ghosh@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

On Oct 11, 5:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>

dumbass,

giorgio furlan still holds the record for the poggio ascent.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/a5670dde654d610c/6fb141a86a2c88fe?lnk=gst&q=epo+is+the+****+#6fb141a86a2c88fe

dustoyevsky@mac.com

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

On Oct 11, 4:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers: (snip)
> See my ****ing point?

Well, I think people generally understand that you can't fairly
compare sportsmen from different eras, because indeed, performance has
improved (generally).

> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
> great in 1968" Merckx was different. Even though Merck's hour record
> (set at altitude in Mexico City, mind you) wouldn't even stand up today
> against the likes of Christina Boardman....and we know Eddy wouldn't be
> dropping Lance on climbs. We just KNOW that.

Well... didn't Eddy set his Hour at the end of a long, difficult
season? Where Boardman, one of the top TT'ers of his generation, was
able to tailor a great deal of training time on that record and still
just barely beat Eddy's distance-- and I've seen arguments both ways
on whether the extremely dirty, if thinner, air in Mexico city was
really an advantage.

> Eddy was great in 1960, fine. But 1960 was an era when all sports were
> quite shallow in competition COMPARED TO TODAY.

I heard a discussion a few years ago on a USA NFL football broadcast.
Three or four ex-pro "greats" all admitted they would never get on a
team in modern times. Mostly because today's guys are bigger. Faster?
I would guess. But even not faster, the difference between a 200lb
lineman and a 300lb lineman, for instance, is pretty, um, large.

> If Eddy rode today, he'd be just another guy on T-Mobile named in the
> Operacion Puerto dossier. Deal with it.

It's much better the way it is, thank you.

> The only exception to this rule is rock guitarists and music. Rock
> stars and bands from the 1980's were much better than the current
> up-and-coming junk. That's obvious though. Same with actors.

80's!!! Way to ignore a couple of important decades-- Dylan, Beatles/
Stones/rest of the British Invasion, Jimi, Sly & the Family Stone
(Larry Graham, inventor of thumb or "popping" bass), Jaco Pastorius,
and guitar tapping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapping

and on and on. Eighties... I need some help with the importance of
80's music.

> Take that all you Lindsay Lohan fans.

One good thing about having sharing rules IRT music in shared living/
driving spaces, your kids get to hear your stuff, you get to hear the
kids' stuff. I hope LL is stashing it away, and more power to her. The
machines have taken over. --D-y

Steven Bornfeld

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
>
> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>
> Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
> in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
> Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
> matters.
>
> See my ****ing point?
>
> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
> great in 1968" Merckx was different. Even though Merck's hour record
> (set at altitude in Mexico City, mind you) wouldn't even stand up today
> against the likes of Christina Boardman....and we know Eddy wouldn't be
> dropping Lance on climbs. We just KNOW that.
>
> Eddy was great in 1960, fine. But 1960 was an era when all sports were
> quite shallow in competition COMPARED TO TODAY.
>
> If Eddy rode today, he'd be just another guy on T-Mobile named in the
> Operacion Puerto dossier. Deal with it.
>
> The only exception to this rule is rock guitarists and music. Rock
> stars and bands from the 1980's were much better than the current
> up-and-coming junk. That's obvious though. Same with actors.
>
> Take that all you Lindsay Lohan fans.
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
> Magilla

What's really happened is that the gravitational field has weakened
since Merckx's day. Same reason the Wright brother's plane would never
be able to beat a Concorde in a fair air race.

Steve

Paul Cassel

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
>
> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>
Your 'challenge' is a fallacy.

Bike racing is a contest - not an absolute test against an standard
(time or mass) like weight lifting or foot racing.

It's who wins. Let's take an analogous sport - boxing. Today Joe Louis,
from the 30's and 40's would beat any heavyweight and Ray Robinson would
walk through his divisions easily.

Likewise, if Merckx were to be born later, he'd be dominant in today's
races.

-paul

Steven Bornfeld

01-03-1970, 04:50 PM

MagillaGorilla wrote:
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
>
> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>
> Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
> in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
> Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
> matters.
>
> See my ****ing point?
>
> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
> great in 1968" Merckx was different. Even though Merck's hour record
> (set at altitude in Mexico City, mind you) wouldn't even stand up today
> against the likes of Christina Boardman....and we know Eddy wouldn't be
> dropping Lance on climbs. We just KNOW that.
>
> Eddy was great in 1960, fine. But 1960 was an era when all sports were
> quite shallow in competition COMPARED TO TODAY.
>
> If Eddy rode today, he'd be just another guy on T-Mobile named in the
> Operacion Puerto dossier. Deal with it.
>
> The only exception to this rule is rock guitarists and music. Rock
> stars and bands from the 1980's were much better than the current
> up-and-coming junk. That's obvious though. Same with actors.
>
> Take that all you Lindsay Lohan fans.
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
> Magilla

Here's an interesting one, without complicated equipment.

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/nymarathon.shtml

Note that Alberto Salazar's 1982 time for the NYC marathon has been
broken--in 1989, 1997, 2001, and 2002--but not by much. Other than the
pre-Bill Rodgers days (ie: before the running boom when this was a
little race with little foreign competition), I see no clear trend of
genetic improvement in this record.

Steve

RicodJour

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

On Oct 11, 7:05 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> Eddy still won 525 of the races he entered...Eddy is the man.

I like this little snippet:
"In 13 years, Merckx won an astonishing 476 pro races (402 more than
Lance Armstrong), taking not just five Tours de France but also five
Giros d'Italia and seven Milan-San Remos. Why didn't you win six? "My
career was about winning as many races as possible-not about winning
as many Tours de France as possible." Is that a dig at Lance's near-
total focus on the Tour? "Not at all! We're from different cycling
generations. I was the best of mine, and he is the best of his."

R

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:

> On Oct 11, 3:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>
>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>>
>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
>>in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>>
>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
>>event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>>
>>Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
>>and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
>>matters.
>>
>>See my ****ing point?
>
>
> Yep, your point is the drugs of today are much better than in the 60s,
> 70s or 80s.
>

So everybody who is faster and stronger in all sports must be on drugs?
That's like a couple thousand people, jackass.

What drugs do the Williams sisters take? What drugs did Carl Lewis
take? What drugs does Jeremy Warner take?

Are all the Kenyan marathoners who can run a 2:06 marathon on drugs too?
Was Michael Johnson on drugs?

Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

Phil Holman wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fem3ai$gfr$1@aioe.org...
>
>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>
>>
>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
>>one.
>>
>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
>>stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>>
>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
>>event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
>
> Only a perceptionally challenged monkey would compare absolute values
> from different eras. Put that in your chuff box and choke on it.
>
> Phil H
>
>

Believe it or not, the national and international federations of those
respective sports keep those records and they don't make any distinction
based on "different eras."

Era is a ****ing laundry detergent, not a sports category.

Thanks,

Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

RicodJour wrote:

> On Oct 11, 7:05 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>>Eddy still won 525 of the races he entered...Eddy is the man.
>
>
> I like this little snippet:
> "In 13 years, Merckx won an astonishing 476 pro races (402 more than
> Lance Armstrong), taking not just five Tours de France but also five
> Giros d'Italia and seven Milan-San Remos. Why didn't you win six? "My
> career was about winning as many races as possible-not about winning
> as many Tours de France as possible." Is that a dig at Lance's near-
> total focus on the Tour? "Not at all! We're from different cycling
> generations. I was the best of mine, and he is the best of his."
>
> R

What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.

Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
riding more like his son, Axel.

Thanks,

Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:

> On Oct 11, 5:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>
>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>>
>
>
> dumbass,
>
> giorgio furlan still holds the record for the poggio ascent.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/a5670dde654d610c/6fb141a86a2c88fe?lnk=gst&q=epo+is+the+****+#6fb141a86a2c88fe
>

Well, now you're getting into 1994 compared to 2000 and beyond..there's
not much difference in the last 10 years or so. Beyond 15 years and the
difference gets huge.

And don't choose the Poggio and those doped up Gewiss riders on EPO as
your standard o comparison. Furlan couldn't even finish the Tour de
France once in the top 25.

Furlan probably rode the Poggio with a 72% hematocriit that day and
everyone knows it. Everyone.

Magilla

Carl Sundquist

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

On Oct 11, 8:28 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 3:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
> >>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> >>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>
> >>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
> >>in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> >>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> >>event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
> >>Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> >>and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
> >>matters.
>
> >>See my ****ing point?
>
> > Yep, your point is the drugs of today are much better than in the 60s,
> > 70s or 80s.
>
> So everybody who is faster and stronger in all sports must be on drugs?
> That's like a couple thousand people, jackass.
>
> What drugs do the Williams sisters take? What drugs did Carl Lewis
> take? What drugs does Jeremy Warner take?
>
> Are all the Kenyan marathoners who can run a 2:06 marathon on drugs too?
> Was Michael Johnson on drugs?
>
> Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Have you googled Carl Lewis and doping?

Carl Sundquist

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

Mike Jacoubowsky

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
> good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.

I'd guess that cycling, during the 70s, probably attracted a greater
percentage of high-quality athletes than it does today.

Merckx was an incredible phenomenon. His desire to win is paralleled only by
Lance's, with the biggest difference being that Lance had little interest in
contests in which me might not be able to win, while Merckx did it all. If
Merckx were racing today (the Merckx of the 70s), it wouldn't surprise me to
see him doing mountain biking.

And this is where it gets a bit weird. I don't care that Merckx might have
been guilty of all manner of doping transgressions. That's just what people
did back then.

So why don't I feel the same way (about present-day dopers) now?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
> RicodJour wrote:
>
>> On Oct 11, 7:05 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Eddy still won 525 of the races he entered...Eddy is the man.
>>
>>
>> I like this little snippet:
>> "In 13 years, Merckx won an astonishing 476 pro races (402 more than
>> Lance Armstrong), taking not just five Tours de France but also five
>> Giros d'Italia and seven Milan-San Remos. Why didn't you win six? "My
>> career was about winning as many races as possible-not about winning
>> as many Tours de France as possible." Is that a dig at Lance's near-
>> total focus on the Tour? "Not at all! We're from different cycling
>> generations. I was the best of mine, and he is the best of his."
>>
>> R
>
> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
> good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>
> Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
> riding more like his son, Axel.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Magilla

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
>
> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
> good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.

Right. You get funnier by the sentence. Keep writing.

> Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
> riding more like his son, Axel.

Yeah, you da man all right - you really knows whats you talken bout.

Phil Holman

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:femfjm$jhv$1@aioe.org...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fem3ai$gfr$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>>
>>>
>>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two,
>>>just one.
>>>
>>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
>>>stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>>>
>>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>>ANY event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>>
>>
>> Only a perceptionally challenged monkey would compare absolute values
>> from different eras. Put that in your chuff box and choke on it.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
> Believe it or not, the national and international federations of those
> respective sports keep those records and they don't make any
> distinction based on "different eras."
>

The intelligent ones don't make inferences about who is better than who.
Why do you think that is? Of course you can have the opinion that an
athlete who was head and shoulders above anyone else of years gone by is
inferior to a marginally better athlete of today, but by doing so, you
just move yourself one position to the left on the evolutionary scale.
GibberingGibbon might be a more suitable moniker.

Phil H

Howard Kveck

01-03-1970, 04:51 PM

In article <1192150988.528072.91110@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.c om>,
"dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:

> On Oct 11, 4:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> > The only exception to this rule is rock guitarists and music. Rock
> > stars and bands from the 1980's were much better than the current
> > up-and-coming junk. That's obvious though. Same with actors.
>
> 80's!!! Way to ignore a couple of important decades-- Dylan, Beatles/
> Stones/rest of the British Invasion, Jimi, Sly & the Family Stone
> (Larry Graham, inventor of thumb or "popping" bass), Jaco Pastorius,
> and guitar tapping:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapping
>
> and on and on. Eighties... I need some help with the importance of
> 80's music.

Men Without Hats. Poison. Yeah, great stuff, that...

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>>What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
>>good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>
>
> I'd guess that cycling, during the 70s, probably attracted a greater
> percentage of high-quality athletes than it does today.

Wrong answer, dumbass. Re-read the following that you conveniently
forgot to answer in order to find out why your logic is 100% wrong:

1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.

2) Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.

3) Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
ANY event than the elite swimmers of today. One.

Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that matters.

See my ****ing point?

Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
great in 1968" Merckx was different. As if there were no other
"phenomenal" athletes ina ny other sport but cycling.

You people are all blood relatives of the ****ing Manson Family.

Not to mention there's millions of dollars in cycling today...And back
when Eddy was racing he was making convenience store money.

Thanks,

Magilla

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

On Oct 11, 7:18 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> > What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
> > good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>
> I'd guess that cycling, during the 70s, probably attracted a greater
> percentage of high-quality athletes than it does today.
>
> Merckx was an incredible phenomenon. His desire to win is paralleled only by
> Lance's, with the biggest difference being that Lance had little interest in
> contests in which me might not be able to win, while Merckx did it all.

Hmmm, pretty tough to quantify that one. Many racers of the past
decades I'm sure matched Eddy's 'desire to win', Lance seemed to be
just one of many. Hinault's racing with the busted nose comes to mind,
as does the Bartoli/Coppi shootouts and Anquetil's exploits. Lance
wanted to win the TdF, and since he didn't enter races he 'might not
be able to win' tells me he didn't have the 'desire to win', just the
desire to win the TdF.

Lance's 7 TdF wins is remarkable but Lance is unremarkable when
compared to some other cycling greats. The stature of the race
contributes something to Lance's legacy, not the diffuculty but the
status. If he had won 7 Core States, nobody would care.

If
> Merckx were racing today (the Merckx of the 70s), it wouldn't surprise me to
> see him doing mountain biking.
>
> And this is where it gets a bit weird. I don't care that Merckx might have
> been guilty of all manner of doping transgressions. That's just what people
> did back then.
>
> So why don't I feel the same way (about present-day dopers) now?
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "MagillaGorilla" <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
>
> > RicodJour wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 11, 7:05 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> >> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Eddy still won 525 of the races he entered...Eddy is the man.
>
> >> I like this little snippet:
> >> "In 13 years, Merckx won an astonishing 476 pro races (402 more than
> >> Lance Armstrong), taking not just five Tours de France but also five
> >> Giros d'Italia and seven Milan-San Remos. Why didn't you win six? "My
> >> career was about winning as many races as possible-not about winning
> >> as many Tours de France as possible." Is that a dig at Lance's near-
> >> total focus on the Tour? "Not at all! We're from different cycling
> >> generations. I was the best of mine, and he is the best of his."
>
> >> R
>
> > What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
> > good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>
> > Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
> > riding more like his son, Axel.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
>
>>
>> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near
>> as good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>
>
> Right. You get funnier by the sentence. Keep writing.
>
>> Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
>> riding more like his son, Axel.
>
>
> Yeah, you da man all right - you really knows whats you talken bout.
>

Since you deleted the most important part of my post, I will re-post it
below since you obviously find the answers to these questions too
difficult to acknowledge:

1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.

2) Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.

3) Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
ANY event than the elite swimmers of today. One.

Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that matters.

See my ****ing point?

Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
great in 1968" Merckx was different.

He wasn't.

Magilla

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:femkbj$vvg$1@aioe.org...
>
> 1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
> one.

What is that supposed to mean? That somehow today's athletes are stronger
and faster? Or that riders only ride as fast as necessary to beat records?

With MUCH better tires than Eddy had, with aero frame and fork, aero bars
and wind tunnel research Eddy Merckx's hour record has been beaten by a few
feet.

Michael Press

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

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

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
> >
> >>
> >> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near
> >> as good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
> >
> >
> > Right. You get funnier by the sentence. Keep writing.
> >
> >> Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
> >> riding more like his son, Axel.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, you da man all right - you really knows whats you talken bout.
> >
>
> Since you deleted the most important part of my post, I will re-post it
> below since you obviously find the answers to these questions too
> difficult to acknowledge:
>
>
> 1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>
> 2) Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
> stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> 3) Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the elite swimmers of today. One.

Up to you to show that these numbers prove your thesis.

> Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that matters.
>
> See my ****ing point?
>
> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
> great in 1968" Merckx was different.
>
> He wasn't.

Eddy Merckx would have been a champion in any day.
Your notion that he would settle for being pack fill is
poorly thought out troll bait.

You think you are an iconoclast. You need coaching here
too. First of all, Eddy Merckx is not an icon. He is
an original. You want an icon to clast? Consider Barack Obama

--
Fridge Largemeats

Fred Pan

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

It looks like this Track and Field world record still stands from 1969...

Pentathlon 4282 h OJ # Bill Toomey (USA) 16 Aug
1969 London (CP)
7.58 66.18 21.3 44.52 4:20.3

Fred

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:femkbj$vvg$1@aioe.org...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>>
>>> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
>>> good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>>
>>
>> Right. You get funnier by the sentence. Keep writing.
>>
>>> Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
>>> riding more like his son, Axel.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, you da man all right - you really knows whats you talken bout.
>>
>
> Since you deleted the most important part of my post, I will re-post it
> below since you obviously find the answers to these questions too
> difficult to acknowledge:
>
>
> 1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
> one.
>
> 2) Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
> in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> 3) Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
> Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
> matters.
>
> See my ****ing point?
>
> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was great
> in 1968" Merckx was different.
>
> He wasn't.
>
> Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:femkbj$vvg$1@aioe.org...
>
>>
>> 1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster
>> in ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two,
>> just one.
>
>
>
> With MUCH better tires than Eddy had, with aero frame and fork, aero
> bars and wind tunnel research Eddy Merckx's hour record has been beaten
> by a few feet.
>

What about swimming...are the faster times due to better swimsuits or
the faster water molecules from 1960 to 2000?

I'm afraid Merckx would still be slower today even if he had "faster
tires." Merckx was simply the best in 1968....and much like the best
athletes in swismming, track, and weighltlifting in 1968, he would get
his ass kicked had he competed today.

You dumbasses would probably be arguing that some ****head marathon
runner from 1964 would be better than the Kenyans today if it weren't
for the fact that the marathon times from the 1960's were documented by
something called TIMING EQUIPMENT and laughable compared to today's
runners.

The same holds true for track & field, swimming, rowing..in any sport
were times are measured objectively, the athletes from the 1960's (and
70's and 80's) would get their ass kicked today. Every single athlete in
every single event. I know of no exceptions. NONE.

Let me add speed skating to that too. That's 4 core Olympic sports I
have given you ****hole losers to compare to cycling..and you still
can't name a single ATHLETE - male or female - who was faster or
stronger in 1960 (or 1970 or 1980...) than any athlete today. That's
literally thousands of athletes in thousdands of events!

Kinda tells you something about how Eddy Merckx would fare against
today's cyclists, doesn't it?

**** all you people in here,

Magilla

GoneBeforeMyTime

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org...

> Let me add speed skating to that too. That's 4 core Olympic sports I
> have given you ****hole losers to compare to cycling..and you still
> can't name a single ATHLETE - male or female - who was faster or
> stronger in 1960 (or 1970 or 1980...) than any athlete today. That's
> literally thousands of athletes in thousdands of events!
>
> Kinda tells you something about how Eddy Merckx would fare against
> today's cyclists, doesn't it?
>
> **** all you people in here,
>
>
> Magilla

Chill a bit, the more you fight it, the more everyone will pile on. Pappy
asked this question once, and at the time, a friend of mine felt the same
way about Axel as you did. We posted for fun upgrading Eddy from Cat-2 to
Cat-1, but he was serious. I was just in for fun, but we were generally
conservative about Eddy, Carl was in that one too. But what interests me
more is how Gino would of done in today's peloton.

Pappy Thread...
http://tinyurl.com/38bjw8

GBMT

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
news:femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> What about swimming...are the faster times due to better swimsuits or the
> faster water molecules from 1960 to 2000?

Try this one on for size you moron - in 1972 Mark Spitz set the record of 7
Olympic Medals in one Olympics and that has NEVER been bettered.

And in order to make incremental improvements in speed these athletes are
needing to devote far greater parts of their lives training for their small
successes.

I know someone who is incapable of doing anything themselves such as
yourself can't see what is happening in the world around them but the rest
of us see you for exactly what you are.

Booker Bense

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

In article <femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

>
>The same holds true for track & field, swimming, rowing..in any sport
>were times are measured objectively, the athletes from the 1960's (and
>70's and 80's) would get their ass kicked today. Every single athlete in
>every single event. I know of no exceptions. NONE.
>

Bob Beamon's Mexico City long jump would still win most events
today. Steve Scott's USA mile record stood for a very long time.
Alberto Salazar's 2:08:13 would have won all but 4 NY marathons
out of the 25 since he ran it.

_ Booker C. Bense

Michael Press

01-03-1970, 04:52 PM

In article <femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:femkbj$vvg$1@aioe.org...
> >
> >>
> >> 1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster
> >> in ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two,
> >> just one.
> >
> >
> >
> > With MUCH better tires than Eddy had, with aero frame and fork, aero
> > bars and wind tunnel research Eddy Merckx's hour record has been beaten
> > by a few feet.
> >
>
>
> What about swimming...are the faster times due to better swimsuits or
> the faster water molecules from 1960 to 2000?
>
> I'm afraid Merckx would still be slower today even if he had "faster
> tires." Merckx was simply the best in 1968....and much like the best
> athletes in swismming, track, and weighltlifting in 1968, he would get
> his ass kicked had he competed today.
>
> You dumbasses would probably be arguing that some ****head marathon
> runner from 1964 would be better than the Kenyans today if it weren't
> for the fact that the marathon times from the 1960's were documented by
> something called TIMING EQUIPMENT and laughable compared to today's
> runners.
>
> The same holds true for track & field, swimming, rowing..in any sport
> were times are measured objectively, the athletes from the 1960's (and
> 70's and 80's) would get their ass kicked today. Every single athlete in
> every single event. I know of no exceptions. NONE.
>
> Let me add speed skating to that too. That's 4 core Olympic sports I
> have given you ****hole losers to compare to cycling..and you still
> can't name a single ATHLETE - male or female - who was faster or
> stronger in 1960 (or 1970 or 1980...) than any athlete today. That's
> literally thousands of athletes in thousdands of events!

Ted Williams life time batting average .344.
Hit .406 in 1941.
Joe DiMaggio, 56 game hitting streak.

> Kinda tells you something about how Eddy Merckx would fare against
> today's cyclists, doesn't it?
>
> **** all you people in here,

--
Michael Press

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

Carl Sundquist wrote:
> Have you googled Carl Lewis and doping?

It wouldn't be all that surprising if many of the athletes
who were breaking the 5000 and 10000m records left, right and
centre back in the nineties weren't all at 60%. Particularly as
for example the 5000m record had been 12:58 for several years
and all of a sudden around the same time that EPO came into vogue
the 5000m record was broken 6 times between 1994 and 1998. Of course
the IAAF never did any haemocrit tests (or any other blood tests
that L'Equipe could get its hands on now) so we'll never know.

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

Carl Sundquist wrote:

> On Oct 11, 8:28 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Oct 11, 3:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>
>>>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>>
>>>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
>>>>in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>>
>>>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
>>>>event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>>
>>>>Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
>>>>and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
>>>>matters.
>>
>>>>See my ****ing point?
>>
>>>Yep, your point is the drugs of today are much better than in the 60s,
>>>70s or 80s.
>>
>>So everybody who is faster and stronger in all sports must be on drugs?
>> That's like a couple thousand people, jackass.
>>
>>What drugs do the Williams sisters take? What drugs did Carl Lewis
>>take? What drugs does Jeremy Warner take?
>>
>>Are all the Kenyan marathoners who can run a 2:06 marathon on drugs too?
>> Was Michael Johnson on drugs?
>>
>>Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> So what do you attribute the difference in 30-40 year's performance to?
>

Lots of things:. But the main factors appear to be:

1.) Increased depth of gene pool from which all competitors come from.
As population increases, you have a larger gene pool to tap for
favorable genes for any given sport. Most elite sports are about
matching ideal genetics with ideal training. These numbers get better
with increased population.

2.) Communication of modern training techniques is 50x more easily
disseminated with the Internet than it was in the days when you had to
read Bicycling Magazine or some other rag once a month and listen to
some jackass pro like Jackie Simes talk about how to race a stage race.
When your potential gene pool also has ready access to these training
methods en masse, probability statistics dictate that more people will
reach the potential of their genetics, and that this will thereby cause
the AVERAGE level of competition to rise.

3.) Money in all sports has increased. Money has a direct, positive
correlation to performance by (a) assisting athletes in availing
thesmelves to better training methods and probably even more importantly
(b) gives them more incentive to train harder and (c) reducing life
factor stresses.

Given two riders of equal genetic talent and equal incentive, the guy
who makes $350,000 will always train better, eat better, and sleep
better (and thereby perform better in the long-term) than the guy who
makes $10k. Plus, the guy who makes $10k will be hurt by all the stress
he's under from that poor salary. Reducing stress is a huge thing for
top pros in endurance sports because reducing stress equates to
recovery. And recovery is the name of the game in endurance sports.

4.) Increased competition from an increased gene pool has a positive
feedback influence on increasing the performance of fellow competitors.

At some point all these improvements become negligiible when they do not
significantly change with time. We are approaching those limits in many
sports. For example, a guy who makes $2.3 million/year will not
necessarily perform better than guy who makes $1.7 million.

And as records approach the maximal limits of human performance, it
becomes harder and harder to reach the elite level and break worlkd
records in track & field, swimming, etc..

---------

But the bottom line that everyone needs to understand is that there is
no reason to believe cycling is any different than any other sport where
objective criteria have been used to document performance over the decades.

Not only does everyone have to concede there's not a single athlete -
male or female in ANY EVENT in track & field, swimming, weightlifting,
or speed skating - from the 1960's, 1970's or even the 1980's that could
defeat today's elite athletes in those same sports, you'd also have to
apply that same logic to the semi-objective sports such as gymnastics
and figure skating and even tennis.

So we're basically talking about the ultimate experiment that's already
been done.

From what we know about Eddy Merckx, he was just another Steve
Prefontaine. It's a good thing Prefontaine ran when he did, because if
he had to race today with the 200 or so "fast-tracked U.S. citizen
Kenyans" lining up at the start line of every collegiate 10K, he would
have been more of an alcoholic than he apparently was.

Magilla

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:
>> and on and on. Eighties... I need some help with the importance of
>> 80's music.

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Men Without Hats. Poison. Yeah, great stuff, that...

Not to mention Michael Jackson.

At least U2 and the Clash were around as well.

RicodJour

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

On Oct 12, 2:31 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 8:28 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> >>>On Oct 11, 3:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
> >>>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> >>>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>
> >>>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
> >>>>in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> >>>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> >>>>event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
> >>>>Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> >>>>and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
> >>>>matters.
>
> >>>>See my ****ing point?
>
> >>>Yep, your point is the drugs of today are much better than in the 60s,
> >>>70s or 80s.
>
> >>So everybody who is faster and stronger in all sports must be on drugs?
> >> That's like a couple thousand people, jackass.
>
> >>What drugs do the Williams sisters take? What drugs did Carl Lewis
> >>take? What drugs does Jeremy Warner take?
>
> >>Are all the Kenyan marathoners who can run a 2:06 marathon on drugs too?
> >> Was Michael Johnson on drugs?
>
> >>Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > So what do you attribute the difference in 30-40 year's performance to?
>
> Lots of things:. But the main factors appear to be:
>
> 1.) Increased depth of gene pool from which all competitors come from.
> As population increases, you have a larger gene pool to tap for
> favorable genes for any given sport. Most elite sports are about
> matching ideal genetics with ideal training. These numbers get better
> with increased population.
>
> 2.) Communication of modern training techniques is 50x more easily
> disseminated with the Internet than it was in the days when you had to
> read Bicycling Magazine or some other rag once a month and listen to
> some jackass pro like Jackie Simes talk about how to race a stage race.
> When your potential gene pool also has ready access to these training
> methods en masse, probability statistics dictate that more people will
> reach the potential of their genetics, and that this will thereby cause
> the AVERAGE level of competition to rise.
>
> 3.) Money in all sports has increased. Money has a direct, positive
> correlation to performance by (a) assisting athletes in availing
> thesmelves to better training methods and probably even more importantly
> (b) gives them more incentive to train harder and (c) reducing life
> factor stresses.
>
> Given two riders of equal genetic talent and equal incentive, the guy
> who makes $350,000 will always train better, eat better, and sleep
> better (and thereby perform better in the long-term) than the guy who
> makes $10k. Plus, the guy who makes $10k will be hurt by all the stress
> he's under from that poor salary. Reducing stress is a huge thing for
> top pros in endurance sports because reducing stress equates to
> recovery. And recovery is the name of the game in endurance sports.
>
> 4.) Increased competition from an increased gene pool has a positive
> feedback influence on increasing the performance of fellow competitors.

Please read that last point. Now, read it again. You've just
supported everyone else's contention that you don't know WTF you're
talking about.

It's like that old joke about the two hikers and the bear - a champion
just has to do enough to beat the number two guy and no more. I'm
sure while you're stuffing wee willy into a sock and wanking on your
fantasy cycling career you envision yourself going on long solo
breakaways on every stage - including team time trials just to show
how much better you are.

> At some point all these improvements become negligiible when they do not
> significantly change with time. We are approaching those limits in many
> sports. For example, a guy who makes $2.3 million/year will not
> necessarily perform better than guy who makes $1.7 million.
>
> And as records approach the maximal limits of human performance, it
> becomes harder and harder to reach the elite level and break worlkd
> records in track & field, swimming, etc..
>
> ---------
>
> But the bottom line that everyone needs to understand is that there is
> no reason to believe cycling is any different than any other sport where
> objective criteria have been used to document performance over the decades.
>
> Not only does everyone have to concede there's not a single athlete -
> male or female in ANY EVENT in track & field, swimming, weightlifting,
> or speed skating - from the 1960's, 1970's or even the 1980's that could
> defeat today's elite athletes in those same sports, you'd also have to
> apply that same logic to the semi-objective sports such as gymnastics
> and figure skating and even tennis.
>
> So we're basically talking about the ultimate experiment that's already
> been done.

You are 100% right. Now please explain why Eddy, an obviously
superior example of the gene pool, wouldn't have had access to the
money, technology, internet, training, sleeping conditions, etc.
Damn. He would have wouldn't he? Since he's at one end of the bell
curve, the improved conditions might not have affected him as much -
maybe he would have won only 300 races.

Eddy is not the control in your little experiment. He would benefit
from all of the advances, too. Just as you would have benefited from
all of the advances in paint technology if you were growing up today -
you wouldn't have ingested so much lead when you were a mewling brat
chewing the window sills in the tenement.

R

Ryan Cousineau

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

In article <fen4cg$969$1@aioe.org>,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:

[reasonable arguments deleted]

>
> But the bottom line that everyone needs to understand is that there is
> no reason to believe cycling is any different than any other sport where
> objective criteria have been used to document performance over the decades.
>
> Not only does everyone have to concede there's not a single athlete -
> male or female in ANY EVENT in track & field, swimming, weightlifting,
> or speed skating - from the 1960's, 1970's or even the 1980's that could
> defeat today's elite athletes in those same sports, you'd also have to
> apply that same logic to the semi-objective sports such as gymnastics
> and figure skating and even tennis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_jump#Top_10_performers

> So we're basically talking about the ultimate experiment that's already
> been done.

The null hypothesis is not valid.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Bob Schwartz

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

Donald Munro wrote:
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>> Have you googled Carl Lewis and doping?
>
> It wouldn't be all that surprising if many of the athletes
> who were breaking the 5000 and 10000m records left, right and
> centre back in the nineties weren't all at 60%. Particularly as
> for example the 5000m record had been 12:58 for several years
> and all of a sudden around the same time that EPO came into vogue
> the 5000m record was broken 6 times between 1994 and 1998. Of course
> the IAAF never did any haemocrit tests (or any other blood tests
> that L'Equipe could get its hands on now) so we'll never know.

Sort of like tennis today. Didn't the ape mention the Williams
sisters?

Bob Schwartz

dustoyevsky@mac.com

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

On Oct 12, 2:55 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> dustoyev...@mac.com wrote:
> >> and on and on. Eighties... I need some help with the importance of
> >> 80's music.
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > Men Without Hats. Poison. Yeah, great stuff, that...
>
> Not to mention Michael Jackson.

Michael's contributions were in a related realm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjV7AnUZvvc

This MJ thing, upon a moment's reflection, is so apt. I saw that show
on TV, "live". He tore it up, a changing of the guard. But many long
years ago... --D-y

Michael Press

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

In article
<470f28d2$0$2941$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> dustoyevsky@mac.com wrote:
> >> and on and on. Eighties... I need some help with the importance of
> >> 80's music.
>
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > Men Without Hats. Poison. Yeah, great stuff, that...
>
> Not to mention Michael Jackson.
>
> At least U2 and the Clash were around as well.

Flipper? Ramones?

Twenty-twenty-twenty four hours to go I wanna be sedated
Nothin' to do and no where to go-o-oh I wanna be sedated
Just get me to the airport put me on a plane
Hurry hurry hurry before I go insane
I can't control my fingers I can't control my brain
Oh no no no no no

Ba-ba-bamp-ba ba-ba-ba-bamp-ba I wanna be sedated
Ba-ba-bamp-ba ba-ba-ba-bamp-ba I wanna be sedated
Ba-ba-bamp-ba ba-ba-ba-bamp-ba I wanna be sedated
Ba-ba-bamp-ba ba-ba-ba-bamp-ba I wanna be sedated

Twenty-twenty-twenty four hours to go....
Just put me in a wheelchair, get me on a plane
Hurry hurry hurry before I go insane
I can't control my fingers I can't control my brain
Oh no no no no no

<refrain>

Twenty-twenty-twenty four hours to go I wanna be sedated
Nothin' to do and no where to go-o-o I wanna be sedated
Just put me in a wheelchair get me to the show
Hurry hurry hurry before I go loco
I can't control my fingers I can't control my toes
Oh no no no no no

Ba-ba-bamp-ba ba-ba-ba-bamp-ba I wanna be sedated
Ba-ba-bamp-ba ba-ba-ba-bamp-ba I wanna be sedated
Ba-ba-bamp-ba ba-ba-ba-bamp-ba I wanna be sedated
Ba-ba-bamp-ba ba-ba-ba-bamp-ba I wanna be sedated

--
Michael Press

Howard Kveck

01-03-1970, 04:53 PM

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1192192613.177705.113060@z24g2000prh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Eddy is not the control in your little experiment. He would benefit
> from all of the advances, too. Just as you would have benefited from
> all of the advances in paint technology if you were growing up today -
> you wouldn't have ingested so much lead when you were a mewling brat
> chewing the window sills in the tenement.

HAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA HHAHAA!

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

RicodJour wrote:
> Eddy is not the control in your little experiment. He would benefit
> from all of the advances, too. Just as you would have benefited from
> all of the advances in paint technology if you were growing up today -
> you wouldn't have ingested so much lead when you were a mewling brat
> chewing the window sills in the tenement.

Are you sure it wasn't his barbie doll he was chewing. Not that
there's anything wrong with that of course.

Howard Kveck

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

In article <1192192613.177705.113060@z24g2000prh.googlegroups. com>,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 12, 2:31 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > Carl Sundquist wrote:
> > > On Oct 11, 8:28 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
> >
> > >>>On Oct 11, 3:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
> >
> > >>>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> > >>>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
> > >>>>one.
> >
> > >>>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
> > >>>>in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
> >
> > >>>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> > >>>>event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
> >
> > >>>>Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for
> > >>>>1960
> > >>>>and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
> > >>>>matters.
> >
> > >>>>See my ****ing point?
> >
> > >>>Yep, your point is the drugs of today are much better than in the 60s,
> > >>>70s or 80s.
> >
> > >>So everybody who is faster and stronger in all sports must be on drugs?
> > >> That's like a couple thousand people, jackass.
> >
> > >>What drugs do the Williams sisters take? What drugs did Carl Lewis
> > >>take? What drugs does Jeremy Warner take?
> >
> > >>Are all the Kenyan marathoners who can run a 2:06 marathon on drugs too?
> > >> Was Michael Johnson on drugs?
> >
> > >>Magilla- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > >>- Show quoted text -
> >
> > > So what do you attribute the difference in 30-40 year's performance to?
> >
> > Lots of things:. But the main factors appear to be:
> >
> > 1.) Increased depth of gene pool from which all competitors come from.
> > As population increases, you have a larger gene pool to tap for
> > favorable genes for any given sport. Most elite sports are about
> > matching ideal genetics with ideal training. These numbers get better
> > with increased population.
> >
> > 2.) Communication of modern training techniques is 50x more easily
> > disseminated with the Internet than it was in the days when you had to
> > read Bicycling Magazine or some other rag once a month and listen to
> > some jackass pro like Jackie Simes talk about how to race a stage race.
> > When your potential gene pool also has ready access to these training
> > methods en masse, probability statistics dictate that more people will
> > reach the potential of their genetics, and that this will thereby cause
> > the AVERAGE level of competition to rise.
> >
> > 3.) Money in all sports has increased. Money has a direct, positive
> > correlation to performance by (a) assisting athletes in availing
> > thesmelves to better training methods and probably even more importantly
> > (b) gives them more incentive to train harder and (c) reducing life
> > factor stresses.
> >
> > Given two riders of equal genetic talent and equal incentive, the guy
> > who makes $350,000 will always train better, eat better, and sleep
> > better (and thereby perform better in the long-term) than the guy who
> > makes $10k. Plus, the guy who makes $10k will be hurt by all the stress
> > he's under from that poor salary. Reducing stress is a huge thing for
> > top pros in endurance sports because reducing stress equates to
> > recovery. And recovery is the name of the game in endurance sports.
> >
> > 4.) Increased competition from an increased gene pool has a positive
> > feedback influence on increasing the performance of fellow competitors.
>
> Please read that last point. Now, read it again. You've just
> supported everyone else's contention that you don't know WTF you're
> talking about.

Why limit it to the last point. All of those points are in agreement with and
support the positions that most people have taken on this issue: in the Quantum Leap
Games, Merckx riding today would still be a top rider because he'd be able to take
advantage of the advances in the sport. Grilla has painted self into corner.

--
tanx,
Howard

Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

RicodJour wrote:

> On Oct 12, 2:31 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Carl Sundquist wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 11, 8:28 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>
>>>>>On Oct 11, 3:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>
>>>>>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>>>>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>>
>>>>>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
>>>>>>in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>>
>>>>>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
>>>>>>event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>>
>>>>>>Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
>>>>>>and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
>>>>>>matters.
>>
>>>>>>See my ****ing point?
>>
>>>>>Yep, your point is the drugs of today are much better than in the 60s,
>>>>>70s or 80s.
>>
>>>>So everybody who is faster and stronger in all sports must be on drugs?
>>>> That's like a couple thousand people, jackass.
>>
>>>>What drugs do the Williams sisters take? What drugs did Carl Lewis
>>>>take? What drugs does Jeremy Warner take?
>>
>>>>Are all the Kenyan marathoners who can run a 2:06 marathon on drugs too?
>>>> Was Michael Johnson on drugs?
>>
>>>>Magilla- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>So what do you attribute the difference in 30-40 year's performance to?
>>
>>Lots of things:. But the main factors appear to be:
>>
>>1.) Increased depth of gene pool from which all competitors come from.
>>As population increases, you have a larger gene pool to tap for
>>favorable genes for any given sport. Most elite sports are about
>>matching ideal genetics with ideal training. These numbers get better
>>with increased population.
>>
>>2.) Communication of modern training techniques is 50x more easily
>>disseminated with the Internet than it was in the days when you had to
>>read Bicycling Magazine or some other rag once a month and listen to
>>some jackass pro like Jackie Simes talk about how to race a stage race.
>> When your potential gene pool also has ready access to these training
>>methods en masse, probability statistics dictate that more people will
>>reach the potential of their genetics, and that this will thereby cause
>>the AVERAGE level of competition to rise.
>>
>>3.) Money in all sports has increased. Money has a direct, positive
>>correlation to performance by (a) assisting athletes in availing
>>thesmelves to better training methods and probably even more importantly
>>(b) gives them more incentive to train harder and (c) reducing life
>>factor stresses.
>>
>>Given two riders of equal genetic talent and equal incentive, the guy
>>who makes $350,000 will always train better, eat better, and sleep
>>better (and thereby perform better in the long-term) than the guy who
>>makes $10k. Plus, the guy who makes $10k will be hurt by all the stress
>>he's under from that poor salary. Reducing stress is a huge thing for
>>top pros in endurance sports because reducing stress equates to
>>recovery. And recovery is the name of the game in endurance sports.
>>
>>4.) Increased competition from an increased gene pool has a positive
>>feedback influence on increasing the performance of fellow competitors.
>
>
> Please read that last point. Now, read it again. You've just
> supported everyone else's contention that you don't know WTF you're
> talking about.
>
> It's like that old joke about the two hikers and the bear - a champion
> just has to do enough to beat the number two guy and no more. I'm
> sure while you're stuffing wee willy into a sock and wanking on your
> fantasy cycling career you envision yourself going on long solo
> breakaways on every stage - including team time trials just to show
> how much better you are.
>
>
>>At some point all these improvements become negligiible when they do not
>>significantly change with time. We are approaching those limits in many
>>sports. For example, a guy who makes $2.3 million/year will not
>>necessarily perform better than guy who makes $1.7 million.
>>
>>And as records approach the maximal limits of human performance, it
>>becomes harder and harder to reach the elite level and break worlkd
>>records in track & field, swimming, etc..
>>
>>---------
>>
>>But the bottom line that everyone needs to understand is that there is
>>no reason to believe cycling is any different than any other sport where
>>objective criteria have been used to document performance over the decades.
>>
>>Not only does everyone have to concede there's not a single athlete -
>>male or female in ANY EVENT in track & field, swimming, weightlifting,
>>or speed skating - from the 1960's, 1970's or even the 1980's that could
>>defeat today's elite athletes in those same sports, you'd also have to
>>apply that same logic to the semi-objective sports such as gymnastics
>>and figure skating and even tennis.
>>
>>So we're basically talking about the ultimate experiment that's already
>>been done.
>
>
> You are 100% right. Now please explain why Eddy, an obviously
> superior example of the gene pool, wouldn't have had access to the
> money, technology, internet, training, sleeping conditions, etc.
> Damn. He would have wouldn't he? Since he's at one end of the bell
> curve, the improved conditions might not have affected him as much -
> maybe he would have won only 300 races.
>
> Eddy is not the control in your little experiment. He would benefit
> from all of the advances, too. Just as you would have benefited from
> all of the advances in paint technology if you were growing up today -
> you wouldn't have ingested so much lead when you were a mewling brat
> chewing the window sills in the tenement.
>
> R
>

I'm making absolute comparisons of REALITY. To add hypothetical
variables that only occur in your mind is really a pointless game of
guessing.

I got news for you, if Lance grew up in wealth annd privilege, he likely
would have gone to Texas University and majored in business administration.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

Paul Cassel wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>
>>
>> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
>> one.
>>
> Your 'challenge' is a fallacy.
>
> Bike racing is a contest - not an absolute test against an standard
> (time or mass) like weight lifting or foot racing.
>
> It's who wins. Let's take an analogous sport - boxing. Today Joe Louis,
> from the 30's and 40's would beat any heavyweight and Ray Robinson would
> walk through his divisions easily.
>
> Likewise, if Merckx were to be born later, he'd be dominant in today's
> races.
>
> -paul

If Joe Louis ever stepped int he riing with Mike Tyson he would be
knocked out int he first round.

Get real.

I'm 100% confident you would also say Jesse owens would beat Carl Lewis,
but you know the timing equipment wouldn't agree with you. SO you pick
sports where the winner isn't determined by an absolute time.

Let me ask you this - do you think football teams or basketball teams
from the 1960's would beat the power game of today in those same sports?

You people are not lucid. You've never even seen a video of Joe Louis
boxing..yet you're perfectly content to assert he was the best of all
times. Your belief system is a fabrication out of necessity...much like
people who believe in God. Somebody told them to believe in God when
they were a child, so they continue to hold onto to that belief system
no matter what.

All you people who believe that Eddy Merckx and Joe Louis were the best
ever all have one thing in common: you've never watched either one of
them compete for even 5 minutes.

Magilla

Ryan Cousineau

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

In article <1192200426.065988.72670@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:

> On Oct 11, 7:18 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
> > > What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
> > > good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
> >
> > I'd guess that cycling, during the 70s, probably attracted a greater
> > percentage of high-quality athletes than it does today.
> >
> > Merckx was an incredible phenomenon. His desire to win is paralleled only by
> > Lance's, with the biggest difference being that Lance had little interest in
> > contests in which me might not be able to win, while Merckx did it all.
>
> Hmmm, pretty tough to quantify that one. Many racers of the past
> decades I'm sure matched Eddy's 'desire to win', Lance seemed to be
> just one of many. Hinault's racing with the busted nose comes to mind,
> as does the Bartoli/Coppi shootouts and Anquetil's exploits. Lance
> wanted to win the TdF, and since he didn't enter races he 'might not
> be able to win' tells me he didn't have the 'desire to win', just the
> desire to win the TdF.
>
> Lance's 7 TdF wins is remarkable but Lance is unremarkable when
> compared to some other cycling greats. The stature of the race
> contributes something to Lance's legacy, not the diffuculty but the
> status. If he had won 7 Core States, nobody would care.

Peter, I have to call dumbass on this one, or else assume you're
trolling me (it happens...).

Lance is a remarkable cyclist, and unquestionably the most important
(and without much argument, the "best") of his era.

He took aim at the Tour, and the Tour alone, _because_ of its stature in
cycling. His career was essentially a test-case for the idea that no
other race in cycling had to matter.

And it didn't. I don't think there were good riders who avoided the Tour
because, you know, it was owned by Lance. I think there were good riders
who got beat in the Tour because, you know, it was owned by Lance.

Part of this determination may have been that while misfortune can
befall GT riders, the GC of a 3-week tour is in some ways one of the
more well-determined sporting contests. It is simply so long and so hard
and features so many decisive moments (2-3 TTs, 10 or so major mountain
stages...) that not much riff-raff gets left hanging around to steal a
win in Paris. By the time the race is run, the contenders are pretty
cleanly separated into the unfortunate (no-fault or minimal-fault DNFs,
guys who got the flu bad mid-race...), the pretenders (Iban Mayo), and
the podium.

If, conversely, the Worlds were the most important cycling race of the
year, World Championships would look a lot like they do: lots of
winners, unexpected results from deep pools of plausible contenders all
the time, and few repeat champions, and fewer back-to-back winners.
That's partly because from year to year, Worlds courses often favour
different types of riders. But it would be a hard race to build a career
around.

Back to my goofy point, Lance recognized that the Tour was magnitudes
more important than any other race, and that a palmares consisting of
repeated Tour victories would be much more important than palmares that
went something like Worlds, MSR, P-R, Dauphine, Tour, MSR, P-R, Vuelta,
Giro, Core States, Milk Ras, Worlds, Midi Libre, Pais Vasco, Clasica
Alcobendas...etc. for a decade or so.

And doing those other races would have interfered with single-minded
Tour prep.

Even Lance would probably admit to the element of risk in this strategy:
if Boonen loses the Worlds, well, there's always a half-dozen classics
to shoot at next year, and then a few sprint jerseys, stage wins, fall
classics...while if Lance had ever failed in one of his seven victory
attempts, it would have been a written-off year. And not just for him:
for the whole team, a team which was assembled with as much singleminded
purpose as any leadout team that Cipo ever drafted.

But I digress. The point is that Lance only did the Tour because that
was all that was necessary, and doing more would have interfered with
that goal. It's like asking why hockey players don't seem to take the
Spengler Cup seriously: because the Stanley Cup is the only tournament
that matters.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Mike Jacoubowsky

01-03-1970, 04:54 PM

>> Merckx was an incredible phenomenon. His desire to win is paralleled only
>> by
>> Lance's, with the biggest difference being that Lance had little interest
>> in
>> contests in which me might not be able to win, while Merckx did it all.
>
> Hmmm, pretty tough to quantify that one. Many racers of the past
> decades I'm sure matched Eddy's 'desire to win', Lance seemed to be
> just one of many. Hinault's racing with the busted nose comes to mind,
> as does the Bartoli/Coppi shootouts and Anquetil's exploits. Lance
> wanted to win the TdF, and since he didn't enter races he 'might not
> be able to win' tells me he didn't have the 'desire to win', just the
> desire to win the TdF.

I don't think I got across what I was trying to. Not unusual. Merckx simply
wanted to dominate any and every two-wheeled event. He didn't seem to care
if it was his speciality or not. Hinault picked & chose his races as need
be. But obviously he got the nickname "The Badger" for good reason; he was a
master at controlling the Peloton. Not just his team, but Hinault pesonally.
Bartoli & Coppi's "shootouts" may be the sort of thing that becomes larger
than life given the type of media coverage at the time (newspaper writers
have this way of trying to make small things bigger than life, in the
interest of capturing more readers... funny how that is... and French
newspaper writers are well known for elevating mortals to god-like levels
for their heroic achievements).

But yes, I've read Chairman Bill's book (more than once). And read a fair
amount about Merckx in Competitive Cycling's columns (usually written by
Owen Mulholland, I think?) back in the day. Of course, with a full month
delay!

> Lance's 7 TdF wins is remarkable but Lance is unremarkable when
> compared to some other cycling greats. The stature of the race
> contributes something to Lance's legacy, not the diffuculty but the
> status. If he had won 7 Core States, nobody would care.

You did have to give me something to argue, didn't you? Lance unremarkable
compared to other cycling greats? If unremarkable is to mean simply that he
stands with the rest of them, not towering above, I agree. But none of them
are "unremarkable." Not Lance, not Anquetil, not Coppi, not Hinault, not
LeMond. They are, all of them, the stuff of legends.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in
message news:1192200426.065988.72670@i38g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 11, 7:18 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>> > What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
>> > good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>>
>> I'd guess that cycling, during the 70s, probably attracted a greater
>> percentage of high-quality athletes than it does today.
>>
>> Merckx was an incredible phenomenon. His desire to win is paralleled only
>> by
>> Lance's, with the biggest difference being that Lance had little interest
>> in
>> contests in which me might not be able to win, while Merckx did it all.
>
> Hmmm, pretty tough to quantify that one. Many racers of the past
> decades I'm sure matched Eddy's 'desire to win', Lance seemed to be
> just one of many. Hinault's racing with the busted nose comes to mind,
> as does the Bartoli/Coppi shootouts and Anquetil's exploits. Lance
> wanted to win the TdF, and since he didn't enter races he 'might not
> be able to win' tells me he didn't have the 'desire to win', just the
> desire to win the TdF.
>
> Lance's 7 TdF wins is remarkable but Lance is unremarkable when
> compared to some other cycling greats. The stature of the race
> contributes something to Lance's legacy, not the diffuculty but the
> status. If he had won 7 Core States, nobody would care.
>
> If
>> Merckx were racing today (the Merckx of the 70s), it wouldn't surprise me
>> to
>> see him doing mountain biking.
>>
>> And this is where it gets a bit weird. I don't care that Merckx might
>> have
>> been guilty of all manner of doping transgressions. That's just what
>> people
>> did back then.
>>
>> So why don't I feel the same way (about present-day dopers) now?
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> > RicodJour wrote:
>>
>> >> On Oct 11, 7:05 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>> >> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Eddy still won 525 of the races he entered...Eddy is the man.
>>
>> >> I like this little snippet:
>> >> "In 13 years, Merckx won an astonishing 476 pro races (402 more than
>> >> Lance Armstrong), taking not just five Tours de France but also five
>> >> Giros d'Italia and seven Milan-San Remos. Why didn't you win six? "My
>> >> career was about winning as many races as possible-not about winning
>> >> as many Tours de France as possible." Is that a dig at Lance's near-
>> >> total focus on the Tour? "Not at all! We're from different cycling
>> >> generations. I was the best of mine, and he is the best of his."
>>
>> >> R
>>
>> > What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
>> > good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>>
>> > Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
>> > riding more like his son, Axel.
>>
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> > Magilla
>
>

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 04:55 PM

"Booker Bense" <bbense@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:feoetn$rn1$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The same holds true for track & field, swimming, rowing..in any sport
>>were times are measured objectively, the athletes from the 1960's (and
>>70's and 80's) would get their ass kicked today. Every single athlete in
>>every single event. I know of no exceptions. NONE.
>>
>
> Bob Beamon's Mexico City long jump would still win most events
> today. Steve Scott's USA mile record stood for a very long time.
> Alberto Salazar's 2:08:13 would have won all but 4 NY marathons
> out of the 25 since he ran it.

Booker, you have to remember that a cocksucker is a cocksucker no matter
what phony name he uses.

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:55 PM

Booker Bense wrote:
> In article <femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The same holds true for track & field, swimming, rowing..in any sport
>>were times are measured objectively, the athletes from the 1960's (and
>>70's and 80's) would get their ass kicked today. Every single athlete in
>>every single event. I know of no exceptions. NONE.
>>
>
>
> Bob Beamon's Mexico City long jump would still win most events
> today. Steve Scott's USA mile record stood for a very long time.
> Alberto Salazar's 2:08:13 would have won all but 4 NY marathons
> out of the 25 since he ran it.
>
> _ Booker C. Bense

Beamon's jump was a fluke and aided by altitude. Very few world-class
track & field events are held at 7,550 feet above sea level.

Beamon NEVER came close to that 29 foot jump again and never jumped near
that prior to Mexico City.

Whereas today, you have a lot of guys routinely putting up 27-28+ feet
(and a few over 29).

So you've found 1 EVENT with 1 man that came close to showing someone in
the past was better than someone today. 5,603 events show just the
opposite.

Salazar was good, but he was 1980's...and the marathon was quite deep in
the 1980's..as was the mile - particulalry the American mile.

But if you go back to the 1960's or 1970's the times in all sports were
suck-ass compared to today across the board.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:55 PM

Steven Bornfeld wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>
>>
>> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
>> one.
>>
>> Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
>> stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>>
>> Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
>> event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>>
>> Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for
>> 1960 and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if
>> that matters.
>>
>> See my ****ing point?
>>
>> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
>> great in 1968" Merckx was different. Even though Merck's hour record
>> (set at altitude in Mexico City, mind you) wouldn't even stand up
>> today against the likes of Christina Boardman....and we know Eddy
>> wouldn't be dropping Lance on climbs. We just KNOW that.
>>
>> Eddy was great in 1960, fine. But 1960 was an era when all sports
>> were quite shallow in competition COMPARED TO TODAY.
>>
>> If Eddy rode today, he'd be just another guy on T-Mobile named in the
>> Operacion Puerto dossier. Deal with it.
>>
>> The only exception to this rule is rock guitarists and music. Rock
>> stars and bands from the 1980's were much better than the current
>> up-and-coming junk. That's obvious though. Same with actors.
>>
>> Take that all you Lindsay Lohan fans.
>>
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>>
>> Magilla
>
>
>
> Here's an interesting one, without complicated equipment.
>
> http://www.hickoksports.com/history/nymarathon.shtml
>
> Note that Alberto Salazar's 1982 time for the NYC marathon has been
> broken--in 1989, 1997, 2001, and 2002--but not by much. Other than the
> pre-Bill Rodgers days (ie: before the running boom when this was a
> little race with little foreign competition), I see no clear trend of
> genetic improvement in this record.
>
> Steve

The fastest aircraft ever produced by the US was the X-15 back in the
1960's. Does that mean that the planes back then were just as good as
the ones today or that we couldn't build one faster today iif we really
wanted to?

Salazar was 1980's and few could run a 2:08. But now, tons of guys can
do it.

Also, the marathon has no significant increased depth of competition
from Americans or Europenas in the last 20 years because there's no
money in that sport and it's super-hard. You could kill yourself to the
equivalent of a Pro Tour cyclist in the marathon and not even make
$15,000/year. Only a handful of guys make good money in the marathon.
So there's no point in even ding it unless you're one of the top 10 in
the world.

And unlike cycling, in a marathoner's career, there's no money until you
can run a sub 2:10. That's a lot of effort to mortgage on a promise for
money that will likely never materialize.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:56 PM

Phil Holman wrote:

> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:femfjm$jhv$1@aioe.org...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:fem3ai$gfr$1@aioe.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two,
>>>>just one.
>>>>
>>>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
>>>>stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>>>>
>>>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>>>ANY event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only a perceptionally challenged monkey would compare absolute values
>>>from different eras. Put that in your chuff box and choke on it.
>>>
>>>Phil H
>>
>>
>>Believe it or not, the national and international federations of those
>>respective sports keep those records and they don't make any
>>distinction based on "different eras."
>>
>
>
> The intelligent ones don't make inferences about who is better than who.
> Why do you think that is? Of course you can have the opinion that an
> athlete who was head and shoulders above anyone else of years gone by is
> inferior to a marginally better athlete of today, but by doing so, you
> just move yourself one position to the left on the evolutionary scale.
> GibberingGibbon might be a more suitable moniker.
>
> Phil H
>
>

My response to your point is the following:

Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.

Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.

Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
event than the elite swimmers of today. One.

Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that matters.

See my ****ing point?

Magilla

MagillaGorilla

01-03-1970, 04:56 PM

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:femkbj$vvg$1@aioe.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>>1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster
>>>>in ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two,
>>>>just one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>With MUCH better tires than Eddy had, with aero frame and fork, aero
>>>bars and wind tunnel research Eddy Merckx's hour record has been beaten
>>>by a few feet.
>>>
>>
>>
>>What about swimming...are the faster times due to better swimsuits or
>>the faster water molecules from 1960 to 2000?
>>
>>I'm afraid Merckx would still be slower today even if he had "faster
>>tires." Merckx was simply the best in 1968....and much like the best
>>athletes in swismming, track, and weighltlifting in 1968, he would get
>>his ass kicked had he competed today.
>>
>>You dumbasses would probably be arguing that some ****head marathon
>>runner from 1964 would be better than the Kenyans today if it weren't
>>for the fact that the marathon times from the 1960's were documented by
>>something called TIMING EQUIPMENT and laughable compared to today's
>>runners.
>>
>>The same holds true for track & field, swimming, rowing..in any sport
>>were times are measured objectively, the athletes from the 1960's (and
>>70's and 80's) would get their ass kicked today. Every single athlete in
>>every single event. I know of no exceptions. NONE.
>>
>>Let me add speed skating to that too. That's 4 core Olympic sports I
>>have given you ****hole losers to compare to cycling..and you still
>>can't name a single ATHLETE - male or female - who was faster or
>>stronger in 1960 (or 1970 or 1980...) than any athlete today. That's
>>literally thousands of athletes in thousdands of events!
>
>
> Ted Williams life time batting average .344.
> Hit .406 in 1941.
> Joe DiMaggio, 56 game hitting streak.
>
>

Yeah, I'm sure the pitchers in 1941 were just as good as the pitchers
today.

Thanks for your keen insight.

By the way, my Little League batting average was .450 and practically
all college running backs gain more yards than pro running backs. Do
you think they're better too?

Magilla