| |
Main
Date: 11 Oct 2007 17:07:30
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 06:54:32
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
On Oct 13, 12:46 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
>
> I'm making absolute comparisons of REALITY. To add hypothetical
> variables that only occur in your mind is really a pointless game of
> guessing.
You are comparing apples and oranges any way you look at it. You're
altering conditions in this little game of mental meat-beating and
extrapolating an "absolute comparison" out of yer ass.
> I got news for you, if Lance grew up in wealth and privilege, he likely
> would have gone to Texas University and majored in business administration.
I thought you weren't playing the hypothetical card.
Pick a side and stick with it.
R
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 17:51:34
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <1192456472.136829.308600@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com >,
RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote:
> On Oct 13, 12:46 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm making absolute comparisons of REALITY. To add hypothetical
> > variables that only occur in your mind is really a pointless game of
> > guessing.
>
> You are comparing apples and oranges any way you look at it. You're
> altering conditions in this little game of mental meat-beating and
> extrapolating an "absolute comparison" out of yer ass.
>
> > I got news for you, if Lance grew up in wealth and privilege, he likely
> > would have gone to Texas University and majored in business administration.
>
> I thought you weren't playing the hypothetical card.
>
> Pick a side and stick with it.
Isn't floating sides half of the fun?
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 05:53:34
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
On Oct 15, 1:00 am, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> > It's stupid marketing to put a pro rider's name on a bike. Stupid. It's
> > hokey too because the pros had nothing to do with the bike. Nothing.
>
> I love my Fondriest.
I loved my old steel Corsa.
I love my old Gan team Ti. (Both Merckx's)
Especially in the 80's and up through at least the early 90's, but
still at least to some extent today (carbon fiber), the Merckx name
bears positive associations both because of his dominant cycling
career ("the Greatest") and because of his reputation for being very
particular in regard to frame geometry and bike setup (the famous on-
the-fly saddle-height adjustment sequence, and the "borrowing a 5"
segment, as well). I believe it's fairly well known that the Merckx
home and bike frame mfg'ing factory share a footprint in Belgium
("near the church", down the Eddy Merckx bike route), also.
Distribution? Gita, started in the early 80's by Giorgio Andretta,
owner of Giordana (Italy), is deficient?
Lemond is similar to Merckx at least in regard to his frames. No one
thinks Greg is mitering and welding/gluing, but like Merckx, his
oversight (slack angles and long top tubes for a couple of things with
Greg) is a selling point. Same thing, and to an equally large degree,
with Lance and Trek-- the stories of LA sending back his Trek
prototypes (over and over) until Trek provided a Lance-satisfactory
bike, seems to be both true and "legendary", at least in the marketing
sense of the word. Add the adv. "hype" (apparently true) that the team
Treks were assembly-line items (with some exceptions).
So maybe the rider name (and/or team!) name doesn't have actually be
on the bike, but the association sells units, incl. clothing/
accessories (wheels, other).
Eddy is the greatest until someone else surpasses his accomplishments,
incl. track racing. --D-y
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 05:28:29
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
On Oct 14, 11:14 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > Dumbasses,
>
> > Apey, Mike and Ryan, you're all dense.
>
> >http://www.lemondbikes.com/
>
> > LeMond bicycles, which Trek OWNS, and Mike SELLS.
>
> > Ben
> > RBR Marketing Consultant
>
> LeMond retired about 15 years ago and his frame business started back
> then when most marketing people in cycling were delusional. There's no
> Armstrong bike because Trek realized that by putting the name of riders
> on their bikes, they're not building their brand (in fact they were
> diluting it). And any contract they would have to agreee with for Lance
> to do that wouldn't leave enough margins for profit. But I don't think
> Trek even wants to do it because they want to build the Trek brand, not
> the Armstrong brand.
>
> Besides, wouldn't you rather own the bike that Armstrong USED to win the
> Tour 7 times (a Trek) rather than a bike with his name on it that
> Armstrong had nothing to do with (anymore than LeMond had to do with his).
MagLite,
There are perfectly good reasons why there are Treks
instead of "Lance Armstrong" bikes, some of which you
cited. And the bike industry is different now than
when Merckx founded his brand. (BTW, there are a lot
of old famous racer brands, like Bottecchia and Basso,
but they are much more common in Italy than here,
in part because bike racers are more famous there.)
You could have made a perfectly good argument for
whatever your point was without forgetting that
LeMond's brand exists and then trying to weasel
out of it.
> If you recall, LeMond's previous contract was with a company (Google it
> if you want) and they said their LeMond line of cycling stuff was not
> selling. Then LeMond sued them for breach of contract.
That was for the crappy "LeMond" bicycle accessories
that were being sold in department stores. The bike
frame contract was always separate.
I believe Trek bought Lemond in 1994 and before that
Greg was trying to make a go of it selling carbon
bikes (Carbonframes-made, and before that TVT).
> It's stupid marketing to put a pro rider's name on a bike. Stupid. It's
> hokey too because the pros had nothing to do with the bike. Nothing.
This must explain why you can go to the store
and buy a basketball with an NBA player's
signature on it. Everybody knows that Shaq,
Nowitzki, Marbury and Iverson don't stitch basketballs,
but apparently their signature is worth something.
> Nobody in the general public even knows who the fuck Merckx is...so why
> would any average U.S. consumer be inclined to buy it?
>
> Merckx doesn't even have good distribution for his frames in the U.S..
> You could go to 25 bike stores and you likely wouldn't see a Merckx
> frame in any of them. What you will see are Trek, Giant, Cannondale.
Most of the bike market in the US is sub-$1000.
Merckx doesn't make bikes in that market, so only specialty
high-end stores will sell them. But anyway, I forget
what this has to do with your original troll.
Merckx had style. LANCE, bless his shlubby Texas heart,
does not have style. Remember the time he got on stage
with all the former Tour winners and looked like a slob -
open shirt, no tie? I mean, that look is fine if you
carry it off with the right attitude, but he wasn't
trying.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 23:41:38
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1192426109.893803.94230@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 14, 11:14 am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Merckx had style. LANCE, bless his shlubby Texas heart,
> does not have style. Remember the time he got on stage
> with all the former Tour winners and looked like a slob -
> open shirt, no tie? I mean, that look is fine if you
> carry it off with the right attitude, but he wasn't
> trying.
>
> Ben
In Italy, they told me Lance reminded them of computer generated music, he
had no style or anything special that endured him to the public like Lemond
had, or of course the old Italian champions. I suppose something like the
way Gary Kasparov felt about Big Blue.
GBMT
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 07:22:07
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
On Oct 13, 7:32 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <yycQi.4789$y21.3...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > > Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
> > > very hokey form of marketing.
>
> > > Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
> > > plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
>
> > > If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
> > > you buy it?
>
> > > It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
> > > who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
>
> > > Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
>
> > Shelby Mustang.
>
> The dumb ape is dumber than that:
>
> The "Ron Fellows ALMS GT1 Corvette Z06":
>
> http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/01/chicago-preview-ron-fellows-alms-g...
> hampion-corvette-z06/
Dumbasses,
Apey, Mike and Ryan, you're all dense.
http://www.lemondbikes.com/
LeMond bicycles, which Trek OWNS, and Mike SELLS.
Ben
RBR Marketing Consultant
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 14:14:45
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Oct 13, 7:32 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <yycQi.4789$y21.3...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
>>>>very hokey form of marketing.
>>
>>>>Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
>>>>plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
>>
>>>>If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
>>>>you buy it?
>>
>>>>It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
>>>>who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
>>
>>>>Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
>>
>>>Shelby Mustang.
>>
>>The dumb ape is dumber than that:
>>
>>The "Ron Fellows ALMS GT1 Corvette Z06":
>>
>>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/01/chicago-preview-ron-fellows-alms-g...
>>hampion-corvette-z06/
>
>
> Dumbasses,
>
> Apey, Mike and Ryan, you're all dense.
>
> http://www.lemondbikes.com/
>
> LeMond bicycles, which Trek OWNS, and Mike SELLS.
>
> Ben
> RBR Marketing Consultant
LeMond retired about 15 years ago and his frame business started back
then when most marketing people in cycling were delusional. There's no
Armstrong bike because Trek realized that by putting the name of riders
on their bikes, they're not building their brand (in fact they were
diluting it). And any contract they would have to agreee with for Lance
to do that wouldn't leave enough margins for profit. But I don't think
Trek even wants to do it because they want to build the Trek brand, not
the Armstrong brand.
Besides, wouldn't you rather own the bike that Armstrong USED to win the
Tour 7 times (a Trek) rather than a bike with his name on it that
Armstrong had nothing to do with (anymore than LeMond had to do with his).
If you recall, LeMond's previous contract was with a company (Google it
if you want) and they said their LeMond line of cycling stuff was not
selling. Then LeMond sued them for breach of contract.
It's stupid marketing to put a pro rider's name on a bike. Stupid. It's
hokey too because the pros had nothing to do with the bike. Nothing.
It's like going to the store and buying the Jennifer Aniston tampon.
Tampex would never do that.
Nobody in the general public even knows who the fuck Merckx is...so why
would any average U.S. consumer be inclined to buy it?
Merckx doesn't even have good distribution for his frames in the U.S..
You could go to 25 bike stores and you likely wouldn't see a Merckx
frame in any of them. What you will see are Trek, Giant, Cannondale.
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 08:00:28
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> It's stupid marketing to put a pro rider's name on a bike. Stupid. It's
> hokey too because the pros had nothing to do with the bike. Nothing.
>
I love my Fondriest.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 06:06:48
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com >
wrote:
> >> 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.
That's what I meant. They, and others not mentioned, are remarkable,
all bike race legends.
BTW-when are we gonna see a 'Armstrong' branded Trek? Surprized that
hasn't happened. Even Hinault had a frame....
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1192200426.065988.72670@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.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
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 14:42:47
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> That's what I meant. They, and others not mentioned, are remarkable,
> all bike race legends.
>
> BTW-when are we gonna see a 'Armstrong' branded Trek? Surprized that
> hasn't happened. Even Hinault had a frame....
>
Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell.
It's a very hokey form of marketing.
Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
you buy it?
It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
Sometimes, marketing people are retarded. And this proves it.
As for pros and their own brand of coffee, that's even worse. Does Tom
Danielson actually help engineer the brew and does he go to Colombia to
select the altitude of the coffee plants from which to harvest the beans?
All this garbage in cycling better stop.
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 16:30:33
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
> Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
> very hokey form of marketing.
>
> Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
> plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
>
> If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
> you buy it?
>
> It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
> who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
>
> Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
Shelby Mustang.
Bang bang, you're dead. Ford proved that it *can* work. It may be the
exception, but what an exception it was.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:fer3j7$p98$1@aioe.org...
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>
>> On Oct 12, 8:35 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>
>> That's what I meant. They, and others not mentioned, are remarkable,
>> all bike race legends.
>>
>> BTW-when are we gonna see a 'Armstrong' branded Trek? Surprized that
>> hasn't happened. Even Hinault had a frame....
>>
>
>
> Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
> very hokey form of marketing.
>
> Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
> plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
>
> If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
> you buy it?
>
> It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
> who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
>
> Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
>
> Sometimes, marketing people are retarded. And this proves it.
>
> As for pros and their own brand of coffee, that's even worse. Does Tom
> Danielson actually help engineer the brew and does he go to Colombia to
> select the altitude of the coffee plants from which to harvest the beans?
>
> All this garbage in cycling better stop.
>
>
> Magilla
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 23:39:41
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
>>very hokey form of marketing.
>>
>>Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
>>plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
>>
>>If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
>>you buy it?
>>
>>It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
>>who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
>>
>>Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
>
>
>
> Shelby Mustang.
>
> Bang bang, you're dead. Ford proved that it *can* work. It may be the
> exception, but what an exception it was.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
It's not a popular model today and Ford never did it again. At least
they learned from their mistake. And that car sold becauuse it was a
super-car, not because of it's name. If you re-named the Corvette the
Dale Earnhardt Corvette, it would still sell (but not any better with
the name attached to it).
There is no NASCAR, Formula 1 driver, or Indy driver who has a
production car named after him by the big automakers. NONE. ZERO.
So the gorilla is not even wounded.
Magilla
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 06:34:40
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <fes31t$fkd$1@aioe.org >,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> >>Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
> >>very hokey form of marketing.
> >>
> >>Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
> >>plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
> >>
> >>If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
> >>you buy it?
> >>
> >>It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
> >>who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
> >>
> >>Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
> >
> >
> >
> > Shelby Mustang.
> >
> > Bang bang, you're dead. Ford proved that it *can* work. It may be the
> > exception, but what an exception it was.
> >
> > --Mike Jacoubowsky
> > Chain Reaction Bicycles
> > www.ChainReaction.com
> > Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
> It's not a popular model today and Ford never did it again. At least
> they learned from their mistake. And that car sold becauuse it was a
> super-car, not because of it's name. If you re-named the Corvette the
> Dale Earnhardt Corvette, it would still sell (but not any better with
> the name attached to it).
>
> There is no NASCAR, Formula 1 driver, or Indy driver who has a
> production car named after him by the big automakers. NONE. ZERO.
>
> So the gorilla is not even wounded.
>
> Magilla
http://www.daleearnhardt.net/chevy/signature/index.htm
Chevy Monte Carlo Dale Earnhardt Signature Edition.
That's it, I'm done, the monkey is no fun anymore.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 14:21:41
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <fes31t$fkd$1@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
>>>>very hokey form of marketing.
>>>>
>>>>Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
>>>>plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
>>>>
>>>>If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
>>>>you buy it?
>>>>
>>>>It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
>>>>who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
>>>>
>>>>Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Shelby Mustang.
>>>
>>>Bang bang, you're dead. Ford proved that it *can* work. It may be the
>>>exception, but what an exception it was.
>>>
>>>--Mike Jacoubowsky
>>>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>>www.ChainReaction.com
>>>Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>>
>>
>>It's not a popular model today and Ford never did it again. At least
>>they learned from their mistake. And that car sold becauuse it was a
>>super-car, not because of it's name. If you re-named the Corvette the
>>Dale Earnhardt Corvette, it would still sell (but not any better with
>>the name attached to it).
>>
>>There is no NASCAR, Formula 1 driver, or Indy driver who has a
>>production car named after him by the big automakers. NONE. ZERO.
>>
>>So the gorilla is not even wounded.
>>
>>Magilla
>
>
> http://www.daleearnhardt.net/chevy/signature/index.htm
>
> Chevy Monte Carlo Dale Earnhardt Signature Edition.
>
> That's it, I'm done, the monkey is no fun anymore.
>
Is that the special edition car that will kill you when you hit the wall
in what should have been a survivable crash had it had the CORRECT
safety features?
By the way, the name of the car is called the Monte Carlo - a tried and
tested model name in Chevy lineage. The Dale Earnhardt thing is just
ketchup on the hamburger, you stupid freak. If you robbed a bank in
that car, the description the cops would get over the radio would be a
Monte Carlo, not the "Dale Eartnhardt Monte Carlo."
All you did here with your post is the chess equivalent of trying to
move your rook diagonally across the board to take my queen.
Magilla Kasparov
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 20:59:05
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <fetmnm$vv8$1@aioe.org >,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> > In article <fes31t$fkd$1@aioe.org>,
> > MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's
> >>>>a
> >>>>very hokey form of marketing.
> >>>>
> >>>>Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
> >>>>plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
> >>>>
> >>>>If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
> >>>>you buy it?
> >>>>
> >>>>It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
> >>>>who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
> >>>>
> >>>>Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Shelby Mustang.
> >>>
> >>>Bang bang, you're dead. Ford proved that it *can* work. It may be the
> >>>exception, but what an exception it was.
> >>>
> >>>--Mike Jacoubowsky
> >>>Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >>>www.ChainReaction.com
> >>>Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
> >>
> >>
> >>It's not a popular model today and Ford never did it again. At least
> >>they learned from their mistake. And that car sold becauuse it was a
> >>super-car, not because of it's name. If you re-named the Corvette the
> >>Dale Earnhardt Corvette, it would still sell (but not any better with
> >>the name attached to it).
> >>
> >>There is no NASCAR, Formula 1 driver, or Indy driver who has a
> >>production car named after him by the big automakers. NONE. ZERO.
> >>
> >>So the gorilla is not even wounded.
> >>
> >>Magilla
> >
> >
> > http://www.daleearnhardt.net/chevy/signature/index.htm
> >
> > Chevy Monte Carlo Dale Earnhardt Signature Edition.
> >
> > That's it, I'm done, the monkey is no fun anymore.
> >
>
>
> Is that the special edition car that will kill you when you hit the wall
> in what should have been a survivable crash had it had the CORRECT
> safety features?
>
> By the way, the name of the car is called the Monte Carlo - a tried and
> tested model name in Chevy lineage. The Dale Earnhardt thing is just
> ketchup on the hamburger, you stupid freak. If you robbed a bank in
> that car, the description the cops would get over the radio would be a
> Monte Carlo, not the "Dale Eartnhardt Monte Carlo."
>
> All you did here with your post is the chess equivalent of trying to
> move your rook diagonally across the board to take my queen.
>
> Magilla Kasparov
Oh Magilla, at this point, it's like you're trying to be Dr. Falken,
teaching Joshua that the only winning move is not to play.
But really, you're The Monarch, in some sort of freak-fight with Dr.
Venture, who barely even knows you exist.
I think the problem with this last post was that you tried to change the
subject, made a half-assed refutation of my point, and then attempted to
work in, really, a two-bit analogy which is only apt because of the
previous chess references here a few days ago.
Not your best work! Calling me a "stupid freak" wasn't even creative.
Heck, my co-worker calls me that twice a day. It's like you didn't even
try to hit my soft spots.
You're just phoning in the trolling now! It's so sad!
Now dig deep. You're at you're funniest when you come up with some
moderately deep and obscure facts to bolster your points. The
"survivable crash" diversion was a nice try above, but was far too
transparent an attempt to change the subject.
Come on, you can do better,
PS: calling the Monte Carlo a "tried and tested model name" was cute,
though.
--
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
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 02:32:44
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <yycQi.4789$y21.3981@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net >,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com > wrote:
> > Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
> > very hokey form of marketing.
> >
> > Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
> > plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
> >
> > If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
> > you buy it?
> >
> > It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
> > who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
> >
> > Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
>
>
> Shelby Mustang.
>
> Bang bang, you're dead. Ford proved that it *can* work. It may be the
> exception, but what an exception it was.
The dumb ape is dumber than that:
The "Ron Fellows ALMS GT1 Corvette Z06":
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/01/chicago-preview-ron-fellows-alms-gt1-c
hampion-corvette-z06/
It roxxors.
Numerous motorcycle companies have released replica editions of their
racer's motorcycles, and one of the most famous Moto Guzzis was the Dr.
John replica:
http://www.vintagebike.co.uk/Bike%20Directories/Moto%20Guzzi%20Bikes/page
s/Moto-Guzzi-Daytona-94.htm
Why are we still feeding the monkey? It's like bananas for his soul.
--
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
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 04:33:43
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article
<rcousine-E8CA6A.19324013102007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <yycQi.4789$y21.3981@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > > Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
> > > very hokey form of marketing.
> > >
> > > Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
> > > plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
> > >
> > > If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
> > > you buy it?
> > >
> > > It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
> > > who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
> > >
> > > Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
> >
> >
> > Shelby Mustang.
> >
> > Bang bang, you're dead. Ford proved that it *can* work. It may be the
> > exception, but what an exception it was.
>
> The dumb ape is dumber than that:
>
> The "Ron Fellows ALMS GT1 Corvette Z06":
>
> http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/01/chicago-preview-ron-fellows-alms-gt1-c
> hampion-corvette-z06/
>
> It roxxors.
>
> Numerous motorcycle companies have released replica editions of their
> racer's motorcycles, and one of the most famous Moto Guzzis was the Dr.
> John replica:
>
> http://www.vintagebike.co.uk/Bike%20Directories/Moto%20Guzzi%20Bikes/page
> s/Moto-Guzzi-Daytona-94.htm
>
> Why are we still feeding the monkey? It's like bananas for his soul.
He is so good natured when his attempts at rational discourse
are shredded.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 23:45:51
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <yycQi.4789$y21.3981@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's a
>>>very hokey form of marketing.
>>>
>>>Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
>>>plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
>>>
>>>If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
>>>you buy it?
>>>
>>>It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
>>>who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
>>>
>>>Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
>>
>>
>>Shelby Mustang.
>>
>>Bang bang, you're dead. Ford proved that it *can* work. It may be the
>>exception, but what an exception it was.
>
>
> The dumb ape is dumber than that:
>
> The "Ron Fellows ALMS GT1 Corvette Z06":
>
> http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/01/chicago-preview-ron-fellows-alms-gt1-c
> hampion-corvette-z06/
>
Who the fuck is Ron Fellows? Let me know when you two are done turning
over your last rocks on the planet and still have yet to dent my
assertion that it's a fucking gay-ass thing to do and nobody really does
it (other than these two insignificant GAY examples who nobody ever
heard of).
Show me a car I can find in my local dealer showroom, asshats. That's
what I meant.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 11:51:26
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
> Trek is smart enough to know that those types of frames never sell. It's
> a very hokey form of marketing.
>
> Would you by a tennis racket named the Andre Agassi? Would you buy a
> plane from Boeing if they named it the Chuck Yeager?
>
> If Denon made a high-end receiver and called it the "Mick Jagger" would
> you buy it?
>
> It's probably the gayest thing in this sport - naming frames after guys
> who have no fucking clue about frame-building.
>
> Chevrolet will never make a car called the "Jeff Gordon."
>
> Sometimes, marketing people are retarded. And this proves it.
>
> As for pros and their own brand of coffee, that's even worse. Does Tom
> Danielson actually help engineer the brew and does he go to Colombia to
> select the altitude of the coffee plants from which to harvest the beans?
>
> All this garbage in cycling better stop.
>
>
> Magilla
>
>
Well, I have a Rod Laver tennis racket...
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 06:02:34
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
On Oct 12, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1192200426.065988.72...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@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.
I agree with everything you said. He was an amamzing TdF racer and
winner. His team, preparation, everything was 'first in, best
dressed', for the tour. As an all around cycling champion tho, he was
not. Winning 7 TdF was great but Eddy won 11 grand tours, 4 times 2 in
one year. 60 stages won. 96 days in the yellow.
Magilla will probably implode but I admire Lance for what he has done,
gone thru. He was helped road cycling immensely,. helped the cancer
survivor community as well, but he was no Eddy Merckx.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://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
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 14:34:28
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Oct 12, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <1192200426.065988.72...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@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.
>
>
> I agree with everything you said. He was an amamzing TdF racer and
> winner. His team, preparation, everything was 'first in, best
> dressed', for the tour. As an all around cycling champion tho, he was
> not. Winning 7 TdF was great but Eddy won 11 grand tours, 4 times 2 in
> one year. 60 stages won. 96 days in the yellow.
>
> Magilla will probably implode but I admire Lance for what he has done,
> gone thru. He was helped road cycling immensely,. helped the cancer
> survivor community as well, but he was no Eddy Merckx.
You're right, Lance was no Eddy Merckx. Lance actually made millions in
cycling and the general public actually buys the frames he helps sell.
And Lance doesn't have to go to Interbike every year to make sure people
in the sport don't forget about him.
And finally, Lance doesn't criticize other pro riders because they
dropped his son in a race he wasn't going to win anyway.
Did I miss anything?
Magilla
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 15:24:10
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 23:39:18
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 15:05:10
From: Mark & Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> 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.
Yeah, tons of guys.
Well, the marathon isn't a track event, so I guess you win this one,
big guy!
>
> 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.
No, but obviously there is greater depth internationally, esp. with the
East Africans. This is an area where obviously increasing participation
has improved the depth of the field, even if the WR is improved only
incrementally.
Steve
>
> 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
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 07:47:06
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 02:35:38
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
>> 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.googlegroups.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
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 02:22:47
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <1192200426.065988.72670@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
"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
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 07:13:20
From: Paul Cassel
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 23:23:40
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 04:46:39
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <fepdnu$ksu$1@aioe.org >,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> 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?
Bill Russell's 1955 University of San Francisco team
would routinely bitch slap half the NBA. Today's
power game. Piffle. Show time. Short attention
span theater.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 05:36:53
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 00:46:48
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 15:11:08
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:fepijo$1m4$1@aioe.org...
>
> 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.
I find the two entries above interesting. More proof that MG is approaching
insanity.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 19:20:44
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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?
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 16:26:33
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 06:04:07
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote in message
news:1192192613.177705.113060@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.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.
HAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAA!
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 05:19:38
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 22:18:50
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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?
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 02:31:43
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 02:25:17
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 22:17:02
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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?
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 09:40:46
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 10:23:46
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 22:55:36
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:03:08
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
On Oct 11, 4:07 pm, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers: (snip)
> See my fucking 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
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 23:30:43
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <1192150988.528072.91110@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
"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?
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 09:55:54
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 19:11:26
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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.
Well, there were plenty of great bands in the '80s [1], but there are plenty of
great ones today. The stuff that is mainstream is generally shite (i.e. Britney
Spears, etc.), as you would expect when labels are catering to the lowest common
denominator.
[1] Gang of Four, Toiling Midgets (better not bring them up over in rmr), the
Minutemen, DOA, Bad Brains, so on, so on...
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 07:57:14
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> [1] Gang of Four, Toiling Midgets (better not bring them up over in rmr), the
> Minutemen, DOA, Bad Brains, so on, so on...
And Joy Division, the eighties equivalent of Velvet Underground in the
sense that not a lot of the general public had heard of them but they
influenced lots of other bands that people had heard of.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 00:52:38
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Howard Kveck wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Well, there were plenty of great bands in the '80s [1], but there are plenty of
> great ones today. The stuff that is mainstream is generally shite (i.e. Britney
> Spears, etc.), as you would expect when labels are catering to the lowest common
> denominator.
>
> [1] Gang of Four, Toiling Midgets (better not bring them up over in rmr), the
> Minutemen, DOA, Bad Brains, so on, so on...
>
Name one band today where people would sleep outside to get tickets at
Madison Square Garden like everyone use to do in the 80's for U2, Van
Halen, Ozzy....fuckin' Filmore East man...
I'm gonna do War Pigs for ya...
Magilla
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 18:06:31
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <fepiun$2i5$1@aioe.org >, MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> Name one band today where people would sleep outside to get tickets at
> Madison Square Garden like everyone use to do in the 80's for U2, Van
> Halen, Ozzy....fuckin' Filmore East man...
Did you know that people buy tickets online now and don't have to camp out
anymore? Anyway, you're equating popularity with quality. Going by that metric, the
Spice Girls are great.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 17:15:01
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 23:26:49
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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+shit+#6fb141a86a2c88fe
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 20:42:22
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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+shit+#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
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 16:17:13
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 20:32:24
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:23:13
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
>
> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
> good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
Right. You get funnier by the sentence. Keep writing.
> Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
> riding more like his son, Axel.
Yeah, you da man all right - you really knows whats you talken bout.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 21:58:11
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
>
>>
>> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near
>> as good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>
>
> Right. You get funnier by the sentence. Keep writing.
>
>> Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
>> riding more like his son, Axel.
>
>
> Yeah, you da man all right - you really knows whats you talken bout.
>
Since you deleted the most important part of my post, I will re-post it
below since you obviously find the answers to these questions too
difficult to acknowledge:
1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
2) Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
3) Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
ANY event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that matters.
See my fucking point?
Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
great in 1968" Merckx was different.
He wasn't.
Magilla
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 15:22:48
From: Fred Pan
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
It looks like this Track and Field world record still stands from 1969...
Pentathlon 4282 h OJ # Bill Toomey (USA) 16 Aug
1969 London (CP)
7.58 66.18 21.3 44.52 4:20.3
Fred
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:femkbj$vvg$1@aioe.org...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>>
>>> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
>>> good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
>>
>>
>> Right. You get funnier by the sentence. Keep writing.
>>
>>> Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
>>> riding more like his son, Axel.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, you da man all right - you really knows whats you talken bout.
>>
>
> Since you deleted the most important part of my post, I will re-post it
> below since you obviously find the answers to these questions too
> difficult to acknowledge:
>
>
> 1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
> one.
>
> 2) Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is stronger
> in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> 3) Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
> Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that
> matters.
>
> See my fucking point?
>
> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was great
> in 1968" Merckx was different.
>
> He wasn't.
>
> Magilla
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 16:48:58
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <femkbj$vvg$1@aioe.org >,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:femfao$it5$1@aioe.org...
> >
> >>
> >> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near
> >> as good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
> >
> >
> > Right. You get funnier by the sentence. Keep writing.
> >
> >> Merckx wouldn't be riding off the front in today's peloton. He's be
> >> riding more like his son, Axel.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, you da man all right - you really knows whats you talken bout.
> >
>
> Since you deleted the most important part of my post, I will re-post it
> below since you obviously find the answers to these questions too
> difficult to acknowledge:
>
>
> 1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just one.
>
> 2) Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
> stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> 3) Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
Up to you to show that these numbers prove your thesis.
> Now go back and answer those same questions and substitute 1970 for 1960
> and see if your answer changes. Then use 1980, and tell me if that matters.
>
> See my fucking point?
>
> Yet all you JACKASSES IN HERE will have everyone believe Eddy "I was
> great in 1968" Merckx was different.
>
> He wasn't.
Eddy Merckx would have been a champion in any day.
Your notion that he would settle for being pack fill is
poorly thought out troll bait.
You think you are an iconoclast. You need coaching here
too. First of all, Eddy Merckx is not an icon. He is
an original. You want an icon to clast? Consider Barack Obama
--
Fridge Largemeats
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 19:30:56
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:femkbj$vvg$1@aioe.org...
>
> 1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
> one.
What is that supposed to mean? That somehow today's athletes are stronger
and faster? Or that riders only ride as fast as necessary to beat records?
With MUCH better tires than Eddy had, with aero frame and fork, aero bars
and wind tunnel research Eddy Merckx's hour record has been beaten by a few
feet.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 23:00:05
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:femkbj$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 fuckhead 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 fuckhole 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?
Fuck all you people in here,
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 16:54:57
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fuckhead 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 fuckhole 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?
>
> Fuck all you people in here,
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 00:25:53
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fuckhead 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 fuckhole 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
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 22:10:01
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <fephci$um4$1@aioe.org >,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> 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 fuckhead 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 fuckhole 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?
You wanted to argue statistics. Now you don't.
I suppose Williams and DiMaggio would be pack
fill today.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 12:40:30
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article <fephci$um4$1@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>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 fuckhead 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 fuckhole 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?
>
>
> You wanted to argue statistics. Now you don't.
> I suppose Williams and DiMaggio would be pack
> fill today.
>
No, I still want to argue statistics. But what you did - comparing a
batting average from 1941 to a batting average today WITHOUT MENTIONING
THE CRUCIAL FACT THAT PITCHING IS MUCH BETTER TODAY makes your
comparison disingenuous AT BEST.
In fact, everybody in here knows your argument is fraudulent. And now
you're trying to lie your way out of the corner you painted yourself in.
If you want to compare batting averages in a vacuum from 1941 with
today's pro baseball players without mentioning the major differences in
pitching, then you may as well use Little League and high school
baseball statistics.
College running backs gain more yards than NFL running backs. And to
conclude that they're better without event mentioning the fact that NFL
defense is 3x better than collegieate defense is about as pathetic as
you can get in terms of being truthful.
As for Williams annd DiMaggio, you never watched a single inning of
baseball game in which either of them played. Neither of them ever saw
a 90 mph fastball. And your image of them is foundated on a warped
view of inflated offensive statistics that today's pitchers would never
allow to transpire.
I am 100% confident that had track & field events not been timed, the
vast majority of you people in here would assert Jesse Owens was faster
than any sprinter today and that Steve Prefontaine would drop all the
Kenyans competing in today's races.
Thank God for timing equipment.
Take care,
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 04:16:47
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <feqsdv$484$1@aioe.org >,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <fephci$um4$1@aioe.org>,
> > MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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 fuckhead 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 fuckhole 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?
> >
> >
> > You wanted to argue statistics. Now you don't.
> > I suppose Williams and DiMaggio would be pack
> > fill today.
> >
>
>
> No, I still want to argue statistics. But what you did - comparing a
> batting average from 1941 to a batting average today WITHOUT MENTIONING
> THE CRUCIAL FACT THAT PITCHING IS MUCH BETTER TODAY makes your
> comparison disingenuous AT BEST.
The point is that a champion will knock down the opponent,
then put in the boot.
On the final day of the 1941 season Ted Williams had a
batting average of .399955. That rounds out to .400 the
way baseball statistics are calculated. His manager,
Joe Cronin, was obliged to offer Williams the option of
sitting out the final games, knowing the answer in
advance. It was a double header, and Williams went 6
for eight, raising his average to .406.
> In fact, everybody in here knows your argument is fraudulent. And now
> you're trying to lie your way out of the corner you painted yourself in.
You want to use some statistics, and dismiss others.
You point to speed records for running and weight lifting,
then dismiss the numbers put up by Eddy Merckx.
> If you want to compare batting averages in a vacuum from 1941 with
> today's pro baseball players without mentioning the major differences in
> pitching, then you may as well use Little League and high school
> baseball statistics.
You want to cite 1960 sprinting records in a vacuum.
Your unspoken thesis is that an old record that stands
was against poor competition, and an old record that
has been surpassed proves the superiority of current
athletes. You have no standards of scientific rigor.
I do not pretend to scientific rigor in this conversation.
A champion is recognizable by his accomplishments.
> College running backs gain more yards than NFL running backs. And to
> conclude that they're better without event mentioning the fact that NFL
> defense is 3x better than collegieate defense is about as pathetic as
> you can get in terms of being truthful.
>
> As for Williams annd DiMaggio, you never watched a single inning of
> baseball game in which either of them played. Neither of them ever saw
> a 90 mph fastball. And your image of them is foundated on a warped
> view of inflated offensive statistics that today's pitchers would never
> allow to transpire.
>
> I am 100% confident that had track & field events not been timed, the
> vast majority of you people in here would assert Jesse Owens was faster
> than any sprinter today and that Steve Prefontaine would drop all the
> Kenyans competing in today's races.
>
> Thank God for timing equipment.
It is not the timing that captures the imagination.
It is a black guy, largely uncredited in his own land,
traveling across an ocean to a totalitarian state,
racist state, and kicking Heinie.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 18:37:43
From: Booker Bense
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 23:10:13
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Booker Bense wrote:
> In article <femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org>,
> MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The same holds true for track & field, swimming, rowing..in any sport
>>were times are measured objectively, the athletes from the 1960's (and
>>70's and 80's) would get their ass kicked today. Every single athlete in
>>every single event. I know of no exceptions. NONE.
>>
>
>
> Bob Beamon's Mexico City long jump would still win most events
> today. Steve Scott's USA mile record stood for a very long time.
> Alberto Salazar's 2:08:13 would have won all but 4 NY marathons
> out of the 25 since he ran it.
>
> _ Booker C. Bense
Beamon's jump was a fluke and aided by altitude. Very few world-class
track & field events are held at 7,550 feet above sea level.
Beamon NEVER came close to that 29 foot jump again and never jumped near
that prior to Mexico City.
Whereas today, you have a lot of guys routinely putting up 27-28+ feet
(and a few over 29).
So you've found 1 EVENT with 1 man that came close to showing someone in
the past was better than someone today. 5,603 events show just the
opposite.
Salazar was good, but he was 1980's...and the marathon was quite deep in
the 1980's..as was the mile - particulalry the American mile.
But if you go back to the 1960's or 1970's the times in all sports were
suck-ass compared to today across the board.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 04:41:09
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
In article <fepcun$j4b$1@aioe.org >,
MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote:
> Booker Bense wrote:
> > In article <femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org>,
> > MagillaGorilla <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The same holds true for track & field, swimming, rowing..in any sport
> >>were times are measured objectively, the athletes from the 1960's (and
> >>70's and 80's) would get their ass kicked today. Every single athlete in
> >>every single event. I know of no exceptions. NONE.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Bob Beamon's Mexico City long jump would still win most events
> > today. Steve Scott's USA mile record stood for a very long time.
> > Alberto Salazar's 2:08:13 would have won all but 4 NY marathons
> > out of the 25 since he ran it.
> >
> > _ Booker C. Bense
>
>
> Beamon's jump was a fluke and aided by altitude. Very few world-class
> track & field events are held at 7,550 feet above sea level.
Any statistic that confounds your thesis is
inadmissible for whatever half-assed reason
occurs to you in the moment. Please stop
pretending that you know how to argue a point.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 19:35:11
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"Booker Bense" <bbense@telemark.slac.stanford.edu > wrote in message
news:feoetn$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.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 21:13:38
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"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.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 20:57:47
From: GoneBeforeMyTime
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:femnvl$97b$1@aioe.org...
> Let me add speed skating to that too. That's 4 core Olympic sports I
> have given you fuckhole losers to compare to cycling..and you still
> can't name a single ATHLETE - male or female - who was faster or
> stronger in 1960 (or 1970 or 1980...) than any athlete today. That's
> literally thousands of athletes in thousdands of events!
>
> Kinda tells you something about how Eddy Merckx would fare against
> today's cyclists, doesn't it?
>
> Fuck all you people in here,
>
>
> Magilla
Chill a bit, the more you fight it, the more everyone will pile on. Pappy
asked this question once, and at the time, a friend of mine felt the same
way about Axel as you did. We posted for fun upgrading Eddy from Cat-2 to
Cat-1, but he was serious. I was just in for fun, but we were generally
conservative about Eddy, Carl was in that one too. But what interests me
more is how Gino would of done in today's peloton.
Pappy Thread...
http://tinyurl.com/38bjw8
GBMT
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 22:45:19
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:femkbj$vvg$1@aioe.org...
>
>>
>> 1) Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster
>> in ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two,
>> just one.
>
>
> What is that supposed to mean? That somehow today's athletes are
> stronger and faster?
That's EXACTLY what it's suppose to mean. Should it mean anything else?
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:18:55
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
> What Merckx forgot to mention was the pros he beat were nowhere near as
> good as they are today. In this respect, his wins are soft.
I'd guess that cycling, during the 70s, probably attracted a greater
percentage of high-quality athletes than it does today.
Merckx was an incredible phenomenon. His desire to win is paralleled only by
Lance's, with the biggest difference being that Lance had little interest in
contests in which me might not be able to win, while Merckx did it all. If
Merckx were racing today (the Merckx of the 70s), it wouldn't surprise me to
see him doing mountain biking.
And this is where it gets a bit weird. I don't care that Merckx might have
been guilty of all manner of doping transgressions. That's just what people
did back then.
So why don't I feel the same way (about present-day dopers) now?
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:femfao$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
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 21:52:24
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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 fucking 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
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 16:15:09
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:fem3ai$gfr$1@aioe.org...
> To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>
>
> Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
> ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
> one.
>
> Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
> stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>
> Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
> event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
Only a perceptionally challenged monkey would compare absolute values
from different eras. Put that in your chuff box and choke on it.
Phil H
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 20:37:09
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fem3ai$gfr$1@aioe.org...
>
>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>
>>
>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two, just
>>one.
>>
>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
>>stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>>
>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in ANY
>>event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>
>
> Only a perceptionally challenged monkey would compare absolute values
> from different eras. Put that in your chuff box and choke on it.
>
> Phil H
>
>
Believe it or not, the national and international federations of those
respective sports keep those records and they don't make any distinction
based on "different eras."
Era is a fucking laundry detergent, not a sports category.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 15:34:43
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:femfjm$jhv$1@aioe.org...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fem3ai$gfr$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>>To all you Eddy Merckx lovers:
>>>
>>>
>>>Name 1 track star - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>>ANY event than the track stars of today. Name one. Not even two,
>>>just one.
>>>
>>>Name 1 weight lifter - male or female from the 1960's - who is
>>>stronger in ANY event - than the weightlifters of today. One.
>>>
>>>Name 1 swimmer - male or female from the 1960's - who is faster in
>>>ANY event than the elite swimmers of today. One.
>>
>>
>> Only a perceptionally challenged monkey would compare absolute values
>> from different eras. Put that in your chuff box and choke on it.
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
> Believe it or not, the national and international federations of those
> respective sports keep those records and they don't make any
> distinction based on "different eras."
>
The intelligent ones don't make inferences about who is better than who.
Why do you think that is? Of course you can have the opinion that an
athlete who was head and shoulders above anyone else of years gone by is
inferior to a marginally better athlete of today, but by doing so, you
just move yourself one position to the left on the evolutionary scale.
GibberingGibbon might be a more suitable moniker.
Phil H
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2007 23:41:02
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:femfjm$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 fucking point?
Magilla
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 15:43:08
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:fepeof$n0g$2@aioe.org...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:femfjm$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.
!981 - Sebastian Coe, 800m world track record of 1-41.73. A time that
has only been beaten by one person (1997) in 26 years.......which means
what?
Phil H
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 23:58:48
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Phil Holman wrote:
> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fepeof$n0g$2@aioe.org...
>
>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:femfjm$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.
>
>
> !981 - Sebastian Coe, 800m world track record of 1-41.73. A time that
> has only been beaten by one person (1997) in 26 years.......which means
> what?
>
> Phil H
But if you look closely, the top milers today could all beat Coe's 800
meter record if they chose to run the 800 event. They just choose not
to because it's a meaningless event.
It's like the hour record in cycling - nobody gives a fuck about it
anymore. And the guy who holds the record in it writes reviews of
bicycles for a magazine.
Lance - a guy who didn't bother with the hour record - fucks chicks in
Hollywood. See my point?
So what, praytell, did Boardman actually accomplish with his little
gerbil wheel stunt?
I think a lot of you people in here are from the John Howard era and
spent too many years in toe clips and wool jerseys. Your're all fucked
up and your views of the sport are distorted.
Top pros today want 2 things: money and chicks. The hour record is for
the Danny Chews of the sport, not the Lance Armstrongs.
At least Obree was able to parlay it into a fucking big screen movie.
He was the only cool guy who did the hour.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 10:03:59
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Phil Holman wrote:
>> !981 - Sebastian Coe, 800m world track record of 1-41.73. A time that
>> has only been beaten by one person (1997) in 26 years.......which means
>> what?
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> But if you look closely, the top milers today could all beat Coe's 800
> meter record if they chose to run the 800 event. They just choose not
> to because it's a meaningless event.
Please name any big track meeting which doesn't have an 800m. Perhaps
you were thinking of the 1000m which is a novelty event or even the
mile (1600m as opposed to the 1500m) which is also a novelty event
although for historical reasons less so than the 1000m
Some of the top Kenyans and Ethiopians have gone for the 800m record
and only Kipketer could break it and only by a few 100ths of a second.
That's probably partly due the 800m being a semi anaerobic event with
a requirement for athletes with a unique mix of fast and slow
twitch fibres; a good 1500m runner won't necessarily run a good 800m
and sometimes 400m runners with a bit of extra endurance make good
800m runners.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 14:36:05
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Donald Munro wrote:
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>>>!981 - Sebastian Coe, 800m world track record of 1-41.73. A time that
>>>has only been beaten by one person (1997) in 26 years.......which means
>>>what?
>
>
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>But if you look closely, the top milers today could all beat Coe's 800
>>meter record if they chose to run the 800 event. They just choose not
>>to because it's a meaningless event.
>
>
> Please name any big track meeting which doesn't have an 800m. Perhaps
> you were thinking of the 1000m which is a novelty event or even the
> mile (1600m as opposed to the 1500m) which is also a novelty event
> although for historical reasons less so than the 1000m
>
> Some of the top Kenyans and Ethiopians have gone for the 800m record
> and only Kipketer could break it and only by a few 100ths of a second.
> That's probably partly due the 800m being a semi anaerobic event with
> a requirement for athletes with a unique mix of fast and slow
> twitch fibres; a good 1500m runner won't necessarily run a good 800m
> and sometimes 400m runners with a bit of extra endurance make good
> 800m runners.
If you run the 800, you will be less competitive in the mile at those
same big events. That's why nobody who can break the record does it.
So most guys don't do it because of that reason. It's the same reason
99.999% of top road pros don't do cyclocross even though if they did
they could likely kick the piss out of that doper from Belgium Verfucken
(yes he does and you know it).
Also, track & field ...they're getting a little bit like the UCI and
USAC with their numerous events to the point where they're becoming
irrelevant to the public. The public cares about 100 meters, the mile,
1500 meters, and the marathon. That's it. Maybe 400 and the relays of
course, especially if you watch a lot of BET on television.
The rest is just a sideshow.
Nobody cares about 800 meters as a distance unless you're looking
through a Leupold scope mounted on a .338 Winchester.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 23:14:52
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
Donald Munro wrote:
>> Please name any big track meeting which doesn't have an 800m.
>> Some of the top Kenyans and Ethiopians have gone for the 800m record
>> and only Kipketer could break it and only by a few 100ths of a second.
>> That's probably partly due the 800m being a semi anaerobic event with
>> a requirement for athletes with a unique mix of fast and slow
>> twitch fibres; a good 1500m runner won't necessarily run a good 800m
>> and sometimes 400m runners with a bit of extra endurance make good
>> 800m runners.
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> If you run the 800, you will be less competitive in the mile at those
> same big events. That's why nobody who can break the record does it.
Dumbass,
Your knowledge of middle distance running wouldn't even qualify
you for the B grade special Olympics.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Oct 2007 16:36:50
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:471286cb$0$2878$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> Please name any big track meeting which doesn't have an 800m.
>>> Some of the top Kenyans and Ethiopians have gone for the 800m record
>>> and only Kipketer could break it and only by a few 100ths of a
>>> second.
>>> That's probably partly due the 800m being a semi anaerobic event
>>> with
>>> a requirement for athletes with a unique mix of fast and slow
>>> twitch fibres; a good 1500m runner won't necessarily run a good 800m
>>> and sometimes 400m runners with a bit of extra endurance make good
>>> 800m runners.
>
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>> If you run the 800, you will be less competitive in the mile at those
>> same big events. That's why nobody who can break the record does it.
>
> Dumbass,
> Your knowledge of middle distance running wouldn't even qualify
> you for the B grade special Olympics.
No kidding, the 800m is a classic event requiring a unique combination
of speed, endurance and tactics.
Remember these......
http://technorati.com/videos/tag/sebastian+coe
Phil H
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 23:48:08
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:fes45o$i88$1@aioe.org...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fepeof$n0g$2@aioe.org...
>>
>>>Phil Holman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:femfjm$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.
>>
>>
>> !981 - Sebastian Coe, 800m world track record of 1-41.73. A time that
>> has only been beaten by one person (1997) in 26 years.......which
>> means what?
>>
>> Phil H
>
>
> But if you look closely, the top milers today could all beat Coe's 800
> meter record if they chose to run the 800 event. They just choose not
> to because it's a meaningless event.
>
> It's like the hour record in cycling - nobody gives a fuck about it
> anymore. And the guy who holds the record in it writes reviews of
> bicycles for a magazine.
>
> Lance - a guy who didn't bother with the hour record - fucks chicks in
> Hollywood. See my point?
>
> So what, praytell, did Boardman actually accomplish with his little
> gerbil wheel stunt?
>
> I think a lot of you people in here are from the John Howard era and
> spent too many years in toe clips and wool jerseys. Your're all
> fucked up and your views of the sport are distorted.
>
> Top pros today want 2 things: money and chicks. The hour record is
> for the Danny Chews of the sport, not the Lance Armstrongs.
>
> At least Obree was able to parlay it into a fucking big screen movie.
> He was the only cool guy who did the hour.
>
Very entertaining Magilla.
Phil H
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 23:08:52
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice > wrote in news:pN2dnR-
uecab14zanZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com:
<snip >
> 1981 - Sebastian Coe, 800m world track record of 1-41.73. A time that
> has only been beaten by one person (1997) in 26 years.......which means
> what?
Didn't he run that on one of the M.C. Escher continuous-downhill oval
tracks?
--
Bill Asher
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2007 13:02:21
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
"MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com > wrote in message
news:fepeof$n0g$2@aioe.org...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> "MagillaGorilla" <magilla@sandiegozoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:femfjm$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.
>
It isn't a question of seeing your point, how can anyone miss it or not
have considered it long before you brought it up again. Would z-scores
be lost on you?
Phil H
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 16:05:37
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 20:28:33
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 18:22:49
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking point?
>
Howler Monkey,
If you were a real Gorilla, let alone the esteemed Magilla, you wouldn't
be asking such stupid questions.
No, I don't get your point and neither should anyone else because it is
irrelevant. Merckx was a physical phreak who had the will to train hard
and shred his competitors in 525 races of all sorts. Five hundred twenty
five. If he competed in the modern era his wins would be down, but he
would still be a dominant rider.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 14:42:07
From: Andre
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2007 14:41:29
From: Andre
Subject: Re: Proof that Merckx wasn't the greatest
|
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 fucking 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
|
|
