doctortalk121
07-13-07, 03:07 AM
xxx
Professional Cycling - Armstrong- King of the mountains?
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.View Full Version : Armstrong- King of the mountains?
doctortalk121
07-13-07, 03:10 AM
xxx
alanbikehouston
07-13-07, 03:16 AM
The rules would permit winning both. But, winning the "King of the Mountains" requires playing some silly games. Almost every stage has some little hill somewhere. To get the maximum KOM points, you need to put in the effort to be fastest up those little hills, day after day. The guys going after the yellow jersey have bigger fish to fry.
And, some of the guys who win the KOM are NOT the guys who were first on the really challenging mountain stages. They win the KOM by scoring lots of points on the little hills, day after day, and then just being in the top five or ten guys on the toughest mountain stages. So, the KOM has become "King of the Hill".
And, some of the guys who win the KOM are NOT the guys who were first on the really challenging mountain stages. They win the KOM by scoring lots of points on the little hills, day after day, and then just being in the top five or ten guys on the toughest mountain stages. So, the KOM has become "King of the Hill".
meb
07-13-07, 03:34 AM
always wondered this, in his seven wins, how many of the King of the Mountains contests would he have won if not the yellow jersey wearer? or did he lead in all seven?
2004 was the only year he came close to winning the King of the Mountains and with that being the tail end of Virenque's career and Rassmussen's first Tour, he probably could have won the 2004 KOM if he concentrated on the polka dots instead of the yellow.
The other years had great climber specialists that Lance probably wouldn't have beat anyway like Jalabert and Botero not to mention Rassmussen and Virenque on form.
2004 was the only year he came close to winning the King of the Mountains and with that being the tail end of Virenque's career and Rassmussen's first Tour, he probably could have won the 2004 KOM if he concentrated on the polka dots instead of the yellow.
The other years had great climber specialists that Lance probably wouldn't have beat anyway like Jalabert and Botero not to mention Rassmussen and Virenque on form.
godspiral
07-13-07, 07:22 AM
Armstrong was really good about staying near the front on all mountain stages, but I'm not sure he'd beat rasmussen in his best year on a one day ride.
To Armstrong's credit, didn't he win the alpe d'huez time trial, but don't know if they gave KOM points for that stage.
To Armstrong's credit, didn't he win the alpe d'huez time trial, but don't know if they gave KOM points for that stage.
40 Cent
07-13-07, 08:54 AM
Virenque was a GC'er too but had the misfortune to compete in the Armstrong years so set his sights on KOM. It would be interesting to break GC'ers into specific disciplines. I think Armstrong was better at TT than anyone. Hard to say how he would have fared in sprints against a McEwen or Petacchi had he cared. I think if it were mountains all day, every day, Armstrong would've beat most KOMs, but Pantani might have beat him.
jbhowat
07-13-07, 09:20 AM
Hard to say how he would have fared in sprints against a McEwen or Petacchi had he cared.
How is it hard to say??! Armstrong was not a sprinter (at least not since cancer, and he wasn't that fast before cancer) and would be the first one to admit he would have no chance against a pure sprinter after a flat stage. PLEASE....
How is it hard to say??! Armstrong was not a sprinter (at least not since cancer, and he wasn't that fast before cancer) and would be the first one to admit he would have no chance against a pure sprinter after a flat stage. PLEASE....
marin1
07-13-07, 09:55 AM
How is it hard to say??! Armstrong was not a sprinter (at least not since cancer, and he wasn't that fast before cancer) and would be the first one to admit he would have no chance against a pure sprinter after a flat stage. PLEASE....
There will always be people who believe Armstrong could do anything he set his mind to. He is the greatest cyclist in the history of July.
There will always be people who believe Armstrong could do anything he set his mind to. He is the greatest cyclist in the history of July.
40 Cent
07-13-07, 10:02 AM
How is it hard to say??! Armstrong was not a sprinter (at least not since cancer, and he wasn't that fast before cancer) and would be the first one to admit he would have no chance against a pure sprinter after a flat stage. PLEASE....
You're right, but Armstrong wouldn't have been the slowest sprinter out there for our purely hypothetical purposes. And the sprinting part wasn't really my point. We're talking KOMs.
You're right, but Armstrong wouldn't have been the slowest sprinter out there for our purely hypothetical purposes. And the sprinting part wasn't really my point. We're talking KOMs.
40 Cent
07-13-07, 10:09 AM
Really?
During the Armstrong's reign I meant.
During the Armstrong's reign I meant.
daytonian
07-13-07, 10:10 AM
Chickens don't beat Armstrongs, only Crows.
merlinextraligh
07-13-07, 10:24 AM
The problem is to win KOM, Armstrong would have had to of tanked major time before the mountains. As long as your a threat on GC, you don't get the long leash to get out front and collect KOM points ala Virenque or Jalabert.
The Polka Dot Jersey rarely goes to the best climber in the race.
The Polka Dot Jersey rarely goes to the best climber in the race.
erader
07-13-07, 10:52 AM
2004 was the only year he came close to winning the King of the Mountains and with that being the tail end of Virenque's career and Rassmussen's first Tour, he probably could have won the 2004 KOM if he concentrated on the polka dots instead of the yellow.
The other years had great climber specialists that Lance probably wouldn't have beat anyway like Jalabert and Botero not to mention Rassmussen and Virenque on form.
jalabert? you've got to be kidding :eek: .
ed rader
The other years had great climber specialists that Lance probably wouldn't have beat anyway like Jalabert and Botero not to mention Rassmussen and Virenque on form.
jalabert? you've got to be kidding :eek: .
ed rader
erader
07-13-07, 10:53 AM
Chickens don't beat Armstrongs, only Crows.
who said she beat him....do you have a link :eek: ?
ed rader
who said she beat him....do you have a link :eek: ?
ed rader
erader
07-13-07, 10:54 AM
Virenque was a GC'er too but had the misfortune to compete in the Armstrong years so set his sights on KOM. It would be interesting to break GC'ers into specific disciplines. I think Armstrong was better at TT than anyone. Hard to say how he would have fared in sprints against a McEwen or Petacchi had he cared. I think if it were mountains all day, every day, Armstrong would've beat most KOMs, but Pantani might have beat him.
virenques misfortune was he couldn't TT :eek: .
ed rader
virenques misfortune was he couldn't TT :eek: .
ed rader
Keith99
07-13-07, 11:16 AM
The rules would permit winning both. But, winning the "King of the Mountains" requires playing some silly games. Almost every stage has some little hill somewhere. To get the maximum KOM points, you need to put in the effort to be fastest up those little hills, day after day. The guys going after the yellow jersey have bigger fish to fry.
And, some of the guys who win the KOM are NOT the guys who were first on the really challenging mountain stages. They win the KOM by scoring lots of points on the little hills, day after day, and then just being in the top five or ten guys on the toughest mountain stages. So, the KOM has become "King of the Hill".
Bull. Those little hills have little points. It is very rare as in so rare that I can not recall a single case, that a rider in contention wins because of points on those little hills.
In recent years and historically riders win KOM because they go over the top of those big climbs first, either in a break (that usually does not last to the end of the stage) or because they 'sprint' for the mountiantop (or both). Either one hurts your chances of winning the GC.
Or the third way. Being so D@mn good you gobble up everything. Only three riders that did it that way in the TDF come to mind.
Oops forgot the 4th way, being a climber who uses that as the key to the GC. In that case sometimes they end up with enough to win the KOM. Pantani came close (and did in in the Giro). Only one who fits that in the TDF is Baha.
P.S. The setup for winning both GC and KOM was actually better to much better for Lance. Historically there were fewer mountiantop finishes. Killer mountian stages often had 60 or more Kms after the last peak to the finish. In his last Tour finishing peaks counted double, which favors the person trying for both.
And, some of the guys who win the KOM are NOT the guys who were first on the really challenging mountain stages. They win the KOM by scoring lots of points on the little hills, day after day, and then just being in the top five or ten guys on the toughest mountain stages. So, the KOM has become "King of the Hill".
Bull. Those little hills have little points. It is very rare as in so rare that I can not recall a single case, that a rider in contention wins because of points on those little hills.
In recent years and historically riders win KOM because they go over the top of those big climbs first, either in a break (that usually does not last to the end of the stage) or because they 'sprint' for the mountiantop (or both). Either one hurts your chances of winning the GC.
Or the third way. Being so D@mn good you gobble up everything. Only three riders that did it that way in the TDF come to mind.
Oops forgot the 4th way, being a climber who uses that as the key to the GC. In that case sometimes they end up with enough to win the KOM. Pantani came close (and did in in the Giro). Only one who fits that in the TDF is Baha.
P.S. The setup for winning both GC and KOM was actually better to much better for Lance. Historically there were fewer mountiantop finishes. Killer mountian stages often had 60 or more Kms after the last peak to the finish. In his last Tour finishing peaks counted double, which favors the person trying for both.