Road Bike Racing - 6 wins

Lance says he wants to win 6 Tours...

Originally posted by fubar5
Lance says he wants to win 6 Tours
Hubris.

What does that mean?

Originally posted by fubar5
What does that mean?
The tragic flaw: pride before the fall...

And now Pantani is poking him in the eye with a sharp stick again. Of course, he should talk ...

My goal on the Ventoux stage this year is to take a good photo of both of them on the way up. The question is: will they be in the frame at the same time? ;)

Cheers...Gary

I would love to sell Lance get beaten and see a very exciting race to the end. However I see another repeat here.

Pantani again is simply blowing smoke. I like Pantani and his older riding style. However he is not the same and I see him in the Tour this year retiring with a lame excuse.

Ullrich too is coming out with big talk and I also see him tucking his tail and hiding under the bed each night as before :(

iBanesto too has come out saying they will fight for the Tour. This may actually come true, however they may need an alliance with another team, maybe Kelme would not be a bad ally for iBanesto to take on Telekom and USPS.

It may very well end up being a nice Tour this time around. I truly hope so for the true fans.

I just hope it's close this year. In the last couple of years, the result of the tour has been pretty predictable. As much as that's a credit to Lance, it would be nice if somebody else could pull their finger out and make it a bit closer this time around.

As much as I admire Lance for his focus and success in the Tour I have more respect for people like Zabel and Dekker who are out there laying it on the line week after week and achieving ongoing success even though they will probably never win one of the major tours. I am a bigger fan of George Hincapie than Armstrong for the same reason. I would love to see him win Paris-Roubaix. And what about the domestiques who work their legs off week after week leading others to victory with little chance of tasting it themselves except on rare occasions in minor events? You have to respect those guys and ladies.
FWIW,
Raymond

Hincapie is one of my favorite riders! He also resides here in SC. I was looking over a calendar of rides in SC and saw that a few were organzed by a Hincapie(I forget the first name) I am assuming it(the hincapie) is a relative of George. I may try to get in on one of those rides, but in the listing for the ride is says average speed: 25-30 mph....Ah, I'm not there yet.:D

You know, I hear this line of thought alot. The fact of the matter is that domestiques are domestiques because that is where their talent lies. Even if they did not have those team responsibilities, 90% of them couldn't be competitive with the likes of the stars of the sport.
No matter what you think of Armstrong, there are only a handful of riders that can podium at the TDF, much less the other 2 Grand Pubas (my name for them). By definition, a stage racer is good at everything. To be the top 3 is to be one of the few on the planet that can win such a race.
Having cancer, getting kicked off your team, overcoming cancer, putting yourself back into the driver's seat and winning 2 TDF's- The greatest bike race in the world. I don't know, that sounds pretty admirable to me.
Not to flame you but you respect Hincapie more because he is a domestique and has won 1 mini-classic by 2 cm and may win Paris-Roobie (along with about 10 serious contenders) over Lance who is a World Champion, TDF winner, multiple stage winner, TDSuisse winner/multiple stage winner, etc,etc,etc??? I'm not a huge Lance fan either but this is sounding a bit like overcompensation!
One day racing is exciting and I have great admiration for the Zabel's, Dekker's, Tafi's of the peloton. I find them really more exciting racing.
Even the great one-day riders are in their own class. The rest is the peloton of pro "workers", up-and-comers, fading heros.
I respect them all for dedicating so much pain to their sport and being a part of something so special.




Originally posted by RainmanP
As much as I admire Lance for his focus and success in the Tour I have more respect for people like Zabel and Dekker who are out there laying it on the line week after week and achieving ongoing success even though they will probably never win one of the major tours. I am a bigger fan of George Hincapie than Armstrong for the same reason. I would love to see him win Paris-Roubaix. And what about the domestiques who work their legs off week after week leading others to victory with little chance of tasting it themselves except on rare occasions in minor events? You have to respect those guys and ladies.
FWIW,
Raymond

As a compact-sized hill climbin' fool with a Bianchi, I empathize with the "little Italian pirate," Pantani. I also greatly repect him for his triumphant comeback from a high-speed, near-fatal collision with a truck. My personal "no pain - no gain" workout ethic and relatively large circle of cancer-survivor friends and relatives make me a big Armstrong fan as well, despite the blatant hype, hubris, low-pressure chamber, etc. Six wins? That goal has evaded history's finest cyclists so far. I also agree with the Rainman's assessment of Zabel, Dekker, Hincapie, et al. Actually, I respect anyone who qualifies for and finishes a TdF!

Originally posted by RacerX
By definition, a stage racer is good at everything. To be the top 3 is to be one of the few on the planet that can win such a race.
No, actually. A good stage racer -- even a great one -- only needs to be a an excellent time trialist and a respectable climber. He doesn't have to be a sprinter and he doesn't have to be a classic rouleur. He does need to have a very disciplined and single-minded team. Stage racing is a specific and unique skill and very few great stage racers have ever been great classics racers. Merrckx is the obvious exception, of course, but Indurain made almost no impact in the classics, Lemond and Armstrong have never been more than adequate and Pantani and Ullrich just don't turn up on the classic radar.

On the other hand, it takes a special kind of rider to win a 270km classic over pave and 20 per cent hills [as opposed to a 180 km stage over paved roads]. Those are guys like Planckaert, Musseuw, De Vlaeminck, Argentin, Tafi, Tchmil and Ballerini. Sometimes, a very special rider -- a Merckx or even a Jalabert -- can do both... but that's rare.

Armstrong is a very good stage racer. He is an excellent stage racer. He is not a classics racer, though, and I think that will show this year.

Is he one of the greatest? He's on the level of a Lemond or a Fignon, in my mind, but he's no Merckx.

I haven't seen Ullrich talking "big", in fact he's pretty low key, compared to Armstrong. OF course, Armstrong can brag, he's won the tour three times, so I suppose he is entitled, but as for six wins? He's just psyching everyone out. Six wins the equivalent of Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak or Ted William's 400 season. Maybe Pantani isn't a threat like he used to be, but there are plenty out there and Armstrong knows it. He's no dummy and he knows it's never a given. If he thought none of those guys were a threat to him he'd sit around all winter eating pizza and ice cream and not do any training.


I'd love to see someone torment Armstrong in the mountains. Simoni probably won't be in the Tour, but Casero might be, and Jimenez, not to mention Ullrich and Virenque. I hope they give him a run for his money and drive him nuts in the Alps!

I want Lance to win all the freaking tours he can by the biggest landslides he can make it. The more people in the US that are exposed to this sport the better off we will be. Lance was second in sportsmen of the year next to Mr. Selfish, Berry Bonds. If he wins this year; he is due!!!!!!!

If more people are exposed to the personalities and teams in cycling the better of we will all be. Don’t you think the American consumer had enough of the shenanigans going on in the big four professional sports in the US. Maybe then they might put down their Joysticks and feel the accomplishment of a big hill or going 40 plus down a hill. Maybe then you could buy a decent road bike for 1,000 bucks or maybe we could get full coverage of the Frenchy tour or other great tours and events.

Somehow, as a non racer i wonder
if I have the right to critique (sp?) any rider,
let alone someone like Armstrong.
Remember, Armstrong was more of a one day
rider prior to his cancer, treatment and comeback.
I believe the quote was 'he will never be a tour rider..."
or something like that.
Is he a Merrckx? an Anquentil? No, but pro peloton
is alot different than it was then.
Is he an Indurain? maybe
Pantani et al can bluster all they want, remember
they're trying to get into the Tour, Lance is already
there.

nuff said,
Marty

Originally posted by velocipedio

No, actually. A good stage racer -- even a great one -- only needs to be a an excellent time trialist and a respectable climber. He doesn't have to be a sprinter and he doesn't have to be a classic rouleur. He does need to have a very disciplined and single-minded team.

On the other hand, it takes a special kind of rider to win a 270km classic over pave and 20 per cent hills [as opposed to a 180 km stage over paved roads].
Armstrong is a very good stage racer. He is an excellent stage racer. He is not a classics racer, though, and I think that will show this year.


A great stage racer has to be a GREAT TIME TRIALIST, a GREAT CLIMBER and GREAT all-around rider. He doesn't have to be a great 1-day rider because that is not a stage race requirement.

There are many more riders capable of winning a 1 day than a TDF, Giro, Vuelta.

Armstrong is a GREAT all-arounder. Capable of being a threat in ANY pro race he enters. Not a great 1 day racer? Have you seen the last several years' Amstel Gold races? 2000 Zurich (he fell off the pace for 5th but was in the key break).
He doesn't train to be a classics rider, but that doesnt mean he isn't a classics racer.

Originally posted by RacerX
A great stage racer has to be a GREAT TIME TRIALIST, a GREAT CLIMBER and GREAT all-around rider. He doesn't have to be a great 1-day rider because that is not a stage race requirement.
Really? Then how do you explain Indurain? He was an excellent time trialist, but never more than adequate in the mountains, always weak in long stages and incapable of winning a sprint. Some all-arounder! Ullrich is better in long-stages and has more of a sprint, but the same applies.

Look at all of the big Grand Tours of the last twenty years. Where did the winners make up their leads? Well, the ONLY place to do that, outside of a miraculous breakaway, is in a time trial. I think it was Toni Rominger who said that a stage race was won in a a time trial and lost in the mountains. Having made up the time against the clock, a stage racer need only be adequate enough in the mountains to finish with the pack.


There are many more riders capable of winning a 1 day than a TDF, Giro, Vuelta..
That's only because there are only three grand tours every year, and dozens of major and minor classics. The opportunities are greater in the classics. The problem is that, if you specialize in stage races, you don't win classics, and if you specialize in classics, you don't win stage races.


Armstrong is a GREAT all-arounder. Capable of being a threat in ANY pro race he enters. Not a great 1 day racer? Have you seen the last several years' Amstel Gold races? 2000 Zurich (he fell off the pace for 5th but was in the key break).
He doesn't train to be a classics rider, but that doesnt mean he isn't a classics racer.
I think Lance is just marvie, REALLY. But, let's be honest, he finished how many races after the TdF last year? He was competitive in Amstel Gold and he won the Tour of Switzerland as prep for the Tour, but he didn't turn up on the radar of ANY OTHER major classic. Same for 2000 and 1999.

He used to be a fine classics rider, I'll give him that. But I think it's fairly clear that the post-cancer Armstrong is a different rider than the one who won Fleche Wallone in 1996 and San Sebastian in 1995. Evidently, the illness and the chemotherapy fundamentally altered his physiology. I don't think you can link his two careers together, they're different careers...

I respect Armstrong for what he is: one of the best stage racers of his generation and a man who fought back from death itself. He's dominant in one race in the calendar, but he's completely dominant in that one race.

I do hope someone -- Ullrich, Casero, Simoni, Sevilla, whoever -- ends that dominance this year, though, and I'll be rooting for them.

Sorry but no matter how much some of the Classic riders prep for the TDF, they will never be GC podium finishers.
When I read your responses, you seem to underestimate how difficult and prestigious a 3 week stage race is.

Indurain or any TDF winner can out TT and out climb all but a handful of racers in the pro peloton- and do it day after day. Their abilities as all-rounders is what got them into the position to be GC competitors. From there they all have weaknesses and strengths to be exploited. Do you understand that to even be in the top 10 GC, you have to be a GREAT rider?

If you think you only have to be adequate in the mountains, you better tell Kivelev because that is where he lost over 20minutes and 3rd place.

In the 1 day races, there are many more serious contenders for that prize than in any of the triple crown stage races. There are many more riders capable of winning a 1 day race than there are capable of winning the TDF. That is part of what makes them more exciting.

That is why the TDF,Giro and Vuelta are the toughest, most prestegious races and the winners are considered the greatest riders.
I'm not stating just my opinion but that of many and many racers. If you don't agree, than ok.
I won't try to explain anymore.

It's funny how the great tour winners don't win the Olympic road race! And Indurain never won the WC road race either, did he? ALthough he did win time trials in the WC and in the Olympics.

I think one of the main reasons Armstrong is planning on doing more spring classics is mainly to support Hincapie, since he probably got a lot of flak for not being in the Vuelta and not supporting hincapie enough in the classics. USPS has lost enough guys in the recent seasons and Armstrong likely knows he'd be an idiot if he let Hincapie go. Plenty of other teams would LOVE to have him.

Yeah, I read that many riders feel the World Championship RR is a crap-shoot. Not to mention how late it is in the season.

Hincapie would have won many more races in my opinion. He was offered a spot with Domo a while ago. Someone said he likes the American life too much. He has been getting tons of press lately so I think Postal has big plans for him in the Classics. IMO, Armstrong will not, nor ever will (while still a TDF competitor) do Paris-Roubaix. If I were him, I certainly wouldn't risk historic glory for a one-day! He can go for P-R when he finishes his TDF goals.


Originally posted by wabbit
It's funny how the great tour winners don't win the Olympic road race! And Indurain never won the WC road race either, did he? ALthough he did win time trials in the WC and in the Olympics.

USPS has lost enough guys in the recent seasons and Armstrong likely knows he'd be an idiot if he let Hincapie go. Plenty of other teams would LOVE to have him.

It certainly will be an interesting classics season this year. It'll be fascinating to see whether Armstrong actually finishes any one-day races or if he'll abandon after 80 km.

Armstrong's problem in the classics is that he simply doesn't have a sprint. As much as the pave of Flanders and northern France typically reduce the field to a handful by race end, most of the classics typically come down to a sprint. We saw that at Amstel Gold last year. Unless Armstrong gets into a solo breakaway, or into a breakaway supported by two or three workers [a la Domo in last year's Roubaix], he doesn't have a chance of winning Amstel or any other spring classic. And I find it highly unlikely that anyone in the peloton would let Armstring get away in any breakaways, unless he swaps numbers with Michael Barry.

I know you want to believe that Armstrong can do anything, but even when he was a good classics rider, he was never a great classics rider. He has specialized in a particular form of racing that requires a different set of skills. It's just like in running, where it is rare to find a runner who can win the 5k, 10k and marathon. [Lasse Viren and Emil Zatopek are the historic exceptions.]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the 3-week stage races are puny. All I'm saying is that it takes different kinds of athlete to excel at Grand Tour GC and classics. I'm not minimizing the importance or prestige of the grand tours at all. I would love to see a rider emerge who could excel in both -- the closest we've come recently was Jalabert, and that wasn't very close [though who knows...].

Ask yourself if Armstrong could win the TdF if it was run without time trials. I don't think so, and I'd like to crunch the times of the last couple of tours to find out. That's not conclusive proof of anything of course, but it would be suggestive -- as was Rominger's remarks -- that the core skill for a GT GC winner is time trialling. [BTW, with the exception of Pantani, whos is only a better-than-average time trialist in certain conditions, can you think of a single TdF GC winner since Hinault who wasn't primarily a time trialist? Fignon... Lemond... Indurain... Riis... Ullrich... Amrstong... okay, I'll give you Roche.]

I don't want Armstrong to be anything. He is a great rider that is capable of winning any race he enters. I'm not a fan except to acknowledge that fact.

The fact that TT's are important is like saying riding fast is important. Its a fact of the tour. So what? That is where you make up the most time and it would be stupid not to exploit the TT discipline.

Liege-Bastongne-Liege, Het Volk, Fleche Wallone,Tour of Flanders, Paris-Tours have all been won by non-sprinters or non-sprint finishes in recent years. I dunno, looks like alot of opportunities for "non-sprinters" to me.

Zabel, Jalabert, Dekker, Boogerd (amongst others) all excel at Classics and TDF.

Originally posted by RacerX
I don't want Armstrong to be anything. He is a great rider that is capable of winning any race he enters. I'm not a fan except to acknowledge that fact.
Really? Why didn't he win the Championship of Zurich this year? Oh, riiight... he bailed from that one... Okay, so why not the GP of San Francisco? Oh yeah, he abandoned there, too... What about the 2001 World Cup races? Well... he only actually finished one of them...

Not only is Armstrong not capable of winning any race he enters, he's not even always capable of finishing them.


The fact that TT's are important is like saying riding fast is important. Its a fact of the tour. So what? That is where you make up the most time and it would be stupid not to exploit the TT discipline.
The point is that, in modern grand tours, time trials have become so important that the principal skill required of a GC winner is time trialing.

In last year's Tour, Armstrong made up almost half of his lead over Ullrich in time trials [11 seconds in the TTT, 1 minute in the Chamrousse mountain TT, and 1:40 in the Montlucon - Saint Amand Montrond ITT]. Remember that Ullrich is a TT specialist himself...

And Armstrong made up 13:45 of his 22:38 lead over Michael Boogerd [one of the few non-time-trialists in the top-10 of the GC who wasn't in that breakaway in stage 8] in time trials.

Time trials are where these races are won, and that is the skill that a GC winner needs, above all else. That's why Armstrong wins the TdF -- he is an excellent time trialist and a good climber; he is, in effect, a GT or, more accurately, a TdF specialist.

[It's worth noting that Simoni, not a great time trialist, could probably only have won the 2001 Giro because there was only one time trial; Garzelli, who is a much better time trialist, won the 2000 Giro with 3 TTs...]


Liege-Bastongne-Liege, Het Volk, Fleche Wallone,Tour of Flanders, Paris-Tours have all been won by non-sprinters or non-sprint finishes in recent years. I dunno, looks like alot of opportunities for "non-sprinters" to me.
Sure, there are opportunities for non-sprinters, like Virenque in Paris-Tours [which is normally a sprinter's race]. Thos opportunities come in breakaways, like in this year's Tour of Flanders. But Armstrong will almost never be allowed to get into a solo breakaway in a classic. Period. When he does get away, like in Amstel Gold, he will have to sprint to the finish with the likes of Erik Dekker. Dekker is no Zabel, but even then, he blasted Armstrong to the line.

This year, Milan-San Remo came down to a sprint, as did the Tour of Flanders, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, San Sebastian and the Giro di Lombardia. Armstrong could not have won any of those races. Only Fleche Wallonne and Paris-Tours were sprint-less and were won by breakaways that Armstrong would not have been able to get away with. In any event, both races are almost always won in sprints [like Zabel in the Fleche in 1998 and 1999].


Zabel, Jalabert, Dekker, Boogerd (amongst others) all excel at Classics and TDF.
Although they win stages, neither Zabel [96th in last year's Tour] nor Dekker [91st] have ever been or will ever be a contender of the GC of any grand tour. Jalabert [19th] is one of the only true all-around racers in the peloton, and he has said that he never took his TdF GC chances seriously [and he's at the end of his career]. Boogerd? Perhaps, but he would be a long-shot, which is why Raboband hired Leipheimer and why Rabobank has increased its training focus on time trials.

I don't know whats worse, naysayers or not being able to appreciate greatness.
Your post sounds like both.
Maybe we should start a different thread on a different topic...

Originally posted by RacerX
I don't know whats worse, naysayers or not being able to appreciate greatness.
Your post sounds like both.
Maybe we should start a different thread on a different topic...
Hey, I never said Armstrong wasn't great. All I said was that his skills lie in a specific area. Just because he's a great Tour de France rider doesn't make him a great classics rider. They are different kinds of races that require different skills. My Opthalmologist is a great eye doctor, but that doesn't make him a great brain surgeon.

As for nay-saying, well, yes. Armstrong is hyped by Americans as the greatest-cyclist-at-all-things, when this clearly isn't the case. I'm sorry, but I have to be a naysayer when someone says that Armstrong, obviously a great Tour de France Racer, can just as easily win classics when he has only ever won two in his entire career, and those were before he got sick and received treatment that he admits altered his physiology.

There just isn't any evidence that he is a "great all-arounder" and, to the contrary, there is ample evidence -- his inability or unwillingness to enter more than a handful of races other than the Tour de France, his inability to finish half of the races that he does enter other than the Tour de France -- that he plainly isn't an all-arounder.

I guess I'm just not blinded by the incandescent glow of his celebrity..

Add me the Hincapie fan club. The man's been doin' good so far:
http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/1840.0.html
Go, George!

From a personality standpoint, Lance always strikes me as a jerk. Pantani talks more ***** than a japanese radio, which was fine when he could back it up with results. Ullrich seems to show some class, steadily delivering results, without the hype. Regardless, the 2000 (if memory serves) tour, with the epic Pantani-Armstrong mountain battles, stands out in my memory as the most exciting TdF since LeMond defeated Fignon (by 7 seconds, wasn't it?).

Hincapie really impressed me during Paris Roubaix. In fact, anyone who even FINISHES that race impresses me. Fracno Ballerini was superhuman, if you think of it- he did 13 and finished EVERY one. Even Greg Lemond didn't accomplish that! You really have to be one tough b******. What a wild race. I am sure Hincapie will win one day, maybe this year.

UI agree about Ullrich. He's really low key and I like that; he doesn't seem to think of himself as a big movie star and he rarely brags. I like that. Even with all the pressure on him he doesn't diss his rivals or make threats or boast. I hope he wins!