Races
▼
Giro and WT Manager
Results
Previews
Startlists
Profiles
Originals
▼
Calendars
▼
Newsletter
mikestr
+10
Laatste reacties
+3
mikestr
Eras blend in with each other, so it's possible to look at riders who bridged them to get a relative idea of the quality of the riders. Most today would regard the era of Hinault and Lemond as "fully professional," and the pace was quick: around 38 kph on bikes that would be considered a liability today, and in a racing schedule that was far more severe than today. One of the TDF general classification winners at that time was Zoetemelk, in 1980. He was 38 years old. In his prime he lost repeatedly to Merckx. There are many such misunderstandings in these comparisons. Another involves amphetamine use. It did not make riders faster. It allowed them to endure the fatigue of the insane race schedule. Their use was widespread, but had schedules been more reasonable their use and impact would have been less. As far as the wider participation of nations is concerned, I'm not sure this matters as much as the total size of the pool of cyclists from which the pro ranks draw. There is arguably less competitive cycling down today. The amateur clubs are mostly gone, and financial barriers to entering racing as a profession are high. We see the same sort of argument made here in the US about pro baseball and basketball: We now have players from Eastern Europe, Africa, Japan, Korea, and other countries, and w have more pro teams, modern medicine and training methods, etc. But fewer people actually play these sports than before, and the overall quality of play is not necessarily higher--it's just assumed to be. Take away the CF frames and wheels and aero helmets, electronic shifters, etc., put today's riders on a 1980 race schedule. Oh, and 42/23 gearing for the mountains. They may not stack up so well. Evolution, or continual improvement in sports is often assumed, but I'm not so sure.
06-07-2024 20:39
+7
mikestr
Or you could say that their task was more difficult, as the race was longer, the roads worse, the equipment far worse, and they had to race far more days per year with less rest. Yet the speeds were nearly as high. Your era bias is showing.
06-07-2024 09:43
Load more...
Just in
Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter today!
May 12, 11:09
0
Carlos Sainz prepares for the Monaco F1 Grand Prix by training on a bike with Tadej Pogacar!
May 23, 05:00
0
“It’s no shame to be beaten by him” - Van Uden satisfied with second after long sprint in Giro stage finish
May 23, 03:30
0
Mads Pedersen settles for points as Kooij denies him a fourth Giro stage win: “I just didn't have the speed to pass them”
May 23, 02:00
0
More Articles
Popular news
Tom Dumoulin ashamed of Chris Froome's late career: "It seems like he keeps cycling out of habit and is afraid to stop"
May 22, 17:33
15
Medical Reports & Withdrawals Giro d'Italia 2025 | Update stage 12
May 22, 17:59
1
"He's so strong it's scary, I wouldn't feel comfortable if I was one of his rivals including Juan Ayuso" - Johan Bruyneel on Isaac del Toro
May 22, 22:05
1
Jury & Fines Giro d'Italia 2025 | Update stage 12
May 22, 19:49
0
More Articles
+3
mikestr
Eras blend in with each other, so it's possible to look at riders who bridged them to get a relative idea of the quality of the riders. Most today would regard the era of Hinault and Lemond as "fully professional," and the pace was quick: around 38 kph on bikes that would be considered a liability today, and in a racing schedule that was far more severe than today. One of the TDF general classification winners at that time was Zoetemelk, in 1980. He was 38 years old. In his prime he lost repeatedly to Merckx. There are many such misunderstandings in these comparisons. Another involves amphetamine use. It did not make riders faster. It allowed them to endure the fatigue of the insane race schedule. Their use was widespread, but had schedules been more reasonable their use and impact would have been less. As far as the wider participation of nations is concerned, I'm not sure this matters as much as the total size of the pool of cyclists from which the pro ranks draw. There is arguably less competitive cycling down today. The amateur clubs are mostly gone, and financial barriers to entering racing as a profession are high. We see the same sort of argument made here in the US about pro baseball and basketball: We now have players from Eastern Europe, Africa, Japan, Korea, and other countries, and w have more pro teams, modern medicine and training methods, etc. But fewer people actually play these sports than before, and the overall quality of play is not necessarily higher--it's just assumed to be. Take away the CF frames and wheels and aero helmets, electronic shifters, etc., put today's riders on a 1980 race schedule. Oh, and 42/23 gearing for the mountains. They may not stack up so well. Evolution, or continual improvement in sports is often assumed, but I'm not so sure.06-07-2024 20:39
+7
mikestr
Or you could say that their task was more difficult, as the race was longer, the roads worse, the equipment far worse, and they had to race far more days per year with less rest. Yet the speeds were nearly as high. Your era bias is showing.06-07-2024 09:43