Races
▼
TdF Manager
Results
Previews
Startlists
Profiles
Originals
▼
Calendars
▼
Newsletter
mikestr
+10
Latest comments
+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
"He’ll just enjoy every moment in this jersey” – Dan Martin beams as Ben Healy makes yellow jersey history at the Tour de France
Jul 15, 05:00
0
"I didn't want to leave empty-handed” – Lenny Martinez delivers on Bastille Day
Jul 15, 03:30
0
"It was a very terrible day" – Mattias Skjelmose's GC dreams in tatters after stage 10 of 2025 Tour de France
Jul 15, 02:00
0
"Remco is very satisfied and felt good all day" – Soudal – Quick-Step and Evenepoel confident heading into second half of 2025 Tour de France
Jul 15, 00:30
1
More Articles
Popular news
Medical Report & Withdrawals 2025 Tour de France: Update stage 10 - Three more riders abandon brutal Grand Tour
Jul 14, 20:07
1
"A tough guy who likes to bully his opponents" - Tadej Pogacar receives backlash after first Tour de France days
Jul 14, 10:40
12
Jury & Fines Tour de France 2025 | Update Stage 10 - Commissaires go on fining spree after first day in the mountains
Jul 14, 20:18
5
PREVIEW | Tour de France 2025 stage 10 - Visma-UAE battle could lead to stage of the year
Jul 14, 10:41
2
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