Lemond--surdoué

B. Lafferty said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8954.0.html

Article states: fuoriclasse, literally "of superlative quality."
That's not quite right - it literally means "outside class" - akin to
hors categorie. Google translates it as unequalled.

R

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8954.0.html

Hinault was not 23, but 22 when he won Ghent-Wevelgem. At the same age he
also won Liege-Bastogne-Liege and the Dauphiné Libéré. At 23 he won the Tour
and the Vuelta. And Indurain won at 24 Paris-Nice.

Benjo

Interestingly, I do NOT think that Armstrong fits that category of
rider, yet he won 7 tours.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"benjo maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8954.0.html

Hinault was not 23, but 22 when he won Ghent-Wevelgem. At the same age he
also won Liege-Bastogne-Liege and the Dauphiné Libéré. At 23 he won the
Tour and the Vuelta. And Indurain won at 24 Paris-Nice.

Benjo

Benjo, do you think Cunego fits this category of rider?

We'll have to wait and see. Cunego won the Giro at 22, but so did Franco
Balmanion. A first class rider, no doubt, but no fuoriclasse.

Benjo

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8954.0.html

On my '04 trip to the TDF, Graham Watson and Paul Sherwen spent some time
with our group, and discussed Greg LeMond vs Lance at some length. It was
the opinion of both that Greg was the most-gifted athlete they'd ever seen
(then or since) on a bicycle, but that he lacked the intense drive of people
like Hinault or Lance (or for that matter, Merckx). Lance, they felt,
succeeeds on the basis of pure will. One got the feeling that they didn't
think Greg took training nearly as seriously as Lance, and that they were
almost annoyed by that (to some extent, wasted talent). I doubt they felt
that at the time, but hindsight has shown them what can be done when you get
all your ducks in a row.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

No comment

benjo maso said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8954.0.html

Hinault was not 23, but 22 when he won Ghent-Wevelgem. At the same age he
also won Liege-Bastogne-Liege and the Dauphiné Libéré. At 23 he wonthe Tour
and the Vuelta. And Indurain won at 24 Paris-Nice.

Benjo

Hey Benjo
I'm gonna toss in a kid here as a good possibility. That's Alex
Coehlo. I've been keeping an eye on this kid for a few years, and if he
doesn't burn out he could really be something. He has routinely beaten
much older, really solid, riders and seems to be getting better.
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

benjo maso said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8954.0.html

Hinault was not 23, but 22 when he won Ghent-Wevelgem. At the same age he
also won Liege-Bastogne-Liege and the Dauphiné Libéré. At 23 he won the
Tour
and the Vuelta. And Indurain won at 24 Paris-Nice.

Benjo

Hey Benjo
I'm gonna toss in a kid here as a good possibility. That's Alex
Coehlo. I've been keeping an eye on this kid for a few years, and if he
doesn't burn out he could really be something. He has routinely beaten
much older, really solid, riders and seems to be getting better.

I heard about him, and you might be right. On the other hand, unfortunately
the history of bicycle racing is full of very promising, very gifted riders
who were nothing but sensational in their first seasons but dwindled very
quickly. For instance, Jos Wouters, winner of Paris-Tours in at 19 in 1961,
Paris-Bruxelles at 20 in 1962. Next season the Flèche Brabançonne and some
places of honour. In 1964 nothing and in 1965 at 23 he ended his career.
Another example, as amateur Gerrie Knetemann was almost always beaten by the
great talent Aad van der Hoek. In 1974 both started their professional
career. Knetemann became world champion, winner of 10 stages in the Tour,
Paris-Nice, Almstel Gold, etc. Van der Hoek made also a fine career - as
Knetemann's domestique ...

Benjo

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in >

Quoted message said:

On my '04 trip to the TDF, Graham Watson and Paul Sherwen spent some time
with our group, and discussed Greg LeMond vs Lance at some length. It was
the opinion of both that Greg was the most-gifted athlete they'd ever seen
(then or since) on a bicycle, but that he lacked the intense drive of
people like Hinault or Lance (or for that matter, Merckx). Lance, they
felt, succeeeds on the basis of pure will. One got the feeling that they
didn't think Greg took training nearly as seriously as Lance, and that
they were almost annoyed by that (to some extent, wasted talent).

I like Paul, but he has some odd facts in his head. Like you can exceed
your maximum heart rate. Callling Lemond wasted talent sounds like another
to add to the list.

Quoted message said:

I doubt they felt that at the time, but hindsight has shown them what can
be done when you get all your ducks in a row.

Is getting your ducks in a row like putting a wasp in an intertube?

"TM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in >

Quoted message said:

On my '04 trip to the TDF, Graham Watson and Paul Sherwen spent some time
with our group, and discussed Greg LeMond vs Lance at some length. It was
the opinion of both that Greg was the most-gifted athlete they'd ever
seen (then or since) on a bicycle, but that he lacked the intense drive
of people like Hinault or Lance (or for that matter, Merckx). Lance, they
felt, succeeeds on the basis of pure will. One got the feeling that they
didn't think Greg took training nearly as seriously as Lance, and that
they were almost annoyed by that (to some extent, wasted talent).

I like Paul, but he has some odd facts in his head. Like you can exceed
your maximum heart rate. Callling Lemond wasted talent sounds like
another to add to the list.

The knock on Lemond was always that he didn't focus much on the classics
once he won the Tour. That isn't really totally fair although there is some
truth to it. He did place on the podium in classics on several occasions
and, IIRC, finished 4th in Paris-Roubaix twice, the last time while
supporting his team mate Duclos LaSalle. I suppose he straddled the eras of
full season riders and specialists, himself focusing on the Tour in his
post-accident period.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I doubt they felt that at the time, but hindsight has shown them what can
be done when you get all your ducks in a row.

Is getting your ducks in a row like putting a wasp in an intertube?

:-)

On 09/23/2005 07:14 PM, in article [email hidden], "benjo

maso said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

benjo maso said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8954.0.html

Hinault was not 23, but 22 when he won Ghent-Wevelgem. At the same age he
also won Liege-Bastogne-Liege and the Dauphiné Libéré. At 23 he won the
Tour
and the Vuelta. And Indurain won at 24 Paris-Nice.

Benjo

Hey Benjo
I'm gonna toss in a kid here as a good possibility. That's Alex
Coehlo. I've been keeping an eye on this kid for a few years, and if he
doesn't burn out he could really be something. He has routinely beaten
much older, really solid, riders and seems to be getting better.

I heard about him, and you might be right. On the other hand, unfortunately
the history of bicycle racing is full of very promising, very gifted riders
who were nothing but sensational in their first seasons but dwindled very
quickly. For instance, Jos Wouters, winner of Paris-Tours in at 19 in 1961,
Paris-Bruxelles at 20 in 1962. Next season the Flèche Brabançonne and some
places of honour. In 1964 nothing and in 1965 at 23 he ended his career.
Another example, as amateur Gerrie Knetemann was almost always beaten by the
great talent Aad van der Hoek. In 1974 both started their professional
career. Knetemann became world champion, winner of 10 stages in the Tour,
Paris-Nice, Almstel Gold, etc. Van der Hoek made also a fine career - as
Knetemann's domestique ...

Not to mention RBR's own favorite bad boy, Franck VDB.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8954.0.html

On my '04 trip to the TDF, Graham Watson and Paul Sherwen spent some time
with our group, and discussed Greg LeMond vs Lance at some length. It was
the opinion of both that Greg was the most-gifted athlete they'd ever seen
(then or since) on a bicycle, but that he lacked the intense drive of people
like Hinault or Lance (or for that matter, Merckx). Lance, they felt,
succeeeds on the basis of pure will. One got the feeling that they didn't
think Greg took training nearly as seriously as Lance, and that they were
almost annoyed by that (to some extent, wasted talent). I doubt they felt
that at the time, but hindsight has shown them what can be done when you get
all your ducks in a row.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

That's the thing that makes Lemond's performances that much more
amazing, that he didn't train harder than everyone else, he wasn't
driven more than some of the other greats, etc... He did it on sheer
talent (natural ability and tactical acumen, etc.) Lance did it with
an unrelenting desire NOT to lose and a tremendous work ethic.

I've always had the impression that if some of the other current top
riders were as single minded as Lance, he may well have had quite a bit
more close competition.

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in >

Quoted message said:

On my '04 trip to the TDF, Graham Watson and Paul Sherwen spent some time
with our group, and discussed Greg LeMond vs Lance at some length. It was
the opinion of both that Greg was the most-gifted athlete they'd ever
seen (then or since) on a bicycle, but that he lacked the intense drive
of people like Hinault or Lance (or for that matter, Merckx). Lance, they
felt, succeeeds on the basis of pure will. One got the feeling that they
didn't think Greg took training nearly as seriously as Lance, and that
they were almost annoyed by that (to some extent, wasted talent).

I like Paul, but he has some odd facts in his head. Like you can exceed
your maximum heart rate. Callling Lemond wasted talent sounds like
another to add to the list.

I don't think Paul said LeMond was "wasted talent" but the definite thought
was that he could have gone a lot further, done a lot more with the right
motivation, coaching, etc. The discussion came about from someone asking
the question "Who's the best cyclist, Greg or Lance?" Greg had his goals-
win the TDF, win the Worlds, whatever. To win was the goal. The specifics of
how to do so were vague. Lance wasn't like that; winning the TDF wasn't an
option or even a goal, it was almost a given (because, as he so often said,
that was his job). Much more effort was spent on HOW to win. Study
everything to the nth detail, including your competitors. Look for every
edge possible. Put together a team that would die for you, no matter what.
Lance left nothing on the table.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"TM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in >

Quoted message said:

On my '04 trip to the TDF, Graham Watson and Paul Sherwen spent some time
with our group, and discussed Greg LeMond vs Lance at some length. It was
the opinion of both that Greg was the most-gifted athlete they'd ever
seen (then or since) on a bicycle, but that he lacked the intense drive
of people like Hinault or Lance (or for that matter, Merckx). Lance, they
felt, succeeeds on the basis of pure will. One got the feeling that they
didn't think Greg took training nearly as seriously as Lance, and that
they were almost annoyed by that (to some extent, wasted talent).

I like Paul, but he has some odd facts in his head. Like you can exceed
your maximum heart rate. Callling Lemond wasted talent sounds like
another to add to the list.

Quoted message said:

I doubt they felt that at the time, but hindsight has shown them what can
be done when you get all your ducks in a row.

Is getting your ducks in a row like putting a wasp in an intertube?

I think that opinion of Lemond (regarding training) is overdone.
Lemond trained hard for sure. I was actually asked to compare Lance
and Greg the other night and I said pretty much what was written above:
Lemond was a complainer at times; I have no doubt that if Lance were
told to back off and let Hinault win he would have said 'F--k off!'.
That said, if Lemond really threw it down, perhaps Hinault would have
relented. Who can say for sure.

When it comes to raw talent, my vote is with Lemond. Lance took time
and cancer to win the Tour. Without a doubt the cancer gave him
perspective and some much needed weight loss. Without that he would
never have developed to win the Tour. Moreover, once he recovered from
cancer he was 100%, but Lemond never recovered after he was shot. The
guy barely won in '89 and used his team and experience to win in '90.
I'm not taking anything away from Lance, who could take 7 Tours away,
but I don't care what anyone says, Lemond would have won 5. But he
didn't!

I also recall Lemond being the first to be criticized for focusing only
on the Tour. How could he? Now everyone agrees that to win you need
to be very focused. I think the guy took a lot of [censored] when he was
racing, but he is, for better or for worse, one the key players for
making the sport what it is today.

My favorite ride of the two? I grew watching Lemond and I've met him a
few times and the guy is like a friend even if he doesn't know you.
Sure he blabbed his mouth in public and looks bad, but he's had some
rough years; I recall Merckx trashing Lance a bit too. Give Lance a
decade and see how beloved he is. Try to chat with him too, if you
can. Once a jerk always a jerk. Does that detract (for me) from his
accomplishments in the sport, not in the least. He's got "balls" and
is ready to throw it down and that's what makes his races exciting.

CH

Quoted message said:

I think that opinion of Lemond (regarding training) is overdone.
Lemond trained hard for sure. I was actually asked to compare Lance
and Greg the other night and I said pretty much what was written above:
Lemond was a complainer at times; I have no doubt that if Lance were
told to back off and let Hinault win he would have said 'F--k off!'.
That said, if Lemond really threw it down, perhaps Hinault would have
relented. Who can say for sure.

When it comes to raw talent, my vote is with Lemond. Lance took time
and cancer to win the Tour. Without a doubt the cancer gave him
perspective and some much needed weight loss.

Wow.

Steve

Without that he would

Quoted message said:

never have developed to win the Tour. Moreover, once he recovered from
cancer he was 100%, but Lemond never recovered after he was shot. The
guy barely won in '89 and used his team and experience to win in '90.
I'm not taking anything away from Lance, who could take 7 Tours away,
but I don't care what anyone says, Lemond would have won 5. But he
didn't!

I also recall Lemond being the first to be criticized for focusing only
on the Tour. How could he? Now everyone agrees that to win you need
to be very focused. I think the guy took a lot of [censored] when he was
racing, but he is, for better or for worse, one the key players for
making the sport what it is today.

My favorite ride of the two? I grew watching Lemond and I've met him a
few times and the guy is like a friend even if he doesn't know you.
Sure he blabbed his mouth in public and looks bad, but he's had some
rough years; I recall Merckx trashing Lance a bit too. Give Lance a
decade and see how beloved he is. Try to chat with him too, if you
can. Once a jerk always a jerk. Does that detract (for me) from his
accomplishments in the sport, not in the least. He's got "balls" and
is ready to throw it down and that's what makes his races exciting.

CH

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Quoted message said:

My favorite ride of the two? I grew watching Lemond and I've met him a
few times and the guy is like a friend even if he doesn't know you.

Greg's dropped by the shop a couple times, and each time he was the nicest
guy in the world, always interested in what *you* were up to, never talking
up his own exploits (but never acting too tired to answer questions about
them). That's why it was such a surprise for many of us to read some of the
things he'd said about Lance, as if anything Lance did would somehow take
away from Greg's accomplishments. I never understood that one. Nor would I
feel comfortable bringing up the subject with Greg in person.

(And as I've said before, until Lance came on the TDF scene in a big way,
people had pretty much forgotten about Greg. Having an American do well at
the TDF brought Greg's accomplishments back to life; nothing that Lance has
done should be seen as overshadowing what Greg did! And in 2003, when Lance
just barely won the TDF, how many times did they talk about Greg's fantastic
win in the final TT into Paris?)

Most everyone has a demon (or two) in their closet; sometimes they make
appearances in public. Lance seems fueled by his demons, and publicity only
seems to make his seem even more invincible, more determined, more
whatever-it-takes-to-win. And it's tolerated because it's clearly part of
what makes him win. Greg seems more like the rest of us, with demons that
are better-off staying in the closet, because their appearances seem
unproductive and counter to what a good public relations person would see as
beneficial to ones career.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think that opinion of Lemond (regarding training) is overdone.
Lemond trained hard for sure. I was actually asked to compare Lance
and Greg the other night and I said pretty much what was written above:
Lemond was a complainer at times; I have no doubt that if Lance were
told to back off and let Hinault win he would have said 'F--k off!'.
That said, if Lemond really threw it down, perhaps Hinault would have
relented. Who can say for sure.

When it comes to raw talent, my vote is with Lemond. Lance took time
and cancer to win the Tour. Without a doubt the cancer gave him
perspective and some much needed weight loss. Without that he would
never have developed to win the Tour. Moreover, once he recovered from
cancer he was 100%, but Lemond never recovered after he was shot. The
guy barely won in '89 and used his team and experience to win in '90.
I'm not taking anything away from Lance, who could take 7 Tours away,
but I don't care what anyone says, Lemond would have won 5. But he
didn't!

I also recall Lemond being the first to be criticized for focusing only
on the Tour. How could he? Now everyone agrees that to win you need
to be very focused. I think the guy took a lot of [censored] when he was
racing, but he is, for better or for worse, one the key players for
making the sport what it is today.

My favorite ride of the two? I grew watching Lemond and I've met him a
few times and the guy is like a friend even if he doesn't know you.
Sure he blabbed his mouth in public and looks bad, but he's had some
rough years; I recall Merckx trashing Lance a bit too. Give Lance a
decade and see how beloved he is. Try to chat with him too, if you
can. Once a jerk always a jerk. Does that detract (for me) from his
accomplishments in the sport, not in the least. He's got "balls" and
is ready to throw it down and that's what makes his races exciting.

CH

Quoted message said:

I think that opinion of Lemond (regarding training) is overdone.
Lemond trained hard for sure. I was actually asked to compare Lance
and Greg the other night and I said pretty much what was written above:
Lemond was a complainer at times; I have no doubt that if Lance were
told to back off and let Hinault win he would have said 'F--k off!'.
That said, if Lemond really threw it down, perhaps Hinault would have
relented. Who can say for sure.

It's also hard to say how Lemond would have performed with the full
weight of a team and organization dedicated to him like
LANCE/USPS/DISCO or how LANCE would have performed on a traditional
European team.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On my '04 trip to the TDF, Graham Watson and Paul Sherwen spent some

time

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with our group, and discussed Greg LeMond vs Lance at some length. It

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the opinion of both that Greg was the most-gifted athlete they'd ever
seen (then or since) on a bicycle, but that he lacked the intense drive
of people like Hinault or Lance (or for that matter, Merckx). Lance,

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

felt, succeeeds on the basis of pure will. One got the feeling that

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

didn't think Greg took training nearly as seriously as Lance, and that
they were almost annoyed by that (to some extent, wasted talent).

I like Paul, but he has some odd facts in his head. Like you can exceed
your maximum heart rate. Callling Lemond wasted talent sounds like
another to add to the list.

I don't think Paul said LeMond was "wasted talent" but the definite

thought

Quoted message said:

was that he could have gone a lot further, done a lot more with the right
motivation, coaching, etc. The discussion came about from someone asking
the question "Who's the best cyclist, Greg or Lance?" Greg had his goals-
win the TDF, win the Worlds, whatever. To win was the goal. The specifics

of

Quoted message said:

how to do so were vague. Lance wasn't like that; winning the TDF wasn't an
option or even a goal, it was almost a given (because, as he so often

said,

Quoted message said:

that was his job). Much more effort was spent on HOW to win. Study
everything to the nth detail, including your competitors. Look for every
edge possible. Put together a team that would die for you, no matter what.
Lance left nothing on the table.

Lance must have taken erythropoietin then

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in >

Quoted message said:

On my '04 trip to the TDF, Graham Watson and Paul Sherwen spent some
time with our group, and discussed Greg LeMond vs Lance at some length.
It was the opinion of both that Greg was the most-gifted athlete they'd
ever seen (then or since) on a bicycle, but that he lacked the intense
drive of people like Hinault or Lance (or for that matter, Merckx).
Lance, they felt, succeeeds on the basis of pure will. One got the
feeling that they didn't think Greg took training nearly as seriously as
Lance, and that they were almost annoyed by that (to some extent, wasted
talent).

I like Paul, but he has some odd facts in his head. Like you can exceed
your maximum heart rate. Callling Lemond wasted talent sounds like
another to add to the list.

I don't think Paul said LeMond was "wasted talent" but the definite
thought was that he could have gone a lot further, done a lot more with
the right motivation, coaching, etc. The discussion came about from
someone asking the question "Who's the best cyclist, Greg or Lance?" Greg
had his goals- win the TDF, win the Worlds, whatever. To win was the goal.
The specifics of how to do so were vague. Lance wasn't like that; winning
the TDF wasn't an option or even a goal, it was almost a given (because,
as he so often said, that was his job). Much more effort was spent on HOW
to win. Study everything to the nth detail, including your competitors.

Quoted message said:

Look for every edge possible.

Yes indeed, including the use of Ferrari and EPO. I wonder how many Tours
Armstrong would have won had he raced in the 1980s. IMO, none.

Quoted message said:

Put together a team that would die for you, no matter what. Lance left
nothing on the table.

That's because he needed what was under the table to dominate.