Another Hour Record Attempt upcoming

dastardly00

Jesus I can't believe McQuaid and Johan Bruyneel were there.
It just seems ridiculous.

pelevin

nak wrote: »

Most of the British riders competing on the road these days came from the track program and are former World champions.

Though that's presumably to some degree the point Goose was trying to make. If most of the British road riders are former track World champions, being a track world champion is comparatively not that exclusive & big a deal. It would suggest for a talented cyclist it's being a big fish in a much smaller pond.

manafana

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

I suspect the Armstrong comment was a case of Wiggins use of sarcasm. This doesn't look so great.....

That's David Miller photo-bombing in the background, btw

https://twitter.com/SSbike/status/607636282353831937?s=09


I can see lots of opportunities for fun with speech bubbles on that pic

That really is strange that McQuaid was there, but even more so that Johan was there can't reason for that someone messed up that.

eeeee

pelevin wrote: »

Though that's presumably to some degree the point Goose was trying to make. If most of the British road riders are former track World champions, being a track world champion is comparatively not that exclusive & big a deal. It would suggest for a talented cyclist it's being a big fish in a much smaller pond.

That's very much not the case. It's just as difficult to be a track world champion as a road. The races are more specialised, but no easier to win. It's very much so exclusive and hard to win.
One of the biggest differences is that on track the disciplines are distinct - pursuit, scratch/points/bunch races, sprinters etc. They happen in their own races rather than as part of one. They're a lit faster than road races for example, and extremely technical.
There is plenty of competition at world level on track, it's no easier than road but different.
Road is not the best measure of a cyclist. I wouldn't fact telling Pervis or Bauget they easy world champions, or the pursuit squads they're big fish in small ponds...

nak

pelevin wrote: »

Though that's presumably to some degree the point Goose was trying to make. If most of the British road riders are former track World champions, being a track world champion is comparatively not that exclusive & big a deal. It would suggest for a talented cyclist it's being a big fish in a much smaller pond.

Sure a lot of it is down to money; there certainly wasn't much money available for track riders in the past. Better now, but more opportunities on the road. That and maybe people wanting to try something different.

Trojan

It seems crazy, but not at all shocking that PMcQ was there given that his son is Wiggins' agent and one of the 3 team managers of Team WIGGINS (along with Bradley himself and Robert Dodds). Source: wikiprayitsrightedia.

Beasty

BBC radio last night were suggesting the air pressure was lower than it had been for some time yesterday. Clearly that had a significant impact. Wondering whether it may encourage more attempts at altitude. That may still be a way for some of the guys who are not track specialists to challenge the record.

pelevin

gadetra wrote: »

That's very much not the case. It's just as difficult to be a track world champion as a road. The races are more specialised, but no easier to win. It's very much so exclusive and hard to win.
One of the biggest differences is that on track the disciplines are distinct - pursuit, scratch/points/bunch races, sprinters etc. They happen in their own races rather than as part of one. They're a lit faster than road races for example, and extremely technical.
There is plenty of competition at world level on track, it's no easier than road but different.
Road is not the best measure of a cyclist. I wouldn't fact telling Pervis or Bauget they easy world champions, or the pursuit squads they're big fish in small ponds...

How many tracks are there in Ireland? There's lots of roads. Given the numbers then of people on the road to the track, I'd say that alone tells how much of a smaller pond track cycling is. It's comparatively a tiny pond unless there's loads of tracks & track cyclists around I've not seen. Not that I'm saying it's easy, obviously they train their asses off & the discipline is very hard, but simple logistics would show that it is obviously a much smaller pond.

nak

Beasty wrote: »

BBC radio last night were suggesting the air pressure was lower than it had been for some time yesterday. Clearly that had a significant impact. Wondering whether it may encourage more attempts at altitude. That may still be a way for some of the guys who are not track specialists to challenge the record.

Wiggins reckoned the high pressure may have cost him 700m.

Are there many options for an indoor track at altitude?

eeeee

pelevin wrote: »

How many tracks are there in Ireland? There's lots of roads. Given the numbers then of people on the road to the track, I'd say that alone tells how much of a smaller pond track cycling is. It's comparatively a tiny pond unless there's loads of tracks & track cyclists around I've not seen. Not that I'm saying it's easy, obviously they train their asses off & the discipline is very hard, but simple logistics would show that it is obviously a much smaller pond.

How many people cycling actually race in Ireland? Fcuk all in comparison to the amount of cyclists there are.

There are 3 tracks in Ireland, Orangefield in Belfast, Kanturk in Cork and Sundrive in Dublin.

Track is a niche sport, but so is road racing. The proportions who do either are tiny.

Look at the numbers competing in the track world championships ( in all the races) and the road. The numbers are not too far off.

godtabh

Beasty wrote: »

BBC radio last night were suggesting the air pressure was lower than it had been for some time yesterday. Clearly that had a significant impact. Wondering whether it may encourage more attempts at altitude. That may still be a way for some of the guys who are not track specialists to challenge the record.

Wiggins said the pressure was 1000 pa. The worst it has been in months he reckons. If it had of 30 pa more he reckons he would have done another 700m. His dress rehearsal had better conditions and he got the same distance.

pelevin

gadetra wrote: »

How many people cycling actually race in Ireland? Fcuk all in comparison to the amount of cyclists there are.

There are 3 tracks in Ireland, Orangefield in Belfast, Kanturk in Cork and Sundrive in Dublin.

Track is a niche sport, but so is road racing. The proportions who do either are tiny.

Look at the numbers competing in the track world championships ( in all the races) and the road. The numbers are not too far off.

Well my ignorance is hardly a final word on things but in terms of road or track being niche sports, earlier Pervis & Bauget were mentioned as presumably giants of track cycling. Tobh I don't think I've heard of either of them & I'd say that ignorance would be very much the norm. It's a sport very much enclosed within its devotees with very little spill-over beyond that into popular consciousness - though I'm sure with pockets of exception like Japan. And it is far, far less accessible on a participation level than simply getting out on the road, and from there crossing over into competitive areas if desired.

As for the numbers competing in the track world championships ( in all the races) equating roughly to the road. That's like saying the numbers competing in a golf tournament where there's a limit on the entrants is maybe even bigger than those in a soccer tournament, also with a limit, thus showing golf is maybe more popular than soccer.

eeeee

pelevin wrote: »

Well my ignorance is hardly a final word on things but in terms of road or track being niche sports, earlier Pervis & Bauget were mentioned as presumably giants of track cycling. Tobh I don't think I've heard of either of them & I'd say that ignorance would be very much the norm. It's a sport very much enclosed within its devotees with very little spill-over beyond that into popular consciousness - though I'm sure with pockets of exception like Japan. And it is far, far less accessible on a participation level than simply getting out on the road, and from there crossing over into competitive areas if desired.

As for the numbers competing in the track world championships ( in all the races) equating roughly to the road. That's like saying the numbers competing in a golf tournament where there's a limit on the entrants is maybe even bigger than those in a soccer tournament, also with a limit, thus showing golf is maybe more popular than soccer.

The only reason road is more popular than track in the public realm is money, pure plain and simple. Themes a LOT more money in track, advertising etc. Etc. That's why. It's not enclosed at all, track is open to anyone who wants to participate or watch. Accreditations are run throughout the season, the races are on YouTube ( the uci channel is great) and the revolution series was on one of the channel 4's (still on 4 od I think).

If there was asuch money in track as road it would be just as popular. And I don't think money should be the arbitrator of sporting excellence. Just because one is in the public conscious more does not make it easier, less tough, demanding or easier to succeed.

If it was about ease of doing then the most popular sports in the world would be running and walking. Once your out the door with your runners on you're training! Bit they're not the most popular sports, and this status does not make it easy for a talented runner or walker to be world class.

Leroy42

Surely this achievement, by such a significant margin, marks Wiggo down as one of the greatest cyclists of all time.

He may not have won 7 TdF (but then who has!) but across both Track on road he is simply awesome. Not many can say they are as decorated Olympian and World Championship as he is and still have enough to not only compete on the road but to win the most prestigious of races

pelevin

gadetra wrote: »

The only reason road is more popular than track in the public realm is money, pure plain and simple. Themes a LOT more money in track, advertising etc. Etc. That's why. It's not enclosed at all, track is open to anyone who wants to participate or watch. Accreditations are run throughout the season, the races are on YouTube ( the uci channel is great) and the revolution series was on one of the channel 4's (still on 4 od I think).

If there was asuch money in track as road it would be just as popular. And I don't think money should be the arbitrator of sporting excellence. Just because one is in the public conscious more does not make it easier, less tough, demanding or easier to succeed.

If it was about ease of doing then the most popular sports in the world would be running and walking. Once your out the door with your runners on you're training! Bit they're not the most popular sports, and this status does not make it easy for a talented runner or walker to be world class.

Well in my case lack of visceral or emotional response to track cycling has nothing to do with the money involved. It just does very little for me. That's not saying though it's not a great sport, or variety of sports, both for participation & watching for those who are into it.

As an aside, extra 0's on sports people's salaries is actually inclined to make me recoil from rather than be drawn to sports - like the out of control charmless monster of soccer.

Lumen

gadetra wrote: »

The only reason road is more popular than track in the public realm is money, pure plain and simple.

I think you're unreasonably discounting the value of helicopter shots and Chateau porn.

pelevin

Lumen wrote: »

I think you're unreasonably discounting the value of helicopter shots and Chateau porn.

And sometimes there's even someone walking around in the courtyard. You can't get better than that.

pelevin

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely this achievement, by such a significant margin, marks Wiggo down as one of the greatest cyclists of all time.

Not for me, no. To be one of the greatest means up there with or close to the likes of Merckx & Hinault. For instance Wiggins big goal in the last couple of years - much more than beating Alex Dowsett's hour record - was winning Paris Roubaix. The best he came 9th &, fine as that was, it was hailed as something almost legendary. Compared to the kind of feats of the aforementioned Merckx & Hinault, that shows his road achievements are nowhere near the same scale. For them that would be much more akin to a failure to be forgotten & avenged in the next race.
As for track achievements, excellent as they are, as described earlier where apparently most British current pro road-cyclists on the international scene are track world champions, I don't see the track as particularly relevant in adding to a road cyclist's stature.

And in case someone brings up say doping, we're supposedly talking of the greatest of all time. That doesn't mean, "Well by all time I meant the last 3 or 4 years cos everything before then is tainted."

To put it in perspective a little, Merckx won eleven Grand Tours & 19 monuments. Wiggins won one Grand Tour and his best monument finish is I think 9th.

nak

pelevin wrote: »

Not for me, no. To be one of the greatest means up there with or close to the likes of Merckx & Hinault. For instance Wiggins big goal in the last couple of years - much more than beating Alex Dowsett's hour record - was winning Paris Roubaix. The best he came 9th &, fine as that was, it was hailed as something almost legendary. Compared to the kind of feats of the aforementioned Merckx & Hinault, that shows his road achievements are nowhere near the same scale. For them that would be much more akin to a failure.
As for track achievements, excellent as they are, as described earlier where apparently most British current pro road-cyclists on the international scene are track world champions, I don't see the track as particularly relevant in adding to a road cyclist's stature.

And in case someone brings up say doping, we're supposedly talking of the greatest of all time. That doesn't mean, "Well by all time I meant the last 3 or 4 years cos everything before then is tained."

I don't think it's possible for anyone to have the successes Merckx and Hinault had now as the style of racing is different. Advances in sports science may have a part to play in that; the GT winners are a lot leaner and as a result don't have the necessary attributes to win a spring classics.

A rider's race calendar is shorter now, so you could say there are less chances for them to win.

pelevin

nak wrote: »

I don't think it's possible for anyone to have the successes Merckx and Hinault had now as the style of racing is different. Advances in sports science may have a part to play in that; the GT winners are a lot leaner and as a result don't have the necessary attributes to win a spring classics.

A rider's race calendar is shorter now, so you could say there are less chances for them to win.

To be meaningfully put up there with Merckx & Hinault, etc though, Wiggins's road achievements in whatever form would have to be hugely more impressive than they are.

Leroy42

But you are all comparing him to just the road. He has done it across both, and excelled in both.

Of course his road palamres is no where even close to the others mentioned, but to be able to go from such a specialist on the track, but being able to compete and then win in the TdF, to me, shows he has to be considered as one of the greatest.

It is too simplistic to simply look at his grand tours or monuments but then discount his track career.

dave_o_brien

pelevin wrote: »

To be meaningfully put up there with Merckx & Hinault, etc though, Wiggins's road achievements in whatever form would have to be hugely more impressive than they are.

Only according to you. Who has already professed an ignorance of and a lack of interest in track cycling. In my opinion, you seem to be displaying a huge bias towards a sport that you find aesthetically pleasing at the expense of any form of objective assessment.

I'm not a fan of Wiggins as a character. But that doesn't alter the fact that he has achieved more than any other rider of this generation across a more diverse range of challenges. He is, on paper, the most complete cyclist currently competing.

As far as putting him in the pantheon of Merkcx, Hinault, etc., that's not going to be mimicked by anyone probably ever again. But if Merckx came along now, he wouldn't be able to dominate in the way that he did either, so what's the point in asking that of anyone?

pelevin

For me bringing up the track is as meaningful as someone bringing up Cadel Evans's mountain biking. I think it's fairly irrelevant. And Evans's road career includes a Worlds' road race & Fleche Wallone.

pelevin

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Only according to you. Who has already professed an ignorance of and a lack of interest in track cycling. In my opinion, you seem to be displaying a huge bias towards a sport that you find aesthetically pleasing at the expense of any form of objective assessment.

I'm not a fan of Wiggins as a character. But that doesn't alter the fact that he has achieved more than any other rider of this generation across a more diverse range of challenges. He is, on paper, the most complete cyclist currently competing.

As far as putting him in the pantheon of Merkcx, Hinault, etc., that's not going to be mimicked by anyone probably ever again. But if Merckx came along now, he wouldn't be able to dominate in the way that he did either, so what's the point in asking that of anyone?

So who are the greatest track cyclists of all time? Why aren't they being mentioned here as all-time greats besides basically road cyclists.
Even in a different kind of era the idea of a rider who has one Grand Tour and his best Monument finish is 9th being one of the all-time greats is to me ridiculous. And yes, that's according to me.

nak

dave_o_brien wrote: »

He is, on paper, the most complete cyclist currently competing.

Marianne Vos imo is the most complete cyclist at the moment - world titles in track, road, cyclocross and now competing in XC mountain biking.

Bradley Wiggins has had a very impressive career, the majority of pro riders retire without achieving a smidgeon of what he has. Terrible at cyclocross though

I do agree with the rest of your post, you can't compare and Merckx wouldn't be able to win all those races in the present day.

dave_o_brien

pelevin wrote: »

So who are the greatest track cyclists of all time? Why aren't they being mentioned here as all-time greats besides basically road cyclists.
Even in a different kind of era the idea of a rider who has one Grand Tour and his best Monument finish is 9th being one of the all-time greats is to me ridiculous. And yes, that's according to me.

Grand so, we'll agree that your opinion is that to be a great, one has to win GT's and Monuments, whereas mine is that being elite in an array of fields is what is required.

Ultimately, asking who the greatest track riders of all time are is irrelevant, given how recently it has become a purist, specialist set of disciplines.

nak wrote: »

Marianne Vos imo is the most complete cyclist at the moment - world titles in track, road, cyclocross and now competing in XC mountain biking.

Bradley Wiggins has had a very impressive career, the majority of pro riders retire without achieving a smidgeon of what he has. Terrible at cyclocross though

I do agree with the rest of your post, you can't compare and Merckx wouldn't be able to win all those races in the present day.

You're right, Vos is in a league of her own. PFP looks unstoppable too, and only 22?!

nak

dave_o_brien wrote: »

You're right, Vos is in a league of her own. PFP looks unstoppable too, and only 22?!

Real pity to see them both out from injuries this season.

To be good at just one form of cycling would be enough for most of us

letape

pelevin wrote: »

So who are the greatest track cyclists of all time? Why aren't they being mentioned here as all-time greats besides basically road cyclists.
Even in a different kind of era the idea of a rider who has one Grand Tour and his best Monument finish is 9th being one of the all-time greats is to me ridiculous. And yes, that's according to me.

According to me too pelevin...

I do like Wiggins as a character and as a cyclist and absolutely he has a very diverse and impressive palmares... but on an absolute level nothing compared to a Merckx or for that matter I would hold Kelly in higher esteem. Yes everything he achieved was on the road but he was able to compete and win in all terrains and all types of races.

Since Wiggo's Tour win he has failed to be in anyway competitive in a GT. Like Merckx and Kelly, there are plenty of current day cyclists who are competitive through a very long season (Valverde, Rodriquez...) whereas Wiggins was competitive and focused on a few specific events like PR and the Hour record this year.

pelevin

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Grand so, we'll agree that your opinion is that to be a great, one has to win GT's and Monuments, whereas mine is that being elite in an array of fields is what is required.

Ultimately, asking who the greatest track riders of all time are is irrelevant, given how recently it has become a purist, specialist set of disciplines.

No, ultimately my opinion is that when we talk about the greatest cyclists of all time, it's more or less a given that the conversation is about road cycling. Maybe there's mountain bikers & cyclo-cross riders whose achievements comparatively dwarf all but Merckx from road-cycling but tellingly no one is mentioning their names. I presume a conversation about the greatest tennis players of all time doesn't get altered to "being elite in an array of fields is what is required" and so someone who has also done very well in squash or badminton trumps a Federer or whoever who solely won in the tennis field.

mcgratheoin

pelevin wrote: »

No, ultimately my opinion is that when we talk about the greatest cyclists of all time, it's more or less a given that the conversation is about road cycling. Maybe there's mountain bikers & cyclo-cross riders whose achievements comparatively dwarf all but Merckx from road-cycling but tellingly no one is mentioning their names. I presume a conversation about the greatest tennis players of all time doesn't get altered to "being elite in an array of fields is what is required" and so someone who has also done very well in squash or badminton trumps a Federer or whoever who solely won in the tennis field.

Is there the same variety (as road) in cyclocross or MTB though? Are there riders who can challenge in downhill and x-country and enduro in MTB? (genuine question, I don't know enough about it to make a statement). The variety on the road is a key factor in the conversations about the greatest - it's why most people would suggest that the minimum for inclusion in those conversations is multiple GT victories and multiple monument victories.

On Wiggins, I admire what he has done in chasing the top across so many variations of cycling - he could probably quite easily have done a Tony Martin on it and been the dominant TT rider in GTs of this generation. Instead he consistently moved on to newer challenges. Most rounded cyclist of this generation? Without a doubt. In the all-time pantheon though, I think he'd struggle to crack the top 10.

Edit - why would squash or badminton enter a tennis conversation at all?