Tour de France 2017

[blueinsa]

Nothing like that at all. It’s saying that Froome doesn’t have the quality to win right across the season, in all types of terrain. Fignon won San-Remo, did Giro Tour double. Hinault won 4 of the 5 monuments, double Giro Tour, Vuelta, world champion on one of the toughest championship coureses ever. And for that reason Froome is nowhere near the level of Hinault and Merckx. Not even close. They stand head and shoulders above everyone else, Froome included. Froome is a superb Tour de France rider. He is a suberb rider. But he’s not, by a long shot, what you’d call a “champion”. Champion cyclists win monuments, world champs and multi-grand tours (Tour, Giro, Vuelta). Sky are excellent at what they do. But give Froome the same race schedule as Hinault and Merckx and he’d have packed by Roubaix, never to resurface.

Would you say thats down to the individual mate or the way teams are run these days and the sheer size of the squads of riders they have and need to keep happy?

 

[johnnytapia]

Would you say thats down to the individual mate or the way teams are run these days and the sheer size of the squads of riders they have and need to keep happy?

Good question (and an intelligent one to boot). A bit of both I guess. The past stars certainly had their share of so called "super domestiques": Hinault, for heaven's-sake had Fignon, JF Bernard and Lemond at his disposal at one time or another, but there certainly wasn't the same focus within a team to build a phalanx of riders that could smash the opposition into oblivion a la Sky (and US Postal before them). Roche almost single-handedly won the triple in '87. In fact, his Giro win that year was done with his teammates riding AGAINST him. Lemond in 89 had nobody to support him. The so called big teams then, Panasonic and Raleigh were all about the classics and winning the Tour was secondary. I remember Millar joining Panasonic following his maillot a poids win for Peugot and he came 4th, but had virtually zero support. US Postal set the tone for every future Tour: have 4/5/6 absolute world-class riders control the peloton and then, when it's been whittled down to the last climb, send your leader away. It's dull. It's predictable. It works.

Think of 86. Hinault had just put 4 minutes into Lemond. He just had to sit still, keep his powder dry 'til Paris and the Holy Grail, the "6th" was his. But the next day he went off the front on the 1st climb, was over 10 minutes ahead on the road, but blew a gasket and was reeled in. He was headstrong, a bull, wanted to destroy from the front, on his own. It cost him dearly. But it's what made him a genuine champion. Because he didn't care if he lost dying on his sword. He called Roubaix "a bastard of a ride, a stupid ride, I'll never do it" But he did. and he won it. Because to be a true champion, winning on the cobbles was an absolute must on his palmares. And so he went out, in the French national champion's jersey (can you even imagine Froome bothering with the British equivalent?) and battered it.

The great riders, and I mean, the truly great riders, win from March to October, Nice to Lombardy, and all points in between. someone, and I don't know when, will come along, hopefully in my lifetime and say; "I want Paris Nice, I want Flanders, I want the Giro, The Tour, the Worlds, Lombardy". And Dave Brailsford won't be anywhere near it. Because it'll require risk. And I just hope it's a Frenchman. For all the reasons I alluded to earlier.

 

[blueinsa]

Good question (and an intelligent one to boot). A bit of both I guess. The past stars certainly had their share of so called "super domestiques": Hinault, for heaven's-sake had Fignon, JF Bernard and Lemond at his disposal at one time or another, but there certainly wasn't the same focus within a team to build a phalanx of riders that could smash the opposition into oblivion a la Sky (and US Postal before them). Roche almost single-handedly won the triple in '87. In fact, his Giro win that year was done with his teammates riding AGAINST him. Lemond in 89 had nobody to support him. The so called big teams then, Panasonic and Raleigh were all about the classics and winning the Tour was secondary. I remember Millar joining Panasonic following his maillot a poids win for Peugot and he came 4th, but had virtually zero support. US Postal set the tone for every future Tour: have 4/5/6 absolute world-class riders control the peloton and then, when it's been whittled down to the last climb, send your leader away. It's dull. It's predictable. It works.

Think of 86. Hinault had just put 4 minutes into Lemond. He just had to sit still, keep his powder dry 'til Paris and the Holy Grail, the "6th" was his. But the next day he went off the front on the 1st climb, was over 10 minutes ahead on the road, but blew a gasket and was reeled in. He was headstrong, a bull, wanted to destroy from the front, on his own. It cost him dearly. But it's what made him a genuine champion. Because he didn't care if he lost dying on his sword. He called Roubaix "a bastard of a ride, a stupid ride, I'll never do it" But he did. and he won it. Because to be a true champion, winning on the cobbles was an absolute must on his palmares. And so he went out, in the French national champion's jersey (can you even imagine Froome bothering with the British equivalent?) and battered it.

The great riders, and I mean, the truly great riders, win from March to October, Nice to Lombardy, and all points in between. someone, and I don't know when, will come along, hopefully in my lifetime and say; "I want Paris Nice, I want Flanders, I want the Giro, The Tour, the Worlds, Lombardy". And Dave Brailsford won't be anywhere near it. Because it'll require risk. And I just hope it's a Frenchman. For all the reasons I alluded to earlier.

Brilliant post and I will bow to your obviously superior knowledge on this occasion.

 

[MCFC1993]

Good question (and an intelligent one to boot). A bit of both I guess. The past stars certainly had their share of so called "super domestiques": Hinault, for heaven's-sake had Fignon, JF Bernard and Lemond at his disposal at one time or another, but there certainly wasn't the same focus within a team to build a phalanx of riders that could smash the opposition into oblivion a la Sky (and US Postal before them). Roche almost single-handedly won the triple in '87. In fact, his Giro win that year was done with his teammates riding AGAINST him. Lemond in 89 had nobody to support him. The so called big teams then, Panasonic and Raleigh were all about the classics and winning the Tour was secondary. I remember Millar joining Panasonic following his maillot a poids win for Peugot and he came 4th, but had virtually zero support. US Postal set the tone for every future Tour: have 4/5/6 absolute world-class riders control the peloton and then, when it's been whittled down to the last climb, send your leader away. It's dull. It's predictable. It works.

Think of 86. Hinault had just put 4 minutes into Lemond. He just had to sit still, keep his powder dry 'til Paris and the Holy Grail, the "6th" was his. But the next day he went off the front on the 1st climb, was over 10 minutes ahead on the road, but blew a gasket and was reeled in. He was headstrong, a bull, wanted to destroy from the front, on his own. It cost him dearly. But it's what made him a genuine champion. Because he didn't care if he lost dying on his sword. He called Roubaix "a bastard of a ride, a stupid ride, I'll never do it" But he did. and he won it. Because to be a true champion, winning on the cobbles was an absolute must on his palmares. And so he went out, in the French national champion's jersey (can you even imagine Froome bothering with the British equivalent?) and battered it.

The great riders, and I mean, the truly great riders, win from March to October, Nice to Lombardy, and all points in between. someone, and I don't know when, will come along, hopefully in my lifetime and say; "I want Paris Nice, I want Flanders, I want the Giro, The Tour, the Worlds, Lombardy". And Dave Brailsford won't be anywhere near it. Because it'll require risk. And I just hope it's a Frenchman. For all the reasons I alluded to earlier.

Whilst I bow to your superior knowledge of cycling (like the poster above), I think it's a bit disrespectful to call Froome 'not a champion'. We're talking about a 4 time Tour de France winner, alright he hasn't done all of the great things that say Hinault has done for example but Froome will almost certainly be remembered as a champion and a Tour de France great. Heck, if he wins number 5 next year he sits joint top of the pile alongside Merckx, Indurain, Hinault and Anquetil. Alright, maybe he won't be remembered as fondly as them (unless he goes beyond 5 wins) but he won't be forgotten especially in the UK.

I think you're downplaying his achievements a little bit, I think you need to bear in my mind where each respective rider grew up as well. Froome didn't even turn pro till 22 and even that was racing for a team that could barely provide adequate equipment in comparison to his competitors.

 

[johnnytapia]

Whilst I bow to your superior knowledge of cycling (like the poster above), I think it's a bit disrespectful to call Froome 'not a champion'. We're talking about a 4 time Tour de France winner, alright he hasn't done all of the great things that say Hinault has done for example but Froome will almost certainly be remembered as a champion and a Tour de France great. Heck, if he wins number 5 next year he sits joint top of the pile alongside Merckx, Indurain, Hinault and Anquetil. Alright, maybe he won't be remembered as fondly as them (unless he goes beyond 5 wins) but he won't be forgotten especially in the UK.

I think you're downplaying his achievements a little bit, I think you need to bear in my mind where each respective rider grew up as well. Froome didn't even turn pro till 22 and even that was racing for a team that could barely provide adequate equipment in comparison to his competitors.

I absolutely acknowledge his Tour pedigree. But, and this is just my opinion, I can't call him a "champion". In Hinault's 4th year as a pro: won the tour (including 3 stages) and Vuelta (5 stages) double; 2nd at Paris Nice (March), 11th at Flanders (April) 3rd at Lombardia (October); French National champion. Following year his 5th as a pro, won SEVEN tour stages and the overall, won Lombardia, 2nd at liege, 7th San remo, etc, etc. That, to me, is what a champion does. Froome's 4th year as a pro: zero wins. 5th year, two wins. Fignon, won the tour in his 2nd year as a pro. In his 1st he was bronze medallist in French cyclo-cross. And without the team Froome has at his disposal. Please don't misunderstand me, Froome is an excellent cyclist. But he is so far away from the top table. No monuments, no classics, not Giro, no Vuelta, no world champs, no track medals, no hour record, one or two small stage victoroes but a million miles from Fignon, Hinault, Coppi. And a billion miles from Eddie (mind you, who isn't?).

 

[blueinsa]

I absolutely acknowledge his Tour pedigree. But, and this is just my opinion, I can't call him a "champion". In Hinault's 4th year as a pro: won the tour (including 3 stages) and Vuelta (5 stages) double; 2nd at Paris Nice (March), 11th at Flanders (April) 3rd at Lombardia (October); French National champion. Following year his 5th as a pro, won SEVEN tour stages and the overall, won Lombardia, 2nd at liege, 7th San remo, etc, etc. That, to me, is what a champion does. Froome's 4th year as a pro: zero wins. 5th year, two wins. Fignon, won the tour in his 2nd year as a pro. In his 1st he was bronze medallist in French cyclo-cross. And without the team Froome has at his disposal. Please don't misunderstand me, Froome is an excellent cyclist. But he is so far away from the top table. No monuments, no classics, not Giro, no Vuelta, no world champs, no track medals, no hour record, one or two small stage victoroes but a million miles from Fignon, Hinault, Coppi. And a billion miles from Eddie (mind you, who isn't?).

Again its very difficult to argue with what you say but i will still say if Hinault and co where riding in today's pro peloton for teams with business aims that they have never mind the sporting one's, they too would win nothing like they did despite their obvious talents and id like to think that Froome, if we could transport his talent back to Hinault's days would prove he has a little more in him than you currently think :-)

Superb analysis though mate and a real pleasure to read your thoughts.

 

[bluemoonmatt]

I absolutely acknowledge his Tour pedigree. But, and this is just my opinion, I can't call him a "champion". In Hinault's 4th year as a pro: won the tour (including 3 stages) and Vuelta (5 stages) double; 2nd at Paris Nice (March), 11th at Flanders (April) 3rd at Lombardia (October); French National champion. Following year his 5th as a pro, won SEVEN tour stages and the overall, won Lombardia, 2nd at liege, 7th San remo, etc, etc. That, to me, is what a champion does. Froome's 4th year as a pro: zero wins. 5th year, two wins. Fignon, won the tour in his 2nd year as a pro. In his 1st he was bronze medallist in French cyclo-cross. And without the team Froome has at his disposal. Please don't misunderstand me, Froome is an excellent cyclist. But he is so far away from the top table. No monuments, no classics, not Giro, no Vuelta, no world champs, no track medals, no hour record, one or two small stage victoroes but a million miles from Fignon, Hinault, Coppi. And a billion miles from Eddie (mind you, who isn't?).

I like sa bow to your obvious knowledge and love of the sport, I do find it extremely depressing though to dismiss cf as no champion. Everything you say re usps and subsequently team sky is not wrong they do setup for the tour but sport evolves and if a team decides to concentrate on the sports holy grail forsaking the other so called classics that go unreported in the mainstream sporting media then I feel they can be forgiven for that. to complete the tour is huge, to win it is massive, to win it multiple is legendary and I think we are massively disrespectful towards cf

 

[AustinBlue]

I'm English but grew up in a small town in Belgium. Where Eddie Merckx was from. We bought a Fiat from his garage and I bought my first Peugeot racing bike from his bike shop. I have very fond memories of men sharing their stories about him. A bit of a bastard but what a character.

 

[Jacob Smith]

If Landa's going to Movistar to become their GC rider then where would that leave Quintana?

 

[blueinsa]

If Landa's going to Movistar to become their GC rider then where would that leave Quintana?

Rumour was he would go to Sky mate but would he play second fiddle to Froome who has signed a new 2 year deal?