Froome's desire to win as many TDFs as Merckx, Hinault, etc.

[MattTuck]

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/chris-froome-want-match-eddy-merckx-bernard-hinault-five-tours-de-france-308389

Chris Froome has set out his bold ambition to put his name among cycling’s all-time greats with five Tour de France wins.

Already a winner of three Tours, Froome says that he is already thinking about how he will be thought of by future generations, wanting to join cycling’s pantheon.

“I think looking ahead at next year, it’s going to be a really critical steps to cement my place in the cycling world.

“I want to try and get up there with the greats, up there with guys like Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, and Miguel Indurain on five Tours de France. That’s going to be my objective for the foreseeable future.”

Every era is different in terms of the competition, routes and each rider's preparation for the tour... but I wonder if Froome is running up against another challenge... his age.

[Black Dog]

I think he should stop at 7. ;)

[rnhood]

I doubt he will make it to 7, but he very well could hit 5. A fine rider, but he is not Lance. Good luck to him tho.

[benb]

Chart is retarded, Armstrong won his first at 28.

Very dumb to leave him off when some of the others on the chart were known dopers too.

There are a few variables:
- Who is doping now? (None of them, All of them, Few of them including Froome)
- Does doping change how your performance drops off as you age? (slower drop, neutral, faster drop)

You could list out all the possible combinations of those variables.

Personally I think:
- Doping reduces the rate at which the athletes performance drops off
- Froome is probably doping
- Perhaps the overall peloton is doping less but lots of them still are

If Froome is doping and most of them are not, my prediction is he will have a greater chance at continuing to win for a longer period as he ages, just like Armstrong may have.

All of this could be moot anyway. He could have a bad crash from staring at his stem and have a career ending injury at any time.

I think there are probably other factors that allow older riders to hang onto performance longer anyway. Those earlier winners in the chart would not have benefitted from modern medical care, better training, and knowing not to smoke and drink and other behaviors that seem to cause premature aging. At the very least we know Anquetil was a smoker, it sounds like Mercx was also smoking during his career.

[bicycletricycle]

5 is amazing for anyone to reach, but to be the best you have to get to 7.

[benb]

Things I didn't know about. Eddy was a regular Ronald Reagan. Plenty of tobacco ads show up in a google search.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/9a/92/98/9a9298cc89d063815e52684cda97250a.jpg

Maybe these guys didn't smoke as much as the general public but it does make me wonder when they stopped and what if any extent stopping smoking helped the average speed in the Peloton go up.

[MattTuck]

Chart is retarded, Armstrong won his first at 28.

Very dumb to leave him off when some of the others on the chart were known dopers too.

There are a few variables:
- Who is doping now? (None of them, All of them, Few of them including Froome)
- Does doping change how your performance drops off as you age? (slower drop, neutral, faster drop)

You could list out all the possible combinations of those variables.

Personally I think:
- Doping reduces the rate at which the athletes performance drops off
- Froome is probably doping
- Perhaps the overall peloton is doping less but lots of them still are

If Froome is doping and most of them are not, my prediction is he will have a greater chance at continuing to win for a longer period as he ages, just like Armstrong may have.

All of this could be moot anyway. He could have a bad crash from staring at his stem and have a career ending injury at any time.

I think there are probably other factors that allow older riders to hang onto performance longer anyway. Those earlier winners in the chart would not have benefitted from modern medical care, better training, and knowing not to smoke and drink and other behaviors that seem to cause premature aging. At the very least we know Anquetil was a smoker, it sounds like Mercx was also smoking during his career.

ben, I updated the chart. When I make these, it is a tough decision on who to include with regards to riders later found to have been doping. I've included Armstrong in this as well as Contador, since he would have been on the level with Thys, Froome, Bobet and Lemond had he not had the 2010 title stripped.

The original graph was meant to give perspective to the riders that Froome mentioned. It is conditional upon the number of TDF wins.

I could make another graph that showed the riders who have done what Froome aspires to. Specifically, win 2 TDF titles when you're older than 31. I think the list would be very small. I might do that if I get some time.

[benb]

Sorry didn't mean to be critical of you, that wasn't real nice of me. :beer:

[MattTuck]

Sorry didn't mean to be critical of you, that wasn't real nice of me. :beer:

Nah, I think you had a valid criticism of the chart. I had considered it, and elected to keep Armstrong and Contador off the original, as I just don't have a great conviction of what is the 'right' thing to do. Also, when you put Armstrong on there, it shows that Froome is "going where no [clean] man has gone before..." if I can borrow some StarTrek language.

[benb]

I got this book for Christmas:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00C1N92YY/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

My initial reaction was "I can't get through another book about Lance." But this one is really good due to all the background on other riders and the players in US Postal, Tailwind, Ferrari, etc.. It shows a lot of what went into it, doping and all. This book really really hammers home what a jerk Armstrong was.. holy cow, lots of stuff I hadn't heard about.

Maybe the thing hurting Froome's chances the most is just that he had that one year he didn't win.

[azrider]

Froome has already garnered the title of most 'boring' winner ever

[benb]

Froome has already garnered the title of most 'boring' winner ever

His stem would disagree. All those other guys bored their stems to death and never paid any attention to them.

Seriously the thing that drives me nuts is the way he sticks his elbows out. Every time I see it I feel cheated that he can ride 5X as much in a year as me and not get tendonitis in his wrists when he's cranking his wrists at such an odd angle.

Then again some T, roids, and HGH probably fixes up your wrists nicely if you believe some of the miraculous NFL injury recovery stories that were aided by PEDs.

[Anarchist]

He will never be "one of the greats"

[azrider]

Much like Football (and most other pro sports) my interest in Grand Tour's has waned to the point where I just don't give those races much attention anymore. Add in the fact that most GT leaders are so calculated and robotic and it just doesn't leave much to the imagination.

I compare it to the made for TV shows my wife watches on the Hallmark channel. Within the first twenty minutes I'll turn to my wife and say: "she and him will break up, she'll move home to heal, get back together with old fling, move to country and buy a puppy." At which point she pouts and i go outside and clean my bikes.

The Spring classics are the only bike races that get me going anymore. YMMV.

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2016/04/11/2/sptdw444_670.jpg

[echappist]

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/chris-froome-want-match-eddy-merckx-bernard-hinault-five-tours-de-france-308389



Every era is different in terms of the competition, routes and each rider's preparation for the tour... but I wonder if Froome is running up against another challenge... his age.

well, Evans won at 35 (or is it 36). So Froome could grab a few more wins until he hit 35.

[jlwdm]

Froome has already garnered the title of most 'boring' winner ever

He made a couple of great moves last year that surprised everyone.

I respect him but I do not think he will win 5 Tours.

Jeff

[MattTuck]

Riders not named Armstrong that have won past the age of 31. Of these, only one (F. Lambot) has won 2 TDF titles after 31... and that was almost 100 years ago.

I have no idea how the current time should compare with any past era. It may be wishful thinking to compare today to the pre-EPO days of Merckx, Hinault and Lemond, but team tactics and training strategies have advanced a lot since then. So I'm not sure there is a good comparison to be made (one that I'd have confidence in).

What this data tells me is that it is pretty hard to win after 31. (About a 12% chance), and doubly hard to win 2 after 31. Only Armstrong and Lambot did it.

Just looking at the data, I'm highly skeptical that Froome can win 2. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that the data suggest he'll have a very hard time winning just one more. The miracle with Armstrong's 7 wasn't the dope, it was that he made it through 7 TDFs healthy. THAT is the real impressive thing. DNF is a very real possibility for any GC rider, and so Froome has two ways to lose; abandon and the competition.

To the folks that say science/training is better today, that may be true. But that same argument could support a claim that younger riders should be stronger/better relative to younger riders in the past, and thus pose bigger challenge to those older. I'd have to some heavy duty data collection and analysis to show that older riders are benefiting from modern training disproportionately from younger riders.


Brad Wiggins (2012 @ 32)
Cadel Evans (2011 @ 34)
Carlos Sastre (2008 @ 33)
Bjarne Riis (1996 @ 32)
J. Zoetemelk (1980 @ 34)
Fausto Coppi (1952 @ 33 also won when he was 30)
Gino Bartali (1948 @ 34, also won when he was 24)
M. Dewaele (1929 @ 33)
L. Buysse (1926 @ 34)
H. Pélissier (1923 @ 33)
F. Lambot (1919 @ 33, 1922 @ 36)
L. Scieur (1921 @ 33)
M. Garin (1903 @ 32)

[72gmc]

Maybe the women's team can pitch in and help again ...

[rousseau]

Much like Football (and most other pro sports) my interest in Grand Tour's has waned to the point where I just don't give those races much attention anymore. Add in the fact that most GT leaders are so calculated and robotic and it just doesn't leave much to the imagination.

Well, you could argue that Leicester City's win last year was the most unlikely of any terrestrial sporting event in the history of the known universe, and you could argue that it could very well be the greatest sports story ever, but yeah, otherwise football champions don't seem to change much. Manchester United, Manchester City, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern Munich...

I agree that Froome and Sky are as dull as ditchwater, but there can still be beauty in utter domination. There can also be drama in cheering for challengers that will almost certainly fail. Even so, I'd love to see Froome win a couple more. It's thrilling sharing an era with a supreme champion. Actually, I used to think that this would be the age of Contador, and am still kind of disappointed that that never really came to be.

But over and above this, the Tour and the Giro are such beautiful spectacles that I couldn't imagine spending May and July without them and Carlton Kirby (truly one of the great sports presenters, surely?).

[giverdada]

pretty interesting question, and it has me wondering about the other stuff.

i know armstrong and so many others were doped to the gills, and had fancy science and whatnot helping them and their bodies propel bikes over pavement, BUT, what always struck me about anyone winning a tour more than once, let alone in a row, let alone 7 times in a row, was the luck that had to happen.

no flats? no career-ending crashes? no moto/follow car making a johnny hoogerland of you? in 7 years straight? crazy. i don't know how those circumstances are even statistically possible. i understand domination and all, but i'm wondering if the domination in the athletic sense was compounded by the social domination in the peloton (being the patron or padrone or whatever), being a dominant/still interesting force in the media, dominating conversations about the race, etc. maybe the external domination, outside of the 'mere' bike riding, helped to create a massive momentum that made its own luck. like playing tennis against one's older sibling, or slap-fighting with my dad: the external context influences the internal conflict far more than simple athleticism. i don't know. that's a lot of luck to have for three weeks, every july, for seven years in a row. i don't even think age is a factor, at least not a bad one. he's not a sprinter or anything, and everyone i run with who's significantly faster than i am is also significantly older than i am. and no, we are not sprinting either...:D

[stephenmarklay]

For me the # of wins is less important than how they were won. The hard men of cycling are really the spring classics guys.

Froome did do some attacking last year but I just can’t think if him as a hard man.

Armstrong glaring at Ulrich and riding away is the way to win. Hinault, Merckx they had it too.

[peanutgallery]

Panache, wrecked by the powermeter

[Shoeman]

Anything is possible today with Training & Diet. Two examples of this are Tom Brady and Roger Federer. I'd say they are still pretty formidable for there age. They are still quite competitive with the younger men in there perspective sports. They both should have retired a while ago if you look at their age. In Toms case he is playing lights out for 39 year old in sport that eats its young. Rogers game is not bad either, he is quite fluid as he turns 36 this year. There is also the Williams Sisters at 35 & 36. They all will have a chance for a Championship sometime this coming year.

[macaroon]

For me the # of wins is less important than how they were one. The hard men of cycling are really the spring classics guys.

Froome did do some attacking last year but I just can’t think if him as a hard man.

Armstrong glaring at Ulrich and riding away is the way to win. Hinault, Merckx they had it too.

The problem is, Froome and Sky are too good. He can climb with the best of them, his team control everything and he's also an awesome TTer. He won by over four minutes last year. It's a shame because it means he doesn't have to take risks; it's normally won by the last mountain stages.

If he has some stronger competitors, then the racing would be closer and more exciting. Then I reckon we'd get to see if he's a hard man or not.

Hopefully Porte will be on form this year, with a team dedicated to him. Would be interesting if Domoulin lost a bit of weight and had a go too.

[stephenmarklay]

The problem is, Froome and Sky are too good. He can climb with the best of them, his team control everything and he's also an awesome TTer. He won by over four minutes last year. It's a shame because it means he doesn't have to take risks; it's normally won by the last mountain stages.

If he has some stronger competitors, then the racing would be closer and more exciting. Then I reckon we'd get to see if he's a hard man or not.

Hopefully Porte will be on form this year, with a team dedicated to him. Would be interesting if Domoulin lost a bit of weight and had a go too.

I know, it’s a different game. The chance of blowing up is less so now. Being conservative rather than aggressive is paying off.

I used to kind of dislike Froome and that was shallow and pretty much unwarranted. Last year when he started running up the hill in a panic it actually made me respect him. Instead of laying on the floor or whining he just ran. It was funny to boot.

Now TJ Van Garderen not so much :D

[macaroon]

I know, it’s a different game. The chance of blowing up is less so now. Being conservative rather than aggressive is paying off.

I used to kind of dislike Froome and that was shallow and pretty much unwarranted. Last year when he started running up the hill in a panic it actually made me respect him. Instead of laying on the floor or whining he just ran. It was funny to boot.

Now TJ Van Garderen not so much :D

Yeh, completely agree. Have grown to like him over the years.

[benb]

I don't think it's the PM making it boring... Armstrong is technically part of the PM era too, he was working with them as early as 2001-2002 with that great guy Dr. Ferrari. Power Meter + Lactic acid testing was one of the things Ferrari used on them to gauge training + doping schedules.

Of course that may have been training with the PM vs racing with it. Frankly I found Armstrong's racing pretty damn exciting.

[MattTuck]

I don't think it's the PM making it boring... Armstrong is technically part of the PM era too, he was working with them as early as 2001-2002 with that great guy Dr. Ferrari. Power Meter + Lactic acid testing was one of the things Ferrari used on them to gauge training + doping schedules.

Of course that may have been training with the PM vs racing with it. Frankly I found Armstrong's racing pretty damn exciting.

I thought Armstrong's wins were scientifically proven to be the result of losing weight during chemotherapy and spinning a high cadence. :cool:

[peanutgallery]

All master-minded by devilish cunning and guile of Chris Carmichael

I thought Armstrong's wins were scientifically proven to be the result of losing weight during chemotherapy and spinning a high cadence. :cool:

[benb]

Carmichael.. just so good all of us can get super fast by following his training plans just like Lance. ;)

[harlond]

Nice research, MattTuck. Maybe should add Joop Zoetemelk to your list of winners post-age-31. He was 34 when he won in 1980.

Maybe there's something about winning the TdF at a young age that causes you to decline earlier than you might otherwise. The cycling equivalent of playing running back.

[MattTuck]

Nice research, MattTuck. Maybe should add Joop Zoetemelk to your list of winners post-age-31. He was 34 when he won in 1980.

Maybe there's something about winning the TdF at a young age that causes you to decline earlier than you might otherwise. The cycling equivalent of playing running back.

You're right, I saw him when compiling my list but didn't add him for some reason. He's added to that post, Thanks.

I think the other part of it is that you can win the tour at an older age, but it is more likely to be an outlier one off performance. Winning consistently above 31 appears to be the hard part.

[mhespenheide]

I see almost the opposite: what strikes me is just how young some of the early winners of the TdF were, in previous generations. It's so serious now -- regarded as the pinnacle of the sport -- that many modern DS's won't bring a young climber or GC rider to the tour, preferring that they apprentice at the Giro or Vuelta a few times first.

I'm thinking of Dombrowski here; he hasn't even ridden the tour yet, after winning the GiroBio in '12. LeMond won the Tour L'Avenir in '82 and raced the TdF in '84. I grant that that's an imperfect comparison...

[rain dogs]

I think there are many valid reasons to leave Armstrong off the list and two amongst those are:

1. He's actually had his titles stripped unlike other riders "on the list"
2. He himself, has recognized numerous times the difference between "low-octane doping" and "high-octane doping". In fact, those are his terms.

Whether you want to think, oh poor Lance is up to you. But it is undeniable that his era and him acheivements are intimately tied to the 'science of doping'.

To equate a carefully scheduled calendar of blood transfusions, epo administration, hormones, lab tests, computer analysis etc, to a guy who popped amphetimines to stay alert during 18+ hrs of a 482km stage of dirt roads and cobbles in 1919 is disingenuous. Consider that not just the doping, but the racing as well, that they did 'back in the day' would both be against the rules today. Think of Hinaults Liege in the snow.... it'd be cancelled today! Think of Tours of over 5500km in 17 stages!

A line has to be drawn at some point, and Lance himself has drawn it:

Low Octane
High Octane

Where you feel Froome lies is up to you. Also... the focus on the TdF alone is silly especially for Froome. If Froome wants to be a "great" it's all the Grand Tours. Merckx has 11. Hinault 10. Nibali is better than Froome with 4. Contador has somewhere between 3 and 7 (or 9 or zero) depending on how you see it. Unike some others, Froome actually tries, and has failed to win outside the Tour. He's raced to win the Vuelta and failed to on 5 occasions, which is more attempts than the TdF . He's raced the Giro twice in his 'other life'. He has 3 GT's... he's got a long, long way to go.

[jlwdm]

...

Where you feel Froome lies is up to you. Also... the focus on the TdF alone is silly especially for Froome. If Froome wants to be a "great" it's all the Grand Tours. Merckx has 11. Hinault 10. Nibali is better than Froome with 4. Contador has somewhere between 3 and 7 (or 9 or zero) depending on how you see it. Unike some others, Froome actually tries, and has failed to win outside the Tour. He's raced to win the Vuelta and failed to on 5 occasions, which is more attempts than the TdF . He's raced the Giro twice in his 'other life'. He has 3 GT's... he's got a long, long way to go.

I know there are a lot of members on this forum who prefer to watch the Giro and the Vuelta but compared to the Tour they are minor league races. The teams are so much stronger at the Tour. Look at the team Sky sent to the Vuelta last year and you see how unimportant they think the Vuelta is.

Total GT wins does not mean much to me. I don't compare Froome to Merckx and Hinault though or Nibali to Froome.

Jeff