# Hincapie reckons he'll have to lose weight for the Tour



## botto (Jul 22, 2005)

The question is where is it going to come off??? pic from the ToC

<a href="https://imageshack.us"><img src="https://img156.imageshack.us/img156/553/dp11ui.jpg" border="0" width="800" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>]


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

I know this is in poor taste but..









Left Nut?


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

In even poorer taste: Only when it's growing out of control.


----------



## secularist (Feb 1, 2006)

now THAT'S funny.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

*Hincapie going for the Tour is a bad idea.*

I know that Big George's epic stage win last year got everyone riled up about an an legit heir to his Lance-ness, but come on. 

I can't help but feeling like he'll end up losing any real chance at Flanders and Roubaix by chasing the Tour pipe dream, which including dropping extra weigh. He all but admitted last year that he lost his sprinting ability to help Lance, which may have cost him in the velodrome. 

All the same, I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

Pablo said:


> I know that Big George's epic stage win last year got everyone riled up about an an legit heir to his Lance-ness, but come on.
> 
> I can't help but feeling like he'll end up losing any real chance at Flanders and Roubaix by chasing the Tour pipe dream, which including dropping extra weigh. He all but admitted last year that he lost his sprinting ability to help Lance, which may have cost him in the velodrome.
> 
> All the same, I hope I'm wrong.



You know... I agree with you. Chasing the TDF will definitely cost him the classics. In the TDF, I don't think he has any chance of winning. 5th place, maybe. He can't hang with the elite climbers and his time trialing is not Top 5 either. Even on his magnificent win on the TDF's Pla d'Adet, it seems like he lost about 5 minutes to the climbers in the final climb.

Likewise, I wish many wins for him in 2006.

francois


----------



## capt_phun (Jun 14, 2004)

Pablo said:


> He all but admitted last year that he lost his sprinting ability to help Lance, which may have cost him in the velodrome.


I cheer for Big George as much as the next guy, and he rode an amazing race, but to outsprint Boonen...I don't think George has/had that ability.


----------



## dawgcatching (Apr 26, 2004)

On his big mountains win, he was sitting on, not pulling, and had a huge advantage starting the climb. When is the last time we saw him finish with an elite group of climbers during a mountain stage? He can't follow the accelerations, and probably isn't amongst the top 15-20 climbers in the peloton overall. Perhaps shorter stage races like Paris-Nice, as as always, a classics contender, but a 3-week tour where you have to follow attacks in the mountains constantly? I just don't see it happening either-I would love to see him ride off the front, dropping Boonen, and solo to the finish in PR instead!


----------



## Kram (Jan 28, 2004)

*Maybe I'm missing something.*

Did he say he was going for the Tour win? Perhaps he needs to lose weight just to be in support of someone else??(Popovich?)


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

*True enough but . . .*



capt_phun said:


> I cheer for Big George as much as the next guy, and he rode an amazing race, but to outsprint Boonen...I don't think George has/had that ability.


. . . but who's to say. I agree with you that Boonon was on point, and maybe no one could have beat him. But at the very least it seems like Big George is not doing himself any favors for the future.


----------



## funknuggets (Feb 4, 2004)

But then again, when have we seen George in the capicity to climb with fresh legs, and where he hasn't been working his butt off in the preceeding days? He has finished reasonably well in the TTs, and has been able to place pretty well by just sticking around. So, all in all, if Disco is able to shelter him a bit, then we may be able to see him handle some of those accelerations a bit better. The cool thing is that it is not Discovery's TDF any more to lose, they have little or no expectations placed on him. The TDF torch was passed as soon as Lance announced his retirement. So now Basso and Ullrich and the myriad of other upstarts can let THEIR teams do the work. I have ultimate faith in George's ability to outsprint a Basso or a Vinokorouv, or a Ullrich, should it come down to that. Lord knows he won't do any work on that kind of stage. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he really has a shot of winning... however, in the grand tours, when have we ever really got to see him in this kind of role? To me it seems when he is on his own, like he has been largely on the classics... I think he has ridden hard, and shown that he has the legs to do well...however, he has issues. He has made some interesting, seemingly desperate moves which have proven fatal... its why the guy has so many top 5s and so few wins. Sometimes he seems mentally frail. Who knows. 

I think top 5 is definitely doable. No Mtn TT, so he should be able to limit his losses for the most part to Landis, et al.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

*But who cares about a top five?*

I agree, but I guess I think a win in the classics is better than a top five in the Tour. Sure they're apples and oranges . . . but I'll take the apple.


----------



## funknuggets (Feb 4, 2004)

Thats an interesting take. Im not sure I would. To win at a classic... you have to maybe beat PERHAPS 35% to 50% of the world's best riders. No? At the TDF, I'd estimate that what, 75%, are there? So, I agree a win is a win... but a high place at just about the only race that has any importance or relevance to the world... against the best riders... Im thinking top 5 in the tour vs a win at Roubaix or San Remo any day. Thats just me, I pick the orange.


----------



## wheezer (Sep 21, 2004)

*there are actually ...*



funknuggets said:


> ... but a high place at just about the only race that has any importance or relevance to the world... against the best riders... Im thinking top 5 in the tour vs a win at Roubaix or San Remo any day. Thats just me, I pick the orange.


... a few races that have _some_ relevance to the rest of the world, just maybe not in the U.S. Personally, I would take the apples _ and _ the oranges. nothing less.


----------



## capt_phun (Jun 14, 2004)

A common theme that seems to run any Hincapie thread is general support for all his efforts and a respect for him as a rider. Always makes for a good thread.
The ways in which you could utilize George is what makes him a great rider. Team player, team winner. So why not give him a chance at le Tour? He's put in his time and he would certainly have a fan base that would draw for Discovery, = $$.


----------



## rcnute (Dec 21, 2004)

It seems like this year and the next is the time to mount a Classics campaign with one team and a Giro or Vuelta goal with another.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Most recent weight I have seen for Hincapie was 170, down considerably from his former 183 lb race weight. To be competitive in the mountains he would need to get to ~160-163 lbs and to win the Tour ~156-159, though this year's course could let him add a pound.

In other words we don't need to see him ride for himself in the Tour to know he can't climb with the best. To be in the front group you have to be around 6.5 watts/kg and to win the magic number is 6.6-6.7, and if he were anywhere near those number he would be dominating every TT he was in at his current weight.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 2001)

terzo rene said:


> Most recent weight I have seen for Hincapie was 170, down considerably from his former 183 lb race weight. To be competitive in the mountains he would need to get to ~160-163 lbs and to win the Tour ~156-159, though this year's course could let him add a pound.


With all due respect, isn't weight a function of height? Where are you getting data that he should be 156-159 to win? Please share. He seems like a fairly tall guy.

francois


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

I think he's using something like Dr. Ferrari's "magic number" formula, and has some idea of Hincapie's watts (terzo, did you read GH's power output somewhere?), and is backing out the math from there.

Whether that's accurate, I don't know.


----------



## lonefrontranger (Feb 5, 2004)

*he is*



francois said:


> He seems like a fairly tall guy.


George is 6'3" If he were down in the 150's I'd doubt very seriously he'd be strong enough to keep up. Even at his somewhat 'higher' race weights (2003) I can assure you he is freakishly tall and skinny. Saw him ride past on a training camp here in Boulder and even back then he looked like a stick figure. I can't imagine where he'd lose anymore weight from and still be able to ride hard.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Last year in the Tour over the Galibier*

after doing heaps of work on the flats and climbs George was left amongst an elite group of climbers who had done no work that day or week. many climbing 'leaders' had gone by the wayside and ole George was still there. All this speak about George 'sitting on' on his stage victory, who cares. It's race tactics and for once (after so many times having the opposite) George was in the tactical cat bird seat. Again, in that group, none of the riders save the guy he pipped had done much work on the stages leading up to that one and none of them could drop George with their accelerations. I don't really know if he's a Tour contender, I tend to think if his handlers and DS think it so, they may be right. A win this year? Doubtful but then again we're looking from the outside in.I don't think I would sacrifice R-V-V or P-R for it. I think if he's tactically smart and stays upfront George has a better shot at the Ronde as his new climbing prowess should help him over the bergs. He may have lost some power but it didn't seem to hurt him in P-R (except the sprint maybe),but IMHO nobody was going to beat Tom in that group. I often wonder though if possibly he'd be better suited for the later classics now with his new physique.(L-B-L or Amstel.)


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Argentius said:


> I think he's using something like Dr. Ferrari's "magic number" formula, and has some idea of Hincapie's watts (terzo, did you read GH's power output somewhere?), and is backing out the math from there.
> 
> Whether that's accurate, I don't know.


Hardly anyone discloses their actual wattage because they don't want people calculating where they are over their limit, but I did read somewhere GH's absolute power was at least sometimes higher than LA's. Since LA was estimated at around 475+ watts up the Alpe d'Huez I was generous and just assumed George could do ~490 watts for an hour and worked from there.

Since an individual's total power is pretty directly related to muscle mass in the relevant muscles, getting to podium level watts/kg is basically impossible for him without a new engine. He - might - be able to drop 5 pounds on the upper body if he really turned the screws hard. In that case on the flatter course this year getting closer to 5th becomes more believable (the Giro course would be another story entirely).


----------



## dawgcatching (Apr 26, 2004)

lonefrontranger said:


> George is 6'3" If he were down in the 150's I'd doubt very seriously he'd be strong enough to keep up. Even at his somewhat 'higher' race weights (2003) I can assure you he is freakishly tall and skinny. Saw him ride past on a training camp here in Boulder and even back then he looked like a stick figure. I can't imagine where he'd lose anymore weight from and still be able to ride hard.


6 foot 3 and under 160lbs? Seems like a recipe for getting sick. Wasn't Lance 5 foot 10 or 11 and in the low 150's? Considering that men gain in the range of 6 lbs per inch height, that would put him somewhere around the equivalent of Lance weighing under 140. Plus, how the heck would he lose muscle mass in the first place? Just not eat? Again, doesn't seem like the best plan of attack.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*The tour may......*



atpjunkie said:


> after doing heaps of work on the flats and climbs George was left amongst an elite group of climbers who had done no work that day or week. many climbing 'leaders' had gone by the wayside and ole George was still there. All this speak about George 'sitting on' on his stage victory, who cares. It's race tactics and for once (after so many times having the opposite) George was in the tactical cat bird seat. Again, in that group, none of the riders save the guy he pipped had done much work on the stages leading up to that one and none of them could drop George with their accelerations. I don't really know if he's a Tour contender, I tend to think if his handlers and DS think it so, they may be right. A win this year? Doubtful but then again we're looking from the outside in.I don't think I would sacrifice R-V-V or P-R for it. I think if he's tactically smart and stays upfront George has a better shot at the Ronde as his new climbing prowess should help him over the bergs. He may have lost some power but it didn't seem to hurt him in P-R (except the sprint maybe),but IMHO nobody was going to beat Tom in that group. I often wonder though if possibly he'd be better suited for the later classics now with his new physique.(L-B-L or Amstel.)


be a better fit for George's tactical "skills". Watching george in the spring classics, I've always come away thinking that whenever there is a key split second tactical decision to make, George is always late......it's almost like he gets parylized for an instant, and by the time he decides, the break is up the road. Because you only usually get one chance in a one day classic, "you snooze, you lose." In a multiple day grand tour, the tactical decisions seem to me made slower and you usually have many days to make up for an error. I think this plays more to George than a one day classic, especially with Brunyeel on his side. 

I would like to see him go for either the Giro or the tour of Spain.....I think the TDF field might be a little over his capability.

Len


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

funknuggets said:


> Thats an interesting take. Im not sure I would. To win at a classic... you have to maybe beat PERHAPS 35% to 50% of the world's best riders. No? At the TDF, I'd estimate that what, 75%, are there? So, I agree a win is a win... but a high place at just about the only race that has any importance or relevance to the world... against the best riders... Im thinking top 5 in the tour vs a win at Roubaix or San Remo any day. Thats just me, I pick the orange.


Ask a Belgian which he'd rather win out of the Tour or RVV and the answer from most would be RVV without hesitation. The same applies in Italy with MSR. Remember 1992, when Jacky Durand won RVV and there were reports of grown men in tears because a Frenchman had won their race?

As for your percentage assertions, are you really serious? Flanders has as good a field as the Tour and is very difficult to predict the podium, let alone the winner. That is a direct result of the quality of the field.

Can you tell us who were fourth and fifth in the 2003 & 2004 Tours? I can remember the winners of RVV & PR from those years. Van Petegem in 2003 and Wessemann & Backstedt in 2004. I'd have to trawl through Google for the guys who missed the podium at the Tour.

Cycling is not all about the Tour. Maybe now that LA has retired we will have a racing season with a little more balance. To that end I want a non-LA type of rider to win the Tour. Someone who rides a proper season, and treats this beautiful sport with the respect it deserves. Maybe it's time to require that Tour riders have a certain number of days *racing *to qualify for entry to the race?


----------



## funknuggets (Feb 4, 2004)

*Point of reference....*

ultimobici, I completely agree, but remember George IS an American. So, in the years down the road when George gets fat and decides to hang out at a PTA meeting or barbeque with the fellas on the cul-de-sac... talking about Flanders, Roubaix, or hell... Ghent-Wevelgem just really won't mean much... unless of course he decides to live elsewhere. The response would be...even to marginally active cyclists... you won what? But then if he would drop the line about a top 5 in the TOUR DE FRANCE.... he wouldnt have to buy the next round... thats for sure.

For those of us that follow cycling, the romance and history with a Roubaix or Flanders, or Het Volk or whatever... it means something, but a winner of a classic does not a great rider make. It favors an opportunist.

But to my point... lets just look at Flanders since you mentioned it. And lets take 2004 as you mentioned... as you will so fondly remember, it was won by the infamous Steffen Wesemann. Now... looking at %'s as you want to dispute... of the end of year UCI rankings... (which I agree are not a fully representative list of the actual measure of quality of a rider, but are one of the better indicators of performance that we have)... in Flanders, of those that started...23 were on the end of year UCI top 100. So.... In that same year's Tour de France.... guess what the number was.... 58. So give or take some percentage points for error... Im not quite sure what the argument is....the ONLY race all season that even came close was San Remo... with 47 of the top 100 (world road only had ~34) (I love Excel).

So, THATS where my percentages come from.... just because you asked.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Lance isn't all that light, even post-cancer. I mean, he's LIGHT, but not compared to the "climbers." He's 5-10, and starts the tour at around 160. Basso's BMI is lower, but he's still 6'0", 155. Ullrich is 6'1", and (the idea, at least is) that he's about 165.

Most of the GC guys are pretty tall, and not the lightest riders in the peloton; TT's and all.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Argentius said:


> Lance isn't all that light, even post-cancer. I mean, he's LIGHT, but not compared to the "climbers." He's 5-10, and starts the tour at around 160. Basso's BMI is lower, but he's still 6'0", 155. Ullrich is 6'1", and (the idea, at least is) that he's about 165.
> 
> Most of the GC guys are pretty tall, and not the lightest riders in the peloton; TT's and all.


That's if you believe their listed weights. I'm 6' 1" and a few months ago I was 160. I did not look as skinny as Jan.

I'm guessing these guys all give out a higher weight to try and psych out the competition a bit.

Silas


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*Um.., Big Mig won a few Tours De France at 170+lbs*

According to published reports at the time of his loss in his his attempt at #6 Big Mig had a MS power of 550 watts but weighed in at 176lbs which gave him a power to weight ratio of 6.8 watts/kg . - under the magic 7 Watt/ kg. Riis at the time had a much lower max wattage but weighed in the 150's - my point is that Mig was a few pounds lighter for his wins than for his 6th TDF and was able to hang in the mtns and crush in TT's. Now nobody thinks that George will crush anyone like Mig did however, Migs record shows that George, if he can recover, day after day, can be a top 5 in the TDF.

Nik


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

funknuggets said:


> as you will so fondly remember, it was won by the infamous Steffen Wesemann.


Am I missing something? Why infamous?

As far as percentages go, I agree that as far as the percentage of UCI ranked riders is concerned the Tour is far and away the biggest draw. But most of those riders haven't a hope in hell of winning. Out of 180 starters less than 20 are really in with a chance of making the final podium. So barely 10% are in with a shout. Contrast that with Flanders. The field is a similar size but I suggest that a higher percentage have a chance of winning. Quickstep, Lotto & CSC may have 3 or 4 capable of winning the race, not to mention the opportunists. If a rider is on the start sheet of one of the monuments or the three national tours they're not just making up the numbers.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 7, 2006)

I think George should train for the TDF, even if it means giving up his sprint ability. Why? Well for one thing, I don't think he'll ever win Paris-Roubaix regardless of what he does, because he has simply never had the sprint to match the top guys at any given time. Most of the races he wins lately seem to be when he is in a break of some sort.


----------

