I can recall talking to my bike trip leader who is a bike messenger, saying that she really didnt have respect for lance because all he did was the tour. He doesnt train for the giro or anthing like that. Now if this is true, it puts a damper on how I see him but bottom line. He won 7.
I can remember reading in a bike mag that said, finishing a tour was amazing, winning won:a miracle.

what do u think of this?

Lance is bye all means the greatest cyclist of this era. No doubt about it.

i'm sorry... your friends a fool. it's one thing to not like the guy for his demeanor, or not to agree with what he chooses to focus his energies toward, but to not respect his accomplishments is just assinine.


remind your friend that he's the youngest rider to wear a worlds champion jersey, among other notable acheivements earlier in his career.

Perhaps people who think along these lines are over-simplifyinging: they seem to think that winning a Tour de France is just a matter of focusing on it and nothing else. For better or worse, people who are exceptional at what they do (athletes, musicians, actors, public speakers, etc.) often make it look much easier than it is. It kind of reminds me of a phrase that was on one of the Richard Sachs jerseys: "Simple, but not easy". Only a handful of the 200+ riders who start the Tour can truly be considered to be contenders for the overall victory. I guarantee that most pro riders would not have the potential to win the Tour if they focused their season on it entirely. Of the real contenders, few have the leeway to base their entire season on one event, especially one that is three weeks long and subject to so many variables.

Lance has also had the luxury of riding for an American team, with American sponsors, focused on the American audience... the majority of whom would be hard pressed to name another race besides the Tour de France. (I'm referring to the general public, not the enthusiasts.) If Lance wins the Tour, he justifies his sponsors' investment, period. There's no point in Lance pushing himself to win Paris-Nice, the Tour of Flanders, and Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and "only" finishing in the top five at the Tour as a result. His wins wouldn't be viewed as meaningful to the American public (his sponsors' target audience) and his top five finish would be viewed as a failure. Take Jan Ullrich for example. There's a man who had never finished below second in the Tour de France, and the year that he finished fourth many people talked about how badly he had done. Of course I'd love to be that "bad" of a racer!

Lance is bye all means the greatest cyclist of this era. No doubt about it.
True. Nobody's really stepped up.

Eddy Merckx though, geezus. 500+ wins includes Giros, TDF, one day classics, one hour records and he didn't need any stinking tactics or Chris Charmichael Spinervals DVDs :rolleyes: .

The Cannibal just rode everybody off of his back wheel and straight into the ground, Belgian style! If only Boonen (too friggin' big) could climb, he could dominate too methinks.

I can recall talking to my bike trip leader who is a bike messenger, saying that she really didnt have respect for lance because all he did was the tour. He doesnt train for the giro or anthing like that. Now if this is true, it puts a damper on how I see him but bottom line. He won 7.
I can remember reading in a bike mag that said, finishing a tour was amazing, winning won:a miracle.

what do u think of this?



Your friend doesn't understand professional cycling. Educate him.

Your friend doesn't understand professional cycling. Educate him.
Its a she.

Some people resent it when others are successful. I'm sure Lance isn't losing any sleep over it.

Lance has also had the luxury of riding for an American team, with American sponsors, focused on the American audience... the majority of whom would be hard pressed to name another race besides the Tour de France. (I'm referring to the general public, not the enthusiasts.) If Lance wins the Tour, he justifies his sponsors' investment, period. There's no point in Lance pushing himself to win Paris-Nice, the Tour of Flanders, and Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and "only" finishing in the top five at the Tour as a result. His wins wouldn't be viewed as meaningful to the American public (his sponsors' target audience) and his top five finish would be viewed as a failure. Take Jan Ullrich for example. There's a man who had never finished below second in the Tour de France, and the year that he finished fourth many people talked about how badly he had done. Of course I'd love to be that "bad" of a racer!


no point?

what is the point of being a pro cyclist?

you are assuming monetary motivations.

Le Tour might be the pinnacle, but what existential manifestation does it provide. It obviously is part of Lances identity, not Le Tour per se, but his single mindedness, and objective setting, pure mental strength and discipline.

Though it might seem antithethical, Le Tour allows him to eliminate all the intagibles that exist so he optimisies his chance at winning. The tour has many intangibles like illness and crashes that to an extent Armstrong cannot control. But he controls all those factors he can, which enables him to be dominant and win. I think this is Armstrong's, and to an extent his national (US) psychology, that is, winning. the best, the brightest, the richest event. Media driven, but in any arbitrary analysis, it is the pinnacle of the sport.

Armstrong can't control the one day races, and the factors that are a function of winning tothe same degree, and his personality will not allow him concede victory. Whenever Armstrong talks of second place he says he can understand the mentality. He is driven by this winner/loser mentality.

It would be great to see a rider who appreciates all the races and moves on to conquer, or atleast compete to win, all te races on the calendar, albeit not in the one year. But finanical imperatives dictate the best riders race the tour to win, if they wish to maximise their economic compensation.

The pertinent trivia is, Armstrong had enough money to live on for the rest of his life, and his descendants also 3 years ago, so he was not compelled to ride the tour afterwards. One can only spend so much money. The opposing factor is Armstrong's position in history and he wanted to secure his place and his record. This is an extrapolation of the winner (and ego) mentality.

Armstrong is a champion rider whichever way you cut it. He deserves respect for his work ethic and accomplishments.

True. Nobody's really stepped up.

Eddy Merckx though, geezus. 500+ wins includes Giros, TDF, one day classics, one hour records and he didn't need any stinking tactics or Chris Charmichael Spinervals DVDs :rolleyes: .

The Cannibal just rode everybody off of his back wheel and straight into the ground, Belgian style! If only Boonen (too friggin' big) could climb, he could dominate too methinks.

Gone are the times when a single cyclist can dominate entire seasons. The competition and the science of training has come a too far in the past 30 years to allow someone to replicate what Merckx did. In that light, Lance's consecutive TdF wins should be appreciated all the more.

I wish Boonen the best, but it's not possible for him to dominate all races. Even he has to pick and choose.

you got to respect him no matter what. he's earned it. however, i can say that i would respect him more if he raced in the other grand tours as well.

Gone are the times when a single cyclist can dominate entire seasons. The competition and the science of training has come a too far in the past 30 years to allow someone to replicate what Merckx did. In that light, Lance's consecutive TdF wins should be appreciated all the more.

I wish Boonen the best, but it's not possible for him to dominate all races. Even he has to pick and choose.

What makes you think those times ever existed?

No I'm serious. Let's look at the big 9 races. The Three Grand Tours, The 5 Monuments and the Worlds. Many riders have won 2 in a year. (I think one year 3 different riders did that). But how many won 3 or more? How many times has it happened (a different question)?

The answer is only 6 riders. and only for a total of 12 times.

The first was Coppi in 49 winning 4 including a Tour Giro double which was 'impossible' until Fausto did it.

Next was Rik Van Looy in 61. Others were Hinault in 80 and Roche in 87.

The most recent was Boonen in 2005.

Each of these won 3 out of 9, no one has matched Coppi's 4 wins. It was just no longer possible.

Oh wait, except for Eddy who won at LEAST 3 of these 9 for 7 years in a row. Winning as many as 5 in one year.

While there have been changes that make it harder to duplicate Eddy's feats the biggest thing is that there is no Eddy. When Eddy rode it was not possible to dominate like he did, it was not possible to duplicate the feats of Coppi. Things were different. Until Eddy did it any way.

Perhaps Boonen will duplicate 4 of Coppi, perhaps not. But he has shown it is possible. Of course if he does he will surely be saddled with the title of the Next Eddy Merckx.

BTW try to name anyone besides Coppi, Hinault or Merckx who was strong in both tours and classics in the same year, or harder still for an entire career.

There is a reason they are considered great.

There is a reason they are considered great.


Keith,great post!

Keith,great post!

Thank you.

I forgot one other thing that I always want to brint up when people say times have changed.

How about the double? Either way, multiple jerseys in a major tour or two tours. When asked why Lance never tried to do a double we hear times have changed. But when was the last Tour-Giro double? The year before Lance's first Tour win.

Oh and starting in 2004 times changed. They changed the rules to favor GC riders in the Mountians competition.

Its a she.



Of course....that's abundantly clear from here.

Of course....that's abundantly clear from here.

i knew from the OP's first sentence... ;)

i knew from the OP's first sentence... ;)

Oh yeah....ooops!!! :D



note to self....read more carefully.

What makes you think those times ever existed?

Because I've read countless posts here and other places on the web praising how Merckx dominated the competition. Your post enlightens me considerably. Thanks.


While there have been changes that make it harder to duplicate Eddy's feats the biggest thing is that there is no Eddy. When Eddy rode it was not possible to dominate like he did, it was not possible to duplicate the feats of Coppi. Things were different. Until Eddy did it any way.

BTW try to name anyone besides Coppi, Hinault or Merckx who was strong in both tours and classics in the same year, or harder still for an entire career.

I think this gets to the issue of what I was referring to. If Boonen wants to compete for the GC in the Tours, it follows that he'll have to trim down his weight to effectively compete with the likes of Ulrich and Basso--two very talented riders focusing almost exclusively on the Tour. The question, then, is can Boonen either drop weight after his dominating Classics form in a manner still allowing him to be properly fit for the Grand Tours, or can he trim down his weight at the start of the season and still be competitive in both the Classics and Grand Tours? History seems (as shown in your insightful post) to show that this has always been a long shot.

Either way, with so many teams dedicating certain racers only toward specific races, and training with increasingly advanced training techniques (especially with regard to talents like Basso and Ulrich) the probability of someone emerging as a Merckx or Coppi-like seems, anecdotally, to be falling.

BTW, CycleSport has a good profile of Boonen in this month's edition.

Your friend doesn't understand professional cycling. Educate him.

I think his friend has a valid opinion. It takes much more to race the entire Protour than just one race, even if it is the TDF. This is why the Protour champion is DeLuca, and why the winningest rider in 05 was Boonen.
Winning the TDF is amazing, but training for only one race is not any evidence of the greatest current rider. While LA does this one race a year, his rivals, like Basso, are doing many more.

The hills of the Giro are brutal, and LA never won the Paris-Roubaix, he dropped out of the Paris-Nice last year in 100+ place. Other great historical cyclists have done the Giro and the TDF. As an American, the smartest pro move to make is only ride the TDF, because this is the only international race of any impact in the US, the source of LA's sponsor dollars. LA is a very smart guy, which is why he should get into politics.
So while 7 TDFs is incredible, I doubt ever before in history has a pro rider ever been so focused on just one race.

I can recall talking to my bike trip leader who is a bike messenger, saying that she really didnt have respect for lance because all he did was the tour. He doesnt train for the giro or anthing like that. Now if this is true, it puts a damper on how I see him but bottom line. He won 7.
I can remember reading in a bike mag that said, finishing a tour was amazing, winning won:a miracle.

what do u think of this?

I would ask this person how many Tours she has won . . . competed in . . . trained for . . . OK, she's a she, so probably zero . . . how about how many major women's stage races she's won . . . competed in . . . trained for . . . ?

Yeah, that Lance, he sucks. "All he did was the Tour", 7 times. A bit like saying a runner doesn't deserve respect because "all he did was Boston".

Cripe, a single *day* of Lance's or any other Tour athlete's training puts many of us to shame -- today or in any other era (OK, maybe not the smoking era).

I think I'm with you on this one :)

What makes you think those times ever existed?

No I'm serious. Let's look at the big 9 races. The Three Grand Tours, The 5 Monuments and the Worlds. Many riders have won 2 in a year. (I think one year 3 different riders did that). But how many won 3 or more? How many times has it happened (a different question)?

The answer is only 6 riders. and only for a total of 12 times.

The first was Coppi in 49 winning 4 including a Tour Giro double which was 'impossible' until Fausto did it.

Next was Rik Van Looy in 61. Others were Hinault in 80 and Roche in 87.

The most recent was Boonen in 2005.

Each of these won 3 out of 9, no one has matched Coppi's 4 wins. It was just no longer possible.

Oh wait, except for Eddy who won at LEAST 3 of these 9 for 7 years in a row. Winning as many as 5 in one year.

While there have been changes that make it harder to duplicate Eddy's feats the biggest thing is that there is no Eddy. When Eddy rode it was not possible to dominate like he did, it was not possible to duplicate the feats of Coppi. Things were different. Until Eddy did it any way.

Perhaps Boonen will duplicate 4 of Coppi, perhaps not. But he has shown it is possible. Of course if he does he will surely be saddled with the title of the Next Eddy Merckx.

BTW try to name anyone besides Coppi, Hinault or Merckx who was strong in both tours and classics in the same year, or harder still for an entire career.

There is a reason they are considered great.

THIS is how to back up an "argument" (bad choice of words, I realize). Brilliant Keith!!

So while 7 TDFs is incredible, I doubt ever before in history has a pro rider ever been so focused on just one race.

From the journalism hype about TdF 2006, do you think he started a trend?

I would ask this person how many Tours she has won . . . competed in . . . trained for . . . OK, she's a she, so probably zero . . . how about how many major women's stage races she's won . . . competed in . . . trained for . . . ?

Yeah, that Lance, he sucks. "All he did was the Tour", 7 times. A bit like saying a runner doesn't deserve respect because "all he did was Boston".

Oh boy...mention Lance and do not include "the greatest" and you are asking for trouble :rolleyes: . Not to be confrontational but this person is entitled to her opinion, as you are to yours. I do not see anywhere where she said that Lance sucks, if you can find that please forgive me. I happen to agree with her to a degree. I would also have alot more respect for Lance if he ever rode ANY of the other grand tours like some of the other riders. I do have alot of respect for his TdF wins, afterall what he has done in the tour is astonishing...but lets see it for what it is here...not a matter fo someone thinking "Lance sucks,' but rather someone else (one of many) who wished he rode in more of the bigger races. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I have never been a big fan of LA, and a huge fan of the likes of Merckx, Hinault, Roche and LeMond....yeah I'm old. :D

And what does her sex have to do with it?...there are many people with the same opinion (with whom you would not even bring up that angle) who have accomplished the same as her, ie: nothing. :mad:

From the journalism hype about TdF 2006, do you think he started a trend?

I think this may be an interesting point, and as yet, remains to be seen. I do think there are still a few european teams and sponsors who do not see the TdF as the be all and end all of the Pro cycling season.

Oh boy...mention Lance and do not include "the greatest" and you are asking for trouble :rolleyes: . Not to be confrontational but this person is entitled to her opinion, as you are to yours. I do not see anywhere where she said that Lance sucks, if you can find that please forgive me. I happen to agree with her to a degree. I would also have alot more respect for Lance if he ever rode ANY of the other grand tours like some of the other riders. I do have alot of respect for his TdF wins, afterall what he has done in the tour is astonishing...but lets see it for what it is here...not a matter fo someone thinking "Lance sucks,' but rather someone else (one of many) who wished he rode in more of the bigger races. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I have never been a big fan of LA, and a huge fan of the likes of Merckx, Hinault, Roche and LeMond....yeah I'm old. :D

And what does her sex have to do with it?...there are many people with the same opinion (with whom you would not even bring up that angle) who have accomplished the same as her, ie: nothing. :mad:

Well, there is a device known as "sarcasm" which I used for effect, which you may have overlooked.

I bring up her sex because: a) it seemed to be in question in previous posts; and b) I don't know of too many female Tour riders.

The point is that you shouldn't judge someone before you've walked a mile in his shoes. I'm willing to bet you haven't even tried those shoes on. If you're going to knock someone because he "only won the Tour", I think you should be able to back up your opinion with similar or superior accomplishments. Otherwise, shut up.

The point is that you shouldn't judge someone before you've walked a mile in his shoes.


Hey!!!

Web forums are all about judging!!!

I don't have a problem with Lance, per se. What I have a problem with is folks with no sense of cycling history; who know nothing about the sport outside of Lance and the TdF. I'll still be a cycling fan long after the lance-a-philes have forgotten all about bike racing.

Lance's accomplishments have been nothing short of amazing and inspiring. But I'm one of those people who like rock-and-roll bands until they become famous.

...Lance has also had the luxury of riding for an American team, with American sponsors, focused on the American audience... the majority of whom would be hard pressed to name another race besides the Tour de France. (I'm referring to the general public, not the enthusiasts.) If Lance wins the Tour, he justifies his sponsors' investment, period. There's no point in Lance pushing himself to win Paris-Nice, the Tour of Flanders, and Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and "only" finishing in the top five at the Tour as a result. His wins wouldn't be viewed as meaningful to the American public (his sponsors' target audience) and his top five finish would be viewed as a failure. Take Jan Ullrich for example. There's a man who had never finished below second in the Tour de France, and the year that he finished fourth many people talked about how badly he had done. Of course I'd love to be that "bad" of a racer!


no point?

what is the point of being a pro cyclist?

you are assuming monetary motivations.

Le Tour might be the pinnacle, but what existential manifestation does it provide. It obviously is part of Lances identity, not Le Tour per se, but his single mindedness, and objective setting, pure mental strength and discipline.

Though it might seem antithethical, Le Tour allows him to eliminate all the intagibles that exist so he optimisies his chance at winning. The tour has many intangibles like illness and crashes that to an extent Armstrong cannot control. But he controls all those factors he can, which enables him to be dominant and win. I think this is Armstrong's, and to an extent his national (US) psychology, that is, winning. the best, the brightest, the richest event. Media driven, but in any arbitrary analysis, it is the pinnacle of the sport.

Armstrong can't control the one day races, and the factors that are a function of winning tothe same degree, and his personality will not allow him concede victory. Whenever Armstrong talks of second place he says he can understand the mentality. He is driven by this winner/loser mentality.

It would be great to see a rider who appreciates all the races and moves on to conquer, or atleast compete to win, all te races on the calendar, albeit not in the one year. But finanical imperatives dictate the best riders race the tour to win, if they wish to maximise their economic compensation.

The pertinent trivia is, Armstrong had enough money to live on for the rest of his life, and his descendants also 3 years ago, so he was not compelled to ride the tour afterwards. One can only spend so much money. The opposing factor is Armstrong's position in history and he wanted to secure his place and his record. This is an extrapolation of the winner (and ego) mentality.

Armstrong is a champion rider whichever way you cut it. He deserves respect for his work ethic and accomplishments.

The point was that the "monetary motivations" belong to the sponsors, not necessarily to Lance.

I agree that the racers compete for a variety of reasons far beyond financial compensation. Honestly, I believe the job of a pro cyclist is too hard to do simply for the money. Don't get me wrong: I respect Lance and his accomplishments tremendously, but I also respect the domestiques who finish 15 minutes or more behind the pack after they spend the day battling headwinds, chasing breakaways, and fetching water bottles. My post was not meant to be disparaging towards Lance in any way.

However, all of the Pro Tour team sponsors are acting out of financial interest. Even if the president of a company is a cycling fanatic (think of Mapei), I would bet that the company is justifying their expenditure by the advertising, exposure, and name recognition resulting from team sponsorship. In the American media, the Tour eclipses all other cycling events world-wide. Therefore an American sponsor trying to capitalize it's exposure in the American market would value a win in the Tour de France above a win in the Giro, Vuelta, or any of the monuments of the classics (Milan-San Remo, Tour of Flanders, Paris-Roubaix, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, or the Tour of Lombardy)... or probably more than all of those races combined.

When Motorola ended their sponsorship of the team in 1996, they cited accomplishing their marketing goals as the reason. Do you think they would have continued if they had any idea that Lance the "one-day race specialist" would turn in to a "cancer survivor and 7 time consecutive winner of the Tour de France" marketing avalanche? :) I think so, and I bet a lot of Motorola executives were shouting, "Doh!" and smacking their foreheads in July of 1999... and even more so by July of 2005.

Team directors are ultimately responsible to the people (companies) who sign the checks, and as such, Lance had the luxury of focusing on the Tour to a degree that most European riders or teams would not have. Rabobank is heavily pressured to win at Amstel Gold; Spanish teams need to get results at the Vuelta; Belgian riders dream of conquering the cobbles. But if Lance wins the Tour, his team's season was a success for both him and the sponsors.

As a side note regarding Lance's motivation: In the book Lance Armstrong's War, Floyd Landis was asked if he thought Lance's lack of a father figure while he was growing up served to fuel his competitive fire. Landis replied, "Lance doesn't want a hug. He just wants to kick everyone's ass!" :D

True. Nobody's really stepped up.

Eddy Merckx though, geezus. 500+ wins includes Giros, TDF, one day classics, one hour records and he didn't need any stinking tactics or Chris Charmichael Spinervals DVDs :rolleyes: .

The Cannibal just rode everybody off of his back wheel and straight into the ground, Belgian style! If only Boonen (too friggin' big) could climb, he could dominate too methinks.
Im sorry. I have to disagree. God rest his soul, if marco was still alive and kickin' and didnt have all the problems he did when he was alive,he could totally beat lance. He,after all, did win the tour and a giro in the same year.98'.

Armstrong is a champion rider whichever way you cut it. He deserves respect for his work ethic and accomplishments..

I would take it further and say that the accomplishments don't merely deserve, but command respect. Particularly from those who have yet to even ride in an event even remotely approaching the Tour. You don't need a Ph. D. in Cycling History to figure it out.

When the "I'd have more respect for him if he'd only . . ." crowd can say they've won (how about just "done") the Tour, I'll consider their lack of respect more seriously. Until then it's just pettiness.

The point was that the "monetary motivations" belong to the sponsors, not necessarily to Lance.

I agree that the racers compete for a variety of reasons far beyond financial compensation. Honestly, I believe the job of a pro cyclist is too hard to do simply for the money. Don't get me wrong: I respect Lance and his accomplishments tremendously, but I also respect the domestiques who finish 15 minutes or more behind the pack after they spend the day battling headwinds, chasing breakaways, and fetching water bottles. My post was not meant to be disparaging towards Lance in any way.

However, all of the Pro Tour team sponsors are acting out of financial interest. Even if the president of a company is a cycling fanatic (think of Mapei), I would bet that the company is justifying their expenditure by the advertising, exposure, and name recognition resulting from team sponsorship. In the American media, the Tour eclipses all other cycling events world-wide. Therefore an American sponsor trying to capitalize it's exposure in the American market would value a win in the Tour de France above a win in the Giro, Vuelta, or any of the monuments of the classics (Milan-San Remo, Tour of Flanders, Paris-Roubaix, Liege-Bastogne-Liege, or the Tour of Lombardy)... or probably more than all of those races combined.

When Motorola ended their sponsorship of the team in 1996, they cited accomplishing their marketing goals as the reason. Do you think they would have continued if they had any idea that Lance the "one-day race specialist" would turn in to a "cancer survivor and 7 time consecutive winner of the Tour de France" marketing avalanche? :) I think so, and I bet a lot of Motorola executives were shouting, "Doh!" and smacking their foreheads in July of 1999... and even more so by July of 2005.

Team directors are ultimately responsible to the people (companies) who sign the checks, and as such, Lance had the luxury of focusing on the Tour to a degree that most European riders or teams would not have. Rabobank is heavily pressured to win at Amstel Gold; Spanish teams need to get results at the Vuelta; Belgian riders dream of conquering the cobbles. But if Lance wins the Tour, his team's season was a success for both him and the sponsors.

As a side note regarding Lance's motivation: In the book Lance Armstrong's War, Floyd Landis was asked if he thought Lance's lack of a father figure while he was growing up served to fuel his competitive fire. Landis replied, "Lance doesn't want a hug. He just wants to kick everyone's ass!" :D

agreed, but Lance could have taken a lesser check and told USPS they would not be focussing on the tour, and tweaked their contract accordingly. You imply it was a sponsor's decision. I disagree, Lance could have ridden any program he wanted, but the contract and fine print must have reflectd sponsor expectations. There would have still been sponsors in the works, for whatever program he decided to ride.

.

I would take it further and say that the accomplishments don't merely deserve, but command respect. Particularly from those who have yet to even ride in an event even remotely approaching the Tour. You don't need a Ph. D. in Cycling History to figure it out.

When the "I'd have more respect for him if he'd only . . ." crowd can say they've won (how about just "done") the Tour, I'll consider their lack of respect more seriously. Until then it's just pettiness.

that is just semantics, and respect should be voluntary anyhow. That is Armstrong's mindset, ego talk.

As higher ground says, most in the peloton are working their butt off, and deserve respect too. How do we know Servais Knaven, who I would estimate spends the most time in the wind in the cycling calendar, do not have the same training work ethic and the same disciplines to their diet and preparation. They just do not have the genetics to win 7 tours. Are they not deserving of an equivalent amount of respect. Ofcourse they are. Too much focus is on winners and losers in sport, and especially this sport.

Are they not deserving of an equivalent amount of respect. Ofcourse they are.

Absolutely. But that's not the point. The question was, "what do [we] think" of someone saying that they have "no respect" for Lance (because he's "only" done the tour, doesn't participate in other cycling events). And I maintain that anyone who says they don't, who hasn't also put in their time or accomplished something on that level, is full of it, because they have no appreciation from which to have (or not have) respect.

God rest his soul, if marco was still alive and kickin' and didnt have all the problems he did when he was alive,he could totally beat lance. My, that's an awfully big disclaimer there! :D

Im sorry. I have to disagree. God rest his soul, if marco was still alive and kickin' and didnt have all the problems he did when he was alive,he could totally beat lance. He,after all, did win the tour and a giro in the same year.98'.

Look up my posts on Lance subjects, you will see I'm not a big fan of his. But it is absurd to think Marco would ever beat Lance in the TDF. In 98 Marco beat Ulrich because he put Jan in trouble on stage 15 and Jan panicked. In the end Jan lost 8:57 on that one stage. Marco won that Tour by 3:21. Love him or hate him, any honest person who knows squat about Lance knows he does not panic. Even in much greater stress to start Lance would have done a much better job of limiting his loses on a single stage.

But Marco in that one year dod two things Lance will never do. He won two of the major tours and he took 2 jerseys in a single tour.

From the journalism hype about TdF 2006, do you think he started a trend?


Maybe, Ullrich is focussed on the TDF only. Basso however, is still doing the Giro and the TDF. IF (big IF) he wins both, that will be an accomplishment few riders in history have done, including LA.

If I were a rider of the team and talent of Armstrong (yeah, right), my final year would have been to attempt to win the Protour, the Giro and the TDF, while voluntarily giving 2X the drug samples.

However, back to the question of focus and teamwork, discovery supported Salvodelli at the 05 Giro with the agreement that Salvodelli would solely ride for Armstrong at the TDF. Setting up these deals is what Armstrong has done best, and it can really only be done for one race. The best hope Basso has is that Riis is good at these support deals, and this is the major hurdle Ullrich will have to overcome-getting rid of Vinokourov was the first step.

Look there are things Lance did for cycling that have had a positive effect, there is no doubt that many Americans have tuned into cycling because of him. Yes some will go away now that he's retired but others will stay because they now love the sport.

The negative effects of the LA era are an even more intense focus on one race. Riders are more specialized than ever and that has made some of them gamble their whole seasons on one race. I for one see this as a BIG negative.

For Americans, like Michael Jordan, Lance has brought a lot of attention to his sport. He's helped increase the visibility of cycling and in turn perhaps helped riders American riders gain some monetary increase in their pay packets. The down side is that unless an American rider can win the Tour he'll never be looked at as a successful rider. If Floyd wins the Giro or George wins Paris-Roubaix (sp) few in this country will care. If either of them were to win the Tour it would be on the cover of SI.

.

I would take it further and say that the accomplishments don't merely deserve, but command respect. Particularly from those who have yet to even ride in an event even remotely approaching the Tour. You don't need a Ph. D. in Cycling History to figure it out.

When the "I'd have more respect for him if he'd only . . ." crowd can say they've won (how about just "done") the Tour, I'll consider their lack of respect more seriously. Until then it's just pettiness.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

don't mind that he beat cancer...

Lance is the best, end of story

Lance is the best, end of story

Like many others who have already posted here and elsewhere about Lance. I don't dislike him. It is his supporters I can't stand.

Lance is NOT the best, end of story. In fact he is not even in sight of making the top 3. Oh his results are great. But when you compare the the best he falls well short. Rather unfair to Lance that his supporters keep calling him the best so he keeps getting compared to the few riders who make his results look thin.

Lance is NOT the best, end of story. In fact he is not even in sight of making the top 3. Oh his results are great. But when you compare the the best he falls well short. Rather unfair to Lance that his supporters keep calling him the best so he keeps getting compared to the few riders who make his results look thin.

Agreed. Many other riders that came before LA are more deserving of that title. Only one is the cream of that crop and we all know who he is and his name is not Lance Armstrong. Armstrong is given a lot of respect for his focus on the Tour and his ability to win it through training, teamwork, strategy, and tactics. This he truly and unequivocably deserves. However, he is not the best cyclist that ever turned a pedal and, now that he is retired, he never will be. He will be considered the best Tour de France rider that ever lived (until that fateful year when a rider comes along to take #8)...

Lance is so far above me on the performance totem that I don't even merit a voice in this discussion.

I hold the first cyclist to fall out of the TDF or any grand tour in awe. I have respect and admiration and am motivated by the guy who regularly passes me on my 20-mile morning ride.

Somehow, I can't bring myself to denegrate Lance's overall performance just because he hasn't yet sprinted up the hill near my house.

Tour de France rider that ever lived (until that fateful year when a rider comes along to take #8)...

You phrased that very well. By most, esp the ignorant, he will be considered the best TDF rider ever. I'll detail why he at the least does not hold clear title to that position when I get a chance.

You phrased that very well. By most, esp the ignorant, he will be considered the best TDF rider ever. I'll detail why he at the least does not hold clear title to that position when I get a chance.

Thank you. Personally, I consider him to be the best person at pushing his team to achieve his goal of winning the TdF. He's tremendous manager of people. Consequently, he'll be great in a political role. However, his total number of stage wins doesn't make him the best ever in the Tour. He just happens to have won that particular race more often than any other. That said, he probably shouldn't even get the 'best ever' Tour de France title either...

Thank you. Personally, I consider him to be the best person at pushing his team to achieve his goal of winning the TdF. He's tremendous manager of people. Consequently, he'll be great in a political role. However, his total number of stage wins doesn't make him the best ever in the Tour. He just happens to have won that particular race more often than any other. That said, he probably shouldn't even get the 'best ever' Tour de France title either...

Little question that his managment team (of which he is a part) is right up there all time. It is even harder to figure out how good that part was of teams in the past, so little documentation. But I'd say Alfredo Binda did a pretty good job.


Now to detailing the other rider who can lay claim to best ever TDF rider.

He won the TDF 5 times and 1 second place.

In his first TDF he not only won, he took all 3 major jerseys, the most aggressive rider award, his team won the team championship and he won 5 stages including the final stage. His winning margin that year is still the biggest since 1952.

He has won multiple jerseys in the TDF 4 times. (Only Coppi and Bartoli have done this twice. Since Merckx only Hinault has done this once).

He has placed in the top 3 of all 3 major competitions in the same year 6 times. Besides Eddy only Hinault has done this more than once doing it 3 times.

He has the most stage wins.

He has the most days in Yellow.

He is tied for most stage wins in a single tour, winning 8 stages. The other 2 riders who have won 8 stages were not in the mix for the Yellow.

Oh and back to that first win. His winning margin was greater than the combines winning margins for the previous 7 years combined. (I think this kind of thing is a worthwhile comparison. Comparing things like winning margin should be compared to what is done at the time. I would hardly call the riders of the very early Tours better than Merckx and Armstrong just because they had winning margins of hours, as that was normal at the time).

Little question that his managment team (of which he is a part) is right up there all time. It is even harder to figure out how good that part was of teams in the past, so little documentation. But I'd say Alfredo Binda did a pretty good job.


Now to detailing the other rider who can lay claim to best ever TDF rider.

He won the TDF 5 times and 1 second place.

In his first TDF he not only won, he took all 3 major jerseys, the most aggressive rider award, his team won the team championship and he won 5 stages including the final stage. His winning margin that year is still the biggest since 1952.

He has won multiple jerseys in the TDF 4 times. (Only Coppi and Bartoli have done this twice. Since Merckx only Hinault has done this once).

He has placed in the top 3 of all 3 major competitions in the same year 6 times. Besides Eddy only Hinault has done this more than once doing it 3 times.

He has the most stage wins.

He has the most days in Yellow.

He is tied for most stage wins in a single tour, winning 8 stages. The other 2 riders who have won 8 stages were not in the mix for the Yellow.

Oh and back to that first win. His winning margin was greater than the combines winning margins for the previous 7 years combined. (I think this kind of thing is a worthwhile comparison. Comparing things like winning margin should be compared to what is done at the time. I would hardly call the riders of the very early Tours better than Merckx and Armstrong just because they had winning margins of hours, as that was normal at the time).

Jacques Anquetil?

Jacques Anquetil?

Are you asking if the rider described was Jacques? If so the answer is no. Jacques never won either the KOM or Sprinters Jersey. The man was Merckx. Though Jacques does tie in. Going backwards Eddys winning margin of 17'54" is more than the winning margin of the 7 previous Tours combined. That stops with Anquetils win of 61 at 12'14".

It is noteworthy that this is the first of 4 wins in a row for Anquetil. (He had won as a very young rider a few years earlier. It was his largest margin. Lance's largest winning margin was in his first win as was Eddy's. Think I'll look up Mig's and Hinault's and see when their biggest margins were.

Basso is trying the Giro/TDF double and I applaud it. I think he may suffer a little too much at the TDF but respect the attempt, which seems to come from his heart and desire to win his national tour as well as the pinnacle...the TDF. LA could have recovered and competed in the Vuelta on many occasions but chose not to. He made decisions based on information/obligations we will never be aware of .

Because of this he will be regarded by many as the greatest TDF rider ever.

ALSO because of that he will be regarded as a rider who " cherry picked " and damaged/ changed the sport forever.

As with all big/important decisions the are good and bad consequences...he made the choices and those are the consequences. Both statements are accurate...where you place the emphasis is called " opinion ".

In my opinion I would have preferred a more complete "palmares"...however I would also respect a person who made decisions like being a better father over compiling most wins. I will never know the reasons for his decisions...so I remain hopeful of a future rider who takes me back to the days of the more complete palmares.

In my opinion I would have preferred a more complete "palmares"...however I would also respect a person who made decisions like being a better father over compiling most wins. I will never know the reasons for his decisions...so I remain hopeful of a future rider who takes me back to the days of the more complete palmares.

Actually his decisions seem pretty simple to me. Post cancer he had lost a fair pop of muscle mass. This made him well suited to Tours but unsuited to classics. Next up he looks for his chance. The 99 tour presented a great one, wide open. He manages to get enought of a team to win. With a TDF win in hand he can build up the team. To the American audience all that matters is the TDF. At that point a loss at the TDF may blow everything. That is the win he needs that year to keep and keep improving his team. Perhaps at wins 3 or 4 he had the shot to try the double. But by 5 it would have been foolish. Same for 6. By 7 he is past his prime still great, but not enough left in the tank for a double.

All in all I think wise decisions. I have no issue with Lance and his choices, he took the gold ring that was there.