Road Bike Racing - about amstrong(bufff!)

before of talk about amstrong i want to say that he's a great ciclist of the tour and today don't have rival, but some comments about his job's work are criticals!

for example:
-amstrong vs. indurain(is the most recient winner of 5 tours and is inevitable to compare with amstrong)

indurain-->vs: amstrong--->

Claudio Chiapucci. beloki(hurt)
Tony Rominger. pantani(auto-lesionate)
Eugeni Berzin. ulrich(he's not the same)
Bjarne Riis. ??any more??
Leblanc.
Pedro Delgado.
Alex Zulle



indurain-->good results in giro,vuelta españa,hour-record but amstrong??


amstrong 8th ranking official tour of all times,but induarin the 9th,is this believe?

1saludo and sorry for my english!

I think you are right.

While Armstrong is admirable (particularly given his recovery from illness) I think Indurain had many more dangerous rivals when he was winning.


Also, I think tactically he had a harder time, as the use of radio feeds from the team cars (useful in deciding whether to chase a break or not) was not so prevalent.

Also, as you indicate, Indurain (and Merckx and Anquetil and Hinault) did not "specialise" in the tour, but also rode other big races and their Palmares reflect that

It would be interesting to see how these greats would compare at the peak of their powers. For me the finishing line up would probably be:

Merckx
Indurain
Hinault
Armstrong
Anquetil

chewa ,i agree!

i had forget to say that amstrong won the principal tour:his illness and this is admirable but the clasification that you do,is more correct!

I Disagree.

All the big names in cycling history have always wanted to win the tour. Everybody trains and focusses on that event.
Merckx, Indurain, LeMond, Anquetil, Coppi, all wanted to win the tour more than the other events.

Armstrong competes in the other events as well but he does not make it his goal to win those events at all costs. Instead he uses them to gauge and gain race fitness. In these events he plays Domestique to the other riders.

Also he is not European and his team is not european so there is no commercial interest in the other tours where USPS doesn't get the exposure they want.

To Try and Reduce Armstrong stature in Cycling history is in my opinion uninformed. Remember he won the World Champs at age 21 in 1993. I believe the youngest rider t do so. He was always going to be great. Cancer was merely an additional drama in the already remarkable story of Lance Armstrong.

Any rider won can win or be as competitive consistently is in book a great rider.

To try and classify any of those riders as better than the next wouldbe impossible. But judging by the average speed of the tour and level of fitness of the competition i would say the classification should be.


1) Armstrong.
2) Indurain
3) LeMond
4) Hinault
5) Anquetil
6) Coppi

why? becasue each man handed over his reign to the next level up. People don't get less fit with each passing generation, We do evolve you know.

then...do you think that indurain won the 2giros for train him for win the tour?

we agree that the most event is the tour of france but the giro or vuelta are great events too!

this i don't think him of the daphine-libere,vuelta catalunya

the clasification of history of tour,we think her,but if the clasification was of all history of clcism,i thin that could be:

Merckx
Indurain
Armstrong
Hinault
Anquetil

Originally posted by TimB
To try and classify any of those riders as better than the next wouldbe impossible. But judging by the average speed of the tour and level of fitness of the competition i would say the classification should be.


1) Armstrong.
2) Indurain
3) LeMond
4) Hinault
5) Anquetil
6) Coppi

why? becasue each man handed over his reign to the next level up. People don't get less fit with each passing generation, We do evolve you know.

So because the older riders didn't have the same technology for equipment and training, they aren't as good?

i agree that you need to level the playing field... sure armstrong may be going faster than some of the older riders, but he is riding better equipment than them, he has the benefit of new technologies in sports medicine - such as power meters, better knowledge in the science of nutrition.... he has too many advantages

also, the newer athletes are definitely not any more evolved than the older ones... evolution is about mutation.... the new athletes don't have NEW mutations that give them some kinda athletic advantage....

i think that the old riders have more merits for drive those devil's machine and up ports with those bikes of 300 kilos!if they had the actual technolgy,they did run to the same speed

kinda like asking who's the better fighter, Ali or Lewis (joe not
lenox).

I think that both Simoni this year and Hamilton last year are
good examples of why riders don't ride more than 1 grand
tour (exception being Beloki who podiumed in 2 in one year).

Other than Ocana, who really challenged Merckx?
Hinault would not have had 5 wins if team Management
hadn't pulled back LeMond.

All of the riders listed were different.
Indurain wasn't the climber that Lance is, Big Mig was more
TT and flatter stages, no?
Hinault - I don't have alot to say about him, never liked him
Merckx - he was the complete rider, he could do it
all, Time Trial, mountains, flats, didn't matter he canabalized em
all.
Coppi - Great rider, but we will never know due to his untimely
death how great he really would have been
Anquentil - also complete rider but again I don't have a
alot of knowledge about him.
Lance - well the jury is still out on him isn't it? I don't think any
of the previous mentioned riders used their teams quite the
way that Lance does, and that may be the real difference
between "back in the day" and now.

Marty

To place those riders ahead of Eddy is to me absurd...his competition was tougher, raced a full season, and always raced to win and won more often than any rider in history. I also dont think his team was near as strong as a USPS for instance nor were they allowed to just prepare for certain events. I don't remember the exact statistics but when racing a full season every year Eddy won arouund 50% of the events entered...that may be an exaggeration but the numbers are beyond compare...many races he won when he was so strong that team support was limited as they couldn't keep up yet the others had the whole team trying to chase. The year break when he didn't win the TourdeFrance was because he chose not to ride it.

Todays sport is faster overall and probably as a whole, fitter...Lance is a physical wonder as well as mental... If you think 23 day tour is difficult try a 200 day + season with 2 or 3 23 day tours as well as the classics and the other races....this is like comparing someone who climbs Mt.Everst in record time with someone who climbs the 10 tallest mountains in one year... for 5 consecutive years. Both are truly remarkable feats...Everst record holder might be capable of the other record...unless they try we shall never know.

I do realize that we are comparing some of the most competitive individuals in the world who never will get to compete against each other...the true test. Speculating is fun, and Eddy rules...hehe

Originally posted by TimB
I Disagree.

All the big names in cycling history have always wanted to win the tour. Everybody trains and focusses on that event.
Merckx, Indurain, LeMond, Anquetil, Coppi, all wanted to win the tour more than the other events.

Noted, but Armstrong specialises far more on the Tour. Merckx (and Roche for that matter) won the Tour the Giro and the Worlds in the same year.

It's much easier to train to peak for one event, or tailor your training to a specific event (even the tour)


Armstrong competes in the other events as well but he does not make it his goal to win those events at all costs. Instead he uses them to gauge and gain race fitness. In these events he plays Domestique to the other riders.

Also he is not European and his team is not european so there is no commercial interest in the other tours where USPS doesn't get the exposure they want.

Agreed, but cyling the large tours is a European event, just as the World series ("World?") is American. As far as I am aware Lance focuses on the tour to the extreme. the others didn't


To Try and Reduce Armstrong stature in Cycling history is in my opinion uninformed. Remember he won the World Champs at age 21 in 1993. I believe the youngest rider t do so. He was always going to be great. Cancer was merely an additional drama in the already remarkable story of Lance Armstrong.

Agreed, but look at the Palmares of the other riders before saying that. merckx won 525 races. he raced every week and won all types of stages. he won Yellow, polka and green in the tour.

Lance is an inspiration because of his comeback from illness. (it seems to be an American thing, what with Lemond recovering from his gunshot :))


Any rider won can win or be as competitive consistently is in book a great rider.

To try and classify any of those riders as better than the next wouldbe impossible. But judging by the average speed of the tour and level of fitness of the competition i would say the classification should be.


1) Armstrong.
2) Indurain
3) LeMond
4) Hinault
5) Anquetil
6) Coppi

why? becasue each man handed over his reign to the next level up. People don't get less fit with each passing generation, We do evolve you know.

Yes, but I think in comparison to their peers (who also evolve you know) I would have to disagree with your choices.

To miss Merckx off is a joke.

Hinault was at the end of his career when Lemond won and even then gave him a fright. I saw both of them race and Hinault had the killer instinct and tactical nous, in the days when the riders relied less on their team managers.

My guess is that the days of the triple are long gone.

Making comparisons just isn't very fair, especially comparing somebody who rode 30 some years ago to today. The sport has evolved in so many ways that it just isn't easy to do. If Merckx was riding today would he be able to dominate so many races? I doubt it, he would still be a very strong rider, but I doubt he would win so many races.

Armstrong deserves to be on a list of top riders, not because he came back from death's door, but just by what he's accomplished in cycling, ditto for people like LeMond, Indurain, Merckx, Hinault, etc, but to give rankings just doesn't work very well IMHO.

Andrew

I'm glad you noticed that I left Merckx off the list and that was intentional. Ajay has stated in beautifully. The sport has evolved, the riders are generally fitter. It's not as easy as it was 30yrs ago to be head and shoulders above everyone else.

Lance has learned from all the greats before him and still stands above his peers, all of whom are stunning riders and IMO would whip the pants off Merckx if they were transported back in time to the 70's and raced against Merckx.

You've said it yourselves, the riders today have more resources to draw on so their performances are more optimised.
Perhaps Merckx was'nt that great, perhaps he achieved what he did because his opposition was crap. To me that seems more plausible. That Merckx knew how to optimise his training and himself whereas his opposition did'nt.

With all the technology available to all the riders today, the field is more level that it has ever been and Lance Armstrong stands head and shoulders above the rest in the race that they All want to win.
At this moment in time Armstrong is the greatest cyclist in the history of the tour. Merckx, Anquetil, leMond, Indurain, Hinault all deserve their place in history but Lance is their son and he stands on the brink of equaling their records in an era of cycling when the sport is more level than it has ever been thanks to technology.

And using more modern bikes as an excuse is laughable because in the thread under "Road Cycling" of this forum titled "Does a frame really matter" You and your peers took me apart for sayng that it does. You've claimed that it does'nt. So I suggest you stick to your arguements.:beer:

actually road bikers have the team which help him to win races but the old riders had they this help?

Originally posted by TimB
I'm glad you noticed that I left Merckx off the list and that was intentional. Ajay has stated in beautifully. The sport has evolved, the riders are generally fitter. It's not as easy as it was 30yrs ago to be head and shoulders above everyone else.

I think that's nonsense.It's just like saying that in Tennis it's harder now because everyone's fitter. In his day merckx was better than anyone else, because he was the best of the best at that time.

Armstrong is the best of the best now, but he races less than Merckx, Indurain and Hinault did, concentrates on the tour, so of course he should do well there. Relative to their peers it was just as hard for the earlier riders to succeed. Everything is relative.


Lance has learned from all the greats before him and still stands above his peers, all of whom are stunning riders and IMO would whip the pants off Merckx if they were transported back in time to the 70's and raced against Merckx.

Of course they would if you compare them now against Merckx then. What I am saying is that in their relative times, these guys are the best but if some way was found of comparing them on a level playing field, Armstrong, while being a top rider, would not be able to live with the likes of Merckx, Hinault or Indurain.


You've said it yourselves, the riders today have more resources to draw on so their performances are more optimised.
Perhaps Merckx was'nt that great, perhaps he achieved what he did because his opposition was crap. To me that seems more plausible. That Merckx knew how to optimise his training and himself whereas his opposition did'nt..

Yes that's likely. In a field of professional riders Merckx was the only one to train---hmmm don't think so.


With all the technology available to all the riders today, the field is more level that it has ever been and Lance Armstrong stands head and shoulders above the rest in the race that they All want to win..

Nonsense. The technology has evolved and in each era these guys (who had the best available at the time)rode the same stuff as their competitors. Finess of the WHOLE peloton has increased, but it must be easier now to control the Tour (as Armstrong does)because of the input from the directeur sportif down his left ear hole by radio.

In the earlier eras, the tour winner had to be more aggressive to control the race because the only way he could get word of a breakaway and whether to chase wa to get someone back to a team car. Also in TT's he didn't have the benefit of HRM's cadence meters, but only the stopwatch.


At this moment in time Armstrong is the greatest cyclist in the history of the tour. Merckx, Anquetil, leMond, Indurain, Hinault all deserve their place in history but Lance is their son and he stands on the brink of equaling their records in an era of cycling when the sport is more level than it has ever been thanks to technology.

That's simply not so. He is the best cyclist in the world right now (though he has said Ullrich is the more complete rider). Tell me what record he is equalling? He might win 5 tdf's. that doesn't equal the palmares of the others. What about the Giro, the Vuelta, the worlds, Paris Roubaix.

Look on any website on the Tour, in any book and the experts reckon the finest cyclist of all time was Merckx. Compare how many stages they have one. How many yellow green or polka jerseys held. That is the sign of the greatest all round tour rider.


And using more modern bikes as an excuse is laughable because in the thread under "Road Cycling" of this forum titled "Does a frame really matter" You and your peers took me apart for sayng that it does. You've claimed that it does'nt. So I suggest you stick to your arguements.:beer:

I think this can't be aimed at me because I haven't added to that post. Of course a frame matters, just as a large headed tennis racket matters or an oversized driver. Is Ernie Els the best ever golfer in the world? What about Palmer or Nicklaus.?

What we have to compare is not rider against rider but rider against peers. Palmares against palmares. On that basis Armstrong doesn't stack up. Even on stages won in the tour

such a narrow mind.
You live with your emotional champions and I'll stick with science and logic.

Nice riposte! I've certainly never been accused of that before.

Thought the first point of science and logic would have been to compare like with like, taking all variables into account.

On your argument any champion in a later year is automatically better than any in the previous year.

Schumacher is a better driver than Fangio, or Stewart or Andretti. Els is better than Palmer or Nicklaus, Agassi is better than Connors or McEnroe or Borg, Thorpe is better than Spitz.

Logical, yes, scientific, no, because what you are measuring against has changed, and not really what this post was about.

Based on science (results overall), Armstrong doesn't even make the list. You might be happy with that scientific result, but even with my narrow mind, I can accept that's not right.

Originally posted by chewa
I think that's nonsense.It's just like saying that in Tennis it's harder now because everyone's fitter. In his day merckx was better than anyone else, because he was the best of the best at that time.

Well it is harder in tennis now is'nt it. They're hitting the ball harder with greater accuracy. Players are fitter, faster, stronger. As more players reach the same level of fitness and skill it becomes harder for one player to rise above the rest. That player has to bring something new to the sport to lift their game.


Armstrong is the best of the best now, but he races less than Merckx, Indurain and Hinault did, concentrates on the tour, so of course he should do well there. Relative to their peers it was just as hard for the earlier riders to succeed. Everything is relative.

You seem to miss the point entirely. Perhaps he does race less than Merckx, but how many miles does he spend in the saddle training. If one person is racing at the same level of fitness that another is training at then who is the better rider? The one who traisn at the others race level no doubt.


Of course they would if you compare them now against Merckx then. What I am saying is that in their relative times, these guys are the best but if some way was found of comparing them on a level playing field, Armstrong, while being a top rider, would not be able to live with the likes of Merckx, Hinault or Indurain.

What a load of utter drivel. This smacks of emotional rancour! If some way ws found of comapring these riders at their peak then I've no doubt that Armstrong and Indurtain will be strongest of all. why, It's very simple really. They're stronger and faster than the riders who have preceded them.




Yes that's likely. In a field of professional riders Merckx was the only one to train---hmmm don't think so.

if you choose stupidity as your arguement then fine. your choice. Merckx trained better than his rivals in an era when there many dogma's about diet and training, he's was the most modern and scientific and that benefitted him. That he was an excellent physical specimen is obvious. You still need trainng to refine whats already there. In this respect, Merckx relative to his peers was far better.
Yet Armstrong, who races against peers with similar training methodsand sports science at their disposal s still better than his peers by a quite signiifcant margin




Nonsense. The technology has evolved and in each era these guys (who had the best available at the time)rode the same stuff as their competitors. Finess of the WHOLE peloton has increased, but it must be easier now to control the Tour (as Armstrong does)because of the input from the directeur sportif down his left ear hole by radio.

And I guess armstrong's peers don't enjoy the same level of technology.........
The playing field is still level. everyone has to wear a helmet, ride a bike weighing no less than 6.8kg, have a team for support (as it was in the old days). All eat carefully planned diets and have access to teh same highly qualified and experienced sports scientists. You have no point. Emotional rancour again.


In the earlier eras, the tour winner had to be more aggressive to control the race because the only way he could get word of a breakaway and whether to chase wa to get someone back to a team car. Also in TT's he didn't have the benefit of HRM's cadence meters, but only the stopwatch.

Oh dear! I don't know if you know any professional cyclists but I have ha the opportunity of chatting with quite a few over my cycling days.
Most feel that the hart rate monitor is a great benefit for TRAINING but not under race conditions. Pro's know trheir bodies very well, they keep track of it everyday, diet , heart rate, calorie intake. Under race conditions they hardly ever look at them because they go according to feel. I believe makes a reference to this in his his book on cycle training. So your arguement with respect to HRM's being a significant advantage under rae conditons is crap. You'll notice that most have theirs on their wrists. How ftern do you look at your wrists when out cycling?? Hardly! I'm not surprised.

As for word of a breakaway via radio, so what. That merely reduces the time to respond. It's relative again. All the current riders use the same tactics and technology. so what if Merckx did'nt have the technology then. does'nt make him the best that ever lived. Just means he achieve simlar results with less technology in an era when nobody had modern tech.




That's simply not so. He is the best cyclist in the world right now (though he has said Ullrich is the more complete rider). Tell me what record he is equalling? He might win 5 tdf's. that doesn't equal the palmares of the others. What about the Giro, the Vuelta, the worlds, Paris Roubaix.

Palmares palmares palmares. Lance has won the World Champs, at age 21. He has raced the others with the exception of the Giro ( icould be mistaken and perhaps he did) and yes he has concentrated on the Tour. Why? Because the route of the tour has become progressively harder over the years. The average temperatre fo the race has increased, the distance per stage has increased. The roads are more dangerous with more spectators and vehicles, more people using the tour as a political staging ground. etc etc. The tour today is harder than it was in the days of Merckx. There's also more high quality competition. and there's the drug abusers that he has to compete against. was Merckx ever tested for drugs?? No. So we'll never know if he was using them will we..


Look on any website on the Tour, in any book and the experts reckon the finest cyclist of all time was Merckx. Compare how many stages they have one. How many yellow green or polka jerseys held. That is the sign of the greatest all round tour rider.

LOL, The experts, the same people who have vested interested in stiring up your emotions with the name Merckx, the exploits of the ancients. Spare me their drivel. Cycling is a sport, The Tour is a race. As tme goes by rider get beter and better,Lance is now the leader of these new and improved cyclists. Live with it. In time omeoneelse will take teh crown and the cycle begins again.



I think this can't be aimed at me because I haven't added to that post. Of course a frame matters, just as a large headed tennis racket matters or an oversized driver. Is Ernie Els the best ever golfer in the world? What about Palmer or Nicklaus.?

How do you establish who the bestgolfer is. It is hardly a taxing physical exercise. I know I play most weekends. However the sport of golf has also changed but the technology availbale has been there for all at the same time so individual skill on the day usually wins a tournament.
I would not wnat to try and establish which of those you mentioned is better, they're all great. Interesting you only mention only white golfers. I thought Tiger Woods was generally regarded as the best golfer out there.


What we have to compare is not rider against rider but rider against peers. Palmares against palmares. On that basis Armstrong doesn't stack up. Even on stages won in the tour

drivel again. In my book a rider who succeeds against stronger and more capable peers is a better rider than one who succeeds against invalids.
Lance is currently succeeding against the fittest riders ever to have competed in the tour, thus making him the best rider in history. Now I challenge you to prove that the current crop of riders are not the fittest ever to have competed.

Originally posted by TimB
Well it is harder in tennis now is'nt it. They're hitting the ball harder with greater accuracy. Players are fitter, faster, stronger. As more players reach the same level of fitness and skill it becomes harder for one player to rise above the rest. That player has to bring something new to the sport to lift their game.

I hope you don't play tennis because surely you would miss the ball as you obviously have missed the point. You say that is harder for Armstrong because everyone else is fitter. So you compare riders of today, with riders 10 or 20 years ago simply on the basis of fitness. My point has nothing to do with that comparison. It's based on how one rider has dominated his peers. Don't you get that? It is no harder now for someone to rise above the rest in relative terms than it has been in the past.

Tennis is a point in question. The technology has made it easier to hit the ball (hell even I can find the sweetspot in a new racket) and the game has changed to a serve and volley game. (at least on grass). Fitness has improved but it is no harder now for someone of talent to make a name for themselves in comparison to years ago on relative terms. The base fitness level of athletes has obviously increased and it would be strange if it hadn't. The whole point about becoming a champion is that they do have the something extra, and my point is that the extra Armstrong has relative to his peers is not as "extra" as some of the others.




You seem to miss the point entirely. Perhaps he does race less than Merckx, but how many miles does he spend in the saddle training. If one person is racing at the same level of fitness that another is training at then who is the better rider? The one who traisn at the others race level no doubt.

Is this not about who was the greatest cyclist? How do we determine that if not by looking at race results. If Schumacher spend all his time racing a car against the clock in testing and is faster than anyone else, does that mean he is the best. Or do his results count? Armstrong may train (specifically to peak for the Tour) harder than anyone else, but does that support your argument or diminish it?.





What a load of utter drivel. This smacks of emotional rancour! If some way ws found of comapring these riders at their peak then I've no doubt that Armstrong and Indurtain will be strongest of all. why, It's very simple really. They're stronger and faster than the riders who have preceded them..

You profess to be of a scientific and logical bent but this argument makes no sense. What base level could you compare them at?. I've already conceded that in terms of relative fitness a modern cyclist is obviously fitter, so your method of comparison (fitness) has no value. It is not a valid comparison in the terms of this post. The comparison has to be relative to the base level of their peers. How were they as a champion. How did they dominate the sport?







if you choose stupidity as your arguement then fine. your choice. Merckx trained better than his rivals in an era when there many dogma's about diet and training, he's was the most modern and scientific and that benefitted him. That he was an excellent physical specimen is obvious. You still need trainng to refine whats already there. In this respect, Merckx relative to his peers was far better.
Yet Armstrong, who races against peers with similar training methodsand sports science at their disposal s still better than his peers by a quite signiifcant margin


Ah, I see your argument. Human nature has changed. Today, all professional sportsmen train to the best of their abilities given the medical scientific knowledge available, and Lance is better than the rest not because he trains harder or chooses to specialise in one or two big races and focus his training to them, but because he is somehow just better. From your post I take it that all professional cyclists train exactly the same as Armstrong.

And obviously the older pro's Indurain, Hinault ,Lemond, Merckx etc didn't have to contend with peers who trained in the same way they did, they were better because their training methods were better and their peers just didn't jump on the bandwagon.- Whose argument smacks of stupidity?





And I guess armstrong's peers don't enjoy the same level of technology.........
The playing field is still level. everyone has to wear a helmet, ride a bike weighing no less than 6.8kg, have a team for support (as it was in the old days). All eat carefully planned diets and have access to teh same highly qualified and experienced sports scientists. You have no point. Emotional rancour again

Swish - Did you see that point go by - because you missed it again. Did I say that Armstrong benefits from any technology that the other modern pro's don't? - No.

I however did make the point that it is easier for the leader of the tour to control the race, because the technology available to him means he can decide quicker whether to chase down a breakaway. That same technology although available to the others in the race is of less value, because in a stage race like the tour, where a group peloton all get the same time, other than TT stages it is the breakaway which can determine the Yellow jersey. In the days before radio contact with DS's, it must have been harder for a leader to have the info (or at least take longer for the info to get to him) as to whether a challenger was in the break. As a result, the likes of Merckx, hinault, lemond had to ride at the front and keep an eye on all challengers.





Oh dear! I don't know if you know any professional cyclists but I have ha the opportunity of chatting with quite a few over my cycling days.
Most feel that the hart rate monitor is a great benefit for TRAINING but not under race conditions. Pro's know trheir bodies very well, they keep track of it everyday, diet , heart rate, calorie intake. Under race conditions they hardly ever look at them because they go according to feel. I believe makes a reference to this in his his book on cycle training. So your arguement with respect to HRM's being a significant advantage under rae conditons is crap. You'll notice that most have theirs on their wrists. How ftern do you look at your wrists when out cycling?? Hardly! I'm not surprised.

Slack language on my part. HRM's and cadence meters are of course valuable training aids and help get the "muscle memory" and peak condition for TT's. I didn't say they were used in race conditions, though of course there is no benefit to a rider in a time trial being fed info on his time compared to his rivals by his DS - is there? After all his closest rivals will still be on the road when he leaves the start.

I'm glad you've had the chance to chat with pro's. Maybe next time ask who they rate. I've only spoken to Roche, Kelly, Lemond Phil Anderson and Alan Peiper. Of course, these guys are all oldies so they probably don't rate on your scale.



As for word of a breakaway via radio, so what. That merely reduces the time to respond. It's relative again. All the current riders use the same tactics and technology. so what if Merckx did'nt have the technology then. does'nt make him the best that ever lived. Just means he achieve simlar results with less technology in an era when nobody had modern tech..



I hate to say it but is that not my point? That his peers were on the same equipment and hd the same type of background training etc.? Are you even reading what I'm writing? Are you not getting the point that what I seek to compare is each rider in his own era ?





Palmares palmares palmares. Lance has won the World Champs, at age 21. He has raced the others with the exception of the Giro ( icould be mistaken and perhaps he did) and yes he has concentrated on the Tour.

Just to put you in the picture, here's a link showing Armstrongs career highlights.

Armstrongs palmares (http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/career)

Now what about Hinault

Hinault (http://www.bicyclebrittany.com/hinault.htm)

Or Merckx

Merckx (http://townsleyb.members.beeb.net/procycle/merckxe.htm)






Why? Because the route of the tour has become progressively harder over the years. The average temperatre fo the race has increased, the distance per stage has increased. The roads are more dangerous with more spectators and vehicles, more people using the tour as a political staging ground. etc etc. The tour today is harder than it was in the days of Merckx. There's also more high quality competition.

Again you are comparing apples with oranges. Don't you get the point that it's relative to standards existing at the time each champion was at his peak? That's the whole point and fun of an argument like this. You can't compare them like for like


and there's the drug abusers that he has to compete against. was Merckx ever tested for drugs?? No. So we'll never know if he was using them will we..

Low blow don't you think?. Merckx was only better because he was on drugs and (if he was) no one else was. Good argument.




LOL, The experts, the same people who have vested interested in stiring up your emotions with the name Merckx, the exploits of the ancients. Spare me their drivel. Cycling is a sport, The Tour is a race. As tme goes by rider get beter and better,Lance is now the leader of these new and improved cyclists. Live with it. In time omeoneelse will take teh crown and the cycle begins again.

Yes, the experts. Hmm. Maybe you would take the opinion of a certain 4 time winner of the TdF. An American, so that narrows it down.

Armstrongs opinion on the greatest champion (http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=2711)

He has a vested interest in promoting Merckx of course doesn't he? Or maybe he doesn't fully understand the way pro racing has changed like you do?

Can you live with it?







How do you establish who the bestgolfer is. It is hardly a taxing physical exercise. I know I play most weekends. However the sport of golf has also changed but the technology availbale has been there for all at the same time so individual skill on the day usually wins a tournament.
I would not wnat to try and establish which of those you mentioned is better, they're all great. Interesting you only mention only white golfers. I thought Tiger Woods was generally regarded as the best golfer out there.

At least we agree on the point that the technology is available to all. Surely results in golf matter, or why is it so important to mention Majors?

I mentioned two historically recognised giants of the sport, and Ernie Els, who happened to win the Scottish open this weekend and so was fresh in my mind. Woods is the best Golfer out there at the moment (I would think). Do you want to start a discussion on whether he is the greatest of all time.? :D




drivel again. In my book a rider who succeeds against stronger and more capable peers is a better rider than one who succeeds against invalids.
Lance is currently succeeding against the fittest riders ever to have competed in the tour, thus making him the best rider in history. Now I challenge you to prove that the current crop of riders are not the fittest ever to have competed.

Can't answer that, of course they are fitter.

But hey me, a lot of others (including Lance) are of the opinion that the greatest of them all was Eddy. I can live with the fact that you disagree.

It's been fun and I've enjoyed it. If you are ever over in my neck of the woods I look forward to riding with you. I think we'd have some good discussions (particularly as both of my bikes are custom built from 531 and one of them dates from the early 60's and I see from your other posts that you really love old steel)

But as I only tour (I only time trialled occassionally when younger) you'll have to promise not to put the hammer down.

:beer:

geez this is getting ugly...

here's my two cents... if merckx had access to the coaching knowledge, nutrition knowledge, superior equipment, team support that Armstrong had, he would probably have taken full advantage of it.... and become a better rider than Armstrong. And I'm talking about better as an all-around cyclist, not as a Tour rider.

I agree with what was said earlier about peaking.... Armstrong basically peaks only for the tour... Merckx was out to win every race he was in... so his training was sub-optimal for the tour... and yet he still won.

I do see your points, all I'm really trying to get through to you is that it is futile to compare champions of the past and the present because there is no common basis.
Results are driven by different agenda's. In trhe old days the rider rode as many races as they coulkd because they received starters money, ie a finacial reward for just showing up.
Even back then riders recieved more money for the tour than for any other race.
i don't know if starters money is still in practise. My understanding of the riders salary structure is that they receive a salary from the team, %prize money for position and sponsors endorsements.
That is a signiifcant change on the motivation for riders. It means they can decide which races they want to competeand are not driven to enter every race so maximise their earnings.

I also understand yur points on performance relative to their peers. However cynically twisting my ideas to suit your arguement is not on.

Lance has said that he ranks Merckx as the best that ever lived, but why would he say that of himself. History may record him as the best irrespective of lower number of race wins because the drivers have changed.


I hope you don't play tennis because surely you would miss the ball as you obviously have missed the point. You say that is harder for Armstrong because everyone else is fitter. So you compare riders of today, with riders 10 or 20 years ago simply on the basis of fitness. My point has nothing to do with that comparison. It's based on how one rider has dominated his peers. Don't you get that? It is no harder now for someone to rise above the rest in relative terms than it has been in the past.

Relative fitness is part and parcel of the entire concept of racing. If you're not significantly fitter than your peers then it's going to be harder to totally dominate them is'nt it?!
So even though you are not comparing hteir fitness but their domination of others, It' their fitness relative to their peers that enable this domination is it not?!
Does the car with the most fuel efficient engine not go further at Le Mans?

SO in fact it is plausible that Lance is competing in a more competitive era and is still the fittest and strongest rider amoung them irrespective of Palmares.

It sounds to me that you are basing your insistance that Merckx is the greatest purely on the fact that he has the best CV. I'm very sorry but I don't subscribe to that tradition. I think it's flawed.
Stating that Merckx is the best is a very traditional stand point, indicative of the mentality that exists in road cycling (which I don't enjoy). The results say so there fore it must.
By similar mentality, Juan Manual Fangio must be the greatest race driver that ever lived simply because he has a higher wins per race ratio than Alain Prost, and has more world championships
Of course this does not account for the fact that Prost had to face stiffer competition, drive vastly more powerful cars of varying types (turbo and non turbo charged), and had to cope with 10 times more set up parameters than Fangio ever did.

You can choose your cirteria for whose best, but I have mine. You refuse to even entertain the idea that Merckx may have had it easy by having opposition of lower quality and that to me is where your arguement suffers.

Everything is relative yes, but that still is not a good enough criteria to establish whether Merckx is better than Armstrong. T o do so you have to measure their opposition at the time as well. Could Beloki be better than Zoetemelk? Who generated more power? Who had better bike handlng skills. Who was better at getting the right team behind them.

In my mind (and perhaps this is my dilusion) Armstrong is a better rider than Merckx ever was, whether the Palmares says so or not.

Originally posted by TimB
I do see your points, all I'm really trying to get through to you is that it is futile to compare champions of the past and the present because there is no common basis...

In my mind (and perhaps this is my dilusion) Armstrong is a better rider than Merckx ever was, whether the Palmares says so or not.

So yeah... that means this is the end of the argument.... LOL everything is pure conjecture.... and all of us can only guess at what Armstrong would have been like in Merckx's era.... or what Merckx would have been like if he raced today.

tim b vs. chewa. both have good points, but neither has the competition from other posters to push them nor are maxing out on all the technology the internet has to offer.

i'd like to see if armstrong pushes himself if they didn't have the $$$ of today. that is the real question that hasn't been raised.....it's all about the benjamins!!

Hey Tim,

Don't get me wrong, I can see your point. I'm not basing my support of merckx and other on their CV's but on the fact that they raced all of the big races and didn't specialise. His fitness was so much greater than the others at the time, just as Armstrong is now but his attitude and control was also the key

I still don't see how you can come up with the view that Merckx was effectively racing invalids or racers of lower quality. The guys he was racing were the fittest at the time, just as in the future, when my niece is the first woman to win a combined TdF, the current peloton's fitness will be nowhere near hers. :D

That's where we have our major difference of opinion. The standard of fitness of the peloton now is higher than that in years gone by, but the pros the old guys raced again were just as competitive in their day as they are now.

By the way, as a scot I think Jackie Stewart was the greatest driver, closely followed by Jim Clark. The professor (Prost) a close third.


Can we agree to disagree? :thumbup:

:D I would agree with your F1 driver ranking, and yes we can agree to disagree:beer:



I'm not basing my support of merckx and other on their CV's but on the fact that they raced all of the big races and didn't specialise.

I think the specialisation thing is something that has resulted from modern sports science showing that by going and tryingto win everything is not the best way to a long and healthy career. Also Team tactics and sponsors requirements play a role here. They were not a problem in the 1970's. The sport has changed and thats why I discard buying into that doctrine.
I too fall into romanticising the past era's but at the end of the day, most club riders are better than a lot of the pro's that were around back then. The level of the sport has raised that much.


I still don't see how you can come up with the view that Merckx was effectively racing invalids or racers of lower quality. The guys he was racing were the fittest at the time,...

I apololgise if i have given the impression that they were invalids, they were not. In my view they were just not as maximised in their potential as he (merckx) was. Today Lance races against more riders who are maximised in their potential. ANd this is related purely to training methodology, biokinetics and other advancements in sports science. Of course genetics has a lot to do with it but i won't go down there for fear of starting another page

and in closing, i bid you good day

:beer:

This question has to be asked again in 30 years. Nobody ever believes the "current" top guys are ever "the best". That comes from tradition and lots of stories. It's the same in F1, hardly anybody talks about Schumacher being the best driver, he's ranked highly but everybody talks about people who drove cars 10-20-40 years ago.

Andrew

In response to PALMARES,PALMARES,PALMARES....as if they don't matter.

To take that attitude removes any legitimate analysis...ie: Juwon Howard is the best basketball player ever!! After all he won the NCAA championship and outscored M.J. in a game once....Eddy M. is one of the most dominant athletes in any sport in the modern sports era...I agree we cannot completely compare then and now but I will tell you this....based on their Palmares M.J. is a better player than Juwon.

Now don,t have a coronary....Armstrong...comparitively speaking is no Juwon either...I know that.

I would bet that if you asked 100 of the most knowledgeable cycling experts...ex racers,officials,commmentators, etc. you would get 80-90% that would pick Eddy...and don't ask a bunch of us yanks who just learned what a peloton is or don't even know...hehe

Palmares has their place in categorising an athletes performances.However there are greater things to consider than just stats.
It does help to seperate the great from the also rans but to try and separate the greats across 30-40 yrs is impossible.

Each of those men who have won the tour 5times are great in their own right.
I for one do not think that Merckx was the greatest. I believe Sean Kelly was greater. Have a look at his Palmares. The man raced till he was 38, won more ponts than anyone in history. Pity he did'nt win the tour. Why is'nt he up there. He was'nt a specialist either, He just could'nt climb.

Palmares has it place, but in the end it's just numbers and cold recorded data. It's the memories that determine who is great.

Merckx was greatest rider in the history of the sport. He won almost one out of every 3 road events he entered. That was and still is a singular accomplishment. Noone can be classed with Merckx.

In fact, cycling is one of the only sports that one can look at and say that one man was so completely dominant that there is no question or uncertainty as to whom that is. Boxing-was it Ali or Marciano?, Track-was it Jim Thorpe or Jesse Owens?, Soccer-was it Pele' or Maradonna(sic), on and on and on.

Sean Kelly raced longer than Merckx and had 1/3 the victories. Rik Van Loy raced longer than Merckx and has the most victories besides Merckx, and he has 2/3 of the victories.

Merckx won every type of event over and over and over. Sean Kelly, one of my faves, won the Vuelta, no other Grand Tours. Sean could climb. You don't win Paris-Nice, the Vuelta, and the Tour de Suisse if you can't climb. But, like Jalabert and Boardman, he could not climb the high mountains.

Armstrong would never compare himself to Merckx.

Merckx was the greatest rider in the history of the sport. He is also one heck of a nice guy. All you have to do to realize that is look at the smile on Axel's face when he is with his father. Merckx is most importantly truly a great man.

If it's the memories that determine who is great, my memory is not so dim nor faint as to forget or minimize the accomplishments of this great athlete.

Originally posted by don d.
Soccer-was it Pele' or Maradonna(sic),

Geez, I didn't even know she played Soccer.
Was that before or after she lost the oscar for
Evita?

Marty

Originally posted by don d.
Merckx was greatest rider in the history of the sport.

Yup - no question.

Originally posted by lotek
Geez, I didn't even know she played Soccer.
Was that before or after she lost the oscar for
Evita?

Marty

Madonna was never nominated for an Oscar for her role in Evita. Can't lose something you're not in competition for. "Evita" did win the Oscar for Best Song, sung by Madonna.