Road Bike Racing - Should lance do it?

I have been reading and hearing lots of people saying that they hope lance doesnt win his 6th because its a mystical record and it shouldnt be broken. I think that if a person can break a record they should bu ti also have a few more questions and id love to open the can of worms :D
1. Do you hope he breaks it? why? why not?
2. Would you consider him one of the greatest..even though he hasnt really raced/won any other races
3. Does he get all the credit?..he has a very good team, some of which could lead there own teams
4. How would you compare his 5 victories againest the others who won 5?

im very excited to see what yall write!

I have been reading and hearing lots of people saying that they hope lance doesnt win his 6th because its a mystical record and it shouldnt be broken. I think that if a person can break a record they should bu ti also have a few more questions and id love to open the can of worms :D
1. Do you hope he breaks it? why? why not?
2. Would you consider him one of the greatest..even though he hasnt really raced/won any other races
3. Does he get all the credit?..he has a very good team, some of which could lead there own teams
4. How would you compare his 5 victories againest the others who won 5?

im very excited to see what yall write!

1.) I would enjoy seeing him win it, but no more than Seeing Jan or Tyler win it.
2.) I think he's great at what he does, but could certainly branch out. Hopefully once his tour days are over he starts riding the classics to actually win.
3.) Of course it's a team effort, and there have been riders in the Postal team that have gone off to lead their own, but he still is the man getting the times needed to win.
4.) Different riders, different time, each has it's own sense of wonder in my opinion.

As to should the record be broken. If he didn't give it his all and held back for the sake of the record, it would devalue it in my opinion. Almost like saying "I could have won 6, but held back for the sake of tradition." The record is made to be broken, and certainly won't devalue the other riders who have won 5.

1. Do you hope he breaks it? why? why not?
2. Would you consider him one of the greatest..even though he hasnt really raced/won any other races
3. Does he get all the credit?..he has a very good team, some of which could lead there own teams
4. How would you compare his 5 victories againest the others who won 5?

1. Yes, I hope he breaks it as I am a fan of his accomplishments. Do I like him personally? Does it matter? I can say he has partially contributed to my renewed interest in cycling.

2. As it stands now, I consider him one of the greatest. If he wins a 6th, I may consider him THE greatest. Certainly the greatest of his era. But, arguing over who is the greatest of all time in almost any endeavor is somewhat pointless. But, it can be fun to debate.

3. I don't think he gets all the credit within the cycling community but the general public gives it to him. Did Jordan get all the credit?

4. On one hand, it's easy to look at Lance at say his 5 were something less than the others because he didn't follow them up with victories in other majors. On the other hand, the TDF is the most prestigious. And it can be argued that in this era of athletes being bigger, stronger, faster etc, that his accomplishments are all the more remarkable.

Good questions - I look forward to other responses.

55/Rad

Do I hope he wins? Yes.

Should he break the record? Yes. Records were made to be broken. Nobody thought that a four-minute mile was possible until Roger Bannister did it. I thought that Bob Beamon's long jump record would never be broken. Once someone sets a record, it sets them up as a target for others. If the record for TDF victories was seven then we might be having a discussion of whether someone should try for the eighth.

I think people make way too big of a deal over a number.
"Mystical record"... come on.
Merckx was great, Anquetil was great, Indurain was great, Hinault was great, and Armstrong is great.


I have been reading and hearing lots of people saying that they hope lance doesnt win his 6th because its a mystical record and it shouldnt be broken. I think that if a person can break a record they should bu ti also have a few more questions and id love to open the can of worms :D
1. Do you hope he breaks it? why? why not?
2. Would you consider him one of the greatest..even though he hasnt really raced/won any other races
3. Does he get all the credit?..he has a very good team, some of which could lead there own teams
4. How would you compare his 5 victories againest the others who won 5?

im very excited to see what yall write!

1. I hope he breaks it. Partially because I'm tired of all the morons that think the others are far better than Armstrong. But I hope to see a good race, and not like 1971 or 1985.

2. I would consider him to be the best Tour de France rider in history, if he won this. Today isn't the same as decades past. None of the other five time winners could have won today with the schedules that they had.

3. I think the whole team thing is overrated, actually. It can be very important... but not necessarily. For example, I think Armstrong could have won in 2002 easily even if he had the worst team. They are a team full of good riders... but GC leaders? Not any stars at all, no (not that that is needed or wanted when you want helpers). I think the best favor that USPS has for Armstrong is just providing a nice, stable team that has great personnel (besides its riders). In the end, Armstrong is the one who has to power his bicycle...

4. I would find his wins to be most similar to Indurain's, except more dominant. Armstrong's tactics were also good compared to the others. (think of the senseless attacks of Merckx and Hinault) Its hard to compare eras. With the way cycling is today, with the level of competition it has, I would say that Armstrong's five were probably harder to come by than the five by the others. But I'd rather just look at each of the rider's in a separate way... all separate times, all separate achievements... and that they all should be appreciated. I don't think that Armstrong winning six should take away from what the others have done.

If he wins number six and I hope he does, he should go for number seven.

If the record wasn't meant to be broken than they should make a rule that after 5 wins you have to stop. But there isn't a rule like that, so he should try to win 6 and I hope he does.

Lance will win 6. He still won't be the greatest TDF rider ever.

1. Do you hope he breaks it? why? why not?
2. Would you consider him one of the greatest..even though he hasnt really raced/won any other races
3. Does he get all the credit?..he has a very good team, some of which could lead there own teams
4. How would you compare his 5 victories againest the others who won 5?

1. I hope he breaks it, yes. It would be great for the sport, more press...more airtime
2. I definantly consider him one of the greatest. Not everyone can win the Tour once, nevermind 5 times. I think he should be more active in the classics yes, but he probably would after his record win.
3. His team is KEY.....they all are in it together and they all deserve a lot of credit. Especially Johan for his tactical genious.
4. I'd say that his first win was a miracle of mind over body because he had just gotten over his bout with cancer. The other four were absolutly fantastic in their own rights. I think that the competition nowadays is bigger, stronger, and most importantly faster, but he has managed to pull himelf through the peloton and past his competitors to win!!!


I WANT 6!!!!

Lance will win 6. He still won't be the greatest TDF rider ever.

You reasoning, out of curiosity? I haven't been following cycling for long enough to form an intelligent opinion, so view this as an opportunity to swing me around to your point of view.

Siggy

Lance's tours were won without a lot of style. Though some may have been close wins, his riding was nevertheless boring. He did just what he had to in order to win.

Merckx won 34 stages. He also won the mountains jersey twice and the points jersey three times.

He also raced from January to October and managed to win 525 other races.

Lance may win more tours, but no one has ever dominated the TDF more than Eddy or Bernard.

Flame away!

Lance's tours were won without a lot of style. Though some may have been close wins, his riding was nevertheless boring.

Merckx won 34 stages. He also won the mountains jersey twice and the points jersey three times.

And before anyone throws out some crap about Merckx's competition being weaker than Lances, remember that when Eddy won in '72, there were 8 past and future TDF winners in the peloton. Last year there were 2. He also raced from January to October and managed to win 525 other races.

Lance may win more tours, but no one has ever dominated the TDF more than Eddy or Bernard.

Merckx winning 525 races has nothing to do with the TDF.

What determines style? Senseless attacks, or calculated efficient tactics?

About the stage wins... I think Armstrong explained it well himself...

from a cyclingnews interview in 2002...

"Q: Last year after the Tour you were asked how you ranked with Anquetil, Merckx, or Hinault. You gave a yes/no answer. How do you feel this year?

LA: A yes and no answer... I think I said last year that in this era of cycling, I don't think there is a patron, or it's possible to have one. The field is too deep. Cycling is different now than it was when Bernard Hinault raced, or when raced Eddy raced, or when Anquetil raced. It's very different. It's not easy to control 180 guys, or when it dwindles to 160 or 150. You be proclaimed the patron, but you can't control them if their team is in need of a stage win, and you say let's take it easy. They're going to attack. They don't care what you say. That's fine; that's sport, and this is big time cycling now. There's pressure from the sponsor, pressure from the team, pressure from the director. We could have Bernard Hinault back in the race, they wouldn't listen to him either. They wouldn't listen to Eddy Merckx. Not in the Tour de France. It may be different in the Giro, maybe in other races, but not in the Tour. "

If Armstrong went for stage wins in the way they used to, the peleton would tear him and his team apart (showing no respect). And again, in today's TDF, you can't put %100 into every stage, because of the level of competition.

I don't think the amount of past or future TDF winners in the peleton is really relevant, because someone has to win the TDF. (someone still wins, even if the competition level is lower)

Merckx got shown up by Ocana, Thevenet, and Poulidor. Armstrong got shown up by Ullrich.

Think anyone is going to win l'Alpe d'Huez by taking over 45 minutes to climb it? Not anymore. The competition is too tough. Its not 1986 ;)

Lance's tours were won without a lot of style. Though some may have been close wins, his riding was nevertheless boring. He did just what he had to in order to win.

Merckx won 34 stages. He also won the mountains jersey twice and the points jersey three times.

And before anyone throws out some crap about Merckx's competition being weaker than Lances, remember that when Eddy won in '72, there were 8 past and future TDF winners in the peloton. Last year there were 2. He also raced from January to October and managed to win 525 other races.

Lance may win more tours, but no one has ever dominated the TDF more than Eddy or Bernard.

Flame away!

For reasons no one except The King will ever know, he decided not to race in the 1972(er, 73) TDF, choosing to ride the Giro and the Vuelta instead. Ocana won the TDF that year. That would be like Lance opting not to ride in the TDF after already winning 4. Noone could explain the rational. Speclation was that he thought Ocana could beat him and was avoiding a humiliating defeat, but that just doesn't jive with Merckx's personality.

Merckx was the greatest rider in every type of road race. He may not have won each race as many times as some other riders, but when he was in the race, he was the man.

And I think that while other riders have shown more "style" than Lance while winning the TDF, their are many that have shown less, Indurain for one, Ulrich for another. Lance has overcome numerous personal setbacks in the TDF to claim victory.

Merckx's victory in all three jerseys, points, mountains, and GC in the 1968 TDF is easily the greatest style victory in the TDF ever.

Ocana won in '73.

Indurain was as boring a winner as Lance is.

And the peloton now is no stronger than it was in the 70s or 80s. Is Thevonet an equal to Ulrich? Probably.

While Lance may win more TDFs, no one has ever dominated the TDF like Eddy.

Ocana won in '73.

Duly noted...and edited. :D

Why not? If he's strong enough, he should go for it.

Koffee

lance armstrong is the greatest ever american tour de france champion...

well... except maybe greg lemond...

but aside from lemond [who could've won six if he hadn't been shot], lance is the greatest ever american tour de france winner!

Here's one to debate - who would be more successful in the others' era - Eddy today or Lance yesteryear?

I'd take Lance in yesteryear. It's not that Lance is/was the better rider - nobody can claim that - it's that the overall competition is stiffer today.

Here's another one - how would Eddy do today given the current technology and training methods? Now, that's scary.

55/Rad

So true... Eddy has the lungs of a horse- and this was WITHOUT the modern technology, top-notch periodization training, and nutrition and supplement availability. The power output he had on a normal stationary bike back in the early to mid-70s would be almost unheard of if cyclists trained without all the advancements we have today. Eddy was amazing (still is, in my book).

Koffee

I have been reading and hearing lots of people saying that they hope lance doesnt win his 6th because its a mystical record and it shouldnt be broken. I think that if a person can break a record they should bu ti also have a few more questions and id love to open the can of worms :D
1. Do you hope he breaks it? why? why not?
2. Would you consider him one of the greatest..even though he hasnt really raced/won any other races
3. Does he get all the credit?..he has a very good team, some of which could lead there own teams
4. How would you compare his 5 victories againest the others who won 5?

im very excited to see what yall write!

1. Yes I hope he breaks it. That accomplishment will speak volumes about his victory over cancer and will hopefully continue to give determination to those who suffer from that disease.
2. Yes, I consider him one of the greatest. He paid his dues, raced many races in his early years. He may not be striving for a World Championship, but every athlete has their own goals.
3. Having watched pretty much all of the last two tours, there is credit being given to his teammates. Lance himself gives credit and rewards. There have been leaders that have left and are stars of other teams. They paid their dues with the Postal team and now have moved on to achieving their own goals.
4. I don't think you can make such comparisons. The technology of the race, the bikes, and the training prevent making any good comparisons. I marvel at the earliest riders, no gears, dirt roads, responsible for their own repairs and so on.

Lance doesn't have the killer instinct that Eddy did. Merckx absolutley refused to lose. It was impossible for him to enter a race simply for the training. If he entered, it was to win. Everytime he was on the bike it was the ultimate pissing contest.

There were probably other riders physically equal to him. It was that amazing killer drive that really put him over the top.

Here's another one - how would Eddy do today given the current technology and training methods? Now, that's scary.

55/Rad
I think the hour record is a real testament that Merckx was just as great of a competitor then as anyone today, without all the specialized training and equipment. It truly would be scary if he had trained the way riders today train, imagine the dominance he would have.

Merckx winning 525 races has nothing to do with the TDF.


Just like Armstrong's 'racing calendar' has nothing to do with him winning the TdF??? :( The fact that Merckx rode, and rode to win, the entire season made the Cannibal's Tour victories extra impressive. This is the point that some are trying to bring across. Not that Armstrong isn't a great cyclist, but one should see things in perspective.



What determines style? Senseless attacks, or calculated efficient tactics?


Road cycling wouldn't be fun to watch, if it wasn't for the adventurous, aggressive, adrenalin-driven riders. Being a champion, in my book, at least requires some urge to prove that you're the best. Not only by taking the overall classification thanks to not losing seconds, but also by directly challenging your competitors in stages (and in one-day races). Some of Armstrong's finest moments in the TdF were exactly about that, and not about calculation.

Imagine how many TDFs Eddy could have won if he hadn't won 520 other races.

1. Do you hope he breaks it? why? why not?
2. Would you consider him one of the greatest..even though he hasnt really raced/won any other races
3. Does he get all the credit?..he has a very good team, some of which could lead there own teams
4. How would you compare his 5 victories againest the others who won 5?


1. No. Some superficial types would then assume this made him a better champion than Merckx, which is laughable. It is a fantastic achievement for him to have won five and I believe he will win at least one more. Unlike some, I think the competition standard in this era is poor, as it was during Indurain's time.

2. If he wins again, he is the greatest TDF winner of them all. I can't argue with that stat........

3. All TDF winners benefit from strong team support. Guys who win without it, like Lemond in '89, have to have a lot of class, luck and friends in the peloton.
Guys who try to circumvent the team conventions (Lemond in '86, Roche in the '87 Giro)risk their reputations.

4. Impossible to devise a formula to compare across the generations. In terms of style and short-term dominance, perhaps Coppi or Fignon were the best? How many would Bartali have won if not for WW2?

Of the five, Indurain was more boring than Armstrong or Anquetil, Merckx was even more aggressive and dominant than Hinault.

In a fantasy head-to-head...no drugs, teams, same training and build-up, no illnesses...........

......how could you look beyond Eddy?

Records are made to be broken. No problem there.He's a legend, but I bet he would even admit- it takes a lot to be a Eddid Merckx. Is he as dedicated as Simpson? Yes, I do hope he goes for 6.

Lance doesn't have the killer instinct that Eddy did. Merckx absolutley refused to lose. It was impossible for him to enter a race simply for the training. If he entered, it was to win. Everytime he was on the bike it was the ultimate pissing contest.

There were probably other riders physically equal to him. It was that amazing killer drive that really put him over the top.

Well I'm definately no expert on the subject, but if you've read anything about LA's early pro racing career, you know that he used to be exactly the same way.......and lost a lot of races because of it. When he learned to control his emotions and race smarter, he started winning big races. It was before my time, but I think Merckx was an amazing athlete. Will probably never be anyone else like him. He was an animal! But I don't think you can really compare racers from decades ago with racers from today. Everything has changed. There's more technology involved. I think Lance has won 5 because he has had the best team and the best team management. They know what they need to do and go out and do it.

Will Lance win six? That's a tough one. It would be totally awsome if he does......I'll just leave it at that. After Tyler's incredible performance last year, I'd also like to see him do well and will be rooting for him as much as Lance this year.

Road cycling wouldn't be fun to watch, if it wasn't for the adventurous, aggressive, adrenalin-driven riders.

Let's see how this statement translates into other sports...


Golf wouldn't be fun to watch, if it wasn't for the adventurous, aggressive, adrenalin-driven players like Phil Michelson. But, for years, Phil has been criticized for his over-aggressive play, his seemingly endless desire to take risks and for never winning the big one. Yet, in his victory in the Masters, he toned it down and combined a conservative and well executed strategy with minimal flash and aggressiveness to take home the green jacket. Was it any less interesting because he combined his head with his body? Not at all - the back nine on Sunday was some of the most spectacular golf to be seen in a very long time. And Tiger was nowhere to be seen.

Now back to cycling...

55/Rad

One thing unmentioned is whether the great unwashed will interfer. Didn't I read that Eddy Mercyx was punched by a spectator and didn't really recover on his attempt to win 6 straight? I wonder if some bicyling fanatic will attempt to ensure Lance doesn't break the record of 5.

One thing unmentioned is whether the great unwashed will interfer. Didn't I read that Eddy Mercyx was punched by a spectator and didn't really recover on his attempt to win 6 straight? I wonder if some bicyling fanatic will attempt to ensure Lance doesn't break the record of 5.



I have been worrying about that myself. It is nearly impossible to screen 100's of thousands of people along several miles of rural roads.

Imagine how many TDFs Eddy could have won if he hadn't won 520 other races.

He said he raced so much to keep his weight down.

Imagine if he didn't race so much... maybe he wouldn't have won any tours, because he wouldn't have been fit.

One thing unmentioned is whether the great unwashed will interfer. Didn't I read that Eddy Mercyx was punched by a spectator and didn't really recover on his attempt to win 6 straight? I wonder if some bicyling fanatic will attempt to ensure Lance doesn't break the record of 5.

You mean like the spectator who caught his visor(?) on Lance's bars, causing him to fall, in last years TDF?

I agree, there should be more crowd control - not a lot, as their presence is such a part of the overall experience - but some measures to help insure the safety of the riders.

55/Rad

I hate this thread. It's still snowing here in the Great White North, and we've got two pages (nigh on three, now) about July. But I'll say this...

Amstel Gold on Sunday. (Ahem!)

Of course Lance should do it. Mystical record/schmystical record. But as bittersweet as it would be, I also wouldn't mind seeing him bumped down a notch on the podium. Make room for der Kaiser. And it sure would be fascinating to watch Big Tex try to accept second place with grace.

You mean like the spectator who caught his visor(?) on Lance's bars, causing him to fall, in last years TDF?

I agree, there should be more crowd control - not a lot, as their presence is such a part of the overall experience - but some measures to help insure the safety of the riders.

55/Rad

Musette. Folks were talking last year about having the Lion of Flanders flag (and others like it) banned from the sidelines of races. After the Leif Hoste (or was it Mengin?) incident at Paris-Roubaix last weekend... we might see that get revisited. Maybe not for Grand Tours. Policing those events is a damn huge undertaking.

The kid with the musette made a mistake, and the timing was crap. The dude with the Flanders flag was an idiot. But you take the stuff out of their hands, and they'll start whacking riders on the back - you know, for encouragement. Then someone'll hit Lance in the kidneys. Imagine the excuses he'd have for Frankie Andreu at the end of a stage. ;) Imagine the excuses for the aforementioned second place to Ullrich.

I have been reading and hearing lots of people saying that they hope lance doesnt win his 6th because its a mystical record and it shouldnt be broken. I think that if a person can break a record they should bu ti also have a few more questions and id love to open the can of worms :D
1. Do you hope he breaks it? why? why not?
2. Would you consider him one of the greatest..even though he hasnt really raced/won any other races
3. Does he get all the credit?..he has a very good team, some of which could lead there own teams
4. How would you compare his 5 victories againest the others who won 5?

im very excited to see what yall write!

1) I don't really care. Either way I think his achievemnets are phenomenal
2) A 5-time winner of the Tour one of the greatest? Certainly.
3) I think those "in the know" know where credit lies - and it is spread out. The general public don't understand how the Tour is won and probably assume it's a solo effort.
4) Were the fields tougher/easier? Hard to say - fact is, to compete in the Tour you have to be pretty amazing. Lance's 5 wins are just as good as anyone else's.

lance armstrong is the greatest ever american tour de france champion...

well... except maybe greg lemond...

but aside from lemond [who could've won six if he hadn't been shot], lance is the greatest ever american tour de france winner!

Greatest American to win....Lance is only the second to ever do it....and he did it FIVE times...it goes without saying that he is the best american to win.....

1. Do you hope he breaks it? why? why not?

I hope he does break it, because Lance is a competitor and athlete without peer worthy of breaking the record. Plus, it'd be a win for American and for American cycling.

2. Would you consider him one of the greatest..even though he hasnt really raced/won any other races

Absolutely. I say he's among the top three Athletes of all time.

3. Does he get all the credit?..he has a very good team, some of which could lead there own teams

If I remember correctly, one of his past teammates is leading a team this year. If that teammate wins this year, your question might be more pertinent, but I think his credit is earned not only for achieving all that he has but doing it as a cancer survivor. Plus, I just cannot imagine anyone disputing that the guy is a complete and utter beast unless you just sick of seeing Lance riding through the champ d'elysee with a yellow jersey. I'm sure most of his distractors are just that.

4. How would you compare his 5 victories againest the others who won 5?

I just got into cycling so I don't have much concept of the history or the other 5-timers, but I think Lance stands out because he was a cancer survivor and because he is an American winning a sport dominated by Europeans.