Road Bike Racing - '93 Indurain vs '02 Armstrong

Putting aside any personal struggles, who was the superior rider?

Not trying to bias anyone, but remember that in '93, Indurain won the Giro and TDF.

Indurain won the Giro, Tour, and finished 2nd at the Worlds.
Armstrong won the Midi Libre, the Dauphine, and the Tour.

If you want to single it out to the TDF... they both won the prolouge, and one long time trial. Indurain had full control over the mountains, while Armstrong dominated the mountains.

Hard to say who was more superior, because they each did their thing, and did it perfectly. Overall, would say Indurain had the more 'successful' year.

If 93 Indurain was placed in 2002, I don't know if he could have gotten the same stats as Armstrong... and the same goes for putting the 02 Armstrong in 1993.

Yeah, let's narrow it down to the TDF. As far as putting '93 Indurain in 2002, I wonder how much things have really changed since then. Yes, the TDF has gotten even more important, but it's arguably an easier race now than in '92.

Yeah, let's narrow it down to the TDF.

Why not? It was the focus on both of their seasons.

Or else we could talk about their performances at LBL which they didn't give a **** about ;)

How is the TDF easier now?

Conventional wisdom has it that the routes of the last few tours have been easier than earlier tours. One things for sure: The overall distance is much less. The '85 TDF was 4109 km. The '92 was 3983 km at 39 km/h. The 2003 edition was 3427 km done at something like 41 km/h.

Conventional wisdom has it that the routes of the last few tours have been easier than earlier tours. One things for sure: The overall distance is much less. The '85 TDF was 4109 km. The '92 was 3983 km at 39 km/h. The 2003 edition was 3427 km done at something like 41 km/h.

The 1992 Tour only had two high mountain stages. The 2003 Tour had about six. Knowing that, the average speed was still higher in the 2003 Tour. Today in the Tour, the race is always 'on'. The peleton doesn't take the days off that they used to.

Every sport is more difficult today than even a decade ago. Athletes are more fit, teams are more competitive.
Cheers

Every sport is more difficult today than even a decade ago.Cheers

Wrongo

Brent, you're going to have to ask some of the experts why they feel the route is easier now. It's been commented on often but damn if I can find the sources. Perhaps the route is easier but the faster speeds make up for it?

All I know is I'm sick of all this crap about how everything is tougher now than back in the day, how Merckx wouldn't even be able to hang with the 2004 peloton, and how athletes today are the 6 million dollar men compared to the cretins racing way back in the day. Hell, those boys had shifters on the downtube!! Coppi even got off his bike once and walked it up a climb! He probably smoked too.

:D :eek: :D

Maybe they have better methods of doping now?

Perhaps this thread is done? I meant it to be nothing more than a critique of two athletes at their prime.

Hopefully Lance doesn't get six and retires.

Sorry.

Wrongo

So sports is easier,athletes are slower,fatter and know less about food and training and the teams now suck?

So sports is easier,athletes are slower,fatter and know less about food and training and the teams now suck?

I'd say they're pretty close to the riders of '91, '92. I'd love to see an early 90s Indurain race against Lance now. It'd be a toss up as to who would win.

Would anyone dare say that the NFL now is tougher than in the 60s?

I am a fan of both Indurain and Lance. Each in his day was/is outstanding. There are (in my opinion) simply too many factors to make this comparison. But, it is an interesting topic.

Would anyone dare say that the NFL now is tougher than in the 60s?

Of course it is. (depending on what you mean by that question. The athletes had to live tougher back then, but the competition level was nothing compared to today)
As time passes, more is learned about a sport... so competetors get better.
Look at auto racing, for a simple example.
Its much easier to get your talent noticed now than it was decades ago.
The likeliness of a potential pro cyclist becoming a pro is much higher than before, as society has changed, the racing has changed, the money has changed... its been said a million times that the gap between team leader and domestique is nothing compared to past decades. A race 20 years ago that would have 5 riders start with a good shot at winning, if ran today, would have 30 riders with a good shot at winning.

If I had to bet my life on '92 Indurain or '02 Armstrong to win the 2004 TDF, I honestly don't know what I would do. Lance has that incredible drive and tactical smarts. But Indurain was an amazing amazing physical specimen. For me, the reason it's such an interesting matchup is because they both won their tours in almost indentical manners. Now, who was the better TT rider? :eek:

Now, who was the better TT rider? :eek:

Heh, depends on what the course is :D

I'd say they're pretty close to the riders of '91, '92. I'd love to see an early 90s Indurain race against Lance now. It'd be a toss up as to who would win.

Would anyone dare say that the NFL now is tougher than in the 60s?

Of coures its tougher today. They would'nt have a chance,not only to compete but hell,alot would'nt even get drafted,come on.

Of coures its tougher today. They would'nt have a chance,not only to compete but hell,alot would'nt even get drafted,come on.

Oh give me a break. Your argument works both ways. A lot of players today would never have lasted on a Lombardi team. Players now are pampered and spoiled. You've got players now who won't play because they have turf toe. :rolleyes:

Oh give me a break. Your argument works both ways. A lot of players today would never have lasted on a Lombardi team. Players now are pampered and spoiled. You've got players now who won't play because they have turf toe. :rolleyes:

It seems that athletes of today are a bit more wimpy than in the past.
But that is irrelevant to knowing that they still have quite more talent than those of the past.

The size of a linebacker today would have been on the O or D line back then. Faster,stronger and bigger. Oh,didnt have fake grass then.

To be honest, I have no clue about the NFL of today or the past. I grew up in Europe, so I know a little more about cycling than football or baseball. I think the sport was always extremely tough, and certain athletes had vastly superior physique that would dominate in any era. However, being competitive today is way more difficult than ever before. Training is scientific now, the equipment is space age, and the media is relentless in sometimes advancing and often destroying careers. This is probably true for any other sport as well, but we should not take anything away from the greats like Merckx and Indurain. The race is what changed over the years, so cyclists have a much more complex task to battle on and off the saddle.

Cheers

Is bigger and faster the measure of talent?

The game has indeed changed. Is anyone willing to say though that there's a QB in the league today better than Unitas or that there's a running back better than Walter Payton?

I guess I'm disturbed by this myopic view of everything today being better than in the past. People make it sound like anything before 1999 was stoneage.

So, who was the better TT rider?

Is bigger and faster the measure of talent?

The game has indeed changed. Is anyone willing to say though that there's a QB in the league today better than Unitas or that there's a running back better than Walter Payton?

I guess I'm disturbed by this myopic view of everything today being better than in the past. People make it sound like anything before 1999 was stoneage.

So, who was the better TT rider?

On a flat course, I must say Indurain was (and would be) pretty muh unbeatable. He was a machine.
On an uphill TT though, I would put my money on Lance.

Cheers