Professional Cycling For the Fans - Revisit the greatest American cyclist debate: LeMond or Armstrong

Four posts after I did.

tcs
Missed it too.

Neither was the same rider after illness.

Neither won as much as they might have.

Lemond never had a decent team riding exclusively for him.

Armstrong's focus was insultingly narrow. Lemond tried to be an all-rounder.

Each changed the sport significantly.

Competition was tougher for Lemond.

Neither was an engaging personality- Lemond the unfulfilled prodigy, Armstrong the resentful Patron.

If Lemond were riding today, he'd win a lot of races. If Armstrong had rode in the 80's............

- Hinault would have eaten his lunch, too!


I vote Sheldon Brown.

Lance has the palmares, but I've always preferred watching Greg's racing. Greg was more of an all-arounder and a more creative tactician. Watch his 1983 Worlds ride to see what I mean.

And the word I'd use to describe Greg's personality is unfulfilled. Most journos, French and English speaking, had no trouble engaging him.

Although, I only started following professional cycling in 1988, I do remember Fignon grumbling during the '89 Tour that Lemond sat back and waited for him to "do all the work." I also remember reading soon thereafter a similar sentiment echoed by Stephen Roche, who said something to the effect, Lemond's style of racing was less than spectacular.

As far as the Tour, I have to say that Lance was the more entertaining rider; he rode with more panache.

What about 'who was the most naturally talented'?

I say LeMond.

He won a million races as a junior; nearly won the national TT title when he was very young, and was apparently thwarted by his junior gear restrictions; and was third in his first Tour? Right? Wrong?
As far as I recall, he did more in Europe when he first got there, compared to Armstrong, who 'only' won the Words and one Tour stage.

???? :)

And when it comes to drugs, Armstrong has one retro possitive, and LeMond, nothing ever!!!!

I have to vote Lemond too. My reasons are simple...that TT on a heavier bike...God knows what the speed and time whould have been on a modern machine...

Agreed...LA focused on one race...GL was an exceptional all-rounder...

Tit-for-tat I think if they came up together GL would PROBABLY have spanked the living bejeezuz out of Armstrong.

Personally I respect them both and loathe them both a little. While being exceptional athletes and role models they are also just like us...opinionated and human...which makes them...well...HUMAN. Removing their personal lives and looking merely at their respective carreers in ONLY a narrowly focused athletic accomplishment way...I give the nod to GL.

Although, I only started following professional cycling in 1988, I do remember Fignon grumbling during the '89 Tour that Lemond sat back and waited for him to "do all the work." I also remember reading soon thereafter a similar sentiment echoed by Stephen Roche, who said something to the effect, Lemond's style of racing was less than spectacular.

As far as the Tour, I have to say that Lance was the more entertaining rider; he rode with more panache.


Fignon stopped his "grumbling" after LeMond caught him hanging on to a motorcycle while cracking on one of the climbs.

LeMond never had the sole support of a good team while racing the TdF so he had to follow wheels.

LeMond would've kicked Armstrong's ass. Armstrong didn't even win the Tour until he was almost 28. Because of the shooting and then the introduction of EPO, LeMond's career was on a downward trajectory at that age.

Well I think the drug comment is a little misleading. One retro positive for a test that they never did when LeMond was riding. The advances in both testing and doping have come a long ways, and the two competitors never really faced the same kind of competition when you take that into consideration. I am not trying to belittle either of them, just saying that they really did race in two different eras in regards to pretty much every aspect, and that makes true evenhanded comparison difficult from the start.

As of right now, my vote goes to LA. It is not because of his career, but rather LeMond's exit from his. Just like a former President, a lot of an athlete's reputation and legacy can be determinded by how they compose themselves after they leave their sport and move on to another part of their life. I really don't think LeMond could have done a worse job of this. Even many of his die hard fans have negative opinions of him now solely based off his relatively unqualified and uncalled for comments about other racers. While LA certainly can be an arrogant ass, he has never done anything to rival the bitterness from LeMond.

Disclaimer: LA did some childish things at this year's tour, and it could be a bad indicator of things to come. That is why my vote is for LA right NOW, but he could certainly change that.

I personally believe that if you could put them head to head at thier peak with no PED use. Lemond would beat Armstrong at least 2 out of 3 times. Probably more.

well i think the drug comment is a little misleading. One retro positive for a test that they never did when lemond was riding. The advances in both testing and doping have come a long ways, and the two competitors never really faced the same kind of competition when you take that into consideration. I am not trying to belittle either of them, just saying that they really did race in two different eras in regards to pretty much every aspect, and that makes true evenhanded comparison difficult from the start.

As of right now, my vote goes to la. It is not because of his career, but rather lemond's exit from his. Just like a former president, a lot of an athlete's reputation and legacy can be determinded by how they compose themselves after they leave their sport and move on to another part of their life. I really don't think lemond could have done a worse job of this. Even many of his die hard fans have negative opinions of him now solely based off his relatively unqualified and uncalled for comments about other racers. While la certainly can be an arrogant ass, he has never done anything to rival the bitterness from lemond.

Disclaimer: La did some childish things at this year's tour, and it could be a bad indicator of things to come. That is why my vote is for la right now, but he could certainly change that.


+1

Voted Lemond, he may be a whiner but at least he's not Lance.

When I think of Lemond early in his pro career I think of him winning the Coors Classic and fighting off the Russian National team by himself.. Much like his win in 1989 where ADR was such a lackluster team..

Lemond turned cynical Armstrong took his sucess and raised the awareness for Cancer and is an still very fit. Armstrong wins for lasting impact and is leaving a good legacy. Lemond was a good cyclist period not a great person.

Lance Armstrong's incredible string of Tour de France victories is the high-water mark for American athletes. No doubt. Even without his personal battle with cancer, it makes him the champion.

Greg LeMond's power and heart on the bicycle, and his precedent-setting Tour win for an American, his tortuous struggles with teammate Hinault, his comeback from being shot in the back and, most of all, his bringing his opponent to tears in the best race I've ever seen, makes him the hero.

And ... let's hear it for Major Taylor!
http://www.cbcef.org/img/09-major-taylor-riding.jpg

When LeMond won and then again, and then again... I loved and cherished it. Awesome that an American won! Since then, he can't seem to say anything positive about other riders and assumes everyones taking drugs now (ironic since people were continually being tossed then for drugs). I was very much in his camp, for nostalgiac (sp?) reasons if for none other, but he's systematically destroyed goodwill for himself.

Lance was more narrowly focused on one race, but when it's the most important race on the calendar and the one which gives the most fame and you win it 7 times... in a row... and then comes back after 3 years and comes 3rd? Couple that with his personality and general lack of disrespect for other riders (Contador being an exception), and I respect his achievements more.

From a purely talented respect, it's hard to know which was better in their peak. LeMond has the better TT time, but as someone mentioned earlier, who knows what the conditions were? What was LeMonds competition like then as opposed to now? I think in general the riders of today are stronger and faster than then. Look at the average speed of the peleton. It's a continual march upwards in speed. There were some good racers then, but were they as physically strong or was their endurance as strong? Hard to say with certainty. Sports has shown many advances in terms of training aids, training methods, and sports medicine since then.

Now, if you're asking who was the most influential American riders from a sports perspective, and physical aspects are not counted, LeMond as the first American to win the Tour was more important. For that matter Phinney was potentially more influential than LeMond and while we've all but forgotten him now, Major Taylor was influential for the American track cycling movement (along with others, of course). So, it depends on how we measure greatness, in the end.

There were some good racers then, but were they as physically strong or was their endurance as strong?

Yes. We're talking 1989, not 1929. Also keep in mind that starting in the mid-80s the TDF has gotten shorter. In '87 it was 4,231 km. In 2009 it was 3459 km.

From a purely physical respect... I honestly don't think someone like even the great Merckx in his prime would win a Tour de France today, much less five. And if he couldn't, Anquetil (sp?) couldn't, nor could Hinault. Merckx averaged 38 km/h in 71. His other wins were at an average of 34 and 35 km/h. (Yes, hard to compare because of course particulars and weather). Hinault won two years at the same 38 km/h speed. LeMonds were 37 and 38. From 1991 on, the average speed of the winner has gone from peaking at 37 or 38 to being the norm, to being on the slower side. 2007 was the first time since the 1994 it's dipped below 39 km/h. Generally, they're at 40 or 41 km/h now.

Some of this is equipment, perhaps, but increased popularity and improved training methods have created stronger riders. My feeling is that outside of Merckx, Hinault, and LeMond, no other winners would be able to hang very long with todays riders and even they would be suffering, none to finish on the podium.

Yes. We're talking 1989, not 1929. Also keep in mind that starting in the mid-80s the TDF has gotten shorter. In '87 it was 4,231 km. In 2009 it was 3459 km.


Perhaps in '87 it was 4,231... but in '88 (one year later), it was 3.286 (shorter than in 2009). None of the Tours has been markedly longer since 1929. Since then, all have been less than 5,000 km's. When Merckx was winning, it was never over 4,000 km's, so at least from a distance perspective, they're comparable. The average distance now is roughly the same as when Merckx was racing.

From a purely physical respect... I honestly don't think someone like even the great Merckx in his prime would win a Tour de France today, much less five.

You're doing that thing again where people underestimate the ability of riders "back in the day." It's common with 99ers.

Also, if Merckx were racing today he would have access to all the newest training methods and technologies. No reason why he wouldn't repeat what he did then.

I think he'd be a top echelon rider, I just don't think he'd win. The technology today isn't that much better than then. I have a 1985 Cannondale ST400. The basic frame is still used on some of todays bikes, almost 25 years later. It's 25 years on and at 24 lbs it's not terribly heavier than something like a Trek 2.3, which is 20. I have Shimano everything. Shimano's technology isn't much better. When Merckx rode, he started on Peugot (I believe). Their technology is not much different from today.

I understand the danger of falling into the 'today is better' trap. However, considering advances in sports therapy and training techniques, I think todays riders have advantages and the result of those advantages is slightly stronger and faster riders. I'm talking improvements in the margins, but in a 3 week race, the margins is where it's won.

Proteos: I'm saying that physically and mentally Merckx riding today using todays equipment and training methods is perfectly capable of winning any race. Physically he's no less gifted than an Armstrong or a Shleck.

Proteos: I'm saying that physically and mentally Merckx riding today using todays equipment and training methods is perfectly capable of winning any race. Physically he's no less gifted than an Armstrong or a Shleck.

I understand -- Quite possible. Hard to know for sure, but quite possible.

Proteos: I'm saying that physically and mentally Merckx riding today using todays equipment and training methods is perfectly capable of winning any race. Physically he's no less gifted than an Armstrong or a Shleck.


If Merckx came along in this era, with modern equipment, coaching and training techniques, the same gifts (both physical and mental) that made him a winner in his era would also make him win today.

Given how the game has changed, with more specialization, and more riders capable of winning a particular event, its highly probable that he would not have the overwhelming dominance he had in his era, but he would still be the dominant guy in any era.

As for Lemond versus Armstrong, 7 trumps 3.

And for records outside the TDF, Lemond didn't accomplish all that much more than Armstrong. Moreover, Armstrong's non TDF accomplishments are arguably more impresive, given that Armstrong focused so much on the TDF for most of his career.

Lemond Palmares:

World Junior Road Race Champion, 1979
1983 World Pro Road Race
Dauphiné - Libéré
Critérium des As
Super Prestige Pernod Trophy
1985 1 stage, Tour de France
1986 Tour de France
1 stage, Tour de France
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
Points competition, Tour of Switzerland
1989 Tour de France
3 stages, Tour de France
World Pro Road Race
1990 Tour de France

Armstrong has Flech Wallone, Clasico San Sebastian, a World Championship, Several Dauphines, and the Tour de Swiss, which pretty much matches up with Lemond's non TDF palmares

The idea that Lance was only great in the TDF is the biggest misconception here. Both riders were great in many different types of races. Both won the World Championship (a one-day race). Both only won the TDF as a Grand Tour (not the Vuelta or Giro). Lance actually placed top two in 9 classics (including LBL, Fleche, San Sebastian, Amstel) including a number of vidtories. Both riders were incredible, but I'd have to give the bump to Lance because he kept his high level of excellence over a much longer (and continuing) time period than Lemond.

From a purely physical respect... I honestly don't think someone like even the great Merckx in his prime would win a Tour de France today...

Merckx's Hour Record proves that he had as much power as the pros today.

Merckx's Hour Record proves that he had as much power as the pros today.

Except that nobody really goes for that record much anymore.

Back on topic: LA - 16 years at or near the top of the sport.
1993 UCI World Cycling Champion
Winner of Tour of America
US national Cycling Champion
1994 - Second at Liege-Baston-Liege
1995 - Winner of Tour of America
1996 - Winner of La Fleche Wallone, 2nd Liege-Baston-Liege, 2nd Paris-Niece
1998 - Winner of Tour of Luxembourg, 4th in Vuelta
1999-2005 Tour de France Winner
2009 - 3rd Tour de France

Twice 2nd at Amstel Gold

Can you really say he's obviously second to LeMond?

From a purely physical respect... I honestly don't think someone like even the great Merckx in his prime would win a Tour de France today, much less five. And if he couldn't, Anquetil (sp?) couldn't, nor could Hinault. Merckx averaged 38 km/h in 71. His other wins were at an average of 34 and 35 km/h. (Yes, hard to compare because of course particulars and weather). Hinault won two years at the same 38 km/h speed. LeMonds were 37 and 38. From 1991 on, the average speed of the winner has gone from peaking at 37 or 38 to being the norm, to being on the slower side. 2007 was the first time since the 1994 it's dipped below 39 km/h. Generally, they're at 40 or 41 km/h now.

Some of this is equipment, perhaps, but increased popularity and improved training methods have created stronger riders. My feeling is that outside of Merckx, Hinault, and LeMond, no other winners would be able to hang very long with todays riders and even they would be suffering, none to finish on the podium.

The average speed has is really determined by how fast the peleton goes, not how good the top riders are. When Merckx was riding there were often 2 and at least once even 3 stages in one day.

Except for Time trials average speed is pretty meaningless and even there distance, wind and elevation can be an influence. Not to mention what a rider needs for his GC position.

If the riders today are so much better why haven't dozens of them shattered Merckx's hour record?

Voted Lemond, he may be a whiner but at least he's not Lance.

Then you didn't answer the poll question.

Hint: It wasn't "Which one do you like better?"

:rolleyes:

If the riders today are so much better why haven't dozens of them shattered Merckx's hour record?

Merckx doesn't have the one hour record. Boardman on a standard bicycle does. Actually, several people have better times than Merckx, albeit all but Boardman on aero bikes.

Still, as best American (back on topic), is it influential or strongest? Strongeset? I'd say LA. Influential? I think LeMond kickstarted American interest in the Tour in a way that LA has done, but perhaps was more influential because he was the first to win.

Back on Merckx: Even Armstrong refers to him as the greatest of all time... and Merckx did win the Giro 5 times, the Vuelta once, and Tour 5 times. For those idiots that claim (through hearsay, that LA doped), know that Merckx got caught 3 times doping and was kicked out of the Giro one year for it.

Merckx doesn't have the one hour record. Boardman on a standard bicycle does. Actually, several people have better times than Merckx, albeit all but Boardman on aero bikes.

Still, as best American (back on topic), is it influential or strongest? Strongeset? I'd say LA. Influential? I think LeMond kickstarted American interest in the Tour in a way that LA has done, but perhaps was more influential because he was the first to win.

Back on Merckx: Even Armstrong refers to him as the greatest of all time... and Merckx did win the Giro 5 times, the Vuelta once, and Tour 5 times. For those idiots that claim (through hearsay, that LA doped), know that Merckx got caught 3 times doping and was kicked out of the Giro one year for it.


For the Giro the test is very dubious. Merckx actually faced the problems Lance worries about. Merckx was admitted to the TDF the same year as the Giro Drug test because of irregulatrities in the testing. (It was also on a stage where Merckx had no reason to dope).

Back to the hour. Boardman beat Merckx by a mere 10 meters. If riders are much better today shouldn't there be dozens part that mark? Heck shouldn't allowed improvements in tires and improved friction reduction account for more than that in an hour? But there is a well known reason why any athlete even close to Merckx should be able to beat his record! Merckx originally intended to break the records for the 5k, 10k 20k and hour all in one ride. He eventually decided to not try for the 5k. But still this is like trying to break a record for the mile while breaking the 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile on the way.

And BTW the current record holder is Ondrej Sosenka. Hardly a new record as his effort was in 2005.


Also most of those who think Armstrong doped know a lot more about cycling than you do and are far from idiots. There are lots of reasons to think he doped. There are even more to think he has a great public relations team.

Also most of those who think Armstrong doped know a lot more about cycling than you do


Well, Keith, you broke it! You have the news! Gather around L'Equipe! Keith has the proof you've been looking for all these years! He knows more about cycling than all of us. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

Well, Keith, you broke it! You have the news! Gather around L'Equipe! Keith has the proof you've been looking for all these years! He knows more about cycling than all of us. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

He may not know more than "everyone" but he certainly has you beat.

He may not know more than "everyone" but he certainly has you beat.

I know the rumors and I know the history, but to suggest he has this publicity department and gets a free pass just because he's Lance is ridiculous. The greatest cyclist of all time didn't get a free pass (well, once at the Giro, perhaps). Landis didn't either (even though my stupid self still thinks it's possible he didn't dope). Is it possible Lance really did, yes. Until I see and A and a B positive (which is why they have two), I'll sit around in my ignorant and stupid way and give him the benefit of the doubt, because I'd rather do that than jump on a bandwagon and be a hater, like so many on this forum.

Nobody will ever beat Lemond winning the '89 TdF by 8 seconds, and to this day, that ride is the FASTEST individual TT average speed ever recorded @ the Tour de France.

Damn. Bet this guy (http://www.davezabriskie.com/main.aspx?Page=Bio) feels pretty dumb.

What you do off the bike is part of your legacy, like it or not. Political context, personal morality, cultural background and religion have all helped shape our memories of past champions. Even the media manipulators of today cannot escape that.

If a rider philanders, loses large parts of his career to health and/or political factors, polarises and fascinates the wider public, historians have a right to record it all.

A few comments from someone who started racing in the mid-80's because of Lemond:

1) Zabriskie holds the ITT speed record now. 54.676kph in 2005.

2) Claiming the '99 retroactive tests are proof of LA testing positive is asinine considering all of the issues, including chain of custody, that even the lab won't refute.

3) I'd put Taylor, Lemond, Armstrong and Phinney in the mix.

i have to say LA only focused on the TDF because it is the most prestigious grand tour. if he won the Giro 7 times it sure wouldnt have had the impact of winning the Tour de France 7 times. idk if its harder im just saying its more prestigious.

I am voting for LA.
and GL did not introduce the world to aero bars. maybe to professional cycling...idk know if thats true...
I know that Dave Scott tested the first prototype in 87 and they were used that year in kona.

History will probably be the best judge. 20 years from now I suspect Merckx will still be considered the greatest of all time and I think Armstrong will be considered the best American. I think the litmus test for road racers is the Tour de France and the bottom line is everything else aside, Armstrong won 7 in a row and LeMond won 3. In the end, that'll be the bottom line.

Since Armstrong has used chemical enhancements, I voted Lemond. But I'm not a fan of either.

Since Armstrong has used chemical enhancements

Citation, please.

Citation, please.

You're joking, right?:crash: