Professional Cycling For the Fans - Lemond or Armstrong?

I vote Lemond. He should have won the Tour six times. The first time would have been the one before his first--he was stronger than Hinault, but was H's domestique, so he had to help H win. Then he missed out 2 years in the middle of his run because he was shot. Also, he won other races like the spring classics and the Worlds, instead of just focusing on the TdF. He was a better all around rider.

Armstrong. Not just the greatest US cyclist, but the greatest cyclist of all time IMO.

Greg Lemond should have, could have, would have... Armstrong did.

I also happen to believe that Greg LeMond doped, & its a fact Merckx was guilty of doping, just not EPO. So Armstrong tops them all.

Dear god, not again. There's a thread on this already. Look before you post!

I vote Lemond. He should have won the Tour six times. The first time would have been the one before his first--he was stronger than Hinault, but was H's domestique, so he had to help H win. Then he missed out 2 years in the middle of his run because he was shot. Also, he won other races like the spring classics and the Worlds, instead of just focusing on the TdF. He was a better all around rider.

Don't forget that Armstrong did win the World Championship road race, the Fleche Wallonne, as well as the Classic of San Sebastian in a 2 up break with Laurent Jalabert. My vote goes to him.

Should have, could have, would have, but didnt do it! Lance Armstrong did.

So be it!

apples/oranges. fbow, armstrong has definitely helped to usher in the era of
ultra-specialization in cycling. between the money, sponsor demands and
(unintentionally) the pro tour, the days of seeing a lemond, merckx, hinault,
kelly and even a young, pre-cancer armstrong competitively contest all types
of road racing/parcours throughout the year are but history. doesn't come as
a surprise; sporting pursuits/talents have gotten increasingly specialized in many,
if not all sports.

fwiw, mano a mano in their primes, armstrong may have beaten lemond uphill but
lemond would be much more entertaining to watch.

Why not. I may as well cast the inevitable "Merckx" vote. :p

LeMond rode with character, panache and verve. Armstrong has made bike racing into a two-wheeled version of a trip to Wal-mart ::: corporate, bland and boring.

Easy, Greg L.

Lancelot Link hands down.

Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp!
He stands for justice.He has no fear.
He's the agent to call when trouble is near.
Lance Link, ya gotta come through.
Everybody at APE is countin' on you!
Here's Marta Hairi, an agent and friend.
She sticks by his side right to the end.
Darwin is the leader on the side of good.
He traps CHUMP agents like a good ape should.
Lance Link, whatcha gonna do?
You've gotta stop CHUMP now. It's up to you.
Here's Baron Von Butcher. You better beware.
He's evil and he's cunning and he don't play fair.
He's got an evil chauffer. Creto's his name.
Dragon Woman's lovely, but she's wicked all the same!
Lance Link, whatcha gonna do
When mad Dr.Strangemind comes up to you?
There's Ali Assassin, Wicked Wang Foo
And the Duchess whose looks can really fool you.
Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp!
He stands for justice, he has no fear,
He's the agent to call when trouble is near.
Lance Link, whatcha gonna do?

I have to agree...Lancelot Link was the most witty and smartest of them all - you can't really argue that, now can you?

Why not. I may as well cast the inevitable "Merckx" vote. :p

Merci! and would many actually be aware of the race if not for Merckx? You don't even have to know a lot about the Tour de France but if his name comes up you instantly tie them. He IS the Tour de France and the best legend I know of in cycling.

Of course, I failed to count Sheldon but I think it's understood as to exactly what I mean.

I have to agree...Lancelot Link was the most witty and smartest of them all - you can't really argue that, now can you?

Don't try to monkey around with that fact either!

I vote Lemond. He should have won the Tour six times. The first time would have been the one before his first--he was stronger than Hinault, but was H's domestique, so he had to help H win. Then he missed out 2 years in the middle of his run because he was shot. Also, he won other races like the spring classics and the Worlds, instead of just focusing on the TdF. He was a better all around rider.

Lemond never won a classic- and your opinion about the '85 tour is speculative.

Lemond was lucky in 89,Fignon had the wrong wheels in the final TT.As he went through Paris the cross winds nearly knocked him off his bike,so he had to slow down and lost a lot of time.Ok Hinault and Fignon were better cyclists than the fat german so Lemond had more competition.

But Lance Armstrong is much toughter mentally than Lemond ,and thats why he wins the head to head.

The biggest thing going against LA is that the field of rivals he faced seemed weaker than others before.

Let's not lose sight of what's really important here. Lance's lawyers are far superior.

Seven (7!) TdF victories, back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back! Lemond never came close to achieving that. So Lemond wasn't the team's top rider... cycling isn't all about legs. Lemond was great, but Lance... Lance is awesome.

The slag against Lance is that he brought the Wal=mart-ization of cycling. He was much more exciting pre 1999 - with each passing year there was a wider brush of vanilla pablum painted across a race that was once very thrilling.


Lance in the Leadville 100 for the first time was more exciting than the last 4 TDF rides.

As a caveat, I am a Lance fan. I enjoy watching him win. He uses every tool in the tool box, from team composition, strategy, tactics, power and intimidation. He is camera savvy and an incredible businessman. However, I was a Lemond fan first.

Greg Lemond won in 1986 racing against Hinault and probably all of Europe. He was the classic underdog in 1989 and he dug deeper than any rider I have seen since to win that race. He won against at three TdF winners in the Peloton; Delgado 2, Fignon x 2, And Roche. He proved to the world that you needed more than bull-horns and good hair to win a time-trial and a stage race. In 1990 he won again, in the WC jersey. What curse?

Greg Lemond brought cliplesss pedals, oakley, aero, carbon , and Ti to professional cycling and ultimately to all of us.

1989 was the first TdF I watched, and I have been hooked on cycling ever since. For that Greg gets my vote.

Lemond, against all odds ran the gauntlet, virtually alone and broke through with personality, strength and desire. You might compare him to the 1980 US Hockey Team, but he kept on winning and winning.

Armstrong harnessed an organized assault on the TDF reducing it to its component parts, then addressing each of them, with team and individual prowess. Was it boring when Porsche won Le Mans 7 years in a row in the '80's? No Way, they had a plan for excellence and executed it repeatedly.

I love both of these guys because they excelled where Americans were given little respect. They finally gave the sport I follow some credibility here in the US.

:')

Definitely Armstrong.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/28/20060109012012!Neil_Armstrong_pre_Gemini_spacesuit.jpg

Lance.
Not only in racing (let's face it, Greg being able to win 6 TdF's is totally speculative), but in verbal battle too. While Greg throws insult after insult, hoping for it to stick to something, Lance is able to remain calm and let Greg lose his reputation. Lance keeps the higher ground and doesn't indignify himself with a fight. If they both got into it verbally, nobody would look good.

That's what I like about Lance. He's physically superior and mentally superior. Like him or not, you'll agree with at least one of those statements.




And I also happen to believe that Greg doped, just not with EPO.

Both of these guys are great for the sport. I started my cycling with following LeMond, Phinney, Grewal, Carpenter (Tyler's Mom and Davis' SO) and many others that my old mind can't bring out front right off the cuff.. But I like 'em all.

However, just the other day I was telling my wife that if I had the chance to sit down to dinner with just one of these two, I would have to choose LeMond. I just really think that he would actually be interested in talking with me and would give "me" some time. Lance would do it if he was supposed to, but I really don't think he would remember who I was as he left the room. I really think Greg would.

I have some linkage to high-end athletes, and I can tell you that the press can create and destroy reputations almost at will. Is Greg the bad-boy that is presented because he questions some of the LA press clippings? Maybe, but also he may be taken out-of-context many times.

So, my ramblings say I vote GL, but it's a close one. Lance has accomplished so much, and after that terrible run with the cancer, how can anyone questions that... But Greg has had a tough time too. I just like LeMond's personality and that he was really the first and helped pave the way for Lance and other's from our great land.

Viva la USA!!!! Go Lance in 2010!!

Lemond - because Armstrong rode (rides) a Trek.

I don't take what Armstrong did for granted. However, Lemond was a much more complete cyclist. Lemond, at his absolute peak, is unrivaled. There is no doubt in my mind he would've won more Tours if not for bad luck (getting shot by brother-in-law) and having to ride for Hinault.

Lemond is supposably going to be speaking at my school this spring....wish it was Armstrong instead

It's kind of like asking " who was a better driver, Fangio or Schumacher?" Each competed on different eras of their sport. One also raced sport cars and one specialized. Both were great, as with Lemond and Armstrong.

I grew up watching Merckx, although I was not a real fan back then. It was Greg LeMond who stoked the fires for me and got me hooked, although I was never a serious rider. I rode then, and still ride for recreation and exercise. Both of these men are wonderful riders and I do not believe that you can fairly compare eras in any sport. Having said that, I give my nod to LeMond but I have enormous respect for both. Speculation aside, I believe GL would have won at l;east 2 more TdFs.

Cheers,

Brian J.

I believe GL would have won at l;east 2 more TdFs.Agreed.
1987 & 1988

I vote Lemond.


Greg you're still trolling BF?

Do you really care? LeMond paved the way for Americans, like Lance, to ride in Europe. But, a bigger question is, why doesn't America, with all our wealth, take over professional races. We have the Sierras, Rockies, Cascades. World-class terrain. The highest town in Europe, Davos, is 5000 feet. The highest town in America, Leadville, is 12,000 feet. Our highest-altitude passes beat Europe's highest-altitude passes. Our hardest climbs beat Europe's hardest climbs.

If you love Lance, tell him to put a couple million down (with contribution from Greg), to create the TdWorld championship. Here. In America.

But, a bigger question is, why doesn't America, with all our wealth, take over professional races. Here. In America.

Because the sport is bigger in Europe & nothing America has to offer will ever be as big as the Tour De France, France being the most popular tourist destination in the world.

Lance.

Lemond - because Armstrong rode (rides) a Trek.

I thought Lemond's were made by Trek.

I was watching Cash Cab the other day and the question was which TDF winner was shot while hunting and then made a comeback. The couple answered Lance, the host said Lemond, they looked perplexed.

Lance.

Two different eras, u can't compare them. Merckx was great but it is true too that Merckx ran the whole season back to back even small races, Armstrong runs only a few times per year and that's it, always focusing in the TDF.

Lemond? was great that nobody can deny that but u can;t compare him with Armstrong because are two different eras of cycling. Sadly i believe it was true that we was forced to pull back due to politics. In profesional cycling back in the day u had a star and everybody was running for him no matter how many chances to win u had. I know that because of my personal experience in europe for 1 season. And it sucks. I still remember the last world cup Hinault ran just before his retirement, a couple of guys of the french team basically towed him because he was not even to keep up with the group. Thats was the mentality back in the day and i dont know how the situation have changed, Lemnond got the bad luck to get into the middle of french team arss politics in my opinion.

Armstrong got the luck of running all the time with non french teams and that makes some differences, the other situation is that Armstrong is famous for having an attitude for saying the least. And that could have helped him a lot during all this years...

As i said before u cant compare them, both are darn good... Oh just in case greg was junior road world champion if im not mistaken he got the adult wc also. But who was better who knows... they never ran together in a hand by hand.

Lemond!

Why not. I may as well cast the inevitable "Merckx" vote. :p

Time and space have a huge affect on who gets to be top dog... ?.. Had not years gotten in the way, how would a competition between Merckx and Armstrong panned out.. Does it really matter. ?. It's only a matter of shaving seconds off of their many races.

The highest town in America, Leadville, is 12,000 feet.

Hardly. Leadville is 10,500. But I agree with the terrain thing. We have climbs in the sierra's that match, rival, and stomp most if not all the Alp's climbs. Onion Valley Road (imagine a giant crowd with a peloton knifing through on those switchbacks!), Mt Evans in Colorado would be a neat stage finish. And what is considered the hardest road climb maybe on earth is in New Hampshire on Mt.Washington. Start the event in California with a prologue and a few stages, hit the Sierras and creep east through the rockies and plains. do a penultimate stage on mt washington or brasstown bald and end with laps around Washington D.C. (just daydreaming i know.)

I don't take what Armstrong did for granted. However, Lemond was a much more complete cyclist. Lemond, at his absolute peak, is unrivaled. There is no doubt in my mind he would've won more Tours if not for bad luck (getting shot by brother-in-law) and having to ride for Hinault.

Just when was his absolute peak? It can't be when Hinault was still riding, and winning the closest TDF ever hardly seems unrivaled either. So is it his very last TDF win year?

Because the sport is bigger in Europe

^^^ True


& nothing America has to offer will ever be as big as the Tour De France,

^^^Opinion


France being the most popular tourist destination in the world.

^^^ not true

Agreed.
1987 & 1988

I am not so sure he would have beaten Stephen Roche in 87.Lemond was very lucky to win in 89 as well.Lemond might have had more natural talent but having a higher vo2 max does not make him a better cyclist.

Armstrong all the way. Not just the greatest US cyclist, but the greatest cyclist of all time IMO.



And that opinion destroys any credibility you could hope to have. It's simply impossible to make any case that Armstrong even approaches Merckx.

Not only are Merckx's palmares an order of magnitude above Armstrong. The manner in which he dominated races is unmatched.

Eddy Merckx
(Other significant victories: World Amateur Road Race Champion, 1964; winner of 17 Six-day races)
1966 Milan - San Remo
Trofeo Angelo Baracchi, with Ferdi Bracke
1967 World Pro Road Race
Milan - San Remo
Flèche Wallone
Ghent - Wevelgem
Trofeo Angelo Baracchi, with Ferdi Bracke
2 stages, Giro d'Italia
Critérium des As
1968 Giro d'Italia
KoM, Giro d'Italia
Points Competition, Giro d'Italia
4 stages, Giro d'Italia
Tour of Catalonia
Tour of Romandy
Paris - Roubaix
Tre Valli Varesine
1969 Tour de France
KoM, Tour de France
Points Competition, Tour de France
5 stages, Tour de France
Paris - Luxembourg
Milan - San Remo
Tour of Flanders
Liège - Bastogne - Liège
Paris - Nice
4 stages, Giro d'Italia
Super Prestige Pernod Trophy
1970 Tour de France
KoM, Tour de France
8 stages, Tour de France
Giro d'Italia
3 stages, Giro d'Italia
Paris - Nice
Tour of Belgium
Paris - Roubaix
Flèche Wallone
Ghent - Wevelgem
Critérium des As
Super Prestige Pernod Trophy
1971 Tour de France
Points Competition, Tour de France
4 stages, Tour de France
World Pro Road Race
Milan - San Remo
Liège - Bastogne - Liège
Tour of Lombardy
Frankfurt Grand Prix
Omloop Het Volk
Paris - Nice
Dauphiné - Libéré
GP du Midi Libre
Tour of Belgium
Super Prestige Pernod Trophy
1972 Tour de France
Points Competition, Tour de France
6 stages, Tour de France
Giro d'Italia
4 stages, Giro d'Italia
Milan - San Remo
Liège - Bastogne - Liège
Tour of Lombardy
Flèche Wallone
Giro dell'Emilia
Giro del Piemonte
GP de l'Escaut
Trofeo Angelo Baracchi, with Roger Swerts
Hour Record - 49.431km
Super Prestige Pernod Trophy
1973 Giro d'Italia
Points Competition, Giro d'Italia
6 stages, Giro d'Italia
Vuelta a España
Points Competition, Vuelta a España
6 stages, Vuelta a España
Paris - Roubaix
Liège - Bastogne - Liège
Grand Prix des Nations
Amstel Gold Race
Ghent - Wevelgem
Omloop Het Volk
Paris - Brussels
GP Fourmies
Super Prestige Pernod Trophy
1974 Tour de France
8 stages, Tour de France
Giro d'Italia
2 stages, Giro d'Italia
World Pro Road Race
Tour of Switzerland
Points competition, Tour of Switzerland
KoM, Tour of Switzerland
3 stages, Tour of Switzerland
Critérium des As
Super Prestige Pernod Trophy
1975 Milan - San Remo
Tour of Flanders
Liège - Bastogne - Liège
Amstel Gold Race
Catalan Week
2 stages, Tour de France
1 stage, Tour of Switzerland
Super Prestige Pernod Trophy
1976 Milan - San Remo
Catalan Week
1977 1 stage, Tour of Switzerland


Only thing Armstrong has on Merckx is 7 TDF's to Merckx's 5. However, if the record had been 7 TDF's and Merckx wanted to win 7, he likely could have. In Merckx's era, the TDF was not the be all, end all, that many riders treat it as today. In 1973, Merckx elected not to ride the TDF in favor of doing a Giro/ Vuelta double. Being punched by a spoectator may have cost hima another TDF. And Merckx has 11 Grand Tour victories to Armstrong's 7.

When Armstrong wins the Green, Yellow, and Polka dot Jerseys in the same TDF, wins all 3 major tours, wins 5 Milan San Remos, wins more classics than you can shake a stick at, sets an Hour Record, and actually even enters Paris Roubaix, then you might be able to start discussing him alongside Merckx.

Lemond. Won my heart and started me riding. I taped over my wedding tape with TDF coverage of Lemond. Never regretted it, my wife on the other hand, holds a very different opinion!!!

And that opinion destroys any credibility you could hope to have. It's simply impossible to make any case that Armstrong even approaches Merckx.

Not only are Merckx's palmares an order of magnitude above Armstrong. The manner in which he dominated races is unmatched.

Only thing Armstrong has on Merckx is 7 TDF's to Merckx's 5. However, if the record had been 7 TDF's and Merckx wanted to win 7, he likely could have. In Merckx's era, the TDF was not the be all, end all, that many riders treat it as today. In 1973, Merckx elected not to ride the TDF in favor of doing a Giro/ Vuelta double. Being punched by a spoectator may have cost hima another TDF. And Merckx has 11 Grand Tour victories to Armstrong's 7.

When Armstrong wins the Green, Yellow, and Polka dot Jerseys in the same TDF, wins all 3 major tours, wins 5 Milan San Remos, wins more classics than you can shake a stick at, sets an Hour Record, and actually even enters Paris Roubaix, then you might be able to start discussing him alongside Merckx.

Different era's. Apples & Oranges.

Personally, I don't think Merckx would have contested in any of Armstrong's 7 wins & if I was a hater, we could mention the extent of Merckx's doping affairs (which possibly could have been career long).

Even Armstrong will tell you that Merckx was the greatest ever.

As for different eras, all you can do is compare them to their peers. Merckx won virtually everything he entered and totally sominated his peers. Armstrong not so much.

As for doping, both Armstrong and Merckx played on a level playing field with their peers. Perhaps not on the level that some would like to believe. Might watch out for those glass walls.

Even Armstrong will tell you that Merckx was the greatest ever.

As for different eras, all you can do is compare them to their peers. Merckx won virtually everything he entered and totally sominated his peers. Armstrong not so much.

As for doping, both Armstrong and Merckx played on a level playing field with their peers. Perhaps not on the level that some would like to believe. Might watch out for those glass walls.

Years ago I tabulated wins in hte biggest 9 races in cycling (ones with history that have stayed big, thus allowing some kind of comparison between eras). Those are the 3 grand tours, the 5 monuments and the Worlds. 9 events. It is rather startling. More often than not some rider will win 2, one year 3 different riders won 2 of the 9. But winning 3 out of 9 is rare, it has only been done 15 or 16 times. Before Merckx only Fausto Coppi had ever won 4 in the same year. No rider had ever won 3 or more a second time. Merckx won 3 or more 7 years in a row, winning 4 twice and 5 twice.

I looked for other similar feats, several riders had one, few 2. Roche of course deserves mention, he was in fact a lot of why I started. But 2 other riders came up a few times. Fausto Coppi and Bernard Hinault. Coppi is the only rider who ever has (and who ever will) win all major jerseys in any 2 of the grand tours (TDF and Giro). It is harder now as there are 3 instead of 2, but then it was easier before Coppi as in the early years there was only one jersey in each tour. Hinault is the only rider ever to win each of the Grand tours in his first entry. I do not expect to see that matched either. (Hinault is also the only rider to win either the Worlds or Paris Roubaix and a Grand Tour in the same year more than once except for Merckx. Hinault did it twice, Merckx 5 times).

I don't see any serious way to consider anyone else close to these 3 and unless one overvalues Coppi's lost years Merckx is clearly the top of the 3.

A honking Merckx doing everything under the sun is certainly going to be superior, to a majority clean peleton.

Comparable to a boxer putting steel plates in his gloves.

Its great people put him on a pedestal, but some of his greatness dies with a lot of people due to doping.

I am not so sure he would have beaten Stephen Roche in 87.Lemond was very lucky to win in 89 as well.Lemond might have had more natural talent but having a higher vo2 max does not make him a better cyclist.

Yeah, it's all just speculation, but I do think Lemond would have beaten Roche. As far as luck playing a part of Lemond's '89 victory: Lemond made his luck.