Sincitycycler

After reading this article, I'm definitely sold on the greatness of Eddy Merckx. I'm positive there were no steroids this far back in time, so it was a level playing field.

BTW, I'm not saying that Lance is a juicer, but some of these guys have to be...it's part of modern day sports.

I bet the bike E.M. used weighed twiced as much as these carbon wonders out there now. I know it's hard to compare eras, but Imagine what Eddy could have done with modern equipment like clipless pedals and such!https://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200407/s1162272.htm

Serpico

until recently merckx himself weighed twice as much as most riders

cyclesport had an issue about 3-4 months ago devoted to merckx, I would still try and get a hold of it if I were you.

armstrong was pretty successful on a merckx mx leader, a frame that weighs (if I remember correctly) 6+ lb

some kind of dustup between Eddy and LA a few years ago, was in regards to something lance said about Eddy's son Axel

simplyred

Nothing's 100%...
You can't say Merckx didn't give himself a better chance to win doing something "un-sportsmanlike"...
And Lance is a winner too, and when people win as much as he does, questions of unfairness arise.
Do I think he dopes? Sure, why not.
Do I think he's telling the truth? Sure, why not..
I'll let the evidence show me what's what.

It's ALWAYS difficult to compare past greats with todays... Kinda like:
Could Babe Ruth hit a Randy Johnson fastball? I dunno. We'll never know.
I prefer to keep people in their era, as to not disturb the peace of their greatness. When you start saying "Oh, Wilt is better than Jordan who's better than LeBron.."; people who know Wilt will support him, yaddy yadda... you get it.

They're both amazing, for their time. Let's make sure we recognize them for their greatness WHEN they were great.

Sincitycycler

Iknow what you mean.

Isn't it amazing how so many pro athletes let themselves go once they retire? They probably eat the same as they did when they were young, but aged-induced slowing of metabolism + inactivity = Louie Anderson -like proportions!

I wonder when the last time Eddy hopped on a cruiser bike?

drroebuck

The fallacy of this statement is that Eddy's competitors at the time were riding the same crap he was. The only way to compare riders of different eras (or any athlete, for that matter) is to look at how dominant they were over their respective contemporaries.

531Aussie

Actually, Merckx was a bit of weight weenie: he drilled holes in most of the components on his bike to reduce weight.

We had a feature article of one of his old bikes in an Aussie magazine (I can't find the mag), and I think they said the bike was about 20lbs. I'll try to dig it up

Moochers_Dad

Oh... that's RICH!

The term doping was introduced in 1933; it is from the Dutch word "dop," which means "capsule;" and was originally used in regards to racehorses. It's also the first know usage of the punchline: "rectum?! damn near killed him!"

In 1935, scientists synthesized testosterone to test its anabolic effects. In the 50's steroids became available in the U.S.A. In the 60's it was common for riders to do amphetamines; one test on Belgian cyclists revealed 37% of them used amphetamines. A tour rider dropped dead from them (and alcohol) in 1967. Because of the rampant use throughout the 60's, drug testing of atheletes was instated at high level events. In 1969, Anquetil tells Sports Illustrated "we are obligated to take stimulants." Another Anquetil quote: ""You think you can race Bordeaux-Paris on mineral water? ... You go crazy, you're doped to the eyeballs." Blood doping was invented in 1972. And, in the Tour in 1978, the winner of the stage was caught with a bladder of clean urine under his arm for the testing that followed the stage.

Then onto the 80's where it only becomes more rampant.

Merckx failed a drug test during the 1969 Giro and was suspended although the charges we later dropped. But honestly, I think his secret was he just rode his bike lots. I'm not being sarcastic; looking at his career wins, I can't imagine someone winning all those races by destroying his body with drugs. If Merckx did and if Armstrong does; I hope I never find out.

suntreader

From what I gather, Lance is very clear about Merckx's status as the greatest cyclist of all time. (Hard to argue against that.)

In an interview I saw a few months ago, Lance and Eddy have a close friendship and talk by phone almost every day.

socalrider

Lance is a great rider but, Merckx won everything

His records are just astouding

5 times Tour de France winner (1969-72, 1974) and 35 stage wins. Wore yellow jersey for a record 96 days.
5 times Giro d'Italia winner (1968, 1970, 1972-74) and 25 stage wins.
Vuelta a Espana winner (1973)
World Champion (1967,1971,1974)
Hour record (49.431 km, 1972-84)
3 times Paris-Nice winner (1969-71)
Tour of Switzerland (1974)
7 times Milan-San Remo winner (1966-67, 1969, 1971-72, 1975-76)
Tour of Flanders (1969,1975)
Paris-Roubaix (1968, 1970, 1973)
Liege-Bastogne-Liege (1969, 1971-73, 1975)
Amstel Gold Race (1973,1975)
Tour of Lombardy (1971-72)
Het Volk (1971,1973)
Ghent-Wevelgem (1967, 1969-70, 1973)
Fleche-Wallonne (1967, 1970, 1972, 1975)
Paris-Brussels (1973)
Henninger Turm (1971)
Grand Prix des Nations (1973)

lrzipris

Is there any evidence--besides as-yet unproven allegations, but no hard, scientific or concrete evidence--that Armstrong dopes? Hasn't he repeatedly passed drug screens? As his career winds down, isn't it time to set this debate to rest and give the man his due? As far as I have read, the evidence shows that he's an amazing athlete who trains harder, strategizes better, and prepares better than his competitors, and, with the aid of an equally well-prepared team, has won without using.

elicheez

On the topic of comparing across history, these guys studied the rides that broke hour record over the past 100 years and figured out, based on what equipment each rider had and the conditions they rode in, how much power they put out. They say that the recent riders (including Indurain) put out about the same power, and their times differ by who has the best equipment. The only non-recent rider with that kind of power was Merckx. I take that to mean that, if you throw in the fact that Eddie was riding before modern training and nutrition, he's a cut above the rest.

Here's the article https://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0510.htm

lotek 

I don't know about cruiser bikes, but Eddy was at the Ride for the Roses a few years
back (2001?) along with Lance, Tyler, Big Mig and a few other pro and ex pro riders.
He looked like he had not missed a meal or a six pack, ever.
Eddy at the start of the ride, took off like a scalded cat, looking very much
like the cannibal of old. The current crop of riders, and the ex pros had some
difficulty holding his wheel. Overweight? sure, but THE MAN can still ride.
There was a story in Cyclingnews recently (within past year) and a thread
here about how Eddy lost alot of weight, was on a bike during an organized
ride in Europe looking alot more like the cannibal than he did in the pic you posted.
He states he is back on his bike and riding more.

velocipedio

actually... the picture was of eddy at the eilat triathlon in israel in december...

nick burns

Yup, for the reasons listed above, no comparison can be made. Merckx is the king and until someone can come along and score wins at the rate he did, he will remain so.

ravenmore

Well - the only comment I have is that the sport is much more highly specialized today and I think the competition level is higher.

I think its natural to compare two greats, but you have to consider the sport around them at the time they competed. Its impossible to draw anything but subjective conclusions.

timmhaan

yep. the sport is very different today, much like anything else. with everyone specializing, it's hard for an all arounder to do as well. you have guys that specialize only in time trails, prologs, mtn. stages, one day races, sprints, etc. i doubt we'll see a record like merckx's and even armstrong's matched again.

corysold

Not to say that Eddie was a doper, but for anyone who follows baseball, Tom House, a pitcher of the 60's and 70's admitted to using steroids and such. This a player from and era where everyone thought everyone was on a level playing field, no drugs, turned out not to be the case. If they could use them in baseball I am sure it is POSSIBLE, not PROBABLE, that they were used in cycling.

velocipedio

ummm... they were doping with cocaine in the 1920s. in the "forcats de la route" saga, the pélissier brothers admitted that. tom simpson died on mont ventoux thanks to taking speed. the bottom line is that there has been cheating ever since there has been the sport of cycling: six day racers spiking their opponents' bidons with diruretics and laxatives, fans throwing nails and oil on the roads in front of their heros' rivals, maurice garin [the winner of the first tour de france in 1903] taking a train most of the way to finish the tage to bordeaux in the 1904 tour... this has been a dirty sport since the beginning.

suntreader

Agreed.

It's like asking who is the better quarterback... Johnny Unitas or Joe Montana? Each man dominated his era, but they never played in the same league at the same time, so the only possible comparisons are subjective... and are best discussed over beer and pretzels.

Sincitycycler

Yeha, this really didn't make sense. I gues waht I really meant is that Eddy wouild be competitive with today's riders with the same equipment. Talent is ageless, right?

Dinstee

mmmmm....... beer and pretzels.........

You know, these pretzels of today don't even compare to the pretzels of yesteryear.

celticfrost

hhhhmmmmmmm ----- legs look UNshaven to me.

531Aussie

Johnny Unitas is a real person??!!

I thought he was a cartoon character

Laggard

Dissagree. One can look objectively at the palmares of both riders. Doing so shows who was the greatest ever.

Not that there's ever any question about who the greatest is. By the way, Eddie is the dominate TDF rider of all time also.

celticfrost

I'd say this is a rule I'd agree w/ 99.9 % of the time.

That 0.01% exception to the rule is Merckx IMO --- simply the best ever.