|
Originally Posted by Kommisar89
(Post 8582614)
Yeah, I've always lumped them together too. Hey, wasn't there some great champion that said a good pheasant, a bottle of Champaign, and a bit of time spent with a member of the opposite sex was the best preparation? That sounds a lot better than all that nutritional mumbo-jumbo they preach today...:innocent:
|
I've been thinking about ways to respond some more all day...
But everything I was going to say has pretty much been said. Which is good. It means people understood my question. I know I'll never be as good as even the worst of them, and I know mindless speculation as to who is better or would be better given different circumstances is a war that could be waged throughout eternity. It's still fun to talk about. But, I still think, with the average speeds maintained back then, road conditions, tires, nutrition, gearing, weight, and aerodynamics, that the riders then were stronger and more able to endure than those today, who are undoubtedly more efficient and thus able to go just a little faster, but have it easier to get started and maintain their speed. They can maintain their cadence much easier today because their gearing is suited for twice the environments than they were then (10 speeds versus 20 speeds). I just think that, even with todays proper training, that riders today wouldn't have it so "easy" on a bike 7 pounds heavier and with 10 less gear combinations. That's just me, though. -Gene- |
Gene, I politely agree, but I believe any superiority of old riders would be very subtle. Very subtle.
Let's hope all naysayers will also disagree politely. |
Originally Posted by Picchio Special
(Post 8581436)
The first rider who I think really built their season around the Tour de France was Indurain <SNIP>
|
Originally Posted by tcs
(Post 8582424)
...rode before legions of adoring fans. Major Taylor set world records and beat all comers while many of the race fans screamed insults and other riders tried to sabotage him, all the while knowing there was a 50/50 chance the race promoter would cheat him out of his winnings.
Its very hard to compare riders of different eras. tcs It's funny how this post was pretty much comparing Merckx era racers to the present, and the 30-40 year gap in equipment. But if you think about the bikes being ridden in the early 70's, they were at least as advanced over what was being being ridden in the pre-war era as the bikes of today are over the 70's equipment. So were those guys better that the guys in the 70's? Tougher in certain ways for sure, but not stronger or better racers if you ask me. You C&V guys just need to accept that are some things that are ok about the present:) |
My two cents
Endless argument.....
My view is Archie Moore could have taken Cassius Clay! |
Originally Posted by Picchio Special
(Post 8582671)
My point was that Northern Europeans in particular are taller than they were when Merckx rode, partly attributable to better nutrition during childhood development. I don't think it's a stretch to at least tentatively conclude that if they're growing up taller, they might well be growing up stronger as well, and with more athletic potential. Unless they intend to be jockeys.
As England and Europe from the wreckage of the WWII, the general public health improved and rate of growth of average stature in Europe increased as average stature of North Americans seems to have hit a plateau. Draw your own conclusions. Merckx, born during the tail end of the war, was relatively tall and robust for his era. |
Originally Posted by Otis
(Post 8585754)
You C&V guys just need to accept that are some things that are ok about the present:)
|
Yes, Armstrong won seven Tours, which no one else has done, but he focused solely on the TDF. Merckx won "only" five Tours, but he also won five Giros, and I believe he did win both in the same year, twice.
He did this with technologically inferior equipment and training regimes as compared to today. In my mind, he holds the bar to which other cyclists are measured. |
Originally Posted by lagrassa
(Post 8590304)
Yes, Armstrong won seven Tours, which no one else has done, but he focused solely on the TDF. Merckx won "only" five Tours, but he also won five Giros, and I believe he did win both in the same year, twice.
He did this with technologically inferior equipment and training regimes as compared to today. In my mind, he holds the bar to which other cyclists are measured. -Gene- |
Originally Posted by lagrassa
(Post 8590304)
He did this with technologically inferior equipment and training regimes as compared to today. In my mind, he holds the bar to which other cyclists are measured.
What made Merckx special is that he was a factor in every race he entered. On the other hand, while he could be beaten in any of those races (except, perhaps, his first TdF), he often was not. What made Lance special is that in his specialty, the TdF, he was unbeatable (except, perhaps in 2003). Cycling, like all sports, has become more scientific and professional with more specifically target goals. Just like the corporations that sponsor the teams. |
I always enjoyed reading of the English time trialers back in the 60's. Road racing was banned for some reason and time trialing was the rage. They had 12 hour and 24 hour time trials and set distance as well. And alot of the participants were local guys, farmers, laborers, factory workers. They worked a regular job and then did racing for fun. Some even built their own bikes. I like the fact that the equipment back then was more affordable, (Campy was always pricey), and the regular guy could go out on the weekend and give it his sporting best. Now days the equipment is priced out of site. You really have to be a serious biker to race competitively.
There are some time trials coming up in Illinois and I'm going to give it a shot on my Peugeot UO-8. Trying to find some lightweight wheels and tires so that I might be competitive. |
Originally Posted by big chainring
(Post 8591936)
I always enjoyed reading of the English time trialers back in the 60's. Road racing was banned for some reason and time trialing was the rage. They had 12 hour and 24 hour time trials and set distance as well.
|
Originally Posted by big chainring
(Post 8591936)
I always enjoyed reading of the English time trialers back in the 60's. Road racing was banned for some reason and time trialing was the rage. They had 12 hour and 24 hour time trials and set distance as well. And alot of the participants were local guys, farmers, laborers, factory workers. They worked a regular job and then did racing for fun. Some even built their own bikes. I like the fact that the equipment back then was more affordable, (Campy was always pricey), and the regular guy could go out on the weekend and give it his sporting best. Now days the equipment is priced out of site. You really have to be a serious biker to race competitively.
There are some time trials coming up in Illinois and I'm going to give it a shot on my Peugeot UO-8. Trying to find some lightweight wheels and tires so that I might be competitive. :( :mad: :( :mad: Nick |
Well, a comparison of riders of different eras is always difficult, the circumstances under which riders would train and race were so much different.
The UCI with their new hour record rules tries to make times comparable at least for that event. The fact that Boardman and Sosenka only just could top Merckx' old mark by a very few meters shows that a rider with the physis of the cannibal would kick ass today, too... On the other hand, the first hour record in which more than 40km were ridden dates back to 1898... ever ridden a bike of that era? :) |
They were better back then. There may have been dope back them, but I think was probably less effective than the dope of today, which was/is widespread, so if anything, a doped yesterdays man was probably at a disadvantage to a doped modern rider.
Either way, to ride with a heavier biked, less effective training regime, and something as simple yet limiting as downtube shifters, and to win like Merckx did, that was something. As hungry as Lance is, I know who I'd put my money on. Remember, a lot of those guys came from a hard background - peasant stock, farmers grown up on the land or manual workers, grown up in the ruins of post war Europe. They knew real hardship. Real hunger. That puts something in you that a training regime and good diet never can. |
Originally Posted by Gotte
(Post 8594705)
There may have been dope back then...
tcs |
I don;t doubt that was the case. Wasn;t Tom Simpson using amphetamines when he died?
|
Anti-doping rules only began in cycle racing in 1965. Before then, it wasn't considered cheating. Most top pros were using dope in the 1950s and 60s. There are more ways to dope nowadays.
|
Originally Posted by Gotte
(Post 8594705)
Either way, to ride with a heavier biked, less effective training regime, and something as simple yet limiting as downtube shifters, and to win like Merckx did, that was something. As hungry as Lance is, I know who I'd put my money on.
Remember, a lot of those guys came from a hard background - peasant stock, farmers grown up on the land or manual workers, grown up in the ruins of post war Europe. They knew real hardship. Real hunger. That puts something in you that a training regime and good diet never can. |
Originally Posted by Kommisar89
(Post 8579765)
I'm quite certain that human beings have not changed appreciably genetically in the last 100 years. That's like asking whether Babe Ruth was better than the baseball players of today. Any given rider, like Eddie, might have had superior genetic potential compared to a particular rider today but that is as much random chance as anything. We don't breed humans like dogs or horses so there is no reason to think that humans being would have gotten better but there is also no reason to think they have gotten worse. Training regimens today are better than they were in the classic period and while riders certainly doped back in the day, the "dope" of today is far more potent and effective than the crude stimulants they were using back then. So my guess would be that if you took a random selection of pros today and had them ride vintage equipment under the same conditions as back in the day, they would be faster on average due to their superior training and conditioning. Now as to whether Lance would be faster than Eddie or vise versa, well, I'll leave that descussion to the same guys that like to argue about the relative merits the Babe and Bronko Nagurski vs. today's players. ;)
|
Originally Posted by Picchio Special
(Post 8595913)
End of silly argument.
What about Coppi or Anquetil? I doubt you could class their backgrounds as middle class. |
I posted earlier that this is cyclical argument (pun intened) and we should agree to disagree.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:26 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.