Riders of yester-year
 

I've been thinking.
Were the cyclists who once rode, who once made the papers, who once captured the hearts of entire countries... Were they better? Of course I mean this in comparison to todays cyclists.
I mean, they rode on bikes 5-7lb's heavier than the heaviest racing bikes today, had more demanding gearing (half-step and a 3-6 speed [usually] narrow range freewheel), rode on pavement that likely wasn't nearly as nice as it is today, and often times didn't have same support as racers have today.
Today, we have sub-14lb plastic wonder bikes with 4x the gearing, super stiff shoes and clipless pedals, well-maintained roads and all the support a rider could ever need. Certainly the riders today are good, fast and equally as visible. They climb, and descend, the same mountains. Race the same courses. And endure the love and pain that is cycling.
But, if they were to compete on the same bikes as did Coppi, Anquetil, & Merkx, would they be AS good? I don't think so, personally.
-Gene-

I dunno....Doping was widespread back in the day....

Dave Moulton in a post on his blog states:
"The hero’s of my youth were riders like Fausto Coppi, Ferdi Kubler, Louison Bobet, and Jean Robic. They are still my hero’s even though I know they took dope, this was a different era."

I've often wondered the same question myself though.....I'd like to think they were better racers back in the day.

They were probably better back in the day. I am sure they doped with crazier substances then. Even Lance would probably shudder at what Coppi put into his bloodstream.

Merckx would tear the legs off any current-day pro, imo.

Amen! Can you imagine the "Cannibal" in his prime riding on a modern road bike say something like a Trek Madone? He'd blow the wheels off of Lance and the gang.:thumb:

Watch Paris-Robauix. Nothing has really changed. The good are just as good. That's the beauty of cycle racing. Don't let "get old days syndrome" ruin it for you. Leave that to the carbon haters.

Oh, I know Paris-Roubaix hasn't changed much. But, I mean as far as technology goes. Tires are better today, bikes are lighter, stiffer, and have substantially wider gear ranges, they don't miss much in their pedal-stroke, and I imagine overall rider comfort is better. Take all of that away, go back 30+ years in cycling tech. They were doing it then and still managed to walk away. I just can't see todays riders doing it. They're probably too spoiled with brifters, carbon, and 20-22 gears.
They'd kick my ***** either way. But I don't think they'd hang with the old boys on equivalent bikes. I think endurance and pain tolerance was much higher back then (though as has been said they did dope).
BTW, I'm 20, I'm not pining for the old days, I wasn't even thought of back then.
-Gene-

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. ;)

Greg Lemond's old saying about it "never hurts less, you just get faster" pretty much covers this. Yes, the equipment, pay, and living conditions (for the top teams) have gotten far better. But the riding is just as hard. And the work it takes to just be the worst rider on the worst pro team is phenominal.

Read Bob Roll's book or a great new one by Joe Parkin, "A Dog in a Hat". Pro bicycle racing is a tough sport, then and now.

If you think modern racers are ******* because they have brifters, you just don't get it.

Greg Lemond is probably my favorite rider, then maybe Mercxx, but... What was the cycling wear back then?

That's my question, sorry if it's off topic. I'm sure it wasnt Goretex,was it?

-Banjo

Yep, that seems to be the same with all sports. Michael Jordan was great, now he is a legend, but I would bet some of todays players are just as good. Jim Thorpe and Jim Brown are legends, still I bet some of todays running backs are just as tough. I don't understand why so many forum members seem to be down on Lance Armstrong, in my uneducated opinion he is just as strong of a competitor as any in history.

Merckx set his hour record in the racing clothes of the day (pre spandex wool), steel toe clips, Italian leather shoes, and a leather skull cap.

Coppi did the same as did Anquetil.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Om7pveY9p-...duurrecord.jpg

Merckx said, after setting his hour record and the standard by which that record is measured and raced:


“But for the back injury, yes I would have done many more metres. Regarding specialised training, I did all that I could. I consulted sports doctors, who had experience with sport at altitude, because I did my record in Mexico City. I trained on the home trainer with an oxygen mask, breathing the same mixture of air that I would find at altitude. I also used all of the best equipment that was available to me. Speaking as a bike enthusiast I would have liked to have had a go on the equipment they used for the record in later years, though. Also I would have gone further on a modern indoor track. In Mexico it was outdoors, where the wind is always a problem. You wait for the best conditions, but in the end you have to take what there is."

I cannot imagine what Merckx could have accomplished on a 14 pound cf bike and ultra light gear... there would always be a fear of him snapping a cf bike in half just as there was a fear of him snapping his 14 pound bike in half.

Colnago said "if Merckx had used the same bike as Rominger had used when he set his World Hour Record of 55.291 km, he probably could have done 56 or 57 km in one hour. I'm sure of it."

An interesting note is that a number of us could have set the hour record at the turn of the century as it was below 40 km... such has technology improved our meager abilities.

Personally, I do feel that to-day's athlete's are faster than their predecessors. If you look at sports like running, where the technology has minimal impact, there are still measureable improvements in time. Certainly, training has developed into a more sophisticated science that yields better results. That, and specialization, are where I feel the modern competitor gets the advantage.

However, I do not feel that to-day's athlete's are better, at least in the form of examples to children and young athletes. In cycling, things started going downhill with the arrival of US cyclists, who pretty much coasted though the year, slowly and carefully building up, to put their emphasis on one or two big races. That flies in the face of the European tradition of men like Merckx who gave they all, in every race. I certainly try to instill a value in my children of trying their best in everything they do.

I wonder if Armstrong would have won all those Tour de France if he had been worn out from winning several classics and another major tour every year? If Merckx used the modern philosophy, he likely would have set a unbreakable string of Tour de France victories. Unlike many people, I can't admit to a specialist like Armstrong being the greatest cyclist ever, though I do greatly admire his fight back from cancer and all his charitable work. For me, a person like Merckx, who could and did win just about everything, is the greater cyclist, by far.

As for the technology factor, the UCI has tried equalize things at last in one competition. The hour record, as opposed to the best human effort hour record, imposes bicycles similar to the one used by Merckx. Merckx's record has been been broken, at least twice, under these restrictions. While the increases were not great, they also were not performed at altitude, like Merckx's. So, it would appear that to-day's cyclistss are capable of performances at least equal to those of the legends.

I'm don't want to get into a debate about who's better Lance or Eddy, they are different riders
and rode different machines and at different historical times.
Given that, I think that given equal training methods, and equipment they are pretty much on
a similar level.
Look at TdF average race speed. Avg speed has been creeping up since the
tour started keeping records. Are the riders stronger, or technology getting better, or both?
I'd say both. Sub 14 pound bikes with ceramic bearings, better aerodynamics and more usable
gears all contribute. Specialized training regimens tailored to individual riders extract the best
performance by a rider possible. Put Fausto, or Eddy on the same bike, and with the same
regimen and I think they'd show the same faster times. Put a modern rider like Lance on a
pre-carbon fiber bike, and the same training regimen as Fausto or Eddy and I think he'd perform
about the same as them.

Marty

At this point, I feel obligated to point out that "sub 14 pound bikes" have nothing to do with faster speeds, since the UCI weight limit is a whisker under 15 pounds. But I get the overall point about lighter bikes.

Also, while better training methods are I think rightly pointed out as a big factor, I think generally improved nutrition is a factor as well. Northern Europeans in particular (though not Americans) are taller on average than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Young kids are getting a head start on growing bigger and stronger in those countries.

I'm not sure about the point about US cyclists starting things downhill. The first rider who I think really built their season around the Tour de France was Indurain, though of course he managed to win the Giro more than once. LeMond, for example, put in some pretty serious rides at Paris-Roubaix - something you never see from Tour GC contenders now, and also won the World RR Championship following one of his Tour victories. He was also twice top-5 in the Giro in years he made the Tour podium. His palmares would have been more complete had he been a better sprinter. The concept of periodization, resulting in a season of one or two, relatively brief "peaks" is an Eastern European one. It has been widely adopted throughout the professional ranks, and if Lance hadn't taken it to its logical extreme, someone else would have, IMO.

Merckx did set his hour record after having an incredible season that he capped by winning the TdF and his training regimen was as brutal as one could imagine... taking 300 km rides to warm up for races for example.

:twitchy:

Had he not experienced some rather serious injuries he may have well won far more races than he did.

He is like Gretzky who is by far the greatest athlete in their given sport... they both re-wrote the record books and dominated their sport like no one did before or has since.

But today's dope is much more effective.

We wore wool

+1

Just a quick comment, a lighter bike would probably not have been a significant benefit for the hour record. A more aerodynamic bike would have helped more, but since it was a velodrome (flat) a lighter bike would have only been a benefit for getting up to speed, so probably would not have impacted the record that much.

It is always interesting to ponder what might have happened if the greats of history were racing today, or if the greats of today were transported back to the past... Of course, at my peak, I could not keep up with the weakest domestique of any era.

The comment about support brought something recent to mind. I forget who it was on the last stage of this year's Paris-Nice, but they threw their chain during a descent and the commentators were talking about how tragic it was because the team car could be a full minute behind the rider.

...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

Christophe had to re-forge his own forks during the 1913 Tour!

tcs

The lighter bikes and lower weight restrictions would have really helped the elite climbers even more... on flat ground all things are all equal with the same aerodynamics.

The hour record just stands as a benchmark for abilities and Merckx's hour bike was so light Colnago really feared he would snap it in half as it was brought up to speed... Merckx only weighed 165 pounds but had formidable power.

who really knows what would happen if we invented a wayback machine and could pull riders forward or make guys like Indurain and Armstrong ride the bikes Coppi and Merckx used to dominate the sport.

I figure than in any era we put them in all these guys would have been dominant.

Even without doping these guys were and are some serious genetic freaks.

I agree 100% with nutrition being another major factor though I, perhaps incorrectly, lump it with training as it was always a major part of the coaching clinics I instructed. I remember the boom era manuals advocating eggs and steak for breakfast.:eek:

Since you bring up Lemond, I'll blatantly state that I consider him the beginning of the demise. Yes, he did win the TdF three times and a couple of World Championships, but they were his season peaks. If he had was capable of winning the World's he was capable of winning the classics, so wasn't just his sprinting ability. Yes, the concept was created by the Eastern Europeans but it was Lemond who found major success with it in the pro peleton.

In the end, I do understand why Lemond used the approach. He was very smart. The Tour de France and a World Championship title were about the only thing that would mean anything to the average Joe back in the USA. Without them, he wouldn't have gotten those lucratuve commericial contracts, like Taco Bell, where he could "Run to the Border" with his bags of money.

Lemond, at the time, was very much viewed as the saviour of cycling. He represented the opportunity for pro cycling to crack the wealthy US market. As a result, he got preferential treatment from the UCI and organizers, something which factored into his success. He certainly was a major factor in the mini-boom of the mid-1980s.

For me, the big money aspect and organizing seasons around one or two races became the downfall of the sport. Granted, Lemond was not responsible for things spiraling out of control, but he was the catalyst that set the wheels in motion. As for Armstrong, I will say that he uses his fame and fortune to promote very good causes, which he is very passionate about. For me, that will be Lance's legacy, not his TdF wins.

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: