Le Tour de Lance

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Flubber - I think the biggest difference is that Armstrong puts nearly his entire racing effort into the Tour de France, while Merckx took on anyone, anytime, in any major event unless he was injured.
.

No dispute on that one. Thats why I say that Lance is on his way to becomeing the greatest "Tour de France " rider . Thats all that I assert.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Riding strategically is nice, but is that a choice, or a response to a limitation as a rider?
.

Personally I think it is just using smarts. I am also of the belief, based on what we have seen, that Armstrong could have held the yellow from the team time trial onward. He has never been in any difficulty, has effortlessly matched his rivals when they challenge him and seems to have ample reserves

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

In 1974, Merckx won the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Tour of Switzerland and World's road championship. Riding "strategically" for Merckx was simply dominating everyone, everywhere.
.

Even without an Armstrong, I doubt that Merckx could duplicate that feat in the modern era. The races are too close together to maintain top performance for all of them and for certain there would be riders focussing on one of them to the exclusion of the others. I just believe that an all rounder would have difficulty in the face of the focused training of others

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In 1970, while also winning the Giro, Merckx wore the yellow jersey in the Tour every stage but one. Another record nobody has come close to approaching.

To me thats irelevant. I can't see Armstrong as a lesser rider simply because he allowed Voeckler his escape and his days in the spotlight. Everyone knew that Voeckler would lose the yellow. USP follows a strategy and I refuse to see a man as a lessr rider if he declines the battles he doesn't care about.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The era Merckx raced certainly had a large number of excellent riders - Poulidor, Ocana, Van Impe, Zoetemelk, De Vlaemink, Thevenet, Gimondi, Maertens, etc. There certainly was no lack of top level competition.
MO.

Yet Merckx beat them consistently and repeatedly as you have demonstrated in detail. Thats always the problem in comparing era's. Is someone the best of a number of great rider's or are they benefitting from weak competition

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If you compare the number of events raced, the number won, and overall level of competition, I don't have any doubt that Merckx would eat Armstrong alive with similar training regimens, similar nutrtion regimens and the same technology. Armstrong is a great rider, but still nowhere near the caliber of Merckx, IMO.

I don't know how you can say that with such certainty. Armstrong has won with such ease, the only thing that seems to matter to him, does impeccable preparation and appears to have an iron will to continue to suffer through the hard training. I would never disrespect Merckx by saying Armstrong is better-- I just can't bring myself to disrespect Armstrong by accepting that there is anyone that could " eat him alive"


These discussions are like ones comparing the 1950s Canadiens to the 70s Canadiens, to the 80s Islanders and Oilers. You can pull out all the facts and figures and stats you want but in the end, " best" is solely a matter of opinion

[DanS]

So what precisely did Simeoni do to Lance? Was it merely testifying against Lance's doctor, or did he hint that Lance was doped up?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10231450%255E23218,00.html

[pchang]

Simeoni claims that he never intimated that Lance did anything wrong. However, Lance use to consult with that doctor.....

[Traianvs]

To me thats irelevant. I can't see Armstrong as a lesser rider simply because he allowed Voeckler his escape and his days in the spotlight. Everyone knew that Voeckler would lose the yellow. USP follows a strategy and I refuse to see a man as a lessr rider if he declines the battles he doesn't care about.

I think you're missing the point. If you know anything about Merckx you'll see that he wouldn't allow that unless he knew he wouldn't be able to win himself.
Here in Belgium we call him 'the cannibal', because he wanted to win everything he could. He didn't race 'strategically' though of course he waited at the right times to attack.
A good example is the KotM jersey. Armstrong doesn't seem interested that much in winning that one, but Merckx wanted that jersey all the same.

Another big difference with today's riders, and especially Armstrong is that they will only attack their closest enemies on the last mountain of the day. In Merckx' day they (and he himself of course) often attacked with 2 or 3 mountains still ahead.

Even without an Armstrong, I doubt that Merckx could duplicate that feat in the modern era. The races are too close together to maintain top performance for all of them and for certain there would be riders focussing on one of them to the exclusion of the others. I just believe that an all rounder would have difficulty in the face of the focused training of others

The races back then were just as close together as they are now. That's the whole point of his brilliance. He could maintain top performance almost all year long while Armstrong can only do this once a year.


ps MtG: Is there any topic at all you know nothing about in these fora? lol

[pg]

i don't have any opinions on merckx vs armstrong because i know jack about them but how much different is bicycle racing from then to today? was bicycle racing a serious sport back then or more amateur, etc?

[pchang]

Kloden overtakes Basso. I think Ulrich is too far behind but it would be interesting to see an all out race on the last stage for 3rd.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Trajanus



The races back then were just as close together as they are now. That's the whole point of his brilliance. He could maintain top performance almost all year long while Armstrong can only do this once a year.

I know there are similar number of races. I just doubted Merckx could win all those events when facing riders that do train up for specific events. In his day I doubt they understood training as the elite riders do today.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by pchang
Kloden overtakes Basso. I think Ulrich is too far behind but it would be interesting to see an all out race on the last stage for 3rd.

will not happen--This stage is traditionally a procession in which the only racing is among the sprinters at the end-- its a flat stage where nobody can lose any significant time anyway

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by pg
i don't have any opinions on merckx vs armstrong because i know jack about them but how much different is bicycle racing from then to today? was bicycle racing a serious sport back then or more amateur, etc?

In Europe, cycling was a serious professional sport for several decades before Merckx' time, but that wasn't the case in the US - if you wanted to ride pro, you had to go to Europe. Even Olympic and national championship cyclists were extremely little known, with the semi-exception of John Howard. Cycling was by and large considered a geek thing, and not a real sport since it was dominated by Frogs wearing funny looking tight shorts.

Those of us who were into it basically got ignored, looked at funny, or got bottles thrown at us on the road. We raced in events where the audiences were usually a few locals with nothing else to do, a few guys who couldn't ride any more, and some wives and girlfriends who cruised along. It wasn't anything where you were either going to make money or get laid, so it stayed extremely obscure as a sport here until Lemond won the junior World's in 1979.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Trajanus
ps MtG: Is there any topic at all you know nothing about in these fora? lol

Quite a few (I usually avoid them, like the European politics threads ), but I was a USCF rider (junior in 1976-77, Category 2 in '78, and Category 1 from 78-82, until I had too many problems with my knees and lower back to be competitive without being in constant pain.

There was also some BS that started around that time about local associations besides USCF, where basically some guys figured rather than work for a living, they'd found a tits-on-a-bull organization, get local race promoters and clubs to go along with requiring membership, get them to charge double entry fees to non-club riders, and other parasitic crap that did nothing for the sport, but managed to be another layer of money gouged off amateur riders who spent tons of money on equipment, many hundreds of hours a year training, a lot of money and time travelling to races, etc.

So I said "**** it, I'm done" when I was 22.

[Flubber]

Its official-- Lance wins SIX-- bringing him into the realm of never been done before. . . . and may never ever be done again

The thing is, if he can keep his team together and avoids injury and upset, whats to stop him from getting a seventh?? Despite several good riders I don't see someone destined to take it away from him

[mrmitchell]

Did Lance win again?

I heard there's guys saying he's doped up, would he really do that? I mean, the whole surviving cancer thing and all. I'd be the first to boot that jackass out of his yellow jackets if he ended up not being real. I'm sure he's a great inspiration to lots of people.

Lots of people in every sport do it. But I don't think Lance does.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Did Lance win again?

I heard there's guys saying he's doped up, would he really do that? I mean, the whole surviving cancer thing and all. I'd be the first to boot that jackass out of his yellow jackets if he ended up not being real. I'm sure he's a great inspiration to lots of people.

Lots of people in every sport do it. But I don't think Lance does.

he won again and easily-- The doping rumours continue to persist since cycling generally has had its share of scandals.

I believe Armstrong is clean-- I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt-- plus Armstrong is probably the most tested athlete on the Planet-- the cycling authorities do random testing year round-- In fact Armstrong complains a fair bit about it in his second book-- he didn't find the testing people very friendly and has come to resent their ability to show up on his doorstep at 7 am demanding blood and urine

[Robert]

Noboy has been tested as much as Armstrong in the past 6 years of Tour de France.

Everytime he won an etappe or he wear the yellow he has been tested. Last year he has even been tested by blood-tests.

There is no reason to believe that Armstrong uses dope, other then for reasons of yealousy by europeans who don't want an american to win, or by french people who hate winners anyway as long as they're not french.

[Robert]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


And Lance stays out of many other races to concentrate primarily on the tour. He's not a pimple on Eddy Merckx' ass as an overall rider.

Merckx (who is undoubtly the greatest) didn't have to battle riders who only focussed on the tour as well.
Different days, different ways.

Talking about a dull tour the france,
when Merckx was still cycling the tour was way more dull then it currently is.

I think Armstrong should win a 7th tour de france to really be the greatest tour-rider.
Merckx would have won a 6th tour de france were it not for the fact that some idiot slammed him hard during one race.