Armstrong's advance retirement notice: why?

infantrycak

Really? That sounds cute as an argument but does it mean anything? Why didn't Merkx race over the same time frame?--because he was building to a TdF challenge through other races, because he couldn't win, because he couldn't find a team to be leader of, because he couldn't be as dominant as long, etc. Armstrong was advised to race 2 or 3 times for experience and to try to get stage wins, not to win. He probably wasn't ready to win either, but his team thought it would be valuable. Is that something which really makes a rider lessor? Plus he then became ill and was affected by it in 1-2 races. Once again, is getting cancer something which makes a rider lessor? In the end, that seems like a pretty weak argument.

limerickman

Let's focus on the issue here : LA being equal to, or better than Merckx.
That is the issue at hand.

Several posters contended that LA is greater than Merckx in the TDF and/or in general cycling terms.

Any objective cycling fan would know that Merckx is the greatest cyclist ever.
It is beyond question.
Every publication, every rider, everyone that is anyone in the cycling world will say that EM was the greatest that there has ever been.
So that issue is settled.

Is EM a better TDF cyclist than LA ?
Yes.
Several measurees of crtieria show that EM record in the TDF is greater than LA.
There is only one criteria in the TDF where LA records, can be measured as superior to EM and that is absolute number of wins.
By every other measure, comparing EM and LA respective records in the TDF,
EM record is some way ahead of LA (and everyone else).



Merckx talent and ability and dedication allowed him to win all year round, in every type of race.
LA (and anyone else for that matter) does not have the same ability, the same talent, the same dedication to win all year round, in every type of race.



No - none of the things you mention above are wrong or make LA lessor.
LA and everybody else in cycling terms are below EM level.

renoster

Back to the subject:

Perhaps Armstrong found himself without a major motivator.
6 was the magic number - most ever yellows in Paris. 7 is no different. Maybe by making this his last attempt he provided himself with a strong motivator before he went into decline.

wolfix

And isn't that what it's all about????








Dedication maybe ..... But going back to your percentage post earlier, maybe Lance won a higher percentage of races he competed in ...... Maybe if he raced in the Giro he could have doubled ..... To say he does not have the ability is not right. His ability to win was proven by winning the Worlds at an earlier age then Merckx..... And Merckx was also a convicted 3 time doper. Plus cycling has changed. The difference is that when Merckx rode he was the absolute leader and the team had zero aspirations ....... He did "gift" a few riders now and then. Today , with the specialization , Merckx could not win 20% of the races he did. He would simply not be competitive year around. The biggest change in the sport besides the larger international field is the concept of periodization.... Althletes peak today. Personally, I wish this was not true, but it has changed the way teams are formed and their priorities. This is why i feel Zabel is the best rider of the last 10 years.....
Comparing the TDF Merckx and the TDF Armstrong is impossible. Good for a good Guiness argument but unwinnable by either side.....

Crankster

I gave EM the titles of "best rider of the year" for wins of Giro only. Even though he didn't win TdF those years. Whether he tried or not, whether he was sick, injured, fat or unprepared, had other priorities is beyond the point - he didn't win it.

World champs are not "multi-stage" races. To be considered the best tour rider of the year you have to win the most competitive tour of the year. We'll give you benefit of the doubt and credit EM with wins of Giro instead of TdF.

I think anyone will agree that TdF had the most competitive fields in the last decade, or even several decades, so Lance was automatically the best tour rider 1999-2004.

Going into the tour and not winning should not be a handicap. A win is what counts. Nobody remembers or cares about Tours where Lance didn't finish. They remember the wins. Just like everyone remembers Chicago Bull wins, not their also-rans.

Besides, everyone knows that before cancer Lance wasn't even entering races as a GC rider. So if we count only races where he was going for GC, he is 6 for 6, going for 7th. I mean, otherwise we can penalize Cippo for not winning yellow at the Tour or pink at the Giro - he is a sprinter, not a GC rider. And nobody cares how many races Cippo lost - only how many he won. I doubt anyone even keeps track.

You think if Basso wins 10 tours in a row someone will say: "Yeah, but he didn't win his first one, or his second one or his third one"... Maybe you will say it, but to most people I know only wins are important, everything else is secondary.

infantrycak

I agree with you on this.


Here I think the issue is much less clear. In particular I was pointing out the winning % of attempts on the race was a spurious argument IMO. Basically I think this is a close call with more domination in a shorter time period on EM's side and a longer period of domination and the outright record on LA's side. Really, I find the time periods so different I can't come to a conclusion other than they both stand at the top of the TdF.

cheapie

ha! nice try buster. the issue at hand is that you claimed


those of us with at least a tenious grasp on reality questioned it. while i admire your attempt to reframe the argument, you really have to admit to being full of s&it.

limerickman

The issue at hand was gentlmn post, message 3 on the thread : here

There's no doubt that as Armstrong is riding this year, in pursuit of number 7, he is going to be viewed by cycling historians as one of the best of all time, mentioned in the same words as the incomparable Eddy Merckx. The guy is an unbelievable force in the Tour. Since 1999, a long 7 Tours, he has been the one to beat, the one the others long to best and cannot. The domination has been long and deep. It's quite a joy to see this Tour, his last. He's chosen to go out at the top of his game. I believe he will go out too. He knows it's going to be a glorious moment, to leave when everyone is still applauding, and he is still in his prime. Cycling fans will still be talking of Armstrong a century from now. He's one of the greats.

I disputed gentlmn's conclusion derived from 6 T'sDF victories and his point that LA was comparable to EM.

I don't believe that LA record as cyclist is within a country mile of EM's record
as a cyclist.

I think LA success in the TDF is significant but not at the level of EM, for reasons expressed earlier.

So that is the issue, Cheap.

wolfix

Merckx rode his tours with weaker competition....... If this was the early 70's and the Tour was on ...... Think who would not be there..... Ullrich, Vino, Voigt, Popovych,Wegman & Kloden would still be behind the wall. Armstrong , Zabriskie,Julich, Hincapie, Liepheimer would not be there because Americans had no program, plus some others........Let's not forget about those Austrailian rockets from down-under. Look who these riders are and what they accomplished this year. Armstrong won his tours against a international field where Merckx won his 5 tours against a limited European field. Not all Europeans were allowed to race.
Althletes are trained diffferently today...... In a earlier post I talked about periodization & peaking. That is the biggest change in the TDF today other then the international field. We understand the athlete's body better today. A rider cannot be competitive all year. I doubt if Merckx would have won 20% of the races he won in todays enviroment.
In defense of Merckx though. Both Merckx and Armstrong seem to have that "killer instinct" that some gifted riders do not have. Both are absolute heros. They rode, they won.
Both riders did what they had to do to win the Tour de France during the times that they rode. That is why I find the criticism against Armstrong so ridiculous.
My vote goes to Armstrong as being the "greatest" TDF rider with his 6 , possibly 7 wins against a larger field of riders.
I am a traditionalist. I loved the days when the yellow went off the front to a long solo win. Indurain changed that with" Grind them down and TT them to death ........." I also love wool jerseys, 5 speed freewheel blocks, steel lugged frames, and down tube shifters.
But ...... The most epic ride of the TDF was neither Merckx nor Armstrong .... It was Lemond taking back the 50+ seconds from Fignon on the last stage.... Let the arguments begin !!!!!!!!!

homeycheese

come on lim, parse the sentance again "...viewed by cycling historians as one of the best of all time, mentioned in the same words as the incomparable Eddy Merckx"

and where do you get "his point that LA was comparable to EM"?

"He's one of the greats" is what is written....

"one of the best", "one of the greats", not "better" not "the best" not "comparable"

Lonnie Utah

Come on. This whole discussion is just like the grade school arguments of who's better "Superman vs. Batman" (superman) or the "Richard Petty, Dale Earnhardt or Jeff Gordon" (Earnhardt) arguments on the NASCAR boards. 1). You're never going to change anyones mind over the net and 2) You can't really compare the two because of changes in the sport. LA and EM were/are both remarkable talents that I have tremendous respect for. Let's leave it at that.



L

__________________
Cheap, Strong and Light.
Pick any Two.