Armstrong's advance retirement notice: why?

[limerickman]

so....according to your logic, someone that only attempted to win the TDF one year and was successful would be better than EM because they were successful 100% of the time?

What credibility would that have ?

One ride, one win : is 100% successful.
Does one ride one win : compare more favourably to six rides five wins, or 10 rides six wins ?

You tell me.

I think six rides five wins, is more successful than 10 rides six wins (thus far).
Same for days in yellow, same for the number of stage win (EM 35 LA 21).

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Yeah right.

If there was no intention to tarnish EM - why did you post this ?
"1999-2005 TDF palmares blow away any comparisions to Merckx and Hinault."

Oh, that's right you werren't trying to tarnish Merckx.

Of course you know what my intent was. Again sorry if I don't hold your idol up as high as you do. When Merckx wins his 6th and 7th straight TDF's, come back and tell us how much greater he is in the TDF than Armstrong.

 

[limerickman]

Of course you know what my intent was. Again sorry if I don't hold your idol up as high as you do. When Merckx wins his 6th and 7th straight TDF's, come back and tell us how much greater he is in the TDF than Armstrong.

I know what your intent was : despite your attempt to retract.

 

[cheapie]

What credibility would that have ?

One ride, one win : is 100% successful.
Does one ride one win : compare more favourably to six rides five wins, or 10 rides six wins ?

You tell me.

I think six rides five wins, is more successful than 10 rides six wins (thus far).
Same for days in yellow, same for the number of stage win (EM 35 LA 21).

let's say i accept your argument that EM's feats are more impressive than, LA's....you're still insane to say the LA isn't among the tour greats.

 

[rejobako]

As to your contention about question EM's toughness : maybe you should ask the man himself why he only won 5 T'DF out of six starts ?

That's not the question I posed. My question is "what kind of 'greatest cyclist ever" only competes in the greatest competition a measly 6 times?" Geez. I thought Eddy was the great man, and now I find he spent more than half of his 13-career avoiding the great race.

By the way, when you start fiddling with your statistical argument by suggesting winning percentage is a superior criterion than total GC titles, funny things can happen. Unless my math is off, Armstrong's won 54% of the Grand Tours he's entered (a number that might go up this year). Merckx's success rate is lower. Ergo: Armstrong is not only the greatest TdF rider ever, but the greatest Grand Tour cyclist in the history of the world.

(Seriously, if you want to argue Merckx is the better TdF rider based on percentages and stage wins, be my guest. But to allege that the only 6-time winner doesn't belong in the discussion? Very strange claim indeed.

 

[limerickman]

let's say i accept your argument that EM's feats are more impressive than, LA's....you're still insane to say the LA isn't among the tour greats.

Well at least we're making progress.

I am not especially a fan of EM but I respect his achievements, his ability, his palmares.
No one comes close to EM in any real terms in cycling.

Is LA an alltime great ?
He has achieved a lot, I agree.
In terms of winning the TDF, he is an alltime great.

In general palmares terms, he has some way to go to try to beat a Kelly or Hinault.

 

[limerickman]

That's not the question I posed. My question is "what kind of 'greatest cyclist ever" only competes in the greatest competition a measly 6 times?" Geez. I thought Eddy was the great man, and now I find he spent more than half of his 13-career avoiding the great race.

By the way, when you start fiddling with your statistical argument by suggesting winning percentage is a superior criterion than total GC titles, funny things can happen. Unless my math is off, Armstrong's won 54% of the Grand Tours he's entered (a number that might go up this year). Merckx's success rate is lower. Ergo: Armstrong is not only the greatest TdF rider ever, but the greatest Grand Tour cyclist in the history of the world.

(Seriously, if you want to argue Merckx is the better TdF rider based on percentages and stage wins, be my guest. But to allege that the only 6-time winner doesn't belong in the discussion? Very strange claim indeed.

Sorry to keep on at this, but the statement made by gntlmn is the issue.

As for your math : 54% includes LA 10 T'sDF starts and his 1 Vuelta start.
If you look at LA TDF record, it is 60%.
EM is 83% in the TDF : I don't know what the stats are for the EM in the Giro and Vuelta : do EM get credit for doing the double ?
Or how about the Triple ?
Last time I looked 83% was more successful than 60% (thus far).
If LA wins this year, he'll move up to 63% in TDF comparison with EM, to 2005.

LA would have to keep cycling and winning the TDF until 2018 to match EM overall TDF win percentage.
But I suspect you know this already.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

I know what your intent was : despite your attempt to retract.

Is that what makes you a "moderator"?
No retraction here. Armstrong is a better TDF rider than Merckx was. I think I distinctly stated that Merckx was a better overall cyclist than Armstrong. Of course when confronted about how many consecutive wins both have in the TDF you suddenly change the argument to "how many yellow jerseys or stages they won". What was that about apples and oranges?

 

[Flyer]

To argue Merckx is the better TdF rider based on percentages and stage wins, be my guest. But to allege that the only 6-time winner doesn't belong in the discussion? Very strange claim indeed.


You mean more strange than ignoring the obvious of where credit is due?

Michele Ferrari's blood science combined with great research access and supply. No schumi, no bike racing for LA.

Merckx had three positive drugs tests (two more than Armstrong) all three of Merckx lead to sanctions (DQs) None of Armstrong's problems (Actovegin, corticosteroids & insulin) have been sanctioned---much like Laurent Brochard's 1997 Worlds win.

If Merckx were around today--we would know how his body adapted to modern anemia and muscular dystrophy drugs.

It has not helped his son Axel.

So it reamins a mystery.

Today it's all about pharma science.

 

[limerickman]

Is that what makes you a "moderator"?
No retraction here. Armstrong is a better TDF rider than Merckx was. I think I distinctly stated that Merckx was a better overall cyclist than Armstrong. Of course when confronted about how many consecutive wins both have in the TDF you suddenly change the argument to "how many yellow jerseys or stages they won". What was that about apples and oranges?

Well actually it was you who started including one bit, and excluding another bit and putting that ornage with this apple and......... in your first contribution to this thread !

Here it is again for you : Message number 18.

"1999-2005 TDF palmares blow away any comparisions to Merckx and Hinault."

No retraction here.

Message 56 that you posted contradicts your latest denial (above)

"Sorry there was no intention to tarnish your vision of your hero"

 

[cheapie]

LA would have to keep cycling and winning the TDF until 2018 to match EM overall TDF win percentage.

which perfectly illustrates how ridiculous your criteria for greatness is!

 

[Crankster]

What credibility would that have ?

One ride, one win : is 100% successful.
Does one ride one win : compare more favourably to six rides five wins, or 10 rides six wins ?

You tell me.

I think six rides five wins, is more successful than 10 rides six wins (thus far).
Same for days in yellow, same for the number of stage win (EM 35 LA 21).

Number of attempts shouldn't even enter the equation. If someone has a drive and energy to try the tour 30 times, good for them! Winners shouldn't be penalized for trying.

You can approach the question differently - if there was some "unofficial" multi-stage rider of the year award, how many years would different riders dominate?

One could argue he dominated 1968-1974, with 1968 and 1973 wins at Giro (no TdF wins those years for Eddy), while in 1967 and 1975-77 he cannot be considered as he failed to win a single multi-day tours.

That's 7 years of #1 ranking in multi-stage racing according to Crankster classification.

In modern times, LA clearly dominated in 1999-2004, and so far shows signs of domination in 2005 tour. So if LA wins 2005, he will dominate multi-stage ranking for 7 years, equal to that of Merckx. I don't think Hinault, Indurain or Anquetil can claim 7 years of multi-stage dominance.

The only one that can be considered in the same category is Coppi, who dominated Giro 5 times (and was second once), won Tour twice and was robbed of 5 best years of his life due to WWII. He won Giro in 1940 for the first time and in 1953 for the last time.

Accepting suggested formula of the "best multi-stage racer", it can be argued that LA is very much in EM category, both are very much to be equal in terms of domination of multi-stage events.

 

[rejobako]

Sorry to keep on at this, but the statement made by gntlmn is the issue.

As for your math : 54% includes LA 10 T'sDF starts and his 1 Vuelta start.
If you look at LA TDF record, it is 60%.
EM is 83% in the TDF : I don't know what the stats are for the EM in the Giro and Vuelta : do EM get credit for doing the double ?
Or how about the Triple ?
Last time I looked 83% was more successful than 60% (thus far).
If LA wins this year, he'll move up to 63% in TDF comparison with EM, to 2005.

LA would have to keep cycling and winning the TDF until 2018 to match EM overall TDF win percentage.
But I suspect you know this already.

Don't worry about "keeping at this"; I'm enjoying the discussion. What's this about 83% to 60%? We're discussing Grand Tour starts. By necessity you must include EM's Giro and Vuelta failures.

What good is doing the double or triple if he doesn't win? Again, we're discussing winning percentage in Grand Tours. If Eddy was willing to spin his wheels to lose, it's his own fault.

Which leads me back to my original inquiry: What kind of "greatest cyclist ever" competes in the greatest event ever only once for every two years of his career. Lance's "winning percentage" may not be as high, but at least he showed up as often as they'd let him . . .

(Believe me, the irony of this argument in light of the manner in which most people target Armstrong's selectivity in racing does not escape me. Just making a point. Armstrong lives to race and win the TdF. He's done both more times than Eddy.)

 

[Crankster]

I am not especially a fan of EM....

Somehow I do not believe this!!!

 

[limerickman]

Number of attempts shouldn't even enter the equation. If someone has a drive and energy to try the tour 30 times, good for them! Winners shouldn't be penalized for trying.

You can approach the question differently - if there was some "unofficial" multi-stage rider of the year award, how many years would different riders dominate?

One could argue he dominated 1968-1974, with 1968 and 1973 wins at Giro (no TdF wins those years for Eddy), while in 1967 and 1975-77 he cannot be considered as he failed to win a single multi-day tours.

That's 7 years of #1 ranking in multi-stage racing according to Crankster classification.

In modern times, LA clearly dominated in 1999-2004, and so far shows signs of domination in 2005 tour. So if LA wins 2005, he will dominate multi-stage ranking for 7 years, equal to that of Merckx. I don't think Hinault, Indurain or Anquetil can claim 7 years of multi-stage dominance.

The only one that can be considered in the same category is Coppi, who dominated Giro 5 times (and was second once), won Tour twice and was robbed of 5 best years of his life due to WWII. He won Giro in 1940 for the first time and in 1953 for the last time.

Accepting suggested formula of the "best multi-stage racer", it can be argued that LA is very much in EM category, both are very much to be equal in terms of domination of multi-stage events.

There's a lot of prefacing here :and this comparison that you make is solely based on the TDF.

Without prefacing anything : on raw data, the success percentages of days in Yellow, stages won, tours started/tours won, show EM to be the most successful TDF of all time.

In terms of the number of wins, LA would be deemed to be the greatest TDF rider of all time.

Whic measurement is more representative ? A conclusion based on one measurement applied to both cyclists in one race? or a conclusion based on several measurements applied to both cyclists in one race ?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Well actually it was you who started including one bit, and excluding another bit and putting that ornage with this apple and......... in your first contribution to this thread !

Here it is again for you : Message number 18.

"1999-2005 TDF palmares blow away any comparisions to Merckx and Hinault."



Message 56 that you posted contradicts your latest denial (above)

"Sorry there was no intention to tarnish your vision of your hero"

Here is my actual and complete post. So that it won't be taken out of context.

"1999-2005 TDF palmares blow away any comparisions to Merckx and Hinault.
Merckx will always be considered the greatest overall cyclist. Armstrong will be the greatest TDF cyclist."

It is obvious I was referring to the TDF. I still maintain Armstrong was a better TDF rider. So sorry no contradiction there.

And referring to the tarnishing comment....apparently sarcasm goes right over your head.

 

[limerickman]

Somehow I do not believe this!!!

More of a Sean kelly fan actually.
More of an Indurain fan too and Jalbert for that matter.

Merckx commands my respect - his achievements are awesome.
But kelly, Jalabert and Indurain : they're my favourites.

 

[wolfix]

Sorry to keep on at this, but the statement made by gntlmn is the issue.

As for your math : 54% includes LA 10 T'sDF starts and his 1 Vuelta start.
If you look at LA TDF record, it is 60%.
EM is 83% in the TDF : I don't know what the stats are for the EM in the Giro and Vuelta : do EM get credit for doing the double ?
Or how about the Triple ?
Last time I looked 83% was more successful than 60% (thus far).
If LA wins this year, he'll move up to 63% in TDF comparison with EM, to 2005.

LA would have to keep cycling and winning the TDF until 2018 to match EM overall TDF win percentage.
But I suspect you know this already.

Of course using this argument of percentages if we applied the same logic to countries, the USA is the superior cycling country when it comes to the TDF. Add in Lemonds & Armstrongs starts, add in Hampstens & company..... And the few others in the past 20 years and you will come up with the highest winning percentage & podium placement . If Armstrong wins this year , the USA has won 50% of the TDF's in the past 20 years......
Of course I do not believe this ..... Again , the comparision to Armstrong and Merckx is impossible...... I am a fan of Merckx.... But ..Think of this....But, Armstrong has never been convicted of drug use and Merckx was a known cheater. Merckx never had to cycle against Americans, and if we apply the logic in the previous percentage post, he may never have won a Tour if he had.The percentages prove Americans simply are better at the TDF. Merckx had a smaller pool of talent to compete against. There were no Soviets or Americans in Merckx's day......

Warning ....Warning ....... Do not stand next to me ...... I just have spoken badly of my cycling God and I know lightening is going to strike me down..... Does my logic in this thread kind of remind everyone of the logic posted in Flyer's threads ????? You know , kind of implying facts then not following thru ??????

 

[limerickman]

Here is my actual and complete post. So that it won't be taken out of context.

"1999-2005 TDF palmares blow away any comparisions to Merckx and Hinault.
Merckx will always be considered the greatest overall cyclist. Armstrong will be the greatest TDF cyclist."

It is obvious I was referring to the TDF. I still maintain Armstrong was a better TDF rider. So sorry no contradiction there.

And referring to the tarnishing comment....apparently sarcasm goes right over your head.

1999-2005 is apples and pears.
(leave out the 1993-1996 apple. or should that be orange ? What the heck)

No contradiction ? Au contraire, mon ami.
Your words betray ya : see message 56 and message 18.

Sarcasm ? Hmmmmmm.
That's a convenient excuse.

 

[wolfix]

And oh yeah ..... My favorites ....... LeMond, Merckx, Kelly, and Zabel. And of course .....Knetemann