Bla Bla Bla, Merckx this, Merckx that.
Danny Chew once road 150 miles on a July day without eating or drinking.
Danny Chew once road 200 miles a day for 3 weeks in a row, just because Ron Lutz told him
he wouldn't.
Seana Hogan.
"Bruce Johnston" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ken Papai" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:viBva.815887$F1.103060@sccrnsc04...
> > Danny Chew -- greatest rider?
> >
> > Eddy Merckx -- greatest (best) road racer.
> >
> > -Ken
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> I can't take it anymore. Going crazy with this question.
>
>
>
> Is Eddy Merck the greatest racer of all time.
>
>
>
> Merck raced against some of the best riders in the history of cycling like Da Vlaeminck, Poulidor,
> Ocana, Gimondi, Zoetemelk, Van Impe, Thevenet,
etc.
>
>
>
> Merck won 5 TDF's, 5 Giro's, 3 Paris-R's, 4 Milan San Remo, Flanders
twice,
> Wevelgem three times, LBL three times, Wallonne three times, Paris Nice three times, Amstel Gold
> twice, and there is still lots of other races not listed.
>
>
>
> Is Merck the greatest because of the sheer volume of races he won in his explosive career? Is he
> also the greatest because of how he won them? He lead races from start to finish. Many races he
> lead by example driving the train at the front of the pack. Does this make him the great champion?
Isn't
> it a combination of things that makes Eddy great, or the fact that he won all the big races, many
> in the same year and won them over and over again?
>
>
>
> Some argue that Merck wouldn't be able to keep up with Cat 2 racers today because the times and
> speeds of those races were not up with today's races and riders. Yes the gene pool is much larger
> now and there are lots of
good
> riders today but is it fair to erase what Merck did in light of that and
say
> that Merck is just a average rider and not the greatest of all time? Can
we
> erase his accomplishments and dismiss his wins because some argue that he had poor competition or
> that he would be considered amateur rider if he
were
> alive today.
>
>
>
> Personally I don't see it as a fair comparison. Merckx was riding against the best of his era, and
> was the best of his time. I have a hard time with saying many average riders today in the pros are
> just as good or better
then
> Merckx was. It's hard to calculate just how hard it was for Merck to win
all
> those races in the same year, and do it year after year. That list of
rivals
> is compelling and I think he was challenged.
>
>
>
> Today many argue that it's too hard to win several big races in one year
and
> many specialize in single big races like the TDF. But it was not that long ago that Indurain and
> Lemond did it. Indurain with the Giro and TDF and Lemond with TDF and the Worlds.
>
>
>
> All things being equal Merckx was the best of his era and raced against
one
> of the most impressive lineups in the history of the Tour, at least up to that time. How could you
> compare Merckx record with the riders of today
and
> be objective? Can you really be fair about that assessment?
>
>
>
> No one has even come close to his record and he won races off the front
and
> led by example, having said that it's hard to just throw it out the window by saying his
> competition was poor, the race times were poor, and he has inferior genes compared to
> today's riders.
>
>
>
> How would Merckx fair today if he was born into todays world, grew up with all the perks,
> technology and training methods available? Still some argue that he wouldn't even be as good as a
> cat 2 rider, because of inferior genes.
>
>
>
> I just don't buy the arguement wholesale. I would like to give Eddy the benifit of the doubt that
> he was the greatest rider of all times.
>
>
>
>
>
> B-