Greg Lemond, Lance Armstong, Eddie Mercxx

[saherring]

Winning grand tours does not make one the greatest cyclist of all time, just the greatest cyclist when it comes to grand tours. Armstrong won very few one day races. Mercxx won over 500 races including all 3 grand tours and many one day races...many of them 2 & 3 times as well. His overall record is unmatched. He destroyed opponents without the help of a team in many instances. Also, when Lemond beat Fignon by 8 seconds, he only had only 2 team mates left in the race during most of the last week. I highly doubt if Armstrong could have won seven tours without his team. In fact he has credited his team with his ability to win 7 tours and has stated on numerous occasions that he could not have done it without the team. An all-around record must be considered in determining who was the greatest...not just winning the tour de france.

 

[SaintAndrew]

The assertion that anyone other than Lance Armstrong is the greatest bike racer in history is completly ridiculous.

jigga please *pfft* he only won the TdF, and of the 5 and up winners, (besides indurain who spent like 8 years as a domestique prior to winning) he was the only one not discouraged from riding it.

now i think he could have won the giro and the tour (he would never risk that though), but he'd have almost no shot at the giro/tour/world's, and further he wasn't bold enough to try to do it so **** him.

btw thanx for bumping this year-old, useless thread.

 

[Imback]

Eddy Merckx was the greatest cyclist ever, Armstrong is the greatest tour de france rider ever, however, I believe his TDF only attitude didn't help the sport at all.

I am curious on how he found such a really good winning formula, maybe his hormone replacement therapy after cancer helped with the recovery, and Dr. Ferrari gave him some really good vitamins

 

[ishiwata]

The assertion that anyone other than Lance Armstrong is the greatest bike racer in history is completly ridiculous.

You're absolutely correct!

(I'm assuming you meant "Eddy Merckx" where you wrote "Lance Armstrong.")

 

[youngda9]

Like ME? I'm complaining about the same people you are. My point was they should get informed BEFORE they make yet another post comparing Lance to any of the great ones especially Eddy. It's not like the information isn't available - but they seem to think they've got a thought-provoking question when really they're clueless.

You're quite the ambassador for the sport, aren't you. Someone comes in here looking for history, opinions and lively debate and you tell them to f-off. If you don't have anything to say, stop wasting you time and the rest of ours. You're a jack-ass.

Why don't you go to the post in this forum where the 15 year old kid wants to know about getting into racing. Surely this has been covered elsewhere on the internet, books, etc. Tell him to f-off also and stop wasting everyone's time.

Ahhh...just shut the forum down, no need to chat to people. What would you do with yourself...1800+ posts has to take a lot of time. If your time is so precious, then don't bother taking one hand off your mouse to type how your time is being wasted, just click to the next post.

 

[Jacob24]

While I admire Lance Armstrong for being able to win 6 Tours de France, he could not have done it without a very good team. Greg Lemond only won 3, but when he be Laurent Finyon by 89 seconds, he only had 2 team mates left in the race for most of the last week of racing. I wonder how Armstrong would have done if this were the case for him. Also, he is undoubtly the best Tour de France racer ever, but would he have been able to win 6 if he had riden at least one of the other tours several of those years. I believe that Eddie Mercxx won 2 major tours in the same season on several occasions, not to mention that he won 525 races in his career. While I am an Armstrong fan, I do not consider him the greatest cyclist ever, or even the greatest Grand Tour rider ever...Just the greatest TDF rider. WHAT DO YOU THINK ?

I belive that lance is the best cyclist of all time, but not the most accomplished, if you look at how he won the tours, with total dominance, and how much of a superior cyclist he was to his peers, that is the only conclusion I can draw. This is even more the case considering the new information that the racers he dominated were doping, something I assume Eddie Mercxx never faced. Many of the other cyclists mentioned in this thread have more overall victories than Lance does, but you can't compare Lance to them because he never attempted to win many of the races others on this forum use as proof that Lance was inferior. he simply didn't have the same goal. I'm sure that If Lance was to attempt to win as many races as he could, as opposed to focusing on dominating one race he would be inarguably the most accomplished cyclist of all time
If you want proof for his being the best cyclist of all time look to how he won the tours, never showing weakness except one time when he cracked.
also for those of us who like numbers, look at lances lactic threshold, his VO2 max, and wattage, ect.
You are free to disagree, but in my opinion, all of the things I listed above prove him to be the greatest of all time, bar none

 

[ishiwata]

You are free to disagree, but in my opinion, all of the things I listed above prove him to be the greatest of all time, bar none

actually, palmares, if anything, prove who is the best.

actually, riders in the 60s/70s were doped (tommy simpson ring a bell?). and merckx was almost certainly on stuff himself.

actually, merckx would have won more tours de france if he hadn't been assaulted during the race by spectators, or if he put more of a focus on winning the tour over winning absolutely everything.

actually, this topic is boring me to death.

 

[mitosis]

actually, palmares, if anything, prove who is the best.

actually, riders in the 60s/70s were doped (tommy simpson ring a bell?). and merckx was almost certainly on stuff himself.

actually, merckx would have won more tours de france if he hadn't been assaulted during the race by spectators, or if he put more of a focus on winning the tour over winning absolutely everything.

actually, this topic is boring me to death.

actually, if you look at the riders who finished immediately behind Armstrong last year and notice they have been discredited (without proof in some cases) for doping, it is even more difficult to believe LA didn't dope.
actually.

 

[EvilJediJ]

The only thing we have close to an objective comparison between era's is the World Hour Record. In the future we will be able to compare riders to our current generation easier, due to things like power meters.

Even though changes in aerodynamics certainly made the world hour record up to who had the fastest bike just as much as the fastest rider, scientists have been able to ascertain the power readings of riders including Merckx. When all is said and done it goes like this...

The best performance in the hour record ever is Tony Rominger, second is Chris Boardman(1996). Faaaar behind these two in third place is Eddie Merckx and in 4th is Indurain. The incredible thing about Merckx is that he broke the hour record in 1972. That same year he won 5 classics, the Giro and the Tour!!! Then he still had the muster set the world hour record in October!! Simply the greatest year a cyclist has ever had. Even after that hellish season he still put in a better time trial performance than Indurain, who was at the peak of his Time trial dominance at the time.


Recently, the UCI changed the rules of the aerodynamics of the bicycle so that riders would have to have similar bikes to that of Eddie Merckx. Chris Boardman was able to beat Merckx by 9 meters! But even still his bike was no doubt more aero than Merckx. Of course Boardman was at the end of his career and had already been starting to feel the effects of osteoporosis. Ondrej Sosenka, was able to beat the system by using a flywheel. His record should not count.

Lance dedicated a team of scientists called the F1 group for his attempt to break the hour record. he was obviously training for, we have seen the videos of him on track bikes in the wind tunnel. But he called off his attempt. Did he find out in training that he wouldn't be up to the task? We most likely will never know.

 

[Imback]

actually, if you look at the riders who finished immediately behind Armstrong last year and notice they have been discredited (without proof in some cases) for doping, it is even more difficult to believe LA didn't dope.
actually.

But you know that you are innocent until proven guilty, so LA is innocent just like OJ Simpson...

 

[SaintAndrew]

Ondrej Sosenka, was able to beat the system by using a flywheel. His record should not count.

ree-hee-heally? that is total ********.

 

[lonympics]

http://www.lonympics.co.uk/fantasy/cycling.htm
A game where you can win the Tour De France, and the Yellow Jersey

 

[Chuck Jazz]

A quick post on the on going debate of the ingnorance of the populous of America in regards to cycling history.

1. Anything the gets lazy Americans off their asses and in the saddle where the might lose some of the 40 extra pounds most of them carry is a great thing! LANCE DID THAT!

2. Any man who can overcome testicular cance to become and elite athelete for a second time in his life has to be considered among the all-time greats! If only because of his shear determination to regain his status! GUYS HE LOST A TESTICLE AND BOUNCED BACK BETTER THAN EVER THINK ABOUT IT!!!! Again Lance did that!

3. Last, any man who motivates a nations team of cyclists to train at a level that had never been acheived before in that countries history in the sport is a legend! Lance is a legend because of his presence, passion, determaination and inspiration. All the above mentioned men were phenominal cyclists perhaps "The Canibal" was the best his tactics and vicious nature aside! However Lance transends the sport and is more, that is why he will be remembered as the greatest wins and losses aside! The man is an ICON!

4. Without Lance there is no Floyd and think what you will of his situation but Floyd is one hell of a cyclist with grit and determaination!

-Chew on this for awhile while I go ride some hills!

 

[micron]

without Lance there is no Floyd? Don't suppose you really meant what that implies

 

[1timepro]

A quick post on the on going debate of the ingnorance of the populous of America in regards to cycling history.

1. Anything the gets lazy Americans off their asses and in the saddle where the might lose some of the 40 extra pounds most of them carry is a great thing! LANCE DID THAT!

2. Any man who can overcome testicular cance to become and elite athelete for a second time in his life has to be considered among the all-time greats! If only because of his shear determination to regain his status! GUYS HE LOST A TESTICLE AND BOUNCED BACK BETTER THAN EVER THINK ABOUT IT!!!! Again Lance did that!

3. Last, any man who motivates a nations team of cyclists to train at a level that had never been acheived before in that countries history in the sport is a legend! Lance is a legend because of his presence, passion, determaination and inspiration. All the above mentioned men were phenominal cyclists perhaps "The Canibal" was the best his tactics and vicious nature aside! However Lance transends the sport and is more, that is why he will be remembered as the greatest wins and losses aside! The man is an ICON!

4. Without Lance there is no Floyd and think what you will of his situation but Floyd is one hell of a cyclist with grit and determaination!

-Chew on this for awhile while I go ride some hills!

Without Lemond there is no Lance. Who do you think inspired Lance and other Americans in his gerneration to take up cycling?
Face, Lance is not the best cyclist ever. So just admit that you have a crush on him and want to suck on his one ball and let's be done with it.

 

[Chuck Jazz]

Dude! Don't insult me like that! I happen to like female cyclists if you wish to stoop so low. I am not arguing who is better in terms of skill I am arguing who means more to the sport in terms of accomplishment and without a doubt that is Armstrong. Who, incidentally, I routed against in his last three tours. I never said that i am his biggest fan however what he has done for the sport goes without question! Lemond was a great rider who has become Bedfellows with **** Pound and it is unfortunately part of what is hurting pro cycling! If Lemond wasn't soooo jealous of Armstrong maybe pro-cycling wouldn't be soooo messed up. These Crusades against good riders (Floyd, Basso, Ulrich, Hamilton ) are unfortunate and unwarrented the cyclists need a stronger Union and a collective bargaining agreement that redefines the way testing and negative press will be delt with. Basically someone needs to put a muzzle on **** Pound!


Nuff Said

 

[mitosis]

Dude! Don't insult me like that! I happen to like female cyclists if you wish to stoop so low. I am not arguing who is better in terms of skill I am arguing who means more to the sport in terms of accomplishment and without a doubt that is Armstrong. Who, incidentally, I routed against in his last three tours. I never said that i am his biggest fan however what he has done for the sport goes without question! Lemond was a great rider who has become Bedfellows with **** Pound and it is unfortunately part of what is hurting pro cycling! If Lemond wasn't soooo jealous of Armstrong maybe pro-cycling wouldn't be soooo messed up. These Crusades against good riders (Floyd, Basso, Ulrich, Hamilton ) are unfortunate and unwarrented the cyclists need a stronger Union and a collective bargaining agreement that redefines the way testing and negative press will be delt with. Basically someone needs to put a muzzle on **** Pound!


Nuff Said

Basically, someone needs to do something serious about drugs in the peloton. Then we wouldn't have to debate Armstrong, Basso, Landis etc because they wouldn't have such high profiles. Unless of course they would be stand out's without the drugs - but for them at least we will never know.

 

[BillM]

so the American newb must be fed the brainless 'Armstrong is the Greatest Ever' line to placate them - you assume they are so ignorant, insular and uninterested in anything else in the sport aside from Armstrong and the Tour de France that they wouldn't like to find out something about the history of the sport and other riders - to be better informed and better able to argue their position? The original poster clearly stated their position and asked others for their opinions - if you're not interested, why not butt out?

Are you always an asshole or just when it comes to cycling?