should 5x's be broken?



amorevelo

New Member
Feb 17, 2004
39
0
0
42
i'm wondering if anyone else feels the same here. i've gotten into several arguments both with cyclists and non about the tour and lance. i think that lance is a great athlete and by no means do i mean to down grade that in any way, shape, or form, but this is just bugging me. should the record of 5 times for winning the tour be broken or not. in my opinion merckx is one of the greatest riders ever to ride a bike, and now that the record is on the verge of being broken i find myself thinking "does lance really need to break this thing?" i think that being completely focused on one event is great, but the fact that merckx didn't just focus on the tour and won many other races all year long just says something about the quality of rider he is. now is it right for lance to beat that record and maybe, at least in some people's eyes, diminish what merckx or the other 5x'ers did? how many non cyclists even know who merckx or indurain are, but how many can point out lance? i think that the torch needs to be passed, let another rider rise and concentrate on other races lance, i.e. the giro or the vuelta.
 
records are not sacred...retiring to avoid winning a race out of deference to history is utter bull****.
 
When Merckx rode the competition was not as strong. Many riders focus on the Tour as the primary goal. It's impossible to say how each would do in the other's generation. I'd put my money on Lance if they raced when both were at their peak.
 
In anything -- sport, science, whatever -- if we kept on limiting ourselves to be fair to the "past generation", we'd never improve. Times change, sports evolve, and it's silly to be blind to that.

Being a Tour specialist isn't against the rules. Records are made to be broken.
 
Before we start judging the merits of winning #6, he has to win #6. The best cyclists in the world have all failed at that, and Lance didn't look all that good in #5. But for misfortune, Merckx would probably have won 6. I tend to think that LeMond would have as well, had he not been sidelined by fate.
 
If the record is broken, it's broken. Period. Like others have said, records aren't sacred. I think that it would be completely ridiculous to expect Armstrong to not ride just to pay respect to the record and honor past champions. Maybe the record will be broken, maybe it won't.
 
Meehs has it right. If the record is broken it is broken and that is all that it means. There will still be debates about what it means. A quick look at the overall breadth of career records of Merckx bears little resemblence to Lance's phenomenal but still limited repetoire. While they are both athletes of a caliber I never approached; the green jerseys, mountain and stage wins and overall domination are not even in the same league. Claims of lesser competition in the past are absurd when compared with today's team self-sacrificing support and lack of all out effort. Sure records will always be broken but comparsion will be as flawed as it is in comparing the current 100 meter running event times with those done back in the 1930's on loose cinder tracks.
 
An argument could be made that for Armstrong to decide to stop competing the in the Tour in order to not win it and take anything away from any of his fellow five-time winners would be the absolute zenith of arrogance. It could further be argued that he *owes* it to the others to take his best shot at number six and to either win it or lose it and not leave history to speculate that he "could have had six" if he hadn't walked away out of respect for his predecessors. If he were to, for some reason retire before the Tour, he owes it to the sport to make sure there is no hint that he did so to protect anyone else's record. That would be incredibly bush league.
 
Originally posted by jstraw
An argument could be made that for Armstrong to decide to stop competing the in the Tour in order to not win it and take anything away from any of his fellow five-time winners would be the absolute zenith of arrogance. It could further be argued that he *owes* it to the others to take his best shot at number six and to either win it or lose it and not leave history to speculate that he "could have had six" if he hadn't walked away out of respect for his predecessors. If he were to, for some reason retire before the Tour, he owes it to the sport to make sure there is no hint that he did so to protect anyone else's record. That would be incredibly bush league.

That's an excellent point! Right on!
 
Originally posted by meehs
If the record is broken, it's broken. Period. Like others have said, records aren't sacred. I think that it would be completely ridiculous to expect Armstrong to not ride just to pay respect to the record and honor past champions. Maybe the record will be broken, maybe it won't.
I agree completely.
 
To not give it all to go for #6 would be to dishonor the other champions, to cheapen their accomplishments - sort of a patronizing 'you have your record because I chose not to pursue it'. Better still that Lance gives it 100%. If he wins 6, it's because he had the drive and skill to do so. If he does not, then the other champions retain their record because they were that good, not because someone chose not to challenge them.

Besides, one does not win 5 TDF's without possessing a fierce competitive drive. I doubt he's capable of backing off under these circumstances.
 
And if he DOES win #6 should future super champs defer to HIS record and not go for #7?
 
I think that Lance giving it a shot at six gave his competators something to work for. Were it me, I would be sorely dissapointed if he decided not to race this year. Lance can't quit yet, he has to make it to six. It's in his blood.
 
Riders like Hinault, Eddie, Big Mig, and so on stand by there total Palmaries. I am an American, but I think most Americans judge a rider by their TDF victories. This is not the case any where else in the world. Lance is AWESOME, and I wish him all the luck, but no one could possibly say that if he gets six that is would compare to what Eddie did, every day of every season. Doubles, Tripples, Classics, Worlds...... on and on and on.

The Number 6 isn't all that great when you start matching Plamaries. By the way. 5 isn;t all that special either 1/4 of all the TDFs have been won by a five time winner.

Go Lance!!!! Get it baby!!

Jdawg
 
Originally posted by Jdawg
Riders like Hinault, Eddie, Big Mig, and so on stand by there total Palmaries. I am an American, but I think most Americans judge a rider by their TDF victories. This is not the case any where else in the world. Lance is AWESOME, and I wish him all the luck, but no one could possibly say that if he gets six that is would compare to what Eddie did, every day of every season. Doubles, Tripples, Classics, Worlds...... on and on and on.

The Number 6 isn't all that great when you start matching Plamaries. By the way. 5 isn;t all that special either 1/4 of all the TDFs have been won by a five time winner.

Go Lance!!!! Get it baby!!

Jdawg

I've said this before and I'll say it again... No one here EVER said that if Lance were to win six he's be a "greater" rider than Eddy Merckx. I don't think that Lance himself would make that claim. However in my opinion you could make an argument that he's in the same league as Hinault and Indurain. But whenever a question like this comes-up, someone has to jump in and defend that argument (no offense to you at all Jdawg but this happens every time).

The only question that was posed was whether or not Lance should go for six or be content to share the five wins record with the past greats. Nobody ever said that if he does win six he'll go down as the greatest rider ever. Perhaps you could say that he'd be the greatest Tour de France rider ever?

That's a very interesting point made by Jdawg that one quarter of all Tours de France have been won by five time winners. I've never heard that or thought of it that way.
 
WOW, I am new to this board, and I have to say I am way caught off guard because usually I am on the other side of this argument. I am a HUGE lance fan. I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't feel the 5 time mark is as sacred to those outside of America that some may think. Yes it is a HUGE deal everywhere, but I don't think Lance winning 6 will be a slap to ANY of the other 5 time winners.

Everyone that follows cycling knows what the other ones have done. Lance will just have a stamp on this one (allbeit the biggest) race.

Jdawg
 
Originally posted by Jdawg
WOW, I am new to this board, and I have to say I am way caught off guard because usually I am on the other side of this argument. I am a HUGE lance fan. I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't feel the 5 time mark is as sacred to those outside of America that some may think. Yes it is a HUGE deal everywhere, but I don't think Lance winning 6 will be a slap to ANY of the other 5 time winners.

Everyone that follows cycling knows what the other ones have done. Lance will just have a stamp on this one (allbeit the biggest) race.

Jdawg

I'm with you! I'm a big fan of Lance too. We'll see if he can do it. It's not going to be easy with the "Super Team" that T-Mobile has assembled with Ullrich, Vinokourov and company!
 
I honestly do not see T-Mobil being as big a problem. Vino is the better rider right now. Jan knows it, T-Mobil knows it, and Vino said it. Vino is killing himself out there right now, and I think we all know, he is not a top podium finisher even without Jan on the team. He won’t be as big a help as some expect. IMHO

This was supposed to be JU's big come out year over Lance and the TDF. All I see is same ol' same ol'. He is out of shape, and thinks he is going to skate through on his Teams Palmares.

This is not a knock, but German riders have had a history of slumping right after the big pay day so to speak.

Just a thought. Too many Chiefs. Moreover, what the heck is this Crapola about leaving Zabel home for the Tour. That's BUNK!!!

Jdawg
 
Originally posted by meehs
I've said this before and I'll say it again... No one here EVER said that if Lance were to win six he's be a "greater" rider than Eddy Merckx. I don't think that Lance himself would make that claim. However in my opinion you could make an argument that he's in the same league as Hinault and Indurain. But whenever a question like this comes-up, someone has to jump in and defend that argument (no offense to you at all Jdawg but this happens every time).

The only question that was posed was whether or not Lance should go for six or be content to share the five wins record with the past greats. Nobody ever said that if he does win six he'll go down as the greatest rider ever. Perhaps you could say that he'd be the greatest Tour de France rider ever?

That's a very interesting point made by Jdawg that one quarter of all Tours de France have been won by five time winners. I've never heard that or thought of it that way.

I think that some people (of which I admit guilt) were pointing this out as a reason why it would make little sense for Lance or anyone else to not pursue a record for fear of eclipsing a predecessor. The numbers themselves are only of real importance when the broader picture is examined. My guess is that LA will be very distinguished in the history books just as much for his current accomplishments in light the significant health hurdles he has overcome.
Sadly here in the U.S. most of the non-enthusiast people that I know are well acquainted with Lance because he sometimes actually makes current news; but would have no clue as to who Hinault or Merckx even were (maybe some would think that Merckx "makes bike").
 
Originally posted by blowin mud
When Merckx rode the competition was not as strong.
Where did you get that idea? I doubt if any of the Big 5 winners (including Armstrong) would claim that Merckx's competition was of a lesser quality. I also doubt if an in-form Lance would be as confident of beating an in-form Eddie as you believe he should be.
Back to the question....
If Lance is able to race, then he should race. Why pick the TdF as the one sporting event where you shouldn't attempt to surpass the record? Nothing will devalue the efforts of those who have ridden before. The reason it took so long for Eddie's Hour record to be broken was because few people believed themselves capable of doing it, or did not want to put themselves through the suffering it involves, not because of not wanting to spoil it for Eddie.
There is nothing sacred about the number 5.

Eoin C
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
2
Views
760
P