The Greatest



Status
Not open for further replies.
If you simply look at their records, Merckx wins out whichever way you look at it.

But Pro cyclists are not only riding for themselves. There are teams, sponsors and most of all us the public.

I love to see attacking riders. Animals who chew up their opponents and spit them out. Passionate, outspoken riders who wear their heart on their sleeve. Individuals who electrify the sport. To do this and have achieved more than all but a couple of riders screams to me the greatest.

The Badger.
 
My top five;

1 Merckx
2 Hinault
3 Coppi
4 Anquetil (for the Giro-Tour doubles)
5 Armstrong/ Indurain.

In the modern era anyway. Just my opinion. ;)
 
jamie72 said:
My top five;

1 Merckx
2 Hinault
3 Coppi
4 Anquetil (for the Giro-Tour doubles)
5 Armstrong/ Indurain.

In the modern era anyway. Just my opinion. ;)


I'm not sure I know enough to have a definite pick for spots four and five; I think there's probably several good candidates for those spots. But I agree with your picks for 1 through 3.
 
alienator said:
Yup, I agree with that. In fact I wish more riders rode the kinds of events that Merckx rode.

You only need to look at the average speed of races and how fast the riders go up the climbs these days to realise that if Merckx, even at his prime, would have got shat out the back and dropped like a lead balloon in any of the last decade or so Tours de France.

The classics would be a different story - I think he'd be in with a good shout at winning.
 
jamie72 said:
My top five;

1 Merckx
2 Hinault
3 Coppi
4 Anquetil (for the Giro-Tour doubles)
5 Armstrong/ Indurain.

In the modern era anyway. Just my opinion. ;)

Since Coppi died in 1960 - how does he qualify for 'the modern era'?
 
This is an interesting topic, who is the greatest, is there truly anyone in any sport who you could comfortably say was the best, even if compared to modern times, should make for really interesting debate, might post this in bike caffe....who is the greatest in any sport undeniably???
 
swampy1970 said:
Since Coppi died in 1960 - how does he qualify for 'the modern era'?


Yeah well a lot of people consider Coppi to be the first "modern" rider in terms of equipment, training, race tactics etc. But I should have said post war era... :rolleyes:
 
swampy1970 said:
You only need to look at the average speed of races and how fast the riders go up the climbs these days to realise that if Merckx, even at his prime, would have got shat out the back and dropped like a lead balloon in any of the last decade or so Tours de France.

The classics would be a different story - I think he'd be in with a good shout at winning.

I disagree : if you look at the average speeds of GT's and compared the distances/profiles, times have not increased that much.

For example 1962 TDF average speed was 37.3kmph : distance 4,274kms.
That's not far off the pace these days.

Given the changes in equipment, specialisation, prevalence of doping, better conditions for the riders (better hotels/foods/team support/lack of racing these days), the gap between then and now becomes less and less.
 
limerickman said:
I disagree : if you look at the average speeds of GT's and compared the distances/profiles, times have not increased that much.

For example 1962 TDF average speed was 37.3kmph : distance 4,274kms.

That's not far off the pace these days.

Take a look at that route:

Two days in the Alps and two in the Pyrenees, at best... and one of those days in the Pyrenees was an 18km time trial. The stages either side of that don't really lend themselves (due to start and finish locations) to massive mountain days either.

Coppi did a 45 minute ride on Alpe DHuez in 52. Next rider to beat that time was in 1986 - Luis Herrera who popped a 41. Hinault and Lemond that day rode the Alpe in 86 in 48 dead. Note no mention of guys like Van Impe who rode the Alpe and consistantly climbed faster than Merckx. Sastre rode the Alpe in 39 minutes in 2008 which was about 4 minutes slower than the times of Pantani and Armstrong who are credited with times of 37'35 and 37'36 respectively (97 and 04)

1962 Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It'd be interesting to compare times of Ventoux finishes if someone can find them - I can't.
 
swampy1970 said:
Take a look at that route:

Two days in the Alps and two in the Pyrenees, at best... and one of those days in the Pyrenees was an 18km time trial. The stages either side of that don't really lend themselves (due to start and finish locations) to massive mountain days either.

Coppi did a 45 minute ride on Alpe DHuez in 52. Next rider to beat that time was in 1986 - Luis Herrera who popped a 41. Hinault and Lemond that day rode the Alpe in 86 in 48 dead. Note no mention of guys like Van Impe who rode the Alpe and consistantly climbed faster than Merckx. Sastre rode the Alpe in 39 minutes in 2008 which was about 4 minutes slower than the times of Pantani and Armstrong who are credited with times of 37'35 and 37'36 respectively (97 and 04)

1962 Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It'd be interesting to compare times of Ventoux finishes if someone can find them - I can't.

l'Alpe d'Huez times don't always tell the full story. What was the weather like? How many climbs before the Alpe? How long had the leaders been away (i.e Lemond and Hinault in 86)? Where was the time taken from? etc. How impressive was Coppi though. He climbed on an unsurfaced road on a bike that probably weighed 12kg+.

With the Ventoux, I recall that when Vaughters broke the record it was Charly Gauls Mt Ventoux time he beat! :eek:
 
I think you're mixing apples and oranges here (grandmas and frogs (babe i zabe) we would say in Serbia).
I agree that comparing athletes from different eras is very dubious, but it can be done if you define a criteria. And that's the problem, how to define an accurate criteria when sport changed. It changed in goals which riders target, in the way they specialize themselves (these two are regarding the number of races won criteria).
It changed in equipment, training, supplementation, logistics...
And regarding this second, technical, criteria, I want to point out that average speed difference indicator can only be attributed to technical criteria. There's no reason to believe that in just 20 -30 years (that's just one generation) superior people are born. Just look at averages of Indurain and Armstrong era, when conditions are similar - differences are smaller, nearly invisible.
So, my standpoint is - Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, etc. would be equally good to modern riders. Moreover, I think they would share domination with today's dominators in GTs and would be better than today's riders in classics (you can notice here, on classics example, how specialization came in sport - further you look in past more complete riders you see, closer you look - more specialized). They'd also share each other's domination (in their eras) if they raced against each other - Merckx wouldn't have won so much if he had to race against Hinault, Armstrong, Coppi etc.
I'd like to hear what do you think achievements of modern riders would be if they raced in conditions when, for example, Coppi raced. I didn't choose Coppi by chance. I believe that modern riders wouldn't have big problems accommodating on conditions in Merckx and Hinault era, but conditions in Coppi's era were something else.
But then again, you accommodate on your surroundings not even thinking how it could be, or if it could be different, it is like it is.
It would be very funny to watch modern riders on bikes from Coppi's time, on unsurfaced roads without domestiques, radios... They don't want to race if radios are banned just for one stage! And that's the aspect of racing which would least harm them. Try to put them on unsurfaced roads or ban them from taking water from team mates...
On the other hand, Coppi would enjoy riding in 2010... It would be like cyclo tour for him.
But, just like I said - it is like it is.
 
classic1 said:
l'Alpe d'Huez times don't always tell the full story. What was the weather like? How many climbs before the Alpe? How long had the leaders been away (i.e Lemond and Hinault in 86)? Where was the time taken from? etc. How impressive was Coppi though. He climbed on an unsurfaced road on a bike that probably weighed 12kg+.

With the Ventoux, I recall that when Vaughters broke the record it was Charly Gauls Mt Ventoux time he beat! :eek:

It would have been interesting to see what Jean Francois-Bernards split for the ascent was in the 87 timetrial. Unforutunately the time trial included a bunch of flatish roads before hand...

That Coppi ride is unreal.

Pantani's record setting ride was done at the end of a long stage, the day after a time trial and in the last week of the tour... That's gotta make the legs suffer a bit.
 
Andrija said:
I think you're mixing apples and oranges here (grandmas and frogs (babe i zabe) we would say in Serbia).
I agree that comparing athletes from different eras is very dubious, but it can be done if you define a criteria. And that's the problem, how to define an accurate criteria when sport changed. It changed in goals which riders target, in the way they specialize themselves (these two are regarding the number of races won criteria).
It changed in equipment, training, supplementation, logistics...
And regarding this second, technical, criteria, I want to point out that average speed difference indicator can only be attributed to technical criteria. There's no reason to believe that in just 20 -30 years (that's just one generation) superior people are born. Just look at averages of Indurain and Armstrong era, when conditions are similar - differences are smaller, nearly invisible.
So, my standpoint is - Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, etc. would be equally good to modern riders. Moreover, I think they would share domination with today's dominators in GTs and would be better than today's riders in classics (you can notice here, on classics example, how specialization came in sport - further you look in past more complete riders you see, closer you look - more specialized). They'd also share each other's domination (in their eras) if they raced against each other - Merckx wouldn't have won so much if he had to race against Hinault, Armstrong, Coppi etc.
I'd like to hear what do you think achievements of modern riders would be if they raced in conditions when, for example, Coppi raced. I didn't choose Coppi by chance. I believe that modern riders wouldn't have big problems accommodating on conditions in Merckx and Hinault era, but conditions in Coppi's era were something else.
But then again, you accommodate on your surroundings not even thinking how it could be, or if it could be different, it is like it is.
It would be very funny to watch modern riders on bikes from Coppi's time, on unsurfaced roads without domestiques, radios... They don't want to race if radios are banned just for one stage! And that's the aspect of racing which would least harm them. Try to put them on unsurfaced roads or ban them from taking water from team mates...
On the other hand, Coppi would enjoy riding in 2010... It would be like cyclo tour for him.
But, just like I said - it is like it is.

i've told this story before but it is worth re-telling.

In 2003, the modern riders were asked to test ride the bikes used by the former TDF winners.

David Millar had to ride the 1936 TDF winners bike over a 20km circuit.
Millar said afterward "even covering a small distance 20kms, you get to appreciate just how basic the equipment was back then. That bike I rode was heavier, more cumbersome than anything that I have ridden.
Trying to cover 20kms is a relatievly quick time, using that bike, is very difficult.
I could only guess at how tough it would be to complete a TDF route on it.
And you also have to factor in the clothing and equipment those guys yused back then too.
I can only marvel at someone completing a TDF back then".
 
It's very hard even to imagine how would look Coppi's performance with modern equipment. Yet, other half of equitation is doable. ASO can organize a retro stage with everything like it was in 1950's. The only problem is - who would dare to embarrass himself. Yes, I'm sure it would be embarrassement. But if they would train with those bikes on those roads, results would be very similar.
And, I have to notice one thing. There is a possibility that there were better riders than Coppi in those days, but they were less tolerant on bad conditions. Maybe they would beat Coppi if they've had asphalted roads and modern logistics. Toleration on bad conditions had big impact on performance those days. Now think about this, maybe there's a rider today who would perform much better in harsh conditions of 1950's than it would do Armstrong, Contador, etc..
Environment determines limits from both directions. It favors some and it handicaps others.
It's very interesting topic, but it's absurd searching for an answer.
 
it's Big Lance Armstrong, the guy who stared death in the face with his bicycle as his only defense. i highly doubt anything could lessen him under any circumstances as a rider other than death itself.
 
What kept him to show his teeth earlier?
Please, if you don't have anything relevant for discussion to say, find another place for posting this PR rubbish.
 
Andrija said:
What kept him to show his teeth earlier?
Please, if you don't have anything relevant for discussion to say, find another place for posting this PR rubbish.


hey, i was posting what i felt is right. sorry you are too blind to the facts of life. and there's no PR about it, it's just who I am. and as for his teeth not flashing during the TDU is what i'll presume you are talking about, it's not about that training ride for him. wait till the tour de france and you'll see precisley how tactics work. they've already begun, btw.
 
roadhouse said:
hey, i was posting what i felt is right. sorry you are too blind to the facts of life. and there's no PR about it, it's just who I am. and as for his teeth not flashing during the TDU is what i'll presume you are talking about, it's not about that training ride for him. wait till the tour de france and you'll see precisley how tactics work. they've already begun, btw.
No simpleton, I'm talking about his GT career before cancer.
You know, there has been cycling before Armstrong, and there was Armstrong before 1998. when he made his first notable result in GT (Vuelta).
You really sound like PR gay with that "Big Lance". And if you say that it's just who you are, then I might think I'm refering to Armstrong himself.
 
No, no...
Tell me about his pre-cancer career and GT potential.
If you don't want to - talk about contribution of different factors on performance in different eras, or about some objective criteria for comparing performances in different eras.
We all here agree that Armstrong has great TDF palmares. We also agree that he overcame lethal disease. There's no need to post the same marketing phrases, life story admirations and videos in every single thread you show yourself.
Your modus operandi reminds on PR services.
Please, stop trolling the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.