Doofer <
[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 22:39:32 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Doofer <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> The charge was levelled that the US has better sportsmen simply
>>> because the greatest cyclist the World has ever known in from the
>>> US.
>>
>>ROTFL! The greatest cyclist the world has ever known was from
>>Belgium.
>
> I'd be happy to argue that the Great Belgium's place on the podium
> has been relegated to second place following Armstrong's win
> yesterday.
>
> However, it is a value argument, so we can both be right.
It's not a value argument to the extent that Merckx's palmares dwarf
those of almost any other rider in the history of the sport for both
quality of wins and quantity. Hinault is probably the closest rider
to Merckx, followed perhaps by Coppi. I would put Kelly ahead of
Armstrong as well, since he won a much greater variety of races even
though he never placed better than 4th in the Tour de France.
Don't get me wrong, I think Armstrong is a great rider even if his
personality is a bit annoying. But his palmares are a bit limited
when you look beyond the Tour de France. He's won some minor stange
races in preparation for the Tour, and won the World Championship road
race quite brilliantly in 1993- a truly impressive feat in epic
conditions ("epic" meaning "the weather really sucked" in this
context). He won Fleche Wallone and of course he contended for
Liege-Bastogne-Liege and Amstel Gold several times each.
Merckx, on the other hand, won every major classic except one. He won
the World Road Championships 3 times, Milan-San Remo 7 times, Tour of
Flanders twice, Paris-Roubaix 3 times, Tour of Lombardy twice. He won
the Tour de France 4 times in a row, once winning all the jerseys not
just the Yellow Jersey, skipped a year and won it the next. He won
the Giro d'Italia 5 times and the Tour of Spain once. And that's just
scratching the surface. Between 1969 and 1973, he won an amazing 38%
of the races he entered! He raced up to 150 days a year (Armstrong
probably races less than 60), way more than just about any modern pro
since Sean Kelly.
However, the comparison is a little unfair. Bike racing has changed-
with much bigger salaries (thanks in large part to Lemond). The
division between Classics riders and Tour riders is much greater than
it was, and Tour contenders do not ride the Spring or Fall Classics
with any intent to win. The nature of the sport has changed, and
trying to compare Merckx and Armstrong is like trying to compare
modern-day Major Leaguers with the men who played in the "dead ball"
era. The conditions are different and that makes true comparison
difficult.
If we limit the discussion to just the Tour de France, then yes,
Armstrong is the best. You can't argue with results. Merckx took
more stage wins and spent more time in the Yellow Jersey than Lance,
but he didn't win 6 overall. Armstrong strikes me as a combination
of Merckx and Antequil. He has the former's panache and unswerving
team loyalty, and the latter's meticulous preparation and strategy.