in head to head TDF competition. I know EM is the most dominating cyclist of all times, but I would defy anyone to tell me that if both raced tagainst each other in the TDF today, EM would have beaten Lance today. I am also getting sick of people saying that Lance only trains for one race when ALL CYCLISTS TODAY are specialists to some exetent.
Don't get me wrong, I respect what athletes accomlished in the past, but I don't think it can be said that EM would have dominated Lance with all things being equal. Wilt Chamberlin scored 100 points in a game, but he would be demolished by today's centers. Christ, Kevin Garnett is a 7 footer who can dribble like a gaurd. Point is, there is an evolution that takes place in athletes and Lance's domination of this particular race is timeless. Just my opinion, but I saw a thread elsewhere and I think it is funny how every generation makes claim to the "best".

The facts are clear (to me at least) Lance Armstrong is a great rider in the Tour. Eddy Merckx did everything, all the time, and is the best there ever was. You assume that Merckx would be riding and training like it was 1970 and racing a 2004 Armstrong? If you do you miss the point of a Merckx. He is the standard because of training and meticulous preparation. A 2004 Merckx would be as state of the art as a 1970 Merckx

say is that if you look at Lance's performance today, I don't think anyone could have topped him. Jordan is the best ball player of my generation not because of physical atrributes, but more from a psychological basis. What separates one great athlete from another? There were better shooters than Jordan, higher jumpers, faster players, but NOBODY had his will to win. Same with Lance. I think comparing Merckx who was ahead of his time to the men he raced against isn't equal to how better prepared atheltes are today. Could Wilt Chamberlin ever score a 100 points today in the NBA. NO WAY. He would be a mediocre center at best but he dominated the league then. My point is valid if you look at it from this point of view. In all other sports, the old timers verbalize being in awe of what the players now can do. Yes, if they had the same technology and knowledge then as they have now, they would have the same potential, but there are some people that are just umbeatable. Merckx dominated all races because that is how cyclist's schedules were then. I would like to see if they were able to test Merckx physiologically bakc then with VO2, watts etc, how he would compare to the modern cyclist.



The facts are clear (to me at least) Lance Armstrong is a great rider in the Tour. Eddy Merckx did everything, all the time, and is the best there ever was. You assume that Merckx would be riding and training like it was 1970 and racing a 2004 Armstrong? If you do you miss the point of a Merckx. He is the standard because of training and meticulous preparation. A 2004 Merckx would be as state of the art as a 1970 Merckx

has been measured and it was as good or better than LA's. at the time his score was so high it wasn't thought possible. he far exceeded the records set by Olympic rowers which are known to be some of the highest. He had the bio/physio chemical make-up similar to LA and Big Mig, Huge Lungs, Great Heart, huge threshhold for LTR. What eddy had/has over LA was he hated losing. everyday was a shot at victory, he didn't time his attacks or his training schedule, he didn't hide behind his team. His hour record (we've had this debate before) shows he can/could pull with the best of any era. I'd never bet against him, given equal equipment, diet, training, etc...He won almost every classic, every GT and would have had 6 or 7 TdF's had he not
a) taken a year off
b) got punchedn by a anti-fan
so nice Troll, Lance is a great rider. EDDY IS GOD

I know EM is the most dominating cyclist of all times

I know this thread is just bait, but I'll respond anyway. If you had stopped with the portion quoted above, your post would be correct.

As Hinault said the other day, Merckx would have won the TdF every year for many years if he built his year around the TdF and either skipped every other race or used it only as training for the TdF.

Also, as others have said in this thread, Merckx's ferocious competitiveness was at least equal to that of Armstrong, and if Merckx was riding in 2004 he would be ahead of the game today in training, equipment, technique, etc., etc. like he was ahead of the game in the 1970s.

Finally, because you can't compare generations just on a statistic or two, you can't say Armstrong is better in any way just because he will exceed Merckx's TdF win total. That would be like saying "Mark McGwire hit more home runs than Ted Williams, therefore McGwire was a better baseball player than Ted Williams."

Lance's TdF accomplishments are amazing. But he doesn't measure up to Merckx.

was way more competitve than LA. They asked eddy about Lance's Gift to Pantani on Ventoux, Eddy replied "Gifts are for birthdays". That's why he has about 100 yellow jerseys to Lances 61 and 30 plus stage wins, Polka dot and Green Jerseys to boot.

That's why he has about 100 yellow jerseys to Lances 61 and 30 plus stage wins, Polka dot and Green Jerseys to boot.

IIRC, there was one year when Merckx won the Tour and, in addition to the maillot jaune, won the polka dot and green jerseys as well. In the same freaking year. Let's see Lance do that.

It's apples to oranges for sure. But all things being equal, meaning Eddy doesn't do 100 or more races during the year, I think it would be a pretty close battle. Both have the fire down below like no one else does, and both are levels above everyone else physically. I'm going to be diplomatic and say they split a few Tours. I definitely think Lance in his prime could beat Eddy in his prime, but there's no way he's beating him five times in a row. I think they would be lucky if each won two. They'd kill each other!

won them all. won 2 in a tour as well (Yellow and Green). 69 his solo break was gnarlier than Hamiltons last year. Got a gap on the first climb, increased it on the descent (alone) everyone figured he'd wait as he was about 8 minutes up but all alone. He put the hammer down and won by about 20. Niwot, there are some posters, trolls, here whom I think have a very limited historical knowledge of the sport and therefore as they are bandwagoneers lack proper perspective. thanx for joining in this quest to educate.

12345

there is "no way" Lance would beat EM based on his past accomplishments, but you definitively say Lance wouldn't beat EM despite his current success. EM wouldn't race 100 times a year if he were racing today. You guys keep forgetting that.


12345

was way more competitve than LA. They asked eddy about Lance's Gift to Pantani on Ventoux, Eddy replied "Gifts are for birthdays". That's why he has about 100 yellow jerseys to Lances 61 and 30 plus stage wins, Polka dot and Green Jerseys to boot.

Eddy was the Dick Butkus of cycling. Butkus said he often dreamed of hitting someone so hard their helmet would come off, except their head was still in it! Eddy had about the same attitude. He would be up by eight or ten minutes in the Tour classification and still attack just to twist the knife.

there is "no way" Lance would beat EM based on his past accomplishments, but you definitively say Lance wouldn't beat EM despite his current success. EM wouldn't race 100 times a year if he were racing today. You guys keep forgetting that.
You must read about what Merckx did (I don't think you have).It is more than his palmares. He demolished the field. Luis Ocana (a great rider in his own right) died chasing Merckx. I think people look at Merckx now and like to temper thier memories. People did not like him. French and the Flemish hated him. None of this meant anything to him, just winning. Armstrong is a great rider but can't stand up to Merckx.

invicnible just because he was able dominate his comtemporaries? That just isn't logical. Why is it that in other sports, people have gotten stronger, faster etc etc. One day this generation of cycling fans will be making up the same folklore about Lance being upbeatable and "much better" than the future "flavor of the week". Like I said, Wilt Chamberlin was thought of a the best ever when he was playing, but he is average at best if transplanted into the modern game. Athletes are more agile and skilled than in the past and the same holds true for cycling. You are kidding yourself.
My argument wasn't if EM was cycling today but rather if he were transplanted into the current TDF as he was his dominating self then, would he blow the field away based on his average TDF speeds, tt times etc. Not in relation to his competitors at the time. See my question is more complex than you seem to understand.



You must read about what Merckx did (I don't think you have).It is more than his palmares. He demolished the field. Luis Ocana (a great rider in his own right) died chasing Merckx. I think people look at Merckx now and like to temper thier memories. People did not like him. French and the Flemish hated him. None of this meant anything to him, just winning. Armstrong is a great rider but can't stand up to Merckx.

lazywriter, learn some cylcing history!!!!!! merckx is merckx. if you had to pick the best bsketball, golf, baseball, football player ever to live, who would you pick??? well, who ever it was, multiply that by 10 and merckx's what you get!!

add up hinault, aquetil, big mig and lance and you have yourself a Merckx (eddie i meant not alex jajaja)

in head to head TDF competition. I know EM is the most dominating cyclist of all times, but I would defy anyone to tell me that if both raced tagainst each other in the TDF today, EM would have beaten Lance today. I am also getting sick of people saying that Lance only trains for one race when ALL CYCLISTS TODAY are specialists to some exetent.
Don't get me wrong, I respect what athletes accomlished in the past, but I don't think it can be said that EM would have dominated Lance with all things being equal. Wilt Chamberlin scored 100 points in a game, but he would be demolished by today's centers. Christ, Kevin Garnett is a 7 footer who can dribble like a gaurd. Point is, there is an evolution that takes place in athletes and Lance's domination of this particular race is timeless. Just my opinion, but I saw a thread elsewhere and I think it is funny how every generation makes claim to the "best".

Lance was better than his competition. Mercx was better than his competition. Considering that Lance's competition has naturally evolved, as in any other sport, over the past 30 years, Lance is indeed better than Mercx. Just like A-Rod is better than Babe Ruth, Mo Greene is better than Jesse Owens, ElGuerrouj is better than Paavo Nurmi or Roger Bannister.
Each next generation is normally better than the previous one, even if you adjust for better training and equipment (which is minimal in sports like running, for example).
EM rode everything but there's no way anyone could have done so now, which is yet another evidence of the field being much, much more competitive than in 1970ies.

If Lance is at fault for training just for one race a year, then if someone thinks he can beat him by doing the same, they should do it. Did we see Hamilton, Ulrich, Basso, Heras etc. at Giro? What is Simoni's performance in his 4 Tours? If you want to win something, you prepare specifically for that race. It's sort of like complaining about olympic marathon winner not racing a marathon every month prior to Olympics just because someone might have done this in 1920ies.

has been measured and it was as good or better than LA's. at the time his score was so high it wasn't thought possible. he far exceeded the records set by Olympic rowers which are known to be some of the highest. He had the bio/physio chemical make-up similar to LA and Big Mig, Huge Lungs, Great Heart, huge threshhold for LTR. What eddy had/has over LA was he hated losing. everyday was a shot at victory, he didn't time his attacks or his training schedule, he didn't hide behind his team. His hour record (we've had this debate before) shows he can/could pull with the best of any era. I'd never bet against him, given equal equipment, diet, training, etc...He won almost every classic, every GT and would have had 6 or 7 TdF's had he not
a) taken a year off
b) got punchedn by a anti-fan
so nice Troll, Lance is a great rider. EDDY IS GOD

VO2max doesn't mean much, if it was such a great predictor of cycling performance, then Finnish skiers would dominate everything from cycling to marathoning.
Merckx lost his 6th Tour by not being able to keep up with mountain climbers and having sub-par time trial performances, he has nobody but himself to blame for this.
He would have also lost his 1971 Tour if Ocana who was 8 minutes ahead of Merckx didn't crash out of the Tour. Eddy was God, but for every generation there's a new God, usually better than the previous God.

Attacking the peloton alone just because you want to win, every day, in every race, might have worked back then, but nowadays the sport has turned too professional to be able to do that successfully. It would be arrogant, suicidal and stupid for anyone to attempt this. Young Lance was like that, thank god he cured himself of this arrogance, otherwise he would be just a one-time wonder rider with huge ego and no results.

my point. Everyone throws out how past athletes dominated and would continue to do so if competitive today. I think cycling is no different than baseball, tennis etc. Tennis players would shut out the best players of the past, PERIOD. Silly as it is, if you took EM and put him is a time machine to today. Let him get used to today's STI shifters and other technologies for a month and put him in today's stage. Point is, the man EM was then, physiologically wouldn't beat Lance today. Do the evolution baby.



Lance was better than his competition. Mercx was better than his competition. Considering that Lance's competition has naturally evolved, as in any other sport, over the past 30 years, Lance is indeed better than Mercx. Just like A-Rod is better than Babe Ruth, Mo Greene is better than Jesse Owens, ElGuerrouj is better than Paavo Nurmi or Roger Bannister.
Each next generation is normally better than the previous one, even if you adjust for better training and equipment (which is minimal in sports like running, for example).
EM rode everything but there's no way anyone could have done so now, which is yet another evidence of the field being much, much more competitive than in 1970ies.

If Lance is at fault for training just for one race a year, then if someone thinks he can beat him by doing the same, they should do it. Did we see Hamilton, Ulrich, Basso, Heras etc. at Giro? What is Simoni's performance in his 4 Tours? If you want to win something, you prepare specifically for that race. It's sort of like complaining about olympic marathon winner not racing a marathon every month prior to Olympics just because someone might have done this in 1920ies.

You must read about what Merckx did (I don't think you have).It is more than his palmares. He demolished the field.

Merckx's domination over his competition, for the entire year -- i.e., the distance between Merckx and the best of his contemporaries -- was far greater than Armstrong's domination over his competition, which of course occurs for only three weeks out of the year. Merckx won in every way possible -- not just in mountaintop finishes and time trials, and not just with a team of the best in the sport doing nothing but trying to help him win. Merckx also won in bunch sprints and 100 km breakaways, and in every kind of road race imaginable.

I shouldn't have to regurgitate the sheer palmares, but apparently you haven't heard: Merckx won over 500 races, besides winning the Tour de France five times, he won the Giro d'Italia five times, the Vuelta once, the world championship road race three times, Milan-San Remo seven times, Paris-Roubaix three times, Liege-Bastogne-Liege five times....

Only a troll would say that Merckx accomplished those things because his competition was poor, or because average speeds in 1969 are lower than average speeds in 2004. Or say that all of those "other" races are insignificant because they are nothing more than what Lance uses every other race for, i.e., training rides for the Tour de France.

Merckx dominated cycling so completely that the real question should be, Has any athlete ever dominated his or her sport as completely as Merckx dominated cycling?

lazywriter, learn some cylcing history!!!!!! merckx is merckx. if you had to pick the best bsketball, golf, baseball, football player ever to live, who would you pick??? well, who ever it was, multiply that by 10 and merckx's what you get!!

HINCA, what lazywriter says sounds very logical, and I am sure he knows his history.
Look at sports in which performances are timed and well-documented, where athletes compete against each other but also against the clock in well-controlled environment, such as swimming, track and field, power-lifting, etc. If you studied these sports, you would see that even though each sport has plenty of examples of complete and utter dominance by some "GOD" in good ole days, their performances were quite mediocre in absolute terms. Paavo Nurmi, the finnish GOD of track in 1930ies was totally dominant at Olympics at variety of distances but his world record time of 3:52 in 1500 is rather mediocre by today's standards - in US there are dozens of high schoolers who can beat that quite easily. Another GOD, Emil Zatopek won 5000, 10,000 and marathon at 1952 Olympics, set 18 world records and was unbeatable for nearly a decade in 38 consecutive races. Surely he is a running GOD, right? But he could barely crack 29 minutes for 10K and was just under 14 for 5K. But he would be lapped in a relatively slow 5K race today, and lapped in a junior 10K race - probably even twice!
John Kelley (the elder), the legendary Boston marathon runner never broke 2:30. Again, there are teenagers and 50-year old runners who are faster than him today.

Important thing to keep in mind is that if track and marathons were like cycling (head-to-head competition with plenty of environmental factors to skew the times even if they are meaningful, plus a lot of equipment development etc.), then there would be hundreds of fans arguing that all of these people I just named were just as good as top runners of today, based solely on their utter dominance, number of races they did every year without any specific specialization, their amazing range and longevity. The truth is - they were mediocre (based on today's standards) runners who were nevertheless well ahead of their time, in a not-so-competitive field which allowed them plenty of leeway.

I don't have much evidence to believe that cycling is somehow very different from every other sports and that LEGENDS and GODS from 30 years ago would be just as dominant against athletes of today, something that is clearly not true for every other sport where records are broken every decade by faster, stronger, more talented and driven athletes.

Just like A-Rod is better than Babe Ruth.

That's also a flawed comparison. The only meaningful comparison is to compare them against their contemporaries. Like the question many baseball hall of fame voters use when assessing candidates for the Hall: Did he dominate the era in which he played?

Babe Ruth did. The year he hit 60 home runs, he broke the old record, which was 21, and he hit more home runs that year than every other team in the majors except three. When he retired, he had three times as many career home runs as the guy in second place. Besides his hitting prowess, he was a dominant pitcher before he became a full-time outfielder.

A-Rod doesn't. The margin between A-Rod and the next best player, or even the next best 3B or SS, is not that much. He is a great player, but he is not indispensible.

Eddy Merckx did. The palmares speak for themselves.

Armstrong doesn't, either. You can't build a record of domination by racing to win against the best only three weeks out of the year. If a tennis player won Wimbledon six years in a row but rarely if ever won any other tournaments, would you say he was the best tennis player of all time?

It would be impossible to compare the two IMO. The technology and training have increased light years since Merckx was racing, even though it was not that long ago. Lance might not beat everyone by as much time as Merckx did, but that could be because the other riders in the peloton are also stronger. Merckx has and always will be one of the best riders in history. To compare him against a more modern rider with a lighter bike and better training system is not the same. None of us can really say which is the better rider for sure. The only way would to put them both on the same bike with the same training routine on the same course at the peaks of their cycling careers. That would show us who the best is/was. Both are great riders and have dominated the sport while they have been in it. They are both great cyclists in my book.

Each next generation is normally better than the previous one, even if you adjust for better training and equipment (which is minimal in sports like running, for example).
EM rode everything but there's no way anyone could have done so now, which is yet another evidence of the field being much, much more competitive than in 1970ies.

Your argument is well-taken but, I think, flawed. See the above...how does one "adjust" for training and equipment. "ATP" asserted earlier that physiologically Merckx was on par or superior to LA so the only real difference is equipment. Besides the original posit was "all things being equal" which throws out another part of your answer.

Merckx during one Tour was ahead of his nearest rival by over 30 minutes! And the next day, he decided to attack in the mountains and literally increased his lead almost an additional 30 minutes during the stage. Some people still insist that on the last climb, he slowed down due to being bored riding the entire field into the gutter and pretty much let the riders get to within a few minutes on the day's stage. He still won the stage and then the Tour.

The Cannibal was a specialist at freaking everything. Sprinting, climbing, time trialing. He dominated the spring classics in a way that no other rider has. And then, he'd go on and win some Tours. Unreal dominance.

Your argument is well-taken but, I think, flawed. See the above...how does one "adjust" for training and equipment. "ATP" asserted earlier that physiologically Merckx was on par or superior to LA so the only real difference is equipment. Besides the original posit was "all things being equal" which throws out another part of your answer.

Adjusting for equipment is indeed difficult.
Which is why you should look at sports in which equipment is not as important, or is virtually non-existent. Look at the evolution of high jump, or marathon or 100m or mile records. I hope you realize it's not just better sneakers.

Before someone brings in drugs into the discussion, feel free to limit yourself to pre-EPO era in marathons and mile.
How many records in these sports stood from 1970ies to this day? Beamon long jump (at altitude) comes to mind, but it was still beaten some 20 years later.

Yes, the margin of EM to his contemporaries may have been larger than LA to his contemporaries, but with every sport getting more and more competitive this is not surprising, that's the way things should be. If you follow the trends that exist in nearly every contemporary sport and do some math, you should see that in "time travel" example provided by lazywriter the athletes of today will ALWAYS beat the athletes of 30, 40 years ago, in every sport where direct comparison is possible. Not only that, a second or thrid B-team of athletes of today will beat top guys of 30-40 years ago. We can argue about why this is so, but it's clear that's what would happen. Why would you think cycling would be any differrent?

Does Lance have to race a full schedule or does he get to "cherry pick" the tour per his usual modus operandi?

Any kind of objective measure of rider's results versus their competitors in the big races of their time Merckx was the "best" cyclist ever, Hinault was clearly second "best", and then you can start argueing about who gets the 3rd spot on the podium.

I believe the best reply here that I have read is that you cant compare these 2 riders.

Coppi as an example had margins far exceeding 10 minutes in some of his TDF victories (I cant recall the exact number of minutes, I recall ~21, I guess)

However, Eddy was the man. NOBODY comes close by really any measure. But we do not have the ability to travel in time and give the technology we have now to him. Thats a pity really. Because, I really think if he cherry picked like Lance does (its a fact folks sorry) he could have won 7 or even 8 Tours.

I am not Lance bashing.Ligett and others who are very respected in the racing world all agree to Lances tunnel vision and the Tour.

Another funny what if: What if Coppi could have raced during the war years?? :cool:

As to V02 max, thats really meaningless unless you use it. Axel Merckx has HUGE lungs. But guess what? How many podium GT finishes for Axel?????

You seem to dismiss athletes of old simply because they didn't have the technology (in training, medicine, and equipment) as today's athletes. To completely disregard mental, emotional, and even environmental factors is... childish. Merckx couldn't learn today's methods? Couldn't learn to specialise for the Tour above all? Hogwash. The two riders you 'compare' are certainly two of the most driven people around, no one can argue that. But to attempt to compare them is just playground stylie, nothing more.

The only way we could even come close to comparing them is to give Lance the exact spec bike on which Merckx made his hour record, let him get used to it for a few weeks, and then have him ride the clock. But... that's just silly. Maybe later today we can discuss that, by virtue of being more 'modern', Outkast are 'better' than the Beatles, who in turn are 'better' than Stravinsky.

PS- the Chamberlain v. Jordan thing, too- apples, oranges... are you going to tell Bill Russell's Celtics that their championships are crap because Jordan came along and is better? Maybe they should just give them back...

You. Can. Not. Beat. Someone. Who. Isn't. In. The. Race.

All three are tres formidable, but if I were a D.S., I'd think my team's best chances would be against Armstrong, followed by Hinault, and then Merckx, in that order. That goes for either one-day classics or three-week grand tours. Armstrong is a great champion, but compared to the Badger and the Cannibal, he is simply not as consumed by the desire to annihilate the competition as those guys were.

All three possess(ed) tremendous physiological and psychological attributes that made them great cyclists. Desire -- and I mean the near-pathological desire to crush the opposition, even when it serves no real purpose -- is what differentiates these three from each other. I'll put it this way: Lance is more "normal" than the other two, in my humble opinion. That, in my opinion, is to his credit as a human being.

BTW, lung capacity as a critical physiological attribute is overstated. Unless you are competing at high altitude (say, 3,000 meters/10,000 ft. or higher above sea level) or have asthma (airway restriction), gas (oxygen and carbon dioxide) exchange capacity in the lungs is not a limiting factor in endurance performance. In essence, our ventilation (fancy word for breathing) capacity is "overbuilt." The usual limiting factor for endurance performance is cardiac output (heart rate X stroke volume), which determines the amount of oxygen delivered to working muscles. If ventilation were the limiting factor in endurance performance, raising blood hemoglobin levels through EPO or blood packing (autonomous transfusion) would have no performance benefit, which is not the case.

This is a great discussion! Having been a competitive (sometimes, not very competitive) cyclist for over three decades, I'm thrilled to be able to get into a heated argument about who is the greatest rider with my fellow enthusiasts right here in the ol' U.S. of A. Finally, the sport has arrived! (Big thanks go out to fellow-Texan Lance Armstrong for being instrumental in making this occur.)

Next time we argue, I'll bring the brews and the merlot.

Dale

from the last say 50 years if they could be transported into the present before their prime, say teens and exposed to modern training, nutrition, equipment etc would be at the top of their chosen sport. If Jim Brown was a high school footballer right now (or Gordy Howe or Orr, NHL Juniors) they'd wind up being a tops in their given sports. we've had this debate a couple months ago, look at the HOUR record. Only one rider has been able to beat Merckx's riding on SIMILAR equipment. That was Boardman, he retired when he did it after training exclusively to beat it. Eddy set it the year he won the Giro and Vuelta (but took the Tour off, 1971) so he wasn't Hour specific even when he set that record. Besides his Vo2 was his lactic capacity, etc.. there was an article from one of the mags that was put into an anthology book that has all his stats. Also I think Coppi would be a badass climber nowadays on equal with anyone present. so you have to apply all the advantages modern athletes have today to those of the past. I feel the dominant athletes of today would do jsut as well in years gone by. I feel amongst the best, the best are still the best regardless of era so all we have to make comparisons by are there records. So in that case
Eddy, Badger, Lance, and then a toss up between Mig and Jacques. I'm leaning toward the Big Mig.

in head to head TDF competition. I know EM is the most dominating cyclist of all times, but I would defy anyone to tell me that if both raced tagainst each other in the TDF today, EM would have beaten Lance today. I am also getting sick of people saying that Lance only trains for one race when ALL CYCLISTS TODAY are specialists to some exetent.
Don't get me wrong, I respect what athletes accomlished in the past, but I don't think it can be said that EM would have dominated Lance with all things being equal. Wilt Chamberlin scored 100 points in a game, but he would be demolished by today's centers. Christ, Kevin Garnett is a 7 footer who can dribble like a gaurd. Point is, there is an evolution that takes place in athletes and Lance's domination of this particular race is timeless. Just my opinion, but I saw a thread elsewhere and I think it is funny how every generation makes claim to the "best".

Let's see Lance get the hour record; then we'll have something to talk about.

Next time we argue, I'll bring the brews and the merlot.

DaleI always enjoyed your insightful posts on the old board. Where you been, bro? You go off with Ed and sn69 to the barren planet?

and this conversation is rediculous. but fun. but still rediculous.

you cannot truly compare, they're from different eras, different technology and ideas, different competition and routes and races, different situations.

...

besides, mercx would win.

'zactly my point, on a NOS 1971 Track bike. You know it's funy but I've been accused of being an 'LA fanboy' by some. I'm just a bike fan and I try to use history, evidence etc... to make somewhat unbiased opinions.

Luis Ocana (a great rider in his own right) died chasing Merckx.

Ocana shot himself in 1994 at the age of 48 due to financial and family troubles. The crash he did in yellow was during the 71 tour.
As for Merckx, the man was a complete freak:
5 TdF victories
34 stage wins
8 stage wins in 2 tours (1971 and 74)
96 days in yellow (in 6 tours)
5 Giros
4 world championships
7 Milan-San Remos
5 LBLs
3 Roubaixs
1 Vuelta
2 tours of Belg
1 Swiss
1 Lombardi
over 40 other international victories and the hour record

Who would win today? Who cares...? They're both remarkable athletes from different eras but Merckx's trophy room has no rival.

I met Merckx at the Long Beach bike show back in the early 80s while having breakfast on the Queen Mary. I asked him what he was feeling on those long climbs where he would ride the best riders in the world off his wheel. He answered, "Nothing. I felt nothing. I was completly numb to the experience due to total focus. Ability is half in the mind and half in the legs." He clearly was tired and didn't want to talk to a star struck kid anymore so I thanked him for his time and floated away.

Let's see Lance get the hour record; then we'll have something to talk about.
Don't give him any ideas... ;o)

say is that if you look at Lance's performance today, I don't think anyone could have topped him. Jordan is the best ball player of my generation not because of physical atrributes, but more from a psychological basis. What separates one great athlete from another? There were better shooters than Jordan, higher jumpers, faster players, but NOBODY had his will to win. Same with Lance. I think comparing Merckx who was ahead of his time to the men he raced against isn't equal to how better prepared atheltes are today. Could Wilt Chamberlin ever score a 100 points today in the NBA. NO WAY. He would be a mediocre center at best but he dominated the league then. My point is valid if you look at it from this point of view. In all other sports, the old timers verbalize being in awe of what the players now can do. Yes, if they had the same technology and knowledge then as they have now, they would have the same potential, but there are some people that are just umbeatable. Merckx dominated all races because that is how cyclist's schedules were then. I would like to see if they were able to test Merckx physiologically bakc then with VO2, watts etc, how he would compare to the modern cyclist.

"Mediocre center at best"? You understimate the Stilt big time. He would have also dominated in this era. Ditto Bill Russell.

Adjusting for equipment is indeed difficult.
Which is why you should look at sports in which equipment is not as important, or is virtually non-existent. Look at the evolution of high jump, or marathon or 100m or mile records. I hope you realize it's not just better sneakers.

Before someone brings in drugs into the discussion, feel free to limit yourself to pre-EPO era in marathons and mile.
How many records in these sports stood from 1970ies to this day? Beamon long jump (at altitude) comes to mind, but it was still beaten some 20 years later.

Yes, the margin of EM to his contemporaries may have been larger than LA to his contemporaries, but with every sport getting more and more competitive this is not surprising, that's the way things should be. If you follow the trends that exist in nearly every contemporary sport and do some math, you should see that in "time travel" example provided by lazywriter the athletes of today will ALWAYS beat the athletes of 30, 40 years ago, in every sport where direct comparison is possible. Not only that, a second or thrid B-team of athletes of today will beat top guys of 30-40 years ago. We can argue about why this is so, but it's clear that's what would happen. Why would you think cycling would be any differrent?

I'll say this: The orginal Dream Team would have beaten every future Dream Team for the rest of the history of basketball. Even considering the progression of athletes, they would have never lost to anyone. Not even close.

ya'll must have been sleeping through your evolutionary science classes or attended Religious Academies to think Human Physiology has noticably changed ina 30 year span.

I always enjoyed your insightful posts on the old board. Where you been, bro? You go off with Ed and sn69 to the barren planet?

Hey, Red!

I've just been out here lurking. I got tired of arguing about politics. And, I'm feeling pretty ignorant about almost any topic these days. Now, however, we have an even hotter (and more pointless) point of discussion that I can't resist: Who's the greatest cyclist ever?

I gotta' say, after my little diatribe (see above) about Lance not having as much desire to dominate as Eddy and Bernie, the last few days' results (and today's stage, in particular) are proving me wrong.

Guess I'll half to "eat crow." No, wait. That's Lance's job.

BTW, what did your moniker on this board used to be, Red? I must have missed the memo.

Good chatting with you, pal.

Dale

#1 is Merckx, hands down. It shouldn't even be a question. The Cannibal was kicking ass in every phase of cycling. Imagine, Indurain (time trial), Pantani (climbing), Cipollini (sprinting) combined into one. Literally, in one Tour he was the best at all 3 phases and won not only the Yellow jersey, but also the Green Jersey (sprinters) and polka dot (climber's). Now, that's what I call TOTAL DOMINATION!

At #2 is Hinault. I agree with the others. This guy was the closest there was to the Cannibal as far as being the complete rider and being competitive in all the races. Still, the last French rider to win the Tour. The Badger, if he wanted to ride easy during a race, the others pretty much had to abide, because if there was an attack from someone in the group, Hinault would purposely go to the fron and crank it up and pretty much ride half the field into the drain.

#3. There's a big battle for the 3 spot. Coppi is a good one. Who know's how many extra he would've won if not for duties to the war. Don't forget Anqutil either. Then, you can put all the guys who only trained for 1 race a year.

My argument wasn't if EM was cycling today but rather if he were transplanted into the current TDF as he was his dominating self then, would he blow the field away based on his average TDF speeds, tt times etc.

Fruitless really to throw in another argument at this point, but I seem to recall during last years tour on the one stage (can't remember which) that Piil won on a breakaway was similar or the same as a stage covered during Eddie's days. Phil Liggett made a point of saying that it was covered at the same speed in 2003 as when Eddie and the rest rode it back in the day. Sure, tons of factors probably play into that, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Most world records represent mutations of normal evolution, which is an asymptotic curve with the additional impediment of a few psychological barriers. Examples abound in track and field: it was thought that a mile could not be run in less than four-minutes until Roger Bannister proved that wrong. Shortly thereafter, several athletes ran sub-4 miles, and it is not uncommon for a high school student to beat the four-minute mark today. That does not mean that a modern Bannister could not compete at a high-school level today: rather, a modern Bannister should be placed an equal amount above today's evolutionary curve. Aside from phychological barriers, there's the normal evolution, which, in terms of sports records, happens quite quickly -- there are numerous world records set at every Olympiad. One test of superiority is how long a particular record will stand; a streak is more indicative of someone being uniquely ahead of his time.

Cycling is far more equipment-dependent than track and field, so comparisons between eras will exhibit far more contrast. That said, Merckx was further above the "normal" pro curve (1969 is the best example). He was also more physically dominating. Armstrong is a master tactician and team commander -- more the evolution of Hinault, in that he knows what is required to win the Tour, but, IMHO, far better on other cycling qualities.

All things considered, a 2004 version of Merckx in his prime would be further above the norm than Armstong physically, and would probably be equal in team management and tactical skills (although this portion of the equation, and its effect, is probably more debatable).

Given the differences between the two and how they raced, I'm satisfied to call Armstrong the greatest TdF rider, and Merckx the greatest cyclist, but if each in their prime were competing in head-to-head competition and preparing for the other with all other environmental constants equal, my money would be on Merckx.

war and Malaria from the war but this goes for Bartali as well. Gino had vicories on both sides spanning over 10 years. how many in the lost years would they have won? I'm always torn on these two, Coppi was meteoric but Bartali had huge longevity, both punished by the era. we'll never know. in regards to Merckx in 69, he wasn't the greatest of sprinters but he'd breakaway and win so many stages and primes (as well as Mtn pts) he'd be too far in front in pts to challenge if you were a specialist (which there weren't really in comparison to today.) you can build a heap of pts up w/ 34 stage victories.

Ok, next question:
Who would win in a bike race? Merckx . . . or a hurricane? -Merckx, no question -But what if the hurricane was named, Hurricane Merckx? -Hmm. that's a toughy. -O.K., who would win in a bike race? Merckx . . . or God? -God? -Trick question. - Merckx is god.

Seriously though, at least someone chimed in with comparison to other sports. Most knowledgable people would agree that if you time-transported any track star (say Bannister) from 30+ years ago and let him adjust to current spikes and surfaces for a few months, he would still lose to top runners of today - probably even high schoolers (Alan Webb vs. Bannister, I'd watch that!). Obviously, if you "adjust" for how much better Merckx was relative to the rest of the peloton in his day, and then make him that much better than peloton of today he will be much better than Lance, but that's not what we are talking about here. Take Merckx for a ride in time machine, let him adjust to equipment for a month or two, give him some solid team (Telekom, CSC?), don't make him race as much as he used to do, will he be able to climb with Lance? I am not convinced he could, but then again, I am basing this solely on the fact that none of the top marathoners from 1970ies could stay with B-level marathoners of today.

Does anyone know what Merckx could do for 1HR time trial at sea level? I know about Mexico city, but you can't really compare this to sea level records. Or what he averaged in regular time trial stages, if there are any accurate numbers...

Although this is quite beaten to death, one thing that is completely missed when trying to compare a previous era to now is the piles 'o' green spent. Teams and sponsors certainly didn't have the money and resources thrown at them like they do now. So the financial pressure of the sponsor can dictate what the compeditor will focus on.This changes the playing field in such a fashion that you can't compare the different eras. EM is awesome, his racing achievements are unmatched and he could race whatever he wished. But, LA has proven to be incredible as well, but with so much money on the line does anyone want to bet that his focus is for the tour is partially driven by the sponsors? I'm a fan of both, and don't wish to compare something that really cannot be decided....

EM wouldn't race 100 times a year if he were racing today. You guys keep forgetting that.


Lazy, that is why I am pretty sure that those who say Eddy would win hands down say that. Look at his history in the Tour all while racing 100 races a year. Now imagine if all he did was focus his entire efforts on the Tour like Armstrong does. I tend to think if Eddy were racing today he could hold the Yellow for 18 of the 20 stages if he wanted and win 10 or more stages along the way. I think Lance is absolutely amazing in what he has accomplished, but it's still my opinion that he is no Eddy Merckx.

Your quote above is very true... but I think the person who is forgetting the impact of how much Eddy raced per year and the fatigue that had to have caused him is you.

This is my 1st post and I do not know the complete history behind merckx and armstrong, but I do know the basics.

Most of this discussion centers around either bringing merckx forward in time in a time machine and getting used to todays equipment or if merckx was an athlete today how he would fare in the tdf. It is hard to say how merckx would react to todays technology and todays rider, but I have another point of view that may shed some light on this.

Instead of bringing merckx forwards in time and comparing him, how do you think armstrong would do racing in the 1970's? This is Lance without his heart rate monitor, his computer, his srm, his daily wattage log and evaluation from chris carmichel, his 2 ounce motorola radio and without johnan brunyeel.

Picture him riding a 1970s bike in the tour without the huge avalanche of information available to him, with a team equivalent to merckx's. Also picture him riding at least 10-20+ races a year. Take this into consideration and then see if you can decide who would be the winner of the tdf.

They are both great racers, but I think merckx's would definitly win. Armstrong depends on information to decide on how to pace himself, how to train and how to work out his strategy. Everyone will agree that armstrong and brunyeel are great tacticians. But for tactics to work, you need up to date reliable information. I think just taking away the radio becomes a huge handicap for armstrong. He knows to the second where he is in the race, how far a break away is from them, wind and weather conditions and he has johan in his ear constantly. All this tells him when he needs to ride harder and when he can just let others do the work.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think armstrong would lose alot of his advantage if he were to race in the 70s without all this technology, never mind the carbon bike, his skinsuit and pedals.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think armstrong would lose alot of his advantage if he were to race in the 70s without all this technology, never mind the carbon bike, his skinsuit and pedals.
And I do believe that clarifies the issue. Bringing Eddy forward in time leads to great murkiness, but taking Lance BACK in time really clears up any doubt.

Eddy wins. No question.

well, I think the last few posts have it straight. Lance without his team and radios, likely does not beat Eddy one on one, especially with both on the same equipment... either eddy on the new stuff or lance on the old.

But then again, <<<<TROLL ALERT....TROLL ALERT>>>>>>we all know that Eddy was doping anyway. <<<TROLL ALERT....TROLL ALERT>>>>

ya'll must have been sleeping through your evolutionary science classes or attended Religious Academies to think Human Physiology has noticably changed ina 30 year span.


Nope. But modern chemistry sure has. And before anyone gets it in their heads... I am not saying Lance is doped.... but a large number of domestiques in the peloton are, which is about the only thing accounting for the speeds in races being what they are.

The funny thing is that argument can be used both to favor Merckx and Armstrong. I will leave it to you guys to figure out how.

Does anyone know what Merckx could do for 1HR time trial at sea level? I know about Mexico city, but you can't really compare this to sea level records. Or what he averaged in regular time trial stages, if there are any accurate numbers...

I understand how that might seem like it would make for a decisive point in this argument, but it won't. In Merckx's day, in a time trial, you rode a standard bike. Maybe with cowhorn bars, but more or less a standard bike. There were not full carbon time trial rigs with aerobars developed in a wind tunnel and head fairings and disc wheels or tri-spokes. If you look at the numbers for the increase in speeds in pro cycling there are only two places where the speed increase is apparent enough to say it's actually there and not related to other outside factors. One is time trial speeds. Modern bikes are at a huge advantage. Not by weight or anything like that, but by aerodynamics and the wind tunnel research put into them. If Merckx had a bike like Hamilton's BMC with Lance's Giro helmet, his time trial speeds may have been 3 to 5 kilometers an hour faster than what they were. And what they were was pretty damn fast even today.

The other place is the speeds of the rest of the peloton, as compared to the top riders. Much of that could be that better overall athletes are getting involved in cycling just to be a domestique because cycling now pays pretty well, whereas 30 years ago there were still great top riders, but I would argue that today's modern domestique is far superiour to those of Merckx's day. Modern drugs may play an enormous role in that as well. But if you look at the top speeds of the Tour over the past 30 years, they don't go up that much in that time span. An example is that Merckx's 1971 Tour was listed as having an average speed of 38.084 kph over 3608 km. Armstrong's 2000 Tour was listed at 38.570 kph over a nearly identical distance of 3630 km. So Merckx's average speed was less than half a kilometer an hour slower over nearly the same distance.

This is a no win argument, but I think when you look objectively at that facts, they seem to line up in Merckx's favor. If you consider that his rides 30 years earlier are no slower than Armstrong's today, with the time trial exception, then you must be able to see that Merckx had to have been the faster man when you eliminate the aerodynamic benefits Lance has due to modern technology.

Just my opinion... but I think Merckx would have crushed Lance...all other factors being equal.

well, I think the last few posts have it straight. Lance without his team and radios, likely does not beat Eddy one on one, especially with both on the same equipment... either eddy on the new stuff or lance on the old.

But then again, <<<<TROLL ALERT....TROLL ALERT>>>>>>we all know that Eddy was doping anyway. <<<TROLL ALERT....TROLL ALERT>>>>

But how good was his dope compared to Armstong's?? Eddy had Caffeine suppositories and amphetemines.... Lance has Actovegen, HGH, GH1, NESP... and of course amphetemines and caffeine suppositories too.


(don't think I am being too serious... I am just playing along....)

but it is false logic to assume he would do so based on his performance then and how many races he won in a year. It means nothing in that I am questioning if the man/athlete he was then if transplanted into today's TDF, could he beat the modern day cyclist champion like Lance? I am not saying if EM were racing today and trained like the guys do now etc etc. I am saying if you took EM as the racer he was then and magically put him in this tour, I bet anything that he wouldn't win. As we were discussing before, athletes today are no match for previous generations in most sports. I know basketball history and can tell you point blank that Wilt Chambelin wouldn't even be mediocre as a center against the modern centers. EM's contemporaries weren't as well prepared back then. Many athletes even smoked in the 60s and 70s. I remember baseball players smoking the dugout for christ's sake. Hey, it is a silly argument, but all of you guys who make assumptions that because EM dominated his competition in the past, he would be as effective today. That is flawed logic and you know it.



Lazy, that is why I am pretty sure that those who say Eddy would win hands down say that. Look at his history in the Tour all while racing 100 races a year. Now imagine if all he did was focus his entire efforts on the Tour like Armstrong does. I tend to think if Eddy were racing today he could hold the Yellow for 18 of the 20 stages if he wanted and win 10 or more stages along the way. I think Lance is absolutely amazing in what he has accomplished, but it's still my opinion that he is no Eddy Merckx.

Your quote above is very true... but I think the person who is forgetting the impact of how much Eddy raced per year and the fatigue that had to have caused him is you.

but it is false logic to assume he would do so based on his performance then and how many races he won in a year. It means nothing in that I am questioning if the man/athlete he was then if transplanted into today's TDF, could he beat the modern day cyclist champion like Lance? I am not saying if EM were racing today and trained like the guys do now etc etc. I am saying if you took EM as the racer he was then and magically put him in this tour, I bet anything that he wouldn't win. As we were discussing before, athletes today are no match for previous generations in most sports. I know basketball history and can tell you point blank that Wilt Chambelin wouldn't even be mediocre as a center against the modern centers. EM's contemporaries weren't as well prepared back then. Many athletes even smoked in the 60s and 70s. I remember baseball players smoking the dugout for christ's sake. Hey, it is a silly argument, but all of you guys who make assumptions that because EM dominated his competition in the past, he would be as effective today. That is flawed logic and you know it.

When Boardman had his swan song and barely beat Eddys hour record, he was hobbled for 2 days afterwards. The man had a visible limp. Looks like he wasnt doing to well huh? Not bad for a record that was almost 17 years old.

You assume that better trained riders can beat a gifted rider. This is also flawed as you have not defined better trained. Oh and by the way, until we time travel, not much to compare there huh?

As far as strict logic, you cant disprove something in logic. Odds are I could get a perfectly logical argument for the existence of 4 headed penguins in the Gobe desert. The logic would be flawless, but again, you could not logically disprove it.

There is no comparison here as more than just training has changed since the 70's.

When Boardman had his swan song and barely beat Eddys hour record, he was hobbled for 2 days afterwards. The man had a visible limp. Looks like he wasnt doing to well huh? Not bad for a record that was almost 17 years old.

You assume that better trained riders can beat a gifted rider. This is also flawed as you have not defined better trained. Oh and by the way, until we time travel, not much to compare there huh?

As far as strict logic, you cant disprove something in logic. Odds are I could get a perfectly logical argument for the existence of 4 headed penguins in the Gobe desert. The logic would be flawless, but again, you could not logically disprove it.

There is no comparison here as more than just training has changed since the 70's.

One thing that many Merckx fan like to omit is that his 1-hour records were set at Mexico city at altitude, while Boardman's record was set at sea level. Air density is 20% less dense at Mexico city, and resistance is proportional to air density.
Researchers say that even taking into account reduction in VO2max due to altitude effect, riding at Mexico city constitutes about 1.7 kph advantage, which is pretty significant, don't you think? (http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0510.htm)

Additionally, scientists have done elaborate calculations to take into account aerodynamic setup, showing that Boardman's and Rominger's 1HR performances are significantly superior to those by Merckx, Moser and Obree.

So it seems that Rominger and Boardman were indeed fitter than Merckx, showing a greater power outputs than previous record holders, and the advances in 1hr record is not entirely due to technological advantages.

One thing that many Merckx fan like to omit is that his 1-hour records were set at Mexico city at altitude, while Boardman's record was set at sea level. Air density is 20% less dense at Mexico city, and resistance is proportional to air density.
Researchers say that even taking into account reduction in VO2max due to altitude effect, riding at Mexico city constitutes about 1.7 kph advantage, which is pretty significant, don't you think? (http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0510.htm)

Additionally, scientists have done elaborate calculations to take into account aerodynamic setup, showing that Boardman's and Rominger's 1HR performances are significantly superior to those by Merckx, Moser and Obree.

So it seems that Rominger and Boardman were indeed fitter than Merckx, showing a greater power outputs than previous record holders, and the advances in 1hr record is not entirely due to technological advantages.

Merckx spun a 52x14 for the hour. He trained by creating a home made mask to mimic the thinner air. I think we can all say that the man was just a bit driven. I am sure there is cause for alot of speculation there. Additionally his bike was lighter than current specs would allow.

Calculations are wonderful. However, they are not replicas. The issue is the data and how it was calculated. If you have a wind tunnel and can show the data for all three at once in a triple blind test with exact set ups that would be wonderful. Otherwise, its speculation at best.

The real question is that since these men were fitter (little argument here) why couldnt they use a traditional set up and break the record? IMO, they did not have the mental or physical strength. I cant recall if anyone else tried that (traditional set up and got the time) after Eddy. Let me know if I am wrong here.

Moser used aero equipment when he broke the record and to date, Eddy still thinks of him as a weaker cyclist. I would tend to agree as I do not recall Moser having several overall GT wins under his belt.

check their Palmares from their HR record seasons and compare to Merckx. Once again, they were HR specialists, eddy won 2 GT's and some classics. Regardless, once again this comes down to Rominger and Boardman having far superior training methods, nutrition and science not because they were 'superior' riders. someone again said 'do the evolution', which in 30 years time is next to nil and shows a huge flaw in that argument. if human physiology had/has gone through some dynamic shifts Lemonds Tour TT record wouldn't still hold. So once again, the only REAL changes in cyclists (athletics on a whole) has been in better nutrition, training, equipment so if you could take an Elite athelete of that era, pre-prime and could raise them using modern methodology they'd be elite athletes today. So the only way to compare across time lines is by what they achieve(d) against their peers. In this case, as stated Eddy wins.
simple

Merckx spun a 52x14 for the hour. He trained by creating a home made mask to mimic the thinner air. I think we can all say that the man was just a bit driven. I am sure there is cause for alot of speculation there. Additionally his bike was lighter than current specs would allow.

Calculations are wonderful. However, they are not replicas. The issue is the data and how it was calculated. If you have a wind tunnel and can show the data for all three at once in a triple blind test with exact set ups that would be wonderful. Otherwise, its speculation at best.

The real question is that since these men were fitter (little argument here) why couldnt they use a traditional set up and break the record? IMO, they did not have the mental or physical strength. I cant recall if anyone else tried that (traditional set up and got the time) after Eddy. Let me know if I am wrong here.

Moser used aero equipment when he broke the record and to date, Eddy still thinks of him as a weaker cyclist. I would tend to agree as I do not recall Moser having several overall GT wins under his belt.

Boardman broke Eddy's record using Eddy's bike. He broke it by small distance (like 30 feet), however what is usually not mentioned is that he did so at sea level where like I said air density is much higher. It was definitely a much more superior performance, and I could easily believe the 1.7 kph advantage of Mexico City. Remember the Mexico City Olympics with a whole bunch of track records (sprints, jumps) broken? Thin air helps tremendously which is why Merckx went there to set the record in the first place.

I also felt it was somewhat arrogant of Merckx to say that "weaker man has beaten the strongest man" about Moser's 1HR record using disk wheels. After all, he wasn't using 1930 version of the bike himself either. And he specifically went to Mexico city to take advantage of altitude (as did Moser), on which he is still getting a break from UCI, so he was looking for every advantage he could get at the time as well.

The fact that UCI would totally change their rules with the "best athlete performance" vs. "1 HR record" or something like that, requiring old-fashioned Merckx-era bike while not putting any limits at altitude is totally bogus.

And the fact that Boardman has set the record in 2000, at the end of his career, while in the same year he lost to Ulrich, Armstrong, Ekimov, Hamilton, and many others at Sydney, and additionally he was beaten at World Champs by other time trialists like Gontchar, Jalabert and Zulle implies that others could probably better his mark substantially. The year when he was world TT champion was 1994, and he has lost some form since then. His 1-hour record (using TT bike) was set in 1996.

Boardman broke Eddy's record using Eddy's bike. He broke it by small distance (like 30 feet), however what is usually not mentioned is that he did so at sea level where like I said air density is much higher. It was definitely a much more superior performance, and I could easily believe the 1.7 kph advantage of Mexico City. Remember the Mexico City Olympics with a whole bunch of track records (sprints, jumps) broken? Thin air helps tremendously which is why Merckx went there to set the record in the first place.

I also felt it was somewhat arrogant of Merckx to say that "weaker man has beaten the strongest man" about Moser's 1HR record using disk wheels. After all, he wasn't using 1930 version of the bike himself either. And he specifically went to Mexico city to take advantage of altitude (as did Moser), on which he is still getting a break from UCI, so he was looking for every advantage he could get at the time as well.

The fact that UCI would totally change their rules with the "best athlete performance" vs. "1 HR record" or something like that, requiring old-fashioned Merckx-era bike while not putting any limits at altitude is totally bogus.

And the fact that Boardman has set the record in 2000, at the end of his career, while in the same year he lost to Ulrich, Armstrong, Ekimov, Hamilton, and many others at Sydney, and additionally he was beaten at World Champs by other time trialists like Gontchar, Jalabert and Zulle implies that others could probably better his mark substantially. The year when he was world TT champion was 1994, and he has lost some form since then. His 1-hour record (using TT bike) was set in 1996.

Boardman did not ride Eddys bike. His bike would have been heavier. The distance of 30 feet while impressive at sea level does not jive with the idea that at higher elevation he would have done better. He would have needed time to adapt to the atmosphere. He did what Eddy did, he trained for the specific effort. The issue is that it took 17 years.

UCI has alot of very bad and really stupid rules. I agree 100%. Was it right to say oh sure here is the normal bike etc etc NO. I think its a crock as well.

BUT to their credit, the ABSOLUTE record is still on the aero machine.

I do want to take issue with Eddy being called arrogant. He was not arrogant. He was an a55hole. BUT unlike so many others, he had the ability to shut his competitors up. I prefer this far and away over the whiny bags of cr@p like Simioni who blame everyone but their Mommy on a bad day.By the way, MOSER as a humahn being lacked a bunch of humility as well. BUT again, its the sport and the accomplishment. Not the super swell people who want to hug the stuffings out of you....(yes, that was sarcasm)

check their Palmares from their HR record seasons and compare to Merckx. Once again, they were HR specialists, eddy won 2 GT's and some classics. Regardless, once again this comes down to Rominger and Boardman having far superior training methods, nutrition and science not because they were 'superior' riders. someone again said 'do the evolution', which in 30 years time is next to nil and shows a huge flaw in that argument. if human physiology had/has gone through some dynamic shifts Lemonds Tour TT record wouldn't still hold. So once again, the only REAL changes in cyclists (athletics on a whole) has been in better nutrition, training, equipment so if you could take an Elite athelete of that era, pre-prime and could raise them using modern methodology they'd be elite athletes today. So the only way to compare across time lines is by what they achieve(d) against their peers. In this case, as stated Eddy wins.
simple

But it's not simple!

We agree that it's not evolution, however as cycling has become more professional and the pool of potential athletes has broadened, the field has become much more competitive in the last 30 years, for every sport. Why did Bannister struggled to break 4 minute mile while 20 years later high schoolers could do it? If it was mostly mental, then why didn't Bannister himself improve on his own mark once he broke through?
If everything is so simple, how do you explain evolution in world records in almost every sport? Is nutrition and training and equipment really so much better as to produce 20-year old runners capable of running 26:20 for 10K which would LAP Lasse Viren, who totally dominated those distances in the 1970ies, probably comparable to the way Merckx dominated cycling? What equipment made this possible?
Marathon record is now 2:04, which would leave behind the best performance of Frank Shorter, dominant figure during 1970ies, by more than a MILE!

training/nutrition and coaching has gotten that much better. let's see hmmmm what did they lack back then
1)Heart Rate monitors, on-the-spot blood lactic samplers, and the technology to know what to do with the readings. hell add the concept of zone-training, unheard of in 1969

2) Physical trainers/ therapists and Doctors with huge Human Physiology expertise ( my pal was responsible for Lindsey Davenports comeback) that use Science to build training programs, recovery and rehabilitation

3) the concept of peaking for an event. unheard of to the extent it is now. Even my 'tapers' for big meets in high school were done by a seat of the pants field

4) Nutritionists, dieticians who specifically design and monitor an athletes intake

you keep going back to this distance running stuff but it is a non-issue. Distance running was a low budget/ low interest sport in that era where huge populations of the world with massive potentials for the sport hadn't even been introduced yet. If you want to keep using track and field use the 100 meter or 400 meter. Records are set but their incremental nature shows a more exact cghange in trending as related to improvements of training science. and yes Jesse Owens would be top class if again he used my time transplant method. This distance thing is like using Soccer in the US as a model. well 30 years ago the US couldn't qualify for the world Cup so it shows how much more fit, superior US soccer players are than their historical counterparts. Soccer (futbol) didn't draw top-shelf US athletes (still doesn't really but is improving) as there is no financial incentive to attract kids with potential. They go where the coin is (Basketball, etc...) or say Tennis among the African American community. You don't think there are/were some Williams sisters whose talent was never actualized as they didn't have exposure to that sport? So can the distance crap as it's a relative newness makes it a constant red herring to this debate.
I bet Phidippedes would be faster than snot given my method though. ;0)

training/nutrition and coaching has gotten that much better. let's see hmmmm what did they lack back then
1)Heart Rate monitors, on-the-spot blood lactic samplers, and the technology to know what to do with the readings. hell add the concept of zone-training, unheard of in 1969

2) Physical trainers/ therapists and Doctors with huge Human Physiology expertise ( my pal was responsible for Lindsey Davenports comeback) that use Science to build training programs, recovery and rehabilitation

3) the concept of peaking for an event. unheard of to the extent it is now. Even my 'tapers' for big meets in high school were done by a seat of the pants field

4) Nutritionists, dieticians who specifically design and monitor an athletes intake

you keep going back to this distance running stuff but it is a non-issue. Distance running was a low budget/ low interest sport in that era where huge populations of the world with massive potentials for the sport hadn't even been introduced yet. If you want to keep using track and field use the 100 meter or 400 meter. Records are set but their incremental nature shows a more exact cghange in trending as related to improvements of training science. and yes Jesse Owens would be top class if again he used my time transplant method. This distance thing is like using Soccer in the US as a model. well 30 years ago the US couldn't qualify for the world Cup so it shows how much more fit, superior US soccer players are than their historical counterparts. Soccer (futbol) didn't draw top-shelf US athletes (still doesn't really but is improving) as there is no financial incentive to attract kids with potential. They go where the coin is (Basketball, etc...) or say Tennis among the African American community. You don't think there are/were some Williams sisters whose talent was never actualized as they didn't have exposure to that sport? So can the distance crap as it's a relative newness makes it a constant red herring to this debate.
I bet Phidippedes would be faster than snot given my method though. ;0)


The only reason I use distance running as example is because it's the closest to cycling in terms of aerobic capacity demands etc. Feel free to look over progression of world records in 100m, 400m or any other sport and you will see that Owens would lose to Borzov, and Borzov would lose to Greene, or that Juantorena would lose to Michael Johnson so badly, it would be painful to watch. Don't like running - look at swimming, or powerlifting, or jumps and throws, or any other "measurable" sport. Distance running was every bit as competitive, if not more competitive in the 1970ies as cycling. It's a much more simple and more accessible sport than cycling. But there's still a tremendous improvement.

This discussion is getting tired, so let me sum up with some pointers:

1. Merckx was the best cyclist of his era and shown an uprecedented dominance that wasn't matched and will never be matched. However, in most sports athletes have shown more dominance in the past as the field is only becoming MORE competitive - a natural trend.
2. Despite all the hype, if we took Merckx at his prime and time-transported him into todays world, gave him access to all the new equipment and a top team, he would not have won Tour De France against Lance (not even in 2003). He would lose a huge amount of times on the climbs and couldn't match Ullrich or Lance in time trial.

3. Despite all the hype about his 1HR world record, there are three major reasons it stood for 17 years: 1. Development of new bike components (which was 17 years later disregarded by UCI) 2. the fact that his record was set at altitude 3. Most top time trialists don't give a damn about 1HR record anymore.
Merckx's 1HR record was intrinsically inferior to Boardman's record due to altitude difference, which is often omitted to underscore the awesomeness of Merckx. Again, if you transported Merckx from 1970ies, put him on a TT bike he would not get on a podium at any of the TT world champs. Perhaps if he spent several years using the nutritional and training advantages riders have today he could be up there with Honchar and Millar, but even that is somewhat doubtful as I don't see many riders of his size doing well at ITT anymore.

So - Merckx was much better than 1970ies peloton, and Lance is much better than 2000 peloton. It's also clear that 2000 peloton is much much better than 1970ies peloton, and quite likely that Lance is much fitter than Merckxs. Sure, Lance cannot go for solo breakaways or sprints, but that's only because cycling has changed so dramatically as a sport over the past 30 years. I cannot imagine anyone doing that ever again - can you?

Was Merckx the best rider of all times? Perhaps, depending on how you define it. If Merckx was the best cyclist, then it's also quite likely that Jesse Owens was the best sprinter, Paavo Nurmi was the best miler, Babe Ruth was the best baseball player, and Jim Thorpe was the best decathlete and also the best football player. Domination was always greater in the past. However, it's quite likely that Jordan was better than Bird, and that Green is better than Owens, and that Dvorak is better than Thorpe, in which case Armstrong is better than Merckx and whoever comes after Armstrong is better than Armstrong.

Naturally, I would be extremely surprised if someone wins 5 tours again, for the same reason I mentioned below - sports get only more and more competitive as more and more people become involved in it. The distance between the first and the second or the first and the tenth guy decreases all the time. This is what makes Armstrong's five victories (and the sixth coming) so absolutely mind-blowing. It's very difficult to imagine someone as dominant as Gretzky or Jordan or Zatopek or Popov ever again. Even including Armstrong's specialization and his team and the money and everything else, it's still unbelievable. Look at what happened this year to Mayo, Heras, Hamilton, Simoni, Vinokurov, Sevilla, Ullrich and other favorites. The same thing could have happened to LA and it didn't. Maybe he is lucky, but he is competing in a whole different environment from the one Merckx used to compete in. And with all of our admiration for Merckx, we are downplaying just how much harder cycling is nowadays. Desire to win is nothing unless you now how to win. It's much more difficult to restrain yourself on all but several key stages than just to follow your instincts and attack whenever you feel like knowing that nobody can match your attack. Winning nowadays requires a lot more strategy and preparation than in Merckx days. Because it's so competitive ycling has become mental chess game between aerobic monsters of almost equal ability, which to me is much more exciting than "alpha-male domination" games of Merckx era.

The only reason I use distance running as example is because it's the closest to cycling in terms of aerobic capacity demands etc. Feel free to look over progression of world records in 100m, 400m or any other sport and you will see that Owens would lose to Borzov, and Borzov would lose to Greene, or that Juantorena would lose to Michael Johnson so badly, it would be painful to watch. Don't like running - look at swimming, or powerlifting, or jumps and throws, or any other "measurable" sport. Distance running was every bit as competitive, if not more competitive in the 1970ies as cycling. It's a much more simple and more accessible sport than cycling. But there's still a tremendous improvement.

This discussion is getting tired, so let me sum up with some pointers:

1. Merckx was the best cyclist of his era and shown an uprecedented dominance that wasn't matched and will never be matched. However, in most sports athletes have shown more dominance in the past as the field is only becoming MORE competitive - a natural trend.
2. Despite all the hype, if we took Merckx at his prime and time-transported him into todays world, gave him access to all the new equipment and a top team, he would not have won Tour De France against Lance (not even in 2003). He would lose a huge amount of times on the climbs and couldn't match Ullrich or Lance in time trial.

3. Despite all the hype about his 1HR world record, there are three major reasons it stood for 17 years: 1. Development of new bike components (which was 17 years later disregarded by UCI) 2. the fact that his record was set at altitude 3. Most top time trialists don't give a damn about 1HR record anymore.
Merckx's 1HR record was intrinsically inferior to Boardman's record due to altitude difference, which is often omitted to underscore the awesomeness of Merckx. Again, if you transported Merckx from 1970ies, put him on a TT bike he would not get on a podium at any of the TT world champs. Perhaps if he spent several years using the nutritional and training advantages riders have today he could be up there with Honchar and Millar, but even that is somewhat doubtful as I don't see many riders of his size doing well at ITT anymore.

So - Merckx was much better than 1970ies peloton, and Lance is much better than 2000 peloton. It's also clear that 2000 peloton is much much better than 1970ies peloton, and quite likely that Lance is much fitter than Merckxs. Sure, Lance cannot go for solo breakaways or sprints, but that's only because cycling has changed so dramatically as a sport over the past 30 years. I cannot imagine anyone doing that ever again - can you?

Was Merckx the best rider of all times? Perhaps, depending on how you define it. If Merckx was the best cyclist, then it's also quite likely that Jesse Owens was the best sprinter, Paavo Nurmi was the best miler, Babe Ruth was the best baseball player, and Jim Thorpe was the best decathlete and also the best football player. Domination was always greater in the past. However, it's quite likely that Jordan was better than Bird, and that Green is better than Owens, and that Dvorak is better than Thorpe, in which case Armstrong is better than Merckx and whoever comes after Armstrong is better than Armstrong.

Naturally, I would be extremely surprised if someone wins 5 tours again, for the same reason I mentioned below - sports get only more and more competitive as more and more people become involved in it. The distance between the first and the second or the first and the tenth guy decreases all the time. This is what makes Armstrong's five victories (and the sixth coming) so absolutely mind-blowing. It's very difficult to imagine someone as dominant as Gretzky or Jordan or Zatopek or Popov ever again. Even including Armstrong's specialization and his team and the money and everything else, it's still unbelievable. Look at what happened this year to Mayo, Heras, Hamilton, Simoni, Vinokurov, Sevilla, Ullrich and other favorites. The same thing could have happened to LA and it didn't. Maybe he is lucky, but he is competing in a whole different environment from the one Merckx used to compete in. And with all of our admiration for Merckx, we are downplaying just how much harder cycling is nowadays. Desire to win is nothing unless you now how to win. It's much more difficult to restrain yourself on all but several key stages than just to follow your instincts and attack whenever you feel like knowing that nobody can match your attack. Winning nowadays requires a lot more strategy and preparation than in Merckx days. Because it's so competitive ycling has become mental chess game between aerobic monsters of almost equal ability, which to me is much more exciting than "alpha-male domination" games of Merckx era.

2. Despite all the hype, if we took Merckx at his prime and time-transported him into todays world, gave him access to all the new equipment and a top team, he would not have won Tour De France against Lance (not even in 2003). He would lose a huge amount of times on the climbs and couldn't match Ullrich or Lance in time trial.

WRONG

If you calculate the wattage output of these folks on most of the major climbs that Eddy and Lance and for that Matter Hinault rode, they are very close if not the same. So, sorry.
Check out Big Migs wattage in the TT's you are WRONG AGAIN

As to the notion of what todays peleton finds prestigious etc etcHOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW????? The Hour is sacred to mmost of the pros I have seen attempting it or interviewed within the last 3 years...

Lance is debating it (rumor has it)

okay so if we follow that 'things get better over time'
it would therefore be true that
Bird is better than Dr J or Walt Frazier
Kobe is better than Jordan
Kobe is better than Magic

Michael Vick is a better QB than
Joe Montana
Troy Aikman
Brett Farvre
Roger Staubach
Terry Bradshaw

I've got mesh under jerseys with less holes than your argument

once again swimming, yup people get faster just like in track. are we evolving physically or training wise? quick here's your answer, check the average weight/size increase of NFL linebackers or DB's than compare it to the average weight size increase of the general population.

So I'll take Jordan, Montana and Eddy.
baseball....who cares. Tony Gwinn is one of the most dominant hitters of all time and look at his physique.

unless Phelps goes HUGE!!!

[QUOTE=ttug] WRONG

If you calculate the wattage output of these folks on most of the major climbs that Eddy and Lance and for that Matter Hinault rode, they are very close if not the same. So, sorry.
Check out Big Migs wattage in the TT's you are WRONG AGAIN
[\QUOTE]

I would be VERY curious as to what, if anything, do you base this on?

Can you show me your wattage output calculation? Anything aside from capitalized "WRONG" would do.

In front of me I have a paper, J Appl Physiol
89: 1522-1527, 2000 "Scientific approach to the 1-h cycling world record:
a case study" by S. Padilla et al. which states that adjusted for aerodynamics Merckx has a wattage output of 380W, while Boardman had 462W and Indurain had 510W.

Your response?

Kobe and Jordan have played in the same games and are of the same era. Bird was better than DrJ (who is my childhood hero, Julius Erving that is) but Bird was a better player. Hate Kobe, but he is a better athlete than Magic. Vick is far superior an athlete than the older QBs but that doens't make him smarter or more skilled. There is a difference.



Lance is debating it (rumor has it)

okay so if we follow that 'things get better over time'
it would therefore be true that
Bird is better than Dr J or Walt Frazier
Kobe is better than Jordan
Kobe is better than Magic

Michael Vick is a better QB than
Joe Montana
Troy Aikman
Brett Farvre
Roger Staubach
Terry Bradshaw

I've got mesh under jerseys with less holes than your argument

once again swimming, yup people get faster just like in track. are we evolving physically or training wise? quick here's your answer, check the average weight/size increase of NFL linebackers or DB's than compare it to the average weight size increase of the general population.

So I'll take Jordan, Montana and Eddy.
baseball....who cares. Tony Gwinn is one of the most dominant hitters of all time and look at his physique.

and it reminded me of something.....

Beckham is better than Pele

Iginla is better than Gretzky
Sakic is better than Gretzky
Scott Stevens is better than Orr.

anyone have any additions?

[QUOTE=ttug] WRONG

If you calculate the wattage output of these folks on most of the major climbs that Eddy and Lance and for that Matter Hinault rode, they are very close if not the same. So, sorry.
Check out Big Migs wattage in the TT's you are WRONG AGAIN
[\QUOTE]

I would be VERY curious as to what, if anything, do you base this on?

Can you show me your wattage output calculation? Anything aside from capitalized "WRONG" would do.

In front of me I have a paper, J Appl Physiol
89: 1522-1527, 2000 "Scientific approach to the 1-h cycling world record:
a case study" by S. Padilla et al. which states that adjusted for aerodynamics Merckx has a wattage output of 380W, while Boardman had 462W and Indurain had 510W.

Your response?

What was the formula used to calculate a standard deviation using Aero equipment when the aero equipment used changed in every attempt.I would find it amusing at best if you could do that since most of the aero folks who did the wind tunnel work at Boeing cant do it with airplanes. I want to also know how they just so happen to have the ability to have the real wattage output on data that was NOT recorded or NOT tracked in any repeatable fashion. The bottom line is simple. If you cant repeat the result, it aint science. Oh and by the way, how do you adjust for the aero edge as that changed every time too? Thanks for playing. You could create a value and say hey here is the deviation etc etc. BUT, how did they get that? Pull; it out of their a55?

Additionally, what was the math used to calculate on the bike position changes and the relation to generating WATTS. Apples and oranges and guess what, NO actual data for that for Eddy either. This is also in relation to the now banned Superman position etc etc oops, Eddy didnt ride that oh golly tamale what shall we do???

The answer is that AGAIN, there is NO comparisin that can be done unless of course you can repeat or recreate the result. OR travel in time. As such, your "argument" is no more or less valid than any other supposition here. GIVEN the times Eddy climbed and GIVEN the times others climbed : The BEST GUESS anyone will have is, they were comparable. And I really want to say GUESS because, I cant really see how anyone could really claim as yourself that hey I really have the lowdown and you all have to figure it out.

BUMMER, thats gotta kill the buzz :eek:

Any other great tips for bad science you wanna discuss?

and it reminded me of something.....

Beckham is better than Pele

Iginla is better than Gretzky
Sakic is better than Gretzky
Scott Stevens is better than Orr.

anyone have any additions?

You'd have to compare athletes from different eras, as we do in Lance vs. Merckx. So while it's too early to tell if Kobe is better than Jordan (I kinda doubt), it's clear that Jordan is better than Bird and that whoever is the best basketball player for the next 20 years is likely to be better than Jordan. The irony is, he will be a less dominating player, making everyong reminisce about the time Jordan could win games on his own.

Beckham is definitely a better player than Pele. He is not as dominant, but he is much, much better. And he is better than Maradonna who was better than Pele, even though Maradonna was a jerk, a cheater and a junkie and an arrogant sonova*****. I like watching Pele play, but he was facing the bushleague of his time. Ronaldo or Zidane are better players than him, but it doesn't matter because we measure up things relative to the rest of the field, and those two guys can't be consistent enough to be so much better than the rest. It's not their fault, it's the fault of "the rest" who are much better than they used to be.
Pele spoiled it for everyone, just like Celtics of the 1980ies with Bird have spoiled it for us, just like Jordan spoiled it for us, just like NY Yankees of 1930ies and 1940ies, or just like Merckx spoiled it for us with his domination of cycling.

One thing to be sure - the records are meant to be broken, but it's incremementally more difficult to do so, and we should be aware of that fact. So if someone breaks Armstrong's 6 victories at TdF record we should not be whining that they didn't win as many stages or didn't have as much of a margin of victory or didn't get sick with cancer - a win is a win is a win. And the more time passes, the more difficult it is to get one.

What was the formula used to calculate a standard deviation using Aero equipment when the aero equipment used changed in every attempt.I would find it amusing at best if you could do that since most of the aero folks who did the wind tunnel work at Boeing cant do it with airplanes. I want to also know how they just so happen to have the ability to have the real wattage output on data that was NOT recorded or NOT tracked in any repeatable fashion. The bottom line is simple. If you cant repeat the result, it aint science. Thanks for playing.

Additionally, what was the math used to calculate on the bike position changes and the relation to generating WATTS. Apples and oranges and guess what, NO actual data for that for Eddy either. This is also in relation to the now banned Superman position etc etc oops, Eddy didnt ride that oh golly tamale what shall we do???

The answer is that AGAIN, there is NO comparisin that can be done unless of course you can repeat or recreate the data. OR travel in time. As such, your "argument" is no more or less valid than any other supposition here.

BUMMER, thats gotta kill the buzz :eek:

Any other great tips for bad science you wanna discuss?

With very basic laws of physics you can describe pretty accurately how much more of aerodynamic drag a solid disk wheel or a modern TT frame vs. diamond frame of the 1970 can provide. There are hundreds of people who publish research papers on this.

What's even more amazing, is that they can take a picture of you in your TT setup, and using your aerdynamic setup predict with a fairly good precision how fast your 1HR time trial would be, based on your past athletic performances. In fact the scientists have done this for a number of athletes and have been pretty close, much closer than the predicted difference between 380 and 510 Watts.

And if you have been paying attention at your high school physics course, here's a question for you - a cyclist EM travels 49 kph in an atmosphere that is 20% less dense than the one a cyclist CB travels at the same speed. How fast could EM go in the same atmosphere as CB? Hint: it's a very simple problem.

The TdF is not the only race in cycling. If you want to compare other sports with cycling, wouldn't it be more relevant to compare racing sports, rather than B'ball and soccer?

It's like saying A.J. Foyt was the best Indy car racer ever because he won so many Indy 500's. That's nice, except you have to do well in many other races in your sport to claim to be "the best", not just cherry-pick the few races you like as LA does.

Merckx is still #1. Period.

An example is that Merckx's 1971 Tour was listed as having an average speed of 38.084 kph over 3608 km.

Yes, anything can be proved while cherry picking average speeds:

1970 - 35.589 kph
1971 - 38.084 kph
1972 - 35.514 kph
1973 - 33.407 kph
1974 - 35.241 kph
1975 - 34.906 kph
1976 - 34.518 kph

vs.

1999 - 40.273 kph
2000 - 38.570 kph
2001 - 40.02 kph
2002 - 39.93 kph
2003 - 40.940 kph

Hmm. why don't we pick 1971 Tour De France and compare it to 2000 Tour De France. That seems fair enough of a comparison, as opposed, to, god forbid, 2003 TdF vs. 1973 TdF which might show a 22% difference in average speed.

Seriously though, I agree with you on that domestiques of today are much better than domestiques of 1970. Which is why there's no way anyone can go for solo breakways - domestiques would reel them in immediately. The weakest french (nothign against the french) B-team in TdF can probably reel in Lance Armstrong if they really wanted.
Which means LA cannot be as dominant as EM, yadda-yadda-yadda, read the whole thread from post #1.

With very basic laws of physics you can describe pretty accurately how much more of aerodynamic drag a solid disk wheel or a modern TT frame vs. diamond frame of the 1970 can provide. There are hundreds of people who publish research papers on this.

What's even more amazing, is that they can take a picture of you in your TT setup, and using your aerdynamic setup predict with a fairly good precision how fast your 1HR time trial would be, based on your past athletic performances. In fact the scientists have done this for a number of athletes and have been pretty close, much closer than the predicted difference between 380 and 510 Watts.

And if you have been paying attention at your high school physics course, here's a question for you - a cyclist EM travels 49 kph in an atmosphere that is 20% less dense than the one a cyclist CB travels at the same speed. How fast could EM go in the same atmosphere as CB? Hint: it's a very simple problem.

1)They did not travel at the same speed.

2)The picture method is highly inaccurate as the position is not static rather dynamic. The best you will get is a guess

3)Additionally past athletic performances in totum would not matter. There would have to be specific data for that specific effort or discipline type.The data as you describe will be at best flawed.

4)". In fact the scientists have done this for a number of athletes and have been pretty close, much closer than the predicted difference between 380 and 510 Watts"

Thats 130 watts. Thats freakishly huge and if the wattage diff was that high the record would have gone by by a long time ago. :o
Name the athletes. You cant because no scientists on earth is saying oh gee, 130 extra watts gosh, that a range and gee the performances are so close. Yeah, that looks good. Sure.

Sorry, looks like my cat needs to be flossed now. Too many hairballs and I have to go watch that wet paint dry on the driveway. Either will be doubtless more informative and thought provoking. Wow

What a bunch of freaking Losers!

1)They did not travel at the same speed.

Yes, for all practical purposes they did. Boardman rode Merckx-era bike for 10m longer than Merckx did. Except (a slight difference) he did so at sea level. You wanna argue over 10m/hour differences in speed?


2)The picture method is highly inaccurate as the position is not static rather dynamic. The best you will get is a guess


Picture method has nothing to do with my question. You ride for 1Hr and you cover 49km, except air is 20% thinner than at sea level. Now you do exactly the same thing at sea level. How far could you go?


3)Additionally past athletic performances in totum would not matter. There would have to be specific data for that specific effort or discipline type.The data as you describe will be at best flawed.


Data is "flawed" (I am sure you are more qualified than people doing full-time research on this topic), ergo Merckx would beat Boardmand and I am wrong? Beauuutiful.
And the answer to my problem is...?


Thats 130 watts. Thats freakishly huge and if the wattage diff was that high the record would have gone by by a long time ago. :o
Name the athletes. You cant because no scientists on earth is saying oh gee, 130 extra watts gosh, that a range and gee the performances are so close. Yeah, that looks good. Sure.


I can count semi-serious attempts at 1-hour record over the past 30 years on my hand. How many top cyclists have attempted it in the past 5 years? Past 10 years? Hmmm...
How many TdF winners attempted that? ITT World champs?

Additionally, seems like Obree and Moser and Rominger and Boardman where stupid enough to use their contemporary bikes to improve 1 hour record from 49 to 56 km. Why would they do a crazy thing like that? Perhaps because nobody told them that in 2000, just before Boardman's attempt at world record (how convenient! *use Church Lady pronounciation) UCI would modify the rules to make all records invalid and revert to the 1970 bicycle as their standard. They could have gone with 1890 bicycle, but they decided to go with Mercks's bike. Interesting. What's more interesting is that they had no specifications on the altitude, which is just as important (and you will see this as soon as you provide an answer to my silly physics problem).



Sorry, looks like my cat needs to be flossed now. Too many hairballs and I have to go watch that wet paint dry on the driveway. Either will be doubtless more informative and thought provoking. Wow

All I see is a bunch of rhetorhic. And the answer to my question is...?

it doesn't override the new equals better non arguement or are you now trying to insert *s?
cause well, Mig overlapped Lemond, who overlapped Hinault, Merckx overlapped Poulidor, who overlapped Anquetil. so if you want to make a rule in which to debate, no exeptions, that's a cop out. If the rule were TRUE It should apply equally in a 3 year span as well as 30 unless again you believe there's been a huge paradigmal shift in human genetics that we haven't been made privvy to because it would either scare us or run against the current scientific thought and or religious beliefs.

Bird better than the Doctor? please share your psychedelics next time
Kobe better than Magic? Uh I can't remember Kobe ever getting thrown into Post position for an injured center and dominating.

Vick, can run, can throw....can win?
see takes in the intangibles (drive, etc..) which are far more important than the pseudo science of 'projected wattage/ drag photo mumbo jumbo' which LA proved wrong in a wind tunnel this season. He should have been 'faster' in a more aero position but it didn't 'feel' as good and he therefore put out less wattage which means more aero does not always equal faster. He;s your guy, you should have known this, his riding position flew in the face of the physicists.
I'm sorry people aren't being born today with noticably nor calcuable superior genetic make up over those of a decade or in that matter a century ago. All the leaps and bounds have come from increases in Sport technology, training diet etc.... so if you took any elite athlete (which means genetically better, VO2 max, LTHR, Lung capacity etc...) from any era and gave them a modern upbringing you'd still produce an Elite Athlete.
I'm joining ttug, the fork was stuck long ago.

Thanks for a great (and civil) debate, atpjunkie!

Next question: Merckx vs. Hurricane and Superman vs. Batman***. Who do you think would win?

*** Spiderman, anyone?

There is always a human desire to select the Greatest of All Time. Can you say Muhammad Ali? It's good for the sport and helps define it.

I believe that some already feel that Lance is the greatest of all time and some feel Eddy is the greatest of all time. As Lance adds to his TDF victories, some will join the camp tha believe Lance is best.

This is all good. After all, none can be proven and the greatest is really defined by what the people think and believe and what the true afficionados of the sport believe.

If you are in the Merckx camp, it might be useful to reflect what would Lance need to do convert you over. 7 Tours, 8 tours, 12 tours?? What does it take. If no amount of TDFs can do it, then there you stand... Merckx fan forever.

francois

Although this is quite beaten to death, one thing that is completely missed when trying to compare a previous era to now is the piles 'o' green spent. Teams and sponsors certainly didn't have the money and resources thrown at them like they do now. So the financial pressure of the sponsor can dictate what the compeditor will focus on.This changes the playing field in such a fashion that you can't compare the different eras. EM is awesome, his racing achievements are unmatched and he could race whatever he wished. But, LA has proven to be incredible as well, but with so much money on the line does anyone want to bet that his focus is for the tour is partially driven by the sponsors? I'm a fan of both, and don't wish to compare something that really cannot be decided....

Just to make sure, I am not trying to contribute another counter-argument here.
A very good point, money makes cycling of 2000s a whole different sport from Merckx era.

However. (*I am sure you've seen this one coming).
don't you think that if Lance had a solid shot at winning Giro and Vuelta without compromising his chances to win TdF that his sponsorts would advise him against it?
Don't you think Saeco would LOVE if Simoni or Cunego won Giro and Tour, or even Giro and Vuelta? Don't you think T-Mobile would LOVE it if Ullrich added a win at Vuelta or Giro or one of the spring classics to his perennial 2nd place at the Tour?

The problem with specialization is not with sponsors, it's with the competitiveness factor of the rest of the field. Did we see much of Ullrich or Hamilton or Heras or Basso or Mayo in spring classics? No, we saw Rebellin. Did Rebllin do well at any of the Grand Tours? I don't think so. Why is that? Because all of those other guys are/were dreaming of the Tour and didn't want to sacrifice their chances. And even then they peaked too early, or didn't have what it takes. If you were a rider who thought they had a shot at TdF podium, would you try to peak for spring classics? I don't think so. It's just not smart, whether you are sponsored or not. You can be a smart winner or a stupid loser, who may say to himself: "well, at least I wasn't peaking for the Tour like all of those other cowards, I showed up at every race of the year and had my butt kicked by riders who would otherwise be weaker than me. Aren't I special?"

MaRider -

Yes, anything can be proved while cherry picking average speeds:

Your argument doesn't seem to be accounting for different bike weights from Merckx' era to today, Did Eddy have a 15 lb. rig and 20 gears to choose from?

Also, once again you're only talking TdF. EM was much more than just a TdF specialist like LA is.

You can spin it any way you want, but I think most knowledgable cyclists and sports pros would give LA his rightful due, but the sheer weight of EM's palmares buries LA's accomplishments to date.

There is always a human desire to select the Greatest of All Time. Can you say Muhammad Ali? It's good for the sport and helps define it.

I believe that some already feel that Lance is the greatest of all time and some feel Eddy is the greatest of all time. As Lance adds to his TDF victories, some will join the camp tha believe Lance is best.

This is all good. After all, none can be proven and the greatest is really defined by what the people think and believe and what the true afficionados of the sport believe.

If you are in the Merckx camp, it might be useful to reflect what would Lance need to do convert you over. 7 Tours, 8 tours, 12 tours?? What does it take. If no amount of TDFs can do it, then there you stand... Merckx fan forever.

francois

All good points, francois!

Since I am neither belgian nor american, I am in neither camp, but if I was in Merckx camp and had to answer your question about 'What would convert me over', I would say - a win at any of the other major tour or several spring classics in the SAME YEAR as TdF win, or perhaps a solo breakaway at non-mountain stage in TdF.

Unfortunately, anyone expecting something like this is rather naive, I am afraid. It's like expecting A-Rod to be both a world-class pithcher and a slugger, or Tom Brady both quarterback and defense player, or Mo Greene both sprinter and long jumper, or Sebrle both decathlete and football player. Ain't going to happen, even though all of those things happened before. Bottom line - nothing Lance would be able to do realistically is good enough to make him the best cyclist ever in the eyes of Merckx camp. The old-timers like Merckx and Hinault (surprised not that many Coppi fans here) have an advantage and none of the contemporary athletes have a shot, no matter how hard they try.

S P E C I A L I Z A T I O N

It is simplistic to over emphasize the role of technological advantage or modern science in Lance's accomplishments. Lance is driven to pursue and exploit every advantage available. But ultimately, it is not about [ugh -- I can't believe I am about to type this] the bike. It is about the drive to do whatever it takes to win. Lance in 1971 wouldn't be lost without 2004 technology. He would be figuring out how to win with 1971 technology.

Forget racing, I'd like to see them matched head-to-head in a saddle position adjust-off.

The facts are clear (to me at least) Lance Armstrong is a great rider in the Tour. Eddy Merckx did everything, all the time, and is the best there ever was. You assume that Merckx would be riding and training like it was 1970 and racing a 2004 Armstrong? If you do you miss the point of a Merckx. He is the standard because of training and meticulous preparation. A 2004 Merckx would be as state of the art as a 1970 Merckx


You assume that training the way a rider must train today Merckx would still dominate everything. The demands on the body that the pace of todays' peloton requires make it impossible to ride all of the big races. If Mercks were to ride 53kph in a time trial there would be little chance he would recover well enough to win like he did. Beyond that you have to compare the competition he was racing against versus what Lance is racing against. The average rider today would beat most of the great riders of years past. There are few bad riders in todays peloton, Lance just makes them look that way. I take nothing away from Mercks but Lance is cakewalking past the best riders in the world. He is about to secure himself as the greatest rider that ever lived.

Speculation: Put LA on an exact copy of EM's 1971 rig, except sized to fit him, of course. Same tires, same wheels, same gearing, same pedals, shoes, headgear (if any), everything.

Now, have LA race the '05 Giro and then the TdF against the peloton riding their regular '05 rigs. Guess what happens? Does he win either, both, or neither?

Everyone wants to bring Mercks forward, but what if LA went back? If Lance were riding against the same competition as Merckx would he win the way Mercks did. I say yes. In Mercks' day there was not the specialization there is today. Today sprint specialists, Climbing specialists and GC riders. Who cares how many jerseys you win in a single Tour. If your riding against the Boy Scouts you would win lots of jerseys. Before Lance won his first TdF he first had to ride cancer off of his wheel. Was Mercks almost dead before he won his first tour? Did he come back from the grave and then destroy the best riders in the world? NO. Most of you guys are probably still fantasizing about that girl you wanted to lay in high school. Move on she's ugly now.

Speculation: Put LA on an exact copy of EM's 1971 rig, except sized to fit him, of course. Same tires, same wheels, same gearing, same pedals, shoes, headgear (if any), everything.

Now, have LA race the '05 Giro and then the TdF against the peloton riding their regular '05 rigs. Guess what happens? Does he win either, both, or neither?

Whats your point? Put Merckx, in his prime, on his old bike and have him race the Giro and TdF against today's riders and he gets beat. Old equipment versus new. I promise you there were no sprinters like McEwen, Zabel or O'Grady back then. Nor were their pure climbers like today. I'm not saying he wouldn't be good but the level and quantity of the competition is much greater today. Babe Ruth didn't have to face 90mph fastballs every night, therefore it is not likely he would hit as many homers if he played today. That is if he could even make the team. Mercks was great in his day, he made history but the speed of todays races would hurt him just as it hurts everyone in the peloton. Could he recover from the efforts to ride and win could he avoid mechanicals and bad luck to win everything contested. Not likely. Times change, it doesn't mean Merckx is forgotten Just that Lance has made him move over a little

The point is that if Armstrong is so invincible and that far superior to the rest of the bunch today as Merckx was in his day, then it seems even with a handicap he would still beat them. But I don't think he would. Also, LA hasn't won a double GT in a single season against his peers as EM did against his.

Again, as I said it's speculation/opinion on my part.

Yes, for all practical purposes they did. Boardman rode Merckx-era bike for 10m longer than Merckx did. Except (a slight difference) he did so at sea level. You wanna argue over 10m/hour differences in speed?



Picture method has nothing to do with my question. You ride for 1Hr and you cover 49km, except air is 20% thinner than at sea le