Why There Will be No More Champs Like Merckx [Archive]

View Full Version : Why There Will be No More Champs Like Merckx

Coot72

04-25-2005, 10:13 PM

I've read many posts here and I've read many articles in Cycle Sport and other cycling mags. There is one consistent criticism of Lance Armstrong's Palmares: he concentrates so dogmatically on the Tour.

Now I want to come out and state clearly that I am not a "Lance is God" fan. In fact, I'm trying to look at procycling objectively. The point I'm trying to make with this post is to debunk the "They Don't Make 'Em Like They Used To" line of reasoning. Sure Lance is not Merckx. I agree. Merckx is the best hammer of all time. But Lance also lives in an era where racing hard at the wrong time of the season means you're an Iban Mayo of 2004. Do you think he'd rather trade his Dauphine victory for a better show at Le Tour?

Let's look at the evidence. Back in the Golden era with Merckx et. al., cyclists raced pretty much the whole calendar year. They used races to get into shape.

Now consider that Merckx was the best cyclist of his time, and all of Merckx's rivals also raced the entire racing season. So his rivals weren't any more rested than he was. All cyclists did similar races, and were confronted with similar challenges. So naturally the best athlete (Merckx) would be in a position to win a large percentage of the races. No single rider has a significant advantage in terms of race preparation. No one had a special training program to specifically peak for say the Tour like they do today. It was more a battle of wills and genetics. The one who had the mentality and the physical ability to keep in top shape and handle the immense workload would be a grand champion and win lots of races.

Like everything, evolution kicks in. Sports medicine and training methods are studied more carefully. Track and field athletes train specifically to peak for certain goals. Marathon runners realized that they can't compete in more than two marathons a year. Coaches finally realized that recovery is important, and smoking doesn't increase lung capacity.

The story could be like this (all hypothetical numbers): if Lance needs 495+ watts of power at LT, then his body can only hold that peak for say 4 weeks. To get that high of a peak, Lance needs to keep his powder dry in other races. If Lance wanted to race hard all year, maybe he could output 450 watts and somewhat less anaerobic tolerance than his best possible peak. So this might mean Lance could win races all through the year, but winning the Tour is now out of the question, because he has about 10% less power at LT. Now there's competition: Other riders aren't stupid. They know that if they peak for the Tour, they can beat an Armstrong at 90%.

So now here's the 10 million dollar question. If you were in Lance's position, which race are you going to target? Le Tour nets you 10+ million for winning it, and the Giro nets maybe a million (endorsements). Then add to the mix, that sponsors look at the viewership between the two races. Now the sponsor's CEO starts thinking about $$ instead of some employee's legacy.

What about other riders? Where has Petacchi been since winning Milan-San Remo? Where was Boonen the last couple of weeks? Merckx won Flanders, Roubaix and Liege-Bastogne-Liege! Why can't Boonen? Cunego didn't show well at the spring classics, and where was he a Paris-Nice, Crit Int'l? Basso? Mayo? Ullrich? Heras?

Well the answer is that they're doing the right thing. By specializing, they perform better at their specialty at the expense of doing well in other races.

There you have it. Racers have to make decisions today. It's natural selection and evolution, just like aero bars. Just ask Laurent Fignon.

<Cue some grumpy guy>
"Back in my day, we didn't need no stinkin' aero bars. In fact who the heck needs water or mechanics. We used to drink wine, smoke cigars, and fix our own flats on the side of the road."

All true and fascinating! But no one, even Merckx, would win doing those things today.

C72

Dwayne Barry

04-26-2005, 04:13 AM

No siht! There will never be another Merckx or for a more recent reference Hinault, but that doesn't mean there won't be riders, even ones that target the tour that race far more substantial seasons than Armstrong. Indurain and Pantani and even other modern day GT champs race more complete seasons. What sucks about Armstrong is his modest ambitions. For a guy with the ability to win the tour 6 times it's a shame he never really wanted anything else. To have gone to the plate and struck out once or twice, would have been more admirable than never even showing up at the ballpark.

Tig

04-26-2005, 05:23 AM

I'm not a foaming at the mouth fan of Lance's, but I have always admired him and enjoyed watching him win. To me, there will never be another Merckx, nor will there be another Armstrong for that matter. Merckx was the ultimate champion. Only Jeanie Longo can compete when it comes to total career wins. Lance has blazed his path by his own rules and opened doors to a higher level of competition.

Armstrong showed the world that you can survive cancer and become better than before (both personally and physically). 6 TdF wins is something we may never see for a long time, if ever. Armstrong also changed the face of professional cycling with his ultra focused training techniques. Even Ulrich has started to move away from the old school patterns.

When some people say that Lance only races for the Tour and nothing else, I like to pull out a list of his career top 5 placings. It is easy to overlook his earlier career results. I wanted him to really lay it down more in recent races, but he's doing what he and his sponsors want, not what we want. Once the TdF bug bit him, everything else became secondary.

Lance's Career Highlights

2004
1st Tour de France, six stage wins including the Team Time Trial
1st Tour of Alrgarve stage win, 5th overall
1st Tour de Georgia, two stage wins
1st Midi Libre stage win, 6th overall
3rd Criterium International
4th Dauphine Libere

2003
1st Tour de France, two stage wins including the Team Time Trial
1st Dauphine Libre, one stage win

2002
1st Tour de France, four stage wins
1st Midi Libre
1st Dauphine Libre, one stage win
2nd Criterium Internantional
3rd Championship of Zurich
4th Amstel Gold

2001
1st Tour de France, four stage wins
1st Tour of Switzerland, two stage wins
2nd Amstel Gold
2nd Classique des Alpes

2000
1st Tour de France, one stage win
1st GP Eddy Merckx 2-man TT with "Eki" Ekimov
1st GP des Nations
2nd Paris-Camembert
3rd Dauphine Libere, one stage win, King of the Mountains winner
3rd Olympic Time Trial
3rd Classique des Alpes
4th GP Gippingen

1999
1st Tour de France, four stage wins
1st Dauphine Libere stage win, 8th overall
1st Circuit de la Sarthe stage win
1st Route de Sud stage win
2nd Amstel Gold
2nd Ride for the Roses criterium

1998
1st Tour of Luxembourg, one stage win
1st Rheinland Pfalz Tour
1st Ride for the Roses criterium
1st Cascade Classic
2nd First Union Invitational
4th USPro Championship
4th Tour of Holland
4th Vuelta Espana
4th World Time Trial Championship
4th World Road Race Championship

1996
1st Fleche Wallone
1st Tour DuPont, with five stage wins
1st Fresca Classic stage win
2nd Paris-Nice
2nd Liege-Bastogne-Liege
2nd GP Eddy Merckx
2nd Tour of Holland
4th Leeds Classic
4th GP Suisse

1995
1st stage win Tour de France, 36th overall
1st San Sebastian Classic
1st Tour DuPont, three stage wins
1st Paris-Nice stage win
1st West Virginia Mountain Classic, one stage win
1st Tour of America race series
2nd Thrift Drug Classic
5th CoreStates USPro Championship

1994
1st Thrift Drug Classic
2nd Tour DuPont, one stage win
2nd Liege-Bastogne-Liege
2nd San Sebastian Classic

1993
1st World Road Race Championship
1st Tour de France stage win
1st CoreStates USPro Championship
1st Trofeo Laigueglia
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Tour of Galicia
1st West Virginia Mountain Classic, two stage wins
1st Tour of America series
* Winner of $1 million Thrift Drug Triple Crown
2nd Tour DuPont, one stage win
3rd Tour of Sweden, one stage win
5th Leeds Classic

1992
1st First Union Grand Prix
1st Thrift Drug Classic
1st Trittico Premondiale second leg
1st La Primavera Tour, three stage wins
1st Settimana Bergamasca stage win
2nd Championship of Zurich

1991 * Signed with Subaru-Montgomery
1st US Amateur Championship
1st Settimana Bergamasca

Bianchigirl

04-26-2005, 06:22 AM

I think you have to take Armstrong out of the equation and look at the ambitions of the next generation. Armstrong has made a virtue of concentrating on one race and, by bringing that race to the lucrative American market, he has made everyone very happy. There's nothing to gain from jeapordising that success. But we have young riders coming through who are prepared to say 'it's not normal to just race one GT a year' (Basso) or who have made an effort to be competitive in Classucs and GTs (Cunego).

This Tour will be different this year, because of course the main contenders will be looking to finally topple Armstrong, to take their final chance to beat him. That's what he's there for. But after that, I suppose it depends which riders you take your inspiration from - after all, if you actually decide to race all year, sure you might lose a Tour here or there but your all round palmares start to look much sounder. And whose to say that one major contender making a full season of it won't encourage other riders to follow suit?

What we're really saying here is that no other race matters but the Tour - Lemond began the process and Armstrong has taken it to its apotheosis. But for Cunego and Basso, the race to win is the Giro, on home soil and then, who knows, why not the Tour? Italian sponsors are just as delighted with Giro success, if not more so, than TdF success. It seems to me that cycling needs to regain a sense of balance - which is one of the reasons the ProTour was created - to encourage strong teams to race a full calendar. It'll be interesting to see how the new PT stars rise to that challenge.

We may not see another Merckx - I doubt if we'll ever see a rider who can be that genuinely competitive in Classics and GTs, but does specialisation have to mean specialisation in one race? By all means specialise in the GTs but at least ride 2 of them.

Rolando

04-26-2005, 07:33 AM

Maybe the pro tour could do even more to encourage the participation and winning of 2 or more grand tours. They could offer a unique prize or title. Maybe a specific jersey to go along with the title. Maybe be some money too.
Anyway, it is good that they are requiring the teams to participate in all the races.

technocycle

04-26-2005, 08:03 AM

atpjunkie

04-26-2005, 09:09 AM

including stages and GT victories (so this count is generous) I got 65 total victories by your listing.
eddy had 525.
protour should help as maybe riders will do a longer season.

and don't forget the atheletes hour. Only Boardman broke Eddy's record (by 13 feet) and Chris trained for a year to prepare. Eddy set it in a year with a full race schedule, major classics, Giro and Vuelta victories. Eddy put out big watts all year sorry, and some of his challengers were specialists, ie De Vlamnick was never a GT guy, as was Godefrot (excuse my spelling I'm in a hurry) Eddy beat classics guys early and the GT guys later and furthermore Eddy rode out front. He didn't 'hide' behind his legions as much as Lance so he IMHO put out more watts for longer distances for longer months.

hrv

04-26-2005, 09:10 AM

We will not see in our time hence a rider who can dominate the race calendar from Feb. through Oct., including a grand tour or 2. Those days are entirely over. Physically impossible, given the level of racing today. And I said dominate, not just show up at the starting line.

Nor, we will see in our lifetime a rider who , after deciding to only race Le Tour, win 6 or more in a row. I completely believe those days are behind us as well.

crashjames

05-01-2005, 03:43 PM

torquecal

05-01-2005, 04:40 PM

Some excellent points made above, but nobody mentioned the sponsors (where the money comes from). Fassa Bortolo makes money for it's sponsors whenever the Fassa boys lead Ale Jet to a sprint finish. Davitamon, Lotto, and Rabobank are heavily invested in seeing their jerseys at or near the front in northern classics. Saeco couldn't care less about the northern classics, but they desperately need the Giro.... well, you get my point.

Armstrong and Ullrich are the luckiest riders in the enitre Pro Tour, almost (remember, I did say "almost" :) ) no one else is going to pony up millions for a rider that's only expected to do well in a single Grand Tour. None of Merckx' sponsors would have paid him to ride a few prep races and then the TDF.

Sure, riders have specialized and so have teams, but if you really want to trace down causes, then look at where the sponsorship euros originate.

DieselDan

05-02-2005, 06:48 PM

Something else not mentioned: money. Merkx had to race and win to make a living. Lance has big endorsment contracts that pay him very well.

Utah CragHopper

05-02-2005, 09:27 PM

Sure, riders have specialized and so have teams, but if you really want to trace down causes, then look at where the sponsorship euros originate.

Good point, but the Pro Tour might have the capability to change the sport. They could require each rider to participate in at least 40% of the PT events, thus coming closer to what the sport once was. It still probably won't produce a rider who can dominate in both classics and GTs, but the riders that currently race most of the season won't find themselves competing against those who compete for a few weeks a year

It would also help sponsorship by increasing fan interest in the season as a whole. Having much of the calendar overshadowed by one big event like the Tour is not healthy for the sport.