Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

Lance Is Better Than Merckx...

11K views 74 replies 27 participants last post by  atpjunkie 
#1 ·
... or so says "The Cannible" himself...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/nov04/nov26news

Merckx: "Lance better than me"

Speaking to the media at the Spanish Cycling Journalism Award in Madrid on Wednesday, Eddy Merckx praised his personal friend Lance Armstrong to be "a better rider" than himself. The Belgian, who many consider to be the best cyclist of all time, said that "The Tour is the most important race and Lance is the one who won it most. I don't have a problem with the fact that he's topped me."

However, Merckx somewhat toned down his words when he continued, "Cycling has different eras, be it Indurain's, Hinault's, Armstrong's or mine. Everyone of us has competed at a different time. What counts is to be the best of your generation. Beyond that, comparisons are never any good."

The cycling legend further believes that Lance Armstrong will be at the 2005 Tour de France for a 7th victory bid, saying that the attempt might not be motivated by sporting goals only. "He'll end up riding the next Tour de France because his new team sponsor, Discovery Channel, will want to see him try for a seventh victory. He's got a great team and the race suits him perfectly, so he'll surely compete in it," Merckx said, adding, "It would be a shame if he wouldn't."

As to potential successors for Armstrong at the Tour, Merckx named its best young rider in 2004, Vladimir Karpets, Giro winner Damiano Cunego, Alejandro Valverde and Thomas Voeckler.

Further asked on his opinions on the ProTour, Merckx responded, "I'm in favour of it, because cycling needs to be known not only for the Tour de France. But the ProTour also has its flaws. For example, the next Tour of Flanders has to invite 20 teams, but only about 10 will come to the race aiming for possible victory. This might make some races less competitive and spectacular."

On the ongoing plague of doping within cycling, the "Cannibal" also had a viewpoint to share, starting out by saying that, "This problem subsists not only in cycling, also in other sports. To find a solution, you need to ask the doctors, not the riders, because the doctors are the problem."

Merckx also said to todociclismo.com that he was in favour of doping controls, "which are more and more sophisticated and reliable. But I don't agree on the principle of 'zero tolerance' in professional sport, because you need to differentiate between doping and products that help to keep healthy. Today, all of them are banned and that's not normal."


... notice that in his further comments, he also recognizes the difficulty/impossibility in making these types of comparisons... because of changing times and focuses... but it's still a noteworthy compliment from arguably, the Giant of the sport of pro road racing.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Merckx is certainly generous in his praise, and gracious. I respect Merckx very much for saying what he has about Armstrong, but judging by their highlights alone, Merckx was still the better rider, no matter what the era. The Cannibal won 5 Tours, 5 Giros, 7 Milano-San Remos, etc, etc. Armstrong has won his 6 Tours, but his record in the "Classics" is nowhere near Merckx's. Sorry folks.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Merckx will always be #1 (IMHO)

wayneanneli said:
Merckx is certainly generous in his praise, and gracious. I respect Merckx very much for saying what he has about Armstrong, but judging by their highlights alone, Merckx was still the better rider, no matter what the era. The Cannibal won 5 Tours, 5 Giros, 7 Milano-San Remos, etc, etc. Armstrong has won his 6 Tours, but his record in the "Classics" is nowhere near Merckx's. Sorry folks.
Armstrong is definitely our King of the 20th Century but his resume will never match "The Cannibal" http://www.kings5.freeserve.co.uk/merckxpalmares.htm including 445 Professional victories....and if you review his Main victories, they were within the same year(s).....not taking time off for the TdF training, or warming up for competetive racing....the man was awsome!!

YEAR EVENT :
1966 Milan-San Remo
1967 Ghent-Wevelgem
" Fleche-Wallonne
" World Champion
" Milan-San Remo
1968 Giro d' italia
" Paris-Roubaix
1969 Ghent-Wevelgem
" Tour de France
" Paris-Nice
" Milan-San Remo
" Tour of Flanders
" Liege-Bastongne-Liege
1970 Ghent-Wevelgem
" Fleche-Wallonne
" Tour de France
" Giro d' italia
" Paris-Nice
" Paris-Roubaix
1971 Tour of Lombardy
" Het Volk
" Henninger-Turm
" Tour de France
" World Champion
" Paris-Nice
" Milan-San Remo
" Liege-Bastongne-Liege
1972 Tour of Lombardy
" Fleche-Wallonne
" Tour de France
" Giro d' italia
" Milan-San Remo
" Liege-Bastongne-Liege
1973 Amstel Gold Race
" Het Volk
" Ghent-Wevelgem
" Paris-Brussels
" Grand Prix des Nations
" Giro d' italia
" Vuelta a Espana
" Paris-Roubaix
" Liege-Bastongne-Liege
1974 Tour de France
" Giro d' italia
" World Champion
" Tour of Switzerland
1975 Amstel Gold Race
" Fleche-Wallonne
" Milan-San Remo
" Tour of Flanders
" Liege-Bastongne-Liege
1976 Milan-San Remo
1972-84 Hour Record (49.431km)


25 Stage wins in Giro d' Italia
36 Stage wins in Tour de France*
(*96 days in Yellow jersey)
 
#8 ·
jumpstumper said:
Hey, topcarb, are you saying that Eddy is a liar? And who should I listen to in regards to the better racer? Eddy or you?
I think Merckx is just being political and probably doesn't want to jeopardize his friendship with Armstrong by coming out and saying "Yes, he is very, very good with his 6 Tours, but I did this, and this, and this...", even though he might be privately thinking it. ;)
 
#9 ·
I agree;

wayneanneli said:
I think Merckx is just being political and probably doesn't want to jeopardize his friendship with Armstrong by coming out and saying "Yes, he is very, very good with his 6 Tours, but I did this, and this, and this...", even though he might be privately thinking it. ;)
if Lance's Pro race wins (under 40*) is compared to Merckx's, and I'm 'sure' that Merckx didn't enjoy the glamour world of technology that Trek bestowed on LA. Don't get me wrong, I think LA is one fantastic cyclist, but how can the two pro resumes even be compared?....the previous thread indicated EM's victories, but how many times did he finish 2nd or 3rd??
* http://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/online2.nsf/html/career
 
#10 ·
Its all part of the game- Lance has repeatedly said Eddy is the best of all time, and Eddy now is returning the favor. There is no right answer (other than its not Lemond, who isn't remotely in their class).
 
#11 · (Edited)
Armstrong vs E. Merckx

Both are amazing cyclist's but let's face it Merckx is the one and only Cannibal, look at his wins verses Armstrong. Eddy went out and just won every damn race during the entire racing season. Armstrong clearly train's every season to win only the TDF, he is just under peak condition before he enters the tour, so he peak's during the first week of the tour. I would love to see if he raced all the classics and the Giro if he would be as sucessful as Eddy. And guys face it the USPS team is like the NY Yankees if a rider is good he gets drafted into Postal, that team is just awesome. Just my 2c but both riders are truly legendary riders, but Merckx is in a league all his own.
 
#13 ·
the bull said:
Humble.....but Eddy is better than Lance.
Humble, and that is part of why Eddy is better than Lance. Along with the fact that Eddy won lots of races in the same year, not just one race over and over.
Personally, I would like to see Lance attempt a triple crown. Just placing in the top five of the Giro, TdF and Vuelta in one year would be huge, and I would give him much more credit for trying and failing than I do for failing to try.
Maybe that is what I like about Eddy, he entered so many races, he knew he was going to loose some, and he had the strength to face that fact and keep racing. He raced to TRY to win.
Lance, on the other hand, seems like he HAS to win, so he won't compete unless he has a really good chance, almost a lock, to win. Maybe next year Lance trys to win some other races, but until then, Lance is the best racer of the Worlds Greatest Race, and Eddy is the Worlds Greatest Racer.

Gordon
 
#14 ·
True, and...

Bianchigirl said:
Merckx, Hinault, Coppi, Anquetil, Indurain - all have better palmares than Armstrong and all arguably had the opportunity to take 6 or 7 Tours - just they were busy riding a full season and winning other races...
... it seems obvious that the sport has changed dramatically since even the days of Indurain (not TOO long ago). Lance isn't the only one in the Pro peleton who specializes. Sure, Bettini may ride as a potential winner in many of the one day classics as well as the Tour but no one really considers him a GC threat in a 3 week stage race. Same goes for Rebbelin. The field has clear categories of riders who specialize in specific events and capitalize upon their potential within those specific events. Even with the Pro Tour at full effect, the teams involoved have just added riders to fill the requirement of participation in each Pro Tour race leaving riders like Armstrong, Freire, Rebblin and Cunego open to ride the races they have the most chances of winning.

The context of the pro cycling is too different these days compared to those of Anquetil, Merckx and Hinault. As for Eddy's comments about Lance--the Cannibal is just being a gentlemen. Some ex-pros still know how to be one.
 
#17 ·
Merckx Easily Better than Lance

Merckx hands down. He raced all out the entire year, every year. As far as Armstrongs cancer goes, lets get real, the guy never came within lightyears of ever competing for the GC in the tour until he had cancer and lost 25 lbs of body weight. In fact it can be strongly argued that if Armstrong had never had cancer he would have lived out his cycling career in the 175 -180 lb weight range and never won even a single Tour.

Another guy not mentioned is Lemond. He lost 2 years while in the middle of his Tour successes to a gun injury. An injury which eventually resulted in a permanent blood poisoning condition which ended his career. Who knows how many Tours he would have won without that gunshot wound.

Merckx set the 1 hour record, won multiple Classics and the Worlds all in the same years, feats which Armstrong has not only never won, he's never even attempted them.
 
#18 ·
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. :) You could also argue that the level of competition is much higher now than in Merckx's day, and I seriously doubt anyone really thinks that surviving cancer is benificial to anyones racing career! All this has been discussed to death - guess I'm feeding a troll.

altidude said:
Merckx hands down. He raced all out the entire year, every year. As far as Armstrongs cancer goes, lets get real, the guy never came within lightyears of ever competing for the GC in the tour until he had cancer and lost 25 lbs of body weight. In fact it can be strongly argued that if Armstrong had never had cancer he would have lived out his cycling career in the 175 -180 lb weight range and never won even a single Tour.

Another guy not mentioned is Lemond. He lost 2 years while in the middle of his Tour successes to a gun injury. An injury which eventually resulted in a permanent blood poisoning condition which ended his career. Who knows how many Tours he would have won without that gunshot wound.

Merckx set the 1 hour record, won multiple Classics and the Worlds all in the same years, feats which Armstrong has not only never won, he's never even attempted them.
 
#19 ·
jumpstumper said:
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. :) You could also argue that the level of competition is much higher now than in Merckx's day, and I seriously doubt anyone really thinks that surviving cancer is benificial to anyones racing career! All this has been discussed to death - guess I'm feeding a troll.
Youre being ridiculous. Obviously Merckx was recognizing Lance's 6 wins, which now stand alone as the most TdF wins. Im figuring he'd keep his palmares rather than trade with Lance. Level of competition higher? People say that, but then when you look at the names and accomplishments, thats rather hard to believe if you ask me. ike the Cannibal said, to be the man of your generation is as much as you can hope for.

As far as the cancer goes, Lance has repeatedly stated himself that without the cancer and attendant physiological changes, he never would have won a single Tour.\\ And of the 5 timers, hes the only one never to double or even win another GT. Lance is barely in Eddy's shadow if you ask me.

topcarb
 
#20 ·
Hey Topcarb,
Let it go. If you, Bianchigirl, atidude and I start trolling with jumpstumper about Lance and his cancer, it'll be a never ending debate from his side. We know we're right, that's all that matters. ;)
Cheers, Wayne
 
#22 ·
Bianchigirl said:
point taken, Wayne...

here's a question, though - which era (Anquetil, Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain etc etc) would you love to have competed in/watched live?
Hey Bianchigirl,
Sounds corny, but probably Merckx's era just to watch him power up the mountains and blow people away in the flats. I was born in 1967, so just missed his achievements by a few years. What about you?
Cheers, Wayne
 
#23 ·
era

I suppose maybe Merckx's era just because hes such the overwhelming best of all times. Its great to see the videos tho, so its possible to vicareous live some of it. What about watching Coppi in the 40s or Anquetil in the 60s? that'd of been awesome too.\

topcarb

ps. youre right wayne.
 
#25 ·
I think you're all missing the point

despite his almost obseqious abdication, I don't think that was what he was getting at
note "he's got a great team" and "the next tour of Flanders""less competitive and spectacular"
slight aside?

but more tellingly I think it was an admission that he used products "that help to keep healthy".
someone's always got the edge with science and the use of...
"the doctors are the problem"?
please
 
#26 ·
Bianchigirl said:
point taken, Wayne...

here's a question, though - which era (Anquetil, Coppi, Merckx, Hinault, Indurain etc etc) would you love to have competed in/watched live?
Anquetil, probably one of the great thinking riders ever. Out of the greats, the probably least easy to see in action and the most interesting.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top