A thought experiment. Bear with me.
In my 35 years of addiction to watching and competing in this sport of ours, lots has changed but there has been one immutable absolute truth: that Eddy Merckx is the best there is, was, and ever will be. The logic becomes almost circular - could this guy or that guy ever be better than Merckx? No, it's impossible almost by definition. It's in the lore of the sport, we understand that if we call someone the 'next Merckx' or 'Keldermerckx' or whatever that it's automatically a joke, implicitly and explicitly saying that someone has a hype that is impossible to live up to. Even when that other guy had seven TdF's noone serious about the sport would say he was better than Merckx; you might as well admit to being that triathlete that wore his aero helmet back-to-front. And if that's just snobbish gate-keeping then really it just emphasises my point.
Then there's a guy just now. Noone says he will beat any of any Merckx's records - illness, injuries, motivation, others' form are unknowable - but he actually could. At the same ages I make him one monument behind, by next weekend presumably the same number of GT's, and tied at 14 Tour stages each with the current guy potentially adding another three by the end of the week... probably I've got some of the numbers wrong. In a post-Mondialism era beating specialists in every specialism. But it needn't even necessarily be that guy, perhaps there's someone hiding in the u-16's somewhere that will be way better still.
So not 'can the current guy manage it?' but can what seems like fundamental lore of cycling, perhaps even a fundamental law of cycling, be changed? Are we ready for the idea that someone could post on here that 'xxx guy is better than Merckx' and for there to be a broad consensus?? Maybe Eddy will always have got that palmares in a better way and therefore always remain the real best there is, was, and ever will be.
In my 35 years of addiction to watching and competing in this sport of ours, lots has changed but there has been one immutable absolute truth: that Eddy Merckx is the best there is, was, and ever will be. The logic becomes almost circular - could this guy or that guy ever be better than Merckx? No, it's impossible almost by definition. It's in the lore of the sport, we understand that if we call someone the 'next Merckx' or 'Keldermerckx' or whatever that it's automatically a joke, implicitly and explicitly saying that someone has a hype that is impossible to live up to. Even when that other guy had seven TdF's noone serious about the sport would say he was better than Merckx; you might as well admit to being that triathlete that wore his aero helmet back-to-front. And if that's just snobbish gate-keeping then really it just emphasises my point.
Then there's a guy just now. Noone says he will beat any of any Merckx's records - illness, injuries, motivation, others' form are unknowable - but he actually could. At the same ages I make him one monument behind, by next weekend presumably the same number of GT's, and tied at 14 Tour stages each with the current guy potentially adding another three by the end of the week... probably I've got some of the numbers wrong. In a post-Mondialism era beating specialists in every specialism. But it needn't even necessarily be that guy, perhaps there's someone hiding in the u-16's somewhere that will be way better still.
So not 'can the current guy manage it?' but can what seems like fundamental lore of cycling, perhaps even a fundamental law of cycling, be changed? Are we ready for the idea that someone could post on here that 'xxx guy is better than Merckx' and for there to be a broad consensus?? Maybe Eddy will always have got that palmares in a better way and therefore always remain the real best there is, was, and ever will be.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram