Are we psychologically ready for Merckx to ever not be the greatest?

[Bolder]

Merckx did the best with what he had available to him at the time, in terms we can't discuss now and here

Indeed. But it was more of a general observation.

 

[Potomac]

I don't accept that there is a greatest of all time in any sport.

 

[Berniece]

No, but we should recognize the limits of what palmares represent and take that as one part of the bigger picture, not just say "525 wins. End of story."

So again, how would you compare riders?

 

[scribers]

Dominance of entered races is one way. No way riders can go Merckx's calendar in the modern age.

 

[jmdirt]

"psychologically ready" and I really don't happen, but I'm ready.

 

[KZD]

I mean, Pogi is amazing... but he has a long bloody way to go... he is basically 33% of the way there or less in every category! He will have to likely keep his current ability until he is ~33-35 to eclipse Merckx overall.

Merckx:
11 Grand Tour wins
64 Grand Tour stage wins

3 World Championships
19 Monuments

276 wins

Pogacar:

3 (going on 4) Grand Tour wins
23 Grand Tour stage wins

0 World Championships
6 Monuments

80 wins

While the statistics above are useful to show just how strong was Merckx as well as how far from him Pogačar still is, I think a better point of comparison would be Merckx against Pogačar at the Slovenian current age (25) which would give us something like this for major wins and GT stage wins which I put below monuments in importance.

Merckx:
4 Grand Tour wins (2 Giros + 2 Tours)
26 GT stage wins
1 World Championship title
9 Monument wins

Pogačar:
3 Grand Tour wins (1 Giro + 2 Tours with a 3rd Tour win likely)
23 GT stage wins (could grab more until the end of this Tour)
0 World titles
6 Monument wins

So while Pogačar is behind Merckx at the same age, he is not that far off and if he wins this Tour, he would arguably be slightly ahead in the GT department. So while I don't believe that Pogačar's palmares will be at the same level as Merckx's, I am bullish that he is going to become the closest that a rider even came to reach him and by far the best rider of the last decades.

 

[red_flanders]

Merckx did the best with what he had available to him at the time...

Not sure how that's any different than any other era. Except to say in that era, training and preparation were less effective.

 

[red_flanders]

While the statistics above are useful to show just how strong was Merckx as well as how far from him Pogačar still is, I think a better point of comparison would be Merckx against Pogačar at the Slovenian current age (25) which would give us something like this for major wins and GT stage wins which I put below monuments in importance.

Merckx:
4 Grand Tour wins (2 Giros + 2 Tours)
26 GT stage wins
1 World Championship title
9 Monument wins

Pogačar:
3 Grand Tour wins (1 Giro + 2 Tours with a 3rd Tour win likely)
23 GT stage wins (could grab more until the end of this Tour)
0 World titles
6 Monument wins

So while Pogačar is behind Merckx at the same age, he is not that far off and if he wins this Tour, he would arguably be slightly ahead in the GT department. So while I don't believe that Pogačar's palmares will be at the same level as Merckx's, I am bullish that he is going to become the closest that a rider even came to reach him and by far the best rider of the last decades.

I mean it's interesting, but also ignores when Merckx started riding GT's and the Tour. He was older, riding his first Tour at 24, not 20. And the bazillion other wins he racked up all year, every year.

When Pog's career is over it will be interesting to compare. I would predict more Tours. Careers are much longer now. We'll see.

 

[Berniece]

Dominance of entered races is one way. No way riders can go Merckx's calendar in the modern age.

And do you have a quantitive formula we can apply to calculate this dominance?

 

[scribers]

I'll work on it this weekend

 

[Blanco]

While the statistics above are useful to show just how strong was Merckx as well as how far from him Pogačar still is, I think a better point of comparison would be Merckx against Pogačar at the Slovenian current age (25) which would give us something like this for major wins and GT stage wins which I put below monuments in importance.

Merckx:
4 Grand Tour wins (2 Giros + 2 Tours)
26 GT stage wins
1 World Championship title
9 Monument wins

Pogačar:
3 Grand Tour wins (1 Giro + 2 Tours with a 3rd Tour win likely)
23 GT stage wins (could grab more until the end of this Tour)
0 World titles
6 Monument wins

So while Pogačar is behind Merckx at the same age, he is not that far off and if he wins this Tour, he would arguably be slightly ahead in the GT department. So while I don't believe that Pogačar's palmares will be at the same level as Merckx's, I am bullish that he is going to become the closest that a rider even came to reach him and by far the best rider of the last decades.

Slovenian current age in two months will be 26, and that will nearly be the end of this season, so it is better to compare them then. Because Merckx at the age of 26 (end of calendar year of 1971) had
5 Grand Tours (3 Tours + 2 Giros)
30 GT stage wins
10 Monuments
2 World Championships.

 

[The Hegelian]

I mean, Pogi is amazing... but he has a long bloody way to go... he is basically 33% of the way there or less in every category! He will have to likely keep his current ability until he is ~33-35 to eclipse Merckx overall.

Merckx:
11 Grand Tour wins
64 Grand Tour stage wins

3 World Championships
19 Monuments

276 wins

Pogacar:

3 (going on 4) Grand Tour wins
23 Grand Tour stage wins

0 World Championships
6 Monuments

80 wins

To the OP: yes, I am psychologically ready. I already watch Pogacar with the assumption he is probably the best ever.

But this is one of those one in ten year instances where another opinion on the internet changes my own. What Penninepeddler points out here is pretty damn compelling.

Palmares isn't everything, but it is significant.

 

[Leinster]

I would submit that a focus on palmares to the exclusion of everything else is error. In fact, I'm not even sure palamares is the most important factor. You just can't meaningfully compare palmares across eras.

If anything, focusing solely on results would count against Merckx, who raced against the best available from a handful of countries (eg, in the ‘74 Tour, the 130 starters came from 9 different countries, and of those 6 came from Australia, Denmark, GB and Portugal), whereas there were 26 different countries represented at the Grand Depart this year.

 

[Amazinmets87]

Strength of competition is objective but it requires substantial agreement of subjective qualities. Such as farmers who race in the afternoon after chores in the morning vs professionalism of modern peloton

That's surely not an accurate description for the Cannibals era.

 

[VO2 Max]

Those two are honestly very debatable, especially Beethoven.

Honestly, reading the answers in this thread makes me believe the answer to the question in the title is a resounding no. People don't want to admit it yet but Pogacar surpassing Mercx is 100% possible. It's far from a given but if Pogacar can keep this level for a reasonably long time span he will get there, whether people like it or not.

In the English language Shakespeare is the greatest writer of all time; facts, details and opinions become essentially irrelevant. Palmares and being a legend in our collective imagination are not the same things even if Merckx's case they coexist.

I deliberately say Pogacar's future is unknowable, it's an unfortunate reality that he could have a huge injury in any race and never come back to this level again. So it's not necessarily about him, but he does show that a huge win rate is achievable these days even in the face of so much specialism and mondialism; there could be a next guy that's another few percent better still. Whether that could ever be enough to surpass Merckx in what we know to be true is what I'm really thinking about.

 

[Valanga]

Is it possible that Pogacar gets the same, or even overtakes the palmares of Merckx? Definitally.
Would that make him the goat? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm sure he can have a longer career than Merckx for example, with modern ways of working.

So no, even if he beats him at everything, Eddy Merckx is the best there is, was, and ever will be. ;-)

 

[Berniece]

Is it possible that Pogacar gets the same, or even overtakes the palmares of Merckx? Definitally.

Never going to happen

 

[tobydawq]

Those two are honestly very debatable, especially Beethoven.

Honestly, reading the answers in this thread makes me believe the answer to the question in the title is a resounding no. People don't want to admit it yet but Pogacar surpassing Mercx is 100% possible. It's far from a given but if Pogacar can keep this level for a reasonably long time span he will get there, whether people like it or not.

Thanks, it was a frustrating read to get this far down the thread before someone didn't seem like they had been watching cycling with their eyes closed this season.

He won't reach 276 wins and probably not 19 monuments but everything else? Sure.

 

[velaso montador]

Greatest or not is a definition. Ask yourself this would Merckx beat the times and power Pogacar has ridden up mountains? Well this we know he has not and its not even close.

Would he beat the likes og specialist historic beast like Mvdp in Flandern he would not

Everyone knows the answer if you leave nostalgia and feelings out of this. This has actually become very very easy. He is the best by a huge margin in terms of greatness people will always have different criterias and its subjective.

But in terms of who is the best thats not even a question or close if you dont like that the numbers dont lie. Enjoy people.

 

[will-10]

I'm unconvinced that people are that attached to the 'Merckx is the GOAT' argument. Recency bias tends to dominate in GOAT discussions across any/many sports. Most people watching Pogi will have never seen more than the 10s black-and-white clips of Merckx racing, and a list of results from 50-60 years ago are easily dismissed as "well the sport was different then".

 

[perico]

He’s the most dominant cyclist in history, but I’ve personally never considered him “greater” than the great riders of other eras.

I don’t think anyone will ever match his dominance, but I don’t think he was necessarily “better” than Coppi or Hinault. Each was the dominant rider of their era, and all the greats had different objectives and motivations.

 

[Carols]

It'll Never Happen so I won't need to prepare. When he has 11 GT wins, all 5 monuments
and total 499 wins I'll pay attention because he's getting close.

 

[MJR]

I don't accept that there is a greatest of all time in any sport.

Not a hockey fan, I take it?

 

[Carols]

He is unassailable the way Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, Pele, Jim Thorpe, jack nichlaus. Mythological figures kids dream of becoming and occasionally surpassing on many levels but never every level. It’s not possible

Jack Nicklaus I followed him on Many a win!

 

[Salvarani]

New GOAT just dropped