Armstrong vs Lemond

[Clemson Cycling]

Mine as well move the debate here. I never thought there was any question but others on this forum are making me doubt common sense.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

If you want to be fair, when Greg won his first TDF he had to defeat a five time winner, his later tour wins came against a two time winner and also Stephen Roche who had the rare triple crown in one year Giro, TDF, Worlds.
So lets see he defeated previous Tour winners
Hinault 5
Fignon 2
Joop Zoetemelk 1
Pedro Delgado 1
Stephen Roche 1
and also
Miguel Indurain who would win 5
Lance Armstrong who would win 7

Who did Armstrong beat?
Ulrich 1
Pantani 1
Gosh that is impressive competition

Lance beat
Contador 2*
Pereiro 1*
Sastre 1*
Ulrich 1
Pantani 1
*Post win

Lance had better results in the Grand Tours, it is not his fault that the competition was not there. The competition that was there he blew away winning 6 of his 7 races by 4:40+ mins. Lemond's biggest victory was 3:10

 

[janus1969]

I think that most would not dispute that Greg SHOULD have had five. It's highly unlikely he could've done six. His palmares beyond the Tour were no more impressive, honestly, than LA's accomplishments.

They were from two different eras, informed, in-between, by Big Mig. Had GL had freedom and no gunshot wound, he would've been another 5-time winner...but his last Tour win was clearly his last. LA, had he not retired, would've been like to get at least one more...maybe two, given what happened.

HOWEVER, those who compare GL and LA to Eddy completely miss the fact that Eddy lived, prospered, and DOPED in a different era.

 

[BigBoat]

ad nauseum

This has already been discussed ad nauseum (literally every single forum on the internet). If it is to be re-gurgitated once again it belongs in the "clinic" section.

One can conclude Lemond was a far greater natural cycling 'freak' than "lance" but Lance was heavily 'jacked' and more than made up for it in Grand Tours.

 

[Boeing]

^^^^please don't post something I have read elsewhere on the web I am too good for that.

 

[David Suro]

Armstrong owes much to LeMond

LeMond was a pioneer in that he decided to make the sole focus of his entire yeur the TDF. Earlier champions raced a much more complete schedule than LeMond. He came to the realization that the American audience only cared about one race and one rider. He also realized that a rider can only have top form for a limited amount of time. Thus, he focused solely on the TDF and his focus was rewarded with victories.

Armstrong did the same thing, only better and more often.

To compare the two is inane. LeMond revolutionized the focus of training and implementation of new equipment. Armstrong took LeMond's ideas and schedule and, with the help of Carmichael and Bruyneel and the host of wind tunnel experts, came as close to perfection of execution as possible.

It is a shame the two have such an adverserial relationship. The rift makes for some entertaining inerviews and rants, but cheapens both as people.

 

[the truth.]

it is a battle of good v evil
the doper/lair v's the white of clean lemond the the voice of the future.

(im not greg nor a yank- just open and aware)

 

[The_Z_man]

LeMond was a pioneer in that he decided to make the sole focus of his entire yeur the TDF. Earlier champions raced a much more complete schedule than LeMond.

LeMond's schedule looks like Gino Bartali's compared to Armstrong's. When you talk about someone focusing on the Tour, that was basically the only race Lance rode all year. LeMond rode most of the Classics every year, and did well in them. He never broke through and won one, but he came close at Roubaix and Zurich. Once Lance decided he was going to win the tour, all that went out the window. Greg rode the Giro more than once in his life. OK, so he never did exceedingly well, but at least he showed up. Also, as pointed out in another thread, he rode the Worlds after winning the Tour. After July was over, pretty much so was Lance's schedule.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

it is a battle of good v evil
the doper/lair v's the white of clean lemond the the voice of the future.

(im not greg nor a yank- just open and aware)
Reply With Quote

How do you know Lemond was clean and Lance was dirty. I always though Floyd Landis was clean based on his background but boy was I wrong. Just because someone is strongly opposed to doping doesn't mean they are/were clean (ex Eddy Merckx). I think of Lance as the good (he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer research and given cancer survivors around the world hope. What the heck has Greg Lemond done for society then run his mouth and accuse fellow competitors of being cheats, simply because they were winning.

Also Lance clearly has the more impressive classic record because he actually won some of the the races, unlike Lemond. I would also say that Lance Armstrong did more to revolutionize the sport in the United States then Greg Lemond ever did.

 

[**Uru**]

Greg is a 3 time world champion to Lance's single title. But if we are saying that both of them focused on the Tour as their primary objective...Lance is the better and more dominant of the two.

 

[pmcg76]

How do you know Lemond was clean and Lance was dirty. I always though Floyd Landis was clean based on his background but boy was I wrong. Just because someone is strongly opposed to doping doesn't mean they are/were clean (ex Eddy Merckx). I think of Lance as the good (he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for cancer research and given cancer survivors around the world hope. What the heck has Greg Lemond done for society then run his mouth and accuse fellow competitors of being cheats, simply because they were winning.

Also Lance clearly has the more impressive classic record because he actually won some of the the races, unlike Lemond. I would also say that Lance Armstrong did more to revolutionize the sport in the United States then Greg Lemond ever did.

As much as I dislike Lance, he was definitely more successful than LeMond palmares wise, both were huge talents, LeMond in the GTs, Armstrong in the Classics. Lance has two almost seperate careers pre-cancer/post cancer.

LeMond stated the trend of focusing on the Tour after his shooting accident but done so by riding the other races Paris-Nice, Classics(There are plenty of pictures of LeMond covered in the mud of Paris-Roubaix, try finding one of Lance), Giro and usually rode post Tour especially before his shooting accident. Lance brought it a whole new level however, he only rode a few races pre-Tour and only after the Tour when it was Olympic year but but it could be argued that the Worlds were in late August during LeMonds era so more feasible.

LeMond was the first million dollar cyclist and definitely brought wages forward in cycling and was a complete techno-geek, remember the Scott bars, drop-ins, RockShox etc. Lance had less of an impact on the cycling world but definitely brought cycling to the masses in the US thus leading more US companies to be more aggresive in their marketing. During his career LeMond was widely liked by fellow pros, media everyone. This is not the case with Lance.

Overall I think LeMond was just as talented as Lance if not more so but his health and the arrival of EPO curtailed his career so Lance has the better record.

 

[poupou]

How do you know Lemond was clean and Lance was dirty.

From the clues and circumstancial evidences we can safely say that Lemond was much cleaner than Armstrong.
The first were a freak in his prime time when the second became a freak with Ferrari's tuning!

 

[Clemson Cycling]

Overall I think LeMond was just as talented as Lance if not more so but his health and the arrival of EPO curtailed his career so Lance has the better record.

I guess I am about to get very touchy, since there is that chance that Lance took this stuff (though he was never convicted of anything)(I guess there is also that chance that Lemond took something since his era seemed to be a free for all), but the riders Lance beat took and were convicted of taking this stuff.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

From the clues and circumstancial evidences we can safely say that Lemond was much cleaner than Armstrong.
The first were a freak in his prime time when the second became a freak with Ferrari's tuning!

Did Greg Lemond ever take a drug test and did Lance Armstrong ever fail a drug test that he was not later acquitted for?

 

[The_Z_man]

LeMond took plenty of drug tests. He and his wife talked about not only the testing, but locking up his food and water to keep them from being tainted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Mine as well move the debate here. I never thought there was any question but others on this forum are making me doubt common sense.

While I appreciate you are trying to have a debate - the problem with these types of debates is that you can never compare like with like.

Greg was the better all round rider - however Lance was a very good Classics rider pre 96, but then became a Tour winner after, he was never good at both at the same time.

As for you other comments - as BigBoat said this has been discussed ad nauseaum in the Clinic.

The only suspicion on Lemond is that he is a participant of one if the dirtiest disciplines in sport.
Armstrong has more than plenty of suspicion.

 

[nslckevin]

LeMond's schedule looks like Gino Bartali's compared to Armstrong's. When you talk about someone focusing on the Tour, that was basically the only race Lance rode all year. LeMond rode most of the Classics every year, and did well in them. He never broke through and won one, but he came close at Roubaix and Zurich. Once Lance decided he was going to win the tour, all that went out the window. Greg rode the Giro more than once in his life. OK, so he never did exceedingly well, but at least he showed up. Also, as pointed out in another thread, he rode the Worlds after winning the Tour. After July was over, pretty much so was Lance's schedule.

In Lemond's day, worlds were held in August as opposed to now where they are in late September, early October. That is a huge difference.

Kevin

 

[Wolfpengap]

One can conclude Lemond was a far greater natural cycling 'freak' than "lance" but Lance was heavily 'jacked' and more than made up for it in Grand Tours.

And your proof is what? Because you said so? Or was it because Walsh conjectures accusations in a book? It certainly is not based on any facts.

 

[poupou]

And your proof is what? Because you said so? Or was it because Walsh conjectures accusations in a book? It certainly is not based on any facts.

On logic and facts : http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[ggusta]

I think that most would not dispute that Greg SHOULD have had five. It's highly unlikely he could've done six. His palmares beyond the Tour were no more impressive, honestly, than LA's accomplishments.

They were from two different eras, informed, in-between, by Big Mig. Had GL had freedom and no gunshot wound, he would've been another 5-time winner...but his last Tour win was clearly his last. LA, had he not retired, would've been like to get at least one more...maybe two, given what happened.

HOWEVER, those who compare GL and LA to Eddy completely miss the fact that Eddy lived, prospered, and DOPED in a different era.

LA may have had the potential to win the tdf in 2008. Not in '06 and certainly not in '07, imho. We'll never know.

I am waiting with excitement to see the show he puts on in 2010. In particular before and after the stages, that's where he does his best work.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

LA may have had the potential to win the tdf in 2008. Not in '06 and certainly not in '07, imho. We'll never know.

What would Contador be without Johan and the team Armstrong built? You don't think Lance could have knocked off Pereiro in 2006?

 

[scribe]

What would Contador be without Johan and the team Armstrong built? You don't think Lance could have knocked off Pereiro in 2006?

Floyd would have fell right in place again, pacing Armstrong through the tour. Old habits die hard.

No way Lance wouldn't have won again during that tour. Probably would have grabbed 2 of the three during his retirement.

 

[runninboy]

Lance beat
Contador 2*
Pereiro 1*
Sastre 1*
Ulrich 1
Pantani 1
*Post win

Lance had better results in the Grand Tours, it is not his fault that the competition was not there. The competition that was there he blew away winning 6 of his 7 races by 4:40+ mins. Lemond's biggest victory was 3:10

Yeah its not his fault he didn't have the competition Greg did, Gregs margin of victory would back that up. But according to the poll so far 60 percent feel Greg is better to 40 for Lance. So i imagine there are alot of other people who think it is comparable to win less tours against tougher competition than blowing away a field more often that only has two previous TDF winners.
I think the poll was a great idea, while it doesn't prove who was best it does prove people have different opinions on them and it is arguable which side of the debate is correct.

 

[Dallas_]

From the clues and circumstancial evidences we can safely say that Lemond was much cleaner than Armstrong.
The first were a freak in his prime time when the second became a freak with Ferrari's tuning!

Top post poupou - straight to the point. If I could edit your post from "LeMond was much cleaner" to "LeMond was clean".

Now to correct the records:

armstrong 7 minus 7 = 0
LeMond 3 pure class = 3

Who is the more accomplished Cyclist -> Greg LeMond wins by 3 to 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3RV2ukMPNc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond

cheers to all

 

[Archibald]

greg cheated once, and with equipment (argueably)
lance cheated at least six times in '99 alone (confirmed)

nuff said...