Well, that's not what i said. Merckx was also much more dominant than Pogacar, he actually won more than 1 TT per year and he also won bunch sprints of over 50 riders. Even full on peloton sprints. He was also successful on the track and also had the world hour record. But yes, you can't compare it because he was racing in a time when riders were smoking and even putting alcohol in their bottles. Merckx even was on cigarette adverts. He did still win so much more than Pog though.
Personally, I would love to see some sort of line drawn (that would be a massive argument in and of itself, of course) between the "old days" and the new with respect to judging riders palmares. It's utterly unfair imho to be comparing Pogacar to Merckx; the fact is, if Eddy were riding today there is zero chance he'd match the palmares of the Eddy of old in this age of specialization and professionalism. Of course he would be great, but he sure as hell would not amass 525 wins, he wouldn't be riding track races in the winter, etc. I saw someone comment (maybe a year ago? Not going to try to look for it) to the extent that Tadej had a "long ways to go" before he even matched Fausto Coppi. I did some research, and just at random picked the 1940 Giro d'Italia. There were 91 starters, and every stage winner was Italian, no winners from any other nation. Out of those 91 starters, how many of those riders would even be considered much more than club riders today? (Understand Coppi missed years due to the war, that's not the point here.) Or Alfredo Binda's Giro wins; picked 1925 at random, sure enough, all the participants were Italian, no international competitors, no teams.
The fact is, there is just no comparison between that and a modern GT where just about every rider in the field will be living like monks most of the year, and where so many stages are raced nearly full gas instead of 'piano'. I have been following cycling seriously since the early 80's and am well aware of (and respect) the history and legends of the sport, but I think it is patently ridiculous to be comparing modern riders to riders from that era or earlier; as far as I'm concerned it's hardly even the same sport and comparisons between the old and the new are frankly silly imho.. I understand recency bias, of course, but I think what I might call 'historical bias' (or whatever) is every bit as bad.
PS. I can't stress enough that I of course believe that the greats of old, given modern training methods and professionalism, would be standout riders in today's peloton; just saying I think comparing palmares from older eras to the modern era is silly.
Yeah, this will stir up the hornet's nest I imagine.