Sheltowee said:
Think about it. If Armstrong had continued riding after 05 it's reasonable to think that he would would have had 8 0r 9 tour titles or possibly even 10. Who could beat him? Landis? Rasmussen? Oscar P or Riijs' outfit? I don't think so. Does that answer your question about the so called Badger et al.
Honestly, Hinault would have won six or seven Tours if it hadn't been for the injuries that hampered him in 1980 and 1983. That said, Armstrong probably would have won a couple more if he'd kept riding after 2005. What made Armstrong stand out was his complete mastery of all the disciplines necessary for winning the Tour: he was the best climber in the race
and the best time-trialist. Hinault and Merckx were the best time-trialists and had excellent power-climbing skills without being pure high-cadence stylists like Armstrong. But for that same reason they had the capacity to win flat, brutal events like Paris-Roubaix, where Armstrong surely would have come up short. In other words, Hinault and Merckx weren't perfect TDF riders because their skill-sets were broad enough to allow them to master other kinds of events too. That breadth produced incredible palmares but meant that they were never invincible in any given event like the TDF. As Barry Hoban once said of Merckx, "He could win any race, but he could also be beaten in any race." There's a trade-off, you might say, between breadth and security.