- Status
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
MarkvW said:
...sorry but I'm picky...check below for great...
Most career victories by a professional cyclist: 525.
Most victories in one season: 54.
Most stage victories in the Tour de France: 34.
Most stage victories in one Tour de France: 8, in 1970 and 1974 (shared with Charles Pélissier in 1930 and Freddy Maertens in 1976).
Most days with the yellow jersey in the Tour de France: 96.
The only cyclist to have won the general classification, points classification and mountains classification in the same Tour de France (1969).
Most victories in classics: 28.
Most victories in one single classic: 7 (in Milan – San Remo).
Most victories in Grand Tours: 11
...and then there is everyone else...and frankly I don't give a rats *** what their VO2 Max is...bottom line you win or you lose...no style points...no woulda coulda shoulda...though if you want to go down that road can you imagine how really great Eddie would have been if hadn't had that derny accident...
Cheers
blutto
- Jul 4, 2009
- 9,666
- 0
- 0
MarkvW said:
...sorry but I'm picky...check below for great...
Most career victories by a professional cyclist: 525.
Most victories in one season: 54.
Most stage victories in the Tour de France: 34.
Most stage victories in one Tour de France: 8, in 1970 and 1974 (shared with Charles Pélissier in 1930 and Freddy Maertens in 1976).
Most days with the yellow jersey in the Tour de France: 96.
The only cyclist to have won the general classification, points classification and mountains classification in the same Tour de France (1969).
Most victories in classics: 28.
Most victories in one single classic: 7 (in Milan – San Remo).
Most victories in Grand Tours: 11
...and then there is everyone else...and frankly I don't give a rats *** what their VO2 Max is...bottom line you win or you lose...no style points...no woulda coulda shoulda...though if you want to go down that road can you imagine how really great Eddie would have been if he hadn't had that derny accident...
Cheers
blutto
- Oct 30, 2011
- 2,639
- 0
- 0
blutto said:
It's a pretty fitting analogy, that you have clearly not understood. Nobody was trying to say LeMond was the best ever, yet you try and shut everything down by saying he wasn't as good as Merckx. Well done you. If the only conversation we can have is "who is the best ever", then this forum would be one thread and one thread alone.
Poll: Was Eddy Merckx the best cyclist ever?
Yes: 100%
No: 0%
"I think he was"
"+1"
"+1"
...
"+1"
Sounds like a barrel of laughs.
- May 13, 2009
- 1,872
- 367
- 11,180
Gregga said:
Just look at the results listed only on Wikipedia for LeMond during first five years of his career (including 3 years pre-Senior) and it's blindingly-obvious that Greg was THE perfect rider:
1977
1st National Road Race Champion (Junior)
1978
1st Overall Vuelta de Bisbee
3rd TTT Junior World Championship
1979
1st World Road Race Champion (Junior)
1st National Road Race Champion (Junior)
1st Nevada City Classic
2nd Track Pursuit, Junior World Championship
1980
1st Overall Circuit de la Sarthe
1st Nevada City Classic
3rd Circuit des Ardennes
1981
1st Overall Coors Classic
1st Stage 1
1st Stage 7
1st Stage 2a Tour de Picardie
1st Nevada City Classic
3rd Route du Sud
3rd Critérium du Dauphiné
Successful on the road.
Successful on the track.
Successful on his own.
Successful w/ a team.
Individual national road race champion.
World Road Race Champion.
Medalist in the team time trial.
Medalist in the individual pursuit.
Winner of one of hardest one-day crit races in the USA while he was was still a JUNIOR!
Dominated then-toughest US stage-race in Colorado Rockies including winning at altitude (?).
3rd as a rookie pro in the Critérium du Dauphiné.
He climbs, he descends fearlessly, he's an attacking rider, he is courageous and confident; he fights for a stage victory w/ same ferocity he fights to win Classics like Paris-Roubaix and Lombardia, which he almost won ahead of Kelly in a SPRINT!
The entire Armstrong-LeMond feud is such a waste and a distraction that's poisoned the minds of so many cycling fans who came into the sport as a result of Lance and never opened themselves to actually understand what an amazing, unequaled talent Greg was.
To ride with LeMond for even a few seconds was to be exposed to the application of natural class and power to the process of moving a bike, fast!(even a year after he'd stopped racing) ... the natural-rightness and spectacle of it all is something that stays w/ you forever, if your eyes have been opened and you understand
- Mar 17, 2009
- 1,863
- 0
- 0
Look at the 4 riders ahead of Lemond that day.blutto said:
Rooks won 1'06" ahead of Lemond to move to 6'05" behind Lemond
Lejaretta gained 42" on Lemond yet in Paris he would be more than 9 minutes behind
Indurain was already way behind and with domestique duties was an irrelevance finishing 31 minutes down in Paris
Delgado was the threat that Lemond most feared. Containing him a mere 12" ahead in a Mountain Time Trial while taking 47" and the Maillot Jaune from Fignon was a good result.
Don't forget that Lemond & Fignon were seconds apart with Delgado 3 minutes plus behind. They had 4 more days in the Alps before the final TT in Paris. Neither Lemond nor Fignon could afford to go all out in the TT lest their rivals attempt to crucify them a day or two later. If they had nothing in reserve then they'd be done for.
Begs the question, "did you actually see the race at the time or is it in the realms of wiki only for you?
- Mar 17, 2009
- 1,863
- 0
- 0
As an aside, I have a friend who rode the Maratona the same year as Lemond and his son did. This guy is a super-fit guy in his early 30's yet Lemond, almost 20 years his senior and carrying several kilos too many took almost 30 minutes out of him. He was gutted!
- May 29, 2011
- 3,549
- 1,651
- 16,680
I'm usually quite cynical and thus reluctant to use or accept words such as huge natural talent at face value. But clearly, as Joe and many others have demonstrated in their excellent posts putting the matters in their proper historical contexts, Greg must have been one.
I find it funny that the partisan opinion now mockingly insists that such an assesment necessarily depicts Greg as a saint or whatever, implying he is not and everyone of the opinion is dumb. I don't get this at all. Even as a tactical mode of discourse for a partisan poster it appears unplausible when reflected with the historical evidence. But maybe Im dumb, wouldn't be the first time.
What to me is the most important aspect about this discussion is the racing into shape approach. Somehow that makes it credible to me. Sometimes you just suck, but there are no mystical jumps in form, no mambo about altitude and peaking, but racing and gradually becoming stronger. Not sexy and easy to sell to time-crunched consumers, but seemed to work back then. Today, it's "preparation" until July and suddenly you find 100W or more, even if you do not put the race miles into the legs. Obviously, peaking is a real world procedure that works without dope too, but come on, the level of ups and downs in form fluctuations as it were is becoming ridiculous.
I started following cycling as a toddler during the EPO era, Indurain and Chiapucci duel being my first memory, and up until 2005ish that was all I knew about. Of course it was fishy, LA always destroying everybody, sprinting uphill outta the saddle for an hour basically. It all seemed too effortless, TBH. And in Finland the suspicions were only amplified after the doping fiasco in XC skiing WCs in 2001, so I guess I kinda took up the everyone does it, level playing field stance. Checking back into the times before the nineties has been most enlightening, so thanks. If I'm dumb now, IMO I was dumber back then with the level playing field mindset.
Re: the hypothesis about the GC riders' being taller during the epo era. I've noticed the same thing and guess it's actually quite logical. If EPO granted, especially during the so called wild years, that oxygen carrying capacity was significantly smaller a performance limiter than before, then a bit more of brute force must have been an advantage (in ITT for instance). Today's cocktail seems to demand that the GC riders are either small-ish or extremely lanky, that is, preferably under 70kg.
Also, what does it matter if Merckx or Greg or whoever was the greatest? Isn't it good racing that counts, and doesn't a relatively level field provide the best chance of getting that? It's easier to like guys who sometimes lose and do not always crush the opposition. And no blutto, this aint a jab at you. Just an opinion.
I find it funny that the partisan opinion now mockingly insists that such an assesment necessarily depicts Greg as a saint or whatever, implying he is not and everyone of the opinion is dumb. I don't get this at all. Even as a tactical mode of discourse for a partisan poster it appears unplausible when reflected with the historical evidence. But maybe Im dumb, wouldn't be the first time.
What to me is the most important aspect about this discussion is the racing into shape approach. Somehow that makes it credible to me. Sometimes you just suck, but there are no mystical jumps in form, no mambo about altitude and peaking, but racing and gradually becoming stronger. Not sexy and easy to sell to time-crunched consumers, but seemed to work back then. Today, it's "preparation" until July and suddenly you find 100W or more, even if you do not put the race miles into the legs. Obviously, peaking is a real world procedure that works without dope too, but come on, the level of ups and downs in form fluctuations as it were is becoming ridiculous.
I started following cycling as a toddler during the EPO era, Indurain and Chiapucci duel being my first memory, and up until 2005ish that was all I knew about. Of course it was fishy, LA always destroying everybody, sprinting uphill outta the saddle for an hour basically. It all seemed too effortless, TBH. And in Finland the suspicions were only amplified after the doping fiasco in XC skiing WCs in 2001, so I guess I kinda took up the everyone does it, level playing field stance. Checking back into the times before the nineties has been most enlightening, so thanks. If I'm dumb now, IMO I was dumber back then with the level playing field mindset.
Re: the hypothesis about the GC riders' being taller during the epo era. I've noticed the same thing and guess it's actually quite logical. If EPO granted, especially during the so called wild years, that oxygen carrying capacity was significantly smaller a performance limiter than before, then a bit more of brute force must have been an advantage (in ITT for instance). Today's cocktail seems to demand that the GC riders are either small-ish or extremely lanky, that is, preferably under 70kg.
Also, what does it matter if Merckx or Greg or whoever was the greatest? Isn't it good racing that counts, and doesn't a relatively level field provide the best chance of getting that? It's easier to like guys who sometimes lose and do not always crush the opposition. And no blutto, this aint a jab at you. Just an opinion.
- Apr 20, 2012
- 6,320
- 0
- 0
Ok, now you made it clearer. Yes, you could be right. I don' t have the exact figures on how much advantage the Lemond aero pack vs Fignon's parachute pack had but I count it must be up to seconds p/k.blutto said:
Nothing extraterristal if you look at it that way. Remains the fact Lemond was extremely good that day and Fignon was so arrogant he didn' t even bother to ride with an aero helmet. When taken into account he had a third ball in his pants the Champs TT was 'just another day at the office' for Greg.
Well said.joe_papp said:He climbs, he descends fearlessly, he's an attacking rider, he is courageous and confident; he fights for a stage victory w/ same ferocity he fights to win Classics like Paris-Roubaix and Lombardia, which he almost won ahead of Kelly in a SPRINT!
The entire Armstrong-LeMond feud is such a waste and a distraction that's poisoned the minds of so many cycling fans who came into the sport as a result of Lance and never opened themselves to actually understand what an amazing, unequaled talent Greg was.
To ride with LeMond for even a few seconds was to be exposed to the application of natural class and power to the process of moving a bike, fast!(even a year after he'd stopped racing) ... the natural-rightness and spectacle of it all is something that stays w/ you forever, if your eyes have been opened and you understand
You wanted to see cycling because of guys like Lemond, Delgado, Fignon. Fearless attacking cycling. Not a grand parade to the last mountain and then make a sprint. Hell, you even bought a bike and was those guys.
- Mar 17, 2009
- 1,863
- 0
- 0
My introduction to cycling was that incredible 1983 season, through the medium of Cycling Weekly & International Cyclesport (RIP). So I have to declare a bias towards riders of that era, especially the anglophones.
That said, I have no illusions that there was widespread doping in cycling. Kelly was busted twice, Fignon too. But Lemond is different in my opinion.
Why you ask? Because, unlike any of the stars of that era, he has confronted doping head on in public. There has been virtually no outing of any rider from the 80's in the way there has been of more recent riders, Lemond included. With the likes of Kelly, Anderson & Bauer it is likely that their lack of overt commentary on the subject. But Lemond has been so outspoken, it is staggering that no one has ever come up with so much as a whiff of impropriety on his part. I wonder why? The old adage "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind. My guess is he doesn't live in a glass house, so can throw stones all day long with no risk of repercussions. FFS $300K from Armstrong wasn't enough to wheedle out the "truth".
That said, I have no illusions that there was widespread doping in cycling. Kelly was busted twice, Fignon too. But Lemond is different in my opinion.
Why you ask? Because, unlike any of the stars of that era, he has confronted doping head on in public. There has been virtually no outing of any rider from the 80's in the way there has been of more recent riders, Lemond included. With the likes of Kelly, Anderson & Bauer it is likely that their lack of overt commentary on the subject. But Lemond has been so outspoken, it is staggering that no one has ever come up with so much as a whiff of impropriety on his part. I wonder why? The old adage "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind. My guess is he doesn't live in a glass house, so can throw stones all day long with no risk of repercussions. FFS $300K from Armstrong wasn't enough to wheedle out the "truth".
- Mar 17, 2009
- 1,863
- 0
- 0
Every Tour that Lemond started until EPO hit resulted in a podium finish. Even when EPO had hit in 1991 he wasn't out of the top 10, FFS.blutto said:
As for the 1989 TT, Marie might have won if it had been a prologue but not three times the distance. He never came close to beating Lemond in TT's except prologues of less than 8km.
Lemond won in 85 despite most of his team riding for Hinault. He won in 1989 despite having a team that was for all intents and purposes invisible as soon as the mountains loomed into view.
ultimobici said:
yesterday in another thread it was $300k. can we get our forum facts straight, please?
- Mar 17, 2009
- 1,863
- 0
- 0
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram