Lemond's Legacy: How Lemond Changed Cycling

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
I think Lemond had more natural ability than any in his generation, but I don't think he ever really exploited his true potential.

The fact alone that he was off hunting in early 87 was itself a demonstration of how unprofessional and lax he could be when not getting ready for the Tour.

Guimard said he thought Greg to have been the only champion that didn't actually have to "train" to win the Tour, which implied that he could do it on raw talent alone. Of course Lemond did actually train, but imagine if riding in today's sport when athletes start preparing for the July event over the winter the races he probably would have won. By contrast Lemond fattened up nicely over the winter and carried too much weight right up until June.

Today he would have had to be a more complete professional to even be competative, though even back then had he been European he'd probably not have put on as much weight over the winter and this would have reflected in his results. Merckx even said he thought Greg had the potential to win every type of race, but didn't because he missed something in his preparation. While Stephen Roche said that Lemond was the strongest rider he ever faced during his career: which means Greg was the strongest rider of his generation.

One thing I can't approve of in his career is thus that he won far less than his actual talent could have permitted and that he, especially after being shot, turned toward the Tour as the complete barometer of success. What a pitty for his own legacy and to a certain extent for the future of the sport.
....so its back to another variation of the woulda should coulda argument that you keep reverting to in this thread is it?...

...which got me thinking....in that kinda woulda coulda shoulda universe LeMond would have never had a chance because I would have won at least 10 Tours, 6 or 7 WC, all the classics...because like I had a major dehabilitating accident, I had the numbers, I trained like an idiot, and I just loved donuts mmmm....

Cheers
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
aske Stephen Roche
...if you are pinning your contention on Roche you have a major problem because Roche never gave an answer without first checking which way the wind was blowing....and his answers always had the prevailing wind at their back...

Cheers
 
Franklin said:
Oh I forget, you are one of those silly guys who only think cycling is the TdF.

/Thread
Oh and I forgot, you are one of those guys that thinks they understand the sport, but hasn't got a clue.

You don't know what you are talking about, in making that claim against me. I enjoy lots of races beyond the Tour, believe me. But I do recognize that the Tour winner has normally at the given moment one of the biggest, if not the biggest, engine in the sport.

The Tour thus isn't the sport, but the winner is the best all rounder in the world. Why? Because grand tours are the barometer of the true worth of a cyclist's engine longue duree. And of the three grand tours, the Tour is the hardest one to win. Why? Because the best of the best are at their best during the July event. Period.

Now you can have a lot of classy riders who can never win the Tour, but not for this is the Tour winner's engine any less bigger than theirs. It simply is.

Kelly was a great racer, but he didn't have the engine to win the Tour, or even podium. Thus his greatness and results are to be qualified against this incapacity.

The grand tour winners are the true phenomenons of cycling, which is another reason why dopping is such a scourge, because it can falsify everything - even if it's not true that every doped Tour winner was lacking in astounding genetics.
 
blutto said:
....so its back to another variation of the woulda should coulda argument that you keep reverting to in this thread is it?...

...which got me thinking....in that kinda woulda coulda shoulda universe LeMond would have never had a chance because I would have won at least 10 Tours, 6 or 7 WC, all the classics...because like I had a major dehabilitating accident, I had the numbers, I trained like an idiot, and I just loved donuts mmmm....

Cheers
I'll take your bait in saying you are being ridiculous.
 
Franklin said:
Nobody says he was a btter climber or at TT's.
I do claim he was a better climber ... on hills and mid-mountains. The high mountains are a matter for specialists anyway. Sean was too heavy for that. If you are 70+ kg you are out of contention...

ITT's are harder to say because they've rarely faced each other outside the Tour of France. Kelly did beat LeMond multiple times in ITT's though, at Paris-Nice, at the Tour of Switzerland, at the International Criterium, at the Tour of the Basque Country...

Of course LeMond never raced the 90km GP des Nations, which alone could have decided who was the better but I'm really not quite sure he would have beaten Kelly on that 1986 edition, when he beat Fignon, Mottet, Bernard, etc. Even in 1984, Kelly already beat Fignon by 1'10" despite being 2nd to Hinault.

Besides, Kelly did the best 20+km ITT performance on a regular bike (though with disc wheels) at the 1985 Tour of Ireland (52.173 Kph):
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10312
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGNHFFgcPQs


Oh and of course in terms of professional conscientiousness, there's no comparison between the two. Kelly was there from March to October, was LeMond? That means the Irishman was a bigger achiever, period. I don't care about the coulds and the whatifs. LeMond never won a classic, that's a fact.

I also distinctly heard Roche saying that some champions who based their palmares on the classics were underrated and he obviously was referring to his compatriot ...
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
rhubroma said:
I'll take your bait in saying you are being ridiculous.
...ok... but just a little....realistically in a what-if world I would have won only 6 Tours , 4 WC's and half the classics....

Cheers

PS....and speaking of a what-if world....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis, MN — Greg Lemond today released a statement that said he has, reluctantly and with great sadness, been forced to add the 2006 Tour de France to the long list of tours that he should have won. Lemond initially believed, and was even quoted in an earlier interview as saying, that this was the first clean Tour de France in many years. However, in light of the recent positive doping test of tour winner Floyd Landis, Lemond has concluded that, in all likelihood, he himself should have won the tour this year.

This brings the total number of Tours de France That Lemond Should Have Won (TDFTLSHW) to 167. Lemond first won the tour in 1986. However, as he has explained many times over the years since, he should have won the Tour in 1985, but was lied to by Bernard Hinault and cheated out of the race victory. Lemond next should have won the Tour in 1987 and 1988, but was incapacitated by a shotgun blast from his brother-in-law. While the incident was ruled an accident by the police, Lemond believes that his brother-in-law was working with Hinault and a young Texan by the name of Lance Armstrong to remove him from the sport.

Lemond came back to win the Tour in 1989 and 1990, but lost in 1991 due to the fact that, as incredible as it may sound, every other rider in the Tour de France besides Lemond was taking performance enhancing drugs. Lemond believes these drugs were supplied by Bernard Hinault, who realized that if nothing were done, Lemond would continue to win the Tour for the next 50 years. The drug-tainted Tour would continue through 2005, including the reign of Lance Armstrong. In the absence of doping, Lemond clearly would have won the Tour from 1991 to 2005, bringing the total number of TDFTLSHW to 21.

Going back before 1985, Lemond believes that in all likelihood, he would have won the Tour de France each year since his birth in 1961 if a) he had known about it and b) he had not had the small stature and limited leg length common to children between the ages of 0 and 10. As Lemond explains, clearly it would be unfair to him to discount the Tour wins he should have achieved were he only able to reach the pedals of his bicycle. This brings the TDFTLSHW to 45.

While Lemond concedes that some may believe him to be “stretching it” by including in his TDFTLSHW years from Tours before his birth, he claims that if one is to think about it logically, the only possible conclusion is that the greatest bike rider in the history of the Tour would absolutely have won the Tour since its inception in 1903, if only he had been alive at that time. It was not Greg Lemond’s fault that his parents were not alive and able to conceive him in time to ride the initial Tour in 1903; thus, it would be unfair to strip him of the Tour wins that he rightly should have been awarded.

Note that there have been 11 years since its creation in 1903 that the Tour de France was not held due to the two World Wars. Clearly, stopping the Tour due to worldwide war would have been unfair to Greg Lemond, had he been alive, and would have in all likelihood, been a move orchestrated by Bernard Hinault, had he himself been alive, to keep Lemond from winning the tour. Thus, Lemond believes that these years should also be included in the TDFTLSHW, giving him a total of 103 wins.

Finally, Lemond explains that he has included the years between the invention of the bicycle to the first Tour de France (1839 to 1903) in the TDFTLSHW. Had the French had the foresight to create the Tour de France in a more timely manner, Lemond would have definitely won it each and every year, again assuming he had been alive (see above). Obviously Lemond cannot be blaimed for the shortsightedness and general ineptitude of the French, and therefore the victory from the Tours de France that should have been held in these years must be credited to Lemond, bringing the final tally of TDFTLSHW to 167.

Note that while Lemond has not yet been able to rationalize including years before the invention of the bicycle in the TDFTLSHW, he has created a company to pursue such an effort. The company is hard at work on a rationalization and hopes to produce one for him within the year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Echoes said:
Yeah you're quoting this comic
I am glad you are amused. I found your elaborate conspiracy theories entertaining as well.

Greg did not break any rules, which is why Fignon never filed a protest and why multiple UCI commissionaires, in multiple races, said they was OK.

If you are going to continue to push these vague conspiracies could you figure out how to work Bigfoot and space aliens in as well? Thanks
 
Cool I'm collecting "conspiracy theory" accusation. That's the usual insult coming from people who have no arguments...

The conspiracy against Vanderaerden is perfectly credible. I'm well informed about the Tour of Trump.

For your dear Bore de France, I have never talked about any conspiracy whatsoever, it's just something we call laxness... Capito?

..and stop lying or put up, please. Fed up with your lies.
 
Lemond as a commentator, wow:eek::eek:


Presenter: Who is going to win tomorrow? Kittel
Lemond: Kittel crashed didn't he. (avoids question)

5 minutes later

Presenter: Tomorrow who is going to win

Lemond: I can't predict every stage, cos its you know there's so many good riders. But I think there's a a lot of riders, some of these riders that haven't won a stage, you'll see a lot of riders coming forward, its an open race, can't keep defaulting to the riders who have won..... (some more white noise about how riders become better and worse during grand tours, doesn't mention anyone)... I think it will be a sprinter:cool:


Presenter: Thank you Greg for your brilliant analysis

Lemond: My pleasure

:rolleyes:
 
blutto said:
...ok... but just a little....realistically in a what-if world I would have won only 6 Tours , 4 WC's and half the classics....

Cheers

PS....and speaking of a what-if world....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis, MN — Greg Lemond today released a statement that said he has, reluctantly and with great sadness, been forced to add the 2006 Tour de France to the long list of tours that he should have won. Lemond initially believed, and was even quoted in an earlier interview as saying, that this was the first clean Tour de France in many years. However, in light of the recent positive doping test of tour winner Floyd Landis, Lemond has concluded that, in all likelihood, he himself should have won the tour this year.

This brings the total number of Tours de France That Lemond Should Have Won (TDFTLSHW) to 167. Lemond first won the tour in 1986. However, as he has explained many times over the years since, he should have won the Tour in 1985, but was lied to by Bernard Hinault and cheated out of the race victory. Lemond next should have won the Tour in 1987 and 1988, but was incapacitated by a shotgun blast from his brother-in-law. While the incident was ruled an accident by the police, Lemond believes that his brother-in-law was working with Hinault and a young Texan by the name of Lance Armstrong to remove him from the sport.

Lemond came back to win the Tour in 1989 and 1990, but lost in 1991 due to the fact that, as incredible as it may sound, every other rider in the Tour de France besides Lemond was taking performance enhancing drugs. Lemond believes these drugs were supplied by Bernard Hinault, who realized that if nothing were done, Lemond would continue to win the Tour for the next 50 years. The drug-tainted Tour would continue through 2005, including the reign of Lance Armstrong. In the absence of doping, Lemond clearly would have won the Tour from 1991 to 2005, bringing the total number of TDFTLSHW to 21.

Going back before 1985, Lemond believes that in all likelihood, he would have won the Tour de France each year since his birth in 1961 if a) he had known about it and b) he had not had the small stature and limited leg length common to children between the ages of 0 and 10. As Lemond explains, clearly it would be unfair to him to discount the Tour wins he should have achieved were he only able to reach the pedals of his bicycle. This brings the TDFTLSHW to 45.

While Lemond concedes that some may believe him to be “stretching it” by including in his TDFTLSHW years from Tours before his birth, he claims that if one is to think about it logically, the only possible conclusion is that the greatest bike rider in the history of the Tour would absolutely have won the Tour since its inception in 1903, if only he had been alive at that time. It was not Greg Lemond’s fault that his parents were not alive and able to conceive him in time to ride the initial Tour in 1903; thus, it would be unfair to strip him of the Tour wins that he rightly should have been awarded.

Note that there have been 11 years since its creation in 1903 that the Tour de France was not held due to the two World Wars. Clearly, stopping the Tour due to worldwide war would have been unfair to Greg Lemond, had he been alive, and would have in all likelihood, been a move orchestrated by Bernard Hinault, had he himself been alive, to keep Lemond from winning the tour. Thus, Lemond believes that these years should also be included in the TDFTLSHW, giving him a total of 103 wins.

Finally, Lemond explains that he has included the years between the invention of the bicycle to the first Tour de France (1839 to 1903) in the TDFTLSHW. Had the French had the foresight to create the Tour de France in a more timely manner, Lemond would have definitely won it each and every year, again assuming he had been alive (see above). Obviously Lemond cannot be blaimed for the shortsightedness and general ineptitude of the French, and therefore the victory from the Tours de France that should have been held in these years must be credited to Lemond, bringing the final tally of TDFTLSHW to 167.

Note that while Lemond has not yet been able to rationalize including years before the invention of the bicycle in the TDFTLSHW, he has created a company to pursue such an effort. The company is hard at work on a rationalization and hopes to produce one for him within the year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers
Man I didn't think I could get through all that.

At any rate, I think Greg had the ability baring accident and adverse team politics in the beginning to win a couple of more Tours.

He will be the first to admit that it was a shame he didn't bag a few classics, but this, as it is with cycling, was due to a lack of disciplina.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
0
0
rhubroma said:
Oh and I forgot, you are one of those guys that thinks they understand the sport, but hasn't got a clue.

You don't know what you are talking about, in making that claim against me. I enjoy lots of races beyond the Tour, believe me. But I do recognize that the Tour winner has normally at the given moment one of the biggest, if not the biggest, engine in the sport.

The Tour thus isn't the sport, but the winner is the best all rounder in the world. Why? Because grand tours are the barometer of the true worth of a cyclist's engine longue duree. And of the three grand tours, the Tour is the hardest one to win. Why? Because the best of the best are at their best during the July event. Period.

Now you can have a lot of classy riders who can never win the Tour, but not for this is the Tour winner's engine any less bigger than theirs. It simply is.

Kelly was a great racer, but he didn't have the engine to win the Tour, or even podium. Thus his greatness and results are to be qualified against this incapacity.

The grand tour winners are the true phenomenons of cycling, which is another reason why dopping is such a scourge, because it can falsify everything - even if it's not true that every doped Tour winner was lacking in astounding genetics.
Kinda getting away from LeMond, but what yer sayin' above? Not quite. "The biggest and best engine" depends on the need. A LeMans 24 hour car doesn't stand a chance on the drag strip. A funny car doesn't stand a chance at Monaco. Etc. Biggest and best depends on what you are doing. It isn't just recovery ability.
 
hiero2 said:
Kinda getting away from LeMond, but what yer sayin' above? Not quite. "The biggest and best engine" depends on the need. A LeMans 24 hour car doesn't stand a chance on the drag strip. A funny car doesn't stand a chance at Monaco. Etc. Biggest and best depends on what you are doing. It isn't just recovery ability.
Since the Tour is the most coveted, the biggest and most difficult bike race on earth, whose winner is generally hailed the best cyclist in the world, then how else are we to determine "biggest engine" other than one capable of winning the French race?

PS: Not just raw cylindrage but also efficency and longue duree. It's the combination of these factors that makes this type of rider so gifted genetically.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
SteveT said:
Well I think Big Mig could climb a bit and he was almost 80kgs at race weight
....yeah and this guy named Merckx was also over 70kg ( 74kg if Dr Wiki is to be believed )...and apparently he was pretty good at climbing and stuff...

Cheers
 
rhubroma said:
Since the Tour is the most coveted, the biggest and most difficult bike race on earth, whose winner is generally hailed the best cyclist in the world, then how else are we to determine "biggest engine" other than one capable of winning the French race?
Trololol



blutto said:
....yeah and this guy named Merckx was also over 70kg ( 74kg if Dr Wiki is to be believed )...and apparently he was pretty good at climbing and stuff...
No he wasn't. Nor was he 74kg in top form. Game over !
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Echoes said:
No he wasn't. Nor was he 74kg in top form. Game over !
...so pray tell what was his weight in top form....and some references would be appreciated....

Cheers
 
Jan 11, 2013
46
0
0
Echoes said:
I do claim he was a better climber ... on hills and mid-mountains. The high mountains are a matter for specialists anyway. Sean was too heavy for that. If you are 70+ kg you are out of contention...

ITT's are harder to say because they've rarely faced each other outside the Tour of France. Kelly did beat LeMond multiple times in ITT's though, at Paris-Nice, at the Tour of Switzerland, at the International Criterium, at the Tour of the Basque Country...

Of course LeMond never raced the 90km GP des Nations, which alone could have decided who was the better but I'm really not quite sure he would have beaten Kelly on that 1986 edition, when he beat Fignon, Mottet, Bernard, etc. Even in 1984, Kelly already beat Fignon by 1'10" despite being 2nd to Hinault.

Besides, Kelly did the best 20+km ITT performance on a regular bike (though with disc wheels) at the 1985 Tour of Ireland (52.173 Kph):
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10312
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGNHFFgcPQs


Oh and of course in terms of professional conscientiousness, there's no comparison between the two. Kelly was there from March to October, was LeMond? That means the Irishman was a bigger achiever, period. I don't care about the coulds and the whatifs. LeMond never won a classic, that's a fact.

I also distinctly heard Roche saying that some champions who based their palmares on the classics were underrated and he obviously was referring to his compatriot ...
1983. LeMond was second to Daniel Gisiger.
 
Greg Lemond's legacy: instead of molding himself after the traditional/european model, embodied the 80's "be yourself" mentality, he spoke french with a cool accent, in a direct, funny way that the public appreciated, he shocked the media and riders when eating ice-cream on the TdF, which was felt by the traditionalists who cried "lack of respect" a bit like when Tiger came out with his fist pumping. First non-European to dominate the sport, first American to win the TdF. First non-Ewing to be shot and come back meaner than ever, first American to win a WC after being the first American to lead out an Italian to beat another American at the WC.
 
blutto said:
...so pray tell what was his weight in top form....and some references would be appreciated....

Cheers
72kg according to Théo Mathy in "Eddy Merckx : l'épopée" (Luc Pire, 2007)

..and I have a lot of comments from him saying he was not a climber and feared the pure climbers like Van Impe and Fuente in the mountains. His tactic was to tire them out in the valley...

Until the 1990's it was impossible for a 70/75+kg rider to mix it up with the best pocket climbers in the high mountains and even today the GT riders are all ~60kg. The 70+kg power men are racing the classics: Cancellara, Terpstra, Phinney, etc.

classic1 said:
1983. LeMond was second to Daniel Gisiger.
My bad. Thanks for correcting.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Echoes said:
..and I have a lot of comments from him saying he was not a climber
....I would bet you that his contemporaries would beg to differ ( and his record does seem to support that contention )....or to put in another way, if Merckx was not a pretty good climber, who on gawd's earth ever was....

....there are also many comments from Eddie about his climbing prowess before and after the derny accident....and he did seem to be pretty hard on himself after that accident, yet his record post crash is absolutely scary and speaks quite conclusively about his abilities...

Cheers
 
Jul 3, 2012
682
0
0
Bumping this because it's a good time to remind folks that next Tuesday at 7 PM EST on ESPN is the 30 for 30 film "Slaying the Badger."
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
0
0
Warhawk said:
Bumping this because it's a good time to remind folks that next Tuesday at 7 PM EST on ESPN is the 30 for 30 film "Slaying the Badger."
Simply one of the best TDFs of all time. By all means, read the book if you get a chance.
 
Feb 28, 2010
1,661
0
0
Lemond was at the Tour de France press camp at the London finish. A number of us were shouting asking him to turn to pose for our cameras, instead the climbed the barrier on his side and walked across to us. I got a very firm handshake and he posed for me to take a photo. He spent sometime talking to us, while signing numerous autographs. He came over as a really generous person.
 
Hawkwood said:
Lemond was at the Tour de France press camp at the London finish. A number of us were shouting asking him to turn to pose for our cameras, instead the climbed the barrier on his side and walked across to us. I got a very firm handshake and he posed for me to take a photo. He spent sometime talking to us, while signing numerous autographs. He came over as a really generous person.
not surprised on tv he is always getting slightly distracted trying not to ignore people who are calling him out. I wish all my cycling heroes turned out like him,
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY