most favourite tour de france winner poll

[Anonymous]

Id actually vote Laurent Fignon

The last french winner, the first Tour de France I followed.

And there was something great about Fignon, didnt look like a cyclist, but was very special to watch. An absolute master.

(the fact that he won the giro which only two other frenchmen have ever managed, and both of them legends, gives him bonus points)

Had it not been for two years of injury, a small matter of 8 seconds, some bad luck in Italy and a bit of bribery in spain, he could have had 6 or 7 grand tours, maybe more, to his name.

 

[Moondance]

Vote for other (Jan Janssen)

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

For me it's a tough choice between Merckx, Hinault, and Indurain. But I went with Big Mig because I liked his quiet unassuming character.

 

[ak-zaaf]

I think you should read up Bartali a little more. Coppi was a *** in his personal life and on the bike. I'm not calling him a hero for what he did on his bike during a race.

Saved a few jews, prevented a civil war... I thought we all did that on our sunday morning rides.

 

[Maxiton]

1) Merckx (by far)

2) Hinault

3) Anquetil

4) Armstrong

5) Indurain

As far as I'm concerned, Merckx could be awarded all the placings.

 

[c&cfan]

1. Merckx
2. Hinault
3. Anquetil
4. Indurain
5. Armstrong

Nothing against Armstrong, BTW. It's just that the others had more impressive careers, IMO.

due to the circunstances, armstrong's career is much more impressive. merkcx was the best in the all-rounder\still amateurish era, the others were like him (gimondi mr roubaix), but he was better. so he never did something unbelievable. with hinault, cycling was already more specialized, even if just a little. in impressive careers this is the right choice:

1-lance (due to circunstances)
2-indurain
3-hinault
4-eddy
5-anquetil

my fav champion:

indurain. not an underdog, not a comeback after cancer, just killing them because he had the power to do it. the peloton could've put ropes around him and he would carry all of them to the top of any climb, and rolling over them in the TTs.

 

[El Pistolero]

Actually there were a lot of pure climbers in Merckx time. Lucien van Impe, Ocana(also good at tt), Fuente, etc

 

[c&cfan]

Actually there were a lot of pure climbers in Merckx time. Lucien van Impe, Ocana(also good at tt), Fuente, etc

but races were different and those riders simply weren't good enough. i know that some people here think that the best riders were all racing in the 60\70 (mr roubaix merckx gimondi etc) because of their palmares and completely forget that all of them had the same program, the competition against those 5\6 guys were just weak, and they all had the same characteristics. one was slightly better on the flat, other slightly better in the TT, but overall they were the same. and merckx was the best of them. that's it.

but since that I have a brain and I use it, I realised that cycling changed a lot and became too specialised to be possible to win roubaix and the tour (maybe only in lucky breakaways, not because you are the best) and other riders also became smart and started to peak for other races besides doing the same calendar every year.

merckx wasn't better than MIG armstrong or even contador. but I put him on pair with hinault.

still, I guess that this pool is about personal tastes, so anyone is free to vote in who they want. however, some here are just basing their opinions in fairy tails, without using their brain. hey, but that's not my problem.

you can bet that between those 19 people, only one or two saw merckx riding or were watching cycling in that here. 1 or 2 voted merckx because they liked his style, and it makes sense. the others don't think\rationalise for themselves. merckx will always be the best because of his palmares. they forget everything else. (era, competition, etc).

like him or not, we all know that due to circumstances, what armstrong did is unmatched. dominating the tour, after being almost dead, when all the best riders, with the current level of training are putting all the other races as training just to be able to be part of it, well.. this makes you the alpha in this sport. i understand that.

but this is about personal tastes and I don't care about coming back from the land of the dead. i care about class. Indurain-contador.

 

[El Pistolero]

but races were differen't and those riders simply weren't good enough. i know that some people here think that the best riders were all racing in the 60\70 (mr roubaix merckx gimondi etc) because of their palmares and completely forget that all of them had the same program, the competition against those 5\6 guys were just weak, and they all had the same characteristics. one was slighty better on the flat, other slightly better in the TT, but overall they were the same. and merckx was the best of them. that's it.

but since that I have a brain and I use it, I realised that cycling changed a lot and became too specialised to be possible to win roubaix and the tour (maybe only in lucky breakways, not because you are the best) and other riders also became smart and started to peak for other races besides doing the same calendar every year.

merckx wasn't better than MIG armstrong or even contador. but I put him on pair with hinault.

still, I guess that this pool is about personal tastes, so anyone is free to vote in who they want. however, some here are just basing their opinions in fary tails, without using their brain. hey, but that's not my problem.

Actually, Fuente climbed a lot better than Merckx. Merckx just owned him every time because of his time trial, descending, power on the hills and flat, and even some luck was needed to stop Fuente and Ocana. Lucien van Impe could also outclimb Merckx from time to time and Ocana certainly could. Having Fuente as your rival sounds better than having fatty Ullrich as yours.

Besides there's only one who completed the trifecta at the Tour. No one did it in the 60+ editions before him and no one did it after. It really says something about his talent and you can't dismiss it just by saying cycling was less specialized then. Yes it was, but we're talking about the Tour here, not the other exploits of Merckx.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

due to the circunstances, armstrong's career is much more impressive. merkcx was the best in the all-rounder\still amateurish era, the others were like him (gimondi mr roubaix), but he was better. so he never did something unbelievable. with hinault, cycling was already more specialized, even if just a little. in impressive careers this is the right choice:

1-lance (due to circunstances)
2-indurain
3-hinault
4-eddy
5-anquetil

I see your point, but I'd still rank Indurain ahead of Armstrong. Cycling was already very specialized then and he still managed to win the Giro-Tour double twice in a row.

 

[c&cfan]

Actually, Fuente climbed a lot better than Merckx. Merckx just owned him every time because of his time trial, descending, power on the hills and flat, and even some luck was needed to stop Fuente and Ocana. Lucien van Impe could also outclimb Merckx from time to time and Ocana certainly could. Having Fuente as your rival sounds better than having fatty Ullrich as yours.

Besides there's only one who completed the trifecta at the Tour. No one did it in the 60+ editions before him and no one did it after. It really says something about his talent and you can't dismiss it just by saying cycling was less specialized then. Yes it was, but we're talking about the Tour here, not the other exploits of Merckx.

yes. he was able to do it because cycling wasnt specialised. put cancellara cav and gilbert there and he wouldn't be able to do the trifecta.

so you agree with me. overall they were weaker. losing time on a flat stage? even if you are in euskatel it does only happen from time to time, because you fall or because you have a flat. like I said, merckx was awesome. the best of those days. that's it.

I don't understand what you were trying to say when you mentioned ullrich. were you talking about the fact that he was more powerfull in the TT, in the flat or in the mountains than anyone of eddy's rivals (and eddy himself) has ever been?

 

[c&cfan]

I see your point, but I'd still rank Indurain ahead of Armstrong. Cycling was already very specialized then and he still managed to win the Giro-Tour double twice in a row.

in what overall careers are concerned, I agree with you. but not about the giro-tour. that has almost 0 in importance compared to do it now. they were still doing the giro as prep for the tour. even pantani. today that's different. even in the majority of lance's TDF wins.

however, indurain had something else. and based on what we know and saw after indurain retired, that moment when he flies past armstrong in a TT is just legendary!

 

[El Pistolero]

Fat people wouldn't be able to climb like that in the 70s. But in the 90s...

It's actually fairly common to lose time on flat stages as they were ridden differently and the roads were complete crap and there were always some hills in there unlike these days. Races were a lot longer as well, like Milan-San Remo...

Rules for green jersey were different then, so Cav would have never won, he's a one trick pony, and bad at everything else. Neither Gilbert or Cancellara can ever win a jersey at the Tour, so that point is moot.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I'm surprised Armstrong and Indurain are getting so many votes, but I also realize many people here saw them race in their lifetimes.

For me I picked Hinault, though almost voted for Merckx. Both these guys were fun to watch.

To me Armstrong has way too much baggage. I don't need to list it all, and this isn't the right forum.

While Indurain was and will always be a classy guy, and a modest champion, his style of never attacking in the mountains and beating everyone in the time trials I found rather dull. Though he wasn't the one designing the course, and simply made the best of it.

 

[El Pistolero]

I'm surprised Armstrong and Indurain are getting so many votes, but I also realize many people here saw them race in their lifetimes.

For me I picked Hinault, though almost voted for Merckx. Both these guys were fun to watch.

To me Armstrong has way too much baggage. I don't need to list it all, and this isn't the right forum.

While Indurain was and will always be a classy guy, and a modest champion, his style of never attacking in the mountains and beating everyone in the time trials I found rather dull. Though he wasn't the one designing the course, and simply made the best of it.

Isn't Merckx just everything Hinault was, but a bit better? These 2 are in my opinion very similar riders actually.

 

[c&cfan]

Isn't Merckx just everything Hinault was, but a bit better? These 2 are in my opinion very similar riders actually.

the meaning of wining classics and GTs is different when every GT winner isn't also wining all the classics. in hinault's time cycling was already becoming more specialized, higher level of competition, etc.

so it's normal to people to rate hinault>merckx.

 

[El Pistolero]

Uhm, no, a lot of GT contenders were still in Paris-Roubaix during Hinault's time. Hinault and Merckx have raced together you know.

Hennie Kuiper, Sean Kelly, Moser(with a bit of help), etc were all winning classics and all did well in GTs at the same time.

There's really only one classic that can't be won by a good GT contender anymore and that is Paris-Roubaix.

Nibali and Scarponi are the proof a GT contender can do very well in Milan-San Remo. Of course Scarponi used to be a classics guy before his ban, but now is a GT contender.

The Ronde is usually skipped by GT contenders because they're too afraid to crash, but I can see GT contenders getting inside the top 10 there as well. Just look at Boogerd who could do well in a Tour back in his day and did well in the Ronde. Lombardia and LBL are usually won by GT contenders. So that just leaves Paris-Roubaix.

 

[Siriuscat]

The poll lists the five riders with the most wins. My own favourite winner is not there because there are other riders I'd have favoured in a poll such as this,

Lemond, Fignon, Bartali, Coppi, Thevenet.

The first tour I was completely aware of was 1976 when Bernard Thevenet won but I'd put the Professor as a favourite above everyone in the poll.

 

[c&cfan]

Uhm, no, a lot of GT contenders were still in Paris-Roubaix during Hinault's time. Hinault and Merckx have raced together you know.

Hennie Kuiper, Sean Kelly, Moser(with a bit of help), etc were all winning classics and all did well in GTs at the same time.

There's really only one classic that can't be won by a good GT contender anymore and that is Paris-Roubaix.

Nibali and Scarponi are the proof a GT contender can do very well in Milan-San Remo. Of course Scarponi used to be a classics guy before his ban, but now is a GT contender.

The Ronde is usually skipped by GT contenders because they're too afraid to crash, but I can see GT contenders getting inside the top 10 there as well. Just look at Boogerd who could do well in a Tour back in his day and did well in the Ronde. Lombardia and LBL are usually won by GT contenders. So that just leaves Paris-Roubaix.

doing well is different than wining\dominating. kelly was great in the classics and "did well" in the tour. that's what i mean.

for me merckx and hinault are tied, or maybe hinault has the edge. during his career he raced against some that were already specialising. this is my point and you already agreed with it in your post.

also being specialized also means "peaking" and no racing to win all year long. that's why i already rate contador ahead of eddy for example. merckx did what all were doing, and that's why he was wining so much. with contador, like LA said:
"the most talented guy that ever raced a bike".

 

[Benotti69]

Gino Bartali.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Ah, I fear that we have had some badmouthing of José Manuel Fuente in this thread.

I will not tolerate this, for José Manuel Fuente is more or less the blueprint for the kind of cyclist I enjoy.

 

[issoisso]

Ah, I fear that we have had some badmouthing of José Manuel Fuente in this thread.

I will not tolerate this, for José Manuel Fuente is more or less the blueprint for the kind of cyclist I enjoy.

Who doesn't enjoy one of the best climbers in history?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Who doesn't enjoy one of the best climbers in history?

Fools, that's who.

 

[BeachBum]

Hinault. Tossup between Eddy and Bernard, but I got to see Bernard race (Coors Classic mid 80s), so he gets it. When was the last time the yellow jersey won the stage in Paris?

 

[c&cfan]

Fools, that's who.

how is it sane to admire climbers (that weren't that successful) but hate sprinters?