Mercx? Never heard of him. Now if Sagan truly wants to beat a historic legend he can attempt to break Sir Bradley Wigans' hour record
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.Brullnux said:Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
It's not like we're comparing painters and footballers...Red Rick said:Why compare apples and oranges? Why not just appreciate both and leave it at that.
MacBAir said:To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.Brullnux said:Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?
About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.
Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.
If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.
MacBAir said:To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.Brullnux said:Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?
About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.
Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.
If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.
MacBAir said:Mr.White said:CheckMyPecs said:Much, much better. Pelé played in an era of little tactical discipline in which the average score was 5-3 or something like that.Mr.White said:Oh man, this is ridiculous! You can't compare era's like that. People can't travel through time! You certainly think that C.Ronaldo is better than Pele, Lebron better than Jordan, Djokovic better than Laver, etc.
Let me guess, you're from Portugal?
That's a rather frivolous statement. If you really think that, there's something very wrong with your understanding and measuring of someone's sports greatness!
In fact I would struggle to put C.Ronaldo into a top 10 of all-times, cause I could name couple of guys better than him: Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Maradona, Ronaldo (The real one), Zidane and Messi
Isn't it funny that guys like this think that all legends of the sort (most sports) were active in the 60 and 70s? How can people not rationalize that that was the specific timeframe where we had the highest difference between athletes, due to the modernization of those previous baby sports?
We see it time and time again, even with these "legends" in MMA, that would be oh so outclassed today...
But now, the best cyclists are Merckx and everybody else that was eating his scraps, Pele/Eusebio/di stefano/bobby, etc.
No point in arguing.
Guys like Pele wouldn't even last the first 10min of a modern football game. Guys like Merckx would be dropped like stones on the flat. We have data for this, people. It's not rocket science. You people have this sick POV where those worthy accomplishments could take place today.
If you think modern cycling is comparable to almost 50 years ago, you haven't been paying attentionsir fly said:It's not like we're comparing painters and footballers...Red Rick said:Why compare apples and oranges? Why not just appreciate both and leave it at that.
I tried to say this. But this is better.PremierAndrew said:Physiological talent increases over time due to evolution. But in 40 years, this increase would be negligible as it is. Then take into account that evolution works by killing off the weak, whereas modern society has healthcare, which does the opposite. Therefore, realistically, there's next to no increase in physiological talent. The only difference is, as science improves, we know a lot more about good nutrition etc. But if for example Merckx was in this era, he'd be eating much better as well, and at all times every top athlete has had similar diets. So we can ignore this as well when comparing eras. The only major difference is prize money, meaning it is much more viable to have a career in cycling. You can feed your family without being the best in the world, you can now feed your family as a domestique too. This has led to more competition and specialisation.
Riders' achievements are comparable.Red Rick said:If you think modern cycling is comparable to almost 50 years ago, you haven't been paying attentionsir fly said:It's not like we're comparing painters and footballers...Red Rick said:Why compare apples and oranges? Why not just appreciate both and leave it at that.
Competitive at what? ITT for starters. He didn't prepare for months for his attempt, a la Wiggo, just showed up, and on a conventional bike, he's still with the best. Doing this in the fall after one of the greatest years ever recorded. Descending. He was every bit as good as the best descenders ever. I could go on and on.MacBAir said:To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.Brullnux said:Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?
About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.
Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.
If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.
I've said the same few pages ago with these words "Anyway, what if they Merckx and Hinault trained with today's possibilities and so on? Maybe they would still be the best. It isn't like human are getting physically stronger over few decades."Brullnux said:I tried to say this. But this is better.PremierAndrew said:Physiological talent increases over time due to evolution. But in 40 years, this increase would be negligible as it is. Then take into account that evolution works by killing off the weak, whereas modern society has healthcare, which does the opposite. Therefore, realistically, there's next to no increase in physiological talent. The only difference is, as science improves, we know a lot more about good nutrition etc. But if for example Merckx was in this era, he'd be eating much better as well, and at all times every top athlete has had similar diets. So we can ignore this as well when comparing eras. The only major difference is prize money, meaning it is much more viable to have a career in cycling. You can feed your family without being the best in the world, you can now feed your family as a domestique too. This has led to more competition and specialisation.
If your population is the general population, then yes, you are correct.PremierAndrew said:Physiological talent increases over time due to evolution. But in 40 years, this increase would be negligible as it is. Then take into account that evolution works by killing off the weak, whereas modern society has healthcare, which does the opposite. Therefore, realistically, there's next to no increase in physiological talent.
how on earth can you not believe that? not to mention there is tons of genetic scientific evidence to prove it. look no further than the Caribbean, where a race(lack of a better word) of west-africans has basically been breed to physical perfection in 300 years, due to slavery and those who could survive it then had offspring etc. etc. that alone is a reason why runners from jamaica today are much faster than from let's say benin or nigeria. it's a reason why the son of adri van der poel and grandson of raymond poulidor, mathieu van der poel has so much talent. and that is just very short-term. I can't imagine if he had children with marianne vos and their children etc, etc you could create a super cyclist in timeBrullnux said:MacBAir said:To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.Brullnux said:Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?
About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.
Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.
If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.
I personally don't believe physiological talent increases as an average over time and generations. So, I conclude that the difference in time is own to the rather glaringly obvious variables: training, nutrition etc, which causes the ability put out to be closer to their maximum. It is wrong to say there are facts that they used to be worse because of said variables. It was less specialised and professional, but it changes little - in Merckx's time they all were unspecialised and yet he wiped the floor with all of them all the time. Why? Because he was better. Sagan in a more specialised environment, has never wiped the floor in a Merckx style way, but has won a lot of races at a young age. Why? Because he is better. But he has never dominated in any field the way Merckx dominated in all of his, so I conclude with little doubt Merckx was better.
Well has there been anything even close to what you have said in the last 40 years among cyclists? My point was that the increase in cycling speeds and times is due to professionalism rather than physiological talent, as well as some clinic stuff.Ryo Hazuki said:how on earth can you not believe that? not to mention there is tons of genetic scientific evidence to prove it. look no further than the Caribbean, where a race(lack of a better word) of west-africans has basically been breed to physical perfection in 300 years, due to slavery and those who could survive it then had offspring etc. etc. that alone is a reason why runners from jamaica today are much faster than from let's say benin or nigeria. it's a reason why the son of adri van der poel and grandson of raymond poulidor, mathieu van der poel has so much talent. and that is just very short-term. I can't imagine if he had children with marianne vos and their children etc, etc you could create a super cyclist in timeBrullnux said:MacBAir said:To a point, yes. You can use them as a much more viable indication to compare cyclists from different eras than you can use number of wins in the sixties and seventies.Brullnux said:Seriously, MacBAir, do you really believe that you can take climbing data/average speeds and compare it with modern times?
It just confuses me that for some irrational reason, someone believes that Merckx would be competitive today. For starters, competitive at what?
About my previous posts go and watch the top 20 on MSR, Roubaix, LBL, Giro, Tour, Worlds during the older eras... Most of them are everywhere. And all of them are considered the best compared with recent riders by some of you.
Like I said, cycling was far from specialized and professional, compared to today.
If someone wants to answer, don't focus on grotesque exceptions to the rule.
I personally don't believe physiological talent increases as an average over time and generations. So, I conclude that the difference in time is own to the rather glaringly obvious variables: training, nutrition etc, which causes the ability put out to be closer to their maximum. It is wrong to say there are facts that they used to be worse because of said variables. It was less specialised and professional, but it changes little - in Merckx's time they all were unspecialised and yet he wiped the floor with all of them all the time. Why? Because he was better. Sagan in a more specialised environment, has never wiped the floor in a Merckx style way, but has won a lot of races at a young age. Why? Because he is better. But he has never dominated in any field the way Merckx dominated in all of his, so I conclude with little doubt Merckx was better.
Geraint Too Fast said:Best world champion since...?
mr. tibbs said:Geraint Too Fast said:Best world champion since...?
Isn't there a comparison thread kicking around here somewhere? Iirc, the only close contender in recent years is Tommeke's 2006. If Sagan gets green and maybe even an Olympic medal, I think he'll surpass that.