Prime Lance vs. Contador ... Who Wins

[rhubroma]

no...it was not cavendish.

He was a second year pro when he won his first stage.
Lance was a neopro, pro less than one year, when he won his first stage.

So was Cornet.
Although Cornet physically came in 4th on GC,
but was awarded the win when places 1-3 were DQ'ed for cheating

We're talking about a sprinter. And Lemond finished 3rd in his first Tour to AC's 36th and LA's DNF.

Contador won his second Tour, Lemond finished 2nd to Hinault.

If you can win the Tour before 25 you are a great, after that age, then 7 times in a row, you are a great responder.

You are a tool.

 

[kurtinsc]

Also take into account already 2 paris-nice wins, 3 Vuelta a Castilla y León wins, 2 Volta ao Algarve wins and 2 Vuelta a País Vasco wins

I do think that as far as currently Contador is far, far ahead of Armstrong was at the same age. And I am going to make a bold statement, before his 30th birthday Contador will have as many or more grand tour wins as LA had, profited that he does not get banned for some thing or another

Well, if you go beyond GT wins... then you'd add 1 US championship, 1 world championship, 1 san sebastian, 1 tour of luxembourg, and various US races that don't really register with anyone (but were important to his teams at the time). He's had some other noteable podiums (Amstel Gold, Liege x2, Paris-nice, san sebastian)... but so has contador.

Contador has still had much more success at a younger age then Lance though... no question.

 

[Barrus]

Contador has still had much more success at a younger age then Lance though... no question.

That was mainly what I was getting at, but most notably the stage race wins, this because people were saying that LA was better at stage races than COntador was at this age. So I just mentioned the stage race victories

 

[rhubroma]

Well, if you go beyond GT wins... then you'd add 1 US championship, 1 world championship, 1 san sebastian, 1 tour of luxembourg, and various US races that don't really register with anyone (but were important to his teams at the time). He's had some other noteable podiums (Amstel Gold, Liege x2, Paris-nice, san sebastian)... but so has contador.

Contador has still had much more success at a younger age then Lance though... no question.

All cancels out with AC's Giro-Tour-Vuelta trio. By 26 years old. There's simply nothing to compare, rather, we should be comparing with Hinault.

 

[mastersracer]

what does comparing their palmares have to do with the topic of this thread? There's no compelling evidence to suggest Contador could beat the Armstrong of 1999-2002. Armstrong beat stronger rivals than Contador faced by more than 6 minutes in those Tours, showed zero weaknesses, could drop the best climbers and dominate the best time trialists.

 

[Polish]

All cancels out with AC's Giro-Tour-Vuelta trio. By 26 years old. There's simply nothing to compare, rather, we should be comparing with Hinault.

Lance had cancer at 25. maybe 24?

And Alberto won the Giro and Vuelta BECAUSE of Lance.

ASTANA was banned at the Tour because of Lance/Bruyneel.
If Alberto was not banned, he would not have raced the giro/vuelta that year.

And Alberto was gifted one of his two TdF "wins".

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I think we can all agree that neither Lance nor Alberto would amount to much more than local parking lot crit racers but for the genius that is Johan Bruyneel.

 

[Polish]

So in other words:

Armstrong's first Tour (age 21): DNF.
Contador's first Tour (age 22): 31st.

Armstrong's second Tour (age 22): DNF.
Contador's second Tour (age 24): 1st.

Armstrong's third Tour (age 23) : 36th
Contador's third Tour (age 26): 1st.

Yeah, I see why you'd give the early edge to Lance, those two DNF's and 36th spot sure do trump AC's two overall wins, 3-4 stage wins, two white jerseys, etc.

22 year old Lance won a stage of the TdF.
22 year old Lance won the World Championship

What did Alberto do at 22?

 

[Race Radio]

22 year old Lance won a stage of the TdF.
22 year old Lance won the World Championship

What did Alberto do at 22?

It is a little known fact that Contador was World Hackeysack Champion at 21.

 

[Anonymous]

It is a little known fact that Contador was World Hackeysack Champion at 21.

Tough sport. Flexibility is key. Foot and Eye coordination is also important.

 

[Big GMaC]

22 year old Lance won a stage of the TdF.
22 year old Lance won the World Championship

What did Alberto do at 22?

Had a brain hemorrhage. But no one remembers that cos he doesn't ***** it about

 

[VeloCity]

And Alberto won the Giro and Vuelta BECAUSE of Lance.

ASTANA was banned at the Tour because of Lance/Bruyneel.
If Alberto was not banned, he would not have raced the giro/vuelta that year.

And Alberto was gifted one of his two TdF "wins".

OK, let's pretend that Contador misses out on his Vuelta and Giro wins because he rides the '07 Tour instead:

Age 27:

Armstrong: 1 Tour win
Contador: 3 Tour wins.

Age 28:
Armstrong: 2 Tour wins.
Contador: 5 Tour wins.

Better?

 

[VeloCity]

22 year old Lance won a stage of the TdF.
22 year old Lance won the World Championship

What did Alberto do at 22?

24 year old Alberto won the Tour de France. What did Lance do at 24?

 

[progressor]

perhaps you should all wait a few years to compare. AC was probably better at a younger age - but does that just mean he got on 'the program' at a younger age? By accounts armstrong was into his career a bit before he did - and a few more years before he got an a-grade program. LA's career was/is long lived - AC's may not be. Of course AC could outstrip LA's achievements - he looks like he'll go down as one of the all time greats - but life isn't always predictable - it hasn't happened just yet.
I'll wait and see myself.

 

[Polish]

perhaps you should all wait a few years to compare. AC was probably better at a younger age - but does that just mean he got on 'the program' at a younger age? By accounts armstrong was into his career a bit before he did - and a few more years before he got an a-grade program. LA's career was/is long lived - AC's may not be. Of course AC could outstrip LA's achievements - he looks like he'll go down as one of the all time greats - but life isn't always predictable - it hasn't happened just yet.
I'll wait and see myself.

Agree with everything except the bolded part
Boldness added by me....

At ages 22 and 23, Lance had much better results than Alberto.
TdF Stage Win and World Championship.
What did Alberto win that can compare to that?

Lance had 2 TdF stage wins by age 24. Alberto 1.
Sure Alberto "won" the TdF at age 24, but that really belonged to the Rasmussen. Asterisk year.

Ages 25-26, Unibrainer did do better than Uniballer. I will give the AC fanboys those years. Cancer years.

Age 27 a tie I suppose.
Age 28? tbd
Age 29? tbd
Age 30? tbd
Age 31? tbd
Age 32? tbd
Age 33? tbd
Age 37? tbd
Age 38? tbd

So Lance was better in two years so far.
Alberto was better in three years so far.

We will see who was better at age 28 soon.
Lance DID win the Tour at age 28. and 29 & 30 & 31 & 32

 

[buckwheat]

It is a little known fact that Contador was World Hackeysack Champion at 21.

What kind of gear do they use for hackeysack?

 

[rhubroma]

Had a brain hemorrhage. But no one remembers that cos he doesn't ***** it about

So true. And Lance finished his first Euro pro race San Sebastian last, dead last.

This argument is nonsensical. One can come up with all the arguments to favor one's cause. In terms of nature, however, the GC contenders physiologically have the most impressive engines in the sport. In this Alberto was much more spontainious in showing the exceptional quality of his engine, from an early point in his career. In other words you could see, practically from the start (once he survived his brain crisis that nearly killed him at the start of his career, which someone here doesn't seem to remember!), that his machine was very, very, big and exceptional. And he has gone on to verify this hypothisis through the exceptional achievments he has made in this regard before the age when Lance won his first Tour. By contrast no one could have seen that in LA's beginning, for which he was thought of initially as a rider with "merely" a potentially strong classics career. While even Lance has said that it was only the cancer that allowed him to make the turn toward GT success (though with all the science we know was behind it, beginning with Dr. Ferrari).

We are thus comparing one who has always been oriented toward GT success in a natural state of things, with one who did it in a second phase, as the result of a new support staff, which is thus more contrived and artificial.

 

[Nick777]

Looks like we will know this year. Armstrong's pre-tour testing shows him close to his fastest ever.

His ability to recover will be interesting.
It shouldn't be anywhere near as good as the younger folk.

 

[progressor]

(
We are thus comparing one who has always been oriented toward GT success in a natural state of things, with one who did it in a second phase, as the result of a new support staff, which is thus more contrived and artificial.

I really don't get that logic. It almost implies that if AC was on a good program from the start, which seems very likely, he's naturally better than armstrong who got with the picture properly later in his career
That seems a fundamental illogic around here for many, armstrongs a bigger cheat because he started cheating later - with consequently a much more noticeable improvement in his results.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I really don't get that logic. It almost implies that if AC was on a good program from the start, which seems very likely, he's naturally better than armstrong who got with the picture properly later in his career
That seems a fundamental illogic around here for many, armstrongs a bigger cheat because he started cheating later - with consequently a much more noticeable improvement in his results.

I do see you point - and agree with part of it.

On AC - there is no real way of knowing his 'true capabilities' - he is obviously talented but that was recognised by Manolo Sainz so one would assume he was on a MZ programme from the start.

But with LA the transformation is evident.
Bigger cheater? Meh - no, better cheater might be more apt - and having friends in low places like the UCI helps too.

 

[The Hitch]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is coming in 31st in his first Tour at 22 and winning at 24 (with no dnf's), equate to being a nobody in his early 20's?

ffs .Did i say young lance was better than or equal to young contador.

read my post, did i say that.


oh wait. no i didnt.

I made the point that they were both unknown.
If i said that both alberto contador and david moncoutie were unknown when they were 20 years old, does that mean moncoutie is better than or equal to contador.
Think about that long and hard ok.
When you figure out the answer read the second part of this post.




Of course Lance is not as good as Contador, and Contadors early results are vastly superior to those of Armstrong. But Contador finished 31st in his first tour. That is under the radar isnt it? quick, who finished 31st in 2009?
Lance dnfd so he was obviously not seen as a future gc contender.

What i said was, when you look at their results, neither was making a name for themselves as a future multi gc winner. Contador was doing a lot better, but people werent exactly pointing to him and calling him the next big thing.
Today we call EBH andy schleck, Peter Sagan etc the next big things. but what if the next big thing is someone we havent noticed who has been quietly winning a few lesser stage races and coming 30th ish in gc's like contador, or even dnfing like lance.

 

[rhubroma]

I really don't get that logic. It almost implies that if AC was on a good program from the start, which seems very likely, he's naturally better than armstrong who got with the picture properly later in his career
That seems a fundamental illogic around here for many, armstrongs a bigger cheat because he started cheating later - with consequently a much more noticeable improvement in his results.

No I wasn't emphasizing LA's "cheating," which really is an insignificant part of my "logic".

The logic was wrapped up in agreeing with those who believe that a "pure blood" has the capacity to win the Tour within his first years as a pro a la Hinault, Lemond, and the greats of the past. AC had this quality, Armstrong did not and came by it under a specific set of subsequent circumstances.

I don't agree with those who say that AC simply got "on a good program from the start," because in Spain already as an amatuer he did things on climbs (he was called "Pantani") and against the clock that demonstrated his phenom status and potentiality to be a future GT star. Chemicals are not the decisive issue here, but his natural class. At least in terms of a precociousness that Armstrong didn't exhibit at such an early career phase. This, at least, is not disputable. One can argue that Armstrong simply "found" his potentiality at a later point. Ok, I can accept that. However I personally believe that Contador is the bigger phenomenon.

Time will tell. But he has age and his allready stunning previous accomplishments to leave me optomistic that my opinon is not ill-founded. And he doesn't necessarilly have to beat LA's Tour record to do it.

I see him capable of winning 10 GTs though, and this, for me, says it all.

 

[MacRoadie]

ffs .Did i say young lance was better than or equal to young contador.

read my post, did i say that.


oh wait. no i didnt.

I made the point that they were both unknown.
.

You said:

interesting how in their early 20's contador and armstrong were nobodies, dnf ing tours

Nobodies and dnf'ing Tours. Both points patently false re: Contador.

If you start a post with such a broad and inaccurate statement, then there is no reason to ascribe any relevance to the remainder of the post. That Contador was unknown to you at 24 (or 20 as you seem to have moved the goal post re: "early 20's") does not mean that he was a "nobody" to the rest of the cycling community.

 

[The Hitch]

You said:


Nobodies and dnf'ing Tours. Both points patently false re: Contador.

If you start a post with such a broad and inaccurate statement, then there is no reason to ascribe any relevance to the remainder of the post. That Contador was unknown to you at 24 (or 20 as you seem to have moved the goal post re: "early 20's") does not mean that he was a "nobody" to the rest of the cycling community.

I concede that my original post can be construed as suggesting that contador dnf'd but thats not what i meant and you know that contador didnt dnf. and in no way would that suggest that young lance and young contador were equal anyway

obviously i dont mean that contador was nobody after he won the tour, or even after he won paris nice. But before that, 2 or 3 years before, he was just another good young guy in the peloton and as i said, wasnt being considered the next big thing, like a few riders in their early 20's are today.

 

[McLovin]

you must have been ullrich's fan so that you should have seen armstrong and his strenght. i am\was an ultramega big ullrich fan and i can swear you this...actually i hate to say this but armstrong on hautacam in 2000, alp d'huez in 2001, plateau beille in 2004 and courchevell in 2005 was frightfull at least. you'll never ever see contador making 2-3 minutes on every other rider like LA on hautacam for example. contador is a joke...he's yellowing his green astana pants to put ( together with shlecks) 1 minute on armstrong ( 38) on petit st bernard, and armstrong was puting 4 minutes on ullrich on hautacam. they both like niddles but they are in different leagues....o well...they were.