Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread

[Salvarani]

Maybe he would be like TDG

Not a bad shout

 

[gregrowlerson]

Ah Ha! Now the Remco thread title is starting to make sense!

 

[KZD]

Merckx has 11 GTs, 19 monuments and 3 Worlds. Pogacar has a looooooooooooong way to go yet. Most realistically I think he can be the greatest in modern times. That is post Hinault.

I am sure that Pogačar won't win 19 monuments and even 11 GTs looks unlikely but I can see him reaching the level of Hinault that won 10 GTs, 5 monuments and 1 World title.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

2 monuments at 23 is not a bad score yet. Could be up to 4 this year if he wins LBL and Lombardia again. And could be up to 4 GT if he wins Tour + Vuelta

 

[hayneplane]

What does he need to achieve in order to be considered the GOAT? His achievements can never rival Eddy, but we are in a different, far more competitive era.
It is crazy the level he is going to have to maintain, year after year, in order to get his Palmares on a level that is in the discussion.

But there really is no limit to what this guy can win:
GC+stages in all three Grand Tours
All 5 Monuments
World Championship
Olympics
GC+stages in all the big seven stage races
Big non-Monument one-day races

I think some combination of most of these achievements and 100-150 career victories, in the current era, as a GC rider, would be enough to cement him as the greatest cyclist of all time.

Needs
Worlds or Olympics
Min 4/5 different monuments
All 3 GT GCs
Multiple wins of Amstel Gold, Strade, Gent-Wevelgem level races
Multiple big 7 stage race wins and boatload of stages

He already has 37 wins according to PCS and is on a strike rate of 3 stage wins per Grand Tour so barring injury 125 would seem to be his absolute floor in terms of wins and likely close to 200.

 

[Extinction]

Perhaps not, but something close to that. When Merckx won 30 in total, 33 if you include the Worlds, 12 or 15 doesn't cut it for Pogacar.

I'm not so sure. Merckx came through during his best years in the late 60s early 70s, when they still approached the calendar and rode like they had since Coppi-Bartali practically. The sport changed incredibly within ten years after the Belgian retired and has become ever more refined in preparation and team approach ever since. I can't imagine him winning half of what he did back then, were he racing today. The overall level is simply too high, the training and equipment too sofisticated for it to be possible.

 

[OlavEH]

I'm not so sure. Merckx came through during his best years in the late 60s early 70s, when they still approached the calendar and rode like they had since Coppi-Bartali practically. The sport changed incredibly within ten years after the Belgian retired and has become ever more refined in preparation and team approach ever since. I can't imagine him winning half of what he did back then, were he racing today. The overall level is simply too high, the training and equipment too sofisticated for it to be possible.

Agreed, but he must be closer than less than half of Merck's number big wins. At least all three GTs + 4 or 5 out 6 monuments + Worlds and close to 20 big wins in total. And that is a minimum.

For instance, I would say that the following is not enough:

5 TDF, 2 Vuelta, 1 Giro including TDF - Vuelta double
3 Lombardia, 2 LBL, 1 RVV, 1 Worlds

 

[Extinction]

Agreed, but he must be closer than less than half of Merck's number big wins. At least all three GTs + 4 or 5 out 6 monuments + Worlds and close to 20 big wins in total. And that is a minimum.

For instance, I would say that the following is not enough:

5 TDF, 2 Vuelta, 1 Giro including TDF - Vuelta double
3 Lombardia, 2 LBL, 1 RVV, 1 Worlds

I suppose, if you concede that Merckx today could do significantly better. But I'm not sure. In any case, if he wins 5 Tours, a Giro-Tour double, 2 Tour-Vuelta doubles with the Monuments and Wolds you have, then I think he stands with Eddy and Bernard.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Hot take but I think Merkcx wouldnt do that well in the present era. Rouleurs had massive advantages back then because of worse bikes and weak domestiques. I dont evem know what races he would be world class at

Despite his size Merckx won plenty of mountain stages, also against strong climbers. He had a huge engine. Obviously, as you said, weaker teams meant that even easier stages could provide big time differences (which is not the case today) and a lot of TTs favoured Eddy as well.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Hot take but I think Merkcx wouldnt do that well in the present era. Rouleurs had massive advantages back then because of worse bikes and weak domestiques. I dont evem know what races he would be world class at

Merckx likes to run his mouth a lot about current cyclists, while in reality it was more a matter of ''in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king''. Roughly 99% of the peloton smoked 2 packs per day. The peloton consisted of Belgians, French, some more Belgians, Italians, a few Spaniards, a couple of Dutchmen who had lost their way and accidentally wound up in a bike race, and some more French. Oh, and if you got caught doping, you got suspended for at least a few weeks. Some of the riders he likes to criticize, would kick his ass all over the place had they raced in the same era.

 

[tobydawq]

Merckx likes to run his mouth a lot about current cyclists, while in reality it was more a matter of ''in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king''. Roughly 99% of the peloton smoked 2 packs per day. The peloton consisted of Belgians, French, some more Belgians, Italians, a few Spaniards, a couple of Dutchmen who had lost their way and accidentally wound up in a bike race, and some more French. Oh, and if you got caught doping, you got suspended for at least a few weeks. Some of the riders he likes to criticize, would kick his ass all over the place had they raced in the same era.

Wasn't he your uncle or something?

I think maybe that's a little too hot of a take but there is definitely something to it. Except that there were also some competent Swedes.

 

[Salvarani]

If riders "today" was in that era, they would have probably grown up and behaved in the same way as everyone else back then. It is pointless to compare eras or who would have beat who etc. There are just too many different variables and circumstances.

It was a different type of sport back then. Riders of today might not have fared as well back then. As riders back then wouldnt have fared well today. We just dont know or can tell.

So at the end of the day you have to look at what they achieved and won. No one comes close to Merckx in that regard right now, no matter how you twist and turn it.

 

[tobydawq]

So at the end of the day you have to look at what they achieved and won. No one comes close to Merckx in that regard right now, no matter how you twist and turn it.

No, that's not a fair conclusion. His numbers are unimaginable today.

 

[gregrowlerson]

If riders "today" was in that era, they would have probably grown up and behaved in the same way as everyone else back then. It is pointless to compare eras or who would have beat who etc. There are just too many different variables and circumstances.

It was a different type of sport back then. Riders of today might not have fared as well back then. As riders back then wouldnt have fared well today. We just dont know or can tell.

So at the end of the day you have to look at what they achieved and won. No one comes close to Merckx in that regard right now, no matter how you twist and turn it.

Very good point about being influenced by one's surroundings, but I think the main point from many is that post Merckx the sport became a lot more international.

 

[Salvarani]

Wasn't he your uncle or something?

I think maybe that's a little too hot of a take but there is definitely something to it. Except that there were also some competent Swedes.

Yeah... Gösta Petterson won the Giro in 1971 and the best out of the "Fåglum" brothers.

Later came riders like Berndt Johansson. Olympic gold.

Sven-Åke Nilsson was a good rider.

Tommy Prim finished 2nd twice and 4th twice, in the Giro.

 

[Salvarani]

No, that's not a fair conclusion. His numbers are unimaginable today.

I guess thats why he is still regarded as the greatest.

 

[Salvarani]

Very good point about being influenced by one's surroundings, but I think the main point from many is that post Merckx the sport became a lot more international.

Yes, it is a different sport now.

But thats why you really cant compare them. Like I said, it is so many things that are different.

The only thing tangible are the wins in the biggest races. I mean, Merckx still had to win them in the end. His hunger for success is what made him great. His "cannibal" attitude and he had to be great to win everything that he did. Whether he was so much better or the competition so much worse is circumstantial. Im sure most of his rivals hated him so it is not like he won everything by luck. They also had way worse equipment. Things we now know about nutrition and training, that they didnt back then. It is not comparable.

Merckx was the greatest rider of the 20th century. Pog (?) might be the best rider of the 21st century.

Best of all time? We dont know the future. We only know the past.

 

[Netserk]

No, that's not a fair conclusion. His numbers are unimaginable today.

They were also unimaginable in the 50's and the 80's, right?

The numbers of anyone not named Merckx are very imaginable on the other hand. Anquetil's wins, Coppi's wins, Hinault's wins, Kelly's wins and Jalabert's wins are all imaginable today or in the near future.

 

[SafeBet]

They were also unimaginable in the 50's and the 80's, right?

The numbers of anyone not named Merckx are very imaginable on the other hand. Anquetil's wins, Coppi's wins, Hinault's wins, Kelly's wins and Jalabert's wins are all imaginable today or in the near future.

The numbers of Merckx were unimaginable even during his times.
Compare Merckx to the second best rider of his generation: Felice Gimondi.

GTs: Merckx 11 - Gimondi 5
Classics: Merckx 19 - Gimondi 4
WCs: Merckx 3 - Gimondi 1

So Mercks won three times more than the second best rider of his times (33 big wins to 10).
We can do the same with De Vlaeminck, who won 11 Monuments but no GTs and no WCs. Or any other rider competing against Merckx.

 

[tobydawq]

They were also unimaginable in the 50's and the 80's, right?

The numbers of anyone not named Merckx are very imaginable on the other hand. Anquetil's wins, Coppi's wins, Hinault's wins, Kelly's wins and Jalabert's wins are all imaginable today or in the near future.

What do you think Bartali's and Coppi's numbers would have been without WW2?

 

[Blanco]

What do you think Bartali's and Coppi's numbers would have been without WW2?

Closer, but not like Merckx...

 

[Jungle Cycle]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1511261338097569793

View: https://twitter.com/eltiodeldato/status/1511261338097569793

 

[Red Rick]

I really can't take 1:1 comparisons seriously to days when the sport was much less professional and international.

 

[Gigs_98]

So, I haven' followed this season at all and am generally pretty much out of the loop when it comes to cycling this year. I saw some races and know the most important results but when I watched the highlights from Sunday Pogacar's performance still completely and utterly shocked me.

Now I have to ask you, did people on this forum see this performance coming? I guess he won SB which suits cobbles guys top but still, this seems so insane. I basically grew up learning that doing what he is doing right now has become completely impossible in modern times just for him to disprove that in the most impressive way imaginable.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Not really, no. He has been riding like that the whole season, and believe it or not, Flanders suits him pretty well these days with this final (apart from the last 13 k or so).

Also, I think you are doing a huge disservice to yourself to not at least watch the big classics. These years are something truly special and something that we may look back at in 10 years as the absolute golden period.