No he wouldnot be the same rider,otherwise he would won by 30 minutes.he would destroy them in gts and easy competative on flat,lol.
He’s a great climber for sure, it wouldn’t be the same in the 70s though.
Think of overall talent, Merckx was the best climber until he was injured, he was still arguably the best after this, he was the best tter, a capable sprinter, could beat the best on the cobbles and on the hilly monuments.
Pogacar is the best climber,but he isn’t the best tter, he isn’t a great sprinter, hasn’t shown he can beat the best on the cobbles.
As a pure climber? Well without going in to the clinic , yes he’s great, possibly better than Merckx ? In ever other area Merckx is the better rider. This is shown by Pog only having more Lombardies and nothing else.
Once again the strength in depth in Merckx time was much higher, I’ll take Gimondi, Poulidor and Zoetemelk over Vingegaard and Remco.
As an overall rider Merckx is simply light years ahead of Pogacar.