What does Contador have to do to be the greatest of all time?

[hfer07]

is this thread even worth discussing at all?
I like Contador a lot- but whoever said or dared to compare him to the Greatest is either clueless in cycling history or an AC fanboy.

EDDY MERXX=GREATEST CYCLIST EVER

 

[Tangled Tango]

10 pounds?? You know Eddy's hour record bike weighed a little over 5.5 kg...

Track bike, not to be compared to road bikes.

 

[Tangled Tango]

Vino is riding the Giro as team leader. But I do agree with you that Giro is getting the shaft this year by most of the contenders.

That´s probably because last year´s Giro took too much out of them to perform well in the Tour. The guys now on Shack were constantly complaining about it so it´s no surprise they´d prefer to be idolized in Cal. instead of struggling in Italia and of course Levi must defend.

 

[red_flanders]

Having won all grand tours, sharing this honour with only four other riders, whose record does he have to beat to become the great rider of all time? Eddy Merckx?

Have you seen Merckx's palmares? He won over 500 races, a THIRD of the races he ever entered. This is fun:

Win rate

1965: 13%
1966: 21%
1967: 23%
1968: 24%
1969: 33%
1970: 37%
1971: 45%
1972: 39%
1973: 37%
1974: 27%
1975: 25%
1976: 13%

I don't think we can even imagine what it would be like to watch someone do this today. These are just WINS. Not placings. Can you imagine his placings record? I can't.

Here are his palmares:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx#Erelijst_.28de_belangrijkste_overwinningen.29

It will take some time to scroll through it all. Enjoy!

There isn't another rider with half his complete palmares. It's really hard to even get your head around how someone could dominate like this. I watched the end of it as a kid in Belgium in the summers, and even my uncle (fanatical flemish cycling fan) was tired of him. Of course as soon as he was gone he was complaining about the lack of great Belgian riders...

 

[Anonymous]

I would have to disagree here, bike weight is relative (Eddy's competition were not riding AC's bikes). Second, there is more money being poured into the sport allowing the top riders to pick and choose their race and peak for different events. If AC won more GT than Eddy it would be against top riders who have targeted each tour as the one they were going for.

As for the conditions, that is also relative (to a certain extent) since all the riders Eddy's was competing against had to ride the same conditions.

That being, said I doubt that AC will have the Classic wins, or the three doubles that Merckx had just to match.

I appreciate the conditions where the same for all riders, as they are now, my point partly was that AC given those conditions and technology would not be winning as many GT's as he is now..

Actually, if they where to run a tour with bikes a bit heavier, roads with poor surfaces, stages longer, carrying their own tyres etc, then i think of all the current crop cancellara would be the one with the potential to win two grand tours in a year.. AC would be reduced to fighting for the polka dot jersey..

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm, tough crowd. I feel like I belong in the topic, but don't fit into the conversation. Greatest became "most complete", and Contador, and apparently no one else, can ever be considered the greatest because of bike technology, road improvements, and his Grand Tour victories only count as four wins. And climber sized guys can't be the best ever because in the good old days they wouldn't have been big and strong enough.

It's way easier in pro tennis. Rod Laver was brilliant, won the Grand Slam a couple of times, would have won more but he turned pro and wasn't allowed at Wimbledon or other amateur events for a number of years before the "Open" era started. He played with a heavy wooden racket (until he endorsed a crap aluminum one), played in shoes with no technology, on grass, red clay, green clay, Astroturf, cement, and if I remember the story correctly, once on rolled out cow dung. But people, including Laver himself, had no qualms about calling Pete Sampras the best ever, and it only took a few years before Roger Federer was awarded the moniker.

I keep repeating this, but Contador just turned 27. He's got four Grand Tour victories, and has time to race two more before he's the age LA was when he won the first of seven Tours. It's possible he could have six Grand Tour victories before 28, and he could decide to dedicate himself to becoming a classics rider, or whatever.

Since we're allowed to adjust the question as it suits us, I'll respond to, "What would Contador have to do to be considered the best rider of HIS time?"

Stay healthy and don't retire early.

 

[issoisso]

Since we're allowed to adjust the question as it suits us, I'll respond to, "What would Contador have to do to be considered the best rider of HIS time?"

Develop the stamina required to win a classic other than the Flèche. Care about more than 3-4 races per year.

And climber sized guys can't be the best ever because in the good old days they wouldn't have been big and strong enough.

On the other side of the coin, given that cycling was much less controlled tactically, the cream had a lot more trouble rising to the top and won far less races.

 

[red_flanders]

Hmmm, tough crowd. I feel like I belong in the topic, but don't fit into the conversation. Greatest became "most complete", and Contador, and apparently no one else, can ever be considered the greatest because of bike technology, road improvements, and his Grand Tour victories only count as four wins. And climber sized guys can't be the best ever because in the good old days they wouldn't have been big and strong enough.

It's way easier in pro tennis. Rod Laver was brilliant, won the Grand Slam a couple of times, would have won more but he turned pro and wasn't allowed at Wimbledon or other amateur events for a number of years before the "Open" era started. He played with a heavy wooden racket (until he endorsed a crap aluminum one), played in shoes with no technology, on grass, red clay, green clay, Astroturf, cement, and if I remember the story correctly, once on rolled out cow dung. But people, including Laver himself, had no qualms about calling Pete Sampras the best ever, and it only took a few years before Roger Federer was awarded the moniker.

I keep repeating this, but Contador just turned 27. He's got four Grand Tour victories, and has time to race two more before he's the age LA was when he won the first of seven Tours. It's possible he could have six Grand Tour victories before 28, and he could decide to dedicate himself to becoming a classics rider, or whatever.

Since we're allowed to adjust the question as it suits us, I'll respond to, "What would Contador have to do to be considered the best rider of HIS time?"

Stay healthy and don't retire early.

Greatest means greatest. In this sport, it's really easy, and there isn't any question. One man's palmares so blatantly exceeds anyone else's (double or triple the next rider's) that there's no issue.

Of HIS time? Totally different.

 

[Digger]

A couple of classics and five tour de france, as well as five altogether between Vuelta and Giro.

 

[dotcycling]

.... Fignon was the last GT winner to have won a monument (MSR).....

.....

Nope, it was Kelly.... Lombardy in 1991 and then MSR in 1992


King Kelly was also the 3rd most successful monument rider of all time

 

[Mellow Velo]

Nope, it was Kelly.... Lombardy in 2001 and then MSR in 2002

King Kelly was also the 3rd most successful monument rider of all time

Huh?
I think you'll find you are a decade out with those dates.
Kelly finally climbed off, in 1994........

 

[dotcycling]

Huh?
I think you'll find you are a decade out with those dates.
Kelly finally climbed off, in 1994........

Yup ... I shouldnt be posting so late in the evening... corrected... but the point still stands

 

[bianchigirl]

Anyway, shouldn't it be the little Prince (Giro & Lombardy) - and Jalabert won Vuelta and M-SR in 1994 (won all the jerseys at the Vuelta, too - a feat only achieved by one Eddy Merckx)?

 

[Angliru]

...and since he didn't specify in the same year, you'd have to include:

Valverde (Vuelta 2009/LBL 2006 & 2008)
Diluca (Giro 2007 and LBL 2007)

 

[elapid]

Hmmm, tough crowd. I feel like I belong in the topic, but don't fit into the conversation. Greatest became "most complete"

No, this is the opening line from the OP: "Love him or hate him, he must be the most complete rider in the pro peloton at the moment. Do you agree or disagree?"

It was always about the most complete rider. This of course leads to comparisons with the most complete rider of yesteryear, Eddy Merckx, who is also the greatest cyclist of any generation, regardless of equipment or competition. Then finally there are valid comparisons to the most complete riders in the current peloton and AC does not rank in this category because he has no results in classics races. AC is, however, the best stage racer in the current peloton and definitely has the potential to be one of the best, but only time will tell. He still has eight riders in front of him with more GT wins, including Eddy with 11 GT wins, and ultimately it will be the number of GT wins which will serve as the benchmark by which AC will be judged.

 

[Anonymous]

AC the most complete rider ... never. There is no way he can be compared to Eddy Merckx, as many have already said in this thread. Eddy is the only rider to have won all three GTs (5 TdFs, 5 Giros, 1 Vuelta) and all five of the cycling monuments (7 MSRs, 2 Rondes, 3 PRs, 5 LBLs, 2 Giro di Lombardias) as well as being thrice WC. In the 1969, he won the yellow, green and polka dot jerseys. In 1972, after winning the TdF, Giro and four classics, he broke the hour record (which stood for 13 years). From 1969 to 1973, he won between 33-45% of races he competed in. Incomparable. Look at his major wins by year:
1966 - MSR
1967 - MSR, La Fleche Wallone, WC
1968 - PR, Giro
1969 - MSR, Ronde, LBL, TdF
1970 - TdF, Giro
1971 - MSR, LBL, TdF, WC, Giro di Lombardia
1972 - MSR, LBL, TdF, Giro, Giro di Lombardia
1973 - PR, LBL, Giro, Vuelta
1974 - TdF, Giro, WC
1975 - MSR, Ronde, LBL
1976 - MSR

But there were also many other great riders who would rank above AC as more complete riders. Four riders have won a GT and Monument in the same year: Eddy, Coppi, Bobet and Hinault. Look at their records and you'll see much more complete riders than AC:
- Coppi: 5 Giros, 2 TdFs, 1 WC, 3 MSRs, 1 PR, 1 La Fleche Wallone, 5 Giro di Lombardias
- Bobet: 3 TdFs, 1 WC, 1 MSR, 1 Giro di Lombardia, 1 Ronde
- Hinault: 5 TdFs, 3 Giros, 2 Vueltas, 1 PR, 2 LBLs, 2 Giro di Lombardias, 1 WC, 2 La Fleche Wallones, 1 Amstel Gold, 1 Ghent-Wevelgem

Roche won the triple crown (TdF, Giro and World Championship) in 1987, which Eddy did in 1974. Fignon was the last GT winner to have won a monument (MSR).

So who IMO is the most complete rider in the current peloton? Well, doping aside, there are some legitimate claims for:
- Valverde: 1 Vuelta, 2 Dauphine, 2 LBLs, 1 La Fleche Wallone
- Cunego: 1 Giro, 3 Tour di Lombardias, 1 Amstel Gold
- Vinokourov: 1 Vuelta, 1 Paris-Nice, 1 Tour de Suisse, 1 Dauphine, 1 LBL, 1 Amstel Gold
- Di Luca: 1 Giro, 1 LBL, 1 La Fleche Wallone,, 1 Amstel Gold, 1 Tour di Lombardia
- Evans: 2nd twice TdF, 3rd and 4th Vuelta, 2nd twice Dauphine, WC, 2nd and 5th La Fleche Wallone
- Andy Schleck: 2nd Giro, 2nd TdF, 1 LBL, 2nd La Fleche Wallone, 4th Giro di Lombardia

Vino's too old, Cunego is concentrating on the classics and GT stage wins, and Di Luca is suspended. Valverde is probably the most complete rider of the remaining three candidates, but is not as good a climber as either Evans or Andy Schleck which tends to limit his GT opportunities. However, he is a better sprinter and overall rider and that suites his classics aspirations. He may also be out of contention depending on the upcoming CAS ruling. For the future though, Andy Schleck and Edvald Boasson Hagen are the two most likely riders to win GTs and classics.

As for the best stage racer, AC is obviously the best of the current riders. But the best ever? He has to win many more stage races, both GTs and others, before he gets into the same realm as Merckx (11), Hinault (10), Anquetil (8), Coppi (7), Indurain (7), Gimondi (5) and Bartali (5). AC races on instinct and his tactical knowledge and ability to read a race is definitely questionable. While he has the talent now to get away with that deficiency, he will get older and slower and this may not always be the case. As for beating the total number of GT wins, he will likely need to target more than one GT per year but it is also very difficult to win two GTs per year (only 10 riders, including AC, have achieved this feat; Merckx did the TdF-Giro double three times and the Giro-Vuelta double once, while Coppi, Indurain and Hinault did the TdF-Giro double twice).

This just sums it up so well that I felt the need to re-quote it, and just add some of my own thoughts to the thread....

------

AC is a superstar, a climbing sensation, who can now TT with the best (clause. when distance does not exceed 40km ) in the grand tours and stage races. However, his body type is suited to grand tours, and certainly not paris-roubaix.

Merckx is one of a kind and with the current degree of specialisation in the pro peleton, especially in the last 10 years, i can't see anyone emulating his feats. Sure you can be a GT/hilly classics rider to broaden your endeavours, but there is no place for an all-3-GTs/all-5-Monuments/any-WC-course style rider anymore.

I'm not a big fan of comparing eras across any sports because there are usually too many variables, but I think in this case, to use a favourite forum phrase, I think we can all agree that AC will never be greater than Merckx when comparing palmares.

 

[Bike Boy]

Like theswordsman I am a bit confused.
The headline features this question:

What does Contador have to do to be the greatest of all time?

While in the text right beneath it, you can read a different question:

Love him or hate him, he must be the most complete rider in the pro peloton at the moment. Do you agree or disagree?

As the first Question has been subject to an interesting debate I think it’s somewhat pointless. So I would like to answer the next question.

It has already been answered why he (Contador) isn’t the most complete rider in the peloton at the moment (he makes no results outside of stage races).

These are the riders I would suggest:

Valverde
Di Luca
A. Schleck
Cunego
Vinokourov
I would like to have included Bettini but sadly he has retired
I would also like to have included Rebellin but that’s not justifiable in his current situation

And as I see it Valverde is the one who stands out the most.

In the future maybe:

E. B. Hagen
F. Cancellara
A. Contador
T. Martin
J. Hoogerland
L. L. Sanchez

Maybe even guys like J. Bobridge and T. Phinney. But let’s see how they do in the next two years. That will tell a lot.

 

[Kingsley A]

Hmmm, tough crowd. I feel like I belong in the topic, but don't fit into the conversation. Greatest became "most complete", and Contador, and apparently no one else, can ever be considered the greatest because of bike technology, road improvements, and his Grand Tour victories only count as four wins. And climber sized guys can't be the best ever because in the good old days they wouldn't have been big and strong enough.

It's way easier in pro tennis. Rod Laver was brilliant, won the Grand Slam a couple of times, would have won more but he turned pro and wasn't allowed at Wimbledon or other amateur events for a number of years before the "Open" era started. He played with a heavy wooden racket (until he endorsed a crap aluminum one), played in shoes with no technology, on grass, red clay, green clay, Astroturf, cement, and if I remember the story correctly, once on rolled out cow dung. But people, including Laver himself, had no qualms about calling Pete Sampras the best ever, and it only took a few years before Roger Federer was awarded the moniker.

I keep repeating this, but Contador just turned 27. He's got four Grand Tour victories, and has time to race two more before he's the age LA was when he won the first of seven Tours. It's possible he could have six Grand Tour victories before 28, and he could decide to dedicate himself to becoming a classics rider, or whatever.

Since we're allowed to adjust the question as it suits us, I'll respond to, "What would Contador have to do to be considered the best rider of HIS time?"

Stay healthy and don't retire early.

You want to compare cycling to tennis, I will compare it instead to cricket.

There are only two sportsmen in history that I can think of where it looks like there legacy will never be surpassed. The one is Eddy Merckx the other is Sir Donald Bradman. They are two people who will probably live on as the greatest exponents of their sport for many years, maybe even centuries to come.

OK, Bradman was a specialist,dominating only one aspect of his sport, whilst Merckx dominated them all but nobody has ever been as dominate in a batting line-up as the Don was. A 99 average is unbelievable. There is no one who has come close. Not Sir Vivian Richards, not Sachin Tendulkar, not Brian Lara, nobody! The laws of the game have changed. Leg Theory or Bodyline bowling became illegal during Bradman's time. The one bouncer per over rule that was brought in during Richards' time has continued to make things easier for batsmen. Despite this and despite his career ran from the 20s to the 40s, it remains the case that there has never been anyone, anywhere in the world that has been able to match the achievements of Bradman with the bat.

Bradman's record has stood for 80ish years and is not questioned except by curious youngster who quickly come to understand how amazing the man was. So it is for Merckx except his record is only around the 40 years mark.

What does Alberto need to do to be considered the greatest of all time? He has to win a minimum of 12 GTs, he has to win every classic going (especially Paris-Tours) and most of them multiple times.

Merckx and Bradman seem to me to be unique in their dominance of their sport. Whilst it is always possible that someone will come along who is better than one of them, it seems unlikely that anyone will do so in my lifetime or that of any children I may one day have.

 

[Bike Boy]

Damn... I made a pretty big mistake in that last post. totally forgot that Di Luca also has a doping suspension.

screw it, lets celebrate all the bad guys Landis, Hamilton, Rumsas, Sella, Ricco and I could go on and on

just kidding

 

[franciep10]

Unless he starts winning classics at a rapid rate he will never equal merckx accomplishments but he can definitely become the greatest stage racer ever and I think that is definitely in his grasp but he needs to do more than the tour, I think he needs to do the vuelta.

 

[blaxland]

as others have said unless he starts winning MSR or Fleche or Liege then he will never be better than Merckx....................but i think he could be the best gt rider of all time...only time will tell.

 

[Velo Dude]

Become Eddy Merckx.

 

[Anonymous]

Unless he starts winning classics at a rapid rate he will never equal merckx accomplishments but he can definitely become the greatest stage racer ever and I think that is definitely in his grasp but he needs to do more than the tour, I think he needs to do the vuelta.

I agree that he can become the greatest stage racer, but I actually think he needs to do the Giro more to confirm it. (i.e. if his two GTs per year are Tour-Giro it means a lot more than Tour-Vuelta)

The Giro is so much more prestigious than the Vuelta, and the Giro-Tour double is like - WOW... AC needs at least one Giro_Tour double to be considered the greatest IMO.

If he ever matches or beats Eddy's 11 GT wins, I'd say to be given the title of greatest stage racer ever he would also need to have at least 5 giros and at least 5 tours, same as eddy.

Hypothetically, if AC retired with 1 Giro, 7 tours, 4 Vuelta's (12 GTs to break record), i'd still give the crown of greatest stage racer to Eddy.

But thats just me..

 

[kurtinsc]

I agree that he can become the greatest stage racer, but I actually think he needs to do the Giro more to confirm it. (i.e. if his two GTs per year are Tour-Giro it means a lot more than Tour-Vuelta)

The Giro is so much more prestigious than the Vuelta, and the Giro-Tour double is like - WOW... AC needs at least one Giro_Tour double to be considered the greatest IMO.

If he ever matches or beats Eddy's 11 GT wins, I'd say to be given the title of greatest stage racer ever he would also need to have at least 5 giros and at least 5 tours, same as eddy.

Hypothetically, if AC retired with 1 Giro, 7 tours, 4 Vuelta's (12 GTs to break record), i'd still give the crown of greatest stage racer to Eddy.

But thats just me..

I doubt Contador would do the Giro often.

I could agree with you if AC gets to exactly 12... but if he hits 13 or 14 (even with only 1 being the Giro), I think he'd earn that title. While the Giro may have more prestige, it seems like the Vuelta often has better start lists as many riders who don't meet expectations in the Tour "try again" at the Vuelta.

Other then Italians... the Giro seems to often be overlooked by anyone who thinks they can compete in the Tour. I'm not sure the level of competition is any higher then the Vuelta these days.

 

[movingtarget]

Contador's Result List

Early days for Contador. He is a long way behind Armstrong, Hinault, Anquetil and some way behind Indurain and Lemond for versatility. He does not even approach Merckx. Merckx even won Six Day races on the track. Classics galore and multiple world titles and held the Hour record. Barring falls or illness it is hard to see anyone beating Contador in a grand tour at the moment. He is the best climber and much improved in the time trial. If his tactical sense improves, he will be even harder to beat. He rarely has a bad day unlike his adversaries and that is what made and makes Armstrong so good.