Fernandez said:
Except for Hinault, at the time when these riders competed there was no specialization and if you were better rider you won everything. If you put these riders in nowadays the wouldnt win a tenth of they won, and if you put someone like Valverde at that times he would have won more than Merckx. What for me makes Valverde close to a legend its his capacity of being competitive all year long, year after year. And what makes Contador a legend its his capacity of winning lots of different stage races year after year against lots of different contenders.
The first sentence is not true in the slightest and shows a lack of knowledge of those eras. In Merckx's days, riders like Roger Rosiers or Marc Demeyer specialised in cobble races and were known for that, Fuente and Galdós among others were specialised in climbing, Van Impe or Thévenet in stage races and to some extent hilly classics, Rik Van Linden or Jacques Esclassan couldn't do anything but sprinting, Danny Clark and Graeme Gilmore specialised in Madison track racing, etc. The complete riders were simply the best but a happy few. Usually that's because they were great stamina riders: Merckx, Gimondi, Poulidor to some extent De Vlaeminck or Zoetemelk.
The idea that oldtimers would be totally outclassed by present-day riders is ridiculous. Merckx on a stationary bike and with no ventilation could 455w in an hour. Today, only Cancellara or T. Martin could do that, and with ventilation. In the 1970 Paris-Roubaix, raced in terrible weather condition, made an average speed of 41.644kmh (on a normal bike, and weighing ~9kg and with very irregular cobbles; though should be said they had head Wind for the first two hours). In 2009 on dry conditions, with a "Paris-Roubaix special" bike and 2kg lighter, Tom Boonen made 41.342kmh (considered his finest performance). Fabian Cancellara's in 2010 - in dry though cloudy conditions - was a 39.325kmh average speed (also considered his finest performance).
Judge by yourself.
The reasons for the present-day specialisation are numerous. The main one can't be discussed on this section. However what can be pointed to is the polarisation of the race routes. Nowadays, hilly classics organizers put the emphasis on hard finales, whether with an uphill finish or a hard climb in the final ten kilometers. In mountain stage races, the mountain stages would typically finish with an MTF while in the old days, most of them finished in the valley (not talking about old these crap climbs like Angliru or Zoncolan that look more like a circus than real cycling and directly eliminate the most complete riders who are too heavy for that kind of stuff). When Rik Van Looy won the Walloon Arrow in 1968, it was seen as the crowning achievement of his career, the only classic he missed. But at that time the Arrow finished in Charleroi and the main climb of the finale was the Mur de Thuin. Those who've watched this year's last stage of the Tour of Wallonia could notice that the Mur de Thuin is a slightly cobbled short climb. So Flandrian type! So imagine the Arrow had the same route today, Boonen and Cancellara would make pretty good chance (I'm not even talking about the cobbles and bad asphalt that you then had). Today on the Mur de Huy, impossible! And don't tell me that it's a harder race today! This year's race was 205km, in 1968, it was 222.5km. In 1972 it was 249km. Generally speaking, races are nowadays much shorter than used to be, especially some classics or semi-classics which can no longer exceed 210km (thanks the UCI under Verbrugghen's leadership !!!; races like the Tre Valle Varesine or the Omloop easily exceeded 220km before 1990), while organizers are looking for very steep climbs (in finales) to make up for that shorter distance. It's pretty telling that most riders with a chance in GT's and hilly classics now rarely have a 65+kg form weight. How then can you expect them to be complete riders! Merckx, Gimondi or De Vlaeminck all had a 71/72kg form weight for a 180 to 184cm height. Riders like Gilbert or Rodriguez wouldn't have won so many races in older eras. They made the most of this new type of hilly routes. They've capitalised on the hard climbs in finales (Mur de Huy, Saint-Nicolas, Cauberg, etc) to show their amazing explosiveness (Michel Wuyts said it in the book he made with Mart Smeets, I think). But when it comes to consolidate a gap that they were able to create in a climb, they fall short. Example of that is the 2011 Tour of Flanders when Gilbert attacked in the Bosberg and was caught soon after. Gilbert is an explosive rider but he does not have the stamina (TT skills) for a long breakaway ride. Paris-Roubaix and to some extent the Tour of Flanders are the two last races that favour a stamina type of riders. The final climb of the Tour of Flanders whether on the old or the new route is 10km away from finish. It's rare these days. In my opinion that is still where you'd find the best current riders, for these reasons.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram