Who is the better cyclist: Merckx or Armstrong?

[VeloCity]

Armstrong: 7 Tours, 1 World, 2 major classics.

Contador: 2 Tours, 1 Giro, 1 Vuelta. Never tested positive. Still just 27 years old.

Couple of years from now it's going to be "who's better, Merckx or Contador?"

 

[cyclingfool]

... Vino is the only rider who rides that way now.

I think you mean Jens Voigt.

 

[BikeCentric]

Hmmm, interesting point of view, thanks for the clarification tho.

Personally, the bolded part is a tough question, because perhaps the view of doping has been the same for 50 years. The true fans condemn it, and the cyclists/managers enforce the code of silence becoz 'everybody else is doing it'.

Of course, Merckx's alleged stimulants do not compare to Armstrong's alleged EPO use in terms of the effect on the body, but EPO was not around for Merckx, so perhaps doping really is just doping...

What if Merckx was also a 'good responder' (to stimulants) like Armstrong was described to be (to EPO) ?

Just a rhetorical question really, but it makes you think about whether or not doping in the 60s/70s and doping in the 90s/2000s really are the same or different standards... I think the standards are the same, and by standards I mean 'what's expected of you as a pro-cyclist'

There is a moral side to this debate and also a purely physical side. From a moral point of view, any kind of PED usage is cheating and I'm sure we as fans would prefer that no riders do it.

Then from a purely physcial point of view there is the fact that amphetamines are just nowhere close to EPO/blood doping in terms of the absolute increase in performance a rider can attain from the PED. They are not in the same ballpark or even the same league.

As to the original topic for discussion, the OP is clearly trolling and we all know the obvious answer to his question.

 

[BikeCentric]

I think you mean Jens Voigt.

Good call. I would submit Paolo Bettini as well though he is of course retired.

 

[broken chain]

Neither.My vote goes to Abe Froman,sausage king of Chicago.

 

[Escarabajo]

Hmmm, interesting point of view, thanks for the clarification tho.

Personally, the bolded part is a tough question, because perhaps the view of doping has been the same for 50 years. The true fans condemn it, and the cyclists/managers enforce the code of silence becoz 'everybody else is doing it'.

Of course, Merckx's alleged stimulants do not compare to Armstrong's alleged EPO use in terms of the effect on the body, but EPO was not around for Merckx, so perhaps doping really is just doping...

What if Merckx was also a 'good responder' (to stimulants) like Armstrong was described to be (to EPO) ?

Just a rhetorical question really, but it makes you think about whether or not doping in the 60s/70s and doping in the 90s/2000s really are the same or different standards... I think the standards are the same, and by standards I mean 'what's expected of you as a pro-cyclist'

Ok, lets make it simple.

Merckx + Amphetamines > Armstrong + EPO & Blood Transfusions
Merckx + EPO & Blood Transfusions >>>>>>> Armstrong + EPO & Blood Transfusions
Clean Merckx >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clean Armstrong.

">" = Better

 

[David Suro]

Merckx is the greatest cyclist ever. Armstrong is the greatest TdF cyclist ever.

The palmares apeak for themselves.

 

[BroDeal]

Merckx is the greatest cyclist ever. Armstrong is the greatest TdF cyclist ever.

The palmares apeak for themselves.

No they don't. Armstrong is not even as good as Indurain. Indurain managed to win two Giro-Tour doubles. Armstrong was too scared to even try--or maybe he just could not stockpile enough blood to try.

 

[ravens]

Because we know now for sure that it is real, we judge the modern riders more harshly too. There is also the factor that the 90s is where the drugs really made a huge difference.

that's what I think has made this such a hot topic. I forget who it was (I don't think it was lemond, maybe it was hampsten) that said when some clydesdale went flying past him up a hill he knew the sport had been changed forever.

The correlation with PED's and the outcome of the race is the thing, for me.

 

[Inner Peace]

There is a moral side to this debate and also a purely physical side. From a moral point of view, any kind of PED usage is cheating and I'm sure we as fans would prefer that no riders do it.

Then from a purely physcial point of view there is the fact that amphetamines are just nowhere close to EPO/blood doping in terms of the absolute increase in performance a rider can attain from the PED. They are not in the same ballpark or even the same league.

As to the original topic for discussion, the OP is clearly trolling and we all know the obvious answer to his question.

Yeh I think I was focus on the moral debate, which is why I said doping is doping, cheating is cheating, but I absolutely agree the physical affects are completely incomparable

Ok, lets make it simple.

Merckx + Amphetamines > Armstrong + EPO & Blood Transfusions
Merckx + EPO & Blood Transfusions >>>>>>> Armstrong + EPO & Blood Transfusions
Clean Merckx >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clean Armstrong.

">" = Better

Heck, I think clean Lance would not be able to take Bassons.

There is no need to dumb it down for me like that, really..

I already agreed that Merckx >>>>>> Armstrong anyway!!

I was just discussing what 'Lifeshape' meant by different standards, which was a confusing statement by him/her as he/her seemed to justify doping by Merckx, but not justify doping by Armstrong.

Where I'm sitting, morally, doping is doping, as it is an unnatural and artificial way to enhance your performance above your natural potential. It's not cool in my book.

Economically however, I am cautious to lash out at dopers if I am certain that everybody else is doing it too. And I actually understand their reasoning for doping, albeit tho I do not respect it.

 

[luckyboy]

Merckx is the greatest cyclist ever. Armstrong is the greatest TdF cyclist ever.

The palmares apeak for themselves.

Just throwing this out there - anyone think of Merckx as a better TdF rider? He won by much greater margins than Lance (although it was a different time etc) - I think the least was around 9 minutes of Poulidor. He won the points and mountain classement multiple times, and would've won the young rider jersey in 69 if it existed. He won 34 stages too, compared to LA's 20/21 (?).

 

[BikeCentric]

Just throwing this out there - anyone think of Merckx as a better TdF rider? He won by much greater margins than Lance (although it was a different time etc) - I think the least was around 9 minutes of Poulidor. He won the points and mountain classement multiple times, and would've won the young rider jersey in 69 if it existed. He won 34 stages too, compared to LA's 20/21 (?).

Merckx also shoulda/woulda had 6 TDF's too if he didn't get punched in the kidney by some nutjob "fan."

 

[luckyboy]

And when he stayed away in 73.

 

[Magnific0]

The best ever ??

The best tour riders over the last 20 years added together cannot equal Merckx. His palmares added together would always beat their collective efforts. Contador will need to win worlds,hour record,several classics,six day races to even be considered a contender against Big Ted, and as for LA I would'nt even bother , unless we are talking the best bully,best liar,best PED's on two wheels.

 

[pmcg76]

Yeh I think I was focus on the moral debate, which is why I said doping is doping, cheating is cheating, but I absolutely agree the physical affects are completely incomparable



There is no need to dumb it down for me like that, really..

I already agreed that Merckx >>>>>> Armstrong anyway!!

I was just discussing what 'Lifeshape' meant by different standards, which was a confusing statement by him/her as he/her seemed to justify doping by Merckx, but not justify doping by Armstrong.

Where I'm sitting, morally, doping is doping, as it is an unnatural and artificial way to enhance your performance above your natural potential. It's not cool in my book.

Economically however, I am cautious to lash out at dopers if I am certain that everybody else is doing it too. And I actually understand their reasoning for doping, albeit tho I do not respect it.

I think a big part of the past v present doping is one of fans knowledge. Everyone was doing it before but it was all nod, wink, wink kind of stuff. Only those within the pro bubble knew what was going on for real. The fans like ourselves lived in a little fantasy world where we kinda ignored the signs, like the Lance fans of today.

Festina 98 changed that, it became public knowledge so it became impossible to ignore the signs. We couldnt really look back and be outraged at things that happened 10/20 years before. Dissappointed yes but not outraged, the past is the past.

Instead we looked to the present and futre, we hoped for a better future and were less willing to give guys a pass. I think we take offence nowadays because we know it very much exists but yet people are brazenly doping anyway. We feel we are being taken for a ride.

In my mind, a major reason the French took offence to Lance was they like many fans were hoping the sport would move forward post 98 but when Lance took of to Sestriere in 99, to them it was brazenly cheating on another level altogether, hence the headline 'On another planet'

The success of Lance destroyed their hopes of a new beginning and they didnt like it one bit. Lance is not to blame for the ingrained culture but he was the first post 98 Tour winner and he kicked **** big-time.

I think nowadays, your average fan finds it more offensive which is why there is more outrage. Combined with modern media outlets and a smaller world, there is more access to such info thus heightning awareness. Lets face it, fans from the US, Oz, GB didnt have many places to discuss cycling as we do now.

 

[MacRoadie]

I like this moral versus physical differentiation.

I think morally, most of us would agree that both Merckx and Armstrong cheated, they just cheated in different eras with potentially different benefit.

During Merckx' era, the "PED's" of choice were stimulants, mostly amphetamines. These were all medications that could be readily procurred by even the lowliest of domestiques, and there was literally no science behind their use (dosage, timing, analysis of net effect): basically, the thought was if it makes you feel more energetic and affords you the feeling that you can train and ride harder, then it must be good. Today, we know that tthe "benefits" of stimulants are somewhat more dubious, and in many cases are actually counter-productive.

Doping in the '80's and '90's took on the form of a science. Doping programs were created by, administered by, and monitored by doctors. PED's became state of the art medications, based on cutting edge medicine. Both the expense and complexity of the doping programs elevated to the point where simply the ability TO dope insured one an advantage, regardless of the measurable physical improvements.


One more thing, who here hasn't seen this photo:

It may be long before Merckx' era, but at one point it was believed that smoking actually benefitted the cyclist by opening or "expanding" the lungs. Carcinogens as PED's.

 

[BigBoat]

Lance doesnt have the natural talent Merckx has in his little toe. Now, both fully jacked it would be a good race...Maybe Lance but probably Merckx. I think Eddie is a nice guy, very giving & nice for his status in the sport. He cares about what he does and he never left to do anything else.

Merckx had passion and natural talent...And thats not something thats as valuable anymore now that any hack can hook with Ferrari and dope right off into outer space. Merckx was the one who took a liking to Lance Armstrong. Lance met Dr. Ferrari through Merckx.

 

[VeloCity]

Merckx is the greatest cyclist ever. Armstrong is the greatest TdF cyclist ever.

The palmares apeak for themselves.

Not quite that simple:

Tour Stage wins: Merckx 34 Armstrong 26
Most stage wins in a single TdF: Merckx 8 (twice) Armstrong 6
Days in yellow: Merckx 111 Armstrong 83
Green jerseys: Merckx 3 Armstrong 0
Climbers jerseys: Merckx 2 Armstrong 0
Yellow, green, and polka dot in the same Tour: Merckx 1 Armstrong 0
Combativity award: Merckx 4 Armstrong 0
Giro and Tour in same year: Merckx 3 Armstrong 0

Should be pointed out, too, that Merckx accomplished all of that while only competing in 8 Tours, while Armstrong has now started in 12 Tours. And not to mention that Merckx raced (and raced to win) the entire Classics season prior to the Tour and often the Giro as well, while Armstrong generally focused his entire season around the Tour.

Armstrong may have 2 more overall wins, but Merckx was the greatest TdF cyclist ever.

 

[Carboncrank]

I like this moral versus physical differentiation.

I think morally, most of us would agree that both Merckx and Armstrong cheated, they just cheated in different eras with potentially different benefit.

During Merckx' era, the "PED's" of choice were stimulants, mostly amphetamines. These were all medications that could be readily procurred by even the lowliest of domestiques, and there was literally no science behind their use (dosage, timing, analysis of net effect): basically, the thought was if it makes you feel more energetic and affords you the feeling that you can train and ride harder, then it must be good. Today, we know that tthe "benefits" of stimulants are somewhat more dubious, and in many cases are actually counter-productive.

"Merckx did drugs but it wasn't as bad as what Lance did"

Sorry, it's a load of crap. Coppi was a famous crank head to. There was plenty of science on stimulants in Merckx era. Where not talking the dark ages. I did some Dexedrine on rare occasion in those, Benzedrine on road trips. Meth when I had to do things like install a new floor behind a bar overnight. There was plenty of science on that stuff. It is beneficial to performance and would still be in use if it wasn't so easy to catch.

 

[Carboncrank]

I like this moral versus physical differentiation.

I think morally, most of us would agree that both Merckx and Armstrong cheated, they just cheated in different eras with potentially different benefit.

During Merckx' era, the "PED's" of choice were stimulants, mostly amphetamines. These were all medications that could be readily procurred by even the lowliest of domestiques, and there was literally no science behind their use (dosage, timing, analysis of net effect): basically, the thought was if it makes you feel more energetic and affords you the feeling that you can train and ride harder, then it must be good. Today, we know that tthe "benefits" of stimulants are somewhat more dubious, and in many cases are actually counter-productive.

"Merckx did drugs but it wasn't as bad as what Lance did"

Sorry, it's a load of crap. Coppi was a famous crank head too. There was plenty of science on stimulants in Merckx era. Where not talking the dark ages. I did some Dexedrine on rare occasion in those, Benzedrine on road trips. Meth when I had to do things like install a new floor behind a bar overnight. There was plenty of science on that stuff. It is beneficial to performance and would still be in use if it wasn't so easy to catch.

EPO, CERA, growth homone, steriods, all medications.

One doper isn't holier than thou over another.

 

[bianchigirl]

No, but one cyclist is clearly head and shoulders above the other

 

[BroDeal]

One doper isn't holier than thou over another.

There is a huge difference between someone popping a few pick-me-up pills because he was up late the previous night washing his shorts in the sink of a crappy hotel and someone using Dr. Ferrari to defraud the world.

Bernie Madoff is different than a shoplifter.

 

[fatandfast]

There is a huge difference between someone popping a few pick-me-up pills because he was up late the previous night washing his shorts in the sink of a crappy hotel and someone using Dr. Ferrari to defraud the world.

Bernie Madoff is different than a shoplifter.

Men were men. Things were black and white.

 

[Hugh Januss]

EPO, CERA, growth homone, steriods, all medications.

One doper isn't holier than thou over another.

Man, that is some ****ed-up sentance structure there.

 

[BikeCentric]

Man, that is some ****ed-up sentance structure there.

It's like it was written by a crazy person or something!