Lance Armstrong Greatest GT Rider Ever ?

FullFrameRob

After reading the ' Contador in the Olimpus of the Champions ' thread http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12587110

Patrick1.0 posted that a good way of ranking GT wins by rider would be to use the same format as the Olympic medal table.

TDF - Gold
Giro - Silver
Vuelta - Bronze

So that would put LA top of the medals table with 7 golds, despite Merckx having won 11 GT's with 5 golds 5 silvers & 1 bronze or Hinault's 5 golds 3 silvers & 2 bronzes 10 Gt wins.

I may get surprised but i cant see many people on here saying that LA is the greatest GT rider ever.

andyp

Patrick 1.0 is talking cack. Merckx won 11 GTs whilst Armstrong won 7. At that time Merckx was also winning classics and other stage races. It's a pointless argument because Merckx was the best racing cyclist ever.

richa

How about Tour=3 GTpts, Giro=2, Vuelta=1...

Merckxs >> 5 Tour, 5 Giro, 1 Vuelta (11 GT) =>> 26 GTpts
Hinault >> 5 Tour, 3 Giro, 2 Vuelta (10 GT) =>> 23 GTpts
Armstrong >> 7 Tour (7 GT) =>> 21 GTpts
Anquetil >> 5 Tour, 2 Giro, 1 Vuelta (8 GT) =>> 20 GTpts
Indurain >> 5 Tour, 2 Giro (7 GT) =>> 19 GTpts
Gimondi >> 1 Tour, 3 Giro, 1 Vuelta (5 GT) =>> 12 GTpts
Contador >> 1 Tour, 1 Giro, 1 Vuelta (3 GT) =>> 8 GTpts

cougie

Yeah my money is on Merckx.

Lets not open a can of worms about the cleanliness of his wins eh ?

idaviesmoore

nypd wrote:

I may get surprised but i cant see many people on here saying that LA is the greatest GT rider ever.

We wouldn't say it because he simply wasn't. It's not a personal vendetta

redddraggon

andyp wrote:

It's a pointless argument because Merckx was the best racing cyclist ever.

I thought Coppi was "better", I'm sure he would have won far more races if there hadn't been a war and he hadn't been banged up in one of our POW camps

inseine

I don't think that the Tour de France so concidered so much more prestigious then the others when Merckx and particularly Gimondi were riding, so the didn't target it in the same way. We all know that if Merckx had based all his career on winning the Tour he would have topped Armstrong. For a start he wouldn't have had to retire so young due to riding over 100 races a year and of course he'd have ridden the Tour every year.

andyp

redddraggon wrote:

I thought Coppi was "better", I'm sure he would have won far more races if there hadn't been a war and he hadn't been banged up in one of our POW camps

The major point being the if. Coppi was a superb rider and would have probably dominated the Giro and the Tour through the 1940s but they weren't held due to the war. You can't change history.

Patrick1.0

I'd rather you promote the idea as your own, NYPD, or at least ask my permission to start a new thread based on something I have said in another. I would have said yes but it's only polite to ask.


However, I think in the current climate it is not so unreasonable to place the GT's in that order. You may have noticed but I did not claim Armstrong was the greatest of all time, I just put forward a system for grading the three majorTours as the person who started that thread valued Contador above both Armstrong and Indurain because he's won all three.


If you were asking a straight up question of who is the greatest of all time, I'd tell you that Lance Armstrong is the greatest Tour De France winner of all time. The biggest bike race on the planet.

agnello

Armstrong 3rd or 4th I'd say

blazing_saddles

More inaccurate rubbish. It's as if the history of cycling began in the year 2000.
Don't some of you realise, that the Tour has, during it's history, struggled to put a field together?
Meanwhile, truly epic races, with the classiest riders, both post and pre war, were Giro dominated.

Even Contador has said the Giro was the hardest race to win; that it's climbs were far tougher than the Tour's.
It's the reason LA stayed away. Too hard, too risky.

So if, until 20 years ago, the Giro field more than matched the Tours, but has tougher parcours, what happens to this awards theory?

Put it this way, if Armstrong had won the Giro 7 times, I'm sure we'd have a different race receiving this "gold medal". :roll:

Jez mon

I think part of the problem the Giro has is the enormous amount of home grown winners (65), compared to the Tour's 36.

micron

The Tour has always welcomed a more international field than the other GTs.

There are many reasons why Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Coppi and Bartali are greater GT riders than Armstrong, but if you aren't aware of them there's no point going on about quality of the oppositin, difficulty of the parcours and manner of the victory is there? Let alone the fact that they all won the prestigious Giro/Tour double - a feat for which there should surely be bonus points?

blazing_saddles

Jez mon wrote:

I think part of the problem the Giro has is the enormous amount of home grown winners (65), compared to the Tour's 36.

Agreed. That actually helps the argument, too, as we all know the Italians are better riders than the French!
Seriously, how many Belgian winners of the Tour were there in the early years?
Actually, only 11 nations have won the Tour, while 10 have won the Giro.

The Tour is a media phenomenon; a commercial venture on steroids. It has only recently gained such an over-inflated status, due to the financial rewards it can dish out to successful riders.
Something of a doping carrot for those riders of the donkey pursuasion.

Oh, and as Micron as now added. Nil points for a Tour/Giro double? :?

micron

Or any double - and surely extra points for achieving Monument Classic wins with a GT? What about GT and Worlds? And nothing extra for the Triple?

Point is, when Merckx et al were achieving their GT victories, they were on the bike all season long achieving wins in Classics, stage races and GTs. Armstrong focused on one race and, by his last season, was riding a handful of weeks in the year.

victorponf

Great Eddy is the best no doubt.

I think Anquetil, Hinault are better than Lance......and Coppi and Indurain in the same level, but i don´t like thar Lance never win Giro or Vuelta. He maked a lot of pain to this sport riding just the Tour

timoid.

The hierarchy of GT riders should be:

Merckx

Hinault,

Coppi, Anquetil, Armstrong (whatever was allegedly in his veins),

Indurain (whatever was allegedly in his veins), Bartali

Lemond, Bobet, Gimondi


Coppi and Bartali could be higher if not for the war, but it did happen and they don't have as much points on the board as they might have otherwise.

singlespeedexplosif

lies, damned lies and statistics...you could tweak it any way you wish to get the result you want.
As well as bonus points for winning more than one GT, I'd suggest additional points for winning jerseys other than the leader of CG..

victorponf

Nobody remember Alfredo Binda, long time ago

donrhummy

Timoid. wrote:

The hierarchy of GT riders should be:

Merckx

Hinault,

Coppi, Anquetil, Armstrong (whatever was allegedly in his veins),

Indurain (whatever was allegedly in his veins), Bartali

Lemond, Bobet, Gimondi


Coppi and Bartali could be higher if not for the war, but it did happen and they don't have as much points on the board as they might have otherwise.

Right because Merckx was completely innocent. :roll:
* 1969 Failed test: http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2008/wo ... x_worlds08
* In 1977, he failed a doping test at Fleche-Wallonne (see page 27, "The Tour is Won on the Alpe" by Jean-Paul Vespini) - and THIS time it was a Belgian doing the test!

I agree that Merckx is the greatest ever, but given that he failed not one but two drug tests and that people were doping for 40 years prior to his arrival, during his time as a cyclist and after, why do you think he was not?

k-dog

^ I'm with you there.

And it's a well-known fact that Anquetil was on whatever he could get his hands on so it really becomes a moot point if anyone was on anything.

On the topic though, as much as I enjoyed watching Lance win all those Tours, he's not the greatest Grand Tour rider - Merckx is obviously better and I would definitely put Hinault way up there too - his stats are just incredible if you start looking at them.

He retired pretty early too and could have easily had more wins - if he wanted to.

Patrick1.0

I don't see a problem. In athletics you have a series of Grand prixs and Golden league events. At the end of the year you have a world champs or Olympics. Winning classics races is like winning at a Golden league event. It's a great performance and shows you are up there at the top end. But it doesn't matter whether you have 10 grandprix and golden league wins if you don't get the golden carrot at the end of the season. The Tour De France IS the Olympics of cycling. You can't deny that. I'd trade all the classic race wins in the world for a single Tour De France victory. I'd trade wins at the Vuelta and the Giro for a Tour De France win, too. Wouldn't you?

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

More inaccurate rubbish. It's as if the history of cycling began in the year 2000.
Don't some of you realise, that the Tour has, during it's history, struggled to put a field together?
Meanwhile, truly epic races, with the classiest riders, both post and pre war, were Giro dominated.

Even Contador has said the Giro was the hardest race to win; that it's climbs were far tougher than the Tour's.
It's the reason LA stayed away. Too hard, too risky.

So if, until 20 years ago, the Giro field more than matched the Tours, but has tougher parcours, what happens to this awards theory?

Put it this way, if Armstrong had won the Giro 7 times, I'm sure we'd have a different race receiving this "gold medal". :roll:

So you think Lance couldnt have won the Giro becuase it was too hard and too risky...........lol superb !

cheers
MG

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

More inaccurate rubbish. It's as if the history of cycling began in the year 2000.
Don't some of you realise, that the Tour has, during it's history, struggled to put a field together?
Meanwhile, truly epic races, with the classiest riders, both post and pre war, were Giro dominated.

"gold medal". :roll:

Here are the Tour winners pre war and immediate post war as you can see there is a far selection of second rate donkeys in there !

Bartali,Maes,Robic Bartali ,Coppi,Kubler,Koblet,Coppi, Bobet.........i could go on but you get the drift

cheers
MG

inseine

Like i said Patrick, of course this is the case NOW but it hasn't always been like that so of course riders based their races around a different set of values in respect of what was imposrtant. Merckz is belgian, he couldn't have not ridden the Northern classics but had he focused souly on the Tour who knows what he could have done.
So yes I don deny what you are saying!!

gabriel959

Indurain also retired pretty early I believe.

FJS

Patrick1.0 wrote:

I don't see a problem. In athletics you have a series of Grand prixs and Golden league events. At the end of the year you have a world champs or Olympics. Winning classics races is like winning at a Golden league event. It's a great performance and shows you are up there at the top end. But it doesn't matter whether you have 10 grandprix and golden league wins if you don't get the golden carrot at the end of the season. The Tour De France IS the Olympics of cycling. You can't deny that. I'd trade all the classic race wins in the world for a single Tour De France victory. I'd trade wins at the Vuelta and the Giro for a Tour De France win, too. Wouldn't you?

IMHO not a very good comparison. The Classics and Grand Tours are different specialisations within the same sport, the Tour is not simply at a higher level. You cannot say that Contador and Sastre are better riders than Boonen and Cancellara. If you really want to compare with athletics (but rather not because it's never completely similar) it's more like the 200m and 800m, or the 200m and the long jump. They're still the same sport, different specialisations, and only the truly great can excell at both.

FJS

Timoid. wrote:

The hierarchy of GT riders should be:

Merckx

Hinault,

Coppi, Anquetil, Armstrong (whatever was allegedly in his veins),

Indurain (whatever was allegedly in his veins), Bartali

Lemond, Bobet, Gimondi


Coppi and Bartali could be higher if not for the war, but it did happen and they don't have as much points on the board as they might have otherwise.

Completely agree with the hierarchy.
But the veins of Indurain? Plenty of suspicion of Armstrong, but I haven't seen much serious doubts about Indurain. His natural physique explains his dominance, and his rise to power was before the EPO-era.

blazing_saddles

Moray Gub wrote:

Here are the Tour winners pre war and immediate post war as you can see there is a far selection of second rate donkeys in there !

Bartali,Maes,Robic Bartali ,Coppi,Kubler,Koblet,Coppi, Bobet.........i could go on but you get the drift

cheers
MG

Yes, I get your drift.

Donkeys don't win any Grand Tours, although that comment will probably generate some Pereiro sarcasm.

A lot of Italian wins in there. Koblet also won the Giro.
Compare the two events before WW2 and you'll find the Giro dominated by Bartali and Binda. The Tour has Bartali winning in 1938, the Maes bros, Nicolas Frantz, Maurice De Waele, André Leducq, Antonin Magne and Georges Speicher.
IMO; More than a match for the Tour, at the time.

Giro/Tour double? Coppi.

People tend to forget that Bartali won his clutch of GT's while losing his prime, SIX years, to the war. People tend to forget Alfredo Binda, altogether. Too many years wasted winning the Giro, I guess. :roll:


As for you getting my drift over Armstrong and the Giro, no "gold medal" for you.

timoid.

FJS wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

The hierarchy of GT riders should be:

Merckx

Hinault,

Coppi, Anquetil, Armstrong (whatever was allegedly in his veins),

Indurain (whatever was allegedly in his veins), Bartali

Lemond, Bobet, Gimondi


Coppi and Bartali could be higher if not for the war, but it did happen and they don't have as much points on the board as they might have otherwise.

Completely agree with the hierarchy.
But the veins of Indurain? Plenty of suspicion of Armstrong, but I haven't seen much serious doubts about Indurain. His natural physique explains his dominance, and his rise to power was before the EPO-era.

David Walsh has some intersting things to say about Indurain. Someone of his physiology would gain maximum benefit from EPO, which infiltrated the peloton just as he was rising to the top.

Banesto was alleged to have been one of the pioneering teams in the blood boosting field and Indurain himself was a personal client of Conconi.

I don't trust any GT winner since Lemond.

Tom Butcher

Patrick1.0 wrote:

I don't see a problem. In athletics you have a series of Grand prixs and Golden league events. At the end of the year you have a world champs or Olympics. Winning classics races is like winning at a Golden league event. It's a great performance and shows you are up there at the top end. But it doesn't matter whether you have 10 grandprix and golden league wins if you don't get the golden carrot at the end of the season. The Tour De France IS the Olympics of cycling. You can't deny that. I'd trade all the classic race wins in the world for a single Tour De France victory. I'd trade wins at the Vuelta and the Giro for a Tour De France win, too. Wouldn't you?

No it's not - they are different challenges - that's what makes the riders who have GTs and classics on their palmares greater than those whose success was largely in one or the other type of race. Contador could go and win all the grand tours for the next 5 years his record would still be inferior to Merckx. I wouldn't say someone like Kelly was a lesser rider than Armstrong - he just had different strengths.