Why was Merckx so damn good?

pottssteve

I've recently watched this: viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12814981

Thanks to Cleat for posting the link.

However, it got me wondering. I was watching the section where Merckx destroys the rest of the field on a climb and comes in about a minute before anyone else. But how? He looks stylish on the bike but his upper body moves quite a lot, and he's quite big by modern day standards. I know the rest of the field were also "of their time", but have there been any studies to explain how he was able to dominate to such an extent?

Cheers,
Steve

nevman

Merckx was interviewed by Chris Sidwells(A race for Madmen) and told him `I was very very strong-no other explanation`Guess thats why.He won nearly 40% of all his 445 top class races and liked to lead from the front.He won his first TdF in 1969 by 20 mins-imagine that today.I`ve recommended this book as a good read before.

daviesee

Training and attention to detail.

You generally get back what you put in and he put in more than most.

markos1963

He is/was a God, no other reason

rick_chasey

pottssteve wrote:

I've recently watched this: viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12814981

Thanks to Cleat for posting the link.

However, it got me wondering. I was watching the section where Merckx destroys the rest of the field on a climb and comes in about a minute before anyone else. But how? He looks stylish on the bike but his upper body moves quite a lot, and he's quite big by modern day standards. I know the rest of the field were also "of their time", but have there been any studies to explain how he was able to dominate to such an extent?

Cheers,
Steve

He's proof that style and positioning is overrated re speed.

It's all about how hard you can stamp on the pedals.

CiB

He was nails that bloke, unlike today's drug-fuelled soppy tw@ts. Some of em anyway, I expect. Does that win me £5?

As above. I've also read that he was abundantly strong, trained hard and started young. And half of it is in the skull, not the legs.

Velonutter

Eddie was clever and knew precisely what his competitors weaknesses were, he psyched the others, I bet he would have been a good poker player as well, his body was balanced with lightness and power, not seen anyone like him since.

de_sisti

Apparently, if not for the (track?) accident that he was involved in, resulting in persistent back pain,
he would have been even better. Anyone know anymore about it?

MattC59

He wasn't, but Cancellara took inspiration from him. Obviously, Merckx was riding in the days before tiny motors in the seat tube, but he had a massive elastic band wound up in there instead.

Frank the tank

He for me, at least is the best ever.

However, at the risk of being called an heretic does anyone suspect drugs may have played a part? Afterall they were endemic in cycling at the time.

I do realise I'll probably get a cyber-kickin' for such a suggestion but, before ya put ya "docks" on don't ignore the first line of my post, and I abhor drugs in sport.

LeicesterLad

Frank the tank wrote:

He for me, at least is the best ever.

However, at the risk of being called an heretic does anyone suspect drugs may have played a part? Afterall they were endemic in cycling at the time.

I do realise I'll probably get a cyber-kickin' for such a suggestion but, before ya put ya "docks" on don't ignore the first line of my post, and I abhor drugs in sport.

I would say its fair to assume that he probably was, at some stage, but it would make less difference in those days, because they were all at it they found themselves all back on a level playing field, and ultimately he was the best.

JustinLeeAtkinson

I don't quite remember the detail off the top of my head, but he did test positive at one stage didn't he?

Smokin Joe

Rick Chasey wrote:

pottssteve wrote:

I've recently watched this: viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12814981

Thanks to Cleat for posting the link.

However, it got me wondering. I was watching the section where Merckx destroys the rest of the field on a climb and comes in about a minute before anyone else. But how? He looks stylish on the bike but his upper body moves quite a lot, and he's quite big by modern day standards. I know the rest of the field were also "of their time", but have there been any studies to explain how he was able to dominate to such an extent?

Cheers,
Steve

He's proof that style and positioning is overrated re speed.

It's all about how hard you can stamp on the pedals.

Exactly.

Merckx, Anquetil and Kelly were all over the place on a bike yet they were still among the all time greats. Style happens by accident, you've either got it or you haven't and I've never heard of any professional who paid it the slightest attention.

RichN95.

Frank the tank wrote:

However, at the risk of being called an heretic

Here's another heretical observation: The depth and breadth of talent back then was pretty poor. There were only four major cycling nations (Spain weren't yet) and the northern monuments were more or less glorified Belgian championships.

Jez mon

Perhaps, but the pools in the major cycling nations were probably bigger (as a percentage of population, not sure on actual numbers)

He only won P-R twice and the Tour of Flanders thrice.

What made Merkx the greatest was his ability to win seemingly any bike race. I don't think Pro Cycling will ever see a rider of this type again, simply because riders are classified into classics riders and GT riders and train accordingly.

de_sisti

Jez mon wrote:

He only won P-R twice and the Tour of Flanders thrice.

68 - 70 - 73

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

Perhaps, but the pools in the major cycling nations were probably bigger (as a percentage of population, not sure on actual numbers)

He only won P-R twice and the Tour of Flanders thrice.

What made Merkx the greatest was his ability to win seemingly any bike race. I don't think Pro Cycling will ever see a rider of this type again, simply because riders are classified into classics riders and GT riders and train accordingly.

Could never win E3 though .

sfichele

Merckx, Anquetil and Kelly were all over the place on a bike yet they were still among the all time greats

By other's definition Merckx's style was supposedly not refined, yet every time I see footage of the guy I am mesmerised and am in awe. I actually think his style was majestic. I love watching the way the old-timers rode their bikes.

I think, in part, the laboured style was due to them using higher gears on climbs than modern riders - though I may be wrong

rick_chasey

Not that stylish in any of them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... rfM#t=189s

Belgians said he rode like a boxer.

daviesee

sfichele wrote:

I think, in part, the laboured style was due to them using higher gears on climbs than modern riders - though I may be wrong

I can't validate the info but......

"For example, in 1969 Eddy Merckx was said to have used the big ring to climb the Tourmalet : he used at 53 (front) and 13 (rear wheel sprocket)." from here :- http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/129455/p ... r-climbing

53 x 13 for the Tourmalet :shock: :?: :shock: :?: :shock:

Edit:- There was lots of discussions on this later down the thread.

Maybe this is more plausible:-
"According to Bernard Hinault in his book (released 1986), Merckx had a 53/44 front combo with 6 rear cogs (Hinault had 7, we are blessed with 8-10). Hinault says the 44 was Merckx favourite climbing gear. His rear combo was 13-19."

It's still a 44 x 19 gear at the easiest, which I wouldn't fancy trying!

bagpusscp

He also used to say the following when asked how a cyclist could get better "Ride a lot " He never had a closed season.
His six day battles on the track with Patrick S are the stuff of legend

solosuperia

Just watched this clip............
"Not that stylish in any of them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... rfM#t=189s

Belgians said he rode like a boxer."

Yes he was good but the most impressive thing he did was run up those stairs near the end.
I would have struggled up them moaning and clutching my knees....
Alright I'll get me coat.

Smokin Joe

The obsession with pedalling style has always been a particularly British one, with countless magazine articles devoted to it over the years.

The continentals just concentrated on stamping down on them as hard as they could.

rick_chasey

Smokin Joe wrote:

The obsession with pedalling style has always been a particularly British one, with countless magazine articles devoted to it over the years.

The continentals just concentrated on stamping down on them as hard as they could.

The French went on about souplesse for a while.

Smokin Joe

Rick Chasey wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

The obsession with pedalling style has always been a particularly British one, with countless magazine articles devoted to it over the years.

The continentals just concentrated on stamping down on them as hard as they could.

The French went on about souplesse for a while.

Typical Frogs, always thinking of their food.

No wonder they can't win their own tour.