Merckx

Richrd2205

I've just finished reading William Fotheringham's biography, which I really enjoyed, but it created a question for me that I thought I'd post....

How would we see Merckx if he was a current rider? I know that cycling was different in the 70's & that we'll almost certainly never see his like again, but I was struck by the descriptions of how he divided fans at the time. I was also struck by how he rode with huge amounts of panache, but that almost made racing boring....

Everyone is positive about Merckx now, but would we want another one? Or is he best in the past?

Discuss.....

rick_chasey

Richrd2205 wrote:

Everyone is positive about Merckx now, but would we want another one? Or is he best in the past?

Discuss.....

Definitely best in the past.

RichN95.

But was he the best though?

He has the best palmares, certainly. But is that because he was actually the best rider or was it because he was riding in an uncompetitive era? Who really knows.

Here's a controversial statement for you: "Eddy Merckx was probably no better rider than Cadel Evans". Discuss.

disgruntledgoat

He was most assuredly better than Evans.

The sheer bulk of his palmeres puts him above most modern riders. People complain about the riders he faced, but in every type of race he won in, he beat men who are still talked of today.

The way the sport has changed tells you all you need to know about his greatness. In a year, Merckx could win MSR, a cobbled classic, an Ardennes classic and be in the mix for 2 out of 3 GTs and the Worlds. Nobody would even attempt that now.

In

Richrd2205

Whilst I tend to agree, Rick, do you want to explain?

Rich, I think you have an untestable hypothesis there. Things have changed so much that it's pretty much incomparable. What we don't have is someone who can win almost half of what they enter whilst riding the whole season. 54 wins in 120 starts is not Cadel like at all.
It is that bit that intrigued me. Would the dominance amaze or annoy us?

RichN95.

disgruntledgoat wrote:

He was most assuredly better than Evans.

The sheer bulk of his palmeres puts him above most modern riders. People complain about the riders he faced, but in every type of race he won in, he beat men who are still talked of today.

Similarly in athletics, people still talk about distance runners like Zatopek, Bannister, Clarke, Elliott etc. All greats of the sport, but none of them had to race against a Kenyan. So were they any more talented than the Europeans/Antipodeans of today who struggle to make the final? Who knows.

Ask we who the greatest cyclist ever is, and I'll instantly say Merckx. However, I do wonder how he'd fair today (with all the modern training). Maybe he'd win 12 Grand Tours, but maybe he might not even make the podium. Who knows.

OffTheBackAdam

Look at his piers.
Gimondi, Poulidor, Plankaert, Van Looy, Simpson, Janssen, Altig, De Vlaeminck, Pingeon, Zoetemelk, Ocana, Van Impe, Thevenet.
Asked not to ride the '73 TdF by the organisors, 'cos the Frogs were so pissed off with him winning & getting close to matching Anquetil's record.

Merck's win rate in races entered.
1965: 13%
1966: 21%
1967: 23%
1968: 24%
1969: 33%
1970: 37%
1971: 45%
1972: 39%
1973: 37%
1974: 27%
1975: 25%
1976: 13%
1977: 14%
1978: 0%

Most career victories by a professional cyclist: 525.
Most victories in one season: 54.
Most stage victories in the Tour de France: 34.
Most stage victories in one Tour de France: 8, in 1970 and 1974 (shared with Charles Pélissier in 1930 and Freddy Maertens in 1976).
Most days with the yellow jersey in the Tour de France: 96.
The only cyclist to have won the general classification, points classification and mountains classification in the same Tour de France (1969).
Most victories in classics: 28.
Most victories in one single classic: 7 (in Milan – San Remo).
Most victories in Grand Tours: 11

Arguably, without his crash on the track at Blois, in 1969, he'd have won more & ridden further when he took the Hour Record in '72.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ca ... ddy_Merckx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwHK8een_dY

Case proven.

RichN95.

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Look at his piers.
Gimondi, Poulidor, Plankaert, Van Looy, Simpson, Janssen, Altig, De Vlaeminck, Pingeon, Zoetemelk, Ocana, Van Impe, Thevenet.

But how good were they, really? Was Simpson any better than Thomas? Was Altig any better than Voigt? Was Thevenet any better than Voeckler? We just don't know.

What we do know is that when Merckx won his last Tour in 1974, 124 of the 130 riders came from just five countries. (England and Scotland were the best football teams for decades until they let the rest of the world join in).

cycling5280

A lot of good points here.

Maybe instead of the 'greatest' Merckx is just the 'winningest'? I don't even know if that makes sense but just throwing that out there.

ellerslierd

With regards to the dominance amazing or boring us, I would say the latter. There are numerous examples I can think of across numerous sports where the dominance of a single competitor has led to a reduced spectacle (in my opinion whilst watching). However, the performance is appreciated with hindsight.

For example Contador at the Giro last year. Utterly dominant, but every mountain stage I was willing Basso or Scarponi to hit back or even match him, just to mix things up a bit. (Obviously the hindsight thing is ruined in this example)

Its the same with Vettel for the past few years in F1, its boring when the outcome is so predictable, but I am sure I'll appreciate seeing one of the greats when his career comes to an end.

As I didn't follow cycling during the Armstrong years (or to continue with the F1, the Schumacher years), I can't comment from a personal perspective, but I can imagine/have read that the got rather irritating.

On the flip side, as with Cav nowadays, a surprise loss also gets people perked up quite nicely.

esspeebee

Richrd2205 wrote:

How would we see Merckx if he was a current rider? I know that cycling was different in the 70's & that we'll almost certainly never see his like again, but I was struck by the descriptions of how he divided fans at the time. I was also struck by how he rode with huge amounts of panache, but that almost made racing boring....

Everyone is positive about Merckx now, but would we want another one? Or is he best in the past?

Discuss.....

I'm already imagining the true champion arguments he'd fuel on here, and the graphs of thread page count when Merckx does or doesn't win. Perhaps Bertie and Cav are enough for the internet age; Merckx would require a whole new set of graphs to be made.

inseine

Of course well never know definitively, but Merckx is clearly the best. Look at this one fact, in the hour record (which modern riders don't even dare to ride) Boardman, who was as good a TTer as anyone beat him by 10 meters, nearly 30 years on. I know Boardmen was at the end of his career, but it's a true like for like measure.

tailwindhome

These debates are always fun but ultimately inconclusive. In reality no sportsman can be considered the 'Best', all they can ever be is the best of their time.

BikingBernie

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Asked not to ride the '73 TdF by the organisors, 'cos the Frogs were so pissed off with him winning & getting close to matching Anquetil's record.

That's not a claim I have seen before. Source?

Yellow Peril

There is something to be said for having a few contenders in a race. A lot of hope and expectancy was placed on the Kaiser's shoulders each year to beat LA. I always felt crestfallen when his challenge wained as the race went by and another Lance victory ensued.

A good example of this is the Dauphine starting tomorrow. There has been a lot of speculation as to who will win with Wiggins, Evans and other names being thrown in the mix. Hopefully it will be a good race.

BikingBernie

inseine wrote:

Of course well never know definitively, but Merckx is clearly the best. Look at this one fact, in the hour record (which modern riders don't even dare to ride) Boardman, who was as good a TTer as anyone beat him by 10 meters, nearly 30 years on. I know Boardmen was at the end of his career, but it's a true like for like measure.

Just the point I was going to bring up. Merckx also rode his hour without any sort of sensible pacing strategy, taking the 10 and 20 km records along the way as well. Bordman's bike and other kit were also far more aero than those used by Merckx, despite the UCI's rules, and Boardman wasn't half knackered from 200 days of racing and, largely, winning.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

I do wonder how he'd fair today (with all the modern training).

Far too much is made of the idea of 'modern training' methods, at least for the road. No training can be a substitute for hard racing, and the nature of that hasn't changed. As for most of the training the Pros do, it is still a case of 'Ride a bike, ride a bike, ride a bike'.

I know that there is much more of a tendency to 'target' these days and hence the need for training as a substitute for racing, but as experience tells us, this is often not because 'modern training' is more effective than racing, but because it allows the rider to follow a doping programme more easily.

Of course, that brings up another thought. Imagine what Merckx would have been like if he had been riding on '800 ml of packed cells', with a 58-60% haemeocrit level and all the rest. :shock:

rick_chasey

I don't buy the "could '70s Merckx be better than a current day Sagan".

Of all sports, road cycling is one of THE most relative sports.

No-one cares how fast or slow you've gone, since there an ever changing variables that can't be controlled, as long as you beat who you're riding with.

Ergo, Merckx is obviously the best rider ever.

We don't rate riders by their wattage, or by their speed. We rate them by how often they win, and occasionally, HOW they win. On both counts Merckx utterly sh!t on everyone else, by miles. Using different criteria is disingenuous.

timoid.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't buy the "could '70s Merckx be better than a current day Sagan".

Of all sports, road cycling is one of THE most relative sports.

No-one cares how fast or slow you've gone, since there an ever changing variables that can't be controlled, as long as you beat who you're riding with.

Ergo, Merckx is obviously the best rider ever.

We don't rate riders by their wattage, or by their speed. We rate them by how often they win, and occasionally, HOW they win. On both counts Merckx utterly sh!t on everyone else, by miles. Using different criteria is disingenuous.

This ^^^

Although Coppi did have his best years robbed by the war and even Merckx looked to him as being the greatest.

Someday I'm going to get me a Bill & Ted phonebox and line up Coppi, Merckx, Bartali, Binda, Gaul, Anquetil, Hinault, Lemond, Fignon, Indurain, Roche (hey I'm Irish), Ullrich, Armstrong and Contador at their peaks with no access to dope (or dodgy steaks) and have a GT race off.

My money would be on a podium of Merckx, Coppi then Hinault. Armstrong to pack.

Someday...

T_Pucker

Yeah yeah... the drugs were better back then anyway!

ddraver

I think ellis' point about Cav tells us all we need to know about how he would be percieved today, and Cav at least only wins stages, imagine if he won everything else as well! Bernie would explode!

BelgianBeerGeek

Just want to throw in this.

In the (good) old days money was a bigger factor, surely? These guys would sign on for a race for the sake of a few francs just to make enough to feed themselves. Hence Merckx and others entering races that today would be unfeasible madness for a top rider.

The top riders today probably make more in sponsorship than from racing, but are canny enough to target those races for maximum effect. As said above, it's almost impossible to make a direct comparison.

frenchfighter

BikingBernie wrote:

Of course, that brings up another thought. Imagine what Merckx would have been like if he had been riding on '800 ml of packed cells', with a 58-60% haemeocrit level and all the rest. :shock:

frenchfighter

I always like this site for comparisons as it is quite complicated. Outrageous that they are stripping Contador's points but anyway. From this you can see that Merckx is an absolute animal, a super heavyweight.

http://www.thevirtualmusette.com/

T_Pucker

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Just want to throw in this.

In the (good) old days money was a bigger factor, surely? These guys would sign on for a race for the sake of a few francs just to make enough to feed themselves. Hence Merckx and others entering races that today would be unfeasible madness for a top rider.

The top riders today probably make more in sponsorship than from racing, but are canny enough to target those races for maximum effect. As said above, it's almost impossible to make a direct comparison.

Yer... problem with that was you'd get 90% of the peloton wired-to-the-gills for a fking Kermesse... Unfortunately that 'ethos' bled into bigger and better races... Selah.

cal_stewart

He'll prob have served a 2 year ban, everyone likes to forget Eddie loved the pills as much as the next man

timoid.

frenchfighter wrote:

I always like this site for comparisons as it is quite complicated. Outrageous that they are stripping Contador's points but anyway. From this you can see that Merckx is an absolute animal, a super heavyweight.

http://www.thevirtualmusette.com/

Great site. Top three agrees with my all time podium.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

I always like this site for comparisons as it is quite complicated. Outrageous that they are stripping Contador's points but anyway. From this you can see that Merckx is an absolute animal, a super heavyweight.

http://www.thevirtualmusette.com/

The problem with that, and any other historical ranking, is that it gives the same points for the same race, regardless of relative competition. Take Coppi for example. He won five Giros. But in those five, only 7 of the 50 top ten positions were filled by non-Italians, and only one podium spot. So how does a win in such a Giro match up to one contended by Spaniards, Canadians, Colombians, Frenchmen, Czechs, but not the acknowledged top stage racers of the day? Tricky, isn't it.

Any rider can only be the best of his day. All other comparisons are flawed. But I also believe that putting the old masters on an uncritical pinnacle above their modern equivalents is also horribly flawed. (Other sports too).

frenchfighter

Tbh, they should take away Moser's Giro points and give them to Fignon.

Disgraceful story nicely told here at the bottom of the screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKkbMuc_W5g

Those involved should hang their heads in shame for demonstrating a lack of morals. I thought it was just a heli in the final TT, but from that clip it shows many more instances of skullduggery.

frenchfighter

It's worth pausing your screen on that clip at 2.44 to take in those three words ; )

inkyfingers

frenchfighter wrote:

It's worth pausing your screen on that clip at 2.44 to take in those three words ; )

Very good, bet you got excited when you read that didn't you!

Fignon certainly deserves that description, can't imagine many would argue with that.