Hinault a greater talent than Merckx?

vinnymarsden

When I was a kid (many years ago!!) there was only one name we ever used when racing each other all over the Peak District.... Merckx... I NEVER wanted to be anyone else..he was to me and all my peer group an utter legend, and still is..
I have absolutely no issue with Hinault being bestowed greatness, he was another legend, but Merckx was a complete one off..not only did he want to win EVERYTHING he entered...he wanted to totally smash the rest of the field, none of the marginal gains stuff we see now..cat and mouse messing about, he just used to go from about 50kms and good luck to anyone who could go/live with him. A joy to see that kind of racing, where someone puts it all out there, I wish the modern racing was like that, the occasional long run for home in Paris Roubaix aside its generally all power watching now!! Boring!!

timothyw

Hmm. For comparison with Merckx:

16 starts, 11 wins, one 2nd place in the tour (having taken a punch in the kidneys from a spectator), one dodgy doping disqualification from the Giro while leading.

To complete the results you have an 8th in the Giro and a 6th in the Tour in the twilight of his career, along with a 9th from his first GT (Giro).

That's a close one, but if you take the view that Merckx was robbed of two GTs then he certainly looks the better IMO.

timoid.

Pah, I'm not even convincing myself. Merckx is the greatest, but Hinault is his equal in Grand Tours. It's the classics, short stage races and insatiable hunger that sets Merckx apart. Take the best bits of Hinault, Kelly and Van Looy and you have Merckx.

Although if Hinault had ever bloody trained properly...

rick_chasey

Timoid. wrote:

Pah, I'm not even convincing myself. Merckx is the greatest, but Hinault is his equal in Grand Tours. It's the classics, short stage races and insatiable hunger that sets Merckx apart. Take the best bits of Hinault, Kelly and Van Looy and you have Merckx.

Although if Hinault had ever bloody trained properly...

Could say the same for Merkcx.

tailwindhome

The greatest cycling 'talent' ever was probably some guy no one has ever heard of working in a bike shop somewhere.

ugo.santalucia

TimothyW wrote:

It's impossible to ignore Merckx's sensational hour record. With a sane pacing strategy he might have broken 50km.

The fact that Boardman with 25 odd years of sports science, less spokes, and a season built around the target could only put a few metres onto it speaks volumes.

Merckx did it after having won the Giro-Tour double.

True, he set off to beat another few records along the way... that said, his attempt was at altitude in thinner air than Boardman, which of course has advantages but also drawbacks.

I don't think in principle anyone has a problem with Merckx being a superior athlete than Boardman

salsiccia1

Timoid. wrote:

Pah, I'm not even convincing myself. Merckx is the greatest, but Hinault is his equal in Grand Tours. It's the classics, short stage races and insatiable hunger that sets Merckx apart. Take the best bits of Hinault, Kelly and Van Looy and you have Merckx.

Although if Hinault had ever bloody trained properly...

I think that's the clincher for me - he raced everything and won them all.

I'd love to see the big riders do everything, but it doesn't happen now. I completely get why and I'd never criticise riders for specialising like they do. But it's that race everything, win everything approach which means Merckx will never be matched.

bigmat

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Pah, I'm not even convincing myself. Merckx is the greatest, but Hinault is his equal in Grand Tours. It's the classics, short stage races and insatiable hunger that sets Merckx apart. Take the best bits of Hinault, Kelly and Van Looy and you have Merckx.

Although if Hinault had ever bloody trained properly...

I think that's the clincher for me - he raced everything and won them all.

I'd love to see the big riders do everything, but it doesn't happen now. I completely get why and I'd never criticise riders for specialising like they do. But it's that race everything, win everything approach which means Merckx will never be matched.

The fact that he could race everything and win everything says as much about the depth of talent in those days as it does about Merckx. I totally accept that he could have won any of the events he won in the modern era, but doubt he could have won them all. Hell, its questionable whether you can even win two grand tours in a year these days, never mind hour records, classics etc thrown in for the hell of it.

re Boardman v Merckx, one shouldn't forget that Boardman was a crock by the time he did the "Merckx" hour record, pretty much shot as a pro racer and about to go outto pasture. Massive respect to him for even attempting that record and to get it, even if only by a small margin, was an awesome achievement. At his peak I suspect he would have put a km or two on it.

rick_chasey

TBH I think Hinault vs Lance as who is the better GT rider is a more interesting debate, if you just look at the performances.

Merckx's palmares is so complete he just dwarfs everyone in every field. Think you can match him in GTs? Then take a look at his Classics record.

etc etc

Hinaultscrapcousin

This conversation seems to be confusing biggest talent and most successful.

rick_chasey

Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:

This conversation seems to be confusing biggest talent and most successful.

Why how would you judge it?

Hinaultscrapcousin

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:

This conversation seems to be confusing biggest talent and most successful.

Why how would you judge it?

I'd listen to what their competition felt (obviously not De Vlaemink...) and judge it based on that. Merckx obviously had the greater desire to amass wins but from what I've read (which is fairly limited admittedly) it was Hinault that could tear a race apart no matter what his condition, where in his season he was etc.

timothyw

I think Hinault was sufficiently talented, and certainly had the guile - had they both had their peaks at the same time, I feel it would have been close, but perhaps 3/5 times, perhaps 2/3 I think the grand tour would have gone to Hinault - he was that good.

Conversely, one day races you'd put your money on Merckx.

This is because Merckx had the talent, Hinault had the guile, the strength of character to make things happen how he wanted them to - I think this is why his rivals at the time might have felt Hinault the stronger of the two (and of course the fact that they had seen Merckx decline versus Hinault in his prime)

Ocana was the best GT rider that Merckx faced in his prime, and it is fair to say that he was not of Hinault's calibre. Had Ocana held his nerve in 1971 then he could have stayed rubber side down and ridden his 7 minute lead all the way to Paris.

Still, Merckx could only beat who he was faced with, and beat them he did, by some margin.

davidof

Hinault was certainly as much a cannibal as the cannibal