Merckx in 2019

RichN95.

I've been thinking about this topic today as Eddy Merckx has been rolled out as the GOAT of the sport. And I don't disagree.

But imagine he was in his prime today. How would he fare in the Tour? A noted podcast suggested that on his 70s equipment, race program, diet and training he'd come last. I agree.

But a Merckx with all the modern advantages. How would he fare? More specialisation. Unimagined nations - USA, Australia, UK, Colmbia, Eastern Europe. Teams where domestiques aren't paid poorly. So much less Time Trialling.

I think he'd be, at best, a Valverde or Nibali or maybe a van Avermaet or Gilbert, a Dumoulin perhaps. I don't think he'd be a Contador or Froome.

andyp

He was at the leading edge with diet, training and equipment in his era, so would likely be so now too. But the one thing that made him the greatest in his, and any other era, remains; his motivation and determination to win.

If you talk to or read accounts from riders of his era they all comment on the same topic; Merckx's insatiable desire to race. He'd attack at will, often when his rivals weren't expecting it and once up the road he would always commit and either he'd ride off alone, or the group he was in wouldn't be seen again until the finish. He makes attacking riders like Contador or Nibali look like a Wiggins.

Darius_Jedburgh

A silly thread.
Schools must be on holiday.

timothyw

RichN95 wrote:

But imagine he was in his prime today. How would he fare in the Tour? A noted podcast suggested that on his 70s equipment, race program, diet and training he'd come last. I agree.

Last? Don't talk shit. I'm pretty sure he could get round in the peloton, perhaps even win a breakaway stage.

I mean, you do know what happened at the tour in 69 right?

He won every jersey (except the intermediate sprints one LOL)... won GC by 18 minutes. Took half of that time in a solo break over the mountains.

You're telling me he'd be holding the red lantern? :roll:

He might well be disqualified for amphetamine abuse, perhaps blood transfusions, no way in hell he'd come last though.

You are right though in that with modern training and approaches it would be different. Perhaps he would just be a classics/TT specialist, I suspect though he'd be on whatever method they use that allows tall riders like Wiggins/Froome/Dumoulin to get super lean and climb with the smaller grimpeurs, and still be battling it out at the sharp end.

With his engine and motivation I think he'd still be unbeatable if he was riding today. (Although certainly, he wouldn't be riding so many races, and so would be winning less).

No_Ta_Doctor

Step forward Peter Sagan With Attitude.

I think it's not just that riders are more specialised now, we also have a wider pool of riders (e.g. all the anglophone nations) with higher quality, and probably more tactical use of the full team. There's also been a massive reduction in TT miles in GTs.

I'm sure someone *coughcoughRichcoughcough* could provide an interesting graph of the winning gap in the TdF over the years (possibly expressed as a % of overall time).....

blazing_saddles

TimothyW wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But imagine he was in his prime today. How would he fare in the Tour? A noted podcast suggested that on his 70s equipment, race program, diet and training he'd come last. I agree.

Last? Don't talk shoot. I'm pretty sure he could get round in the peloton, perhaps even win a breakaway stage.

I mean, you do know what happened at the tour in 69 right?

He won every jersey (except the intermediate sprints one LOL)... won GC by 18 minutes. Took half of that time in a solo break over the mountains.

You're telling me he'd be holding the red lantern? :roll:

He might well be disqualified for amphetamine abuse, perhaps blood transfusions, no way in hell he'd come last though.

You are right though in that with modern training and approaches it would be different. Perhaps he would just be a classics/TT specialist, I suspect though he'd be on whatever method they use that allows tall riders like Wiggins/Froome/Dumoulin to get super lean and climb with the smaller grimpeurs, and still be battling it out at the sharp end.

With his engine and motivation I think he'd still be unbeatable if he was riding today. (Although certainly, he wouldn't be riding so many races, and so would be winning less).

Average speed in 1970: 35.6kph
Last year: 40.3kph
Average stage length duration in 2018, approx 4 hours.
Kind of obvious that on 70's equipment and training, he'd end up Lantern Rouge.

No_Ta_Doctor

Blazing Saddles wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But imagine he was in his prime today. How would he fare in the Tour? A noted podcast suggested that on his 70s equipment, race program, diet and training he'd come last. I agree.

Last? Don't talk shoot. I'm pretty sure he could get round in the peloton, perhaps even win a breakaway stage.

I mean, you do know what happened at the tour in 69 right?

He won every jersey (except the intermediate sprints one LOL)... won GC by 18 minutes. Took half of that time in a solo break over the mountains.

You're telling me he'd be holding the red lantern? :roll:

He might well be disqualified for amphetamine abuse, perhaps blood transfusions, no way in hell he'd come last though.

You are right though in that with modern training and approaches it would be different. Perhaps he would just be a classics/TT specialist, I suspect though he'd be on whatever method they use that allows tall riders like Wiggins/Froome/Dumoulin to get super lean and climb with the smaller grimpeurs, and still be battling it out at the sharp end.

With his engine and motivation I think he'd still be unbeatable if he was riding today. (Although certainly, he wouldn't be riding so many races, and so would be winning less).

Average speed in 1970: 35.6kph
Last year: 40.3kph
Average stage length duration in 2018, approx 4 hours.
Kind of obvious that on 70's equipment and training, he'd end up Lantern Rouge.

There was a Danish guy at the start in Brussels who'd come down in full Molteni kit, with a classic vintage bike - gone the full Merckx. Think the bike was about 11kg. Current limit: 6.7kg. Not sure I'd fancy having a 4kg handicap in the mountains.

Lanterne_Rogue

Given where he comes from, you'd have to expect that a modern Merckx would make his name on the cobbles. The idea of a cobbled Sagan with attitude doesn't sound unlikely.

Whether a rider like that would be able, or be allowed, to transition into a GC rider these days is a problem but assuming it was possible then I think we've already seen something of what would gave happened in terms of racing - Armstrong. The repeated and unnecessary beatings handed out by US Postal to Armstrong's rivals in the hills were very much in the spirit of the story about Merckx opening the map and announcing "Tomorrow we attack here!" to a baffled teammate who can see there's nobody within fifteen minutes.

Alternatively, a Merckz type rider who has it explained to them that winning a GC by one or two stage wins is just as effective might well be closer in style to Chris Froome, albeit he certainly wouldn't have waited for Wiggins...

timothyw

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Average speed in 1970: 35.6kph
Last year: 40.3kph
Average stage length duration in 2018, approx 4 hours.
Kind of obvious that on 70's equipment and training, he'd end up Lantern Rouge.

Right. And you don't think it was a factor that the 1969 race was 23% further? Or that he just might be drafting some of the people with the superior kit etc and so able to maintain the higher average speed?

It's a lot easier to sit in for four hours than to go on a 130km solo break.

Lanterne_Rogue

TimothyW wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But imagine he was in his prime today. How would he fare in the Tour? A noted podcast suggested that on his 70s equipment, race program, diet and training he'd come last. I agree.

Last? Don't talk shoot. I'm pretty sure he could get round in the peloton, perhaps even win a breakaway stage.

The absolute kicker in this is the 1970s gear You're talking what, a six or five speed freewheel on the back (1984 Campy catalogue I've just been looking at suggests six speed combinations). Nuovo Record (that Merckx used) has a 26 tooth max gear size and with an apparently notorious inability to change the smaller gears under pressure. Every time there's a serious acceleration our putative Merckx on his 70's gear risks not being able to respond. On a really flat stage he can keep up, but every time there's a serious acceleration he risks missing it due to the shift. As soon as serious hills come in he's dropped by the autobus working a 30 or 32 tooth rear compared to his 26, and they'll have worked him over well before that because they've got a closer ratio right through the range. If he closes up the ratio to reduce this he loses the top end and spins out earlier on the descents. Campy's suggested gearings, for what it's worth, doesn't even list a 13-26 rear combination which suggests they thought it was a bit too wide - Merckx may have been spinning out in a 14.

And that's just the gearing.

http://www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/Cam ... ge_60.html

blazing_saddles

TimothyW wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Average speed in 1970: 35.6kph
Last year: 40.3kph
Average stage length duration in 2018, approx 4 hours.
Kind of obvious that on 70's equipment and training, he'd end up Lantern Rouge.

Right. And you don't think it was a factor that the 1969 race was 23% further? Or that he just might be drafting some of the people with the superior kit etc and so able to maintain the higher average speed?

It's a lot easier to sit in for four hours than to go on a 130km solo break.

Solo breaks are certainly harder than sitting in, but that's also what a rider is faced with when dropped.
You are assuming that this wouldn't happen when it almost certainly would: especially in the hills and mountains.
As Doc pointed out, carrying a 4kg handicap.
Could well end up with doing more solo kms than in 1970.
That's 7 hours down over the shorter tour. How much of that he could make up is guess work, but he would need to cut it down by 50%.

timothyw

Are we sure the weight handicap is as much as 4kg?

I mean, isn't the merckx hour record bike fairly well under 6.7kg? 5.5kg seems to be quoted.

And I think the benefit of gears can be overstated. Easier gears don't make a donkey into a racehorse, similarly, they don't turn a racehorse into a donkey.

Remember that stage in 2017 that Uran won with 2 gears?

Do you own a retro/vintage bike? Do you really find it that much slower? Amusingly enough, I've just checked and my Peugeot Optimum (steel, 7 speed freehub, 42x23 bottom gear) has the highest average speed of all my bikes on strava, 16.7mph vs 16.5mph for my TCR...

And you're talking about the GOAT getting dropped? Nonsense I'm afraid. He'd have no problem getting round with the sprinters if it came to it.

above_the_cows

TimothyW wrote:

Remember that stage in 2017 that Uran won with 2 gears?

He didn't ride the whole stage with 2 gears though did he. He only rode the last few flat kms after a descent in a small group. Not really comparable.

RichN95.

Bear in mid that last year's Giro Rosa was ridden at an average speed 2km per hour faster than the 1969 Tour.

There's been a lot of progress in 50 years.

ridgerider

And most of those riders would be struggling with their passports today...

RichN95.

But my real point in the OP was wondering who Merckx would fare now with all the modern trimmings. Would he still be the 'GOAT'? Would he beat specialists like Contador or Froome in GTs and would Ocana beat him on today's courses? Who's career would his most likely resemble?

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

But my real point in the OP was wondering who Merckx would fare now with all the modern trimmings. Would he still be the 'GOAT'? Would he beat specialists like Contador or Froome in GTs and would Ocana beat him on today's courses? Who's career would his most likely resemble?

He would inevitably have to specialise and there is no way he would be able to dominate all season long.

Then the question is whether he would have specialised in GTs or classics. Since he clearly had the right temperament to be a 3 week rider, probably that?

Not sure how he would have stood up to Froome/Sky.

I think the reverse question is an interesting corollary: how would Froome/Contador etc have done at that time? You would think quite well, because they're good today and there was less depth of field back then?

RichN95.

bobmcstuff wrote:

I think the reverse question is an interesting corollary: how would Froome/Contador etc have done at that time? You would think quite well, because they're good today and there was less depth of field back then?

Contador would be like Luis Ocana and Froome would be an accountant.

DeVlaeminck

I think he'd get round even with a 1970s bike, I'm not convinced bikes were 11kg when Merckx was racing and yes whilst the gear range would be a big disadvantage (not convinced the shifting was that bad either) I don't believe he'd be getting dropped by the bus.

How many current riders could match Merckxs hour record given similar prep and equipment - I'd suggest not many - he'd have enough in hand to cope with the disadvantage his equipment would bring and a bare head is lighter, cooler and more aero than any helmet so there's a small win for him there.

I am guessing to compete in a modern grand tour he'd need to shed body fat - but I am guessing - and then of course he'd need modern equipment. How much training has progressed I really don't know there are just too many variables. I think Merckx's mix of huge miles with lots of racing and plenty of track might actually have been successful given he had the constitution to sustain it for a number of years even if he burnt out relatively young by modern standards. I think he'd be a grand tour rider as that is where the biggest money is though as a Belgian I suppose there is a chance he'd go down the classics route.

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

But my real point in the OP was wondering who Merckx would fare now with all the modern trimmings. Would he still be the 'GOAT'? Would he beat specialists like Contador or Froome in GTs and would Ocana beat him on today's courses? Who's career would his most likely resemble?

I reckon he could have been a better version of Valverde so still capable of winning Classics but also more than capable of a Tour as well though maybe not in the same season. I think to win as many GTs he'd have to sacrifice some one day racing but all the attributes that made him great back then would still apply. Arguably he might even do better in a modern Tour where it is unusual for a pure climber to win stages and more powerful riders tend to be the ones that win GTs.

above_the_cows

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I think the reverse question is an interesting corollary: how would Froome/Contador etc have done at that time? You would think quite well, because they're good today and there was less depth of field back then?

Contador would be like Luis Ocana and Froome would be an accountant.

I thought Contador was the accountant?

Pross

My 1991 Ultegra equipped 653 (24") frame bike was 10kg so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the best bikes of the early 70s were 11kg.

sherer

Thing is the tactics of the races has changed so much.. you don’t get a GC rider attacking with 100k to go these days. On the same equipment he’d show his class

mididoctors

sherer wrote:

Thing is the tactics of the races has changed so much.. you don’t get a GC rider attacking with 100k to go these days. On the same equipment he’d show his class

have they thou...

Maybe a rethink is in order. Froome rode solo for 80 k in the giro ... Hugh took off in the TdS for the whole stage . 3 cols over 2000m.

Maybe attacking a long way out is the new old black?

No_Ta_Doctor

mididoctors wrote:

sherer wrote:

Thing is the tactics of the races has changed so much.. you don’t get a GC rider attacking with 100k to go these days. On the same equipment he’d show his class

have they thou...

Maybe a rethink is in order. Froome rode solo for 80 k in the giro ... Hugh took off in the TdS for the whole stage . 3 cols over 2000m.

Maybe attacking a long way out is the new old black?

Froome's long range was a Hail Mary attack.A last desperate chance.
Carthy was let out as he wasn't a GC threat.

Both exceptional rides, obviously.

No_Ta_Doctor

The elephant in the room must be which team he rode for.
GC then he'd be on Ineos. Classics and he'd be QS.

DeVlaeminck

https://felixwong.com/2010/11/tour-de-f ... e-weights/

I don't think steel bikes changed much in weight over a period - small reductions in component and frame weight were probably offset by small increases as more sprockets were introduced or people got taller and hence bikes slightly bigger. Very narrow tyres for slightly wider too.

(Though how wide tyres were in the early 70s I don't know?)

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I think the reverse question is an interesting corollary: how would Froome/Contador etc have done at that time? You would think quite well, because they're good today and there was less depth of field back then?

Contador would be like Luis Ocana and Froome would be an accountant.

Obviously you need to assume Froome would have actually made it into the peloton...

This is why the depth of competition makes it a lot more complicated today IMO - quite a few of the current top level cyclists would never have started racing.

mididoctors

No tA Doctor wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

sherer wrote:

Thing is the tactics of the races has changed so much.. you don’t get a GC rider attacking with 100k to go these days. On the same equipment he’d show his class

have they thou...

Maybe a rethink is in order. Froome rode solo for 80 k in the giro ... Hugh took off in the TdS for the whole stage . 3 cols over 2000m.

Maybe attacking a long way out is the new old black?

Froome's long range was a Hail Mary attack.A last desperate chance.
Carthy was let out as he wasn't a GC threat.

Both exceptional rides, obviously.

And they worked

rick_chasey

I imagine the type of fitness and the efforts that won races are quite different to now vs then.

Clements753

The op asked two questions, with his original equipment would he finish last, I don't believe so. Aero is great but sat in during fast stages he could do it.

Climbing I believe people are over estimating how heavy the bikes were. My race bike in the early 80's weighed about 17 lbs, divide that by 2.2 and then tell me where these four extra kilos are. I think people would be surprised how stiff a top steel frame was compared to carbon. Climbing removes aero.

If you are saying Merckx couldn't cut it now the only person who took over from him was Hinault, so must also be rubbish and would finish next to last.

The other question was with modern equipment how would he fare. He was documented as doing what ever it took to train and win, way ahead of his time being focused on a goal. As the sport is nobody will build a palmares like his, but on modern equipment if Merckx chose to win the Tour now as he was then sure he could do it. His physiology was strange, having met him I was amazed how big he was but especially his chest cavity. Same as pictures of LeMond, Hinault and Boardman. Put isolation, determination, dedication and physical freak together he could win a tour now.

Finally ask yourself this, on modern equipment would he have been able to break the hour record now if he trained for it. Bet my house on it.

(sorry did I mention I met him!, so just a bit biased maybe)