|Cipo vs. Armstrong vs. Past riders||PODIUMBOUNDdotCA|
Nov 3, 2002 9:34 PM
|Below there was a post on the greatest accomplishment in cycling. My next question is who is the best rider ever? Is it a question that can really be answered with all cyclings disciplines?
Look at Armstrongs domination of the Tour but thats been done before. However, his sole focus is the Tour. He wasn't able to win the Olympics in 2000 although he was able to win bronze (a huge accomplishment in itself) proving largely he was a one race man.
But how does this vary from Cipo who selects the races (and # of stages to race) so he can win the most stages? As it stands with his world championship and records for # of wins in many tours he is a giant of the road sprinting community.
Then what about the track rider Arnaut Tornaud who last year won the sprint world championship, the kilo AND the olympic sprint as well as shattered the kilo record? Or Michelle Bellanger who litterally owned the female sprint world on the track... both kilo and sprints for at least 5 years.
This doesn't even bring into consideration riders of the past such as Merchx which leads me into my point. Is it really possible to choose one rider out of all these? The one attribute these riders share however is they were not just the best for any one race... but they proved themselves time in and time out.
Nov 4, 2002 12:28 AM
Nov 4, 2002 4:38 AM
Actually the point is that you can't really say as all of the great cyclists are or did race/live in different circumstances. Cipollini can win the most stages in Giro, Lance can't. But Lance can win TDF and Cipo can't even dream about it. Cipo can win most stages in Giro and Zabel is not even going to Giro, but Zabel is #1 in UCI this year. And what about triathlets? Some of them are darn good bike riders. Or for example who is Eric Ostendorff? Nobody knows, but he won 508 miles solo in Death Valley.
So they are all good.
We just have to ride more and better ourselves.
|There is only one: Merckx nm||cyclequip|
Nov 4, 2002 6:10 AM
|Ditto Merckx, is there really any doubt?n.m.||koala|
Nov 4, 2002 6:44 AM
|re: Cipo vs. Armstrong vs. Past riders||CARBON110|
Nov 4, 2002 6:08 AM
|Well said Nick, I agree with your perception and I think you approached it well.|
|re: Cipo vs. Armstrong vs. Past riders||PEDDLEFOOT|
Nov 4, 2002 6:56 AM
|In my opinion trying to select the greatest athelete from any sport is almost impossible.Considering the changes over the years in technology and equipment involved in various sports you can't trully say that someone today is the greatest of all time.
I do not pretend to know alot about pro cycling but I think it's fair to say that riders from even 20 years ago could perform far better today than they did in their time if they had the lighter and more sophisticated bikes of today.
I think you also need to take in consideration the break throughs in training and nutrition that have come in just the past decade.With all this going for todays cyclists it's no wonder that they perform as well as they do.This is not even touching the illegal performance drugs that are going around.
To sum it up I think a question like this makes for an interesting debate but one that can't be won by either side.Just appreciate the performances of today's atheletes and respect the accomplishments of the men that came before and inspired us all .
|re: Cipo vs. Armstrong vs. Past riders||bugleboy|
Nov 4, 2002 7:36 AM
|If you are going to pick the greatest of all time, it would have to be Eddie Merckx. You can't even compare him with the others. He won everything, he went into a race with the intent to win. He didn't pick and choose. There probably won't be another rider like that again with the way cyclist train and gear up for a particular race. You can make arguments of who the greatest TDF rider is or was, Giro, Paris Roubaix, etc. The iron men of professional competitve cycling, IMO, are a dead breed.|
|re: Cipo vs. Armstrong vs. Past riders||Jon Billheimer|
Nov 4, 2002 7:51 AM
|I think I have to go with the Merckx crowd. I can't think of another cyclist--or athlete in any sport--who so dominated his sport. The closest runner-up in cycling would probably be Jeannie Longo on the women's side, but even she hasn't won nearly thirty percent of all races she entered in. In other sports, as mentioned in a previous post, Edwin Moses stands alone in his ownership in the 400 m hurdles, yet that was only one specialized event in track and field. Paavo Nurmi? Babe Didricksen? Gretzky? Jordan? All greats, but not the defining presences that Merckx was. In my opinion there'll never be another like him.|
|Cipo vs. Armstrong = apple vs. orange nm||4bykn|
Nov 4, 2002 8:02 AM
|Big fish in small pond........?||PEDDLEFOOT|
Nov 4, 2002 8:23 AM
|I don't say this with disrespect to Merckx so please don't lay into me.I'm genuinely curious as to the level of competition he had as opposed to present day cycling.Was he clearly dominant because he had less talent to oppose him or didn't have a clear challenger or rival?
I don't know the history and would apprecite a history lesson on this subject. Thanks.
|I think it was different no matter what||PODIUMBOUNDdotCA|
Nov 4, 2002 1:31 PM
|Once again. They were the best at the stage in their sport. 30 years ago people raced their way into shape. Now people train more to race. Although both involve racing and training the percentage of each makes a big difference. Science has proven that you can't go into every race in absolutely peak form and win. And now that all the riders in the pro peleton know that they MUST pick and choose since if they aren't in peak form no matter if they are LA or not they may not win. And you'll see this... some riders race to win the spring classics and are on the opposite side of their peak when the Tour comes around where Armstrong uses these races to test his fitness but doesn't peak till the Tour. Next year will be interesting just like in 2000 as he tries to do a double peak to win the Tour and World's.
|Counterpoint from an acknowledged Merckx fan...||VertAddict|
Nov 4, 2002 8:51 PM
|I see what you are saying, but for me it comes down to how well a rider does against his peers at the time. It's a given that racers today train more scientifically than they did 30 years ago, but they all train that way, and the best win races. In Merckx's day everyone trained to the best of their abilities and knowledge at the time, and the best also won races.
Bottom line is, no one has ever dominated his peers at the time so completely as Merckx did. The only one who's ever come close was Indurain. And has been pointed out, he entered a wide variety of races, and won an unparalleled percentage of those races. So doesn't that unparalleled level of separation between him and his peers cement his credentials as being the best?
|Please, Fausto Coppi, hands down...||SnowBlind|
Nov 4, 2002 9:44 AM
|BTW, even Armstrong does not consider himself better than Mercx or Indurian, so why should we?|
|Humility and humbleness (nm)||PODIUMBOUNDdotCA|
Nov 4, 2002 1:26 PM
|Merckx. Hands down.(n/t)||AFrizzledFry|
Nov 4, 2002 6:46 PM