RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


lance more reconized than greg because....what do you think?(22 posts)

lance more reconized than greg because....what do you think?the bull
Feb 11, 2003 8:36 PM
He is from texas the state of the "proud and strong".
He wears the outfit of red white and blue that has
US POSTAL SERVICE with the patrotic egale on the front.
Wins more TDF's.
Defeted cancer.
All of the above.
Greg was before my timePODIUMBOUNDdotCA
Feb 11, 2003 9:21 PM
Greg winning was about the time I first learned how to ride a bike so I can't really talk about him. But I believe Lance gets the recognition he does because he is a cancer survivor that has climbed up the rungs of cycling to become one of the worlds greatest endurance athletes. If it weren't for him being a cancer survivor with the exact same career finishes I believe he would be a relatively obscure dot on the map.

Nick
PodiumBound.ca
Greg was before my timetremblay
Feb 11, 2003 11:34 PM
I'm not much older than you Nick, I'm 23, and I used to watch the Tour with my dad back in the 80s. I knew who Greg was before I knew who Wayne Gretzky was. Well, maybe that's not true. My knowledge of both arrived around the same time I guess. I can't be Canadian without an extensive knowledge of hockey, of course.
Greg was my time, and begot Bauer...Spunout
Feb 12, 2003 4:05 AM
In 1983 when I started racing as a cadet, Hinault was god-in-the-saddle. All of a sudden, Lemond challenged and came into his own.

Then Steve Bauer, it was so awesome seeing someone we saw at the Nationals/Commonwealth Games (Thunder Bay) on the world's cycling stage. He's running a tour company out of St. Catherine's now (anybody racing in their races this summer? I'm travelling from Ottawa. How about New Yorkers?)

Also in Canada, the impact for North American cycling was awesome. That at a time when Winning and Bicycling were the only information sources, no internet, plus 1/2 hour tour coverage on a Sunday afternoon.

The 1984 LA Olympics did alot for the sport also. So, Lance is somewhat the next tooth in the cog, but not the first.
Greg was before the timecyclopathic
Feb 12, 2003 6:36 AM
Nick pretty much nailed it. How many currently active cyclists watched and lived through tours Greg won?

Second Lance has a very good PR person behind his wife and he is very conscious about image he projects. In Greg days people used to say what they thought and image consultants were unheard of.

And make no mistake LeMond was very popular in his time, maybe even more then Lance now because he was the first US TdF winner and because he had a cycling generation behind his back. Hard to beleive there were more road bikes then cars sold in US back then.
Yeah, and wouldn't it have been fun to have OLNOldEdScott
Feb 12, 2003 6:43 AM
back then? Or the Internet? I remember being just DESPERATE for news of the '89 Tour, especially that last day.
I just watched that video on the rollers. Amazing! No team helpSpunout
Feb 12, 2003 8:39 AM
Yeah, another 'what if':OldEdScott
Feb 12, 2003 10:05 AM
LeMond had been supported by last year's U.S. Postal team?

The general sentiment is that LeMond is overrated. My feeling is just the opposite. And part of what's perceived as his whining, self-glorification etc is a very legitimate desire to be recognized for the truly extraordinary way he won those Tours.
Because he's been on TV more. Because we haveOldEdScott
Feb 12, 2003 6:39 AM
the Internet and cable. Because his 'story' is more compelling. Cancer trumps hunting accident. Because the 'culture of celebrity' is even more pervasive now than it was in the '80s.

That said, I daresay most Americans know who Greg Lemond is, at least most Americans over, say, 30. He got some pretty good publicity in his day.
donno butcyclopathic
Feb 12, 2003 7:27 AM
it terms of drama '86 and '89 wins eclipse Lance victories with exception of maybe '00. Greg won alone (in 86 he worked against his captain and in '89 he was riding for weak belgian team who had 3 riders left by Paris) where Lance always had a very dedicated team and Johan brains to back him up.

don't take me wrong both are great cyclists and neither are match to Eddy.
Much more dramatic.OldEdScott
Feb 12, 2003 7:38 AM
I may be alone on the board in saying this, but, imagining a showdown between the two, I think Greg's recklessness and unpredictability give him the edge over the cooly calculating Lance. I think Greg's erratic style would blow the Lance/Johan 'Tour template' to pieces, and an out-of-control (from LA's point of view) race would favor Greg. Sadly, we'll never know. It would be fun to see.
Greg was a strong ridercyclopathic
Feb 12, 2003 11:19 AM
he would ride upfront in wind for 100mi sometimes. Greg vs Lance hmm.. would be a nice to watch true. I hope I'd see someday someone coming fresh and doing what Eddy did in his first tour in '69 winning green, yellow and polka-dot jerseys.
He is a much better rider....Raven1911
Feb 12, 2003 7:28 AM
and he does not gripe about things! No excuses! LeMond has really got on my nerves, especially after he made those comments about LA after winning the TdF (what was it...two years ago?) I have respect for LeMond but he just seems kinda jealous of LA right now.

Raven
Lemond paved the career road Lance rides on, IMHO. nmSpunout
Feb 12, 2003 8:42 AM
bah, that's BS to save Lemond's egocollinsc
Feb 12, 2003 9:44 AM
Lance can pave any damn road he wants. He is where he is because he is the best. Not because some bitter washed up veteran allowed him to.

Its not like Lance is riding on some French team, paid by Frenchmen. He doesnt need to schmooze with the Euro crowd.
There were no American teams before Lemond, Cletus. nmSpunout
Feb 12, 2003 9:54 AM
I am well aware of that.collinsc
Feb 12, 2003 10:00 AM
Thanks for calling me Cletus tho. I appreciate that. Helps your argument a ton.
agreedlaffeaux
Feb 12, 2003 11:12 AM
Before LeMond there were few non-cycling Americans following cycling. LeMond brought cycling on to the American radar. Lance was able to capitalize on cycling fame because LeMond had brought cycling into the American world of sports.
Lemond was a better overall rider then LanceDeRosaOrBust
Feb 12, 2003 10:00 AM
I watched Lemond's first Tour victory in 1986. I was about 15 or so and racing on the Jr. Circuit. I think Lance is a tremendous rider, but I would say overall, Greg was a more complete rider. Had he not been shot in a hunting accident in 1986 after his first tour win he would have gone on to win at least 5 tours.
Greg vs Lancecyclopathic
Feb 12, 2003 11:40 AM
Greg and Lance have a long history of animosity and to set the scores right Lance was the first to badmouth Greg behind his back way before he won his first tour.

With respect to Greg's comment on Lance-Ferrari connection you refer to all Greg said was that he is disappointed that this connectin exists and it casts shadow on US cycling. Lance later admitted that it was a PR disaster. Noone (with exception of french and those infamous tapes) ever accused Lance in doping. And of cause Greg is probably jelous, he never got as much attention for his hard wins as LA did for his easy ones.

Anyways the whole discussion Greg vs Lance is pointless, kinda like Lucy vs Madonna.
Because that was then and this is now....(nm)rrodrigz
Feb 12, 2003 8:01 AM
Thats why I hate these arguements...funknuggets
Feb 12, 2003 12:07 PM
Like Mike Tyson vs Muhammed Ali... etc etc, this whole dang Armstrong vs LeMond vs Eddie vs Indurain, etc... sheeshe, impossible to tell. Given today's technology and training and drugs... or lack thereof for that matter... who would come out ahead is all inconsequential and degrading to our sport. It is interesting discussion, but also intricately and logically flawed. I think we all will agree to agree that each of these riders were spectacular in their own right. I think trying to rank them or compare them as if they all on an equal playing field detracts from the individual accomplishments of those riders. The fact of the matter is that these guys never had to race each other in their prime, therefore there will never be an adequate answer to this question. It is no different than trying to calculate pi.

Although I daresay it is an interesting debate, there is no answer for who was "the best" between the sport's premiere riders despite a multitude of statistics that can be spewed from history as to number of wins, fastest hour TT, highest LT, most influential, most tour wins, most classic wins, blah blah blah.

So, come on guys (and gals) lets spend our time better debating things like whether Campy is better than Shimano.

haha!!!

Chris