Proteos

Back on topic: LA - 16 years at or near the top of the sport.
1993 UCI World Cycling Champion
Winner of Tour of America
US national Cycling Champion
1994 - Second at Liege-Baston-Liege
1995 - Winner of Tour of America
1996 - Winner of La Fleche Wallone, 2nd Liege-Baston-Liege, 2nd Paris-Niece
1998 - Winner of Tour of Luxembourg, 4th in Vuelta
1999-2005 Tour de France Winner
2009 - 3rd Tour de France

Twice 2nd at Amstel Gold

Can you really say he's obviously second to LeMond?

Keith99

The average speed has is really determined by how fast the peleton goes, not how good the top riders are. When Merckx was riding there were often 2 and at least once even 3 stages in one day.

Except for Time trials average speed is pretty meaningless and even there distance, wind and elevation can be an influence. Not to mention what a rider needs for his GC position.

If the riders today are so much better why haven't dozens of them shattered Merckx's hour record?

DMF 

Then you didn't answer the poll question.

Hint: It wasn't "Which one do you like better?"

Proteos

Merckx doesn't have the one hour record. Boardman on a standard bicycle does. Actually, several people have better times than Merckx, albeit all but Boardman on aero bikes.

Still, as best American (back on topic), is it influential or strongest? Strongeset? I'd say LA. Influential? I think LeMond kickstarted American interest in the Tour in a way that LA has done, but perhaps was more influential because he was the first to win.

Back on Merckx: Even Armstrong refers to him as the greatest of all time... and Merckx did win the Giro 5 times, the Vuelta once, and Tour 5 times. For those idiots that claim (through hearsay, that LA doped), know that Merckx got caught 3 times doping and was kicked out of the Giro one year for it.

Keith99

For the Giro the test is very dubious. Merckx actually faced the problems Lance worries about. Merckx was admitted to the TDF the same year as the Giro Drug test because of irregulatrities in the testing. (It was also on a stage where Merckx had no reason to dope).

Back to the hour. Boardman beat Merckx by a mere 10 meters. If riders are much better today shouldn't there be dozens part that mark? Heck shouldn't allowed improvements in tires and improved friction reduction account for more than that in an hour? But there is a well known reason why any athlete even close to Merckx should be able to beat his record! Merckx originally intended to break the records for the 5k, 10k 20k and hour all in one ride. He eventually decided to not try for the 5k. But still this is like trying to break a record for the mile while breaking the 1/4 mile and 1/2 mile on the way.

And BTW the current record holder is Ondrej Sosenka. Hardly a new record as his effort was in 2005.


Also most of those who think Armstrong doped know a lot more about cycling than you do and are far from idiots. There are lots of reasons to think he doped. There are even more to think he has a great public relations team.

Proteos

Well, Keith, you broke it! You have the news! Gather around L'Equipe! Keith has the proof you've been looking for all these years! He knows more about cycling than all of us. Just ask him. He'll tell you.

bhamlax

He may not know more than "everyone" but he certainly has you beat.

Proteos

I know the rumors and I know the history, but to suggest he has this publicity department and gets a free pass just because he's Lance is ridiculous. The greatest cyclist of all time didn't get a free pass (well, once at the Giro, perhaps). Landis didn't either (even though my stupid self still thinks it's possible he didn't dope). Is it possible Lance really did, yes. Until I see and A and a B positive (which is why they have two), I'll sit around in my ignorant and stupid way and give him the benefit of the doubt, because I'd rather do that than jump on a bandwagon and be a hater, like so many on this forum.

HarryStoddard

Damn. Bet this guy feels pretty dumb.

Flaneur

What you do off the bike is part of your legacy, like it or not. Political context, personal morality, cultural background and religion have all helped shape our memories of past champions. Even the media manipulators of today cannot escape that.

If a rider philanders, loses large parts of his career to health and/or political factors, polarises and fascinates the wider public, historians have a right to record it all.

hipcheck5

A few comments from someone who started racing in the mid-80's because of Lemond:

1) Zabriskie holds the ITT speed record now. 54.676kph in 2005.

2) Claiming the '99 retroactive tests are proof of LA testing positive is asinine considering all of the issues, including chain of custody, that even the lab won't refute.

3) I'd put Taylor, Lemond, Armstrong and Phinney in the mix.

hopsing08

i have to say LA only focused on the TDF because it is the most prestigious grand tour. if he won the Giro 7 times it sure wouldnt have had the impact of winning the Tour de France 7 times. idk if its harder im just saying its more prestigious.

I am voting for LA.
and GL did not introduce the world to aero bars. maybe to professional cycling...idk know if thats true...
I know that Dave Scott tested the first prototype in 87 and they were used that year in kona.

Proteos

History will probably be the best judge. 20 years from now I suspect Merckx will still be considered the greatest of all time and I think Armstrong will be considered the best American. I think the litmus test for road racers is the Tour de France and the bottom line is everything else aside, Armstrong won 7 in a row and LeMond won 3. In the end, that'll be the bottom line.

iluvfreebeer

Since Armstrong has used chemical enhancements, I voted Lemond. But I'm not a fan of either.

DMF 

Citation, please.

MGtrack

You're joking, right?