Armstrong and the classics
02-13-10, 09:32 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Armstrong and the classics
Just thinking the other day that had Armstrong chosen to focus on the Tour in his '99-05 years, he could have been a real dominant threat for classics such as L-B-L, Flanders and Amstel etc. He never chose to peak during these races but had he, I believe he could have done some serious damage. Prior to cancer he was a strong one day rider but didn't have the tactical sense that he developped later in his career. During his Tour reign, he had the power, tactics and team that could have made him a dominant classics man.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
02-15-10, 01:03 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Just thinking the other day that had Armstrong chosen to focus on the Tour in his '99-05 years, he could have been a real dominant threat for classics such as L-B-L, Flanders and Amstel etc. He never chose to peak during these races but had he, I believe he could have done some serious damage. Prior to cancer he was a strong one day rider but didn't have the tactical sense that he developped later in his career. During his Tour reign, he had the power, tactics and team that could have made him a dominant classics man.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
02-15-10, 04:18 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,636
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, that is not true. Look up the results. Some races a sprinter wins, but not enough to make the statement they they favor the sprinter. Andy Schleck won Liège-Bastogne-Liège last year. Cancellara, Cunego, Di Luca, Valverde, Ballan, Pozzato, Devolder, etc. have all won classic races in the past 3 years. In that group are climbers, all-arounders, and TT'ers.
02-15-10, 10:59 PM
#6
Banned.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,669
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is probably my biggest problem with LA and what keeps him off the top rung of favorite riders. For that period he was basically a one trick pony. 7 TdF's is unprecedented. However, he never attempted to challenge for multiple grand tours in a season or, as you point out, the classics. Check out Eddy Merckx's or Big Mig's list of victories. There is something to be said for racing (to win) other major races in the season.
02-26-10, 03:34 AM
#8
velo-dilettante
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: insane diego, california
Posts: 8,519
Bikes: 85 pinarello treviso steel, 88 nishiki olympic steel. 95 look kg 131 carbon, 11 trek madone 5.2 carbon
Liked 3,360 Times
in
1,789 Posts
you know, i think this could be the year lance wins l-b-l, roubaix, amstel, g(h)ent & flanders.
wadda ya think???
wadda ya think???
02-27-10, 05:35 PM
#9
Senior Member
IMHO, LA will not be remembered as one of the top few greatest pro cyclists ever if we restrict the voting to true, knowledgeable cycling fans. However, he is the greatest TdF racer ever. Like other posters here, I have often wondered what else he might have accomplished had he broadened his focus to serious campaigns at some of the classics and more than one grand tour over the course of his career.
03-01-10, 08:10 AM
#10
Senior Member
I believe chemo reduced LA's muscle mass, consequently he changed the way he rode by spinning at higher RPMs and dropping down gears; which ended up making him better suited for endurance type races than one day races. In effect he went from relying more on his legs to relying more on his aerobic capacity (and team tactics). So any references from pre cancer LA to post cancer LA are probably not valid.
03-01-10, 09:19 AM
#11
Senior Member
The greatest, no. But to say that he won't be among the pantheon of cycling greats is delusional.
Geez, I don't even like Lance that much, and here I am having to defend his legacy. Eeeww.
