Flaneur

Neither was the same rider after illness.

Neither won as much as they might have.

Lemond never had a decent team riding exclusively for him.

Armstrong's focus was insultingly narrow. Lemond tried to be an all-rounder.

Each changed the sport significantly.

Competition was tougher for Lemond.

Neither was an engaging personality- Lemond the unfulfilled prodigy, Armstrong the resentful Patron.

If Lemond were riding today, he'd win a lot of races. If Armstrong had rode in the 80's............

- Hinault would have eaten his lunch, too!


I vote Sheldon Brown.

oldbobcat

Lance has the palmares, but I've always preferred watching Greg's racing. Greg was more of an all-arounder and a more creative tactician. Watch his 1983 Worlds ride to see what I mean.

And the word I'd use to describe Greg's personality is unfulfilled. Most journos, French and English speaking, had no trouble engaging him.

Cat4Lifer

Although, I only started following professional cycling in 1988, I do remember Fignon grumbling during the '89 Tour that Lemond sat back and waited for him to "do all the work." I also remember reading soon thereafter a similar sentiment echoed by Stephen Roche, who said something to the effect, Lemond's style of racing was less than spectacular.

As far as the Tour, I have to say that Lance was the more entertaining rider; he rode with more panache.

Disco Stu

What about 'who was the most naturally talented'?

I say LeMond.

He won a million races as a junior; nearly won the national TT title when he was very young, and was apparently thwarted by his junior gear restrictions; and was third in his first Tour? Right? Wrong?
As far as I recall, he did more in Europe when he first got there, compared to Armstrong, who 'only' won the Words and one Tour stage.

????

And when it comes to drugs, Armstrong has one retro possitive, and LeMond, nothing ever!!!!

stewardmike03

I have to vote Lemond too. My reasons are simple...that TT on a heavier bike...God knows what the speed and time whould have been on a modern machine...

Agreed...LA focused on one race...GL was an exceptional all-rounder...

Tit-for-tat I think if they came up together GL would PROBABLY have spanked the living bejeezuz out of Armstrong.

Personally I respect them both and loathe them both a little. While being exceptional athletes and role models they are also just like us...opinionated and human...which makes them...well...HUMAN. Removing their personal lives and looking merely at their respective carreers in ONLY a narrowly focused athletic accomplishment way...I give the nod to GL.

SemperFi87

Well I think the drug comment is a little misleading. One retro positive for a test that they never did when LeMond was riding. The advances in both testing and doping have come a long ways, and the two competitors never really faced the same kind of competition when you take that into consideration. I am not trying to belittle either of them, just saying that they really did race in two different eras in regards to pretty much every aspect, and that makes true evenhanded comparison difficult from the start.

As of right now, my vote goes to LA. It is not because of his career, but rather LeMond's exit from his. Just like a former President, a lot of an athlete's reputation and legacy can be determinded by how they compose themselves after they leave their sport and move on to another part of their life. I really don't think LeMond could have done a worse job of this. Even many of his die hard fans have negative opinions of him now solely based off his relatively unqualified and uncalled for comments about other racers. While LA certainly can be an arrogant ass, he has never done anything to rival the bitterness from LeMond.

Disclaimer: LA did some childish things at this year's tour, and it could be a bad indicator of things to come. That is why my vote is for LA right NOW, but he could certainly change that.

Hezz

I personally believe that if you could put them head to head at thier peak with no PED use. Lemond would beat Armstrong at least 2 out of 3 times. Probably more.

KidSpinner

+1

bhamlax

Voted Lemond, he may be a whiner but at least he's not Lance.

socalrider

When I think of Lemond early in his pro career I think of him winning the Coors Classic and fighting off the Russian National team by himself.. Much like his win in 1989 where ADR was such a lackluster team..

Ames

Lemond turned cynical Armstrong took his sucess and raised the awareness for Cancer and is an still very fit. Armstrong wins for lasting impact and is leaving a good legacy. Lemond was a good cyclist period not a great person.

SlimAgainSoon

Lance Armstrong's incredible string of Tour de France victories is the high-water mark for American athletes. No doubt. Even without his personal battle with cancer, it makes him the champion.

Greg LeMond's power and heart on the bicycle, and his precedent-setting Tour win for an American, his tortuous struggles with teammate Hinault, his comeback from being shot in the back and, most of all, his bringing his opponent to tears in the best race I've ever seen, makes him the hero.

And ... let's hear it for Major Taylor!

Proteos

When LeMond won and then again, and then again... I loved and cherished it. Awesome that an American won! Since then, he can't seem to say anything positive about other riders and assumes everyones taking drugs now (ironic since people were continually being tossed then for drugs). I was very much in his camp, for nostalgiac (sp?) reasons if for none other, but he's systematically destroyed goodwill for himself.

Lance was more narrowly focused on one race, but when it's the most important race on the calendar and the one which gives the most fame and you win it 7 times... in a row... and then comes back after 3 years and comes 3rd? Couple that with his personality and general lack of disrespect for other riders (Contador being an exception), and I respect his achievements more.

From a purely talented respect, it's hard to know which was better in their peak. LeMond has the better TT time, but as someone mentioned earlier, who knows what the conditions were? What was LeMonds competition like then as opposed to now? I think in general the riders of today are stronger and faster than then. Look at the average speed of the peleton. It's a continual march upwards in speed. There were some good racers then, but were they as physically strong or was their endurance as strong? Hard to say with certainty. Sports has shown many advances in terms of training aids, training methods, and sports medicine since then.

Now, if you're asking who was the most influential American riders from a sports perspective, and physical aspects are not counted, LeMond as the first American to win the Tour was more important. For that matter Phinney was potentially more influential than LeMond and while we've all but forgotten him now, Major Taylor was influential for the American track cycling movement (along with others, of course). So, it depends on how we measure greatness, in the end.

Laggard

Yes. We're talking 1989, not 1929. Also keep in mind that starting in the mid-80s the TDF has gotten shorter. In '87 it was 4,231 km. In 2009 it was 3459 km.

Proteos

From a purely physical respect... I honestly don't think someone like even the great Merckx in his prime would win a Tour de France today, much less five. And if he couldn't, Anquetil (sp?) couldn't, nor could Hinault. Merckx averaged 38 km/h in 71. His other wins were at an average of 34 and 35 km/h. (Yes, hard to compare because of course particulars and weather). Hinault won two years at the same 38 km/h speed. LeMonds were 37 and 38. From 1991 on, the average speed of the winner has gone from peaking at 37 or 38 to being the norm, to being on the slower side. 2007 was the first time since the 1994 it's dipped below 39 km/h. Generally, they're at 40 or 41 km/h now.

Some of this is equipment, perhaps, but increased popularity and improved training methods have created stronger riders. My feeling is that outside of Merckx, Hinault, and LeMond, no other winners would be able to hang very long with todays riders and even they would be suffering, none to finish on the podium.

Proteos

Perhaps in '87 it was 4,231... but in '88 (one year later), it was 3.286 (shorter than in 2009). None of the Tours has been markedly longer since 1929. Since then, all have been less than 5,000 km's. When Merckx was winning, it was never over 4,000 km's, so at least from a distance perspective, they're comparable. The average distance now is roughly the same as when Merckx was racing.

Laggard

You're doing that thing again where people underestimate the ability of riders "back in the day." It's common with 99ers.

Also, if Merckx were racing today he would have access to all the newest training methods and technologies. No reason why he wouldn't repeat what he did then.

Proteos

I think he'd be a top echelon rider, I just don't think he'd win. The technology today isn't that much better than then. I have a 1985 Cannondale ST400. The basic frame is still used on some of todays bikes, almost 25 years later. It's 25 years on and at 24 lbs it's not terribly heavier than something like a Trek 2.3, which is 20. I have Shimano everything. Shimano's technology isn't much better. When Merckx rode, he started on Peugot (I believe). Their technology is not much different from today.

I understand the danger of falling into the 'today is better' trap. However, considering advances in sports therapy and training techniques, I think todays riders have advantages and the result of those advantages is slightly stronger and faster riders. I'm talking improvements in the margins, but in a 3 week race, the margins is where it's won.

Laggard

Proteos: I'm saying that physically and mentally Merckx riding today using todays equipment and training methods is perfectly capable of winning any race. Physically he's no less gifted than an Armstrong or a Shleck.

Proteos

I understand -- Quite possible. Hard to know for sure, but quite possible.

merlinextraligh

If Merckx came along in this era, with modern equipment, coaching and training techniques, the same gifts (both physical and mental) that made him a winner in his era would also make him win today.

Given how the game has changed, with more specialization, and more riders capable of winning a particular event, its highly probable that he would not have the overwhelming dominance he had in his era, but he would still be the dominant guy in any era.

merlinextraligh

As for Lemond versus Armstrong, 7 trumps 3.

And for records outside the TDF, Lemond didn't accomplish all that much more than Armstrong. Moreover, Armstrong's non TDF accomplishments are arguably more impresive, given that Armstrong focused so much on the TDF for most of his career.

Lemond Palmares:

World Junior Road Race Champion, 1979
1983 World Pro Road Race
Dauphiné - Libéré
Critérium des As
Super Prestige Pernod Trophy
1985 1 stage, Tour de France
1986 Tour de France
1 stage, Tour de France
1 stage, Giro d'Italia
Points competition, Tour of Switzerland
1989 Tour de France
3 stages, Tour de France
World Pro Road Race
1990 Tour de France

Armstrong has Flech Wallone, Clasico San Sebastian, a World Championship, Several Dauphines, and the Tour de Swiss, which pretty much matches up with Lemond's non TDF palmares

donrhummy

The idea that Lance was only great in the TDF is the biggest misconception here. Both riders were great in many different types of races. Both won the World Championship (a one-day race). Both only won the TDF as a Grand Tour (not the Vuelta or Giro). Lance actually placed top two in 9 classics (including LBL, Fleche, San Sebastian, Amstel) including a number of vidtories. Both riders were incredible, but I'd have to give the bump to Lance because he kept his high level of excellence over a much longer (and continuing) time period than Lemond.

Phantoj

Merckx's Hour Record proves that he had as much power as the pros today.

Proteos

Except that nobody really goes for that record much anymore.