Broke 3 h--2:50 maybe?
Broke 3 h--2:50 maybe?
Plano wrote:
pacoza wrote:
I'm practically a newbie in the world of cycling. Probably the most controversial name out there. Aside from doping scandals, how good Lance was? Was he a prodigy, rare talent or combination of hard work + natural gift?
As a NON-doped 15 year old, he was beating professional triathletes 10-15 years older. Kid was a true talent. Add rocket fuel to a ferrari, and what you get is a dominant 7x tdf winner.
Exactly. Beating pros while he was still growing, winning Worlds riding away from guys at college age. He was every bit as great as the top guys. Even his VO2 maxx was just under Lemonds which was extra terrestrial. Remember, they are ALL genetic freaks, arguably lance more than most, but the competition in stage racing is such that PEDs that aid recovery are too much of an advantage to overcome if you dont dope. I would argue Lance was the the 7 time TDF champ among genetic freaks who all take drugs. For what thats worth. His only "unfair" advantage is that he and his team took drugs as seriously as cycling and made sure to do it "right". Listening to a million Lance interviews, its not hard to picture him wanting to out-drug and out work everyone. Im impressed by him as an athlete, he seems like a genuine assh$le though. Ive never come away without that feeling.
On a side note, its funny how people always say they are mad at him for the lie... not the PED use? Who uses PEDs and admits it while they are using? Isnt that how PEDS work, you take them and deny it? He was just more rabid about taking them and quashing all insurrection. Thats the A hole/competitor part of his personality that got him in real hot water.
He had the best doping program at the time. Maybe of all time. He had his team mostly on the same program. That is why they steamrolled everyone and teammates like Hamilton and Floyd could leave the team and be podium threats using the same program.
There is plenty of evidence that he doped all the way back to his teen years. There is really no way to know what an undoped LA looks like.
DouchebagsAnonymous wrote:
pacoza wrote:
I'm practically a newbie in the world of cycling. Probably the most controversial name out there. Aside from doping scandals, how good Lance was? Was he a prodigy, rare talent or combination of hard work + natural gift?
As a raw talent, was among the best, but not a "generational" talent.
Drugs or not, Lance's most potent talent was his incredible drive to win. ...Among all others, perhaps unmatched.
This drive to win permeated everything thing he did. He prepped better than his competition such as hours in the wind tunnel, bike tech, nutrition, pushing training methods, getting the best coaching, doctors, sogniers, masseuses, etc.
Further, his bike handling was top notch, his tactics were always better than his top competitors, and he always seem to deal with adversity on the course better than others. ...And he was lucky to avoid crashes
Ulrich, Pantani, Beloki, Contador, never matched Lance's drive, tactics, preparation, ....or luck.
Merckx, Froome, and Lemond were all more physically talented and among all riders ever and Eddy was the obvious GOAT
However, Todej Pogacar is the most talented ever and is on track to challenge Merckx !
Good points all. I do disagree that he is outside the definition of generational talent. There is ample evidence that he is a multigenerational freak. But yes, maybe a notch below the lemond group you mentioned is about right for stage racing.
Palmares Galore wrote:
trollism wrote:
It's hard to suggest someone can challenge Merckx while there are currently 3 of the 5 monuments you simply cannot see him winning.
The reason why Merckx was so great was not just his Grand Tour and climbing ability, but his ability to win races like Milan-San Remo and Paris-Roubaix.
Nobody will ever get close to the Merckx records, but if they did, it wouldn't be someone like Pogacar, it would be someone in the mould of Van Aert or Pidcock.
Well he already has Classics palmares!
He's just beginning his career and at the young age of 22 already has 2 career one-day classics wins in Leige-Bastogne-Leige and The Lombardia.
In 2021 he also won the Tirreno-Addriatico 5 day stage race. So in 2021 he won a Grand Tour, a One-week tour, and two one day Classics. He only became a pro in 2019 and 2020 was a year of very few races except for the Tdf ......which he won in his first try! Not a bad start and very similar to Eddy Merckx.
Van Aert and Pidcock are great too (but every time Pogacar faces them, he beats them). In fact, the peloton is as strong as it has ever been and WAY beyond the level of competition Merckx faced.
Merckx is the GOAT
Except for perhaps Bernard Hinault's trajectory in the early-middle of his career, Pogacar is the only bike racer to even consider among potential threats to that GOAT status.
Van Aert and Pogacar have raced each other in 8 one day races and Van Aert has finished in front of him every single time, Pidcock has races Pogacar 5 times in one day races and it's 4-1 Pidcock.
He'll more than likely win a few more LBL and Lombardia monuments, but he's unlikely to win any of the others.
I didn't say Van Aert and Pidcock were better than him though, just that someone who challenges Merckx would have to be more like them than Pogacar.
He was probably unremarkably good, which is why most athletes in that sport dope.
trollism wrote:
Palmares Galore wrote:
Well he already has Classics palmares!
He's just beginning his career and at the young age of 22 already has 2 career one-day classics wins in Leige-Bastogne-Leige and The Lombardia.
In 2021 he also won the Tirreno-Addriatico 5 day stage race. So in 2021 he won a Grand Tour, a One-week tour, and two one day Classics. He only became a pro in 2019 and 2020 was a year of very few races except for the Tdf ......which he won in his first try! Not a bad start and very similar to Eddy Merckx.
Van Aert and Pidcock are great too (but every time Pogacar faces them, he beats them). In fact, the peloton is as strong as it has ever been and WAY beyond the level of competition Merckx faced.
Merckx is the GOAT
Except for perhaps Bernard Hinault's trajectory in the early-middle of his career, Pogacar is the only bike racer to even consider among potential threats to that GOAT status.
Van Aert and Pogacar have raced each other in 8 one day races and Van Aert has finished in front of him every single time, Pidcock has races Pogacar 5 times in one day races and it's 4-1 Pidcock.
He'll more than likely win a few more LBL and Lombardia monuments, but he's unlikely to win any of the others.
I didn't say Van Aert and Pidcock were better than him though, just that someone who challenges Merckx would have to be more like them than Pogacar.
So true, but Pgacar is still at the infancy of his career, while badass VanAert is seven years in so we don't know how good he can be if he turns his attention to the Monuments/Classics.
Very exciting times in cycling these days!
VanAert is as good at Sagan is at handling a bike, which is scary!
He also crushes cyclocross and actually, most of his wins and his only WCs, are from this discipline. ....Also points to his incredible bike handling skills.
VanAert also showed his versatility in this years TdF winning a time trial, a sprint finish, and the legendary Ventoux climb!
Badass MF!
Pidcock is versatile too, but more on the mountain bike/cross side.
On the road scene, he's won exactly one Classic race and that's it.
Besides Junior WC results, he has not had the same success in road racing as MTB and Cross.
No comparison to VanAert, let alone Pogacar (No need to compare with Merckx....LOL!!!)
But this just enforces the otherworldly abilities of Pogacar, who can beat these guys when barely while still at the beginning of his career!
winning 7 tours in a row is an unreal accomplishment. getting to the start line with the fitness is one thing, but to avoid crashing out, sickness, injury, fatigue and any off days takes a great deal of determination, focus, luck, tactics and desire. unmatched by any other rider tbh. no one will match merckx, but tbf the level of competition and emergence of specialists make it nearly impossible. The winner of the TdF is generally the best climber, time trialist and tactician over a month with the best competition. sure there are better sprinters and classic racers, but the GC (and specifically TdF) is clearly the benchmark for best rider in this era.
Every cyclist that Lance beat easily for almost a decade was doped to the gills also. Not sure why this argument keeps coming up. They were all doping equally.
Lance is the all time GOAT of riding a bike
Lance is hardly the GOAT. He may count as a generation talent, if we put doping aside. But it is hard to make the argument he has better palmares than Indurain who immediately preceded Lance as the dominant grand tour rider, and who could be considered to be of the same generation. They are actually pretty similar. Both totally dominated the TDF but never amounted to much as one-day racers (Lance's 93 world champs win the exception). And he certainly is not better than Lemond or Hinault, or if we go further back, Merckx.
I would say of the current day riders, Lance is most similar to Froome, both dominant grand tour riders with a dominant team. Both tended to be one-trick ponies that did not have much success outside of stage racing. Both became dominant at a relatively late age for elite endurance athletes.
Palmares Galore wrote:
So true, but Pgacar is still at the infancy of his career, while badass VanAert is seven years in so we don't know how good he can be if he turns his attention to the Monuments/Classics.
Very exciting times in cycling these days!
VanAert is as good at Sagan is at handling a bike, which is scary!
He also crushes cyclocross and actually, most of his wins and his only WCs, are from this discipline. ....Also points to his incredible bike handling skills.
VanAert also showed his versatility in this years TdF winning a time trial, a sprint finish, and the legendary Ventoux climb!
Badass MF!
Pidcock is versatile too, but more on the mountain bike/cross side.
On the road scene, he's won exactly one Classic race and that's it.
Besides Junior WC results, he has not had the same success in road racing as MTB and Cross.
No comparison to VanAert, let alone Pogacar (No need to compare with Merckx....LOL!!!)
But this just enforces the otherworldly abilities of Pogacar, who can beat these guys when barely while still at the beginning of his career!
You're not really understanding what I'm saying.
Pogacar will never win Paris-Roubaix or RVV. He'll almost certainly never win MSR given how that race has gone recently.
Pidcock and Van Aert can win any of them (whether they will or not is another matter.)
You talk like Pogacar is a neo-pro while Pidcock is experienced. Pidcock is younger and has basically had half a season on the road as a pro.
Bob Schul fan wrote:
Every cyclist that Lance beat easily for almost a decade was doped to the gills also. Not sure why this argument keeps coming up. They were all doping equally.
Lance is the all time GOAT of riding a bike
Uhm, no
That is a laughable statement.
You can arguably say that Lance was the best TdF racer of all time, doped or not though.
But he never won the Vuelta or the Giro.
Merckx did.
Merckx also had the best one hour TT performance ever which held for over 40 years (on ancient equipment) .....TT specialists tried to beat this with modern equipment and failed every time until Bradley WIggins took that down eventually.
Lance's palmares are woefully short on one day races, other grand tours, and WCs and Olys
He does have some wins in these events, but nowhere near the list of pages of wins that Merckx or Hinault had winning across the whole spectrum of races and race types.
Go back to your "It's not about the Bike" book now, fanboi!
Lance was really, really good but never the GOAT and nowhere near the most talented
Lance never won the tour de france.
Lance admitted his cancer was caused by doping.
He was doping from the getgo.
he is a lying cheat and a fraud.
You are right though that all top level cyclists in from the early 90's (or maybe even late 80's) on to the advent of the test for EPO in 2000 were doping. Very similar to distance running in that respect, and how the world records, beginning with Haile Gebrselassie, fell so dramatically in the mid 90's. It is probably how Ohio's favorite distance running son, after Bob Schul, finally got under 13 minutes in the 5000.
Your are underestimating Pidcock. After the road season he had, and at his age, he looks like an incredibly huge talent. Granted, he'll probably never take down the big two in cx, he doesn't have the big power they have. but is already quite a bit better than MVDP in xc where power to weight is a bigger factor, and looks to be a much better climber than either of them.
bigmig19 wrote:
Plano wrote:
As a NON-doped 15 year old, he was beating professional triathletes 10-15 years older. Kid was a true talent. Add rocket fuel to a ferrari, and what you get is a dominant 7x tdf winner.
Exactly. Beating pros while he was still growing, winning Worlds riding away from guys at college age. He was every bit as great as the top guys. Even his VO2 maxx was just under Lemonds which was extra terrestrial. Remember, they are ALL genetic freaks, arguably lance more than most, but the competition in stage racing is such that PEDs that aid recovery are too much of an advantage to overcome if you dont dope. I would argue Lance was the the 7 time TDF champ among genetic freaks who all take drugs. For what thats worth. His only "unfair" advantage is that he and his team took drugs as seriously as cycling and made sure to do it "right". Listening to a million Lance interviews, its not hard to picture him wanting to out-drug and out work everyone. Im impressed by him as an athlete, he seems like a genuine assh$le though. Ive never come away without that feeling.
On a side note, its funny how people always say they are mad at him for the lie... not the PED use? Who uses PEDs and admits it while they are using? Isnt that how PEDS work, you take them and deny it? He was just more rabid about taking them and quashing all insurrection. Thats the A hole/competitor part of his personality that got him in real hot water.
Lance did the same drugs as his rivals. You're a bit too drug obsessed tho. Hinault didn't dope and he wasn't stronger or weaker in sustained power than Lance.
Same thing with Pogačar. The power outputs are the same with or without dope. It's really not difficult to figure this out if you know the sport.
Lance never won the tour de france.
Lance admitted his cancer was caused by doping.
He was doping from the getgo.
he is a lying cheat and a fraud.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bob Schul fan wrote:
Every cyclist that Lance beat easily for almost a decade was doped to the gills also. Not sure why this argument keeps coming up. They were all doping equally.
Lance is the all time GOAT of riding a bike
All-time Tour de France GOAT. I think Merckx is the overall cycling GOAT. Multiple Grand Tour champion, plus multiple classic one-day race champion. Cannibal was a fitting nickname.
Lance was the best tour rider of his day. He would have been the best if everyone was clean just like he was the best with everyone doping.
Besides being such a strong rider he had the forethought to put together a complete team, concentrate on just one race a year, and do much more recon of the route than anyone else in the sport.
xlev2 wrote:
Lance never won the tour de france.
Lance admitted his cancer was caused by doping.
He was doping from the getgo.
he is a lying cheat and a fraud.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-admits-that-doping-could-have-caused-his-testicular-cancer/
OK.
But what to do about Pantani's TdF win in 98?...and Giro 98!?
Or Ulrich 97?
Or Riis 96? (By all knowledgeable accounts, the most doped ever performance)
All admitted and/or caught dopers too.
Are they not lying cheats and frauds too?
Also, the great Eddy Merckx gets a complete pass by all even though he tested positive four times, got kicked out of the Giro for doping and wasn't allowed to start 2 Tdfs because of positive drug tests.
So, again, right you are about LA, but what of these other doping TdF winners?