How good Lance Armstrong really was?

Lance was a strong rider but not particularly special until he came back form cancer. As we now know that was when he really ramped up the doping.

Beyond the doping he was su successful for two reasons: 1)he built a full team of domestiques around him that were very strong, in ALL areas with a stronger captain (George) and 2). He and his team really set the ball rolling with margin gains, though they didn't call it that back then. These two things sorta set the blue print for what the current pro-tour is now. Prior to that the top riders had one or two strong captains (i.e. Hinault and LeMond) but generally they rode and won on their own.

Lance had the best riders, gear, "training" and overall tech.

He was a strong rider and VERY aggressive rider, who did put in the work, but there were definitely real prodigies in day... just none of them could muster a full team around them like Lance. Jan Ulrich and the Tmobile days were about as close as anyone got but they always blew up in the mountains.

In hindsight, for American riders, Greg LeMond was a more talented rider. He never had a real team around him and in the years he won he won basically alone. He brought alot of tech into cycling, against the wishes of the fussy Euros, and set a real standard for what a pro-tour rider is... especially an American.

He was a top talent. He won the WC when very young.

Armstrong did become the world champion before his cancer treatment. He was already a very strong one-day cyklist.

If all cyclists were clean and have equally sytong teams he might still have been a contender for TdF because of his strenght and determination.

For pure talent I think Jan Ulrich was exceptional.

Have not seen Pogacar race but he must also be on a remarkable level of talent.

calculass wrote:

He was a top talent. He won the WC when very young.

And he rode a storming Pari-Nice with Cancer. He gave Laurent Jalabert and Chris Boardman a heck of a race when they were both in super form.

Magical burrito wrote:

Armstrong did become the world champion before his cancer treatment. He was already a very strong one-day cyklist.

If all cyclists were clean and have equally sytong teams he might still have been a contender for TdF because of his strenght and determination.

For pure talent I think Jan Ulrich was exceptional.

Have not seen Pogacar race but he must also be on a remarkable level of talent.

The blossoming Lance - Jan bromance is one of the better things to come out of the era. A few others didn't make it.

Lance was a fierce and savvy competitor. He embodied winning. His skill on the bike in close quarters, cornering, downhills, climbing was unparalleled. He worked hard and intelligently in his training. He had a great team and he was prepared to win and adapt to the racing situations. In a few words Lance was incredible.

He has a better grasp on the English language, that’s for sure.

Virtually every other TdF contender rode the other Grand Tours. Lance did not. Didn't even compete in them in the vast majority of years. He and his team's entire focus was on the TdF.

From 1993-2010, he rode the Vuelta once, and did finish 4th. In the same time period he rode the Giro once, and finished 12th. Whether that helped or hurt his TdF performances, I don't know, but he and his team always came in fresh.

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 !

If one could try to compare Lance to cycling stars from today, who would that be? Pogačar?

English is my 2nd language, so please don't mind. Btw, inlight me about my mistakes, it's easy to just s*it on other people.

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.

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.

Lances watts/kg post cancer went into the ridiculous zone, 7 watts/kg according to him.

Fierce competitor or not, 7w/kg makes you one of the best ever in grand tour style races and TT's.

What's his marathon PR?

pacoza wrote:

If one could try to compare Lance to cycling stars from today, who would that be? Pogačar?

That's not quite right. Once Lance won his first TdF in 1999, he rarely raced single day races with a mind on winning. He'd go and "help" George for instance, but it was just training for him. Pogacar is actually racing (and winning) monuments.

Pogacar's TdF performances do remind me of Armstrong, especially the last one for TP and the last 3 or 4 from Armstrong. There really was no doubt who was going to win, both were probably the best climbers during their tours as well as being the best TTers. TP's performance in that last TT of the 2020 TdF was "Armstrong dominant", like when Armstrong passed Ullrich up Alpe d'huez on a TT.

To be honest, no one really comes to mind as the current Armstrong. You need the best team, and today that is almost assuredly Ineos with their focus on marginal gains, however they also have too many leaders on the team. Armstrong wouldn't have stood for that.

Other teams that might honestly dedicate to one rider's GT ambitions don't have the budget or quality, dedicated teammates that Armstrong had.

I firmly believe that Armstrong was the best rider of his generation, and if the entire peloton was drug-free, he'd still have won those tours due to his commitment, ability, and other things like attention to detail and very strong team.

In fact I would say Chris Froome for a period when Ineos was Team Sky was pretty close to Armstrong, until G. Thomas won that lone tour a few years ago. Sky would sit and tempo the hills and blast the peloton apart...that's old USPS team tactics right there.

Armstrong won short prologs, long TT, uphill TT, and of course so many uphill finishes, he really was the best GT rider of his generation, no doubt.

I'm reminded by this that I still have a 2004 USPS team jersey in my closet. I need to frame it. I bought it in 2004 when it was announced it was the last year for USPS to sponsor, and I thought it would be retro cool given enough time. Back then, every other person was wearing one so I couldn't be caught in it! I think 17 years is long enough to make it retro cool now ...

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.

++++++++++++++++++++

Agree here and Merckx also had the same win or die mentality--extraordinarily difficult to compete against.

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.