Finally - Someone Says This In The Media!

[e-RICHIE]

pasted from Cyclingnews.com:
"You cannot compare what's not comparable," said Hinault. "If Eddy Merckx had competed only in the Tour de France, he would have won it 15 times. The problem with cyclists these days is that they do what they're told to do because the media pressure and the expectations are so huge that the only thing that matters is winning. If you don't wear yourself out by running other races during the year and you concentrate on competing only two months a year, then you have a big advantage over everybody else. And that's what Armstrong does."


i really agree.
e-RICHIE

ps


:D :D :D
;) ;) ;)
:p :p :p

arrange disorder

pppppps: this was cool to re-read 10 years later...
http://outside.away.com/magazine/0794/947flanc.html

[amg]

ditto. These are different times. Lance and USPS's sole focus is to win the Tour. Not many other teams/riders can make that commitment. Lance is not he all arounder that Merckx and Hinault was. You can't really compare Lance to Merckx or Hinault.

Eddy Merckx was quoted saying something similar when asked what he thought of Armstrong's chances of winning a sixth Tour de France. Merckx said something to the effect that if Lance focuses only on the tour, he should have no problem winning a sixth. I'll try and find the actual quote.

Antonio

[shinomaster]

This is old news. Everyone knows this. Even Eddy Merckx admits that he would not have won as many races, if he were a pro today. Things are so different. Every race is fought to the end at record high speed because there are more pro racers now and more teams and the racers are on average, better.
Also Lance has won the Dauphine the tour of Georgia,the tour of Switzerland and almost won the Amstel gold race..before the tour.

[sfscott]

No one, I think, is comparing Lance to Merckx, except for the number of TdF wins. Lance won't even go there.

The specialist trend is everywhere. J-C Killy won golds in all three ski disciplines. Now most downhillers won't get near a slalom course.

Defensive linemen used to play every down; now there are down-distance specialists. Goals and strategies evolve.

[93legendti]

I doubt Merckx would have won it 15 times, let alone 10, a lot can happen between just showing up to the Prologue and actually winning the Tour--ask Mayo, Heras, Hinault, Roche, Lemond, Hamilton, Ocana, Delgado, Riis, etc. I remember in '97 after Ulrich won, people were saying he would 5 in a row...

[Dr. Doofus]

[QUOTE=e-RICHIE]pasted from Cyclingnews.com:
"You cannot compare what's not comparable," said Hinault. "If Eddy Merckx had competed only in the Tour de France, he would have won it 15 times. The problem with cyclists these days is that they do what they're told to do because the media pressure and the expectations are so huge that the only thing that matters is winning. If you don't wear yourself out by running other races during the year and you concentrate on competing only two months a year, then you have a big advantage over everybody else. And that's what Armstrong does."
[QUOTE]

ok, some idiot is now going to disagree with the blaireau....

isn't "concentrating on two months a year" what jan, iban, tyler, ivan, etc., etc., are *also* doing? the advantage that lance has is that he's simply better....

now, lance has an advantage over eddy and bernie in total tour wins because of the different eras...but then again hinault was the guy who climbed off after 200m at the Tour of Flanders because he didn't care about that race and was focusing on June and July.... hinault's statement is perfectly valid if "everybody else" means champions from other eras. if "everyone else" means the riders lance competes against now, its...well....

comparing athletes of different eras in any sport is tricky...the doc and i think it comes down to looking at two things 1) how good were they relative to their competition and 2) what were their physical and mental gifts

the problem with 2) is that gift is contextual...dependent on training techniques. take ted williams and barry bonds. the doc and i are tempted to say that williams had better bat control, strike zone judgment, and natural power (mantle and mays *easily* had better natural power than bonds) now, a sharp guy will say "what do you mean better zone judgment, bonds walks 160 times a year." i'd counter that williams played in an era with much larger strike zones...his walks "count a little more" in that regard...williams, i'd argue, also had better natural power...compare his seasons with bonds' pre-hulk years, and its no contest...however, bonds could hit the weights (lets be optimistic) where williams went fishing...bottom line is that bonds' physical skills (plate judgment and power) are as historicized as the parks he played in and the competition he played against.

take it back to cycling. eddy, bernard, and lance are in a league by themselves. they each had the ability to win anything -- summit finish, time trial, sprint, long climb, short explosive climb...you name it, they could do it, and they did it better than anyone else in their eras. all three are very similar in terms of skills and dominance. had the 2001-2004 armstrong raced in 1975-1977, he'd have won 50 races a year. if bobet was around now, he wouldn't win anything of significance outside of june or july.

perhaps the reason this discussion is taking place..and the reason someone interviewed hinault, and the reason his quote was published, is that part of the legend of the tour is that it is "bigger" than the riders...it has always found a way to humble a rider who was supposedly its master, in his prime. it became to much for merckx when he was still a young man. it was too much for hinault twice. it is still "bigger" than armstrong -- which he knows quite well (which is why he's been so succesfull), but when he wins, and wins, and wins, it "ruins" that myth. (people complained about indurain too...) the story getting stale, journalists, who, like academics and *web board junkies*, have a duty to create demand for further discourse where none exists, must find reasons to gripe about the current king....

[Andreu]

..... badger is god
:bike:

[Kevin]

What Andreu said.

Kevin

[Climb01742]

personally, i'd love to see the badge punch lemond out. like i bet he's wanted to do since '86.

[93legendti]

[QUOTE=e-RICHIE]pasted from Cyclingnews.com:
"You cannot compare what's not comparable," said Hinault. "If Eddy Merckx had competed only in the Tour de France, he would have won it 15 times. The problem with cyclists these days is that they do what they're told to do because the media pressure and the expectations are so huge that the only thing that matters is winning. If you don't wear yourself out by running other races during the year and you concentrate on competing only two months a year, then you have a big advantage over everybody else. And that's what Armstrong does."
[QUOTE]

ok, some idiot is now going to disagree with the blaireau....

isn't "concentrating on two months a year" what jan, iban, tyler, ivan, etc., etc., are *also* doing? the advantage that lance has is that he's simply better....

now, lance has an advantage over eddy and bernie in total tour wins because of the different eras...but then again hinault was the guy who climbed off after 200m at the Tour of Flanders because he didn't care about that race and was focusing on June and July.... hinault's statement is perfectly valid if "everybody else" means champions from other eras. if "everyone else" means the riders lance competes against now, its...well....

comparing athletes of different eras in any sport is tricky...the doc and i think it comes down to looking at two things 1) how good were they relative to their competition and 2) what were their physical and mental gifts

the problem with 2) is that gift is contextual...dependent on training techniques. take ted williams and barry bonds. the doc and i are tempted to say that williams had better bat control, strike zone judgment, and natural power (mantle and mays *easily* had better natural power than bonds) now, a sharp guy will say "what do you mean better zone judgment, bonds walks 160 times a year." i'd counter that williams played in an era with much larger strike zones...his walks "count a little more" in that regard...williams, i'd argue, also had better natural power...compare his seasons with bonds' pre-hulk years, and its no contest...however, bonds could hit the weights (lets be optimistic) where williams went fishing...bottom line is that bonds' physical skills (plate judgment and power) are as historicized as the parks he played in and the competition he played against.

take it back to cycling. eddy, bernard, and lance are in a league by themselves. they each had the ability to win anything -- summit finish, time trial, sprint, long climb, short explosive climb...you name it, they could do it, and they did it better than anyone else in their eras. all three are very similar in terms of skills and dominance. had the 2001-2004 armstrong raced in 1975-1977, he'd have won 50 races a year. if bobet was around now, he wouldn't win anything of significance outside of june or july.

perhaps the reason this discussion is taking place..and the reason someone interviewed hinault, and the reason his quote was published, is that part of the legend of the tour is that it is "bigger" than the riders...it has always found a way to humble a rider who was supposedly its master, in his prime. it became to much for merckx when he was still a young man. it was too much for hinault twice. it is still "bigger" than armstrong -- which he knows quite well (which is why he's been so succesfull), but when he wins, and wins, and wins, it "ruins" that myth. (people complained about indurain too...) the story getting stale, journalists, who, like academics and *web board junkies*, have a duty to create demand for further discourse where none exists, must find reasons to gripe about the current king....

"idiot"?

[OldDog]

..if all 5 time winners were competing today, Antiquille (spelling?), Merckx, Hinault, Indurain and Armstrong, training only for Le tour, using todays training techniques, assuming no drugs. How do you think the podium would look in Paris?

[Too Tall]

OK, even up their age diffs right? I'll bite.

Indurain
Armstrong

All day every day. The Mig'inator simply can out watt Armstrong and has the TT ability to back it up. Armchair racing...hehehe.

[Larry]

First Place....... Sandy
Second Place ...... Dbrk
Third Place.... Shinomaster

:cool: :cool: :cool:

[zap]

So does this make Zabel one of the best of the current crop?

I have to admit, I prefer Pro's that race all season including the Olympics. I don't think Athens is such a terrible place for children.

[djg]

This may be a superfluous post, as the rather obvious rejoinders have already been provided, but taken literally Hinault's remarks are at once dubious and entirely unverifiable. I gather that BH--who isn't crazy--is offering a hyperbolic critique of a situation that King Eddy has also observed, albeit far less critically: namely, increasing specialization in training regimes and season planning enabled by better training technology on the one hand and bigger piles of money on the other.

Lance does not dominate the cycling calendar as Eddy did in certain years and he has never claimed otherwise. As Merckx himself has said, Merckx's palmares would be astonishingly difficult for anybody to replicate these days, a miraculously young-again Merckx included. As he's also said, given today's commercial climate, he'd do things differently were time to give him another shot.

Sure, like many fans, I'd like to see LA try to round things out a little more, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he's in the process of doing something truly remarkable in the annals of cycling. Whether it ends up being 5, 6, or even 7 tours, his TdF accomplishments HAVE To put him in a small and distinguished class of greats, even if many (myself included) would still name somebody else if playing the "since we're just shooting the bull, who's the greatest ever" game.

[Andreu]

I think one of the keys is that the good guys are always one step ahead (and I don´t mean just drugs) - I mean training, diet, equipment etc.
Take the 4 minute mile running record Bannister broke back in the 50´s....the guy trained when in England in the 40´s and 50´s it was almost deemed ungentlemanly to train for such events!
I shudder to read some of the diets the riders had in the tdf during the 60´s - raw steaks. And just drinking water during the stages!
I think this is what makes comparisons difficult because each era of riders finds something new and advantageous.
What next?
A