|
Eddy Merckx and his 445 pro wins
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 18-04-2015 08:47
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
See your point, TMM. We've had much better sprinters, better climbers, too.
Though Merckx was one of the finest time trialist we've ever had. There haven't been many stronger.
Also, he was a great puncher, but most of all, his stamina, attacking spirit and riding hard on the flat are still unmatched.
As the famous words go after Flanders of 75': "He riders 5kph too fast for us." |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 18-04-2015 09:31
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Stamina, Flat, Resistance all come under Rouler territory where he is the best ever (as i said along with Puncher)  Time Trial he's up there but very hard to compare to modern trialists like Rogers, Cancellara, Wiggins or Martin because that discipline has changed so much with the advent of tri-bars, aero bikes and all the tech changes.
I mean this is the guy who rode so fast he won a transition stage to Marseille so quickly no-one had yet turned up to watch it (best Merckx story and i love to bring it up as often as possible). No-one would ever doubt him as best cyclist ever (unless they were truely idiotic beyond belief).
|
| |
|
|
| Wilier |
Posted on 18-04-2015 11:36
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5405
Joined: 28-04-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Eddy Merckx was also insanely good at downhilling. So if he got dropped on the mountains (what rarely happened) he could get back in the downhill.
Edited by Wilier on 18-04-2015 11:36
|
| |
|
|
| hanspetter61 |
Posted on 18-04-2015 11:51
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1037
Joined: 30-01-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
I started to get interested in cycling early in the 90 when Indurain was still the best. First thing i heard was that "everybody" was on drugs. And it had been so for many many years. All accepted in including UCI but noone talked about it.
Merckx couldt beat all others who was on drugs and beeing clean. But they where all on the same Level so he won because he was the best. That was how it was in cycling back then.
One man has been crusified when they wanted to change it. That man was Lance Armstrong. In my eyes he won Equal as Merckx did. He just like "all" else raced like all others do. The big gangsters is those who let it develop and closed their eyes.
Its different now, thats good but we cant erease all races since early 60.
Edited by hanspetter61 on 18-04-2015 11:54
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 18-04-2015 11:55
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Big difference between Armstrong and Merckx... Very big.
Anyway, I agree with you, TMM. Though he didn't win the Marseille stage, someone who was able to hold his wheel crossed the line first, but I see your point  Also stage to Mourenx is legendary! |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 01:07
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Squire |
Posted on 18-04-2015 12:09
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1404
Joined: 24-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
hanspetter61 wrote:
Merckx couldt beat all others who was on drugs and beeing clean. But they where all on the same Level so he won because he was the best. That was how it was in cycling back then.
There's EPO and there's other drugs. Doping back in Merckx' days usually had some serious side-effects. A clean rider was at no significant disadvantage. EPO changed all that, and add to that Armstrong's UCI protection, and we're talking a whole different level of doping. I still think the Armstrong saga is ever so slightly unfair, but if anyone deserves it more than others, it's him.
Merckx is head and shoulders above everyone else in cycling history, and nobody will ever change that. The sport is too different.
|
| |
|
|
| hanspetter61 |
Posted on 18-04-2015 12:17
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1037
Joined: 30-01-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
Eddy Merckx won veulta in 69 (corrected to 73). Only time he did the race. He won Giro in 68,70,72,73,74. He was disquilified in 69 for drugs. didnt race in 71.
He won TDF in 69,70,71,72,74. Didnt race in 73. In 69 TDF after been disqulified in Giro he won overall, mountain and sprint jersey.
3 times world champion. Milan Sanremo 7 times, Flanders 2 times, Robaix 3 times, Liege 5 times, Lombardia 2 times, Amstel 2 times, Fleche Wallonne 3 times, Wevelgem 3 times.
And many more. He was the best then at those rules who was back then.
Edited by hanspetter61 on 18-04-2015 12:35
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 18-04-2015 12:18
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
That Vuelta was not in '69. I think it was in 1973, with the Giro double. That time, Ocana won the Tour.
|
| |
|
|
| hanspetter61 |
Posted on 18-04-2015 12:22
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1037
Joined: 30-01-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
That Vuelta was not in '69. I think it was in 1973, with the Giro double. That time, Ocana won the Tour.
U are right it was in 73. But it dosent change hes stats. |
| |
|
|
| hanspetter61 |
Posted on 18-04-2015 12:33
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1037
Joined: 30-01-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
If u havent read this, u all should. https://en.wikiped...in_cycling
The doping at that scale ended With the fall of Armstrong. He had to pay for 80 years of doping in cycling. He might be the best to do drugs to, i think so. But he has "alone" got ripped of all glory. Thinking of the great riders. I think we should Accept that cycling was different before and it has now changed. Maybe they have to cruzified one man who was the greates of the 90 and 2000 to do that. But its not fare that he must take the blame when its the leaders who are the big bad wolfs.
Edited by hanspetter61 on 18-04-2015 12:37
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 18-04-2015 12:40
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
That's not what's happened.
While others did things in the past, it is in pale comparison to Amrstrong's network of heavy doping and practically forcing his entire team like a mob boss to do so, too.
Armstrong's advantage was disproportional to his rivals. Of course, Armstrong had to be talented, but that's beside the question.
And, of course, doping in the old days can't be denied, but remember that in those days, it was something else. And nobody, definitely not Merckx, ever had a system of doping or super doping, giving them an unfair advantage. |
| |
|
|
| Ollfardh |
Posted on 18-04-2015 13:00
|
World Champion
Posts: 14563
Joined: 08-08-2011
PCM$: 9100.00
|
I really think people should do their research about that '69 doping case against Merckx before commenting.
Changed my sig, this was getting absurd.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 18-04-2015 13:06
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ollfardh wrote:
I really think people should do their research about that '69 doping case against Merckx before commenting.
So let's talk about the '73 Lombardia and '77 Fleche positives Especially the '77 positive which he admitted to.
|
| |
|
|
| Strydz |
Posted on 18-04-2015 13:54
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5894
Joined: 02-08-2011
PCM$: 1625.00
|
hanspetter61 wrote:
If u havent read this, u all should. https://en.wikiped...in_cycling
The doping at that scale ended With the fall of Armstrong. He had to pay for 80 years of doping in cycling. He might be the best to do drugs to, i think so. But he has "alone" got ripped of all glory. Thinking of the great riders. I think we should Accept that cycling was different before and it has now changed. Maybe they have to cruzified one man who was the greates of the 90 and 2000 to do that. But its not fare that he must take the blame when its the leaders who are the big bad wolfs.
I don't really understand this post, Armstrong isn't the only rider to be stripped of his results, the reason his has been such a big case was because of who he was, 7 Tours, the very underhanded way he and his close cadre of supporters went about silencing any critics and that in doing this destroyed reputations. The only reason he got the penalty that he did was because he wouldnt admit to ANYTHING. They offered him a lesser penalty but he chose to fight it so it is on him. To say Armstrong is taking the fall for all of cycling's doping history is naive in the least.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald
https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/ |
| |
|
|
| hanspetter61 |
Posted on 18-04-2015 16:32
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1037
Joined: 30-01-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
Strydz wrote:
hanspetter61 wrote:
If u havent read this, u all should. https://en.wikiped...in_cycling
The doping at that scale ended With the fall of Armstrong. He had to pay for 80 years of doping in cycling. He might be the best to do drugs to, i think so. But he has "alone" got ripped of all glory. Thinking of the great riders. I think we should Accept that cycling was different before and it has now changed. Maybe they have to cruzified one man who was the greates of the 90 and 2000 to do that. But its not fare that he must take the blame when its the leaders who are the big bad wolfs.
I don't really understand this post, Armstrong isn't the only rider to be stripped of his results, the reason his has been such a big case was because of who he was, 7 Tours, the very underhanded way he and his close cadre of supporters went about silencing any critics and that in doing this destroyed reputations. The only reason he got the penalty that he did was because he wouldnt admit to ANYTHING. They offered him a lesser penalty but he chose to fight it so it is on him. To say Armstrong is taking the fall for all of cycling's doping history is naive in the least.
Armstrong is the only one who is stripped of all results even if others also have used drugs most likly in all career. The NeXT of the list in his 7 wins in TDF is 1999: Alex Zülle (confessed to EPO use)
2000: Jan Ullrich (suspended from 2006 Tour; banned this year and stripped of all results from 2005 on)
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki (kept out of 2006 Tour while under doping investigation, later cleared)
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andreas Klöden (accused of illegal blood transfusion in the 2006 Tour)
2005: Ivan Basso (confessed to attempted doping, suspended)
The list is long. U will hardly find one rider among the 10 best from this years that hasnt been a part of drugs. Cadel Evans is maybe the only one.
My point that Armstrong is the one With so hard penalty. No other rider has admitted something either before they had to. I dont think what Armstrong did was good. But i think he is punisched lot harder than anybody else. Who is talking about Pantani, he is like a god. |
| |
|
|
| Guido Mukk |
Posted on 18-04-2015 22:58
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15830
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
do not pity Armstrong..he is few of them that is not just victim of system and era.
Man was..he's monster..manipulating dictator.
and compare merxcs and lance results is crime against merxcs...who was riding every race (even small ones) 100%... |
| |
|
|
| canojuancho |
Posted on 18-04-2015 23:26
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 917
Joined: 21-07-2008
PCM$: 600.00
|
According to sitiodelciclismo.net, here is a list with all his results from 1962 to 1977, there are 521 victories, so, i think is a very good aproximation to all his victories:
https://www.sitiod...eurid=5892 |
| |
|
|
| hanspetter61 |
Posted on 19-04-2015 01:13
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1037
Joined: 30-01-2014
PCM$: 200.00
|
Guido Mukk wrote:
do not pity Armstrong..he is few of them that is not just victim of system and era.
Man was..he's monster..manipulating dictator.
and compare merxcs and lance results is crime against merxcs...who was riding every race (even small ones) 100%...
i dont pity any single rider. I pity all the fantastic riders who have had their carrier stolen away by a rotten system. Earler it was not possibul to win the big races without drugs. And why shouldnt theydo drugs when tey knew tht every autority turn their eyes away and "all" others did.
Yes Lance is manipilativ person, he is ego and lot of oher things. But that dosent Count, for me Equal justice for all is all that Counts. In my opinion would Lance win if all where clean to. Mercks was a incredibul rider, he was called canibal. A man With such peronality will also use everything to win. Spesilly when everybody else did. For me it dosent matter, that how it was. He was best between Equals then, and so was Lance. But i think Lance was best to put drugs in system to. But did other use drugs and do they got same penalty??? its the only question for me. |
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 19-04-2015 08:31
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
canojuancho wrote:
According to sitiodelciclismo.net, here is a list with all his results from 1962 to 1977, there are 521 victories, so, i think is a very good aproximation to all his victories:
https://www.sitiod...eurid=5892
There are 525, believe me They're all listed in the Eddy Merckx exposition in Brussels. There must be 4 lacking in that above link  |
| |
|
|
| trekbmc |
Posted on 19-04-2015 08:45
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7366
Joined: 11-07-2014
PCM$: 700.00
|
At the same time as Merckx, Ocaña was a better climber.
and at other times, Anquetil was a better Time-Trialist, there have been many better sprinters and, as said Ocaña was better on the mountains, Gaul was better in bad weather, but Merckx was likely one of the best roleurs, the best puncheur and definetly the best descender, although a lot of people believe that Coppi is a better allround rider, including Merckx (Coppi peaked during world war 2, so he doesn't have as big palmares).
But what made him amazing was that he was so good at everything together. |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
