• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Why Are Americans Dominating the Tour De France?

andyzee

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
10,884
Points
0
Location
Home
Website
www.nsmountainsports.com
In the past 20 years, Americans have won the Tour De France 11 times. Greg Lemond won it in 86, 89, and 90. Armstrong took 7 tours from 99-2005. Now Landis takes it for an 11th American win in the past 20 years. From what I read, I don't believe that Americans even got involved in the Tour until 81. So what's up with that?
 

skibum1321

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
1,349
Points
0
Location
Malden, MA
Well of those 11 wins, 7 of them were Lance, who is the greatest cyclist of all time.

I'm not saying there should be an asterisk next to Landis's name, but let us not forget that 2 of the tour favorites were banned from cycling right before the race.
 

freeheelwilly

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
338
Points
18
Location
Whiteface, New York
skibum1321 said:
Well of those 11 wins, 7 of them were Lance, who is the greatest cyclist of all time.

No. That's Eddie Merckx. Not even debatable. Lance himself has said so many times.

I'm not saying there should be an asterisk next to Landis's name, but let us not forget that 2 of the tour favorites were banned from cycling right before the race.

They were not. That's an inaccurate stement. But, to the extent that they are shown to have been doping - why would that have any bearing on Landis' win? I don't follow. "Yeah, you won, but two cheaters weren't allowed to race against you so it's not like you really won."

Where's the logic in that?
 

bruno

New member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
228
Points
0
Location
beantown and NY to da C
in all seriousness, europeans IN GENERAL, do not have the will or the character for this type of event. simple as that. ever been to a gym in europe? particularly france? go to one and you'll understand. they're not bad people, just not athletes in general.:spin: :flag: :flag: :flag:

wait til more black riders enter the ranks. it'll be like tiger woods and golf.:spin: :daffy:
 

skibum1321

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
1,349
Points
0
Location
Malden, MA
freeheelwilly said:
No. That's Eddie Merckx. Not even debatable. Lance himself has said so many times.
It is certainly debatable. With all that Lance has overcome and all of his achievements, he is definitely in contention for that title. Cycling would not even be on the radar in America without Lance - he has done more for this sport in America than anyone else in history.

freeheelwilly said:
They were not. That's an inaccurate stement. But, to the extent that they are shown to have been doping - why would that have any bearing on Landis' win? I don't follow. "Yeah, you won, but two cheaters weren't allowed to race against you so it's not like you really won."

Where's the logic in that?
I'm just saying that the 2 superstars of the sport weren't there. That's like having a home run contest without Barry Bonds. Even though Bonds is a doper he still bashes home runs better than almost anyone out there.

There are a lot more dopers out there in cycling - they just may be taking drugs that aren't on the radar yet. They haven't even scratched the surface yet.
 

andyzee

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
10,884
Points
0
Location
Home
Website
www.nsmountainsports.com
skibum1321 said:
Cycling would not even be on the radar in America without Lance - he has done more for this sport in America than anyone else in history.

I have to disagree with that, yes Lance did a lot, but it's Greg Lemond that put cycling in the lime light here.

Something else to think about;

Lemond got shot accidentily, it was so bad they thought he may not ride again. He came back and won two more Tours.

Lance Armstrong had a battle with cancer, he won the tour 7 times.

The latest winner Landis, has an arthritic hip and will probably go for a replacement.

What would happen if America came up with a healthy cyclist? :lol:
 

freeheelwilly

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
338
Points
18
Location
Whiteface, New York
skibum1321 said:
It is certainly debatable.
No it's not. Get a clue. The Cannibal won 5 Giros and 5 Tours. His first Tour he won ALL the jerseys. He also raced the Classics in the snow and mud sliddin' around on the cobbles with 150 other crazies. Lance was in Texas in the Spring and never even rode a Giro. Stop making a fool of yourself.


With all that Lance has overcome and all of his achievements, he is definitely in contention for that title.

See above. Lance himself has acknowledged this MANY times. Why can't you?

Cycling would not even be on the radar in America without Lance - he has done more for this sport in America than anyone else in history.

Wrong on the first part. Right on the second part.



I'm just saying that the 2 superstars of the sport weren't there.
"The" two superstars? Many picked Floyd to win even before Operation Puerto claimed Jan and Ivan. Whatever.
 

skibum1321

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
1,349
Points
0
Location
Malden, MA
No need for personal attacks. We're all entitled to our opinions, but as we've seen on this board time and again you always think you're the final word.
 

freeheelwilly

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
338
Points
18
Location
Whiteface, New York
skibum1321 said:
No need for personal attacks. We're all entitled to our opinions, but as we've seen on this board time and again you always think you're the final word.

Ohhhh...toughen up! :lol:

Your "opinion" smacks of Amero-centric blather. :puke: If you're gonna bother having an "opinion" about something you might as well know what the hell you're talking about, no?

Lance is the Man! Don't get me wrong, the guy is way cool IMO and the best rider of the TdF in its history. He had that race wired. The last two Tour de Lances were boring; everybody else was racing for second from the outset.

But the best cyclist in history? C'mon.

Second best cyclist in history is "debatable". But best cyclist in history? Not so much. Merckx is head and shoulders above everybody else.
 

andyzee

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
10,884
Points
0
Location
Home
Website
www.nsmountainsports.com
freeheelwilly said:
Merckx is head and shoulders above everybody else.

I've heard of Merckx before, know he was big in his day, but not really a big cycling fan, so can you do me a favor? Let me know what you have to back up that statement.
 

freeheelwilly

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
338
Points
18
Location
Whiteface, New York
andyzee said:
I've heard of Merckx before, know he was big in his day, but not really a big cycling fan, so can you do me a favor? Let me know what you have to back up that statement.

A quick google yeilds this:

One can only diminish the fullness of Eddy Merckx's racing career by attempting to summarize it. Even a comprehensive listing of his palmares seems like an insufficient means to express his dominance. How can one distill the essence of a man who so rightfully earned the nickname 'The Cannibal'? He is the only professional cyclist who rode without a single weakness against which to plot. In the mountains, against the watch, in sprints, for one-day classics or three-week grand tours, Merckx was just unbeatable -- it seemed like he devoured his opposition. He won the Tour de France in 1969 at the age of 24 and went on to win four more with ease. He became the common reference for all cyclists of his generation, and he will forever be the benchmark against which the great champions will be measured. Merckx won 525 races in his career -- in 1974 he was the first man to win the Giro d'Italia, Le Tour and the World Championships in one season. In that same season he also won all three Jerseys (Yellow, Green & Polka-Dot) in the Tour -- making him the best overall rider, the best sprinter and the best climber.

And this:


Successes in stage racing and single day races

Merckx started competing in 1961. Three years later he became world champion in the amateur category, before turning professional in 1965. In 1966 he won the first of seven editions of Milan-San Remo. A year later he became world champion in the professional category in Heerlen, The Netherlands. He would win this title twice more.
In 1968 Merckx started his domination of the Grand Tours by becoming the first Belgian to win the Giro d'Italia. He would repeat this four times.
In his Tour de France debut in 1969, Merckx immediately won the yellow jersey (overall leader), the green jersey (best sprinter) and the red polka-dotted jersey ("King of the Mountains" - best climber in the mountain stages). No other cyclist has achieved this trifecta in the Tour de France, and only Laurent Jalabert has been able to match this feat at the Grand Tour level, in the 1995 Vuelta. If the young riders' white jersey (for best rider in the Tour under 25 years of age) had existed at that time, Merckx would have won that one as well, as he had only just turned 24. It was the first time a Belgian won the Tour de France since Sylvère Maes thirty years earlier, and because of this Merckx became a national hero. Like the Giro, he would win this contest also four more times: in 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1974, equalling Frenchman Jacques Anquetil. Over the next 25 years, only Bernard Hinault and Miguel Indurain were able to equal the five victories. Then Lance Armstrong broke the record and went on winning the Tour for a sixth (2004) and a seventh (2005) time. Merckx still holds the records for stage wins (34) and number of days in the Yellow Jersey (96).
When Armstrong was about to break his Tour victory-record, Merckx admitted that, in retrospect, he regretted his decision to not participate in the 1973 edition[citation needed] (Merckx rode in the Vuelta instead and won the general classification). At the time, he had responded to Tour-organizer Goddet's public announcement that they would rather see someone else win for a change. In his absence, SpaniardLuis Ocaña, who had crashed out while wearing the yellow jersey in a previous edition, won the Tour. However, Merckx also argued that the race didn't have quite the same impact as today, and that his decision had to be considered in that light. Few people doubt that he could have won a few more Tours if he hadn't stopped after just seven starts.
In addition to these well-known Grand Tour successes, Merckx also has an impressive list of victories in one-day races (for a comprehensive list, see lower down). Among the highlights are a record of seven victories in the race Milan-San Remo, which to this day hasn't been equalled, five times Liège-Bastogne-Liège and three wins in Paris-Roubaix, the Hell of the North. He also won the World Road Racing Championship a record three times in 1967, 1971 and 1974, and every single one of the Classic cycle races, except Paris-Tours. Finally, he was also victorious in no less than 17 six-day track races on the velodrome, often with his partner Patrick Sercu.
Merckx retired from racing in 1978, at the age of 33. According to his own words, his body was still up to it but the psychological pressure had exhausted him.[citation needed]
[edit]
http://forums.alpinezone.com/
Setbacks and lesser days

The blackest day in Merckx's career dates from 1969, when he crashed in a derny race towards the end of the season. A pacer and a cyclist fell in front of Merckx's pacer, Fernand Wambst, and caused both him and Merckx to crash. His pacer was killed instantly, and Merckx suffered a bad concussion and fell unconscious. This accident cracked a vertebra and twisted his pelvis. He admitted in interviews that, because of his injuries, his riding was never the same. He would keep adjusting his saddle while riding to make sure it had the right position, and would always be in pain, especially while climbing.
That same year, during the Giro d'Italia, he was confronted with accusations of drug use. Because of this, he was forced to leave the contest. Merckx cried in front of the press and to this day keeps repeating people cheated with the doping test. He claims that there were no counter-experts nor counter-analysis available and that some foreign supporters hated him. Further, he claimed that the stage during which he was allegedly using drugs was an easy one for everybody, so there was no need to use any drugs. The Belgian prince sent a plane to bring him back to Belgium. This incident was one of the reasons why Merckx would consider his first Tour de France victory, later that year, as his best ever.
The end of his great Tour-career came in 1975. At that year's Tour de France, he attempted to win his sixth, but became a victim of violence. Many Frenchmen were upset that a Belgian might beat the record of five wins set by Frenchman Jacques Anquetil. Merckx held the yellow jersey for eight days of the race, which raised his record to 96 total days, but during stage 14 a French spectator leapt from the crowd and punched him in the liver area. On top of this, a collision with Danish rider Ole Ritter resulted in a broken jaw at a later stage. Despite the fact that he could not eat solid food, and was barely able to talk, Merckx did not retire from the race. During the very last stage, he even attacked leader Bernard Thevenet (but was caught by the peloton). Later, Merckx would consider his refusal to quit after the injury as the biggest mistake in his career, since it permanently undermined his physical strength.
[edit]
http://forums.alpinezone.com/
Hour record


The bicycle Merckx used during his hour speed record attempt


In addition to his achievements in regular professional cycling, Merckx also set the bicycle hour speed record in 1972. On October 25, he covered 49.431 km at high altitude in Mexico City. The record would remain untouched until 1984, when Francesco Moser broke it using a specially designed bicycle and meticulously studied improvements in streamlining. Over the next 15 years, various racers would keep improving the record, up to more than 56 km (Chris Boardman). However, because of the increasingly exotic design of the bikes and position of the rider, these performances were no longer reasonably comparable to Merckx's achievement. In response to this, the UCI went back to basics and introduced the UCI Hour Record in 2000, requiring a "traditional" bike to be used. When Boardman subsequently had another go at Merckx's reinstated record 28 years later, he bested it by slightly more than 10 meters.
[edit]
http://forums.alpinezone.com/
The greatest cyclist of all time?

Assigning someone the title of the greatest cyclist of all time will always be an intrinsically controversial issue. On one hand, career statistics (in which Merckx clearly dominates) can be considered an objective measurement. On the other hand, they should not be separated from their context —the times, the training methods, and the opponents have changed.
For several years Daniel Marszalek has kept an internationally acknowledged weighed ranking to determine the best cyclists since 1892.[1] The ranking takes the (fluctuating) relative importance of races into account to get a balanced result. In the "overall ranking", 2005 edition, Merckx had almost twice as many points as the second (5.844,80 points vs 3.312,80 points for Bernard Hinault, with 16 other racers totaling more than 2000 pts). He has similar margins in separate classifications for Classic races and Tours, best 5-season and best 10-season rankings, and best individual season overall (including the 6 best individual seasons ever, and seven out of the top ten). As a comparison, Lance Armstrong was ranked 15th with 2090,70 points at the end of his career in 2005.

That last part I highlighted.
 

skibum1321

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
1,349
Points
0
Location
Malden, MA
Maybe calling Lance the best cyclist of all time may have been a bit of an overstatement. But as your last post says, it is an intrinsically controversial issue. Hence, everyone has different opinions, based on different criteria. It is similar to picking the best trails in the East, which we do at least 5 times a year here. Everyone has their own opinions, based on their own criteria for what they consider the best. I admit that I don't know my cycling history so I was probably wrong in calling him the best of all time, but I'm just throwing that out there.

I still stand by my assertion that cycling would not be on the radar screen in America without Lance. By on the radar, I mean reaching an audience beyond the hardcore cyclists that have always existed, but in small numbers.
 

freeheelwilly

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
338
Points
18
Location
Whiteface, New York
skibum1321 said:
Maybe calling Lance the best cyclist of all time may have been a bit of an overstatement. But as your last post says, it is an intrinsically controversial issue. Hence, everyone has different opinions, based on different criteria. It is similar to picking the best trails in the East, which we do at least 5 times a year here. Everyone has their own opinions, based on their own criteria for what they consider the best. I admit that I don't know my cycling history so I was probably wrong in calling him the best of all time, but I'm just throwing that out there.

I still stand by my assertion that cycling would not be on the radar screen in America without Lance. By on the radar, I mean reaching an audience beyond the hardcore cyclists that have always existed, but in small numbers.

I would say the film "Breaking Away" put cycling on the American Radar. LeMond inspired a generation of American riders (including Lance) that they could be more than just peloton fodder and really woke up the average American to the sport. Perhaps the passage of time has dimmed your recollection but when LeMond won the Tour in '86 it was HUGE! And not just among hardcore cyclists. Lance advanced the sport's visibility by an order of magnitude (or two) and his influence can't be disregarded. But it was on the "Radar" before Lance. Perhaps not your radar but none of us define the "average American".

As for the comment of "intrinsically controversial" - I had a feeling you might pick up on that. You'll note that the entry (That's a wiki) goes on to state that when someone tried to weigh the stats to make them more objective - Eddy had twice as many points as the runner up and Lance finished 15th. It really is not debated by anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of the sport's history. You really should read about the guy's exploits - I don't think you'd debate the point if you did. I know that sounds condescending and I apologize - but it's true.

I guess if even one scientist says the Earth is flat we have a "debate" - but not a genuine one.
 

Angus

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
961
Points
16
there was an excellent article about this in the WSJ either last Friday or Saturday. The article contention was that until recently (with success of lemonde, armstrong and the guy who won Sunday - forgive me!) Americans were on the outside looking in - not really wanted by the traditional powers (still really aren't) and the Americans that have risen to the top are "eccentrics" - a) very, very innovative in their training methods - use of bike gear, wind tunnels, new cycling postures, innovative workout programs, etc. b) strong willed, tough, tough competitors - given their status as outsiders - i.e. won't take no for an answer & learned to sacrifice and deal with hardship and c) Americans have been willing to focus on a selective # of events rather than everything under the sun like the euro-dominated teams

BTW: I've followed the Tour this year casually but the fact that Floyd Landis (I googled) didn't role off my tongue is evidence of the problem bicycling will have going forward. Lance sucked all the air out of the sport.
 

freeheelwilly

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
338
Points
18
Location
Whiteface, New York
Angus said:
BTW: I've followed the Tour this year casually but the fact that Floyd Landis (I googled) didn't role off my tongue is evidence of the problem bicycling will have going forward. Lance sucked all the air out of the sport.

I don't know that that's a "problem". Cycling is an awesome sport and I've been a rabid fan for over 20 years without it appearing in the daily sports pages or getting much (if any) TV air play. I remember when you couldn't even watch the Tour - just weekly "summaries" on CBS and/or ABC's WWoS. Long live Phil Ligget! I've been listening to that guy forever!

And I don't think Lance's name "rolled off" many non-cycling fan's tongues before he'd won his second or third Tour. If Landis comes back from his surgery (and I predict he will) his name recognition will increase.
 

andyzee

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
10,884
Points
0
Location
Home
Website
www.nsmountainsports.com
freeheelwilly said:
A quick google yeilds this:

One can only diminish the fullness of Eddy Merckx's racing career by attempting to summarize it. Even a comprehensive listing of his palmares seems like an insufficient means to express his dominance. ...............................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................., requiring a "traditional" bike to be used. When Boardman subsequently had another go at Merckx's reinstated record 28 years later, he bested it by slightly more than 10 meters.
[edit]

The greatest cyclist of all time?

Assigning someone the title of the greatest cyclist of all time will always be an intrinsically controversial issue. On one hand, career statistics (in which Merckx clearly dominates) can be considered an objective measurement. On the other hand, they should not be separated from their context —the times, the training methods, and the opponents have changed..

Damn those are some impressive stats to say the least, he was clearly a damn animal!

Thanks for the info. However, I do still like the point that The greatest cyclist of all time? is a contriversial statement.
 
Top