Armstrong Vs. Merckx?

Question

If Lance Armstrong and Eddy Merckx (both in there prime) were to ride in a muti-stage event, head to head, who would win and why?

Answer 1

It would be hard to say. Armstrong, could have dominated the tour but instead he choose to ride tactically, letting his team do most of the work before attacking on the final climb. Lance also did not bother to deal w/ the sprint finishes, although he could out sprit most of the climbers. Merckx on the other hand would attack without reason. Merckx loved to win. Merckx probably was the better cyclist because of his dominace in the sprints (holds the record for most Milan-Sanremo victories) Also Merckx raced in the classics. Winning all of them except one (it was either Paris-Tours or Paris-Brussels, i know it starts in paris). Merckx also won several 6 day races which are basically time trails on a track. Proving his time trialing ability. Therefore id have to give the egde to Merckx just because he proved he could win other races. Even though Lance could win just he did not showcase all of his abilities, focusing on winning one event each year. Also I personally like the way you worded the question, it was not whose the best (stats prove Merkcx) but rather who could be who on any given day.

Answer 2

In just a single event, it would be an awesome race, and Merckx would probably win out because of his aggressive riding style.

Over a career, Merckx would have the edge, and even Lance would be the first to admit that. Merckx won anything and everything he entered, while Lance concentrated on just the Tour de France and planned his whole team and season around it. 7 TdF's is a great accomplishment, but Merckx is only one of 4 riders to have a career triple crown in cycling (Giro, Tour & Vuelta). No one has ever won all three in the same year, but Merckx did hold the leader's jersey in all three in the same year (1969, I believe).

Answer 3

Merckx, without question. Even Lance will tell you that.

Eddy Merckx was the first and ONLY rider in history to ever capture all three jerseys, and he did it in his first Tour. Think about that a minute, and you'll understand why I chose him to win. He was first across the sprint lines, mountain climbs, and finish lines more often than any other rider, which means he broke away and did the Tour mostly SOLO on every stage, without the help of his team.

Lance won seven, but he had better technology, better training, and used his entire team to do so.

Answer 4

You have to keep in mind that cycling, especially stage racing, is a team sport. Even if the teams were equal physically, tactics would play a key role in who would come out ahead.

I say we get history's 20 greatest cyclists, and give them equally talented teams. Then we really would have a GRAND Tour.

In this scenario, my money would be on Merckx. Eddy was a lot like Vino, only better. He would attack anytime, and anywhere. With 20 great cyclists trying to attack each other, Merckx would be right at home. Lance likes to pick and choose his times to attack. I don't know if he would hold up under the constant pressure of 20 great teams. You have to respond to a lot of attacks.

But it sure would be something to see, and I can think of a few other riders who might surprise people. And I volunteer to be a domestique. Anything to ride at my prime one more time.

Answer 5

A very difficult question to answer. Cycling has evolved tremendously since. Riders specialize so much more these days. You have spirnters, climbers, steap climbers, gradual climbers, time trialists, short time trialist. Back in eddy's day, people raced more and prided themselves on winning a variety of events. Lance really focused on the tour. For this reason, I think Eddy proved to be a more well rounded and complete rider. He won everything. One day classics, tours, worlds. he won them once and then again and again.

Answer 6

the fans... it would be epic.