# LeMond vs. Armstrong?



## grittsm8 (Nov 25, 2008)

who, in your opinion, and if they were both in their prime, would win:
1) in a time trail?
2) L'alpe de huez
3) the tour de france

its hard for me to think which would. i honestly think that they are fairly well matched.


----------



## monocognizant (Sep 12, 2008)

I think they should settle all with a good old fashion fist fight. :idea: That way LeMond would have something new to whine about. I vote for lance being the victor in all 4 categories. :thumbsup:


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Time trial, probably lance, but icouldn't see lance beating lemond in the other two.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2008)

look at there avg speed they are not even close..


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

They have calculated VAM and average speeds and it really isn't close at all. It's like comparing apples to oranges, though.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I gotta go with Lemond. 
- remember he won his first TdF, beating HINAULT who is also a legendary 5 time winner, while half of his team was working for Hinault.
- remember he won his 2nd and 3rd TdF's with reduced lung capacity and other lingering damage from his gunshot wounds. Yes, LA won after cancer but he had no remaining scarring / ill effects - he was cured.
- Lemond was a punchier rider - he could accelerate again and again in the mountains.


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> They have calculated VAM and average speeds and it really isn't close at all. It's like comparing apples to oranges, though.


How can you compare average speeds and VAM? Of course Lance will have a faster average speed, he had better equipment and a better team (although LeMond's teams were never too shabby)


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Lemond in all three on his best days, Lance in all three on his best days. I like Lemond more than Armstrong but only cause Lance has got too big a head. apples and oranges.


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

superfly-2008 said:


> look at there avg speed they are not even close..


You can't base this on average speed since training methods have advanced the way they have. In another analogy take Eddy Merckx Hour record. You can make the rider's today ride non-aero equipped bicycles, but you can't regulate knowledge. You have to admit there is a monumental difference between the way people train for the hour record now, than they did then.


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

LOL, crazy argument but why not?

I watched them all on T.V. so I am an expert!. Just kidding, 

but I would say Armstrong. I like Lance's positive mental attitude much more than Greg's.

Even back then, Greg was always whining, but he was a monster on the bike.
Brian


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

CurbDestroyer said:


> You can't base this on average speed since training methods have advanced the way they have. In another analogy take Eddy Merckx Hour record. You can make the rider's today ride non-aero equipped bicycles, but you can't regulate knowledge. You have to admit there is a monumental difference between the way people train for the hour record now, than they did then.


Even with all of those "Training Methods" Boardman was only able to break Merckx's record by 10 meters


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ProRoad said:


> I like Lance's positive mental attitude much more than Greg's.
> 
> Even back then, Greg was always whining,


Inventing French conspiracies is positive? Sending letters to the UCI and ASO about Spanish "Training Methods" is not whining?


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Inventing French conspiracies is positive? Sending letters to the UCI and ASO about Spanish "Training Methods" is not whining?


Sorry Greg, didnt know you were on the forum.

We could argue about this all year. but that would get off topic. I was actually referring to Greg whining about things in races, like smaller things not in the conspiracy world. But maybe you weren't around back then, I don't know.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

ProRoad said:


> Sorry Greg, didnt know you were on the forum.
> 
> We cold argue about this all year. but that would get off topic. I was actually referring to Greg whining about things in races, like smaller things not in the conspiracy world. But maybe you weren't around back then, I don't know.


The fact is....bike racers wine, the faster you are the more you do it. Pantani, Merckx, Fignon and of course Evens. Only one who did not was Hinualt, he just went harder. 

The topic of this thread was who was the better rider, not who was the better person.

Yes, I was around then. I did my first race in 1984, saw my first Grand Tour live that year as well.


----------



## slamy (Mar 15, 2004)

Like a lot of others have stated. It's hard to make the comparisons between the two since they are of different era's. I watched both race. I honestly think the Greg Lemond of 1986 (pre-gunshot) was a better overall rider then Lance. If you go by VO2 max testing Lemonds was higher also. But training methods, and technology were different. You train to your competition, and in 1986 outside Bernard Hinault one of the all time greats in the sport, not one was in his class. I could only imagine how good Lemond would have been if he trained all year for one race. But .. no one will ever know who would win. I'm going on what I saw. Either way they were both dominating cyclists.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

monocognizant said:


> I think they should settle all with a good old fashion fist fight. :idea: That way LeMond would have something new to whine about. I vote for lance being the victor in all 4 categories. :thumbsup:


Catfight is more like it.


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Between the what if's and the futility of the entire concept of this thread, all I have to say is:


YMMV.


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Even with all of those "Training Methods" Boardman was only able to break Merckx's record by 10 meters


I was going to bring up the Hour record, but I ran out of time I posted that. Since Eddy broke Ole Ritter's record by almost 3/4 kilometer, 
Merckx - 49.431
------Ole - 48.653
---------------0.778

Boardman - 49.441 
----Merckx - 49.431
--------------------0.010

Ondřej Sosenka - 49.700
---------Boardman - 49.441
----------------------------0.259

Ondřej Sosenka - 49.700
-------------Merckx - 49.431
----------------------------0.269

Even if Eddy doesn't have the record anymore, you could make an argument he made the great human effort against the clock. Eddy was to beat his contemparies by almost a kilometer, and after 35 years it is just beaten by 1/4 Kilometer. 

or contrast Ondřej Sosenka to his contemparay Boardman. He is only beaten by 1/4 Kilometer. 

After an hour what could get you a 1/4 kilo? They couldn't ride the record using tires like Eddy's. Rolling resisance has gone down. How aero are wool shorts and Jerseys? . . . and again the training methods and positioning using computers and wind tunnels. 

Where does it end?


----------



## grittsm8 (Nov 25, 2008)

what is amazing to me is the 1989 time trial, lemond averaged around 34 miles an hour on his bike. i wonder how fast that would have been on a carbon frame? i dont know how that compares to today. they both could dominated the tour when they were in their prime.


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

grittsm8 said:


> what is amazing to me is the 1989 time trial, lemond averaged around 34 miles an hour on his bike. i wonder how fast that would have been on a carbon frame? i dont know how that compares to today. they both could dominated the tour when they were in their prime.


hard to tell, but the one thing is I believe the TT was Point to Point, and not out and back.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

grittsm8 said:


> what is amazing to me is the 1989 time trial, lemond averaged around 34 miles an hour on his bike. i wonder how fast that would have been on a carbon frame? i dont know how that compares to today. they both could dominated the tour when they were in their prime.


TT in 89 was down hill & point to point. Carbon or alloy or steel frame would have made stuff all difference. Keeping his head up with the aero helmet however might have made a difference.

To compare LA to GL is not easy.


Lemond rode the classics even after his hunting accident
Lemond rode the giro most years
Lemond won one tour because of his team (1990)
Lemond won one tour without a team (1989)
Lemond won one tour INSPITE of his team (1986)
LA won his tours because of his team
Without that support it's doubtful he'd have won one tour let alone multiple tours
LA never even attempted the giro
LA rode a season 45% shorter than GL
GL podiumed in MSR,Paris-Nice,Criterium Int 1986
GL won stages of the Giro AND Tour as well as the points in the Tour de Suisse 1986
LA only really won in France


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

The only fair comparisons, which are in any way meaningful, as BigPinkt has alluded to, are Lemond's first couple of Tours and Lance's first couple. After that, outside issues, become central to the debate. In terms of sheer natural talent, Lemond wins easily though. Lance is incredibly strong mentally though, I will give him that. But all things being equal, in terms of equipment and training, Lemond wins at a canter.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

grittsm8 said:


> i wonder how fast that would have been on a carbon frame?


Maybe about the same as on an aluminum frame with the same tube shaping and profile?


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

I take it all back. This was one of the most amazing races I have ever seen.:thumbsup: 










World Championships, 1989. The man could get it done.
https://images.google.com/imgres?im...kelly&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&sa=G


Brian


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2008)

I don't know if anyones ever seen the Versus (OLN) show Fearless where they look back at Lemonds career. I followed what I could back then but seeing the show really reminded me of how dominant Lemond was back then. If his team didn't shaft him in 85 and he didn't get shot after the 86 season Lance would have been chasing him for the Tour record without a doubt. Oddly enough Lance and Greg are very similar. Both have that drive and determination only the very best (Jordan, Tiger) athletes posses. Both revolutionized the sport on bicycle technology. I do think the world of Lance but I would have to give the edge to Lemond. I don't know why but maybe It's just because I have a soft spot for the little nut job.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Of all the crap I have said about Greg in the past, this is the first non-negative thing. 
He would have handed Lance his assos in a GT. All things being otherwise equal, of course.
I think that LA may have beat him in the occasional ITT though.


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

They would debate over it in Roadbikereview.com in the lounge, then the thread would get moved over to PO and both would be banned for name calling perhaps. Or at least, Lance would be banned for posting pictures of him and his dates because they would be too explicit.

But Lance would definitely fit into the Lounge as he IS "I'd hit it" and hence, fits the mantra.

On the bike, well, who knows.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

*How 'bout this...*

Here's a way of getting a true comparison of these two guys. Suppose Greg were to spend the next two and half years getting into shape so that he can go to a velodrome on his 50th birthday (June 26, 2011) and establish the on-the-your-50th-birthday hour record. Then on Sept. 18, 2021 Lance goes to the same velodrome and does the same. Sure, it's gonna take over 13 years to get our answer....but...

And oh yeah, to keep things as equal as possible it needs to be an indoor 'drome and they each have to ride a bike essentially the same as this one.


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

Big-foot said:


> Here's a way of getting a true comparison of these two guys. Suppose Greg were to spend the next two and half years getting into shape so that he can go to a velodrome on his 50th birthday (June 26, 2011) and establish the on-the-your-50th-birthday hour record. Then on Sept. 18, 2021 Lance goes to the same velodrome and does the same. Sure, it's gonna take over 13 years to get our answer....but...
> 
> And oh yeah, to keep things as equal as possible it needs to be an indoor 'drome and they each have to ride a bike essentially the same as this one.


The track would be more "worn" by then, leaving it open for speculation on both sides....

B


----------



## hoehnt (Nov 7, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> [*]LA won his tours because of his team
> [*]Without that support it's doubtful he'd have won one tour let alone multiple tours


How can you say that? Most of the time his team was nowhere to be seen.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

hoehnt said:


> How can you say that? Most of the time his team was nowhere to be seen.


Each mountain stage they sat on the front and set a pace to shell out his rivals or dissuade attacks. Then on the last climb once they were spent LA would deliver the coup de grace. Postal/Discovery wrote the manual on the team strategy for the tour.


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

I go with Lemond, though his era was way before I followed cycling (in fact I was only in 6th grade when he won his first Tour). Let's not forget he did what he did when American cycling was really in the doldrums, and as far as I can tell, Americans weren't taken seriously in Europe. Plus 2x WC, and even better they span his career.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Lets see.... my pics:

1. Lemond 2. Lemond 3.Lemond

Also... most exciting tour ever for me: 1989- Lemond 

.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Armstrong- Lemond wasn't even the best rider of his Era. The Badger was just as good and won more Tours with less crybaby antics. 

Of Eddy was better than both of them is all this arguing over 2nd. Although Big Mig was better then Lemond too. Actually any of the "5 or More" club were. 

If you want to play what if, the better is Coppi on a modern bike, no WWII, time and ability to train full time. Could he have been as good as Eddy?


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> If you want to play what if, the better is Coppi on a modern bike, no WWII, time and ability to train full time. Could he have been as good as Eddy?


No, he would have been better.


----------



## charleym (Oct 21, 2008)

Defintely LeMond. LeMond raced against and beat the likes of Hinault, Fignon, Delgado, Kelly, Bugno, and Chiappucci. All of these guys are legends. Armstrong beat a fat German and a few Spanish climbers.


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

charleym said:


> Defintely LeMond. LeMond raced against and beat the likes of Hinault, Fignon, Delgado, Kelly, Bugno, and Chiappucci. All of these guys are legends. Armstrong beat a fat German and a few Spanish climbers.


LOFL! Oh my god...

Try too look up the start list for the World Championship that Lance won and you will see some Legends in their as well. Don't forget that Lance was an amazing one day rider before cancer.

Plain fact: you are only as good as your last race..

Brian


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> Armstrong- Lemond wasn't even the best rider of his Era. The Badger was just as good and won more Tours with less crybaby antics.



you can't really say that they were in the same era as one's career was ending, and the other was just starting. they did race 2 tours together- and they split that- the footnote being that lemond could have won both had he been allowed to win the tour in 85.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Comparing the two is a matter of physiology, not who they raced against who or what they "won."

Armstrong, with his highest ever VO2 max test, did around 83ml/kilo-min. For him, thats about 6.7 L of oxygen per minute. With great Beta efficiency, (like the highest ever recorded) Lance's Maximal Aerobic power was 420 watts. Imagining he could sustain 90% of that for 1-hour, thats about 5.1 watts per Kilo giving him the benefit of the doubt with his highest ever VO2 max test. LeMond had 5.8 watts per kilo.

Lance had 6.7 watts per Kilo during the Tour.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Anyone know of LeMond even made the 1993 World Championships USA team? He was still a Pro. Tried to ride the Tour in 1994 and DNF'd on stage 6, then announced retirement by the roadside saying, "I dreamed of riding better in the Tour."


----------



## charleym (Oct 21, 2008)

ProRoad said:


> LOFL! Oh my god...
> 
> Try too look up the start list for the World Championship that Lance won and you will see some Legends in their as well. Don't forget that Lance was an amazing one day rider before cancer.
> 
> ...



The question was LeMond's prime vs. Armstrong's prime. This drivel about "you are only as good as your last race" is a little simple, even for ProRoad.

And despite all the pseudo-science, this comes down to opinion and speculation, and IMO LeMond of '86 was the stronger cyclist.


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Greg LeMond.

:thumbsup:


----------



## TLWalker (Oct 5, 2008)

Lemond


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

F1nut said:


> Comparing the two is a matter of physiology, not who they raced against who or what they "won."
> 
> Armstrong, with his highest ever VO2 max test, did around 83ml/kilo-min. For him, thats about 6.7 L of oxygen per minute. With great Beta efficiency, (like the highest ever recorded) Lance's Maximal Aerobic power was 420 watts. Imagining he could sustain 90% of that for 1-hour, thats about 5.1 watts per Kilo giving him the benefit of the doubt with his highest ever VO2 max test. LeMond had 5.8 watts per kilo.
> 
> Lance had 6.7 watts per Kilo during the Tour.


Cheers for those specifics...I admire a great deal your knowledge on physiology, wattages, etc....I especially like that quote you provided from Allen Lim, about the 'hybrid of a horse'!!!!
:thumbsup:


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

charleym said:


> This drivel about "you are only as good as your last race" is a little simple, even for ProRoad.


Duh....what? I admit, I am pretty simple...

This is a great topic as it helps us to remember what each rider has done for the sport. Lemond broke new ground and at his peak was the highest paid rider, he made it possible for future riders to make a real living.

When he was on form, he could really do anything. I am happy to remember that.

Happy Holidays guys,
Brian


----------



## go do it (Sep 12, 2007)

lance may be the best TDF winner ever who knows. but if you think about it if you only concentrate on ONE race you would just have to be good at it.

i pick Lamond 

when he beat Fignon in the TT to win i cried

an amazing exhibition of human spirit, determination, and the ability to say to yourself I

WILL go as fast as I can without ever giving up.

NEVER GIVE UP


----------



## carlosflanders (Nov 23, 2008)

In my view, Lance had the greatest will to win of any athlete I've ever seen. That will overcome a lot of physiology.

Lemond was a much more natural cyclist and i would pick him to win any race over Lance and go 60/40 on TTs.

The thing I could never figure out is how Lance could devote so much energy to controlling his image, obsessing over every media report about him and blackballing/bestowing favours on reporters and other cyclists, and still have the energy to win the Tour. He was definitely the master of mind games.


----------



## moabbiker (Sep 11, 2002)

Lemond definitely. Even if you argue they would run neck and neck on a climb, Lemond was a much better sprinter and so would take it at the end.


----------



## spastook (Nov 30, 2007)

Really a tough call. I'd give the edge to LeMond . Remember he would have probably had a couple more wins if it hadn't been for his hunting accident, and let's not forget the year he had to essentially concede victory to his teammate Bernard Hinault. I think the competition was a bit tougher in LeMonds era also. Could be that I was racing myself back then and I paid closer attention to what was going on.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Back in the day (1980's), the major medication was used for the olympics, since government funded institutions were responsible for performance and winnning, "medals." Pro Cycling was less heavily cared about than the Olympics. Cyclists care about pro cyling, but general society cares more about the Olympics. The olympics were and are about, "national pride." Pro-teams had small means, and still have small means compared to what the riders are capable of putting on themselves individually. The advent of the doctors we now have in cycling was really slow in coming. Someone who opens up a bakery for example, will probably have baked many times as an amateur before they actually open up shop.

Nowday, riders have so much more oxygen. They look different when they "suffer" its not the same. Watch some 1980's Tour DVD's, how they grind and suffer, gasping for air. Nowdays, its like their strait off the bikes afterwards doing interviews. Remember the bad attitude Fingon had, how emotional the riders used to be' with very little self-control. We saw a little' bit of that in 2008.

A clean endurance guy who trains hard or does a stage race will lose heamatocrit value.
They will lose testosterone from the long stages and high volume racing. Not only is recovery impaired from low test, but over-reaching and even overtraining will start to occur. When someone get more Oxygen, they have more power, not less from which Overtraining would inccur.
*Also, I believe that Every elite athlete works very hard to try and win.*


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

charleym said:


> The question was LeMond's prime vs. Armstrong's prime. This drivel about "you are only as good as your last race" is a little simple, even for ProRoad.
> 
> And despite all the pseudo-science, this comes down to opinion and speculation, and IMO LeMond of '86 was the stronger cyclist.


*Its very difficult* for a man who has at the very TOP, to go from winning the tour at age 29, to loosing it DNF at age 34. A man who has a VO2 max of 93ml.kg-min is extremely powerful, EXTREMELY. At 33 years old in 1993, LeMond was still a young-man, and still in his Prime. A guy with just an 85 VO2 max and 5.2 watts per kilo at FTP can easily make a World Championsips team if they are a good bike rider. Perhaps Over-Training lowered his levels, but what can account for such over-training in such an experienced pro. THats an inquiry which I cant awnser in an impartial way. :thumbsup:


----------



## TheBugMan (Nov 27, 2007)

I think LeMond was a better cyclist but Lance would win by a small margin.
Why? Because Lance has the ability to get a great team together that will bleed for him to the death. LeMond would whine about issues causing resentment, while Lance would have a military like authority that commanded respect. He knew how to better press the team mates buttons to milk them of everything (share prize $$, peer pressure, etc...). It seemed no other team commanded the respect and fear as Lances teams.
This is all personal opinion from watching them race. 

If there was no team LeMond would win.


----------



## spinwax (Nov 28, 2007)

If Dick Cheney didn't shoot LeMond and Lance Armstrong would quit adopting babies with Angelina Jolie...... Wooops, sorry. I was watching TMZ and got all my facts screwed up. 


The answer is: We will never know.


----------



## Blue Sugar (Jun 14, 2005)

its hard for me to think which would. i honestly think that they are fairly well matched.[/QUOTE]

LeMond over Mono Ball any day. Don't forget he beat some of the greats (Hinault, Fignon), Mono Ball never had that level of competition. And Greg didn't have the team Mono Ball had, and he didn't devote his entire career to the Tour. 

That being said, I think Greg's comported himself like an ass lately, and my respect for him has taken a tremendous hit because of it.


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

spinwax said:


> If Dick Cheney didn't shoot LeMond and Lance Armstrong would quit adopting babies with Angelina Jolie...... Wooops, sorry. I was watching TMZ and got all my facts screwed up.
> 
> 
> The answer is: We will never know.


LOFL! End of post! 
B


----------



## Lance#8in09 (Sep 13, 2008)

Pretty silly discussion since they never faced each other thus we will never know, it's all just speculation. Kinda like the guys who endlessly debate who would win a match race between Dr Fager, Secretariat, Seattle Slew, etc... you can debate it all you want but in the end its speculation.

As to some of the "scientists" comments regarding Vo2 Max predicting ones abilty to climb or win the TDF, Stewart OGrady has a confirmed Vo2 Max of about 93-95 and I don't remember seeing him on too many TDF podiums or even close to that many TDF or Grand Tour podiums. There's a lot more to racing than VO2 max and other physiological stats.

As to the contention that Armstrong won because all his teams always carried him in the mountains, setting really fast pace and eliminating the competition, Hoooey! Yes they used this tactic at times, but they certainly did NOT do this for all his TDF alpine wins or even close to that contention.

Did his team carry him to victory at Sestriere in 1999?? Nope, he had some help from Livingston prior to the final ascent to Sestriere, but that effort was solo, he was by himself when he crushed his competitors there. 

Did they set an eliminating pace to carry him to victory on Ventoux in 2000 when he basically deadheated with Pantani and destroyed his rivals? Nope. 

Did they set him up when he destroyed the field on a rainsoaked Hautacam in 2000 by setting a wicked pace???? Nope. 
That was a pure solo effort when he first dropped Pantani head to head and then dropped all the other serious contenders going up that climb.
Did they set pace to aid him to victory on Alpe D'Huez in 2001 when he destroyed the field? Nope, they followed, they did not lead.

As for Armstrongs inability to accelerate or sprint, again this is mostly BS. Go take a look at his break away effort in the 1993 World Championships when he dropped Indurain among others? Look at his attack which carried him to victory at Limoges in the 1995 TDF, that wasn't some serious acceleration? How about 2004 when he ran down Kloden who had attacked with a few hundred meters and built up a big lead, Armstrong didn't show serious acceleration catching him for the win at Le Grand Bornand?

How about the move he made in 2001 on Alpe D Huez, that wasn't some serious acceleration? 

How about his multiple attacks he made going up Luz Ardiden in 2003, that wasn't serious acceleration? And several of those accelerations came after he had fallen and had to waste a huge amount of energy trying to catch back up to the leaders including Ullrich and Mayo. Yeah Rubiera helped pull him back to the leaders, but armstrong wasted bigtime energy catching back up to those leaders and yet he put in a few more massive accelerations after that on a very steep climb. First he accelerated and dropped ullrich, and then he did the same to Mayo riding him right off his wheel. Yeah he cant accelerate? LOL


----------



## Aquamarinos (Mar 27, 2008)

yet LeMond was stupid enough to go for hunting and got himself shot in his prime.....


----------



## papisimo9807 (May 7, 2007)

Of course we'd never know but if Lemond and Armstrong rode the same amount of races during this "season" at their peak, Lemond would take it easily. 
He wasn't a cherry picker. 
paz afuera


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

Aquamarinos said:


> yet LeMond was stupid enough to go for hunting and got himself shot in his prime.....


??? what a stupid comment..

People don't "get" themselves shot. someone "shoots" them. This was the case when Greg's brother in law peppered him with a shotgun blast.

Lots of people hunt, it doesn't make them stupid or their lives shorter.

Brian


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Aquamarinos said:


> yet LeMond was stupid enough to go for hunting and got himself shot in his prime.....


In the same way Contador was stupid enough to crash in 2004 and wind up in a coma?? I may not be a fan of LA but I wouldn't use his cancer to berate him.
You might want to engage brain before posting.


----------



## OneGear (Aug 19, 2005)

what does having one ball have anything do with cycling?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

OneGear said:


> what does having one ball have anything do with cycling?


Until LA, nothing. But since his brush with death and the loss of one of his boys, a lot!


----------



## ProRoad (Oct 13, 2008)

and thus, we change the subject again..............


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Well what pi**es me off here is the number of people talking about how they lost respect for Lemond due to his actions over the last number of years. What exactly has he done wrong?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*too little too late*



Digger28 said:


> Well what pi**es me off here is the number of people talking about how they lost respect for Lemond due to his actions over the last number of years. What exactly has he done wrong?



He did too little too late and he did it when it would give him more press.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

reminder to all- keep your doping hijacks in the doping forum. 

Keep your personal attacks to yourself.

Read the sticky if you are confused. Lets keep this thread on point- racing. 
______________

I will help- Lemond wasn't even as good as Big Mig. He barely beat the Badger at the very end of his run- not in his prime. If he wasn't the first American TdF winner, he would be a minor note, barely above the Professor in stature. 

He really is one of the more overrated racers ever IMHO, based more on where he was from then what he did. Any of the 5+ Tour winners in their primes were better. Too many fans of that era voting with their hearts based on old memories, not facts. Greg wasn't an all time great, and wasn't as good as he thought he was.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

See the whole Trek disaster (the Employee Purchase thing alone was priceless) for classic Greg in action. 

If you want to discuss the doping aspect further, 

I made a thread for everyone to do so.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=1936435#post1936435

Have fun storming the castle.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> reminder to all- keep your doping hijacks in the doping forum.
> 
> Keep your personal attacks to yourself.
> 
> ...


While I respect your authority to remind us that we're "off topic" , why delete my post which was not abusive? Also surely a "Moderator's Note" should be just that, with no opinion either way - just the warning??


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

ultimobici said:


> While I respect your authority to remind us that we're "off topic" , why delete my post which was not abusive? Also surely a "Moderator's Note" should be just that, with no opinion either way - just the warning??


Got caught in the tide, and didn't make much sense without the other posts- and it was about doping mosting. Feel free to repost your thoughts in the linked thread in the Doping forum.

And that's why the little line was there- Mod's can have opinions, like about how overrated Lemond was. If he was French he would be regarded as second tier at best IMHO. Don't agree, explain why not.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> See the whole Trek disaster (the Employee Purchase thing alone was priceless) for classic Greg in action.
> 
> .


Would your views on Lemond be somewhat tainted by his views on Lance?
You do seem a rather fervent Lance fan.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Digger28 said:


> Would your views on Lemond be somewhat tainted by his views on Lance?
> You do seem a rather fervent Lance fan.


No, that's your imagination. Think he is a very good Grand Tour racer, maybe one of the best ever, but not a fan per se. 

Actually a big Eddy, Big Mig, Coppi, Maggie Backsted fan. And Dave Z, but that doesn't count cause _everybody_ loves Dave Z. Its like being a fan of puppies or free beer. 

Big Mig is by far the most under appreciated cyclist ever.


----------



## papisimo9807 (May 7, 2007)

I'm wondering why you love Big Mig so much? Exactly how does he fit in with the names you listed? 
There are obvious reasons for many of the names but Big Mig? I am very curious as to how he makes such a select list.
paz afuera


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

Coolhand said:


> If he wasn't the first American TdF winner, he would be a minor note, barely above the Professor in stature.



If he was French, he would have won at least one more Tour, perhaps more. Plus, the fact that he did what he did while also being the first American underscores the LeMond is better argument. Being the first American made things much much harder for him. 

The Lemond v. Armstrong argument is an interesting topic. Of course we will never know. It is the speculation that makes it fun and interesting. Nothing wrong with that. 

I am not sure who would have won head to head in their primes. I do think the exercise makes the most sense if one assumes the intangibles as equal. That is, I am not sure that one's ability to put together a better team and so forth are really relevant factors to the argument. Asume they had the same team and the same competition. 

IMHO, although I am not sure who would have won, watching Greg was much more fun than watching Lance.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> If he wasn't the first American TdF winner, he would be a minor note, barely above the Professor in stature.


You must be new to the sport.

Americans seem to have this obsession with numbers while the Euro's would prefer you win with style and "panache'. To this day Greg is revered in Europe, the sports home, for not just his style on the bike but his openness off it. He changed the sport, opening it to new markets and greatly enhanced salaries. There is a reason why many French cheered for Greg during the final TT in 89 and still revere him to this day.

The idea that the winner of the closest, most dramatic Tour ever would be a "Minor note" is absurd.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> You must be new to the sport.
> 
> Americans seem to have this obsession with numbers while the Euro's would prefer you win with style and "panache'. To this day Greg is revered in Europe, the sports home, for not just his style on the bike but his openness off it. He changed the sport, opening it to new markets and greatly enhanced salaries. There is a reason why many French cheered for Greg during the final TT in 89 and still revere him to this day.
> 
> The idea that the winner of the closest, most dramatic Tour ever would be a "Minor note" is absurd.


No, and most of what you posted was your mere opinion, mixed in with questionable stereotyping.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

papisimo9807 said:


> I'm wondering why you love Big Mig so much? Exactly how does he fit in with the names you listed?
> There are obvious reasons for many of the names but Big Mig? I am very curious as to how he makes such a select list.
> paz afuera


Started a new thread for my Big Mig thing. Coppi too.


----------



## M__E (Apr 21, 2006)

papisimo9807 said:


> _I'm wondering why you love Big Mig so much? Exactly how does he fit in with the names you listed?
> There are obvious reasons for many of the names but Big Mig? I am very curious as to how he makes such a select list.
> paz afuera_


_

I havent even read the rest above but in short there would prob be no Armstrong without Big Mig! thats where he got his high cadence style for TT's from, and (out on a limb here?) the idea of focusing on just the tour??
..I think..
_


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> No, and most of what you posted was your mere opinion, mixed in with questionable stereotyping.


I lived in Europe thru much of the 80's and 90's and was very involved with the sport at that time. My views come from participating in the sport, working for sponsors, and working European races for years, not from reading month old Velonews or watching the 30 minute weekly recap on Wide World of Sports. I now split my time between the two continents. I have many friends in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, etc. all continue to think kindly of Greg. All see the 89 Tour as the greatest ever. 

The idea that Greg is just a "Minor note" is your opinion, one unsupported by fact.


----------



## r_mutt (Aug 8, 2007)

good post on lemond and the european view. i suspected that the euros and specifically the french had a soft spot for lemond just from what i've read and seen, but i couldn't confirm it. 

i wonder if the french are also partial to him because of his name- lemond sounds suspiciously french to me!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> The idea that Greg is just a "Minor note" is your opinion, one unsupported by fact.


No. "Minor note" isn't my opinion _as I never said that_. See if you put something in quotations, the key that the person actually said that. 

And as to your opinion on general "fondness" to which you thought you perceived has nothing to do with how Greg was ranked amongst the greats- he is "second tier" well below all the 5+ winners, lumped in with the other 2-3 time winners.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

M__E said:


> I havent even read the rest above but in short there would prob be no Armstrong without Big Mig! thats where he got his high cadence style for TT's from, and (out on a limb here?) the idea of focusing on just the tour??
> ..I think..
> [/I]


Armstrong certainly gave plenty of credit in his books to Mig for that. Also to the Badger for the "No Gifts" approach which he used in the laster tours.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> No. "Minor note" isn't my opinion _as I never said that_. See if you put something in quotations, the key that the person actually said that.
> 
> And as to your opinion on general "fondness" to which you thought you perceived has nothing to do with how Greg was ranked amongst the greats- he is "second tier" well below all the 5+ winners, lumped in with the other 2-3 time winners.


You wrote "If he wasn't the first American TdF winner, he would be a minor note"

You have let your dislike for him personally cloud your judgment and you look silly in the process...."second tier"? Most rational observers would say he is one of the top 10 riders of all time.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Well.... A lot of people like Greg. He was a great rider! He won the Tour de France. If you win the race your the fastest guy! Go Greg!

*Greg LeMond* 

***UCI Road World Championships Road Race (1st - Gold Medal)*** 

*********Yellow jersey on July 7th, 13th-16th; _*1991*_*****


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

*A minor note?*

If you look at GL's palmares you'll see that he is far from a second string or minor note.

http://velopalmares.free.fr/lemond.htm
http://www.cyclingbase.com/palcoureurs.php?id=2617&idtitle=1

Winning the Tour de L'Avenir in 81 by 10 minutes from Millar and Herrera?

WC at 22

Young Rider Jersey and 3rd in First TDF at 23 

In the same year as his first TDF victory he was secon in MSR to Kelly

The year before he was 4th in P-R and 7th in RVV run in one of the worst springs ever. Only 30 riders out of almost 200 finished RVV in 85!!

In contrast LA before cancer was not anywhere near as prolific.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

LeMond is the clear winner to me. Better competiton. Equipment (not just frame) were very different, and that fastest TT speed held up ridiculously long. As someone said earlier, Greg had to train for a whole season not just one race. If what Ive heard about a pro cyclist's season is true, that makes Lances season infinitely easier (relatively). Greg literally gave a win to Hinault, which is different than just "supporting" the guy. He could have easily won if he wanted to. I thought I read somewhere that Lemonds VO2 or something was the highest ever? I guess that would be something objective to compare. Didnt Lemond win one of his Tours with "very little" training? I think it was the post gunshot one...it was on his Biography.


----------



## deltasierra (Aug 9, 2008)

Rephrase the question... If Greg had been on Postal when George H. caught that fateful Paris-Roubaix break, would Johan have been on the radio more than once looking for team help for George? Nope. I am sure Greg would have sacrificed himself (and his wheels) to help as faithful a lieutenant as George. If he hadn't been riding to get himself and George into the break from the beginning. 

That's the definition of greatness in cycling. LeMond was that good. He could do anything in a race at any time, alone. In his prime, LeMond would have attacked Lance and destroyed him. Go watch the footage where he pulls back Hinault, when the Badger attacked him.


----------



## slamy (Mar 15, 2004)

>>>He barely beat the Badger at the very end of his run- not in his prime.<<<

This is funny. Hinault retired at the old age of 31. Not his prime? He won the 1985 Tour (previous to Lemonds) I like Armstrong as much as anyone, but I actually watched both these guys race. I still have my vcr recorded tapes of the 1985 and 1986 tours (cbs sunday broadcasts with Teshs awesome music) Lemond was pure talent. He was so far superior to anyone on a bike. If you look at his junior racing years they are incredible. Guimar (sp) and Hinault (in his prime lol) came to Nevada to recruit him, he was little over 20. He was so good that one of the legends of the sports came to America to bring him on his team. Armstrong is a phenom also, but from what I saw and think, it was Lemond all the way. Again if he had not been shot, this probably would not be a debate.


----------



## spastook (Nov 30, 2007)

Not to beat a dead horse or anything but I just finished re-watching the 1989 World Championships. Greg LeMond reminded me of what an absolute stud he was in his day. No wonder the French still to this day hold LeMond in such high regard. It's (to the French people) not so much a matter of what you win or how many times as it is the way you win or at the very least, die trying. LeMond proves in this particular race that he could do it all. Prior to this everyone knew he could climb better than just about anyone in his time and his time trialing ability was without equal but to outsprint Sean Kelly after 162 miles says it all.


----------

