# Top 30 cyclists of all time.



## Keski (Sep 25, 2004)

I just stumbled on this guys vids. Maybe you have seen this, maybe not. Thought I would share. Nicely done I think,, and it was obviously a labour of love for the guy. I'm sure it took forever to put together and edit. Some fantastic footage. A great view of one Laurent Jalaberts horrific crashes. For the Lance lovers and haters, he comes in at #7 on this guys list.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Well, Merckx got ranked #1 all-time, as well he should be. 

But how many ppl are going to complain that Lance should've been ranked higher than #7 all-time? :idea:
.


----------



## cydswipe (Mar 7, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> Well, Merckx got ranked #1 all-time, as well he should be.
> 
> But how many ppl are going to complain that Lance should've been ranked higher than #7 all-time? :idea:
> .


Just the folks who've only started following cycling in the last decade. He's all they've ever known for the most part. Which still ain't all bad.


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

cydswipe said:


> Just the folks who've only started following cycling in the last decade. He's all they've ever known for the most part. Which still ain't all bad.


I only started following cycling 3 years ago, does that make me some sort of poseur who knows nothing about the sport?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Jalabert should be higher.


----------



## cydswipe (Mar 7, 2002)

btinder said:


> I only started following cycling 3 years ago, does that make me some sort of poseur who knows nothing about the sport?


No, not at all. I was simply trying to make a point that the surface of cycling had been scratched with Armstrong for a lot of folks. My first knowledge came with Fignon. Everyone starts somewhere, I think a lot started with Lance. That is a pretty good place to start!


----------



## frpax (Feb 13, 2010)

Regardless of whether you agree with who got placed where, and "so-and-so should have placed higher", it was well done! I love all the archival footage, and the soundtrack was good. Eclectic, but good.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

definitely, some awesome clips in there.


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

cydswipe said:


> No, not at all. I was simply trying to make a point that the surface of cycling had been scratched with Armstrong for a lot of folks. My first knowledge came with Fignon. Everyone starts somewhere, I think a lot started with Lance. That is a pretty good place to start!


Agreed. Lance brought cycling to a lot of young fans who are now in their twenties (like me).


----------



## bolt30 (Sep 4, 2006)

What Lance was able to do, and still may do, is amazing. I'm a fan of Lance. That being said, he is well placed here. All one needs to do is read along with the video to easily realize Lance hasn't painted near the canvas those ranked above him have. Lance focused/focuses on one race. Those others just put their heart and guts into many races and won a variety of the great races. Truly, truly amazing what they did. I read along with this video at the scope of their accomplishments and just continue to shake my head in awe.

I know sports records are made to be broken, but in this day and age with everyone focusing on one or two races a season, I don't think it will ever be matched. What he did was, well, incredible doesn't seem strong enough.


----------



## Keski (Sep 25, 2004)

I love when a fan steals Romingers cap in part one when he rides by..lol


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

bolt30 said:


> What Lance was able to do, and still may do, is amazing. I'm a fan of Lance. That being said, he is well placed here. All one needs to do is read along with the video to easily realize Lance hasn't painted near the canvas those ranked above him have. Lance focused/focuses on one race. Those others just put their heart and guts into many races and won a variety of the great races. Truly, truly amazing what they did. I read along with this video at the scope of their accomplishments and just continue to shake my head in awe.
> 
> I know sports records are made to be broken, but in this day and age with everyone focusing on one or two races a season, I don't think it will ever be matched. What he did was, well, incredible doesn't seem strong enough.


Thats the thing--modern pro cyclists focus on one, MAYBE two races per season, using every other race for training. The days of a Merckxx-like racer are over. In this light, Lance is the greatest modern bike racer. Contador may trump him, but we'll have to see.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

btinder said:


> Thats the thing--modern pro cyclists focus on one, MAYBE two races per season, using every other race for training. The days of a Merckxx-like racer are over.


Really? We'll _never_ see another racer who wins both tours _and_ classics, forevermore? :idea:
.


----------



## bolt30 (Sep 4, 2006)

SystemShock said:


> Really? We'll _never_ see another racer who wins both tours _and_ classics, forevermore? :idea:
> .



Trust me, I hope we do. But, I seriously doubt it. And I doubt even more anyone will ever win the variety and number of races that Mercx did.


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

SystemShock said:


> Really? We'll _never_ see another racer who wins both tours _and_ classics, forevermore? :idea:
> .


Some will, but none will show the domination of an Armstrong or a Meckxx. They won't be spoken of as a "cycling great."


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

bolt30 said:


> Trust me, I hope we do. But, I seriously doubt it. And I doubt even more anyone will ever win the variety and number of races that Mercx did.


Never is a _very_ long time, far as not seeing another racer who wins both tours and classics (in bunches) goes.

But I agree that we may never see another rider who does it like Merckx again. Eddy was nearly superhuman.
.


----------



## orangeclymer (Aug 18, 2009)

btinder said:


> Some will, but none will show the domination of an Armstrong or a Meckxx. They won't be spoken of as a "cycling great."


exactly!!! the anti LA fans like SS just enjoy spouting off for no other reason than to spout off.
LA is THE 7 time TDF champion which no one else can lay claim to nor could any of the others accomplish period.:ihih: :lol: 

goodnight all.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

btinder said:


> Thats the thing--modern pro cyclists focus on one, MAYBE two races per season, using every other race for training. The days of a Merckxx-like racer are over. In this light, Lance is the greatest modern bike racer. Contador may trump him, but we'll have to see.


So why isn't Museeuw or even Boonen the equivalent of Lance? Is the TdF or other Grand Tours the only "race" worth anything?


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

What's wrong with being the 7th greatest of all time?
Big Mig fans aren't complaining that he isn't #1, although his record is the equal of LA's: 
5xTdF + 2xGiro + World Champ, Olympic Gold, 2xParis Nice + 2x Dauphine Libere.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

The Badger #2, huh? Hm...


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> fwiw, I think they could've ranked Lance higher than #7 all-time. Top 5, certainly.
> .


Which two are placed wrong in top 6 and should be behind LA?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

btinder said:


> Thats the thing--modern pro cyclists focus on one, MAYBE two races per season, using every other race for training. The days of a Merckxx-like racer are over. In this light, Lance is the greatest modern bike racer. Contador may trump him, but we'll have to see.


If you watch all three films you'll see that Merckx is the aberration. Before him there were riders who won mainly classics or mainly GT's. The difference between them and the modern era is that they won several classics and shorter stage races. But when you look at them you see they are much more like the man in the street than modern riders are. They look like regular guys rather than single digit body fat "freaks". 

Love the comment on Youtube about LA being a "one trick pony"!!


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

ultimobici said:


> If you watch all three films you'll see that Merckx is the aberration.


Hinault too. Objectively, Hinault lies about halfway between Merckx and the rest. 

Merckx clearly #1, Hinault clearly #2, and then you can start debating about who should be #3


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Dwaynebarry said:


> Hinault too. Objectively, Hinault lies about halfway between Merckx and the rest.
> 
> Merckx clearly #1, Hinault clearly #2, and then you can start debating about who should be #3


Let's see....

Coppi
Anquetil
Bartali
Van Looy
Indurain
Yep LA is in his place, although there are several riders placed below him who were more exciting to follow.

De Vlaeminck
Fignon
Lemond
Gimondi
Pantani
Van Impe
Kelly
Most of whom won a more varied selection of races and entertained *on* the bike more.

But that's just my not so humble opinion!


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

This should be required viewing for all new cyclists. 

Awesome.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Coppi should have been at least number 2.


----------



## wvucyclist (Sep 6, 2007)

I suppose time will tell, but Cavendish is friggin awesome. I used to think Boonen was, but Cav seems to win a lot. Also, again, maybe he just needs more time (for the dust to settle), and I'm not up to snuff on my cycling history (though I was riding before lance won his first tour), but who can ride away from the strongest sprinters like Cancellara?


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

Dwaynebarry said:


> So why isn't Museeuw or even Boonen the equivalent of Lance? Is the TdF or other Grand Tours the only "race" worth anything?


Uh nobody is saying the Paris Nice or the Giro aren't worth anything, but they certainly aren't as difficult a race as the Tour de France, which Lance dominated for 7 straight years.


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

wvucyclist said:


> I suppose time will tell, but Cavendish is friggin awesome. I used to think Boonen was, but Cav seems to win a lot. Also, again, maybe he just needs more time (for the dust to settle), and I'm not up to snuff on my cycling history (though I was riding before lance won his first tour), but who can ride away from the strongest sprinters like Cancellara?


I wouldn't classify Cancellera as a sprinter, he lacks the top-end punch of racers like Cavendish, Boonen, Farrar, etc.


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

btinder said:


> Uh nobody is saying the Paris Nice or the Giro aren't worth anything, but they certainly aren't as difficult a race as the Tour de France


IMO the Giro almost always has a tougher course than the TdF and the only place that the TdF trumps the Giro is in notoriety.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

den bakker said:


> Which two are placed wrong in top 6 and should be behind LA?


Depends who you talk to. I'm just saying that there's a reasonable argument for Lance to be ranked #5 or so. There are also reasonable arguments against.

Of course, it's also possible that I'm somewhat giving in to all the 'Lance is GOD!' n00bs who don't know anything about cycling prior to 1999 and insist that the TDF is the _only_ race that matters.

If so, I now officially hate myself, and will de-program by whacking myself upside the head with a 2x4.  :lol:
.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

JohnStonebarger said:


> The Badger #2, huh? Hm...


Why not? He won *10* major tours(!), a world championship, a bunch of classics, and pretty much owned the Grand Prix des Nations.

One could argue that in terms of the depth and breadth of his victories, he's the one who comes closest to Merckx (though nobody comes that 'close' to Merckx, really).
.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I thought it was a decent list. 

It would also be kinda neat if someone compiled a similar style of 30 most epic races of all time.


----------



## hobgoblin (Jun 26, 2009)

Dwaynebarry said:


> Hinault too. Objectively, Hinault lies about halfway between Merckx and the rest.
> 
> Merckx clearly #1, Hinault clearly #2, and then you can start debating about who should be #3


I felt the same way watching the clips. These two rode like they were possessed by demons. Hinault's charging, intense style and Eddy's maniacal hammering. Watching them ride is like watching some astounding virtuoso. The rest, as impressive as they are, just don't have that final bit of insanity that separates the gods from the demi-gods.


----------



## mjdwyer23 (Mar 18, 2009)

spade2you said:


> I thought it was a decent list.
> 
> It would also be kinda neat if someone compiled a similar style of 30 most epic races of all time.


Yeah it would. Seems like pros just train to win specific races nowadays.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

mjdwyer23 said:


> Yeah it would. Seems like pros just train to win specific races nowadays.


I used to think that too until I read Anquetil's biography. He seems to have picked the races he rode to maximise his worth. Pretty much won whatever he started.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

den bakker said:


> Which two are placed wrong in top 6 and should be behind LA?


Indurain (one dimensional, beatable in all but three years), Bartoli (second best of his generation), maybe anquetil (one dimensional again)

Great videos, i wish we got more of this


----------



## ksanbon (Jul 19, 2008)

Keski,

That was GREAT!
Thanks for sharing.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> Depends who you talk to. I'm just saying that there's a reasonable argument for Lance to be ranked #5 or so. There are also reasonable arguments against.
> 
> Of course, it's also possible that I'm somewhat giving in to all the 'Lance is GOD!' n00bs who don't know anything about cycling prior to 1999 and insist that the TDF is the _only_ race that matters.
> 
> ...


just give the names of the two you think should be rated lower than Lance. He is currently 7 you say 5. which 2?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

kbiker3111 said:


> Indurain (one dimensional, beatable in all but three years), Bartoli (second best of his generation), maybe anquetil (one dimensional again)
> 
> Great videos, i wish we got more of this


second best of his generation maybe. But following that argument, the second best in LAs generation was a fat bakery boy...
and one dimensional seems to fit someone else as well.


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

I'm not sure I buy the one-dimensional argument as a reason to put LA behind others. Everybody's pretty much one-dimensional these days, because otherwise you don't win. It's an age of specialization, and I believe that's because the quality and depth of the peleton is better now than it was when Merckx and Anquetil and Coppi and Bartali were riding. Hinault and Indurain are more recent riders, so that's not a case I would make so much against them. But given my belief that the overall field is better, the only guys I would confidently put ahead of LA are Merckx and Hinault. Indurain I would definitely put behind LA, because Indurain's a specialist, too, and it seems reasonably clear he's not as good a specialist as LA. I'm not confident that LA belongs ahead of Anquetil, Coppi, and Bartali, but given the magnitude of LA's achievement in winning 7 straight TdFs and my belief that some discount should be applied to the achievements (and incredible they are) of those three because of the era in which they rode, I would start with the predisposition to rank LA ahead of them.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

harlond said:


> I'm not sure I buy the one-dimensional argument as a reason to put LA behind others. Everybody's pretty much one-dimensional these days, because otherwise you don't win. It's an age of specialization, and I believe that's because the quality and depth of the peleton is better now than it was when Merckx and Anquetil and Coppi and Bartali were riding. Hinault and Indurain are more recent riders, so that's not a case I would make so much against them. But given my belief that the overall field is better, the only guys I would confidently put ahead of LA are Merckx and Hinault. Indurain I would definitely put behind LA, because Indurain's a specialist, too, and it seems reasonably clear he's not as good a specialist as LA. I'm not confident that LA belongs ahead of Anquetil, Coppi, and Bartali, but given the magnitude of LA's achievement in winning 7 straight TdFs and my belief that some discount should be applied to the achievements (and incredible they are) of those three because of the era in which they rode, I would start with the predisposition to rank LA ahead of them.


LA ahead of Anquetil, Bartali AND Coppi? That's a bit of a reach. 
All three had the national team system to contend with. They all had inner rivalries to contend with thus lacking the utter devotion LA enjoyed.
Moreover, 50 years after Coppi's death one can spark an argument over who was the better rider, Coppi or Bartali, between Italians who weren't even born when he died!! I'm prepared to wager LA will not raise that kind of fervour 10 years after his demise.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mjdwyer23 said:


> Yeah it would. Seems like pros just train to win specific races nowadays.


I have been kinda noticing that with a lot of riders. Most GC guys don't touch the sprints, most sprinters only strive to beat the elimination time in the mountains, etc. Not a whole lot of all around riders, not that a comparison to Merckx is exactly fair.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

den bakker said:


> just give the names of the two you think should be rated lower than Lance. He is currently 7 you say 5. which 2?


Not gonna say. I've already been accused of 'Lance-hatred' in this thread when I wasn't even saying anything controversial... imagine what'll happen if I do.  
.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

The list was pretty good. Armstrong and Indurain could have been interchangeable either way, and it wouldn't make that much difference. For those who aren't familiar, it has to be taken into consideration with Bartali and Coppi that they both lost the best years of their career to WWII. With those years back, both of them may have attained Merckx-like numbers. They were placed correctly. 

Hinault belongs no where else but #2. Only Merckx was better. I think Hinault may have won a few more races had he not been prone to injury and overtraining. 

Overall, I think the top 7 were well picked and the order was appropriate.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

California L33 said:


> Coppi should have been at least number 2.


Agreed. Coppi at 2 for sure.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Never mind Armstrong being #7, how is Greg Lemond tolerating Lance being that far ahead of him?


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Never mind Armstrong being #7, how is Greg Lemond tolerating Lance being that far ahead of him?



I don't know? It's the same situation with Lemond as Coppi and Bartali. How do you rank someone that you feel pretty confident _would have_ had a record far in excess of the brilliant career that they did have, but didn't manage to do so because of mitigating circumstances? I expected to see Lemond in the top 10, but I suppose I understand the reasoning.

No WWII and I think it is possible that Bartali and Coppi may have had records on par with Merckx. . . . but they didn't.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Creakyknees said:


> Jalabert should be higher.


He should be. A man who could win the GC, points, and climbers jersey in one single grand tour (95 Vuelta) should be ranked higher.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

btinder said:


> Uh nobody is saying the Paris Nice or the Giro aren't worth anything, but they certainly aren't as difficult a race as the Tour de France, which Lance dominated for 7 straight years.


Museeuw was a classics "specialist" not a GC rider. If you're going to rank a one-trick pony like Indurain in the top 10, certainly Museeuw deserves top 30. In some sense a GT is easy to win, as long as you are the strongest rider you will win. Classics riders have to have good luck and be tactically savvy to avoid losing a race despite being the strongest.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Dwaynebarry said:


> Museeuw was a classics "specialist" not a GC rider. If you're going to rank a one-trick pony like Indurain in the top 10, certainly Museeuw deserves top 30. In some sense a GT is easy to win, as long as you are the strongest rider you will win. Classics riders have to have good luck and be tactically savvy to avoid losing a race despite being the strongest.


Meh, it's a relative list. It's pretty difficult to quantify wins and the weight of that particular win. How do you rate winning a classic vs. stage wins vs. GC wins? I mean, one could invest tons of time and effort into theories, math, compiling data, etc.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

Dwaynebarry said:


> Hinault too. Objectively, Hinault lies about halfway between Merckx and the rest.
> 
> Merckx clearly #1, Hinault clearly #2, and then you can start debating about who should be #3



I think Coppi (accomplished in classics and GTs + hour record holder for 14 years) is clearly at least #3 and what's debatable is whether he should be ranked #2. I've even see some dare flirt with idea that he may have been the greatest of all time. Merckx was always at battle with his bike but Coppi rode like he was at one with his. Imagine if Coppi's palmares might have been if his career hadn't been interrupted by a world war.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Meh, it's a relative list. It's pretty difficult to quantify wins and the weight of that particular win. How do you rate winning a classic vs. stage wins vs. GC wins? I mean, one could invest tons of time and effort into theories, math, compiling data, etc.


There is a really good ranking out there, where the guy assigns points for podium finishes in prestigious races across time, and gives points for other accomplishments like green jerseys or KOM jerseys in GTs and then lets the chips fall as they may.

Back when cycling4all existed, they would post it every year.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Dwaynebarry said:


> There is a really good ranking out there, where the guy assigns points for podium finishes in prestigious races across time, and gives points for other accomplishments like green jerseys or KOM jerseys in GTs and then lets the chips fall as they may.
> 
> Back when cycling4all existed, they would post it every year.


I'm not deny that you can assign numerical value to a given race, but they're based on arbitrary scales. From a statistical analysis perspective, there's no "perfect" way of creating results and rankings. For example, would Paris-Roubiax have the same value as the Worlds? On top of that, I think competition and the margin of a win can vary per year. An example of weight based on competition that particular year would be something like the 1998 TdF when some of the heavy hitters got yanked due to the Festina incident. Pantani obviously won it, but was he the best of the best or the best of the best of what's left?


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

Longo should have been in the top 5 at least.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Agreed. Coppi at 2 for sure.


Almost too close to call. For me, it's Hinault, but it is very close. They both won classics (Coppi won more monuments, but Hinault probably made up for that with the WC and Grand prix des Nations wins) and although Hinault won more GTs, they both could have won more.

I don't think that the question who is second can be rationally debated! The top three spots are obvious, _perhaps _Coppi could have surpassed Merckx had WW2 not happened, but I doubt it.


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

#1 is obvious and virtually indisputable.

I would put Coppi second (I'm Italian).

Anquetil's exploits (the famous double) make me want to place him third, but I'd have a hard time not recognizing Hinault as the third greatest.

Armstrong at what? 7. That would be fitting considering his seven tour wins. As for being a supposed one-trick-pony, it's the Tour so come on.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

rocco said:


> I think Coppi (accomplished in classics and GTs + hour record holder for 14 years) is clearly at least #3 and what's debatable is whether he should be ranked #2. I've even see some dare flirt with idea that he may have been the greatest of all time. Merckx was always at battle with his bike but Coppi rode like he was at one with his. Imagine if Coppi's palmares might have been if his career hadn't been interrupted by a world war.


And imagine Merckx' career is hadn't had that big injury on the track early in his career in 1969, just as he was starting to get big results ....

To quote: _"The crash in Blois was terrible for me. From that day cycling became suffering. I had stitches in my head and was scraped and bruised all over, but those injuries healed. I was lucky in a way in that I could have been killed, but the problem that crash gave me was the damage it did to my back. What happened was that my hips were knocked out of line with my body. It meant that my legs were also out of line with the rest of my body. After that day I could never sit comfortably on my bike again. I tinkered with my position and changed my frame angles. I would keep many bikes, all subtly different, all ready to race on, but I never found comfort. Before Blois I cannot say that I suffered in a bike race. The Tour de France even. I just pressed on the pedals when I wanted to, that was all I had to do. After the crash it was never the same. The pain changed from day to day, some days I would weep on my bike, on others it was OK. One time, towards the end of my career, it was so bad that I was riding up the Alsemberg hill in Brussels, and I wondered if I was going to get to the top. I thought that I might have to get off and walk, and it isn't a very steep or a very long hill. My back became my weakness. It still affects me today. I cannot jog to keep fit because of my back."_


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

orange_julius said:


> And imagine Merckx' career is hadn't had that big injury on the track early in his career in 1969, just as he was starting to get big results ....


Yup. Or if he hadn't been punched in the liver by that spectator and injured while he was on his way to what would've likely been his sixth TDF win.

This is why the 'coulda woulda shoulda' game cuts both ways, and shouldn't even be played. Merckx is the Greatest of All Time™... the end.
.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

PhatTalc said:


> Almost too close to call. For me, it's Hinault, but it is very close. They both won classics (Coppi won more monuments, but Hinault probably made up for that with the WC and Grand prix des Nations wins) and although Hinault won more GTs, they both could have won more.
> 
> I don't think that the question who is second can be rationally debated! The top three spots are obvious, _perhaps _Coppi could have surpassed Merckx had WW2 not happened, but I doubt it.


Coppi won the World Road Championship in 1953 at Lugano. He also won the GP des Nations twice in 1946 & 1947. Although Hinault won more, Coppi's victories came at a time when the GP des Nations was 140km as opposed to a "mere" 90km in Hinault day.
Add into that his injury record
*1942*: collarbone at the Vigorelli track in Milan
*1950*: pelvis in the Giro d'Italia
*1951*: collarbone in Milan-Turin
*1952*: shoulder blade on the track in Perpignon
*1954*: head and kness while training
*1956*: displaced vertebra in Giro d'Italia
*1957*: thigh in Sardinia
*1959*: head injuries while training
and one can only wonder what heights he would have reached with a more robust constitution, let alone WWII!


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

culdeus said:


> Longo should have been in the top 5 at least.


Apparently it's a list of the top 30 male cyclists of all time.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

JohnStonebarger said:


> Apparently it's a list of the top 30 male cyclists of all time.


Everyone knows you can't teach women to ride bikes. They're too frail


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

California L33 said:


> Everyone knows you can't teach women to ride bikes. They're too frail


I suspect Miss Longo might disagree AND be able to easily kick every RBR member's butt!


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

harlond said:


> Indurain I would definitely put behind LA, because Indurain's a specialist, too, and it seems reasonably clear he's not as good a specialist as LA.


By "specialist," you mean world and Olympic TT champ, hour-record holder AND first man to win the TdF 5 times in a row?


----------



## harlond (May 30, 2005)

Undecided said:


> By "specialist," you mean world and Olympic TT champ, hour-record holder AND first man to win the TdF 5 times in a row?


Well, yeah.


----------



## BryanSayer (Sep 22, 2009)

Lance drew in a lot of AMERICANS fans. I'm not so sure about the rest of the world.

The gap from the Cannibal to everyone else combined is greater than everyone else combined. However, I do think the seven TdF record will be broken, though not necessarily in a row. I even think Cantador *could* be on the level of Merckx if he set out to be. But he won't.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

BryanSayer said:


> Lance drew in a lot of AMERICANS fans. I'm not so sure about the rest of the world.
> 
> The gap from the Cannibal to everyone else combined is greater than everyone else combined. However, I do think the seven TdF record will be broken, though not necessarily in a row. I even think Cantador *could* be on the level of Merckx if he set out to be. But he won't.


I think Conti has some serious potential. 2 TdFs, a Giro, and a Vuelta aren't too shabby at his age.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

Contador does certainly have a lot more in him, but I don't think he has Merckx in him. Merckx actually started winning major races younger than Contador, and Contador could never contend with Merckx in the cobbled classics.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

I'm well aware of the crash in Blois that killed Fernand Wambst and the kidney punch on the Puy de Dôme. Merckx did amazing things in the face of adversity but these adversities and interruptions weren't the same as having one's career interrupted for two year in the midst of their prime and being kept as a POW in Northern Africa.

I'm not interested in the futile exercise of extensively debating the what ifs. Merckx clearly achieved the most amazing palmares; I'm just conveying a worthy point that has been made by others with regard to who was the most naturally gifted cyclist of all time.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

rocco said:


> I'm well aware of the crash in Blois that killed Fernand Wambst and the kidney punch on the Puy de Dôme. Merckx did amazing things in the face of adversity but these adversities and interruptions weren't the same as having one's career interrupted for two year in the midst of their prime and being kept as a POW in Northern Africa.


It's hard to say. If Merckx was never 100 percent physically after that crash, which Merckx seems to imply was the case, and which happened quite early in his pro career, then that is pretty major, actually. 

And this is why we don't play the 'coulda woulda shoulda' game. 
.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

rocco said:


> I'm well aware of the crash in Blois that killed Fernand Wambst and the kidney punch on the Puy de Dôme. Merckx did amazing things in the face of adversity but these adversities and interruptions weren't the same as having one's career interrupted for two year in the midst of their prime and being kept as a POW in Northern Africa.
> 
> I'm not interested in the futile exercise of extensively debating the what ifs. Merckx clearly achieved the most amazing palmares; I'm just conveying a worthy point that has been made by others with regard to who was the most naturally gifted cyclist of all time,


I wasn't implying that you were unaware of it. It is that the most astonishing (to me) is Merckx' claim that after the crash, "cycling became pain". More than just that he wasn't at top form anymore. It really shows his dedication to his athletic performance. Maybe this is why he was so hungry for wins all the time ...


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Well, Merckx got ranked #1 all-time, as well he should be.
> 
> But how many ppl are going to complain that Lance should've been ranked higher than #7 all-time? :idea:
> .


It's like the corollary of Godwin's law for internet cycling forums!


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

ultimobici said:


> Coppi won the World Road Championship in 1953 at Lugano. He also won the GP des Nations twice in 1946 & 1947. Although Hinault won more, Coppi's victories came at a time when the GP des Nations was 140km as opposed to a "mere" 90km in Hinault day.
> Add into that his injury record
> *1942*: collarbone at the Vigorelli track in Milan
> *1950*: pelvis in the Giro d'Italia
> ...


Good point, I overlooked Coppi's WC win. Coppi suffered from Brittle bones, so his accomplishments were astonishing. Hinault had that knee problem as well, I think you could easily make a case for him winning more. Still, the top 3 (for me) is locked!


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

btinder said:


> I wouldn't classify Cancellera as a sprinter, he lacks the top-end punch of racers like Cavendish, Boonen, Farrar, etc.


Not a sprinter. He can breakaway with that V12 engine of his, and ruin it for the real sprinters. I think stage 3 from a few years ago was an example.


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

PhatTalc said:


> Good point, I overlooked Coppi's WC win. Coppi suffered from Brittle bones, so his accomplishments were astonishing. Hinault had that knee problem as well, I think you could easily make a case for him winning more. Still, the top 3 (for me) is locked!


If I recall correctly, his weakened bones were caused by malnutrition as a child.

Also wanted to post this image:


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

thechriswebb said:


> I don't know? It's the same situation with Lemond as Coppi and Bartali. How do you rank someone that you feel pretty confident _would have_ had a record far in excess of the brilliant career that they did have, but didn't manage to do so because of mitigating circumstances? I expected to see Lemond in the top 10, but I suppose I understand the reasoning.
> 
> No WWII and I think it is possible that Bartali and Coppi may have had records on par with Merckx. . . . but they didn't.


+1. A lot of folks discount Bartali and automatically label him as "2nd best (to Coppi) of his generation" while conveniently forgetting that Gino won the Tour in 1938, and during the time that Coppi was in his physical prime, Bartali was already in his mid-30's, five years older than Fausto. Indeed, WWII robbed the cycling world of something amazing.


----------



## ExtraSlow (Jul 7, 2004)

*No love for Zabel?*

I was a little surprised that Erik Zabel was missing from the list. 

In the era of the specialists he was old school, seeming to race a good part of the year -- figuring in the classics, the grand tours, world championships, Olympics, etc. And while I would agree that he gives up some points by not being an "all-arounder," his results were impressive, nonetheless.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

thechriswebb said:


> Contador does certainly have a lot more in him, but I don't think he has Merckx in him. Merckx actually started winning major races younger than Contador, and Contador could never contend with Merckx in the cobbled classics.


I'm inclined to believe that the science and tactics of winning make it difficult to be a grand tour winner AND a cobbled classic winner. Plus, I kind of doubt there will be anyone who can compete with Merckx ever again.


----------



## BikeFixer (May 19, 2009)

Keski said:


> I just stumbled on this guys vids. Maybe you have seen this, maybe not. Thought I would share. Nicely done I think,, and it was obviously a labour of love for the guy. I'm sure it took forever to put together and edit. Some fantastic footage. A great view of one Laurent Jalaberts horrific crashes. For the Lance lovers and haters, he comes in at #7 on this guys list.


 The REAL top 30 cyclist of all time
#30 Jens Voigt
#29 Jens Voigt
#28 Jens Voigt
#27Jens Voigt
#26 Jens Voigt
#25 Jens Voigt
#24 Jens Voigt
#23 Jens Voigt
#22 Jens Voigt
#21 Jens Voigt
#20 Jens Voigt
#19 Jens Voigt
#18 Jens Voigt
#17 Jens Voigt
#16 Jens Voigt
#15 Jens Voigt
#14 Jens Voigt
#13 Jens Voigt
#12 Jens Voigt
#11 Jens Voigt
#10Jens Voigt
#9 Jens Voigt
#8 Jens Voigt
#7 Jens Voigt
#6 Jens Voigt
#5 Jens Voigt
#4 Jens Voigt
#3 Jens Voigt
#2 Jens Voigt
AND the number ONE rider
JENS VOIGT :thumbsup: 

Seriously 
It's a good list and not too far off I think. Great videos too :thumbsup:


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

BikeFixer said:


> The REAL top 30 cyclist of all time
> #30 Jens Voigt
> #29 Jens Voigt
> #28 Jens Voigt
> ...


I don't see how Angelina Jolie's dad is relevant to this discussion.
.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

orange_julius said:


> I wasn't implying that you were unaware of it. It is that the most astonishing (to me) is Merckx' claim that after the crash, "cycling became pain". More than just that he wasn't at top form anymore. It really shows his dedication to his athletic performance. Maybe this is why he was so hungry for wins all the time ...



Yep... If he was going to suffer so much anyway he might as well always have made sure everyone else suffered at least as much and go all in for the win. Maybe Coppi was more biomechanically gifted on the bike but there's definitively something to be said for Merckx's exceptional mental toughness.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

ExtraSlow said:


> I was a little surprised that Erik Zabel was missing from the list.
> 
> In the era of the specialists he was old school, seeming to race a good part of the year -- figuring in the classics, the grand tours, world championships, Olympics, etc. And while I would agree that he gives up some points by not being an "all-arounder," his results were impressive, nonetheless.


Well he never won Paris Roubaix or Flanders (or too many other northern classics), and if memory serves me, rarely if ever featured in them. Sort of like being a great stage racer but never being a protagonist in the GTs.


----------



## BikeFixer (May 19, 2009)

SystemShock said:


> I don't see how Angelina Jolie's dad is relevant to this discussion.
> .



Oh MAN
Her dad is Voight not Voigt  

LOL


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I'm inclined to believe that the science and tactics of winning make it difficult to be a grand tour winner AND a cobbled classic winner. Plus, I kind of doubt there will be anyone who can compete with Merckx ever again.


I don't see any reason why a guy like Indurain or Armstrong couldn't have been a protagonist in Paris-Roubaix or Flanders with the right mindset.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

BikeFixer said:


> Oh MAN
> Her dad is Voight not Voigt
> 
> LOL


You mean you really didn't get that was a joke?

Wow... pls at least tell me you were joking too, even if it's not true. :frown2:
.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

rocco said:


> I think Coppi (accomplished in classics and GTs + hour record holder for 14 years) is clearly at least #3 and what's debatable is whether he should be ranked #2. I've even see some dare flirt with idea that he may have been the greatest of all time. Merckx was always at battle with his bike but Coppi rode like he was at one with his. Imagine if Coppi's palmares might have been if his career hadn't been interrupted by a world war.



I recognize what you are saying here. I read an interesting analysis on Merckx and Coppi once, and I cannot for the life of me remember where it was. According to this analysis, Merckx was not the most physically gifted cyclist ever by a margin. I'm not going to lie; when I watch videos of Eddy Merckx in races, I often think that he looks awkward as hell trudging up big climbs surrounded by little pixies dancing merrily on their pedals. His inner drive was something special, though. Coppi was definitely in the top tier of the most physically gifted cyclists of all time, but so was Greg Lemond. There aren't a lot of people here arguing that he should be in the top three or four cyclists of all time due to his physical gifts. Lemond's career got screwed by a terrible injury in the middle and a change in racing tactics that took him out of the game a bit too early. I think Lemond was the absolute very last from the era of generalists and he lost the ability to keep up with the specialists in both GT's and classics. However, the fact is that his palmares do not place him in the company of the absolute greatest of all time, even though the argument could be made that he was one of the most physically gifted ever. Same with Coppi... it is a terrible shame that guys like Coppi, Bartali, and Lemond lost big portions of their careers to bad circumstances, but they did and we can only speculate as to "what if." Merckx's career wasn't exactly a bed of roses either, and he is still head and shoulders above everyone else.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Y'know, the moar I think about it, the greatest cyclist of all time is actually _this_ guy, hands-down:


----------



## cyclust (Sep 8, 2004)

I'm suprised that Lemond's name didn't get more discussion in this thread. A lot was said about Merckx's health/accidents and what ifs, but what about Lemond's shooting accident, and the subsequent problems? There is not much doubt that he would probably have won at least 2 more tours had it not been for the accident. Granted, his recent gum-flapping stunts have dimished his reputation, but when you look at his abilities when he was at his peak, it's pretty impressive!


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mendo said:


> Not a sprinter. He can breakaway with that V12 engine of his, and ruin it for the real sprinters. I think stage 3 from a few years ago was an example.


He's not shy of spending a little time with bunch sprints either, but I haven't seen him mess with stuff like that lately. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, just not on the channels I get.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> Y'know, the moar I think about it, the greatest cyclist of all time is actually _this_ guy, hands-down:



agreed


----------



## sirthx (Dec 23, 2005)

mendo said:


> #1 is obvious and virtually indisputable.
> 
> I would put Coppi second (I'm Italian).
> 
> ...


Exactly! The Yankees are one-trick ponies. They only win World Series'.


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

sirthx said:


> Exactly! The Yankees are one-trick ponies. They only win World Series'.


Yes, its not like we win the most Olympic medals from Olympics to Olympics...  

I'd place Armstrong at 5. Other than that, everyone else is well-placed.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

btinder said:


> I'd place Armstrong at 5. Other than that, everyone else is well-placed.


And the two above him you'd relegate are?


----------



## btinder (Aug 25, 2007)

ultimobici said:


> And the two above him you'd relegate are?


I would place him before Indurain and Bartali. Antequil narrowly edges him.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

sirthx said:


> Exactly! The Yankees are one-trick ponies. They only win World Series'.


Flawed comparison, but an interesting one.

Cycling is not really like baseball. In baseball, yeah, winning the World Series is just about everything (with some props for taking the pennant). In cycling, the Tour is the biggest race, but it's not quite the be-all end-all. It's not worth more than everything else put together. 

For example, someone could win a Tour, and nothing else, and that'd be a great season.
Someone else that same year could win the Giro, and the Vuelta, and the World Championships, and a half-dozen classics... and that would be a _better_ season. 
.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

JohnStonebarger said:


> Apparently it's a list of the top 30 male cyclists of all time.


Beryl Burton was the dominant British cyclist of her generation. She held the 12 hour time trial record for a time. By which I mean _the_ 12 hour time trial record - not the just women's, the whole thing. She won the women's world road race and a bunch of track medals. If she had been French or Belgian, she might have done a Merckx!


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

btinder said:


> I would place him before Indurain and Bartali. Antequil narrowly edges him.



Indurain, maybe.

Bartali?????

I don't think so.


----------



## Swish (Jul 31, 2004)

let's just enjoy and be bewondered over the diversity of riders, their character and the obstacles that each had to face.
Very nice compilation.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

thechriswebb said:


> I recognize what you are saying here. I read an interesting analysis on Merckx and Coppi once, and I cannot for the life of me remember where it was. According to this analysis, Merckx was not the most physically gifted cyclist ever by a margin. I'm not going to lie; when I watch videos of Eddy Merckx in races, I often think that he looks awkward as hell trudging up big climbs surrounded by little pixies dancing merrily on their pedals. His inner drive was something special, though. Coppi was definitely in the top tier of the most physically gifted cyclists of all time, but so was Greg Lemond. There aren't a lot of people here arguing that he should be in the top three or four cyclists of all time due to his physical gifts. Lemond's career got screwed by a terrible injury in the middle and a change in racing tactics that took him out of the game a bit too early. I think Lemond was the absolute very last from the era of generalists and he lost the ability to keep up with the specialists in both GT's and classics. However, the fact is that his palmares do not place him in the company of the absolute greatest of all time, even though the argument could be made that he was one of the most physically gifted ever. Same with Coppi... it is a terrible shame that guys like Coppi, Bartali, and Lemond lost big portions of their careers to bad circumstances, but they did and we can only speculate as to "what if." Merckx's career wasn't exactly a bed of roses either, and he is still head and shoulders above everyone else.



I think that is a well rounded summary.


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

What about Stephen Roche? .....Mmm I might not put him in th top 30 either.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*agreed*



thechriswebb said:


> Indurain, maybe.
> 
> Bartali?????
> 
> I don't think so.


but I would put both LA and Mig behind Van Steenbergen

40 six day wins 6 euro track championships on top of his road palmares

Coppi rocked the drome as well


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*also aNOTHER IMPORTANT NOTE*



atpjunkie said:


> but I would put both LA and Mig behind Van Steenbergen
> 
> 40 six day wins 6 euro track championships on top of his road palmares
> 
> Coppi rocked the drome as well


how many of the top 30 raced against Merckx, De Vlaemnick, Gimondi, Ocaña, Zootemelk, Poulidor, Van Impe, Maertens, even Van looy (end of his career like Poulidor)

nobody was so dominant over such an awesome set of competition


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

you put those top 30 on the start line of a good World Championships course all in their peak form - who wins?


----------



## Jokull (Aug 13, 2007)

stevesbike said:


> you put those top 30 on the start line of a good World Championships course all in their peak form - who wins?


Merckx or Van Looy - the 2 greatest one day racers of all time.

If you'd have said: put them on the start line of a Grand Tour in their peak form; then I don't know.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*put them at the start*

of Milan San Remo - Merckx and/or ????
of any of the early classics (Ronde, P-R) Merckx and ???
any of the late classics (Fleche Wallone/ L-B-L) Merckx and ??? 
any grand tour Merckx and ????
hour record....

funny how his name always comes up in contention given racing records


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*um*



btinder said:


> Uh nobody is saying the Paris Nice or the Giro aren't worth anything, but they certainly aren't as difficult a race as the Tour de France, which Lance dominated for 7 straight years.


Paris Roubaix is far harder to win numerous times than any grand tour

record repeats is 4, that should tell you something right there

Monuments IMHO are far tougher because you can't 'save yourself' and just try to finish high in the group. You either win or wait until next year. There is no glory in 4th overall. You can win a GT without ever taking a stage. I'll take one day of greatness and glory over 3 weeks of consistently 'good'


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> you put those top 30 on the start line of a good World Championships course all in their peak form - who wins?



Tough call... Even the best have so, so days. Merckx would be the safe and conventional answer but I think Van Steenbergen and Van Looy would definitely be in the mix. 

Out of the remaining 30 I'd rank Gimondi, Maertens, LeMond in the next tier.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*Rocco = man o' taste*



rocco said:


> Tough call... Even the best have so, so days. Merckx would be the safe and conventional answer but I think Van Steenbergen and Van Looy would definitely be in the mix.
> 
> Out of the remaining 30 I'd rank Gimondi, Maertens, LeMond in the next tier.


dropping Rik I and Rik II like that, and true ta boot


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

mendo said:


> If I recall correctly, his weakened bones were caused by malnutrition as a child.
> 
> Also wanted to post this image:


Beautiful.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Good set of videos. 

I thought that you could break Merckx's record into 2 (or 3) tranches and still get 2 into the top 3. 

The period music is excellent in this montage.

Win a race bleeding. More points for this. Bunch of Sallys racing in the past 15 years IMHO.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Awesome. I've been in this sport since 1962 and have read about or watched most of these riders. There's not point arguing about the order the riders were placed in. Here is the history of our sport in all its magnificence.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> you put those top 30 on the start line of a good World Championships course all in their peak form - who wins?



Merckx is the safe answer of course.


For his competition, I'm going to say Lemond at his peak.


----------



## Tugboat (Jul 17, 2006)

Undecided said:


> By "specialist," you mean world and Olympic TT champ, hour-record holder AND first man to win the TdF 5 times in a row?


Not to mention back to back Giro - Tour doubles in 92 and 93.


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Nov 10, 2008)

sirthx said:


> Exactly! The Yankees are one-trick ponies. They only win World Series'.


You sir, are a TdF fan, not a cycling fan.


----------

