Indurain vs. Arsmtrong

sopas said:

It would have been an interesting fight, I was perhaps better time trialist and he better climber, it would have been a great fight, no doubt.

I think that's a fair and cogent assessment.

Given the benefit of time travel, the TdF duel I would like to see is Merckx in his prime -- but racing the same busy schedule as he always did -- vs. Armstrong after his typical slow build-up to be in peak physical condition for only three weeks in July.

On any given day at random, Merckx beats Armstrong like a drum. But with respect to the TdF, I would suspect that, given Armstrong's singular ability to plan and focus for this single event, he might have given Eddy a run for his money if the Cannibal tried simply to overpower him from the beginning. Armstrong is nothing if not shrewd, and if there was anyone capable of the tactics and conservation of resources necessary to compete with Merckx in this specific event, it's Lance.

sopas said:

Hello all,

Reply by Miguel:
It would have been an interesting fight, I was perhaps better time trialist and he better climber, it would have been a great fight, no doubt.

No doubt this was true.

sopas said:

Reply by Miguel:
It would have been an interesting fight, I was perhaps better time trialist and he better climber, it would have been a great fight, no doubt.

You guys don't think that someday about 20 years from now that LA & Indurain will be broke and someone will come up with a brilliant TV special that will put these 2 guys on bikes and ride against each other ?????? Maybe a half time show or a WWW intro ????? Old guys in lyca ?????

wolfix said:

You guys don't think that someday about 20 years from now that LA & Indurain will be broke and someone will come up with a brilliant TV special that will put these 2 guys on bikes and ride against each other ?????? Maybe a half time show or a WWW intro ????? Old guys in lyca ?????

Maybe on a reality show with Ron Jeremy and Flavor Flav? That would be interesting. 😄

wolfix said:

You guys don't think that someday about 20 years from now that LA & Indurain will be broke....

now that's funny in itself

shrewdness & tactics aside, we never saw la attack from the base of a climb without a team around and pull off the stage as merckx was known for.
nor were tactics the primary factor in eddie lapping the field in the criterium des nations...

and what of the hour record? this is a significant part of the eddie legacy that we have not seen with la.

rejobako said:

Armstrong is nothing if not shrewd, and if there was anyone capable of the tactics and conservation of resources necessary to compete with Merckx in this specific event, it's Lance.

Hypnospin said:

shrewdness & tactics aside, we never saw la attack from the base of a climb without a team around and pull off the stage as merckx was known for.
nor were tactics the primary factor in eddie lapping the field in the criterium des nations...

and what of the hour record? this is a significant part of the eddie legacy that we have not seen with la.

And maybe if Eddy did use smart tactics such as not attacking all the time maybe he would have won 7 Tours and this endless discussion of Eddy vs Lance would never happen.
And when LA passed Ullrich in the TT was tactics the primary factor???
Also , the riders on Eddy's team would suggest that maybe they had a hand in his wins too. Legendary tales always leave out the boring details.

The Hour Record ?????? Can anyone really name the guy who just won it without looking it up????? And until the Hour Record is stabilized as far as altitude & equipment there will always be doubts. Does anyone think that the shimano's , Treks, Campagnolo's will allow the Hour to be stabilized ??? What if we had a record setter on a 1975 track bike ??? How would the marketing guru's convince the masses that "lighter is better?" I have always been a fan of the hour record, but to compare riders[ roadies] of the past generation to the present generation is not fair to past riders..... I bet there are at least 50 riders today that could ride the "past Eddy" in the ground. The Eddy of today using new training knowledge would ride the "past Eddy" into the ground. A understanding of the way the teams operated in the past compared to the way teams are set up today make the comparision of the individual wins of the riders impossible.
LA & EM would both be champions in any era.........
I will admit the TDf was more exciting back when Merckx rode. The attacks , the corruption of teams & ds's, the doping.... And yes, Merckx was a 3x convicted doper..... Today, the TDF is won in the TT's and by boring to death all challengers. But let's not blame Discovery & LA..... Look at Indurain . I never thought I'd admit this but I miss the days of Hinault/Lemond, Pantani, and "el Diablo." Just last night in a discussion with an individual I suggested that I would prefer to go to the "Giro" as a spectator then the TDF..... It seems to be a more exciting race .....

Nobody ever mentions why Eddy Merckx only won 5 TDF. He was asked one time to stay away from the race because of the Anti-Merckx feelings in France that time. (Where else did we hear about such feelings in France? *cough*Lance*cough*). Another time he was hit in his liver by a France spectator. I don't know this was the only reason of his loose that year (If my memory suits me well he had broken something in the TDF earlier and he had to take medicines) but it was a factor for sure.

(excuse me for my poor grammar)

The record book show that Indurain beat Armstrong conclusively during the period 1993-1996.

The record books also show that Indurain managed five TDF wins and two Giro wins and performed the Double Double.
At astonishing achievement given the calibre of opposition Indurain had in those years (pantani, rominger, zulle, riis, jalabert, bugno, chiappucci) during 1991-1996.

If Indurain had the luxury of solely concentrating on just riding the TDF, I have no doubt that Indurain would beat Armstrong.

sopas said:

Reply by Miguel:
It would have been an interesting fight, I was perhaps better time trialist and he better climber, it would have been a great fight, no doubt.

I agree with that assessment. I think Indurain was a better TT'er (the best long time trialist ever). Armstrong's a better climber.

-bikeguy

bikeguy said:

I agree with that assessment. I think Indurain was a better TT'er (the best long time trialist ever). Armstrong's a better climber.

-bikeguy

But would you think that LA was closer to Indurain in TTing, than Indurain was close to Armstrong in climbing?

musette said:

But would you think that LA was closer to Indurain in TTing, than Indurain was close to Armstrong in climbing?

I challenege some scientist to come up with the answer but as big a fan as I am I think Indurain was more of a time trialer than Lance by a bigger margin than Lance as a climber.

Someone can probably find similar climbs and compare times and even TT courses to prove me wrong.

But its apples and ornages unless they are in the same race same time etc.
It would be close.

But as to saying Lance never attacked from the bottom of a climb???
Alpe D'Huez 2001 was as close to the bottom as you can get. Yes Chechu pulled for like 700 meters but it was basically at the bottom.

sopas said:

Hello all,

On Miguel Indurain's website (www.miguelindurain.es) there is an interview withe the Spanish Champion see: miguelindurain.esindex.aspOpen ↗ . One of the hot questions is #30:

Question:
Hello Miguel, if you had coincided with Armstrong on your prime, who do you think would have won in the Tour, you or him?

Reply by Miguel:
It would have been an interesting fight, I was perhaps better time trialist and he better climber, it would have been a great fight, no doubt.

I think that these kinds of issues between earlier riders and todays riders are impossible to resolve. On the one hand, the competition gets tougher year after year. On the other hand, the earlier riders did not have access to the advanced training technology that we have now. I think in most cases the contemporary riders would clean the clocks of the earlier riders. But if you gave the earlier riders benefit of the same training, I have no idea what would happen.

musette said:

But would you think that LA was closer to Indurain in TTing, than Indurain was close to Armstrong in climbing?

I can't say. Armstrong certainly had more reserve afforded by his wonderful team and the fact he didn't really do much else except the TdF.

-bikeguy

Merckx was asked not to ride in 1973 when he had already won the Vuelta and Giro - he could not only have been a 6 time TdF winner but the only rider to ever win all 3 GTs in one season.

Indurain was a classy climber - what Basso is doing in this year's Giro is essentially what Indurain could do - relentlessly up the tempo and burn off all but one or two real climbers - and he could regularly drop riders like Pantani. He effortlessly controlled the climbs during his 5 year streak and, in this hypothetical ride off, I would expect him to appear at Armstrong's shoulder, limiting his losses and controlling the mountain stages whilst taking 3 minutes in the TTs - as Lim says, Indurain comprehensively beat Armstrong in the Tours they rode against each other, Armstrong never getting closer than 5' 30" in the TTs...

Add to the fact that Indurain - although not being able to stay with a superclimber like Pantani - he (Indurain) was able to effectively limit his losses to likes of Pantani by keeping tempo.

I saw it for myself at Alp D'Huez and Guize Neige stages in 1995 TDF.

Pantani blasted away up the mountain at D'Huez. Indurain got out of the saddle and had to burn up the road after MP. At one point MP had nearly 2 minutes on BigMig. Indurain brought that gap back to 1min 20secs.
Indurain was never going to catch Pantani - but he did manage to limit the time deficit.
Indurain employed that strategy against other climbers like Luc leBlanc, Pantani, Gotti, Tonkov.

Of course, Indurain would recoup massive time in ITT.

Armstrong is of course the better climber, thats not in doubt. What I'm not sure on is how much better Indurain was as a TTist. LA won a lot of TTs during his TdF victories, and a lot of them against a superb ITTer, Jan Ullrich. If Lance can put time into someone like JU in a timetrial, well, that speaks volumes for his TTing ability. I think the gap between LA and MI on a long time trial would be at maximum 2 minutes. In the 95 TdF Indurain was only beating Riis by less than a minute. 12" in the first, 48" in the second. In the final TT of 96 Ullrich beat Indurain by 56". So whilst Indurain would win a TT against LA, I don't think it would be by as much you guys have been predicting.

On the climbing: If Indurain was able to limit his losses of Alpe d'Huez to 1:20 against MP then the gaps would be about a minute to LA. So overall, with about 3 or 4 mountain top finishes and 2 long ITT's you would have a very close and interesting race between the two.

Armstrong would win but it would be a close thing. big mig would win the time trial if it was flat and he could power along, however in a hilly tt it would be close. mig would have trouble countering lances accelerations in the mountains and that is where he would take it. also lances teams would be much stronger than any of indurains banesto boys

I think it'd depend on the parcours. If it were like this year's TDF, with some long ITTs and relatively few mountaintop finishes, my money would be on Indurain. With more action in the mountains -- something like this year's Giro, for example -- LA would probably have the advantage.