The best ever
There are five men who have won five Tours de France. In order, they are Jacques Anquetil. Eddy Merckx, Benard Hinault, Miguel Indurain, and Lance Armstrong. We’re dealing with the greats of the sports here, so trying to rank them one to five, we’re going to pick some nits. I want to state first off that these guys are as good as it gets. Any criticisms I aim at these guys is just in comparison to the other four. They tower over the sport of cycling.
Before we get into the five with five, let’s give a quick nod to the three who won three: LeMond, Thys, and Bobet. Thys won his Tours in 1913,1914, and then 1920. He was robbed of five by World War I. Bobet won from 1953-55. He didn’t win five because of Anquetil. And LeMond won in 1986,1989, and 1990. The gap in wins was due to a hunting accident. So he missed out on the elite club because his brother mistook him for a deer.
So two of our three-time winners could have won five had it not been for non-cycling related factors. I don’t want to include Thys in the analysis because he rode in the early stages of the sport when it was still developing. And LeMond I’m going to add to the comparison just so you can see that the other five were really awesome.
My rankings:
1. Merckx
2. Armstrong
3. Anquetil
4. Hinault
5. Indurain
Gioia's rankings
1. Merckx
2. Hinault
3. Armstrong
4. Indurain
5. Anquetil
First, let’s look at their Tour results. The numbers are: Tours/ Top Tens/ Podiums/ Wins/ Stage Wins (Most in 1 Year)
Anquetil 8/6/6/5/16(4)
Merckx 7/7/6/5/33(8)
Hinault 8/7/7/5/28(7)
Indurain 12/6/5/5/12(3)
Armstrong 9/5/5/5/17(4)
LeMond 8/6/5/3/5(3)
GIOIA: First of all, let me say, I’m only going to evaluate what these guys did in the Tour de France. Whatever these guys did in the Giro, Vuelta, World Championships, One-Day Classics or anything else is great, but we’re
talking Tour here.
BAKER: I want to include doubles and trebles just to gain some perspective. It can help your case, but not hurt it.
Now, let’s go through them one-by-one
ANQUETIL (1957, 1961-64)
Why not more? The 1960’s saw the rise of sponsored teams, almost a complete reaction to the French teams disunity in 1958-1960. Anquetil was never the most admired rider: he drank heavily, womanized, and generally took lousy care of himself. But he could ride and he repeatedly beat his rival, the well-respected Raymond Poulidor. However, during the years of French infighting, neither of the two would win the Tour. He then didn’t even ride in 1965, and rode in 1966 to support another rider to beat Poulidor.
The nitty-gritty. He was the best time trailer until Greg LeMond. He won 12 time trials and just hung on in the mountains. Though he did once win in the Alps just to prove he could. Why ride harder than you have to? He won all three Grand Tours, and twice pulled the double (1963 and 1964). He gets serious points for having a real rival that he utterly dominated, but you still get the feeling he could have been better.
Gioia's response. He had 16 stage wins and wore the yellow jersey 52 days, the fewest of the five-time winners despite wearing it every day of the 1961 Tour. Much like Indurain, he was a superb time trialist with no one
nearly as good among his competition. He held his own in the mountains, but he wasn’t dominant there by a long shot. He cheated in his only mountain stage win, faking a mechanical problem to swap bikes, which wasn’t allowed back
then. Admittedly, he probably suffers from lack of recognition being that he was racing 40 years ago, but in an era in which there was little specialization, one wonders why he couldn’t win a green or polka dot jersey. Just think of it this way, can you imagine him beating any of the other four?
Baker's counter. Actually, yes. I can see him beating any of the others save Merckx. It's hard to compare across eras, and unlike the other guys on the list, his team actively worked against him. He had a brilliant rival that Indurain and maybe Hinault lacked. I might rate him too highly given his lack of classification awards, but he was a dominant rider.
MERCKX (1969-72, 1974)
Why not more? He didn’t ride in 1973, and lost in 1975 because he was attacked by a French fan. He tried again in 1977, but finished sixth. But for six years, the Cannibal was unbeatable.
The nitty-gritty. Jesus, where to start? He’s the only guy to ever win all three of the major classifications, and he did it in one year. He’d win two classifications three times more. The double? Pulled that off three times. Won all three Grand Tours? Puh-leeze. He won the points title in all three Tours as well. He won 250 major races in his career. That’s just insane. He won 33 stages, an almost untouchable record. He is the greatest cyclist ever, and as good as these other guys are, they pale in comparison to Merckx.
Gioia's response. No debate here. He won 5 of 7 Tours he started. One loss was when he was over the hill and another was after being attacked by a fan during the race. He also skipped one Tour because of injury. While he was there, he really was a “cannibal.” His 34 stage wins and 111 days in yellow dwarf the records of everyone else. He won the King of the Mountains Twice and the green jersey thrice. He won stages on the flats, in the mountains, and on time trials. In 1969, with the yellow jersey on his back, he attacked in the Pyrenees, going solo for 130 kilometers and the stage win because he was mad at his teammates. In his 5 wins there were only three men within 10 minutes of
him. The closest anyone got was 8 minutes. Best rider ever!
Baker's counter. We can't say enough how good Merckx really was. Think about how good Lance is and then think, there is another guy who makes him look like a piker. He's the Babe Ruth of cycling.
HINAULT (1978-79, 1981-82, 1985)
Why not more? He sat out from 1983 and 1984 due to injury, or more accurately, holding out for more cash. The Badger was about as unlikable a guy as you could imagine, but his tenacity on the roads was matched by his tenacity in negotiations, and most riders can thank him for now-generous salaries.
The nitty-gritty. He won his first Tour, like Merckx and Anquetil. Then he followed it up by winning again and adding a points title. But that’s when we found out how universally despised he was. When he punctured, the entire field attacked. He vowed revenge, winning the 1979 Tour anyway, and then adding two more after sitting out 1980 due to tendonitis. When he returned for his fifth, we reach the controversy. LeMond blew him off the road, but since he was on the same team, they called him back to let Hinault win. So his fifth will always be tainted. He vowed to support LeMond in 1986, and if you call constantly attacking your teammate at every opportunity support, then he did. If you call it a transparent attempt to win his sixth by reneging on a deal, you could say that too.
Gioia's response. 28 stage wins and 79 days in the yellow jersey! He didn't win much in mountains, but he attacked often on the climbs; he won time trial after time trial, and he won on the flats. He even won on the
Champs-Elysees twice! His 5 wins spanned 8 years, and even when he “helped” LeMond to his first win in 1986, he finished 8 minutes ahead of the third place man. In 1985 he won despite a crash that broke his nose. He might have even won in 1980 had he not abandoned the yellow jersey because of an injury. The other riders hated him with good reason–he was greedy for wins, and he took them.
Baker's counter. I probably rated Hinault too low because he is such an incredible ass. He was an absolutely terrific ass though, so I'll concede I'm ranking him too low, but I won't slide him into the #2 slot, it's just too painful a concept.
INDURAIN (1991-1995)
Why not more? Bjarne Riis blew him off the road with the help of Ullrich. Actually, of all of the riders, he’s the only one not to at least come close to a sixth. When it ended for Big Mig, it ended quick.
The nitty-gritty. He was almost an alien, with a resting heartbeat below 30 beats per minute. He was able to translate that into just awesome time trials and he rode just good enough in the mountains. Was it boring? Yup. But it was effective. I’m going to speak blasphemy, but it was a low point in the level of cycling talent. His biggest threats were Roche, Delgado, Olano, and of course, Chiappucci. All of those riders are seriously flawed. As soon as a great rival appeared, Ullrich, Indurain was gone.
Gioia's response. Another man with 5 straight. He won 12 stages and wore yellow 60 days. But most of those stage wins were from time trials. He was utterly dominant there, and he managed not to get dropped in the mountains. He never attacked in the mountains like the three ahead of him, but he didn’t need to. Ultimately, he was a boring champion. Only one of his competitors, Abraham Olano, was an elite time trialer, and he was weak in the
mountains. For all the talk about his great time trialing ability, though, why does he only have the 5th best time trial in Tour history? Lemond, Armstrong, Ullrich, and David Millar have all gone faster, and Ullrich and Armstrong would have done it once again each had Ullrich not crashed last Saturday. Bottom line–Indurain was too strong for his competitors to drop, but he wasn’t as aggressive or as complete a rider as the men ahead of him.
Baker's counter. I'm in agreement. Inudrain was great, but he's not as great as we are lead to believe. His competition was very thin, and he wasn't that great of a climber. He's renowned as a time trialist, but I'd rank him below LeMond and Armstrong for sure, and probably Ullrich, Merckx, and Anquetil in that skill all-time. And maybe even Hinault was a better trialist. That's the only one I'd probably give Indurain the nod over.
ARMSTRONG (1999-2003)
Why not more? We have to wait a year.
The nitty-gritty. Just a dominant rider. A great climber and time trialist, a real rarity. He didn’t just win five straight, he absolutely crushed the field in the first four. It wasn’t even competitive. His primary rival, Ullrich, is easily the best foil any of these others had, even Anquetil.
Gioia's response. Five in a row. In those wins competitors have finished within 6 minutes only twice. 16 stage wins and 59 days in yellow. Jan Ullrich’s only been beaten 5 times, and Lance did three of them. Unlike
Hinault and Merckx, he cares not for the sprints, but he is beast in the mountains and time trials. He attacks and wins in both, and on consecutive days. His competition has been great as well. Ullrich is one of the best ever. Indurain had retired by 1999, but they shared some competitors. Richard Virenque, Abraham Olano, Fernando Escartin, Alex Zulle, and Marco Pantani all lost to Armstrong as they did to Indurain, so the people who argue that Indurain faced tougher competition are loony. The great thing is that he’s not yet done writing his legacy. He even won when he had a bad Tour.
Baker's counter. Put it like this, Indurain lost to Ullrich before he was in his prime. He got crushed by a 24-year old rookie. If the Ullrich of today rode against the 24-year old Ullrich, it wouldn't even be close. And Armstrong beat the better version, usually by convincing margins not seen since the days of Merckx.
LeMOND (1986,1989-90)
Why not more? Because, as discussed above, Hinault was a bastard. Then there’s the hunting accident.
The nitty-gritty. One of the most innovative riders, he was the first to use aero-bars and extreme light-weight bikes. How much of his greatness was tied into just being the first guy to try out the new innovations? Definitely 1989, when he won by 8 seconds. So, yes, he lost a Tour he shouldn’t have, but he won one he probably shouldn’t have, either. And look at the stage wins, he has five. That’s 7 behind Indurain, the worst on the list above.
REVISED RANKINGS
1. Merckx
2. Armstrong
3. Hinault
4. Anquetil
5. Indurain
Our real disagreement is what to do with Anquetil, he's just so hard to compare to the others, but I think this is as close to consensus that we'll come.
There are five men who have won five Tours de France. In order, they are Jacques Anquetil. Eddy Merckx, Benard Hinault, Miguel Indurain, and Lance Armstrong. We’re dealing with the greats of the sports here, so trying to rank them one to five, we’re going to pick some nits. I want to state first off that these guys are as good as it gets. Any criticisms I aim at these guys is just in comparison to the other four. They tower over the sport of cycling.
Before we get into the five with five, let’s give a quick nod to the three who won three: LeMond, Thys, and Bobet. Thys won his Tours in 1913,1914, and then 1920. He was robbed of five by World War I. Bobet won from 1953-55. He didn’t win five because of Anquetil. And LeMond won in 1986,1989, and 1990. The gap in wins was due to a hunting accident. So he missed out on the elite club because his brother mistook him for a deer.
So two of our three-time winners could have won five had it not been for non-cycling related factors. I don’t want to include Thys in the analysis because he rode in the early stages of the sport when it was still developing. And LeMond I’m going to add to the comparison just so you can see that the other five were really awesome.
My rankings:
1. Merckx
2. Armstrong
3. Anquetil
4. Hinault
5. Indurain
Gioia's rankings
1. Merckx
2. Hinault
3. Armstrong
4. Indurain
5. Anquetil
First, let’s look at their Tour results. The numbers are: Tours/ Top Tens/ Podiums/ Wins/ Stage Wins (Most in 1 Year)
Anquetil 8/6/6/5/16(4)
Merckx 7/7/6/5/33(8)
Hinault 8/7/7/5/28(7)
Indurain 12/6/5/5/12(3)
Armstrong 9/5/5/5/17(4)
LeMond 8/6/5/3/5(3)
GIOIA: First of all, let me say, I’m only going to evaluate what these guys did in the Tour de France. Whatever these guys did in the Giro, Vuelta, World Championships, One-Day Classics or anything else is great, but we’re
talking Tour here.
BAKER: I want to include doubles and trebles just to gain some perspective. It can help your case, but not hurt it.
Now, let’s go through them one-by-one
ANQUETIL (1957, 1961-64)
Why not more? The 1960’s saw the rise of sponsored teams, almost a complete reaction to the French teams disunity in 1958-1960. Anquetil was never the most admired rider: he drank heavily, womanized, and generally took lousy care of himself. But he could ride and he repeatedly beat his rival, the well-respected Raymond Poulidor. However, during the years of French infighting, neither of the two would win the Tour. He then didn’t even ride in 1965, and rode in 1966 to support another rider to beat Poulidor.
The nitty-gritty. He was the best time trailer until Greg LeMond. He won 12 time trials and just hung on in the mountains. Though he did once win in the Alps just to prove he could. Why ride harder than you have to? He won all three Grand Tours, and twice pulled the double (1963 and 1964). He gets serious points for having a real rival that he utterly dominated, but you still get the feeling he could have been better.
Gioia's response. He had 16 stage wins and wore the yellow jersey 52 days, the fewest of the five-time winners despite wearing it every day of the 1961 Tour. Much like Indurain, he was a superb time trialist with no one
nearly as good among his competition. He held his own in the mountains, but he wasn’t dominant there by a long shot. He cheated in his only mountain stage win, faking a mechanical problem to swap bikes, which wasn’t allowed back
then. Admittedly, he probably suffers from lack of recognition being that he was racing 40 years ago, but in an era in which there was little specialization, one wonders why he couldn’t win a green or polka dot jersey. Just think of it this way, can you imagine him beating any of the other four?
Baker's counter. Actually, yes. I can see him beating any of the others save Merckx. It's hard to compare across eras, and unlike the other guys on the list, his team actively worked against him. He had a brilliant rival that Indurain and maybe Hinault lacked. I might rate him too highly given his lack of classification awards, but he was a dominant rider.
MERCKX (1969-72, 1974)
Why not more? He didn’t ride in 1973, and lost in 1975 because he was attacked by a French fan. He tried again in 1977, but finished sixth. But for six years, the Cannibal was unbeatable.
The nitty-gritty. Jesus, where to start? He’s the only guy to ever win all three of the major classifications, and he did it in one year. He’d win two classifications three times more. The double? Pulled that off three times. Won all three Grand Tours? Puh-leeze. He won the points title in all three Tours as well. He won 250 major races in his career. That’s just insane. He won 33 stages, an almost untouchable record. He is the greatest cyclist ever, and as good as these other guys are, they pale in comparison to Merckx.
Gioia's response. No debate here. He won 5 of 7 Tours he started. One loss was when he was over the hill and another was after being attacked by a fan during the race. He also skipped one Tour because of injury. While he was there, he really was a “cannibal.” His 34 stage wins and 111 days in yellow dwarf the records of everyone else. He won the King of the Mountains Twice and the green jersey thrice. He won stages on the flats, in the mountains, and on time trials. In 1969, with the yellow jersey on his back, he attacked in the Pyrenees, going solo for 130 kilometers and the stage win because he was mad at his teammates. In his 5 wins there were only three men within 10 minutes of
him. The closest anyone got was 8 minutes. Best rider ever!
Baker's counter. We can't say enough how good Merckx really was. Think about how good Lance is and then think, there is another guy who makes him look like a piker. He's the Babe Ruth of cycling.
HINAULT (1978-79, 1981-82, 1985)
Why not more? He sat out from 1983 and 1984 due to injury, or more accurately, holding out for more cash. The Badger was about as unlikable a guy as you could imagine, but his tenacity on the roads was matched by his tenacity in negotiations, and most riders can thank him for now-generous salaries.
The nitty-gritty. He won his first Tour, like Merckx and Anquetil. Then he followed it up by winning again and adding a points title. But that’s when we found out how universally despised he was. When he punctured, the entire field attacked. He vowed revenge, winning the 1979 Tour anyway, and then adding two more after sitting out 1980 due to tendonitis. When he returned for his fifth, we reach the controversy. LeMond blew him off the road, but since he was on the same team, they called him back to let Hinault win. So his fifth will always be tainted. He vowed to support LeMond in 1986, and if you call constantly attacking your teammate at every opportunity support, then he did. If you call it a transparent attempt to win his sixth by reneging on a deal, you could say that too.
Gioia's response. 28 stage wins and 79 days in the yellow jersey! He didn't win much in mountains, but he attacked often on the climbs; he won time trial after time trial, and he won on the flats. He even won on the
Champs-Elysees twice! His 5 wins spanned 8 years, and even when he “helped” LeMond to his first win in 1986, he finished 8 minutes ahead of the third place man. In 1985 he won despite a crash that broke his nose. He might have even won in 1980 had he not abandoned the yellow jersey because of an injury. The other riders hated him with good reason–he was greedy for wins, and he took them.
Baker's counter. I probably rated Hinault too low because he is such an incredible ass. He was an absolutely terrific ass though, so I'll concede I'm ranking him too low, but I won't slide him into the #2 slot, it's just too painful a concept.
INDURAIN (1991-1995)
Why not more? Bjarne Riis blew him off the road with the help of Ullrich. Actually, of all of the riders, he’s the only one not to at least come close to a sixth. When it ended for Big Mig, it ended quick.
The nitty-gritty. He was almost an alien, with a resting heartbeat below 30 beats per minute. He was able to translate that into just awesome time trials and he rode just good enough in the mountains. Was it boring? Yup. But it was effective. I’m going to speak blasphemy, but it was a low point in the level of cycling talent. His biggest threats were Roche, Delgado, Olano, and of course, Chiappucci. All of those riders are seriously flawed. As soon as a great rival appeared, Ullrich, Indurain was gone.
Gioia's response. Another man with 5 straight. He won 12 stages and wore yellow 60 days. But most of those stage wins were from time trials. He was utterly dominant there, and he managed not to get dropped in the mountains. He never attacked in the mountains like the three ahead of him, but he didn’t need to. Ultimately, he was a boring champion. Only one of his competitors, Abraham Olano, was an elite time trialer, and he was weak in the
mountains. For all the talk about his great time trialing ability, though, why does he only have the 5th best time trial in Tour history? Lemond, Armstrong, Ullrich, and David Millar have all gone faster, and Ullrich and Armstrong would have done it once again each had Ullrich not crashed last Saturday. Bottom line–Indurain was too strong for his competitors to drop, but he wasn’t as aggressive or as complete a rider as the men ahead of him.
Baker's counter. I'm in agreement. Inudrain was great, but he's not as great as we are lead to believe. His competition was very thin, and he wasn't that great of a climber. He's renowned as a time trialist, but I'd rank him below LeMond and Armstrong for sure, and probably Ullrich, Merckx, and Anquetil in that skill all-time. And maybe even Hinault was a better trialist. That's the only one I'd probably give Indurain the nod over.
ARMSTRONG (1999-2003)
Why not more? We have to wait a year.
The nitty-gritty. Just a dominant rider. A great climber and time trialist, a real rarity. He didn’t just win five straight, he absolutely crushed the field in the first four. It wasn’t even competitive. His primary rival, Ullrich, is easily the best foil any of these others had, even Anquetil.
Gioia's response. Five in a row. In those wins competitors have finished within 6 minutes only twice. 16 stage wins and 59 days in yellow. Jan Ullrich’s only been beaten 5 times, and Lance did three of them. Unlike
Hinault and Merckx, he cares not for the sprints, but he is beast in the mountains and time trials. He attacks and wins in both, and on consecutive days. His competition has been great as well. Ullrich is one of the best ever. Indurain had retired by 1999, but they shared some competitors. Richard Virenque, Abraham Olano, Fernando Escartin, Alex Zulle, and Marco Pantani all lost to Armstrong as they did to Indurain, so the people who argue that Indurain faced tougher competition are loony. The great thing is that he’s not yet done writing his legacy. He even won when he had a bad Tour.
Baker's counter. Put it like this, Indurain lost to Ullrich before he was in his prime. He got crushed by a 24-year old rookie. If the Ullrich of today rode against the 24-year old Ullrich, it wouldn't even be close. And Armstrong beat the better version, usually by convincing margins not seen since the days of Merckx.
LeMOND (1986,1989-90)
Why not more? Because, as discussed above, Hinault was a bastard. Then there’s the hunting accident.
The nitty-gritty. One of the most innovative riders, he was the first to use aero-bars and extreme light-weight bikes. How much of his greatness was tied into just being the first guy to try out the new innovations? Definitely 1989, when he won by 8 seconds. So, yes, he lost a Tour he shouldn’t have, but he won one he probably shouldn’t have, either. And look at the stage wins, he has five. That’s 7 behind Indurain, the worst on the list above.
REVISED RANKINGS
1. Merckx
2. Armstrong
3. Hinault
4. Anquetil
5. Indurain
Our real disagreement is what to do with Anquetil, he's just so hard to compare to the others, but I think this is as close to consensus that we'll come.
posted by Poseur at 11:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home