Lance Armstrong is not the Greatest Cyclist

I overheard a sports radio commentator talking about Lance Armstrong's legacy. Of course, in all our North American parochialism, there's a tendency to assume Armstrong dominates cycling and from that point forward we try to fit him in the pantheon of dominant athletes.

In a similar vain, never a conversation goes by without mentioning David Beckham in such debates. Why I'm not sure as he has never been considered a dominant soccer player. A highly visible and talented one yes, but way too one-dimensional to be ranked in a top 10 or 20 or 50 list. He'd be hard press just by Brazilian midfielders alone. Beckham is popular and popularity should have no bearing on how we judge an athlete's record. Back to Armstrong.

To begin, these debates are always flawed as comprehensive parameters usually eludes any discussion on such matters. Without getting into the details of what criteria one should follow when determining a sport and its most dominating athletes (it varies from sport to sport, decade to decade as sports tend to evolve), it's clear, when assessing the record, that Armstrong is not the greatest cyclist of all-time. He's arguably the most dominant TOUR DE FRANCE cyclist. In fact, he was probably a more well-rounded rider than Eddy Merckx in that he was as dominant in the mountains as he was in the sprints.

By saying he's the greatest cyclist is like saying a tennis player is the greatest player ever with winning only,for example, Wimbledon. The fact is that we generally look at overall titles and how that tennis player did in the other Majors (U.S., Australian and French) to determine where they may be placed for posterity. How "complete" was his game is far more subjective to consider....as is the case with most sports. Hence the colorful debates.

It's the same in cycling. Cycling's biggest three races are the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and Vuelta d'Espana. The Tour de France may be considered the biggest prize but it's by no means the hardest. Plus, UCI rankings are calculated to determine who are the world champions at the end of each cycling year - a list dominated by Belgium and Italy. So where does Lance rank? Let us delve into the murky world of past champions.

Lance Armstrong has an unprecedented 7 TDF titles. He has 1 World Championship title under his belt. How does this compare to some of the most highly regarded cyclists of all time?

Eddie Merckx is easily the greatest and most dominant cyclist in history as his 5 TDF, 5 Giros and 1 Vuelta show. That's 11 GRAND TOURS. He also has 3 World titles. Bernard Hinault is not far behind with 5 TDF, 3 Giro's and 2 Vuletas or 10 Grand Tours. He too has 1 World title. Jacques Anquetil has 8 Grand Tours. 5 TDF, 2 Giro's and 1 Vuelta. He does not have a World title to his name. Miguel Indurain won 5 TDF and 2 Giro's for 7 Grand Tours. Fausto Coppi won 2 TDF, 4 Giro's and a World Title. Gino Bartali 2 TDF and 2 Giro's. Alfredo Binda may have only won 5 Giro's but he was World Champion 3 times.

So, Lance lies somewhere in between these legendary cyclists. I'm sure there are others that should be considered. An argument can be made that he can be placed as high as second. However, he will not make many lists in first place.

In North America, he is definitely this continent's greatest cyclist. Greg LeMond for his part won 3 TDF and a World Title (he also placed third one year in the Giro). In any case, given what I showed above, Lance does not belong among the pantheon of great dominant athletes like Ruth ,Jordan and Gretzky (but to name a few).

However, he may one day crack someone's top 10 and should make a top 20 list.