The Unfair Game of Cycling Comparisons: Why Pogačar Isn’t the New Merckx (and Why That’s Okay)
There’s something almost irresistible about comparing athletes across eras. It’s a sport in itself—one that fans, journalists, and even legends like Eddy Merckx can’t seem to resist. But when it comes to Tadej Pogačar and Merckx, the debate feels particularly misguided. Personally, I think the constant need to crown someone as ‘the next Eddy Merckx’ misses the entire point of what makes Pogačar so extraordinary.
The Era Gap: More Than Just Race Days
One thing that immediately stands out is Merckx’s insistence that comparisons between his era and Pogačar’s are ‘pointless.’ And he’s right—but not just because riders in the 1960s and 70s raced more days per year. What many people don’t realize is that the sport itself has evolved in ways that make direct comparisons almost laughable. In Merckx’s time, racing was raw, relentless, and often brutal. Riders competed on heavier bikes, with less advanced nutrition, and in a culture where pushing through pain was the norm. Today, cycling is a science—from aerodynamics to recovery protocols. Pogačar’s victory in Milan-San Remo, while masterful, was shaped by a completely different set of variables.
From my perspective, this isn’t about diminishing Pogačar’s achievements. It’s about acknowledging that greatness is contextual. Pogačar’s ability to strategize, adapt, and dominate in a modern racing landscape is unparalleled. But to call him ‘the new Merckx’ is to ignore the unique challenges each faced.
Pogačar’s Unconventional Brilliance
What makes Pogačar particularly fascinating is his willingness to defy convention. His approach to Milan-San Remo—competing in just one event beforehand—would have been unthinkable in Merckx’s era. But in 2024, it’s a calculated risk that paid off spectacularly. This raises a deeper question: Are we seeing the rise of a new kind of cyclist, one who thrives on precision rather than volume?
A detail that I find especially interesting is how Pogačar managed to drop Mathieu Van der Poel and hold off Tom Pidcock in the final kilometers. It wasn’t just physical prowess; it was tactical genius. Merckx himself praised Pogačar’s ability to stay in control despite setbacks. This isn’t just about winning—it’s about redefining what it means to dominate a race.
The Danger of the ‘Greatest of All Time’ Narrative
If you take a step back and think about it, the obsession with crowning a ‘GOAT’ is more about our need for simplicity than about the athletes themselves. Cycling, like any sport, is too complex to reduce to a single name. What this really suggests is that we’re more interested in creating narratives than in appreciating the nuances of each era.
In my opinion, Pogačar’s legacy shouldn’t be tied to Merckx’s. They are both giants, but their mountains are different. Pogačar’s victories are a testament to modern cycling’s sophistication, while Merckx’s dominance was a product of sheer endurance and grit. Both are inspiring, but for entirely different reasons.
Looking Ahead: The Future of Cycling Comparisons
As cycling continues to evolve, so will the debates. Will we see another Pogačar? Another Merckx? Or will the sport shift in ways we can’t yet imagine? One thing is certain: the more we try to compare, the more we risk missing the beauty of individual achievements.
Personally, I think the real lesson here is to celebrate athletes for who they are, not for how they stack up against legends of the past. Pogačar isn’t the new Merckx—he’s the first Pogačar. And that’s more than enough.
Final Thought
The next time someone asks if Pogačar is the new Merckx, I’ll remind them of this: Greatness isn’t a title to be passed down; it’s a path to be carved out. And in that sense, both riders have already won.
