For me Armstrong is the better, he was committed totally to that one aim of winning the tour every year. Whilst not as versatile it takes so much focus and determination to concentrate on one event like that. Armstrong rode well in the classics too before his illness.

There can be absolutely no question that the answer to "superior BICYCLE racer" would be Eddy Merckx. Eddy won every type of race all year long. From six days, cobbled classics, time trials, hilly stages to circuit races like World Championships, he won everything. He was truly one of the most dynamic and dominating racers in the history of cycling - if not hands down THE most dynamic and dominating. They did not call him "the Cannibal" for nothing.

Now, had you asked "who is the superior Tour de France rider that Americans care the most about", the Lance would take that title. His accomplishment is nothing to turn up the nose at, but do some reading and even Lance Armstrong would tell you the Eddy was the far superior bicycle racer.

As for any American having not heard of Eddy Merckx and offering for us to "take it as we may" - then I choose not to take it. Why even bother to type in that kind of response if you are only offering up your own ignorance?

With over 40 race and stage wins Eddy Merckx is the better cyclist. Sure, it's great Armstrong pwned The Tour but he would have been more respected around the world if he had diversified just a tad.