Originally Posted by Parrulo
what? you are not even making sense.
What dont you understand?
You tried to argue that Boonen is better because he "dominated last season" and when Ryo gently pointed out to you that Cancellara had been injured you dismissed that with "Boonen was injured in 2011".
So in my post i mocked your use of 2012 as an argument by pointing out that Cancellara DNFd Ronde and DNS'd PR
And whether you like it or not i will continue to label the argument that 2012 proves Boonen to be better as "desperate".
i don't think ryo was still talking about the odds but why did boonen dominate this year, which seems to be because of cancellara's injury. funny enough i seem to recall cancellara racing both E3 and GW just fine so by the time he got injured at the ronde, the score was already 2-0 for boonen.
I wont totally dismiss E3 and GW and chapeau to Boonen for winning this and especially for his awessome performance in Omloop even though he lost the sprint, but if and when you are willing to step above the level of personal attacks, i am confident you will aknowledge that at this level, when comparing the top 2 cobbled riders of a generation, it really is about Paris Roubaix and Ronde van Vlanderen.
Especially since E3 and GW were won in mass sprints whereas neither PR nor RVV went down like that, nor tend to go down like that, so to argue that Boonen is currently a better cobbled rider because he won the warmups which are nowhere near as difficult as the real thing, is imo stretching it
at the end of the day it's all about the score board:
I have already aknowledged that Boonen's wins last decade give him the better palmares on cobbles, but that this does not neccesarily give him the win in the question who is
(as in NOW) the better cobbled rider, anymore than Basso having 2gts on his palmares makes him a better gt rider today
than say Froome
To keep shouting that Boonen has the better palmares if we go back to the Lance era, as if its some sort of a game changer, even though this has already been conceded and the flaw in the argument has already been pointed out is, you know the word