sorry wise man, I should've said Bergs, Flandrian cobbled 18% bergs. I beg your pardon.
I don't know if you re-read your posts, but ANY sentence not including something negative about Wiggo, is immediately replied to and corrected.
People say Wiggins can't climb. Their being negative
I say he can climb, I'm being negative.
Make up your ****ing mind.
You've clearly paid no attention to what I actually wrote and are attacking me purely for comments I made about Wiggins in other non related threads. If I was on the opposite side of the discussion and saying that Wiggins can't climb you would make the exact same accusations at me.
You may notice that this - the Wiggins appreciation thread, was started by none others than me - the hitch, so no I do not have any pre bias against Wiggins, I have merely over the years been repulsed by some of his bullying and otherwise disgusting behavior, like insulting Garmin, not giving froome his prize money, making offensive jokes at a charity event etc.
None of which I mentioned in my post. I commented on the discussion pointed out that Wiggins was a world class climber. He came top 5 on Angliru afterall.
To get back to the discussion instead of the personal stuff you sidetracked it with, you say cobbled climbs are not the same as mountains, no they aren't. But neither are the flat cobbles of Paris roubaix. Why should the cobbles of roubaix suit him more is what I was getting at.
your first post suggested that they would. The point I was trying to make is that Wiggins in the flandrian classics is going up against 80kg sprinters and flat domestiques. No, the 18% gradients might not be ideal for him. But they sure as hell suit him more relative to flat cobbles than the likes of Degenkolb or van summeren.
Who do you think is going to be more relieved that the cobbles are on flat roads now? The guys who''ve never in their lives finished in the lead group of a race with so much as a categorized climb in it, or a guy who outclimbed Nibali in 2 successive gts?