Best Sprinter ever

[TANK91]

Cav now just has over 50% of Zabel's victories, and people declare him the best ever.

Freddy Maertens was at 248 btw, but there were some Time Trials in there too (edit: and 53 criteriums (not sure what exactly is meant by that), 13 GCs and 4 point classifications)

Their is not as much oppertunities now to get a really great win rate, im not hinting at clinic but it is harder to win now i mean what is so good about Zabel in GT sprint stage's so because he has more Jerseys he is better than Cav. Cav has won 23 TDF stages beats Zabel hands down if were talking about best sprinter. If were talking about everything else then Zabel is better. The Giro use to give Cippolini about 10 stages every year to go for lol. And surely now Cav is going up in peoples estimates he is about to complete a 2nd Giro in a row, Cippolini would be home bye now. Not many sprinter's stay till the end when realistically their is 4-5 sprints and at least 1 of them you have to work really hard for. If cav get's in the 30's in the TDF then he will be the best hands down. If he wins the points jersey in the Giro that will be a great achievement.

 

[Echoes]

What's that poll ???

Answer is him:

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

The best measuring stick is Palmares. We can nix all classics not won in a sprint and Mountain stages (hello Kelly and Freddy^^)

That makes the list very short indeed:

Cavendish:
12 Giro
23 TdF 1 Jersey
4 Spain 1 jersey

Zabel:
12 TdF 6 jersey
8 Spain 3 jersey

Cipolini:
42 Giro (3 jersey)
12 TdF
3 Spain

Petacchi
22 Giro (5 dq) 1 jersey
6 TdF 1 jersey
20 Spain 1 jersey

Quite frankly this means Cav isn't there yet (he will get there though). Cipo won 18 GT stages and 2 jerseys more than Cav. Sure, a TdF stage is more important, but 42 Giro stages is eyewatering. In fact a case could be made that Cav has not really passed Ale-jet in palmares.

Zabel is a special case. I'd say he's not the best sprinter as his speed was never the best of his generation. In a match up with Cipo he was usually second best. It was just that he was motivated to stay the course where Cipo went home after the first stages.

Yes, the Giro's Cav and Cipo rode were very similar, so it's a totally fair comparison.

Also, some of your numbers are wrong.

 

[Franklin]

Yes, the Giro's Cav and Cipo rode were very similar, so it's a totally fair comparison.

Oh do tell

Also, some of your numbers are wrong.

Ah yes, a typo, 14 wins in the Giro.

That's it. Cavendish is the greatest ever. His stages are simply THE BOMB whereas Cipolini's stages were absolutely crap.

Our Brittish fanboy Waterloo Sunrise says it's so.

Sure, the facts of the wins do work agaimnst Cav, but hey! Facts are nothing against true belief!

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Well that was an impressive post.

Yes, only a British fan could notice the difference between a Giro with 4 sprint stages, and the ones Cipollini and Petacchi faced.

Personally, I'm amazed someone who spends so long in the clinic is prepared to engage in ad hominem attacks; so out of character.

And your numbers are still wrong.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

What's that poll ???

Answer is him:

some serious race intelligence too.

Won a couple of thousand sprints probably.

 

[avanti]

Rik Van Looy.

My vote also

 

[EvansIsTheBest]

Cavendish is the most dominant sprinter in history (since January 2011 he won 17/23 GT sprints he competed in !). Only Maertens comes close in that regard but he did not sustain his dominance over such a long period of time (more on and off, though when he was on he was scary good). However that does not suffice to make Cavendish the best ever. In addition to dominating his era, I feel the greatest of all time should show an exceptionnal longevity, which would indicate an ability to adapt to the changing nature of the sport in addition to a capacity to win on more than raw strength, thus showcasing the versatility you would expect of the best sprinter ever. Therefore Cavendish, in my book can't be considered the best until he shows his longevity at the top. Of course it is not his fault he is only 28 and hasn't had the chance yet and I don't see why he shouldn't be able do it, especially as he shows no sign of slowing down (this might be the first GT he finishes "undefeated").
This is of course valid only if you believe that different genrations can be compared which is not necessarily true but that is another debate entirely.

 

[Franklin]

Well that was an impressive post.

Yes, only a British fan could notice the difference between a Giro with 4 sprint stages, and the ones Cipollini and Petacchi faced.

Come with meaningful data. And explain why Zabel had years with TDF's with only 4-5 sprints and why Cav had years with many more flat stages than that. I know, that would actually debunk your 'Cav had it much harder", but I await your well analyzed answer.

Personally, I'm amazed someone who spends so long in the clinic is prepared to engage in ad hominem attacks; so out of character.

Perhaps I felt you needed to be chided for fanboyism without showing any meat to your claims

What you don't add is that we had this same discussion a year ago when Cav had even less wins under his belt and that you also refused to admit palmares into the equation , which makes it just an opion thing

And your numbers are still wrong.

Then fix them

Waterloo, all you post is "Cav is the best because".

 

[Franklin]

Cavendish is the most dominant sprinter in history (since January 2011 he won 17/23 GT sprints he competed in !). Only Maertens comes close in that regard but he did not sustain his dominance over such a long period of time (more on and off, though when he was on he was scary good). However that does not suffice to make Cavendish the best ever. In addition to dominating his era, I feel the greatest of all time should show an exceptionnal longevity, which would indicate an ability to adapt to the changing nature of the sport in addition to a capacity to win on more than raw strength, thus showcasing the versatility you would expect of the best sprinter ever. Therefore Cavendish, in my book can't be considered the best until he shows his longevity at the top. Of course it is not his fault he is only 28 and hasn't had the chance yet and I don't see why he shouldn't be able do it, especially as he shows no sign of slowing down (this might be the first GT he finishes "undefeated").
This is of course valid only if you believe that different genrations can be compared which is not necessarily true but that is another debate entirely.

Good point on his dominance. And I do think he has shown quite some longevity yet.

He just doesn't have the wins yet. That's really indisputable... he needs to win even more. But I'm sure he will get there.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

The fact you think this can be reduced to 'data' suggests you're a 14 year old in the first flush of love with physics. This impression is aided by your liberal use of smilies. That you are prepared to repeatedly engage in weakly argued personal attacks further reinforces the point, but does suggest you haven't quite succeeded to the data driven mindset you aspire to.

The question is not who has won most, but who is the best. Clark and Senna are no less the drivers they are, for having died young.

At their best, in a sprint, who would win. Counting incomparable stage wins will not answer it for you.

 

[Franklin]

The fact you think this can be reduced to 'data' suggests you're a 14 year old in the first flush of love with physics. This impression is aided by your liberal use of smilies. That you are prepared to repeatedly engage in weakly argued personal attacks further reinforces the point, but does suggest you haven't quite succeeded to the data driven mindset you aspire to.

A good start for attacking the man and not the data. You are getting there. Just a bit annoying for your position that you have nothing to support it with, but hey! Facts and data are unimportant.

The question is not who has won most, but who is the best. Clark and Senna are no less the drivers they are, for having died young.

And yet the simple truth is that Schumacher is seen by most as the best F1 racer ever.

At their best, in a sprint, who would win. Counting incomparable stage wins will not answer it for you.

Waterloo, are you seriously playing in your mind a movie where Darrigade and Cavendish face off? Is that your spiel? Well, than Merckx can go packing as he would be trashed by current day riders.

And for an interesting counterpoint. You do realize that Petacchi, Cipolini and Zabel faced each other for many years? So these three had to compete with other greats.

Naah, cant be important

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Quite worrying how obvious you need to make the point for some people to grasp it.

You have devised an arbitrary and subjective criteria to answer the question.

You have then attempted (and, as we have seen, repeatedly failed) to apply this arbitrary and subjective criteria in a rigorous and objective manner.

You have then loudly proclaimed the outcome to be rigorous, objective, and unquestionable.

You are a fool.

 

[Echoes]

some serious race intelligence too.
Won a couple of thousand sprints probably.

Yup exactly.

Overall Patrick Sercu won 1206 races in his career, 1015 as a pro (914 on the track and 101 on the road) and 191 (beginner and amateur combined, he's never been a junior). Add 6 pro World Records to that.

I've always thought that Van Steenbergen owned the record for most wins overall with 1053 wins but if it's the overall figure, Sercu has more. Of course there are a couple of criteriums in there.

Sercu also has a positive head to head against all the best sprinters of his time:

21-8 against Basso
16-7 against Van Linden
17-6 against De Vlaeminck
6-2 against Maertens (from Rik Van Walleghem's book about Sercu)

When he won Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne in 1977, he attacked on the Koppenberg (I have a beautiful pic). In Bore de France, he soloed for 175km. And he won the Giro di Sardegna, in the Mid-Mountain against Merckx because he was well trained with the Sixes.

Ask Cav to achieve all that !

 

[Franklin]

Quite worrying how obvious you need to make the point for some people to grasp it.

You have devised an arbitrary and subjective criteria to answer the question.

Palmares is really arbitrary and subjective.... okay

You have then attempted (and, as we have seen, repeatedly failed) to apply this arbitrary and subjective criteria in a rigorous and objective manner.

Repeatedy even! How dare I use this arbitrary and subjective Palmares argument!

You have then loudly proclaimed the outcome to be rigorous, objective, and unquestionable.

Did I now? I said these are the best arguments there are and so far I have seen one counter data point (dominance). Oddly enough I acknowledged it immediately, which kinda shows I'm rather open for arguments.

You are a fool.

No! You are!

I await your retort

I appologize for these smilies, as that clearly invalidates my posts

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Yup exactly.

Overall Patrick Sercu won 1206 races in his career, 1015 as a pro (914 on the track and 101 on the road) and 191 (beginner and amateur combined, he's never been a junior). Add 6 pro World Records to that.

I've always thought that Van Steenbergen owned the record for most wins overall with 1053 wins but if it's the overall figure, Sercu has more. Of course there are a couple of criteriums in there.

Sercu also has a positive head to head against all the best sprinters of his time:

21-8 against Basso
16-7 against Van Linden
17-6 against De Vlaeminck
6-2 against Maertens (from Rik Van Walleghem's book about Sercu)

When he won Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne in 1977, he attacked on the Koppenberg (I have a beautiful pic). In Bore de France, he soloed for 175km. And he won the Giro di Sardegna, in the Mid-Mountain against Merckx because he was well trained with the Sixes.

Ask Cav to achieve all that !

Thanks for this.

Sercu was probably the reason for my interest in cycling, if I can point to one thing.

 

[Franklin]

When he won Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne in 1977, he attacked on the Koppenberg (I have a beautiful pic). In Bore de France, he soloed for 175km. And he won the Giro di Sardegna, in the Mid-Mountain against Merckx because he was well trained with the Sixes.

Ask Cav to achieve all that !

Well, the issue is that solo's and attacks aren't part of the discussion, otherwise Kelly would have been a contender too. Nobody is arguing Cav is the best rider ever.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Naah, cant be important

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendish-loses-20-points-on-tour-de-france-queen-stage

Being helped to stay in the Tour/Giro is also nice and handy.

 

[Franklin]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendish-loses-20-points-on-tour-de-france-queen-stage

Being helped to stay in the Tour/Giro is also nice and handy.

Somehow I don't think Cipo is holier than Cav on this account, so this is helping Zabel the most I'd say

 

[spalco]

When he won Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne in 1977, he attacked on the Koppenberg (I have a beautiful pic). In Bore de France, he soloed for 175km. And he won the Giro di Sardegna, in the Mid-Mountain against Merckx because he was well trained with the Sixes.

Ask Cav to achieve all that !

That's impressive for sure, but not really a sprinters' achievements.

 

[Bavarianrider]

It's not his fault, but Cavendish never had to face elite sprinters. He's benifting of a weak sprinter era.

 

[spalco]

It's not his fault, but Cavendish never had to face elite sprinters. He's benifting of a weak sprinter era.

Or he's winning so much, that nobody else even has a chance to prove their being "elite".

 

[Franklin]

Or he's winning so much, that nobody else even has a chance to prove their being "elite".

Interesting isn't it? That's the problem with dominance.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Cavendish never beat elite sprinters when they were still at their peak.
Again it's not his fault but we don't really no how good Cavendish really is.

 

[Afrank]

Cavendish never beat elite sprinters when they were still at their peak.
Again it's not his fault but we don't really no how good Cavendish really is.

Then we should look at things like how fast Cav sprints, how much power he produces in a sprint, and other things like that and compare it to other elite sprinters from the past. If anyone has that info?

For the record, I would say Cav's palmares alone, how he rides in the sprints, and his past sprint performances more than qualify him as one of the top elites, even if he didn't beat a bunch of other elites (which he can't do that much about).


BTW, I recall hearing somewhere that Cipollini said Cavendish was a 100% better sprinter then him, but I can't remember where. Anyone know if Cipollini did say this?