Dumb stuff cycling fans say

[YavorD]

I don't find that list completely horrible though. I could change a few things inside top 10 and obviously put Boonen instead of MVDP but Cavendish is probably the best sprinter in history who still won a WC and a monument. He deserves a place in top 10 for me.

Of course there are riders who deserve a place bit you can't take the likes of Roglic out as well.

 

[Gigs_98]

He won Roubaix eight years into his career, this is simply not true.

Sagan won three WCs in a row...

What part isn't true? I'm not arguing Sagan wasn't very succesfull, but he won 5 major races which isn't even in the top 10 for this century. And when he got the final one of those 5 he was younger than MvdP today. We are also thinking much more highly of him because we are all expecting that he is not yet done winning monuments.

 

[RedheadDane]

We are also thinking much more highly of him because we are all expecting that he is not yet done winning monuments.

I definitely think he's done winning monuments.

 

[Squire]

I think Sagan is ranked purely on what people thought he would achieve and not based on what he actually achieved. After winning roubaix people extrapolated how much he would win by the time he retired and it feels like people are still talking about that imaginary palmares and not about the guy who never won another major race and fell off a cliff.

While I agree fully with your general take on Sagan, I think you got the timeline a bit wrong here. By the time he won Roubaix, it already felt like he was slightly over the hill, despite being current WC and all. As far as I remember, he wasn't even considered the biggest favourite for that race, and won it due to anticipating the favourites rather than being the outright strongest.

And I'm slightly confused by this thread Almost feels like discussing the list in the OP is slightly off topic. But I guess I'm not gonna let an opportunity to substantiate my view of Sagan as a bit overrated pass me by.

 

[Peyroteo94]

I made my list not only looking for palmares, the way riders win is important too. For that reason I didn't include Cavendish (I truly love Cav) because his wins were sprints.
One thing I already stated in this forum is Sagan's 3 WC are way more difficult to get compared to the likes of Merckx or Freire. I will say the same about Pogacar, Slovakia and Slovenia are weak teams and they aren't capable of controlling a race like the world road race. In Merckx's era almost all top classics riders were belgians.

 

[Wyndbrook]

Not sure about the dumb stuff fans say, what about the some of the garbage the riders trot out before races. Typifed by Primoz Roglic amongst others.

 

[Unterlenkerfahrend]

Ranking is actually alright. Cavendish should be way lower, Sagan and Roglic each about 3 positions lower and Contador higher but apart from that it's fine.
Oh and yeah, if you have Sagan 2nd it's very inconsistent to put Cancellara at 8 and Boonen not even top 10 and I don't even rate both thaaat highly.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Not sure about the dumb stuff fans say, what about the some of the garbage the riders trot out before races. Typifed by Primoz Roglic amongst others.

Now that would be an interesting thread: I propose the title "Just as well he has good legs, because his brains are..."

 

[Red Rick]

Ranking is actually alright. Cavendish should be way lower, Sagan and Roglic each about 3 positions lower and Contador higher but apart from that it's fine.
Oh and yeah, if you have Sagan 2nd it's very inconsistent to put Cancellara at 8 and Boonen not even top 10 and I don't even rate both thaaat highly.

Every such list it's hard to believe how overrated Sagan is tbh. He should 100% be bottom half of top 10 here.

Cavendish is too high, but he should be in. Froome is too high as well in my view. Roglic really depends how hard you wanna punish him for not winning the Tour.

Gilbert not being in pleases me. It soothes the soul.

 

[Red Rick]

Now that would be an interesting thread: I propose the title "Just as well he has good legs, because his brains are..."

That's a lie.

Roglic famously always claims to have bad legs.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

That's a lie.

Roglic famously always claims to have bad legs.

Claiming one has bad legs, while riding as he can, could be the evidence to confirm my proposal as valid.

 

[RedheadDane]

Not sure about the dumb stuff fans say, what about the some of the garbage the riders trot out before races. Typifed by Primoz Roglic amongst others.

In their defence, before races they would probably much rather focus on the race, rather than having to answer stupid questions form journalists.

 

[Tricycle Rider]

Not sure about the dumb stuff fans say, what about the some of the garbage the riders trot out before races. Typifed by Primoz Roglic amongst others.

Do we not have a thread for dumb things riders say and I missed it? If so think we should! It could be fun but, I also see it as potentially problematic because maybe riders will say dumb or disagreeable things about politics or topics we can't discuss on this forum. So that's a no go from the start.

 

[YavorD]

If we were going to count Lance's 6 Tour wins where would we put him? Then obviously we'd have to count Contador's Giro and Tour.

I would have him 3rd. Pog-Cintador-Armstrong-Froome/Nibali.

 

[Red Rick]

If we were going to count Lance's 6 Tour wins where would we put him? Then obviously we'd have to count Contador's Giro and Tour.

I would have him 3rd. Pog-Cintador-Armstrong-Froome/Nibali.

Generally I find it easier to put riders in tiers rather than specific rankings. But Contador, Froome, Nibali, Amrstrong all in the same tier seems about right to me.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Now that would be an interesting thread: I propose the title "Just as well he has good legs, because his brains are..."

And done

 

[Oldermanish]

I low key have to respect the ability to be this uninformed but still be somewhat self-aware to just blindly cite recency bias to dismiss something.

Having said that, I absolutely think Cavendish is underrated as an overall rider, and that's probably due to the anti sprinter bias.

I'd agree but having witnessed Cavendish in stage races and seen how he's treated teammates that were as fast as he was in the early days it's difficult to place him in the top ten. Top Ten conspicuous sprint winners, yes. But then you'd have to include Cippolini as the #1.

 

[Netserk]

If you have multiple riders in the same tier, you should be indifferent to their order. In that sense, a complete partial order is a weaker statement than a tier ranking (where you are forced to choose between equality and strict inequality).

 

[Red Rick]

I'd agree but having witnessed Cavendish in stage races and seen how he's treated teammates that were as fast as he was in the early days it's difficult to place him in the top ten. Top Ten conspicuous sprint winners, yes. But then you'd have to include Cippolini as the #1.

If we're gonna add morals to this I think we should all agree that Sepp Kuss wins it because he's the goodest bestest boy but don't tell Libertine.

 

[pmcg76]

I think I still haven't stopped laughing at the idea of Cavendish being under-rated. Probably THE most over-rated cyclist of all-time. Take him out of the modern sprint train era and he might have been a slightly better version of Jean Paul Van Poppel.(This can also be applied to any sprinter of the modern era of course).

If he had raced in the Van Poppel era(85-94), would Cav have a World Title? Not a chance. Would he have won Milan-San Remo? Nope. How do I know this? Well, because neither of those races ever finished in a bunch sprint during Van Poppels career.

Would he have won 20 stages in 4 years at Le Tour? Not a chance. If Van Poppel had managed to win every single sprint finish stage at the Tour between 1987-92, he still wouldn't have 20 vivtories. If he had won every single sprint at Le Tour during his career, he still wouldn't be at 30. So the difference is far less about talent and more about opportunities and of course it is not the sprinters who create the opportunities, but their teams.

I don't understand this fawning over sprinters simply because they get way more opportunities to win than any other type of rider. Is Cavendish a much better cyclist than say a TT rider like Tony Martin? Both specific cycling skills, but one might give a rider between 10-12 opportunities per season max whilst the other......well. A max of 2-3 opportunities per GT whilst having to compete against the top guys in the race versus innumerable chances against a limited set of opponents. It is not the same thing at all. Yet I don't think a single person would consider Tony Martin for the list, so he is disadvantaged purely on the basis of where his particular talent lies and the fact he doesn't get the same opportunities.

When people talk about the greatest sprinter of all-time, they really mean the last 30 years because the sport was so different before then. When we compare Merckx v Pogacar, we are at least basing it on the same races even if you think the level was lower in the 60/70s. With sprinting, it's all about the number of opportunities which are demonstrably very different.

 

[Peyroteo94]

Generally I find it easier to put riders in tiers rather than specific rankings. But Contador, Froome, Nibali, Amrstrong all in the same tier seems about right to me.

Nah, putting Nibali there is just nonsense. Other 3 are above him

 

[Escarabajo]

Sagan 2nd. Lol.

 

[RedheadDane]

Nah, putting Nibali there is just nonsense. Other 3 are above him

Armstrong doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentense as the other three.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

So is this best rider who raced in the 21st century, or are you only supposed to take results from the 21st century into account?

 

[Wyndbrook]

I think I still haven't stopped laughing at the idea of Cavendish being under-rated. Probably THE most over-rated cyclist of all-time. Take him out of the modern sprint train era and he might have been a slightly better version of Jean Paul Van Poppel.(This can also be applied to any sprinter of the modern era of course).

If he had raced in the Van Poppel era(85-94), would Cav have a World Title? Not a chance. Would he have won Milan-San Remo? Nope. How do I know this? Well, because neither of those races ever finished in a bunch sprint during Van Poppels career.

Would he have won 20 stages in 4 years at Le Tour? Not a chance. If Van Poppel had managed to win every single sprint finish stage at the Tour between 1987-92, he still wouldn't have 20 vivtories. If he had won every single sprint at Le Tour during his career, he still wouldn't be at 30. So the difference is far less about talent and more about opportunities and of course it is not the sprinters who create the opportunities, but their teams.

I don't understand this fawning over sprinters simply because they get way more opportunities to win than any other type of rider. Is Cavendish a much better cyclist than say a TT rider like Tony Martin? Both specific cycling skills, but one might give a rider between 10-12 opportunities per season max whilst the other......well. A max of 2-3 opportunities per GT whilst having to compete against the top guys in the race versus innumerable chances against a limited set of opponents. It is not the same thing at all. Yet I don't think a single person would consider Tony Martin for the list, so he is disadvantaged purely on the basis of where his particular talent lies and the fact he doesn't get the same opportunities.

When people talk about the greatest sprinter of all-time, they really mean the last 30 years because the sport was so different before then. When we compare Merckx v Pogacar, we are at least basing it on the same races even if you think the level was lower in the 60/70s. With sprinting, it's all about the number of opportunities which are demonstrably very different.

Well I guess you just don't rate sprinters then.