theyoungest said:
He was making the point (like you did) about riders turning pro at a younger age, and being successful, and Boogerd not having had the chance to do so. Automatically the best of them all gets mentioned, Sagan. But I think that's an irrelevant comparison, both to Boogerd and to the young Dutchies.
Stage racers still need more time to mature, with the exception of Contador and Schleck. But Gesink and Mollema are no Contador and Schleck.
Unfortunately, still wrong. I thought it was clear in my post that I was comparing Gesink to Boogerd. I was pointing out how Gesink has had the chance to ride among the pro ranks at a younger age than Boogerd, thus Gesink had the
opportunity, note the emphasizing, where Boogerd didn't. Therefore you cannot compare them and say Gesink already brought home those wins at an earlier age.
Bringing Sagan as an example to strengthen that point, might have been what confused you. You see, there are two points made in that post. The one I just described and the fact the sport transformed a little to a point where youngsters are given the opportunity at an earlier age. And I definitely think your attempt to invalid my example is invalid itself. It's nonsense stage racers need more time to develop. Undeniable numbers:
This year's PR: 1 top10 rider is 25 or younger
This year's RvV: 1 top10 rider is 25 or younger
This year's LBL: 2 top10 riders are 25 or younger
This year's AGR: 2 top10 riders are 25 or younger
This year's Giro: 3 top10 riders are 25 or younger
This year's PN: 3 top10 riders are 25 or younger
This year's TA: 3 top10 riders are 25 or younger
So me using Sagan as an example looks pretty okay to me as long he isn't a pure sprinter. But as those numbers show, I could have used others in my example as well.