Greats among Active Riders (quick answer)

[DFA123]

I'd have Froome ahead of Wiggins based only on 'road performances'. His Tour win was way more emphatic and impressive and he has three second places at GT's, which for me, are worth as least as much as (and probably more than) world/olympic time trial wins. Wiggins has won about two non-TT stages in his career, both in very minor races, which is a pretty poor return; Froome, meanwhile, has won a legendary stage on Ventoux, plus several other mountain top finishes.

 

[SafeBet]

Purito should be ahead of Wiggo too.
Again, my problem with Wiggo is that he got most of his palmares in one year. A very spectacular one, I admit, but that's it. To be among the greats you have to be consistent.

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

GT >
Monument or Worlds >
GT podium >
High-tier classic >
High-tier stage race >
GT stage win >
Smaller classic >
Smaller stage race >

Right?

No not IMO

GT >
Monument or Worlds >
GT podium >
High-tier stage race >
High-tier classic >
GT stage win > *depending on the stage. Certain mountain stages in GTs carry their own legacy.
Smaller stage race >
Smaller classic

So you would say winning Paris-Nice or Pais Vasco should rank higher than winning let's say Ghent Wevelgem or Amstel Gold Race?

Yes, it depends on the value assigned to being good over multiple days vs. one day. I can say that having followed this sport for over 50 years the names that are remembered and talked about have always been stage racers, especially those that win GTs over the Roger De Vlaemincks of the world. But then I am in the US so it may be quite different in Europe the cradle of cycling where classic racing and racers are given much more weight?

In Spain for sure is in the way you say. Almost everybody knows there are races called Le Tour and La Vuelta, but very few knows about Liege or Roubaix. And in terms of riders, Contador or Indurain are way more known than Freire or Valverde. In Spain we dont have the classics culture, its all about the one who wins the Tour (more than La Vuelta).

 

[Echoes]

Re: Re:

[quote="Carols[/urlYes, it depends on the value assigned to being good over multiple days vs. one day. I can say that having followed this sport for over 50 years the names that are remembered and talked about have always been stage racers, especially those that win GTs over the Roger De Vlaemincks of the world. But then I am in the US so it may be quite different in Europe the cradle of cycling where classic racing and racers are given much more weight?[/quote]

Indeed, yes. Been following cycling for 25 years. Here I'm only hearing about the De Vlaeminck's of this world. I have 3 biographies about him. There are books published about Van Looy, Van Steenbergen, Magni, Van Springel, Monseré, ... you name it. Even cyclocrossers, there's literature about it. So your GT riders, we forget. Nowhere in our collective memory. Especially the Tour of Spain, which is not even considered a GT here.

 

[Carols]

Re: Re:

[quote="Carols[/urlYes, it depends on the value assigned to being good over multiple days vs. one day. I can say that having followed this sport for over 50 years the names that are remembered and talked about have always been stage racers, especially those that win GTs over the Roger De Vlaemincks of the world. But then I am in the US so it may be quite different in Europe the cradle of cycling where classic racing and racers are given much more weight?

Indeed, yes. Been following cycling for 25 years. Here I'm only hearing about the De Vlaeminck's of this world. I have 3 biographies about him. There are books published about Van Looy, Van Steenbergen, Magni, Van Springel, Monseré, ... you name it. Even cyclocrossers, there's literature about it. So your GT riders, we forget. Nowhere in our collective memory. Especially the Tour of Spain, which is not even considered a GT here. [/quote]

Echos we know where you stand on the classics, they are the only races that matter . Is that attitude the norm in your country? Which country are you from, Belgium?

 

[SyroboiII]

Re: Re:

Cavendish, Voigt, Wiggins, Cancellara. The real big four IMO.

Just a big fat Hell no to Voigt. You must be kidding.

I know he just retired, but if he was still active in 2015, he would certainly be up there.

Even if he were still active, he has done nothing to be considered one of the great riders of the sport. And please don't respond with his hour record.

Are you kidding me? He is easily the most aggressive rider of his generation. His "shut up legs"-attitude has inspired thousands of people. And he is one of the most successful stage hunters. He deserves a spot among the greats.

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

Cavendish, Voigt, Wiggins, Cancellara. The real big four IMO.

Just a big fat Hell no to Voigt. You must be kidding.

I know he just retired, but if he was still active in 2015, he would certainly be up there.

Even if he were still active, he has done nothing to be considered one of the great riders of the sport. And please don't respond with his hour record.

Are you kidding me? He is easily the most aggressive rider of his generation. His "shut up legs"-attitude has inspired thousands of people. And he is one of the most successful stage hunters. He deserves a spot among the greats.

He's a legend in the minds of the anglo media and those that think that simply attacking is grounds to call someone "great". No, I'm quite serious. I thought that you had to have been kidding but obviously I was mistaken.
Having a saying that is repeated and loved does not, IMO, make a rider one of the greats of the sport. His record is one of a rider that reached a certain level of success but far from registering as great.

 

[SyroboiII]

Winning the Tour or Giro is not everything. If Voight had focused on winning Grand Tour or a classic when he was in his prime, he could obviously have done it. The guy was a pure all-rounder. Good in all terrains and a complete rider. But he decided to animate the big races and winning a hell of a lot of stages instead. Now that's a real rider. Just as great as Sastres, Evanses and Schlecks if you ask me. But in his own unique way. A true top 10 of the 00's is not complete without a rider like Voigt. The attacking aspect of the top 10. Voigt is just as much of a legend as Gilbert.

 

[Netserk]

The most aggressive rider of that generation was Vino.

 

[SyroboiII]

Re:

The most aggressive rider of that generation was Vino.

Ok, but that doesn't make Voigt any less great.

 

[Netserk]

Yes it does, as he isn't the most aggressive rider of his generation as you previously claimed. Vino combined that with wins in several stage races, including the Vuelta as well as two Liege and the Olympics. Voigt is nowhere near the status of Great.

 

[Singer01]

can the people upthread who suggested rebellin have a word with themselves, the thing he is greatest at is withdrawing from grand tours (10 in a row if memory serves).

 

[SyroboiII]

Re:

Yes it does, as he isn't the most aggressive rider of his generation as you previously claimed. Vino combined that with wins in several stage races, including the Vuelta as well as two Liege and the Olympics. Voigt is nowhere near the status of Great.

***. Voigt has just as many wins as Vino. And the main difference between the two is that Voigt was riding clean while Vino was doping and paying his way to the wins. And unlike Voigt, Vino had a team that would serve him. Voigt was all-alone like a lonely cowboy on a ride to victory.

Voigt might be the most underrated rider of the decade.

 

[SeriousSam]

Voigt as great as Evans, Schleck, Sastre, Vino. Voigt could have won the Tour or something if only he had decided to. Also, Voight was cleans.

My, such subtle trolling.

 

[bala v]

Re: Re:

Yes it does, as he isn't the most aggressive rider of his generation as you previously claimed. Vino combined that with wins in several stage races, including the Vuelta as well as two Liege and the Olympics. Voigt is nowhere near the status of Great.

***. Voigt has just as many wins as Vino. And the main difference between the two is that Voigt was riding clean while Vino was doping and paying his way to the wins. And unlike Voigt, Vino had a team that would serve him. Voigt was all-alone like a lonely cowboy on a ride to victory.

Voigt might be the most underrated rider of the decade.

Jens is that you? Seriously I could understand all this only if you are Jens Voigt himself

 

[SyroboiII]

Re:

Voigt as great as Evans, Schleck, Sastre, Vino. Voigt could have won the Tour or something if only he had decided to. Also, Voight was cleans.

My, such subtle trolling.

I'm not saying he was greater than them, but in the same class. His riding style was just different. It's not always the strongest rider who wins the stage. Voigt was always riding fast in a break while the favorites where hiding and resting in the peloton. If prime Voigt have had proper team 100% behind him, the roles would have been reversed.

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

[quote="Carols[/urlYes, it depends on the value assigned to being good over multiple days vs. one day. I can say that having followed this sport for over 50 years the names that are remembered and talked about have always been stage racers, especially those that win GTs over the Roger De Vlaemincks of the world. But then I am in the US so it may be quite different in Europe the cradle of cycling where classic racing and racers are given much more weight?

Indeed, yes. Been following cycling for 25 years. Here I'm only hearing about the De Vlaeminck's of this world. I have 3 biographies about him. There are books published about Van Looy, Van Steenbergen, Magni, Van Springel, Monseré, ... you name it. Even cyclocrossers, there's literature about it. So your GT riders, we forget. Nowhere in our collective memory. Especially the Tour of Spain, which is not even considered a GT here. [/quote]

In my part of the US, we respect all aspects of the sport. To do as you do, devalue the grand tours as if they are something comparable to tiddly-winks only makes you look foolish. I get the impression that in some strange way that you think by constantly tearing down the grand tours and the riders that chase the gc in them, it would suddenly build up the races that you deem far superior, the cobbled classics and one day races. It's a really bizarre strategy that isn't working one bit.

 

[Angliru]

Re:

Winning the Tour or Giro is not everything. If Voight had focused on winning Grand Tour or a classic when he was in his prime, he could obviously have done it. The guy was a pure all-rounder. Good in all terrains and a complete rider. But he decided to animate the big races and winning a hell of a lot of stages instead. Now that's a real rider. Just as great as Sastres, Evanses and Schlecks if you ask me. But in his own unique way. A true top 10 of the 00's is not complete without a rider like Voigt. The attacking aspect of the top 10. Voigt is just as much of a legend as Gilbert.

You are a bit delusional. I'm sure if Jens had thought that there was a possibility that he could have won a grand tour then he would have pursued that course of action. The same with the cobble classics or major day one races in general. He did neither.

Edit: I royally screwed up that quote. Haven't mastered this new system yet.

 

[SyroboiII]

Re: Re:

Winning the Tour or Giro is not everything. If Voight had focused on winning Grand Tour or a classic when he was in his prime, he could obviously have done it. The guy was a pure all-rounder. Good in all terrains and a complete rider. But he decided to animate the big races and winning a hell of a lot of stages instead. Now that's a real rider. Just as great as Sastres, Evanses and Schlecks if you ask me. But in his own unique way. A true top 10 of the 00's is not complete without a rider like Voigt. The attacking aspect of the top 10. Voigt is just as much of a legend as Gilbert.

You are a bit delusional. I'm sure if Jens had thought that there was a possibility that he could have won a grand tour then he would have pursued that course of action. The same with the cobble classics or major day one races in general. He did neither.

Edit: I royally screwed up that quote. Haven't mastered this new system yet.

He was 2nd in Liege in 2005 where he lost to dirty Vino in a sprint, so don't tell me that he didn't had the potential to win a monument. The guy was one of the best hill riders.

Same with the Tour. He was always a super domestique. He never got the chance to lead in a grand tour. He was a great all-rounder with a good TT, he could have been up there if he have had a team around him.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

Yes it does, as he isn't the most aggressive rider of his generation as you previously claimed. Vino combined that with wins in several stage races, including the Vuelta as well as two Liege and the Olympics. Voigt is nowhere near the status of Great.

***. Voigt has just as many wins as Vino. And the main difference between the two is that Voigt was riding clean while Vino was doping and paying his way to the wins. And unlike Voigt, Vino had a team that would serve him. Voigt was all-alone like a lonely cowboy on a ride to victory.

Voigt might be the most underrated rider of the decade.

Voigt had 36 career wins. Vino had 34. But Voigts wins PAIL in comparison to Vino's. As others have stated; last I checked Voigt hasn't won a couple monuments, an Olympic gold, a gt, other bigger stage races, ect. You are delusional and blinded by fanboyism.

 

[Happy dude]

Re: Re:

Winning the Tour or Giro is not everything. If Voight had focused on winning Grand Tour or a classic when he was in his prime, he could obviously have done it. The guy was a pure all-rounder. Good in all terrains and a complete rider. But he decided to animate the big races and winning a hell of a lot of stages instead. Now that's a real rider. Just as great as Sastres, Evanses and Schlecks if you ask me. But in his own unique way. A true top 10 of the 00's is not complete without a rider like Voigt. The attacking aspect of the top 10. Voigt is just as much of a legend as Gilbert.

You are a bit delusional. I'm sure if Jens had thought that there was a possibility that he could have won a grand tour then he would have pursued that course of action. The same with the cobble classics or major day one races in general. He did neither.

Edit: I royally screwed up that quote. Haven't mastered this new system yet.

He was 2nd in Liege in 2005 where he lost to dirty Vino in a sprint, so don't tell me that he didn't had the potential to win a monument. The guy was one of the best hill riders.

Same with the Tour. He was always a super domestique. He never got the chance to lead in a grand tour. He was a great all-rounder with a good TT, he could have been up there if he have had a team around him.

We only talk about doping in the clinic. Maybe you should read the Jens Voight thread in there. But on here. Don't use not doping as a case for being great

 

[Netserk]

Vino had over 50 wins...

 

[Jspear]

Re:

Vino had over 50 wins...

I was just going by procyclingstats. 34 did seem like a low number. Either way trying to compare Voigt to Vino is a joke.

 

[Echoes]

Re: Re:

Echos we know where you stand on the classics, they are the only races that matter . Is that attitude the norm in your country? Which country are you from, Belgium?

It's not a matter of standing anywhere. I'm just observing facts. Yes I'm from Belgium (French-speaking part). In that part of the country, the races that are covered on TV are talked about, which typically means the classics, the Worlds and the Tour of France. The Tour of Italy is only covered by the Dutch-speaking part or on foreign broadcasters and anyway it's just a recent phenomenon. Same for the Tour of Spain. On RTBF, there's only a mention in the news. Besides, the Tour of Italy is in the exam period for students, so when I was a student, few people got interested in it. However, with my classmates, we would talk about Paris-Tours, about the Worlds, about the Tour of Lombardy while these classmates were not die-hard cycling fans like I now am. They rather were football or F1 fans and yet they talked about autumn non-Belgian classics...

My father is a huge De Vlaeminck fan and Van Looy fan. He's much more chauvinistic than I am. In his opinion the Belgians had the biggest stars, period. "Really, don't you agree, son?" If I mention Kelly, he would say, Kelly is a Belgian (because he's an adopted Belgian). My grandfather is more of a Coppi and Van Steenbergen fan, I'd say. He once told me that the Tour of Spain has never been regarded so high as people now say it is. Beware, there's always been talk about the Tour of Italy, he would say, but the Tour of Spain, nah.

This is confirmed by a quote that I have from Marc Jeuniau. Jeuniau was an RTBF commentator in the days of Merckx and Hinault. He said in 1981 ["La saison cycliste 1981 - les 400 coups de Freddy Maertens" (Gamma sports)]: "the fundamental structure that shapes the cycling calendar were the major classics, the World championship and the TWO great national tours." (read: the Tours of Italy & France)

 

[Mr.White]

Well today the Tour of Spain (aka Vuelta) is also shaping the cycling calendar. Deal with that