So if I'm reading your post correctly, a rider can only be versatile if they have insane aerobic and anaerobic power? Insane aerobic and regular anaerobic power, with a palmares that shows versatility in terms of wins, makes a rider "as specialized as it gets"?DFA123 said:No-one is detracting from Contador's achievements. He's won seven (or nine) GTs and loads of stage races and pre-ban was the best stage racer in the world for a period. But he wasn't versatile. He exclusively won races with lots of climbing, and did well occasionally in flattish TTs, solely thanks to his insane aerobic power and excellent recovery. It's not a slight on Contador, it's just how it is.LaFlorecita said:Lately I have been compiling a list of "highlights" of Contador's career to include in a fantasy GT tribute - a Giro, TDF and Vuelta tribute. And I can only say, he was not as specialized as you seem to think. He didn't have much of a sprint which I think is the only thing you can fault him - it cost him a great many victories. But he could be competitive in ITTs ranging from pan-flat to mountainous, punchy finishes, downhill finishes, and uphill finishes, and could drop everyone on gradients ranging from 4-5% to insanely steep, regardless of the length of the climb. On his palmares you'll find many different types of wins. Obviously with him being a climber without a sprint he'd need some form of hilly terrain to be competitive, but saying he is "as specialized as it gets", that's a great many bridges too far.DFA123 said:What a laughable post. Contador was a great rider, but his entire palmares consists of winning mountainous or very hilly stage races - with one minor semi-classic which also finished on a mountain. There is no variety - he was about as specialized as it gets. Ultimately he was a guy with incredible w/kg at aerobic threshold - but poor anaerobic power and a terrible sprint.Red Rick said:Let's talk wide variety.
1 unique monument
1 unique Grand Tour.
2 unique classics.
Then we're down to stage races and semiclassics.
In terms of big wins, it's not much more diverse than a guy like Contador.
The range where he competes is very large. The range where he wins big, is very narrow.
Valverde wins hilly stage races, rolling stage races, high mountain stage races, monuments, classics, reduced bunch sprints, technical descents, TTs. He's probably the least specialized, most versatile rider in the peloton.
Yes, Valverde is more versatile, his sprint is deadly and he was very impressive yesterday, but please don't detract from Contador's achievements. I don't see why that's necessary.
A great stage racer and a good cyclist.