If Contador rides the Giro, will Wiggins still ride it?

[serfla]

IMO even a fan of cyclists should be more generous and acknowlegde other riders' strength.

The core of a cyclist's fan interest is personal affirmation through identification. Everything what can question idealized image of a worshiped cyclist must be rejected.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

I have impression that qualification of the last Tour as a borefest (or any other edition of the Tour) is more result of fans' disappointment by their idol's showing than objective judgement.
Contador's Giro victories (and many other) were very boring. They were classy, but made races boring. Yet, no one will qualify them as "borefest".
It's not Wiggo's (or anyone's else) guilt that he used his strengths, and opposition couldn't respond. It's responsibility of that opposition to prevent a borefest, if we're already judging someone.

Riders make the race, not the route. It's numerous times said and confirmed.

Well, I DON'T want Contador to start because I think it will be a borefest if he does. Wiggins versus the rest of them is far more interesting to me.

Perhaps though imo you are not quite correct positioning Wiggins like an anticlimber. Say I don't see in which explosive aspects he loses to Basso or Hesjedal. Someone already tried to attack on Verbier...

Counter attacks didn't count when you were discussing Samu, but one pointless accelleration by Wiggo somehow does?

As for Basso, he's not explosive at all, but I don't see how that's relevant.

 

[Afrank]

Well, there's always something exciting in the race. It doesn't always have to be the GC.
Regarding Giro vs. Tour borefest, winning by couple of minutes is far less boring than by 10 minutes.

But GC is the main competition, and when there is zero competition in GC, then the overall of the race is often boring.

Again, you're mixing the style with the character of a victory.
Convincing victory can be achieved by very different styles.
The question is: Why some convincing victories are qualified like boring, and other are not?
Two things are falling to mind.
First - it's because of sympathies and contempt to certain riders, and second - it's because general cycling auditorium prefers one style more than the other.
Why cycling auditorium prefers certain style? Well, because the dominance is more obvious in that case. And that's turning us to "the idol thesis". More obvious dominance is making rider's image closer to an image of omnipotent being.

I'd say that has to do with how those victories are achieved. In the Giro Contador did it by attacking, where Wiggins in the Tour did it by pace lining up the climbs and being good in the TT's. In cycling the legends of the sport become legends through epic attacks. Guys like Merckx or Hinault didn't become legends by riding up climbs at tempo. Plus when a rider attacks they are taking a risk, did Wiggins ever risk anything at the Tour? Attacking throughout cycling has always been, and probably will always be, the more exciting way of winning.

 

[serfla]

I'd say that has to do with how those victories are achieved. In the Giro Contador did it by attacking, where Wiggins in the Tour did it by pace lining up the climbs and being good in the TT's. In cycling the legends of the sport become legends through epic attacks. Guys like Merckx or Hinault didn't become legends by riding up climbs at tempo. Plus when a rider attacks they are taking a risk, did Wiggins ever risk anything at the Tour? Attacking throughout cycling has always been, and probably will always be, the more exciting way of winning.

I've elaborated on "how those victories are achieved". It's named "style" in my post.
You have even further elaboration why certain style is more attractive to audience.

 

[Cyivel]

He will ride the Giro and try to take as much out of Alberto in a kind of sacrificial manner not caring if he wins, paving the way for Froome to take Tour glory

Seriously though, I think he will still go for it.

 

[iZnoGouD]

I hope Contador rides Giro because altough he has no chance against Wiggo at least he makes it interesting

 

[BlenJones2]

In cycling the legends of the sport become legends through epic attacks. Guys like Merckx or Hinault didn't become legends by riding up climbs at tempo. Plus when a rider attacks they are taking a risk, did Wiggins ever risk anything at the Tour?

Miguel Indurain???

 

[Netserk]

Miguel Indurain???

Attacked

 

[airstream]

It's wrong. A legend status has minimum to do with attacks. A rider winning a lot (not attacking a lot) becomes a legend. Wiggins' cycling is not ok for you visually? It is a different theme.

By the way, Indurain in a good mood could sprint quite well and won mountain stages a few times.

 

[Netserk]

It's wrong. A legend status has minimum to do with attacks. A rider winning a lot (not attacking a lot) becomes a legend. Wiggins' cycling is not ok for you visually? It is a different theme.

Pantani is a legend. Wiggins isn't.

 

[airstream]

Pantani is a legend. Wiggins isn't.

Saying this, you show nothing but hostility to Wiggins.

 

[GP Blanco]

It's wrong. A legend status has minimum to do with attacks. A rider winning a lot (not attacking a lot) becomes a legend.

Style and the background story also count. This is why Pantani is a legend. His palmares may not be as impressive as other's, after all he dominated only one year, but his riding style makes him a legend.

 

[Eshnar]

It's wrong. A legend status has minimum to do with attacks. A rider winning a lot (not attacking a lot) becomes a legend.

Pantani won the double. Let's see if Wiggins can.

 

[airstream]

Pantani won the double. Let's see if Wiggins can.

Remembering that parcours he would have won.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Style and the background story also count. This is why Pantani is a legend. His palmares may not be as impressive as other's, after all he dominated only one year, but his riding style makes him a legend.

Uh, he was pretty dominant in the '99 Giro as well.

 

[GP Blanco]

Uh, he was pretty dominant in the '99 Giro as well.

I meant May 1998- May 1999

 

[Eshnar]

Remembering that parcours he would have won.

who? .....

 

[airstream]

who? .....

Wiggins.

 

[Eshnar]

Wiggins.

oh. If Ullrich didn't, what makes you think Wiggins would?
Anyway, guesses don't make history.

 

[Afrank]

It's wrong. A legend status has minimum to do with attacks. A rider winning a lot (not attacking a lot) becomes a legend. Wiggins' cycling is not ok for you visually? It is a different theme.

By the way, Indurain in a good mood could sprint quite well and won mountain stages a few times.

In cycling the biggest thing a rider is remembered for is how they rode (Magni for example will always be remembered for how he rode in 1956 Giro where he was 2nd, not 1st). The more a rider attacks the more likely it is that they will be remembered. Sure a good palmares will get you in the history books, but to get those palmares you have to have a aggressive and attacking riding style. You can't always get those results that would put you in the history books by relying on your team to neutralize all other racing by riding tempo up every mountain for you and then just win the race in the TT. I can't recall any of cycling's legends becoming legends the same way Wiggins won the Tour this year.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Style and the background story also count. This is why Pantani is a legend. His palmares may not be as impressive as other's, after all he dominated only one year, but his riding style makes him a legend.

love it, those kids who only followed cycling in recent years

 

[airstream]

oh. If Ullrich didn't, what makes you think Wiggins would?
Anyway, guesses don't make history.

First of all, I meant those parcours greatly suited Wiggins' skills. 75 and 110 km of TT'ing respectively.

In cycling the biggest thing a rider is remembered for is how they rode (Magni for example will always be remembered for how he rode in 1956 Giro where he was 2nd, not 1st). The more a rider attacks the more likely it is that they will be remembered. Sure a good palmares will get you in the history books, but to get those palmares you have to have a aggressive and attacking riding style. You can't always get those results that would put you in the history books by relying on your team to neutralize all other racing by riding tempo up every mountain for you and then just win the race in the TT. I can't recall any of cycling's legends becoming legends the same way Wiggins won the Tour this year.

The thing is everyone has its vision of cycling beauty and the thing they mostly remember. Attack is the most wide-spread but not the only one. There a lot of very successful riders who have minimum to proud of in terms of spectacle, but this doesn't belittle their merits because the result is always primary. IMO you equate concepts 'legend' and 'fans' preferences', but fans' preferences are very different.

Wiggins became a legend not because he just won the Tour. The man showed himself up in 2 polar cycling spheres [olympic champion at velotrack and gt contender] in an outstanding way. He is absolutely unprecedented in this.

And yet, to demand mountain attacks from a 192 cm ex track master is a bit sacrilegiously IMO.

 

[Afrank]

The thing is everyone has its vision of cycling beauty and the thing they mostly remember. Attack is the most wide-spread but not the only one. There a lot of very successful riders who have minimum to proud of in terms of spectacle, but this doesn't belittle their merits because the result is always primary. IMO you equate concepts 'legend' and 'fans' preferences', but fans' preferences are very different.

Wiggins became a legend not because he just won the Tour. The man showed himself up in 2 polar cycling spheres [olympic champion at velotrack and gt contender] in an outstanding way. He is absolutely unprecedented in this.

And yet, to demand mountain attacks from a 192 cm ex track master is a bit sacrilegiously IMO.

Fair enough, I'll agree with you on fans preference, people do have different preferences to which riders are legends and what makes them a legends. Of course some of the sports biggest past stars, the ones that everybody agrees are legends of the sport. Guys like Merckx, Hinault, Pantani, are agreed to be legends mostly because of the way the rode (not that their palmares don't also play a role in it).

Regarding Wiggins and track, I was mostly just considering his road performance, but if we were to consider his track performance then I agree his status goes up. Not to legend status IMO, but it goes up above his status if we just looked at his road performance.

I also don't think it would take too much for him to attack now and then, if he can climb like he did in the 2012 Tour and do "sprints" like the one he did in Romandie then I think he could attack.

 

[airstream]

I also don't think it would take too much for him to attack now and then, if he can climb like he did in the 2012 Tour and do "sprints" like the one he did in Romandie then I think he could attack.

There was no reason. Attack is a necessary measure while everything was more than ok for him back then. Though if rivals will be not very good and Wiggins will have the race in the bag, we can not deny his attacking attempts

 

[Cavendash]

This myth that Wiggo is somehow scared of Contador is laughable.

Yeah Contador would most likely beat him but to think Wiggo is scared and desperate to avoid him at all costs is pure fantasy.