Is Ivan Romeo the next Movistar GC Star?

[Juan Pelota]

So much hype behind fellow Spaniards at UAE Ayuso and now Torres, but the 21 year old Ivan Romeo of Movistar has been on fire since last fall when he won Gold at the U23 World's TT. This year he's showed his chops climbing, winning a mountainous stage and finishing in 8th in Volta Valencia , and 4th in this year's UAE Tour, putting in good rides on the climbing stages.

Has Movistar got themselves a GC contender? He's set to ride the Tour De France this year, in support of Mas, but at 21 he's got some years to grow into the GC leader of the future.

What do you think?

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

Shame to not see a Romeo & Juliet wordplay in the title, but we move. As a 1.93, 75kg guy (according to PCS) I dont expect him to become really a GT podium candidate, partly because the way GTs have been designed in the last 10 years.

 

[Juan Pelota]

Shame to not see a Romeo & Juliet wordplay in the title, but we move. As a 1.93, 75kg guy (according to PCS) I dont expect him to become really a GT podium candidate, partly because the way GTs have been designed in the last 10 years.

I was going to title it "Ivan Romeo the Next Miguel Indurain" due to his size, but didn't want to be overdramatic.

Good point though, at such a height it's hard to see him being top 5 in a grand tour.

 

[JackFisher]

Absolutely! His future looks promising, and he could surprise many

 

[Berniece]

I was going to title it "Ivan Romeo the Next Miguel Indurain" due to his size, but didn't want to be overdramatic.

Good point though, at such a height it's hard to see him being top 5 in a grand tour.

Good thing you didn’t, some people are insecure about such things.

You can always change the thread title anyway. Vingegaard’s title has changed multiple times.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

For a guy his size the odds simply aren't in his favor in case you are talking about GT wins, even if he turns out to be out of this world. Arensman and Jorgenson are even a tad shorter, but they do show it's possible to be successful as GC rider. He would also need to lose 7kg or so. In short, it might not be impossible to become a GC rider in general, but rather unlikely he could ever compete for a GT win.

 

[perico]

I think he is more in line with the likes of Castrillo as becoming prolific at contesting stages than he is at winning a GT. They are too heavy to really compete against lightweights unless we go back to the routes of the Indurain then Armstrong years when we would see 100+ KMs of TTs.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I think he is more in line with the likes of Castrillo as becoming prolific at contesting stages than he is at winning a GT. They are too heavy to really compete against lightweights unless we go back to the routes of the Indurain then Armstrong years when we would see 100+ KMs of TTs.

The last tall man that won a GT was Wiggins. He had to be dragged up the mountain by his dog and needed a lot of TT to distance his rivals. And even Wiggins was shorter.

 

[AmRacer]

dragged up the mountain by his dog

 

[Netserk]

Wiggins had the quickest time in the non-TT stages.

 

[Bkinn]

I don't' think GC is his goal, he consider himself a TT rider.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The last tall man that won a GT was Wiggins. He had to be dragged up the mountain by his dog and needed a lot of TT to distance his rivals. And even Wiggins was shorter.

The fact that there was a lot of TT mileage in that race by the standards of the time means people have whitewashed how superior he was in the mountains that year.

Also how tall constitutes a tall man? Sepp Kuss is listed at 1,82. Geraint Thomas and Tao Geogeghan Hart are both listed at 1,83, and Chris Froome and Andy Schleck at 1,86. Wiggins is listed at 1,90 so it's not that significant a height difference.

Back in his time, José María Jiménez was considered tall for a climber, and he was 1,83.

In fact there's more "tall" guys winning GTs than "small" guys at the moment, with Vingegaard, Pogačar, Bernal, Hindley and Roglič all being middling height-wise, all listed around 1,75 or 1,76. Quintana (1,67), Carapaz (1,70), Evenepoel (1,71) and Simon Yates (1,72) are the smaller ones out of recent winners.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

The last tall man that won a GT was Wiggins. He had to be dragged up the mountain by his dog and needed a lot of TT to distance his rivals. And even Wiggins was shorter.

I think most people would consider Froome, at 1.86, to be tall.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The fact that there was a lot of TT mileage in that race by the standards of the time means people have whitewashed how superior he was in the mountains that year.

Also how tall constitutes a tall man? Sepp Kuss is listed at 1,82. Geraint Thomas and Tao Geogeghan Hart are both listed at 1,83, and Chris Froome and Andy Schleck at 1,86. Wiggins is listed at 1,90 so it's not that significant a height difference.

Back in his time, José María Jiménez was considered tall for a climber, and he was 1,83.

In fact there's more "tall" guys winning GTs than "small" guys at the moment, with Vingegaard, Pogačar, Bernal, Hindley and Roglič all being middling height-wise, all listed around 1,75 or 1,76. Quintana (1,67), Carapaz (1,70), Evenepoel (1,71) and Simon Yates (1,72) are the smaller ones out of recent winners.

I think most people would consider Froome, at 1.86, to be tall.

By tall in this context I mean 1m90 and over. Taller athletes often have an advantage, but there is a point where length starts to be a disadvantage (relative to the sport they practice). Which I believe to be the case with Romeo.

Wiggins was superior? Froome had to wait for him and his other biggest competitors were Van Den Broeck and Nibali.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

By tall in this context I mean 1m90 and over. Taller athletes often have an advantage, but there is a point where length starts to be a disadvantage (relative to the sport they practice). Which I believe to be the case with Romeo.

Wiggins was superior? Froome had to wait for him and his other biggest competitors were Van Den Broeck and Nibali.

He was still easily the second best climber in the race. And across 2012 as a whole, not just in that race, he was dominant.

The fact ASO released a sequence of TT-heavy routes that benefited him meaning he spent most of the time able to ride in yellow does not erase that he was not holding on in the mountains in the face of attacks, losing time slowly but not by enough to counter his TT gains; his train of helpers were grinding people into dust and he was finishing ahead or with of all the other GC men in most mountain stages.

PDBF - +2" from Froome, ahead of all others bar Evans
Porrentruy - st as main GC mix
La Toussuire - +2" from Froome, st as the best of the rest
Luchon - st as Froome and Nibali, a minute ahead of the rest of the GC mix
Peyragudes - st as Froome and several seconds ahead of the best of the rest

Wiggins was the second best climber in that race and on at least some of those stages had gas left in the tank if needed, due to the gains from the TT. He never looked under threat. His lead was not some Marco Giovannetti early gain that slowly eroded, the only rider who could have put any pressure on him was obliged by the team to not do so.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

He was still easily the second best climber in the race. And across 2012 as a whole, not just in that race, he was dominant.

The fact ASO released a sequence of TT-heavy routes that benefited him meaning he spent most of the time able to ride in yellow does not erase that he was not holding on in the mountains in the face of attacks, losing time slowly but not by enough to counter his TT gains; his train of helpers were grinding people into dust and he was finishing ahead or with of all the other GC men in most mountain stages.

PDBF - +2" from Froome, ahead of all others bar Evans
Porrentruy - st as main GC mix
La Toussuire - +2" from Froome, st as the best of the rest
Luchon - st as Froome and Nibali, a minute ahead of the rest of the GC mix
Peyragudes - st as Froome and several seconds ahead of the best of the rest

Wiggins was the second best climber in that race and on at least some of those stages had gas left in the tank if needed, due to the gains from the TT. He never looked under threat. His lead was not some Marco Giovannetti early gain that slowly eroded, the only rider who could have put any pressure on him was obliged by the team to not do so.

So we agree. You stated he was superior in the mountains and now he was the second best climber. Second best =/= superior. I also explained the opposition was rather meagre.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So we agree. You stated he was superior in the mountains and now he was the second best climber. Second best =/= superior. I also explained the opposition was rather meagre.

You said "He had to be dragged up the mountain by his dog and needed a lot of TT to distance his rivals."

He did not need a lot of TT to distance his rivals, nor did he have to be dragged up the mountains, which implies that he was struggling and being escorted. He was better than all of his rivals in the mountains too.

Froome was not his rival. He was his teammate who was shackled by the guys in the team car. Wiggins was superior to his opposition in the mountains. Don't rewrite history.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

You said "He had to be dragged up the mountain by his dog and needed a lot of TT to distance his rivals."

He did not need a lot of TT to distance his rivals, nor did he have to be dragged up the mountains, which implies that he was struggling and being escorted. He was better than all of his rivals in the mountains too.

Froome was not his rival. He was his teammate who was shackled by the guys in the team car. Wiggins was superior to his opposition in the mountains. Don't rewrite history.

You must have different meanings for certain words. He beat Nibali by 6m19s in GC of which 5m45s were gained in the TTs.

But feel free to keep this pointless debate going. Not only was I right, it wasn't even the point in the first place and increasingly off topic.

The point was that the last time a tall (1m90 or up) rider won a GT, was 13 years ago and he wasn't even the best rider there, while the opposition was less than stellar.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You must have different meanings for certain words. He beat Nibali by 6m19s in GC of which 5m45s were gained in the TTs.

But feel free to keep this pointless debate going. Not only was I right, it wasn't even the point in the first place and increasingly off topic.

The point was that the last time a tall (1m90 or up) rider won a GT, was 13 years ago and he wasn't even the best rider there, while the opposition was less than stellar.

Just because he didn't gain in the mountains didn't mean he wasn't comfortable because he had a big buffer of time. He was not being dragged around suffering in the mountains. He was the second best climber in the race and if you watch the stages back instead of perusing the outcome on PCS you'll see he was not once placed under pressure by Nibali et al.

A lot of people over the years - especially in the ever-circular arguments in the Clinic - have tried to pretend that Wiggins won that race like he was clinging on getting dropped in the mountains and hanging on like grim death to time gained in the ITTs in an attempt to normalise Sky's performances in that period, and that may not have been what you were intending there, but after a decade of endless iterations of this narrative being pushed, it bears repeating that trying to downplay Wiggins' dominance in the 2012 Tour as though Sky were not completely and utterly heads and shoulders above the entirety of the field and farcically dominant in the mountains as well as in the TT is simply a false narrative.

Wiggins didn't NEED a lot of TT to distance his rivals. He took advantage of what ASO gifted him because they designed a race around him winning, and then he sat back defending what he had, like Big Mig used to.

Wiggins is an outlier among relatively recent Tour de France winners, but it's not like he's a random giant in a sea of Quintanas. He's 4cm taller than Froome who won several straight after him, and Andy Schleck who won just two years before him. Your point regarding Iván Romeo is valid, but you're over-egging the pudding regarding how outlying Wiggins is and how he won in order to dismiss him.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Wiggins is an outlier among relatively recent Tour de France winners, but it's not like he's a random giant in a sea of Quintanas. He's 4cm taller than Froome who won several straight after him, and Andy Schleck who won just two years before him. Your point regarding Iván Romeo is valid, but you're over-egging the pudding regarding how outlying Wiggins is and how he won in order to dismiss him.

"Only" 4 centimeters. And Romeo is "only" 3 centimeters taller than Wiggins. "Only" 7 taller than Froome. And 42 is only 1 year older than 41, but nobody ever won a GT at 42.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

"Only" 4 centimeters. And Romeo is "only" 3 centimeters taller than Wiggins. "Only" 7 taller than Froome. And 42 is only 1 year older than 41, but nobody ever won a GT at 42.

Horner winning a GT at 41 is a much bigger outlier in terrms of age (the previous oldest being Firmin Lambot at 36, and if we go with "recent" as you have done with height in naming Wiggins, then we have Cadel Evans and Primož Roglič at 34).

41 relative to 34 is a much bigger outlier than 1,90 relative to 1,86. Also there's Ryder Hesjedal at 1,87 to mention as well.

But what I was objecting to more was the characterisation of Wiggins' Tour win like it was some kind of hanging on for grim death like O'Connor was doing in the Vuelta, or it was somehow comparable to Hesjedal's Giro win, or dependent entirely on Froome saving him from losses. For Romeo to be a GC threat maybe that's what it would take (plus probably some kind of change to parcours trends)... but that's not what Wiggins did.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Horner winning a GT at 41 is a much bigger outlier in terrms of age (the previous oldest being Firmin Lambot at 36, and if we go with "recent" as you have done with height in naming Wiggins, then we have Cadel Evans and Primož Roglič at 34).

41 relative to 34 is a much bigger outlier than 1,90 relative to 1,86. Also there's Ryder Hesjedal at 1,87 to mention as well.

But what I was objecting to more was the characterisation of Wiggins' Tour win like it was some kind of hanging on for grim death like O'Connor was doing in the Vuelta, or it was somehow comparable to Hesjedal's Giro win, or dependent entirely on Froome saving him from losses. For Romeo to be a GC threat maybe that's what it would take (plus probably some kind of change to parcours trends)... but that's not what Wiggins did.

There really is no point in dragging this out. You rate Wiggins, i get it. I made my case and i think it speaks for itself.