Male Cyclist of the year (2014)?

[Echoes]

You do realize that those riders do not represent the opinions of the entire peloton?

I've heard dozens and dozens of similar stories from riders about the hardness of Paris-Roubaix. One of them is a personal friend who rode the U23 version.

"That race is not like any other race but if you don't finish it, you are not a cycling rider", said Charly Mottet.

It's not the Tour of Flanders, it's not Amstel Gold. It's Paris-Roubaix!

Do you consider Cancellara "more all-round" (if that's a term) than Wiggins?

Result-wise yes. Potentially, they're pretty equal. Both time-trialist, so, big engines.

Why are all monuments ranked equally in this discussion? Are they really considered to be of equal importance?

No, no, no & no.

Besides, the label "monument" is a recent neologism from the late eighties. Always hated it. Before that, you never talked about "monuments", you had classics: a dozen of them. The Arrow was not considered lower than Liège-Bastogne-Liège, actually Liège was ranked lower. Only when in the nineties, Verbruggen and the UCI created their crap World Cup in which even Hamburg was considered equal to Paris-Roubaix, the observers had some sort of intuition that this scaling did not reflect reality, so 5 classics stood out and the Arrow was demoted because cut down to 210k (forced by Mr Verbruggen again!!).

 

[Jspear]

'hardest' does not equate with 'most important' Even if I accepted that P-R is the hardest (let's say I do) it doesn't mean it is the most significant win.

Why is the ability to ride cobbles more important than the ability to climb mountains, descend mountains, sprint, perform in a TT?

GTs by their nature require a variety of skill-sets. You cannot be truly crap at anything and expect to win. For that reason, and the ability to deal with both stage tactics and three week race strategy, as well as rise to perform on individual stages and maintain mental and physical endurance over three weeks, means that winning a GT is much more impressive, IMO. It's also where the desire to win and the no. of riders peaking to win is highest, so the competition is toughest too.

For me, the 'how many monuments or stage races or whatever =' question is really about whether the non-GT race wins show mastery over a range of comparable skills. (Edit - or, I suppose, utter dominance of a speciality to an extent which is unprecedented).

And regarding the second places - my view is that if you've won a few significant races, then 2nd places can augment your achievements. You're a champion who's been consistent across the season. But if you haven't won anything of significance, all the second places in the world don't really make up for it, because ultimately, racing is about winning. Being consistently good at coming second is impressive, but it is also never quite being good enough.

Very good post. I agree with pretty much all you state here...just have been to lazy to type it out.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Without looking it(rankings) up, who was rider of the year in 2010 in your opinion?

That's a stupid question, and, four years ago. Sorry, my memory doesnt go that far. But going through the statistics it is pretty clear Vino was the man of the season. Duh.

Rankings also take into account placings while people care more about wins

Be more specific, you actually mean: fanboys/girls care about wins, people who like cycling know better...

I dont care, for me, going through the statistics, il Valverde was the man of the season. And, I dont even like the fella, how about that

 

[LaFlorecita]

That's a stupid question, and, four years ago. Sorry, my memory doesnt go that far. But going through the statistics it is pretty clear Vino was the man of the season. Duh.

But Rodriguez won the WT ranking and PCS ranking and Nibali CQ ranking what about those statistics

 

[Red Rick]

We already got the WT for giving too much credit to high placings.

 

[LaFlorecita]

We already got the WT for giving too much credit to high placings.

yep.

In the end, most journos and people on CN forum agree Alberto is #1, and also on other forums and twitter many people believe he was the best

 

[Electress]

In the Clinic people would be called trolls for the way this topic has headed.

http://www.uci.ch/road/ucievents/2014-road-uci-worldtour/360432014/widgets/rankings/

Statistics dont lie, people bend.

But someone choses which statistics to use and how to weight them. The ranking system is not established by God!!

So statistics 'bend' just as surely as people do.

And whilst people do have their prejudices and favourites, we can also consider other important aspects in our 'calculations' - like, whether said rider has animated the races he's been in; or whether he's won in exciting ways; or taken risks and chances which have made his wins more or less special than they might appear in the statistics; or whether a rider's losses have been 'going down fighting losses or 'settling / defending my podium place' losses.

I think this is where 'subjective' is better than objective stats.

 

[cineteq]

yep.

In the end, most journos and people on CN forum agree Alberto is #1, and also on other forums and twitter many people believe he was the best

[Yawn] Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

 

[Piti4Podiums]

yep.

In the end, most journos and people on CN forum agree Alberto is #1, and also on other forums and twitter many people believe he was the best

Just by following this forum and reading the comments (mostly yours) I can see that your way, way, WAY too much into this Male Cyclist of the Year stuff.

 

[Jspear]

[Yawn] Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

get used to these type of post. 2013 is gone, he came back strong in 2014 and he'll be even stronger in 2015.

Just by following this forum and reading the comments (mostly yours) I can see that your way, way, WAY too much into this Male Cyclist of the Year stuff.

This is not something to take lightly - we are talking about the great one.

 

[Electress]

Be more specific, you actually mean: fanboys/girls care about wins, people who like cycling know better…

People who care about cycling care about how people ride; how they win, how they lose. So stats. don't cut it there either.

 

[cineteq]

get used to these type of post. 2013 is gone, he came back strong in 2014 and he'll be even stronger in 2015.

Understand that Contador is not the issue here

 

[Tonton]

I hardly see how you can say he dominated AC at the TDF when AC beat him on the 1 mountain stage they faced in?

Besides you are stepping backwards now. First you said it was Nibali period. Now its closer?

Nope. To the "who will win the TdF" post, my answer was Contador, after the Dauphine. He owned Dawg. At the TdF, Nibali attacked, again on the cobbles, he was on top of both AC and CF. He was building gaps early on, he Vinoed better than Vino at his prime. And my vote goes to him, because in the end he won the greatest race of all, lined up against AC and CF, who couldn't overcome the challenge. Period.

Maybe you misunderstood me, and I wasn't clear enough. I try to keep posts short. But in a year where we weight on guys who basically won one big thing, Nibali sorts out for me: he won the biggest. Champion of Italy, thank you very much, and a Merckx style performance at the TdF. Not too shabby.

If he standards are year round success, why is no one mentioning Bouhanni? I'd sure rather have his wins than Piti's. So it is Nibali for me, although I checked data and, yes he Vinoed it alright.

 

[Jspear]

Nope. To the "who will win the TdF" post, my answer was Contador, after the Dauphine. He owned Dawg. At the TdF, Nibali attacked, again on the cobbles, he was on top of both AC and CF. He was building gaps early on, he Vinoed better than Vino at his prime. And my vote goes to him, because in the end he won the greatest race of all, lined up against AC and CF, who couldn't overcome the challenge. Period.

Maybe you misunderstood me, and I wasn't clear enough. I try to keep posts short. But in a year where we weight on guys who basically won one big thing, Nibali sorts out for me: he won the biggest. Champion of Italy, thank you very much, and a Merckx style performance at the TdF. Not too shabby.

If he standards are year round success, why is no one mentioning Bouhanni? I'd sure rather have his wins than Piti's. So it is Nibali for me, although I checked data and, yes he Vinoed it alright.

Maybe you missed the point of this thread. I think when it comes to "Male Cyclist of the Year" we are talking about more than "who won the biggest race of the year." We all know who won the biggest race on the calendar - that isn't the question here. The question in the original post was who performed the best over the year. Nibali did NOT perform well over the course of the year.

 

[damian13ster]

Maybe you missed the point of this thread. I think when it comes to "Male Cyclist of the Year" we are talking about more than "who won the biggest race of the year." We all know who won the biggest race on the calendar - that isn't the question here. The question in the original post was who performed the best over the year. Nibali did NOT perform well over the course of the year.

Well, if we are looking at entire year then its definetely Valverde, and that cant be questioned as shown by CQ ranking and WT ranking, which measure the performances over entire year.

 

[Jspear]

Well, if we are looking at entire year then its definetely Valverde, and that cant be questioned as shown by CQ ranking and WT ranking, which measure the performances over entire year.

Oh boy has it been questioned. Look back through the last 20 pages.

 

[LaFlorecita]

[Yawn] Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

You baiting again cinetroll?

 

[Mellow Velo]

People who care about cycling care about how people ride; how they win, how they lose. So stats. don't cut it there either.

No they don't.
People who care about cycling can see beyond personal preferences and style.
They can also appreciate that some wins can be flamboyant, but others are only achieved by racing smart.
As for how riders lose, we see in this thread how some here don't even credit second place.
Stats are objective, if not exclusive.

 

[Electress]

No they don't.
People who care about cycling can see beyond personal preferences and style.
They can also appreciate that some wins can be flamboyant, but others are only achieved by racing smart.
As for how riders lose, we see in this thread how some here don't even credit second place.
Stats are objective, if not exclusive.

'How people ride' is not my euphemism for a riders style. 'How people ride' includes whether or not a rider 'races smart'; are tactically or strategically adept; ride with courage; show enormous tenacity under pressure, etc etc. not merely whether they stand out of the saddle and seem fluid, or stick their elbows out and stare at their stem.

'How people ride' is the stuff behind the mere numbers of won / lost in a scoresheet, so surely we are actually agreeing here, despite your 'no they don't'?

But I must point out that personal preference also comes into what your (or my) opinion of 'racing smart' is - because it is going to be determined by what you, I or the next person believes was the sensible / cunning / smart thing for a rider to do in any one circumstance. Which may well differ from what the rider thought at the time or with 20:20 hindsight…It is informed opinion, not objective truth.

Stats look reassuring objective, but since they are used by, chosen and weighted by people they are used to count what said people think is important..hence there are more points given for different races and different positions, etc.

You and I could both cherry-pick a whole heap of numbers - power to weight ratios, calendar days raced to WT points, you name it, to justify our point of view. Then we'd just debate why one set of figures was the more meaningful….

The very fact that there is this thread demonstrates that people don't find stats. sufficient for encapsulating performance.

And I think I've already covered my feelings about second place.

 

[Echoes]

Why is the ability to ride cobbles more important than the ability to climb mountains, descend mountains, sprint, perform in a TT?

GTs by their nature require a variety of skill-sets. You cannot be truly crap at anything and expect to win.

You seriously think that only bike handling skills on the cobbles is required to win Paris-Roubaix? Paris-Roubaix is also 200km on asphalt roads. You need tremendous rouleur skills and stamina to handle it. If it were just a matter of cobble skills, Cancellara would never have won it. Neither would Terpstra.

It's also where the desire to win and the no. of riders peaking to win is highest, so the competition is toughest too.

Cancellara and Boonen are "peaking" for what? If 'peaking' really exists. I mean it's now more and more obvious that the bigger engines (Cancellara, Phinney, even Wiggins) realise that Paris-Roubaix suits them better than the Tour of France. The latter has become a real climbfest. ITT skills are no longer required. There was only one. Nibali could've lost 5' to Péraud, he'd still have won. Wiggins aside, no real ITT'ist have won the Tour of France in the last 8 years

For me, the 'how many monuments or stage races or whatever =' question is really about whether the non-GT race wins show mastery over a range of comparable skills. (Edit - or, I suppose, utter dominance of a speciality to an extent which is unprecedented).

Is that serious?

And regarding the second places - my view is that if you've won a few significant races, then 2nd places can augment your achievements. You're a champion who's been consistent across the season. But if you haven't won anything of significance, all the second places in the world don't really make up for it, because ultimately, racing is about winning. Being consistently good at coming second is impressive, but it is also never quite being good enough.

Yeah sure, only one-hit wonders should be remembered. A guy who performs all year long, it does not matter...

But then, I should realise I'm talking about a poster who sees cyclists as models that "make the sponsors happy." Brrr

 

[cineteq]

People who care about cycling can see beyond personal preferences and style. They can also appreciate that some wins can be flamboyant, but others are only achieved by racing smart.
As for how riders lose, we see in this thread how some here don't even credit second place.

Good little post! Now tell that to the fan below.

You baiting again cinetroll?

Your concept of baiting is really skewed. It has nothing to do with that, it's just your self-indulging posts bore me to death. C'est tout.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Your concept of baiting is really skewed. It has nothing to do with that, it's just your self-indulging posts bore me to death. C'est tout.

Your so-called "objective" posts are getting quite old too

 

[Mellow Velo]

'How people ride' is not my euphemism for a riders style. 'How people ride' includes whether or not a rider 'races smart'; are tactically or strategically adept; ride with courage; show enormous tenacity under pressure, etc etc. not merely whether they stand out of the saddle and seem fluid, or stick their elbows out and stare at their stem.

'How people ride' is the stuff behind the mere numbers of won / lost in a scoresheet, so surely we are actually agreeing here, despite your 'no they don't'?

I took the comment to mean exclusively. Since it doesn't, then fair enough.

 

[Tonton]

So yea who is it?

Valverde had a great year but didn't win often enough. If he would have podium'd the tour and won a monument then he was the best this year but he didn't cause he's valverde lol

For me it's Contador, he was 2nd or 1st in every stage race he was in. Won the vuelta + 2 stage victories. And if he didn't crash in the tour, well i guess i'm not allowed to use if...

Kwiatkowski did really well too but he cracked in the some races though, hopefully he'll realise that GT's is a bit too hard for him, maybe he'll get better there but if it's only a small improvement then it's not worth it imo.

Nibali would be a serious contender if he did more than just winning the tour (in his defence he tried something in MSR and LBL iirc)

Kristoff had an awesome season.

Maybe you missed the point of this thread. I think when it comes to "Male Cyclist of the Year" we are talking about more than "who won the biggest race of the year." We all know who won the biggest race on the calendar - that isn't the question here. The question in the original post was who performed the best over the year. Nibali did NOT perform well over the course of the year.

I think that I have made it clear enough that in my estimation, no one dominated the year. Most on this thread pick Piti or AC, the former because he won the UCI WT (most consistent - high placings), the latter who was just recognized as the Cyclist of the Year and won the Velo d'Or.

As we are all weighting on the merits of each rider, some go UCI WT way with Valverde, and I disagree: it would be like picking Zoetemelk as the TdF cyclist of the 70's because he got most podiums than the rest.

Contador? I would object that his Vuelta saved his season. Would the same people have picked Dawg had he won the Vuelta (and saved his season)? Isn't there a "what have you done for me lately" pick? Fresh memories? And why not hold his DNF at the TdF, his main objective of the year, against him?

Agree or disagree, but I don't see anyone who showed his face all year and won the big ones. And if you don't win big ones (Valverde), you can't be the Cyclist of the Year. You can't be the Cyclist of the Year if you designate a main objective and DNF. So for what it's worth, and I'm not here to convince anyone, I'm going with the one who accomplished his main objective and got the biggest win: Nibali.

 

[Echoes]

We all know who won the biggest race on the calendar - that isn't the question here.

I doubt this.