The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
If you want to compare a him against just modern sprinters, then go right ahead, but then you cannot just claim he is the undoubted GOAT when if he raced in a different era, there is huge doubt about that. As I said, if he raced in the 80s, his career would have been more akin to Van Poppel.
Or his career could have been different and he’s a classic rider, not specifically focusing on his sprint.
And the kids like rubbish music these days too!
I think you would need to provide some actual evidence to show he could have been a classics contender as I see precious little to make such a case. Just compare to someone like Philipsen, already showing to be more than just a sprinter. There are way too many one trick sprinters in the modern era of cycling who get way too many opportunities to rack up the wins.
He has won plenty of hard races when the group gets shattered and he maintained contact. Plus like @Red Rick mentioned previously, he is underrated riding in crappy weather. Crosswinds, attacks in the group with him attacking as well, crappy weather, coming back on the descent. Cav has won in all those ways. But I get it, you’ve been hating on Cav for years so it’s hard to see clearly. Sprinters do have that opportunity but none have had the longevity or success.
But he has won sprints in some rough race conditions or won when people thought he’d be unable to contest.
Winning a WC in which 80 riders finish in the same time as the winner does not make one a classics rider.
So why was he nowhere when he raced Paris-Roubaix/Tour of Flanders? Why is it his best placings in a race like Ghent Wevelgem are barely top 20, a race which several sprinters have won. If Cavendish had the skills as you claim, why is it he does not have better results in those races? I don't hate Cavendish, I just think his talent level is totally overhyped and if he had raced in the pre sprint train era, he would not have been anywhere near as successful. His success(and indeed most modern sprinters) is built more on a type of racing/teamwork than individual talent. If you don't get the chances, you can't win and it is not the sprinters who create the opportunities to win.
Cav has never set out with those races as his main objective like other riders, so isn’t in peak shape. Cav’s main objective was always winning in Grand Tours. Nor was he the leader or protected rider on top of every team bar Astana having another rider or multiple to be leader. It would be like Contador taking part and expecting leadership. Other times he was sick or injured during the spring so had poor prep or couldn’t take part. just because GW was for sprinters in the past, doesn’t mean it always ended in a sprint in the editions he took part in. The other times he was sick or injured. The best years for him to try was the first time at Quickstep but they had a plethora of leaders and his role was at MSR and the GTs. He’s shown he can take part in hard GT and week stages while contesting smaller classics. With more of a focus on his classic ability versus sprinting, there’s no reason not to think he could have been successful in the 80s. Remember, I’m not saying that he’ll be dominate or have as many wins as he does currently.
Kids don't even listen to music anymore. It was just another boomer phenomenon.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram