• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Most Prestigious Accomplishment

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Most prestigious to win

  • Hour Record

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Echoes said:
Rik Van Looy's achievement is overrated.

Don't forget that he won Milan-Sanremo with no Poggio, Lombardy when the Ghisallo - as last climb - was some 60km from finish at Milan's Vigorelli, Liège-Bastogne-Liège with a very weak field because the best were rather interested in the Arrow or Paris-Brussels, Paris-Roubaix on the old course with the Mur de Doullens which had every year less and less cobbles and higher average speeds, and two Worlds on more or less flat courses, weak fields and a strong Belgian team around him to control everything.

The era was weak overall actually, and training methods archaic. Van Looy wouldn't have won so many major races if he were riding in the seventies.

However, Merckx's and De Vlaeminck's achievement were ... awesome.

Oh and the Vuelta was not a real GT before the 1990's. In the old days, 17 days of racing, raced in May between the classics and the Giro, and most of all, the standard of Spanish cycling was - I'm afraid to say - much weaker than it is now. Hence if a foreign team cared to go to Spain, usually, they would sweep everything away.

Gilbert does not have the abilities to win all major classics. He does not have a big motor, which means that, on flat sections, he can't consolidate the gap that he's created on the climb (see Flanders and Quebec). Cancellara has a better a shot at winning them all, if he ever cares to make it.
About Gilbert: the "motor problem" only applies in Roubaix I guess. And we all know that race is unpredictable as hell. I don't think Van Summeren is any better than Gilbert on that terrain and he still won. Another way of putting the question: couldn't Gilbert win Roubaix like Van Summeren? Guys marking Hushovd and he being on a break? I think he could. The only downside is that Hushovd would smash his head after the race :D
 
Jul 26, 2011
452
0
0
Visit site
I have no numbers but yes, I think Van Summeren is better than Gilbert when it comes to pushing watts on the flats for long periods of time.
 
Nielsa said:
I have no numbers but yes, I think Van Summeren is better than Gilbert when it comes to pushing watts on the flats for long periods of time.
I disagree but well this is an empty discussion since there's no proof to show:)

Well... Gilbert was TT national champion so he can ride on flats, but yeah that doesn't compare with 6h of flats with cobbles:)
 
Peccio89 said:
Giro-Tour double is the most prestigious one, although i think that winning all 5 monuments will be thougher.( i think that if Conti would have run the giro in 2009 he would have make the double; Basso with no puerto probably would have made it in 2006 too) so that's not so impossible if someone is brave enough to try.

Without Puerto, 2006 Basso could've even accomplished Giro+Tour+WC, not the RR WC, but the TT WC. His TT performances were amazing pre-suspension, and he was being chosen to represent Italy in the TT race...
 
Sep 1, 2011
281
0
0
Visit site
It's harder to win all 5 monuments, no doubt in my mind. But in 2014 (possibly 2013) I think Contador will attempt the GT triple, if he gets the amount of TTs he does this year I think he'll do it. He should be able to win the Giro without too much difficulty, Evans would not be a factor by then, and the Schlecks could not compete if there were that many kms of TTing. Then it would just be a matter of winning the Vuelta, and honestly I think he would crush the field at the Vuelta if he was riding fresh, but would still win comfortably if riding tired.
 
Sep 2, 2009
589
1
0
Visit site
I voted Giro + Tour + Vuelta in a career, simply because it's reserved for the most gifted athletes. Come to think of it, maybe Giro + tour + WC tops it. winning grand tours is as demanding as it gets. WC is a different deal, still very demanding thus calls for a more versatile rider.
 
Oct 1, 2010
320
0
0
Visit site
The most difficult to achieve has got to be Tour + Olympic Gold + WC in a year. Only three riders have achieved this in a career that I know of (Zootemelk, Indurain and Ullrich).

For a start, you only get to even attempt this treble once every 4 years, for most riders that means at most 3 or 4 attempts.

It's not a like a May, July, September run like the GT treble; it's July (Tour), August (Olympics), late September (Worlds).

You begin with the hardest event. You rely on your trade team for the Tour, then possibly a different number of compatriots in each of the next two races, depending on how many riders your country has qualified in both Olympic and WC.

You need to be a versatile enough rider to win GTs and one-day races, assuming both Olympics and WC courses suit you.

Finally, how many Tour winners ride both the Olympics and the WC the same year they won the Tour?

The most prestigious treble? Maybe not, given the Olympic Games' status in pro cycling. Still, the Tour and WC... when was the last time that was achieved? LeMond in 1990, before that Roche ('87), Merckx in '74 & '71, Bobet in '54, Speicher in '33, Antonin Magne?
 
trevim said:
About Gilbert: the "motor problem" only applies in Roubaix I guess. And we all know that race is unpredictable as hell. I don't think Van Summeren is any better than Gilbert on that terrain and he still won. Another way of putting the question: couldn't Gilbert win Roubaix like Van Summeren? Guys marking Hushovd and he being on a break? I think he could. The only downside is that Hushovd would smash his head after the race :D

I think the only 1 bashing people's heads in would be Roche.
 

Joey_J

BANNED
Aug 1, 2009
99
0
0
Visit site
7 Tours in a row

greatest single accomplishment not only in cycling but in sport in general.

Graham Obree (hour record) vs Lance (7 tours in a row)

gee, let me think....
still thinking....
it's killing me, i can't decide...
 
Oct 28, 2010
1,578
0
0
Visit site
trevim said:
About Gilbert: the "motor problem" only applies in Roubaix I guess. And we all know that race is unpredictable as hell. I don't think Van Summeren is any better than Gilbert on that terrain and he still won. Another way of putting the question: couldn't Gilbert win Roubaix like Van Summeren? Guys marking Hushovd and he being on a break? I think he could. The only downside is that Hushovd would smash his head after the race :D

To win races you have to ride races and it extremely applies in Roubaix. Gilbert doesn't ride Roubaix so there's no much to say about his chances, they are low. He can not win like Van Summeren did, because he would be treated much more as a danger than in the case of Van Summeren. And he won't make a Hushovd, because making a Hushovd you're clearly hoping on your sprint which might work out at LBL but in the case of Roubaix with Boonen, Hushovd or Breschel he doesn't have that clear advantage and honestly he isn't a type of rider who does races this way.
 
I think the biggest accomplishment would be to win the Giro, TDF and WC. If you can win the TDF and Giro you could win the Vuelta.

I think the most prestigious goals at the moment would be winning classics, WC's and stages at GT's to make an all round perspective. Winning a GT though i still think is the highest acheivement.
 
I don't see where the people saying "all three grand tours" in a career are coming from at all. That's worth less than winning the Tour de France three times.

The triple crown or a grand slam of the monuments are both much more prestigious and meaningful, the triple crown because it includes a one day race as well as GTs and shows a completely dominant year and the full set of the monuments because the races are so varied while also being all difficult to win.
 
Zinoviev Letter said:
I don't see where the people saying "all three grand tours" in a career are coming from at all. That's worth less than winning the Tour de France three times.

The triple crown or a grand slam of the monuments are both much more prestigious and meaningful, the triple crown because it includes a one day race as well as GTs and shows a completely dominant year and the full set of the monuments because the races are so varied while also being all difficult to win.

I think winning 7 mixed GTs from the 3 is a better accomplishment than winning 7 tours but that is just me.

I agree with the rest that you say but what do you think is more prestigious from the triple crown and grand slam?
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Visit site
Zinoviev Letter said:
I don't see where the people saying "all three grand tours" in a career are coming from at all. That's worth less than winning the Tour de France three times.

The triple crown or a grand slam of the monuments are both much more prestigious and meaningful, the triple crown because it includes a one day race as well as GTs and shows a completely dominant year and the full set of the monuments because the races are so varied while also being all difficult to win.

Agreed, winning all three GT's hasn't been done a lot, but that's mostly because the big names don't care about it. Historically the Vuelta isn't that important (before the 90's a Giro, Tour de France, Tour de Suisse triple would probably be more impressive, and basically overlapped with more important races for a long time), but in the last 20 years I'm sure that guys like Indurain, Pantani or Armstrong could have won all three, if they cared about it.

Winning all monuments is something completely different. I honestly have a hard time comming up with anyone from the past 20 years who could have done it. You'd probably have to go back to Sean Kelly for a genuine contender.
 
Sep 1, 2011
281
0
0
Visit site
This isn't about the hardest, it's about the most prestigious. Honestly, the average person doesn't care who wins a monument, mostly because they've never heard of it, they care about who wins the tour, maybe the giro and a few people the vuelta. In the cycling world the monuments would probably be more prestigious, but a rider who wins all 3 gts will usually have won the Giro and Tour multiple times each and therefore their accomplishments are greater.
 
SHAD0W93 said:
I think winning 7 mixed GTs from the 3 is a better accomplishment than winning 7 tours but that is just me.

I sort of agree that winning 5 Tours plus 1 Giro and 1 Vuelta is better than winning 7 Tours, but I'm not really sure why. The Tour means more than Giro and Giro means more than the Vuelta, but I suppose if you've won the Tour a whole bunch of times, winning some other races seems better than winning the Tour a couple more times.

SHADOW93 said:
I agree with the rest that you say but what do you think is more prestigious from the triple crown and grand slam?

To the world at large, the Triple Crown. Anyone can immediately understand that winning the most important race and the second most important race and the world championship all in a row means being the absolute king for a year.

To hardcore cycling fans, I'd say winning the grand slam of Monuments. Because it can't even conceivably be done in one year and you have to be so damn good at so many things for so damn long to even dream of pulling it off.

But it's close either way. These are the two accomplishments that make a cyclist a legend above and beyond the individual weight of the wins on his palmares. You can be a bigger legend through the collected individual value of your wins, but these two things are worth more than simply three big wins or five big wins without the context.
 
Zinoviev Letter said:
I don't see where the people saying "all three grand tours" in a career are coming from at all. That's worth less than winning the Tour de France three times.

The triple crown or a grand slam of the monuments are both much more prestigious and meaningful, the triple crown because it includes a one day race as well as GTs and shows a completely dominant year and the full set of the monuments because the races are so varied while also being all difficult to win.
Again, look at the people who managed to do it. It's great company to be in.
 
I voted for all monuments, although the Triple Crown is a close second.
Thinking of who's achieved them until now - Eddy, Riks I and II on the one side, Eddy and Roche sr. on the other side - these are simply for the very best only.
 
Oct 26, 2010
272
0
0
Visit site
Echoes said:
Gilbert does not have the abilities to win all major classics. He does not have a big motor, which means that, on flat sections, he can't consolidate the gap that he's created on the climb (see Flanders and Quebec). Cancellara has a better a shot at winning them all, if he ever cares to make it.

Gilbert is quite fast, so with most people besides Boonen, Hushovd he has no reason to care about breaking away...
 
Oct 26, 2010
272
0
0
Visit site
Lanark said:
Agreed, winning all three GT's hasn't been done a lot, but that's mostly because the big names don't care about it. Historically the Vuelta isn't that important (before the 90's a Giro, Tour de France, Tour de Suisse triple would probably be more impressive, and basically overlapped with more important races for a long time), but in the last 20 years I'm sure that guys like Indurain, Pantani or Armstrong could have won all three, if they cared about it.

Winning all monuments is something completely different. I honestly have a hard time comming up with anyone from the past 20 years who could have done it. You'd probably have to go back to Sean Kelly for a genuine contender.

I have doubts about Indurain and Pantani. I don't know the Giro in the early 90's, but in general it's easier to win the tour if your a TT-climber then the Giro. Pantani only won 2 GT's. Allthough he was a legendary climber, he was not on the podium of the Giro every time he attends. So to say he could just win a Vuelta? In terms of GT wins he had just one brilliant year, not a whole brilliant career. But Armstrong...

All monuments? I'd say a guy like Laurent Galabert. fast his first half of his career, not so at the end. And of course Tafi! But also Bettini.
 
Oct 26, 2010
272
0
0
Visit site
Kvinto said:
To win races you have to ride races and it extremely applies in Roubaix. Gilbert doesn't ride Roubaix so there's no much to say about his chances, they are low. He can not win like Van Summeren did, because he would be treated much more as a danger than in the case of Van Summeren. And he won't make a Hushovd, because making a Hushovd you're clearly hoping on your sprint which might work out at LBL but in the case of Roubaix with Boonen, Hushovd or Breschel he doesn't have that clear advantage and honestly he isn't a type of rider who does races this way.

There isn't every year a sprinter like Hushovd and Boonen in first group of the Velodrome. Riders who dominated or finished very high ranked last PR's where also Cancellara, Ballan, Hoste, Pozzato, Vansummeren, Devolder, Maaskant, Hincapie, Langeveld, Flecha, O'grady and so on. Gilbert beats them all in the sprint at this point.
But them again, he still needs to be their in that group :p


btw. the hardest off course is winning Bordeaux :p
 

TRENDING THREADS