Most underrated riders

[Nirvana]

Some random names with reason between brackets:

Albasini (hilly races)
Swift (hilly races)
Quinziato (ITT, cobbles)
Bakelands (hilly races)
Ulissi (climbing)
Dupont (climbing, GC)
Visconti (climbing, GC)
Zubeldia (GC)
Bennati (cobbles, ITT, not too hard hilly races)
Tiralongo (climbing, GC)
Boasson Hagen (ITT, hilly races)
Gasparotto (hilly races)
Sagan (climbing)
Schleck (GC)

 

[Pantani Attacks]

Sagan as a climber is a good shout. Everyone knows he's a beast but his climbing ability goes under the radar.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Nibali is the most underrated. Won 4 GTs and supposedly all asterisked because of some guys crashing, blah blah. In the end he's won 4 GTs and a Monument. That does not happen by chance.

Nibali was there when his superior competitors crashed out. The only real GT where he suggested he was actually the strongest was the 2013 Giro.
Is there really any difference between Nibali winning his GTs and Schleck and Scarponi winning their GTs?
All 3 did win their respective GTs, but the fact of the matter is they needed a massive slice of luck to do so.
Anyway, there's enough discussion on that topic in the Nibali thread

Yes, there's a massive difference! And if you don't see it, you're pretty blind then!!!
First massive difference: Nibali won his GT's on the road. Schleck and Scarponi didn't (in fact many would say they didn't won at all)
Second massive difference: Nibali won GT's! 4 of them!!!
Heck even Oscar Pereiro is more deserved GT winner than Schleck and Scarponi!

Schleck and Scarponi won their GTs because they were fortunate enough that a superior rider got disqualified. Nibali won 3 of his GTs because he was fortunate enough that a superior rider (or multiple superior riders) crashed out.
And if you don't see it, you're pretty blind then!!!

Froome only won the Tour 2013 because Nibali wasn't there. He only won the Tour 2015 because Contador was tired from the Giro.

Schleck and Scarponi never won their GTs on the roads, so nobody considers them true winners, not even themselves.

 

[hrotha]

I consider them the real winners. Silly generalizations are silly.

 

[Mr.White]

Re:

That still doesn't make Pereiro a more deserved winner than them.

In my eyes does. The difference makes the rider who was stripped of the win. There's a huge difference in Landis and Contador cases. And this specially refers to Giro 2011 and Scarponi's alleged win.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

I consider them the real winners. Silly generalizations are silly.

You're either naive to believe Schleck and Scarponi were/are clean or you just don't like Contador.

No one considers Pereiro a Tour winner either. You win it on the road, not in court.

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

I consider them the real winners. Silly generalizations are silly.

You're either naive to believe Schleck and Scarponi were/are clean or you just don't like Contador.

No one considers Pereiro a Tour winner either. You win it on the road, not in court.

Fact is, they're the winners. Objectively, the trophy is theirs.

Funny that you get called out on the generalisations yet do it again. ''No one''. Aye.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Ion Izagirre.
Edward Theuns.

Both are slightly underrated

 

[Miburo]

Re: Re:

I consider them the real winners. Silly generalizations are silly.

You're either naive to believe Schleck and Scarponi were/are clean or you just don't like Contador.

No one considers Pereiro a Tour winner either. You win it on the road, not in court.

Fact is, they're the winners. Objectively, the trophy is theirs.

Funny that you get called out on the generalisations yet do it again. ''No one''. Aye.

What are your facts?

We've footage of the race proving contador is the real winner.

What do you have for proof? Judgment of a court which is prob corrupt anyways?

A court which btw isn't even consistent in its judgment and many prof said that if Contador would have went to the ECHR he would have won the case but would have taken years.

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

I consider them the real winners. Silly generalizations are silly.

You're either naive to believe Schleck and Scarponi were/are clean or you just don't like Contador.

No one considers Pereiro a Tour winner either. You win it on the road, not in court.

Do you like Froome?

 

[RedheadDane]

Re:

Who do people watch cycling? Surely not to see the flat sprints? That ain't the main reason right? But then why do these **** get paid so much, they're riding on the back of the riders who make the race entertaining.

Personally I watch cycling to watch cycling, all of it.
The flat stages.
The hilly stages.
The mountain stages.
The ITTs.
The MTTTs on gravel roads
The cobbled classics.
The hilly stages.
The hilly-cobbled classics.

Because, to me, that's the beauty about cycling. All its aspects, all its facets.
The fact that you can have two riders like Quintana and Kittel sitting shoulder-to-shoulder (or waist-to-shoulder) in the same race, yet still be riding two videly different races.
The fact that a race-profile which in one (stage) race is considered the decisive GC stage, in another (stage) race is considered "just another sprint stage".

As for the entertainment factor about sprints; sure, if sprints were simply about who can ride 50 metres at the quickest speed it probably would be rather boring. Luckily it isn't. It's also about knowing when your team should hit the front. Knowing when to start your sprint, not too late and not too early. It's about having the courage and cool head to fight for your position without actually crashing you and/or your competitors. If you haven't got all that down, then it won't matter if you're the fastest there is. Dunno how many sprints I've seen where some guy did the final 50 metres but started far too late/from way back down. "Congratulations. You got fourth! First to nothing."

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

I consider them the real winners. Silly generalizations are silly.

You're either naive to believe Schleck and Scarponi were/are clean or you just don't like Contador.

No one considers Pereiro a Tour winner either. You win it on the road, not in court.

Fact is, they're the winners. Objectively, the trophy is theirs.

Funny that you get called out on the generalisations yet do it again. ''No one''. Aye.

What are your facts?

We've footage of the race proving contador is the real winner.

What do you have for proof? Judgment of a court which is prob corrupt anyways?

A court which btw isn't even consistent in its judgment and many prof said that if Contador would have went to the ECHR he would have won the case but would have taken years.

Your point? 'cos mine still stands.

 

[kenk09]

Not in terms of results, but I don't think many realise how strong a rider Puccio is.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

Ion Izagirre.
Edward Theuns.

Both are slightly underrated

I can only speak for Ion Izagirre, but I completely agree. He is a bit under the radar.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Not in terms of results, but I don't think many realise how strong a rider Puccio is.

Good one. He was up there in Strade Bianche with Brambilla in the break, before he was hit by a mechanical problem, wasn't he?

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

I consider them the real winners. Silly generalizations are silly.

You're either naive to believe Schleck and Scarponi were/are clean or you just don't like Contador.

No one considers Pereiro a Tour winner either. You win it on the road, not in court.

Fact is, they're the winners. Objectively, the trophy is theirs.

Funny that you get called out on the generalisations yet do it again. ''No one''. Aye.

What are your facts?

We've footage of the race proving contador is the real winner.

What do you have for proof? Judgment of a court which is prob corrupt anyways?

A court which btw isn't even consistent in its judgment and many prof said that if Contador would have went to the ECHR he would have won the case but would have taken years.

I consider Schleck and Scarponi as the real winners of their respective titles. I do think they were on a level playing field, but the fact of the matter is one got caught while the others didn't. Therefore the one that didn't can have the title. Like I said in my previous post, Schleck and Scarponi got lucky that the strongest got busted for doping and disqualified, while Nibali got lucky that the strongest made an unforced mistake/got unlucky and crashed out. There's really not much difference.

And unlike Contador Vuelta 2012, Nibali didn't win 3 of his 4 GTs with a tactical masterclass to make up for not being the strongest. He got lucky.

@El_pistolero

As for Nibali not turning up to the 2013 Tour or tired Contador 2015 Tour, well the strongest guy won those races out of those that started/planned on starting.

At no point did I ever say "Nibali is not a worth winner of the 2013 Giro because CF/AC didn't turn up". That would be a ridiculous argument. It's all about the start list.

But it's clear that I'm not going to be able to change your opinion and that you're not going to be able to change mine. You're entitled to your own opinion and I respect it. If you regard Nibali as one of the greats given what he's achieved, then so be it. I prefer to look at how he achieved those, but it comes to down to personal preference to a large degree

 

[El Pistolero]

Well, Froome started the 2014 Tour.... You're undermining your own argument. And it definitely matters if the riders on the start-line or in good form or not. Beating a Contador that was tired from the Giro is not all that impressive.

 

[Red Rick]

Hey look, it's this again.

You have a guy who won those GTs on the road
And you have 2 guys who got these GTs because some people said that they were the winners
Which is basically what we're doing now, only they were in a fancier place.

Maybe we should get to appoint GT winners

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re:

Well, Froome started the 2014 Tour.... You're undermining your own argument. And it definitely matters if the riders on the start-line or in good form or not. Beating a Contador that was tired from the Giro is not all that impressive.

Froome started the 2014 Tour. Therefore if he crashed out, then at least to some extent, the others in the race had received some luck. If he hadn't started the 2014 Tour, then no, the riders weren't lucky that they didn't have Froome competing against them.

And no, beating a tired Contador isn't all that impressive, I agree. But Froome Quintana Valverde and Nibali didn't get lucky in that regard in any way, because he turned up to the start line with a Giro in his legs. What does this have to do with Nibali's victories?

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re:

Hey look, it's this again.

You have a guy who won those GTs on the road
And you have 2 guys who got these GTs because some people said that they were the winners
Which is basically what we're doing now, only they were in a fancier place.

Maybe we should get to appoint GT winners

Would you consider Contador to have won his 07 Tour on the road?
In my eyes, Rasmussen being pulled from the Tour and Kruijswijk crashing out as the best climber with a 3 minute lead and 2 stages left isn't particularly different. Contador and Nibali were both just as lucky in those respective Tours. And also, there isn't much difference between Rasmussen being pulled near the end of the GT and Contador being pulled after the GT in my eyes. Hence, Schleck Scarponi etc are just as lucky as Contador was in 07.
Therefore, imo, Schleck and Scarponi were just as lucky as Nibali this year.

And no, Nibali deservedly won his GTs, and is rightfully considered a 4 time GT winner. But the manner of his victories has to be considered, just like you wouldn't consider Cadel's 2011 Tour victory exactly as impressive as Periero's 2006 victory. (At the end of the day, both deserved their wins, but one earned it more while the other relied on luck)

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Well, Froome started the 2014 Tour.... You're undermining your own argument. And it definitely matters if the riders on the start-line or in good form or not. Beating a Contador that was tired from the Giro is not all that impressive.

Froome started the 2014 Tour. Therefore if he crashed out, then at least to some extent, the others in the race had received some luck. If he hadn't started the 2014 Tour, then no, the riders weren't lucky that they didn't have Froome competing against them.

And no, beating a tired Contador isn't all that impressive, I agree. But Froome Quintana Valverde and Nibali didn't get lucky in that regard in any way, because he turned up to the start line with a Giro in his legs. What does this have to do with Nibali's victories?

It's not luck that Froome can't ride a bike.

You can make "what ifs" about pretty much every GT winner. Would Gimondi have won the '69 Giro if it wasn't for that dodgy doping test that got Merckx dqed? Would Merckx have won the '71 Tour if Ocana didn't crash on a descent? Would Zoetemelk have won the Tour in '80 if it wasn't for Hinault's bad knee? Would Thevenet have won the '75 Tour if Merckx didn't get punched by someone in the crowd? Would Thevenet have won the Tour if Lucien van Impe didn't get hit by a car? Would Hinault have won his fifth Tour if he wasn't on the same team as Lemond? Would Lemond have won his second Tour if Fignon used aero bars?

Etc.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

Well, Froome started the 2014 Tour.... You're undermining your own argument. And it definitely matters if the riders on the start-line or in good form or not. Beating a Contador that was tired from the Giro is not all that impressive.

Froome started the 2014 Tour. Therefore if he crashed out, then at least to some extent, the others in the race had received some luck. If he hadn't started the 2014 Tour, then no, the riders weren't lucky that they didn't have Froome competing against them.

And no, beating a tired Contador isn't all that impressive, I agree. But Froome Quintana Valverde and Nibali didn't get lucky in that regard in any way, because he turned up to the start line with a Giro in his legs. What does this have to do with Nibali's victories?

It's not luck that Froome can't ride a bike.

Its not luck Contador can't either.

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

Hey look, it's this again.

You have a guy who won those GTs on the road
And you have 2 guys who got these GTs because some people said that they were the winners
Which is basically what we're doing now, only they were in a fancier place.

Maybe we should get to appoint GT winners

Would you consider Contador to have won his 07 Tour on the road?
In my eyes, Rasmussen being pulled from the Tour and Kruijswijk crashing out as the best climber with a 3 minute lead and 2 stages left isn't particularly different. Contador and Nibali were both just as lucky in those respective Tours. And also, there isn't much difference between Rasmussen being pulled near the end of the GT and Contador being pulled after the GT in my eyes. Hence, Schleck Scarponi etc are just as lucky as Contador was in 07.
Therefore, imo, Schleck and Scarponi were just as lucky as Nibali this year.

And no, Nibali deservedly won his GTs, and is rightfully considered a 4 time GT winner. But the manner of his victories has to be considered, just like you wouldn't consider Cadel's 2011 Tour victory exactly as impressive as Periero's 2006 victory. (At the end of the day, both deserved their wins, but one earned it more while the other relied on luck)

Rasmussen being pulled out for apparent cheating and Kruijsweik crashing are completly different, one is bad luck the other is stopping a worthy winner of the race.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Well, Froome started the 2014 Tour.... You're undermining your own argument. And it definitely matters if the riders on the start-line or in good form or not. Beating a Contador that was tired from the Giro is not all that impressive.

Froome started the 2014 Tour. Therefore if he crashed out, then at least to some extent, the others in the race had received some luck. If he hadn't started the 2014 Tour, then no, the riders weren't lucky that they didn't have Froome competing against them.

And no, beating a tired Contador isn't all that impressive, I agree. But Froome Quintana Valverde and Nibali didn't get lucky in that regard in any way, because he turned up to the start line with a Giro in his legs. What does this have to do with Nibali's victories?

It's not luck that Froome can't ride a bike.

Its not luck Contador can't either.

I'm not disagreeing. Nibali won that Tour because he was the best. Even if Froome and Berto didn't crash they'd struggle to gain much time on Nibali in the mountains. Froome would have lost a lot of time on the wet cobbles stage.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Well, Froome started the 2014 Tour.... You're undermining your own argument. And it definitely matters if the riders on the start-line or in good form or not. Beating a Contador that was tired from the Giro is not all that impressive.

Froome started the 2014 Tour. Therefore if he crashed out, then at least to some extent, the others in the race had received some luck. If he hadn't started the 2014 Tour, then no, the riders weren't lucky that they didn't have Froome competing against them.

And no, beating a tired Contador isn't all that impressive, I agree. But Froome Quintana Valverde and Nibali didn't get lucky in that regard in any way, because he turned up to the start line with a Giro in his legs. What does this have to do with Nibali's victories?

It's not luck that Froome can't ride a bike.

You can make "what ifs" about pretty much every GT winner. Would Gimondi have won the '69 Giro if it wasn't for that dodgy doping test that got Merckx dqed? Would Merckx have won the '71 Tour if Ocana didn't crash on a descent? Would Zoetemelk have won the Tour in '80 if it wasn't for Hinault's bad knee? Would Thevenet have won the '75 Tour if Merckx didn't get punched by someone in the crowd? Would Thevenet have won the Tour if Lucien van Impe didn't get hit by a car? Would Hinault have won his fifth Tour if he wasn't on the same team as Lemond? Would Lemond have won his second Tour if Fignon used aero bars?

Etc.

Yes, yes you can. While you prefer to look at achievements, I prefer to look at how they got those achievements. I wasn't around in the 70s and 80s, so I've got no option but to look at palmares, a bit like future generations will do when they look at the current era and see Nibali has 4 GTs and a monument. While I will always remember how he won them.

And Froome's crash had nothing to do with Froome's luck. But Nibali was lucky that one of his rivals made such a massive and unneccessary mistake.