Most underrated riders

[RedheadDane]

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.

Chicken admitted himself that he'd been doped. Hardly what I'd consider a worthy winner.

 

[Ramon Koran]

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.

No point speculating but froome was seriously weakend before cobble stage (hand injury). Without that i think he would of been with nibali. As we saw last year he was best gc over cobbles and has great bike handling ( descent where he follow nibali), nothing suggest he lose time to nibali. Then its any one tour.

 

[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.

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.

I refuse to believe Froome had done worse than Porte who had Thomas, clocking in 1 minute before Contador if I remember correctly. Contador was, despite his very high level that year, very unspectacular on that stage. But thats just speculation.

 

[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.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gukZ7qIiuFY

Nibali won it like a boss.

 

[hrotha]

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.

I'm not naïve, and I don't like Contador, but that's not the reason for my position. Some of us can actually try to be objective, you see.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

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.

No point speculating but froome was seriously weakend before cobble stage (hand injury). Without that i think he would of been with nibali. As we saw last year he was best gc over cobbles and has great bike handling ( descent where he follow nibali), nothing suggest he lose time to nibali. Then its any one tour.

Nibali has shown his skill in the wet countless times, and he was insane on stage 5 in 2014. No way Froome would have been able to follow him. While Froome's descending and bike handling have improved massively since then, 2013 TA was a good example of the gap between Nibali and Froome's bike handling and general ability in the wet

 

[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.

Chicken admitted himself that he'd been doped. Hardly what I'd consider a worthy winner.

Yes i meant Krusjweik bad luck and rasmussnen stopping worthy winner race

 

[El Pistolero]

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.

I'm not naïve, and I don't like Contador, but that's not the reason for my position. Some of us can actually try to be objective, you see.

Yeah, because the court is objective you mean? Tell me, why does Di Luca still have all his wins while Armstrong lost all of his?

Sorry but your logic simply doesn't make sense. There's actually more proof that Scarponi doped in 2011 than Contador being doped in that Giro (his Ferrari links).

http://www.nu.nl/sport/2937883/scarponi-werkte-intensief-samen-met-dopingarts-ferrari.html

 

[Ramon Koran]

Re: Re:

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.

No point speculating but froome was seriously weakend before cobble stage (hand injury). Without that i think he would of been with nibali. As we saw last year he was best gc over cobbles and has great bike handling ( descent where he follow nibali), nothing suggest he lose time to nibali. Then its any one tour.

Nibali has shown his skill in the wet countless times, and he was insane on stage 5 in 2014. No way Froome would have been able to follow him. While Froome's descending and bike handling have improved massively since then, 2013 TA was a good example of the gap between Nibali and Froome's bike handling and general ability in the wet

Don't think it's fair to compare cold weather froome hates plus italian roads to nibali advantage in TA. Whats more winter 2013-2014 Froome put a lot of work in upper body to improve control of bike notably in wet. So maby nibali get small advantage but at mots 1 min.

 

[El Pistolero]

I think some here believe Froome could have followed Nibali on the descent of Il Lombardia, lol.

 

[RedheadDane]

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.

Chicken admitted himself that he'd been doped. Hardly what I'd consider a worthy winner.

Yes i meant Krusjweik bad luck and rasmussnen stopping worthy winner race

Again, considering that he - a bit late - admitted that he'd been doped, it's kinda hard to consider him a worthy winner.
Sure, the reason Rabo pulled him from the race wasn't because he'd tested positive, but because of the Whereabouts Case. Then again... wonder why he lied about where he was; probably not because he slept during the Geography lessons and somehow managed to confuse Mexico and Italy...

(Sorry if this is too clinicey.)

 

[hrotha]

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.

I'm not naïve, and I don't like Contador, but that's not the reason for my position. Some of us can actually try to be objective, you see.

Yeah, because the court is objective you mean? Tell me, why does Di Luca still have all his wins while Armstrong lost all of his?

Sorry but your logic simply doesn't make sense. There's actually more proof that Scarponi doped in 2011 than Contador being doped in that Giro (his Ferrari links).

http://www.nu.nl/sport/2937883/scarponi-werkte-intensief-samen-met-dopingarts-ferrari.html

My logic has NOTHING to do with whether or not Scarponi was clean (hint: he wasn't). Hell, I haven't even explained my logic. Stop jumping to conclusions, making generalizations and talking like you're cycling's spokesperson is what I'm saying.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re:

I think some here believe Froome could have followed Nibali on the descent of Il Lombardia, lol.

I'm sure that you can probably find a diehard Nibali fan somewhere who believes than Nibali is better than Contador Froome and Quintana at climbing as well. Or a diehard Cancellara fan who thinks Canc could have won le Tour by cutting down. Or a diehard Valverde fan who thinks Valverde would have won as much as Merckx if he was born 60 years ago

 

[El Pistolero]

> Doesn't mind if a real winner uses doping to "win" a race
> Doesn't consider Contador the real winner of the 2011 Giro because he was banned by court for doping
> Thinks he's objective

Ok, lol.

 

[May0maniac]

Ramunas Navardauskas is really underrated.
A few workhorses like Zeits are probably underrated, another one would be Ben Hermans.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

> Doesn't mind if a real winner uses doping to "win" a race
> Doesn't consider Contador the real winner of the 2011 Giro because he was banned by court for doping
> Thinks he's objective

Ok, lol.

You do realize there's a crucial difference between "dopes" and "is caught", right?

Them's the rules. Nothing more objective than that.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

> Doesn't mind if a real winner uses doping to "win" a race
> Doesn't consider Contador the real winner of the 2011 Giro because he was banned by court for doping
> Thinks he's objective

Ok, lol.

You do realize there's a crucial difference between "dopes" and "is caught", right?

Them's the rules. Nothing more objective than that.

The UCI only applies the rules when they see fit. Taking a sling is against the rules, but Contador didn't get punished for it yesterday, for example. Or the headbutting incident of Bouhanni vs. the headbutting incident of Renshaw in the Tour.

That's not what I call objective. In fact, following whatever crap the UCI spouts is probably the least objective thing you can do.

And Scarponi WAS caught, they just decided not to punish him for it. If you call a 3 month ban during the winterbreak a punishment that is... If he was treated the same as Contador he'd have lost his Giro "win".

 

[Miburo]

Contador wasn't btw caught during that giro, you can argue the tour one. The giro on the other hand is all his.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re:

> Doesn't mind if a real winner uses doping to "win" a race
> Doesn't consider Contador the real winner of the 2011 Giro because he was banned by court for doping
> Thinks he's objective

Ok, lol.

One was caught, the other wasn't. Simple.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Contador wasn't btw caught during that giro, you can argue the tour one. The giro on the other hand is all his.

Well technically because he was caught he shouldn't have been racing at the Giro, so it can quite easily be argued it isn't his. I don't have much of an opinion on those two races, Contador won 2 on the road but none in the books. So be it.

 

[Forever The Best]

Trentin,Brambilla,Spilak,Navardauskas,Giampaolo Caruso,Bennett,De Backer,Schar,Vuillermoz,Hermans,Damiano Caruso,Brandle,Gougeard,Küng,Dillier,Theuns,Reichenbach,Swift,Roelandts,Rowe,Geniez

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

> Doesn't mind if a real winner uses doping to "win" a race
> Doesn't consider Contador the real winner of the 2011 Giro because he was banned by court for doping
> Thinks he's objective

Ok, lol.

One was caught, the other wasn't. Simple.

Scarponi was caught. Twice. Simple.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

Contador wasn't btw caught during that giro, you can argue the tour one.

No but his disqualification from that Giro was every bit as much a part of the rules as anything else.

 

[Miburo]

Re: Re:

Contador wasn't btw caught during that giro, you can argue the tour one.

No but his disqualification from that Giro was every bit as much a part of the rules as anything else.

What rules exactly? The court pretty much toyed with the rules, he could have been suspended for 2 years (not retro). Still would have had giro.

 

[hrotha]

There was precedent. Ask Valverde.