My top ten, on talent

[Brullnux]

1. Pogacar. 2. Roglic.3 Remco 4. MvDP. 5. Jonas 6. Wout 7. Valverde 8. Lance 9. Contador 10. Indurain. I am 100% first 6 are having the most/ best -talent/genetics ever and would destroy everyone in past.

The fact the top six all racing today is absolutely not an indicator of recency bias.

 

[Charlyghoul]

Physiological talent, mental energy/drive, bike handling skills, bravery when descending/attacking, race craft ie knowing when to attack and when not to. All are talent for me.

Discipline, this one is tricker. Jan Ullrich being a prime example. Extremely talented, but liked his food a bit too much.
Im undecided on this one, at first I thought no, it’s not talent. Actually I think it is, doesn’t it come under the mental energy/drive department? also can make a big difference coming back from injuries. It’s a hard one to define though.

 

[Shortcut]

Of course it is! I would have thought that physiological talent is the main reason for all the riders being suggested?

So why don't we count discipline also as part of talent? Why is somebody disciplined and someone not? It could be that hard-working disciplined guy looks like only that, even thought discipline on his own is his talent. Is metabolism part of "pure talent" if we are talking about cycling? I think great metabolism+discipline is almost 95% of all talent needed for cycling.

 

[Shortcut]

The fact the top six all racing today is absolutely not an indicator of recency bias.

Of course, you can have your own opinion. Mine is that those 6 guys would be great ones in eras before. Now you are not allowed to make any mistake or having bad day if you want to win something big. Guys were drinking wine and were smoking on TdF in 60s. Now it some other sport, it is like comparing some local soccer tournament with champions league.

 

[Charlyghoul]

Discipline for the purposes of this thread at least is deemed an aspect of talent 🤓. Sorry Jan

 

[Cookster15]

I can't talk about anyone before Indurain as I wasn't following the sport back then. I have to read the record books and form my own judgement. Obviously all those suggested in the opening posts are talented else they would never have had successful careers and be mentioned. But what exactly is talent? Physiology, attitude (discipline) and skill (mostly descending).

I still think Cadel Evans had huge talent and maybe under achieved to an extent and hidden by Contador at that time. Evans came late to road racing aged 25 after a successful career in MTB (twice world cup champion in '98 and '99). As a then neo pro Evans lost the 2002 Giro on the final mountain of that race. Evans's road career was checked by a lack of self belief before his 2009 worlds win in Mendrisio and then Alberto Contador who was the generational talent of that era. Evans also rode for team Telekom when Jan Ullrich was their leader so was denied an opportunity to ride the TdF before 2005.

Up thread some mentioned Andy Schleck. But Evans was never really less of a talent than Andy. Andy was too one dimensional as a rider - a climber. But he was a poor descender and mediocre or inconsistent time trialist. That was all self evident in the 2011 Tour where Evans matched Andy on the climbs but destroyed him descending and in the TT. The reason why Andy was an inferior TTer and descender was also related to his lack of talent in those aspects of racing.

Why Evans was always going to win

In 2009 Australian Institute of Sport scientist David Martin presented a paper at a conference in Seattle in which he compared his study of Cadel Evans to that of Lance Armstrong quite early in their respective careers.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Wyndbrook]

I just wrote that statement. It was not impossible. Also i thought we are allowed to write our opinions in forum?

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.
But the likelihood of six current riders being the most talented to ever compete from over130 years of bike racing.

 

[Cookster15]

So why don't we count discipline also as part of talent? Why is somebody disciplined and someone not? It could be that hard-working disciplined guy looks like only that, even thought discipline on his own is his talent. Is metabolism part of "pure talent" if we are talking about cycling? I think great metabolism+discipline is almost 95% of all talent needed for cycling.

Of course discipline is an aspect of talent. I think I would rank the importance of prerequisites of talent in this order:

1. Physiology
2. Discipline.
3. Courage (willingness to attack and take risks)
4. Skills (descending and bike handling)

Edit: The last two are why many of us have certain favorite riders.

 

[Brullnux]

Of course, you can have your own opinion. Mine is that those 6 guys would be great ones in eras before. Now you are not allowed to make any mistake or having bad day if you want to win something big. Guys were drinking wine and were smoking on TdF in 60s. Now it some other sport, it is like comparing some local soccer tournament with champions league.

The logic here is circular, though. You're not allowed to have a bad day to win the Tour because of a more professional and scientific approach to training and racing which means people have fewer bad days so you need a more professional and scientific approach to compete, etc. etc.

But if they weren't in this generation then they wouldn't have had the same tools, or preparation, or support. Using your logic they are just products of circumstance, not more talented just faster.

Which, to a large extent, they are, but people in the 90s were still faster.

 

[peterfin]

The riders that impressed me most of their raw physcal talent that was already on display at a young age were Ullrich, Evenepoel and Frank VdB. Their raw talent was the primary driver of their (initial) success but also somehow a burden for them.

 

[Shortcut]

The logic here is circular, though. You're not allowed to have a bad day to win the Tour because of a more professional and scientific approach to training and racing which means people have fewer bad days so you need a more professional and scientific approach to compete, etc. etc.

But if they weren't in this generation then they wouldn't have had the same tools, or preparation, or support. Using your logic they are just products of circumstance, not more talented just faster.

Which, to a large extent, they are, but people in the 90s were still faster.

The old days are romantic, sure, but let’s be real, today the competition in cycling is brutal. Talents are coming from all over the world, training is on a scientific level, and the talent pool is incomparably bigger. If you’re at the top today, it means you’re truly genetically special. Pogačar, Vingegaard and the others are not just products of technology, but extraordinary talents who would easily dominate in previous eras as well.

 

[hayneplane]

Hmm, agree with some of that. Vingegaard might be favourite but If Froome and Vingegaard were racing against each other it would be interesting if Froome and sky can do anything with Vingegaard. Especially with other guys around like Nibali and Quintana .
Don’t agree that Remco would be winning those tours, Roglic would win one like Nibali did imo.

Peak Froome vs Peak Vingegaard would be a very pure battle of raw power uphill as both have very similar tactical preferences.

Roglic must surely wish he had got into pro cycling 2 years earlier as had he done so he would fancy his chances of winning either 2018 or 2019 Tours with that bit more experience behind him.

 

[hayneplane]

It’s very hard to separate pure physiological output from the rest as to display the other talents properly having strong legs is a prerequisite.

Everyone knows they need to be at the front at pinch moments but it costs more energy to be up front taking wind.

Great bike handling such as Sagan and MVDP in terms of navigating crashes and daredevil descending like Mohoric are obvious examples of talent.

Cavendish was a talented sprinter because of the way he could navigate the final 1.5km to be on the right wheel and have extraordinary mental processing to be so hyper aware of everything going on around him in the final 2 minutes of the race at 60-65km/hr and deliver perfect recall analysis in his interviews even before seeing a replay. That won him far more races than pure wattage ever did.

Reading the race is important but you can be a tactical genius with average legs and you will never be able to showcase that you knew when to attack or cover an attack.

 

[Charlyghoul]

It’s very hard to separate pure physiological output from the rest as to display the other talents properly having strong legs is a prerequisite.

Everyone knows they need to be at the front at pinch moments but it costs more energy to be up front taking wind.

Great bike handling such as Sagan and MVDP in terms of navigating crashes and daredevil descending like Mohoric are obvious examples of talent.

Cavendish was a talented sprinter because of the way he could navigate the final 1.5km to be on the right wheel and have extraordinary mental processing to be so hyper aware of everything going on around him in the final 2 minutes of the race at 60-65km/hr and deliver perfect recall analysis in his interviews even before seeing a replay. That won him far more races than pure wattage ever did.

Reading the race is important but you can be a tactical genius with average legs and you will never be able to showcase that you knew when to attack or cover an attack.

A good point about sprinters, one area where other factors are more important than climbs or time trials more than just physical talent

 

[Hugh Januss]

It’s very hard to separate pure physiological output from the rest as to display the other talents properly having strong legs is a prerequisite.

Everyone knows they need to be at the front at pinch moments but it costs more energy to be up front taking wind.

Great bike handling such as Sagan and MVDP in terms of navigating crashes and daredevil descending like Mohoric are obvious examples of talent.

Cavendish was a talented sprinter because of the way he could navigate the final 1.5km to be on the right wheel and have extraordinary mental processing to be so hyper aware of everything going on around him in the final 2 minutes of the race at 60-65km/hr and deliver perfect recall analysis in his interviews even before seeing a replay. That won him far more races than pure wattage ever did.

Reading the race is important but you can be a tactical genius with average legs and you will never be able to showcase that you knew when to attack or cover an attack.

Early Van Aert was pretty nearly as good at navigating through the bunch as Cavendish but with more endurance offsetting his greater aversion to risk taking he rarely got caught up in crashes or other really tight stuff. He might not be the fastest guy (well he's not just look at his small group sprinting record) but early in his road career he was quite good at coming through the melee and arriving at the point of commitment with more left in the tank than the others. That's a talent in it's own right.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

If talent is natural aptitude, then it is probable that most of the "top ten most talented cyclists" are entirely unknown to us

If we are talking purely about talent, then i feel that the top 10 most talented ones in history of cycling are likely anonymous and we never heard of them.

I seem to have acquired a parrot.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I seem to have acquired a parrot.

At least we have talent for that.

 

[BubbaChuck]

pog youngest tdf winner in 100,more impressive tham eddy san remo win. at 21.