Cav won six GT stages and was unlucky not to win more how are the Giro and Tour lesser races?MacBAir said:Hinault and Merckx were lesser athletes racing against much lesser athletes. You know how specialized cycling has become. It's like comparing 2 different sports.PremierAndrew said:Lemond Hinault and Merckx winning Tdf in Rainbow. Cav with 14 wins in Rainbow. Boonen winning RVV, E3 and Scheldeprijs in rainbow to name a few...WildspokeJoe said:Love how Sagan is representing the rainbow jersey.
First guy in forever who has beaten the 'curse'
Cav only won lesser, irrelevant races on a lesser, irrelevant way. Boonen was great and the only one comparable. Having said that, that was 10 years ago (our point) and Sagan has everything to have a better season.
Today was indeed all great; fantastic; inspiring. Totally awesome Sagan-ery in evidence, that nobody else could pull off, and no-one can sensibly question.tomorrow said:well, first guy forever who has beaten the 'curse', but the way he's beaten it is even more remarkable.WildspokeJoe said:Love how Sagan is representing the rainbow jersey.
First guy in forever who has beaten the 'curse'
Today, he could/should have stopped pulling once he bridged the gap, he would still win easily probably. Then, he just even attacks the break. Hard to say, if his riding style is, let's say it midly, not very clever, or it is brilliant. But he certainly has the balls, and that makes it very exciting to watch every race he enters. I could see him in long range attack in RIO. It would hardly come to success, but it would be very interesting, what the climber would then do.
What makes you think that he isn't? I'm talking about an athlete. From any even remotely scientific and objective POV Peter is a much better cyclist than any of those guys could ever be.PremierAndrew said:You're right, Sagan is better than arguably the two biggest legends of the sport of cyclingMacBAir said:Hinault and Merckx were lesser athletes racing against much lesser athletes. You know how specialized cycling has become. It's like comparing 2 different sports.PremierAndrew said:Lemond Hinault and Merckx winning Tdf in Rainbow. Cav with 14 wins in Rainbow. Boonen winning RVV, E3 and Scheldeprijs in rainbow to name a few...WildspokeJoe said:Love how Sagan is representing the rainbow jersey.
First guy in forever who has beaten the 'curse'
Cav only won lesser, irrelevant races on a lesser, irrelevant way. Boonen was great and the only one comparable. Having said that, that was 10 years ago (our point) and Sagan has everything to have a better season.
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the modern era? I mostly agree with you too, very different times.MacBAir said:What makes you think that he isn't? I'm talking about an athlete. From any even remotely scientific and objective POV Peter is a much better cyclist than any of those guys could ever be.
Of course, he is riding against high level athletes that are also physically stronger than any rider from previous eras, and cycling is a very specialized sport where many factors play a huge role on the outcome.
We don't have 5 to 6 guys winning races from february to october, and the track, and mountain bike anymore, while others are useless cannon fodder. It happens.
A guy like Peter is better than a guy like Merckx on every single metric even remotely related with physical ability.
The Andrej Susenkas of this world would've been "Merckx" too, if they had their own team, were racing against farmers, everyone did the same race that was always nothing more than a basic endurance contest, and so on.
I see older cyclists as true warriors, but amateurs. In fact, I don't relate with the circus that was cycling before the modern era, and just laugh when someone says that Merckx was the best of all time. I mean, best at what? Could he even dream of holding Peter or Fabian's wheel in any terrain? Or Kittel and Cav in a sprint? Dawg up the Alpe?
No, but maybe he was good as a masseur.
Different sports.
I doubt that. From the TLMRP thread, I can assure you that he is not joking here, nor is he joking about Porte making the TdF podium.Forever The Best said:PremierAndrew was definitely joking.
Anyway, what if they Merckx and Hinault trained with today's possibilities and so on? Maybe they would still be the best. It isn't like human are getting physically stronger over few decades.MacBAir said:What makes you think that he isn't? I'm talking about an athlete. From any even remotely scientific and objective POV Peter is a much better cyclist than any of those guys could ever be.
Of course, he is riding against high level athletes that are also physically stronger than any rider from previous eras, and cycling is a very specialized sport where many factors play a huge role on the outcome.
We don't have 5 to 6 guys winning races from february to october, and the track, and mountain bike anymore, while others are useless cannon fodder. It happens.
A guy like Peter is better than a guy like Merckx on every single metric even remotely related with physical ability.
The Andrej Susenkas of this world would've been "Merckx" too, if they had their own team, were racing against farmers, everyone did the same race that was always nothing more than a basic endurance contest, and so on.
I see older cyclists as true warriors, but amateurs. In fact, I don't relate with the circus that was cycling before the modern era, and just laugh when someone says that Merckx was the best of all time. I mean, best at what? Could he even dream of holding Peter or Fabian's wheel in any terrain? Or Kittel and Cav in a sprint? Dawg up the Alpe?
No, but maybe he was good as a masseur.
Different sports.
Sagan is an amazing rider, but Sagan cant climb to have options in the Olimpics. He couldnt with Fiorenze, so he has nothing to do with the hard climb of Rio, nor him not Van Avermaert who climb better, nor a lot of similar people.portugal11 said:I think he is no favourite to win the worlds. The only problem is that he hasn't teammates to help him.
Check the start list. Although I am not sure what's happening with him. He was quite dominant in Luxembourg a week ago.Taxus4a said:EBH, Van Avermaet, Gilbert and others are not here.
You mean Landa climb better then Sagan?Yes I agree with that conclusion.Taxus4a said:Sagan is an amazing rider, but Sagan cant climb to have options in the Olimpics. He couldnt with Fiorenze, so he has nothing to do with the hard climb of Rio, nor him not Van Avermaert who climb better, nor a lot of similar people.portugal11 said:I think he is no favourite to win the worlds. The only problem is that he hasn't teammates to help him.
What he did yesterday was impresive, but he is very good in that kind of profile, and in Suisse just Matthews is a similar rider close to his level, and I think he is not in top shape. EBH, Van Avermaet, Gilbert and others are not here.
Anyway he did a master class of how a champion must win: Class, technic, strategy, strength and determination.
Everybody was in sspain watching football but I enjoyed a lot Sagan victory.
But when I read things as the olimpics and things like that...even with the better team of the world...anyway he will have some good teammates.
What? I don't quite understand.Taxus4a said:But when I read things as the olimpics and things like that...even with the better team of the world...anyway he will have some good teammates.
You see Merckx as an amateur! haha you are truly hilarious. You clearly have no clue about the history of cycling and how talented the top riders were. You say Peter is riding against 'high level athletes that are also physically stronger than any rider from previous eras'- maybe true but then you could say the same about Merckx and his competitors. No matter what the era you have to beat the best cyclists in the world.MacBAir said:What makes you think that he isn't? I'm talking about an athlete. From any even remotely scientific and objective POV Peter is a much better cyclist than any of those guys could ever be.PremierAndrew said:You're right, Sagan is better than arguably the two biggest legends of the sport of cyclingMacBAir said:Hinault and Merckx were lesser athletes racing against much lesser athletes. You know how specialized cycling has become. It's like comparing 2 different sports.PremierAndrew said:Lemond Hinault and Merckx winning Tdf in Rainbow. Cav with 14 wins in Rainbow. Boonen winning RVV, E3 and Scheldeprijs in rainbow to name a few...WildspokeJoe said:Love how Sagan is representing the rainbow jersey.
First guy in forever who has beaten the 'curse'
Cav only won lesser, irrelevant races on a lesser, irrelevant way. Boonen was great and the only one comparable. Having said that, that was 10 years ago (our point) and Sagan has everything to have a better season.
Of course, he is riding against high level athletes that are also physically stronger than any rider from previous eras, and cycling is a very specialized sport where many factors play a huge role on the outcome.
We don't have 5 to 6 guys winning races from february to october, and the track, and mountain bike anymore, while others are useless cannon fodder. It happens.
A guy like Peter is better than a guy like Merckx on every single metric even remotely related with physical ability.
The Andrej Susenkas of this world would've been "Merckx" too, if they had their own team, were racing against farmers, everyone did the same race that was always nothing more than a basic endurance contest, and so on.
I see older cyclists as true warriors, but amateurs. In fact, I don't relate with the circus that was cycling before the modern era, and just laugh when someone says that Merckx was the best of all time. I mean, best at what? Could he even dream of holding Peter or Fabian's wheel in any terrain? Or Kittel and Cav in a sprint? Dawg up the Alpe?
No, but maybe he was good as a masseur.
Different sports.
So, he's paying by a page?KGB said:Because we just try to add more pages in Sagan thread.That's all.
It's not a trolling topic, there's a very good chance Sagan is simply better than Eddy physiologically. Hinault was better than Eddy too.sir fly said:But Eddy wasn't competing against iron men behind the Iron curtain...
Anyway, Sagan needs one more Tour of Flanders, two more Rainbow jerseys, three more Paris - Roubaix and seven more MSR to even be considered for a comparison with Merckx. It wouldn't be fair to compare them in hilly Monuments, stage races and GTs, 'cause we all agree it's a different era.
Why are we discussing this ridiculous trolling topic? Sagan hasn't even reached the level of some active riders, yet.
A RVV in 2016 is worth more than a RVV in 1975 for the simple reason that the level of the competition is much higher.sir fly said:Anyway, Sagan needs one more Tour of Flanders, two more Rainbow jerseys, three more Paris - Roubaix and seven more MSR to even be considered for a comparison with Merckx.
Physiology that was winning all around cycling calendar for years, whatever era it was, is hard to beat.SeriousSam said:It's not a trolling topic, there's a very good chance Sagan is simply better than Eddy physiologically. Hinault was better than Eddy too.sir fly said:But Eddy wasn't competing against iron men behind the Iron curtain...
Anyway, Sagan needs one more Tour of Flanders, two more Rainbow jerseys, three more Paris - Roubaix and seven more MSR to even be considered for a comparison with Merckx. It wouldn't be fair to compare them in hilly Monuments, stage races and GTs, 'cause we all agree it's a different era.
Why are we discussing this ridiculous trolling topic? Sagan hasn't even reached the level of some active riders, yet.