Peter Sagan vs. Mark Cavendish. Who has the best palmares.

[El Pistolero]

Re: Peter Sagan vs. Mark Cavendish. Who has the best palmare

You are really the definition of a keyboard warrior. There is absolutely no reason debating you, sitting behind your screen proclaiming Cav is crap a echelons - a dude who has won 2 stages in the biggest race in crosswinds and recently just got 2nd in Qatar. :lol:

Incredible, you are incredible. As always super selective with no regards for objectivity.

There was still a large group in the stage he won in 2009. It was purely a case of positioning, not strength. Even Fumuyuki Beppu made it into the final selection. The stage he won in 2013 he could count on the most powerful team when it comes to echelons. Again, a case of positioning. Super strong rouleur Alberto Contador made it into the final selection.

I didn't say Cav is crap at echelons. I said he lacks strength for anything other than flat stages. He can position himself well in the peloton, partly because he doesn't care for the well-being of his colleagues and is willing to take many unnecessary risks to win.

And really, is two examples all you got? What about the other 150 or so wins?

Sagan is miles ahead in just about everything, deal with it.

Positioning is a huge part of echelons. Get over it. He obviously doesn't have motors like Boonen, Sagan similar riders - but no one has claimed he has. All we argue is Cavendish is good in echelons in response to you claiming he is dropped whenever it gets windy. Now you are just shifting goalposts. Of course Boonen and Sagan are better in crosswinds - thats not what we are arguing.

Yes, you literally said you'd stop saying he was crap at echelon until he did something similar to Boonen... in Tour of Qatar.

Cavendish also made the splits in 2015 in NL and in this WC. He didn't win the sprints in neither of those, but he once again managed to get in the split which is to be respected. He is obviously very good at that without necessarily having the capacity to split it himself.

Look, I don't wanna argue with you anymore. Cav is good at echelons. There is not much more to it. You piss me of to an extent that no one on a forum ever has.

People were claiming Cavendish is the best sprinter at echelons. He's not. Sagan just proved that. Are you blind? I already said I sometimes say over-the-top stuff just for the sake of it, that's where the "Cavendish gets dropped if there's a little bit of wind" comment comes in. The post is literally above the one you made in this thread yourself yet you still seem to take everything I say seriously. Cavendish specializes himself in only one thing and he still couldn't beat Sagan at a pan-flat World Championships. The same goes for all the other sprinters like Greipel, Kittel, Bouhanni, Demare, Viviani, Nizzolo, Ewan Caleb, Bennati, etc.

Which, in my opinion, proves how extremely overrated sprinters are. Honestly, if those are the top sprinters in cycling than that's saying a lot.

And even though Cavendish is great at positioning himself in the peloton and in the sprint, Sagan is, once again, much better at it. Sagan wasn't necessarily faster than Cavendish at the World Championships, he simply outmaneuvered him in the sprint. He's always up there in the top 3 and he's doing it without much team-support. Unlike Cavendish, who has relied on some of the strongest teams for many years.

 

[TMP402]

Re:

I look it at it this way:
-Better significant victory? Sagan (Flanders outweighs a WC or San Remo imo)
-More significant victories? Sagan (2x WC, Flanders, European Road Race vs WC, San Remo)
-Better when isolated from teammates? Sagan
-More versatile? Sagan
-More victories? Cav
-More consistent? Cav (He's been at the top level consistently for a decade now, and he's been the best sprinter for at least 6 of those years)
I weight the first four more than the next twbviously this is just a rough outline but you get the idea. This is coming from someone who was rooting for Cav on Sunday.

LOL

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

Comparing a echelon stage in Tour of Qatar with one in the Tour de France is just ludicrous. Nobody gives a damn about winning a stage in Qatar, while the whole peleton shows up in TdF. Not saying Cav is a great rouleur, Boonen is better, but Boonen never showed anything exciting in the TdF apart from sprints. Even pure sprinter Cavendish won some exciting echelon stages.

You're right, Qatar is far windier than France, so the Tour de France simply can't come near the Tour of Qatar as far as echelon racing is concerned. Take a look at the average km/h on that stage Boonen won in 2012.

Really?

http://www.procyclingstats.com/race/Tour_of_Qatar_2012_Stage_4

http://www.procyclingstats.com/race/Tour_de_France_2013_Stage_13_Saint_Amand_Monrond

Note that the second stages comes after 2 weeks of racing and the strength of the peloton in TDF is obviously stronger than in Qatar

What's your point? The average km/h on the Tour of Qatar stage was higher than the Tour stage you linked. As if that two weeks of racing has any effect on the strength of the peloton.

Qatar has a specialized field of classics specialists and sprinters, I wouldn't be so sure that the Tour field was stronger than in Qatar as far as echelon racing is concerned.

What? I guess you don't know how to read numbers at all.

And the field in Qatar is usually around 80 guys (counting only PT riders). Even though most of them are classics guys and sprinters, there would be no contest vs a full TDF field with 200 man and the average quality of a TDF field is definitely higher than a Qatar field if you check the riders. Also, I would say that the ride by Belkin, QS, Saxo, Cav and Sagan in that stage is far more impressive than anything can happen in Qatar as the quality of the field is simply better.

Edit: While you say that Cav relied on his strong teams, Boonen usually had the strongest classics team at every single year (maybe not in 2011) and I only remember Boonen winning a echelon stage in Paris Nice apart from Qatar but I might be wrong on my last claim.

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

It will be Sagan within a couple of years, but the number of GT stage wins of Cav is just impressive. His 30 TdF stage victories heavily outweigh the 5 green jerseys of Sagan.

Sagan is a better cyclist though and still young, but just palmares wise Cav is still a bit higher since Sagan 'just' has 1 monument (of which Cav also has one) and two WC titles versus the 1 of Cavendish.

But all of Cav's big one-day race wins were lucky flukes. He has never come close again in San Remo and the WC course in 2011 was a disgrace to cycling. I don't care if my opinion is unpopular, but a WC route should never be totally flat. The argument that sprinters deserve a WC as well doesn't make any sense to me... They can still win on a hilly course if they're talented enough to survive... Boonen for example won in 2005 and was 9th in 2006.

So Sagan's win on a totally flat course is also devalued?

 

[Valv.Piti]

I said Cavendish was the best sprinter at echelons, as in pure sprinter, obviously excluding Sagan and Boonen. I've made that pretty clear, haven't I? I even said I didn't consider Sagan and Boonen to be sprinters since they are so much more than just that.

Im no fans of sprinters either. I've been on the record many times saying there should be a maximum of 3 stages in every GT for sprinters, but that doesn't changes the fact that Cavendish very is good in echelons. Thats all I want you to admit.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

I look it at it this way:
-Better significant victory? Sagan (Flanders outweighs a WC or San Remo imo)
-More significant victories? Sagan (2x WC, Flanders, European Road Race vs WC, San Remo)
-Better when isolated from teammates? Sagan
-More versatile? Sagan
-More victories? Cav
-More consistent? Cav (He's been at the top level consistently for a decade now, and he's been the best sprinter for at least 6 of those years)
I weight the first four more than the next twbviously this is just a rough outline but you get the idea. This is coming from someone who was rooting for Cav on Sunday.

LOL

It's much better than claiming Cavendish is good at cobbled classics because he won the Scheldeprijs and Kuurne-Brussel-Kuurne.

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

Not even close after this season. Not to mention the age gap (5 years).

I think the age gap is just one reason why it's ridiculous to compare the two. The Manx Moaner is coming towards the end of his career whereas Sagan hopefully has many more years left.

Another factor some may wish to consider is how much importance should be placed on how a professional sportsman conducts himself. There's no question Cavendish is a world class sprinter, but far too often he is a no class human being. As the title to Jackie Stewart's autobiography says, Winning Is Not Enough. Personal conduct to him was also very important. How will Cavendish be remembered in this respect? Not very favourably, I would suggest, whereas, for many people, rightly or wrongly, Sagan has already achieved folk hero status, as much for his
personality as for his performances.

And Sagan has never done anything controversial.

 

[TMP402]

Re: Re:

I look it at it this way:
-Better significant victory? Sagan (Flanders outweighs a WC or San Remo imo)
-More significant victories? Sagan (2x WC, Flanders, European Road Race vs WC, San Remo)
-Better when isolated from teammates? Sagan
-More versatile? Sagan
-More victories? Cav
-More consistent? Cav (He's been at the top level consistently for a decade now, and he's been the best sprinter for at least 6 of those years)
I weight the first four more than the next twbviously this is just a rough outline but you get the idea. This is coming from someone who was rooting for Cav on Sunday.

LOL

It's much better than claiming Cavendish is good at cobbled classics because he won the Scheldeprijs and Kuurne-Brussel-Kuurne.

What does that have to do with it?

 

[Bardamu]

Since when do people take the Tour of Qatar seriously? It's like saying the winner of a third rate spanish race could outrace a GT climber

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Comparing a echelon stage in Tour of Qatar with one in the Tour de France is just ludicrous. Nobody gives a damn about winning a stage in Qatar, while the whole peleton shows up in TdF. Not saying Cav is a great rouleur, Boonen is better, but Boonen never showed anything exciting in the TdF apart from sprints. Even pure sprinter Cavendish won some exciting echelon stages.

You're right, Qatar is far windier than France, so the Tour de France simply can't come near the Tour of Qatar as far as echelon racing is concerned. Take a look at the average km/h on that stage Boonen won in 2012.

Really?

http://www.procyclingstats.com/race/Tour_of_Qatar_2012_Stage_4

http://www.procyclingstats.com/race/Tour_de_France_2013_Stage_13_Saint_Amand_Monrond

Note that the second stages comes after 2 weeks of racing and the strength of the peloton in TDF is obviously stronger than in Qatar

What's your point? The average km/h on the Tour of Qatar stage was higher than the Tour stage you linked. As if that two weeks of racing has any effect on the strength of the peloton.

Qatar has a specialized field of classics specialists and sprinters, I wouldn't be so sure that the Tour field was stronger than in Qatar as far as echelon racing is concerned.

What? I guess you don't know how to read numbers at all.

And the field in Qatar is usually around 80 guys (counting only PT riders). Even though most of them are classics guys and sprinters, there would be no contest vs a full TDF field with 200 man and the average quality of a TDF field is definitely higher than a Qatar field if you check the riders. Also, I would say that the ride by Belkin, QS, Saxo, Cav and Sagan in that stage is far more impressive than anything can happen in Qatar as the quality of the field is simply better.

Edit: While you say that Cav relied on his strong teams, Boonen usually had the strongest classics team at every single year (maybe not in 2011) and I only remember Boonen winning a echelon stage in Paris Nice apart from Qatar but I might be wrong on my last claim.

You do realize that makes the high km/h on that stage all the more impressive right? Less guys to drive up the tempo, but they still did better. You simply didn't watch that stage in Qatar did you? It's one of the most epic stages I've seen.

As for the Boonen comment, this thread isn't about him and he lost the Ronde van Vlaanderen TWICE because a team-mate was up ahead. He lost Paris-Roubaix in 2007 because NONE of his team-mates made the split. And classic are far harder to control and much more unpredictable than simple flat stages without any obstacles. When Boonen was still riding the Tour every year there simply never was an echelon stage, so that proves very little.

Boonen also won the inaugural World Ports Classic because of echelons. That was another epic stage.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

Since when do people take the Tour of Qatar seriously? It's like saying the winner of a third rate spanish race could outrace a GT climber

Every stage winner in the Tour of Qatar that year has won a Monument.

Just saying.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

It will be Sagan within a couple of years, but the number of GT stage wins of Cav is just impressive. His 30 TdF stage victories heavily outweigh the 5 green jerseys of Sagan.

Sagan is a better cyclist though and still young, but just palmares wise Cav is still a bit higher since Sagan 'just' has 1 monument (of which Cav also has one) and two WC titles versus the 1 of Cavendish.

But all of Cav's big one-day race wins were lucky flukes. He has never come close again in San Remo and the WC course in 2011 was a disgrace to cycling. I don't care if my opinion is unpopular, but a WC route should never be totally flat. The argument that sprinters deserve a WC as well doesn't make any sense to me... They can still win on a hilly course if they're talented enough to survive... Boonen for example won in 2005 and was 9th in 2006.

So Sagan's win on a totally flat course is also devalued?

There were echelons, so I rate the win higher than the WC in 2011. But yeah, his Ronde van Vlaanderen win was much nicer than his WC win. If Sagan ever wins a WC like that it will certainly be his most beautiful victory. So yes, being on a totally flat course devalues it.

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

You're right, Qatar is far windier than France, so the Tour de France simply can't come near the Tour of Qatar as far as echelon racing is concerned. Take a look at the average km/h on that stage Boonen won in 2012.

Really?

http://www.procyclingstats.com/race/Tour_of_Qatar_2012_Stage_4

http://www.procyclingstats.com/race/Tour_de_France_2013_Stage_13_Saint_Amand_Monrond

Note that the second stages comes after 2 weeks of racing and the strength of the peloton in TDF is obviously stronger than in Qatar

What's your point? The average km/h on the Tour of Qatar stage was higher than the Tour stage you linked. As if that two weeks of racing has any effect on the strength of the peloton.

Qatar has a specialized field of classics specialists and sprinters, I wouldn't be so sure that the Tour field was stronger than in Qatar as far as echelon racing is concerned.

What? I guess you don't know how to read numbers at all.

And the field in Qatar is usually around 80 guys (counting only PT riders). Even though most of them are classics guys and sprinters, there would be no contest vs a full TDF field with 200 man and the average quality of a TDF field is definitely higher than a Qatar field if you check the riders. Also, I would say that the ride by Belkin, QS, Saxo, Cav and Sagan in that stage is far more impressive than anything can happen in Qatar as the quality of the field is simply better.

Edit: While you say that Cav relied on his strong teams, Boonen usually had the strongest classics team at every single year (maybe not in 2011) and I only remember Boonen winning a echelon stage in Paris Nice apart from Qatar but I might be wrong on my last claim.

You do realize that makes the high km/h on that stage all the more impressive right? Less guys to drive up the tempo, but they still did better. You simply didn't watch that stage in Qatar did you? It's one of the most epic stages I've seen.

As for the Boonen comment, this thread isn't about him and he lost the Ronde van Vlaanderen TWICE because a team-mate was up ahead. He lost Paris-Roubaix in 2007 because NONE of his team-mates made the split. And classic are far harder to control and much more unpredictable than simple flat stages without any obstacles. When Boonen was still riding the Tour every year there simply never was an echelon stage, so that proves very little.

Boonen also won the inaugural World Ports Classic because of echelons. That was another epic stage.

Dude, the average speed in both stages are exactly the same.

And why do you mention Boonen losing Ronde twice to Devolder? I said that he had the strongest team and I am aware of these races. Finally, he lost in 2007 because he was not good enough.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

And why do you mention Boonen losing Ronde twice to Devolder? I said that he had the strongest team and I am aware of these races. Finally, he lost in 2007 because he was not good enough.

Qatar's is slightly higher.

Boonen was by far the strongest rider at Roubaix in 2007. He lost because his team messed up. The breakaway got away. You're clearly not aware of these races if you didn't know that. There's only one outcome on a flat stage if you have a strong team: a sprint. There are many outcomes in classics, even if you have a strong team (except Milan-San Remo, that race sucks).

 

[burning]

Re: Re:

And why do you mention Boonen losing Ronde twice to Devolder? I said that he had the strongest team and I am aware of these races. Finally, he lost in 2007 because he was not good enough.

Qatar's is slightly higher.

Ok, you are clearly trolling, have fun.

 

[Bardamu]

Re: Re:

Since when do people take the Tour of Qatar seriously? It's like saying the winner of a third rate spanish race could outrace a GT climber

Every stage winner in the Tour of Qatar that year has won a Monument.

Just saying.

And the criterium of Sint-Niklaas also has had World Champions and TdF winners on the podium.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Since when do people take the Tour of Qatar seriously? It's like saying the winner of a third rate spanish race could outrace a GT climber

Every stage winner in the Tour of Qatar that year has won a Monument.

Just saying.

And the criterium of Sint-Niklaas also has had World Champions and TdF winners on the podium.

Criteriums are fixed, Tour of Qatar is not.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

My wish is for Cavendish to focus on PR in the next two years - He's good enough on cobbles to make the final selection.

based on what? Scheldeprijs?

Cavendish finished top 30 this year with a limited preparation which was impacted by preparing for the Olympics - Of course Cavendish would have to prepare more for cobbled races, need the backing of his team and of course have luck in the race - Making the final selection which could be anywhere from 3 to 10 riders doesn't mean Cavendish will win the race - It's a pity that few carefully read my post.

 

[El Pistolero]

You know you're not a good cyclist when they use a top 30 in a race to brag.

 

[Jspear]

Re:

You know you're not a good cyclist when they use a top 30 in a race to brag.

So know Cav isn't a good cyclist, or do you mean just in the context of PR? And I don't think anyone is bragging. The above post certainly wasn't bragging. You seem to be reading that into the comment. No one knows how good or bad Cav would really be if he tried, because he's never targeted PR as a main objective.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

You know you're not a good cyclist when they use a top 30 in a race to brag.

Cavendish is pretty good, and tbf this year's race was exceptional, an anomaly. Another year like 2014 and Cavendish could do OK if he had a couple of very good team mates.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

You know you're not a good cyclist when they use a top 30 in a race to brag.

So know Cav isn't a good cyclist, or do you mean just in the context of PR? And I don't think anyone is bragging. The above post certainly wasn't bragging. You seem to be reading that into the comment. No one knows how good or bad Cav would really be if he tried, because he's never targeted PR as a main objective.

I've heard how amazing Cav's top 30 was around 1500 times already this season, including from Cav himself. Give me a break.

He's not Boonen, Sagan, Degenkolb or Kristoff and he will never be like them.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

You know you're not a good cyclist when they use a top 30 in a race to brag.

So know Cav isn't a good cyclist, or do you mean just in the context of PR? And I don't think anyone is bragging. The above post certainly wasn't bragging. You seem to be reading that into the comment. No one knows how good or bad Cav would really be if he tried, because he's never targeted PR as a main objective.

I've heard how amazing Cav's top 30 was around 1500 times already this season, including from Cav himself. Give me a break.

He's not Boonen, Sagan, Degenkolb or Kristoff and he will never be like them.

Of course not. No one thinks he is. What does that have to do with some wishing he'd try and target PR? You don't have to be those riders to compete in PR.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

You know you're not a good cyclist when they use a top 30 in a race to brag.

So know Cav isn't a good cyclist, or do you mean just in the context of PR? And I don't think anyone is bragging. The above post certainly wasn't bragging. You seem to be reading that into the comment. No one knows how good or bad Cav would really be if he tried, because he's never targeted PR as a main objective.

I've heard how amazing Cav's top 30 was around 1500 times already this season, including from Cav himself. Give me a break.

He's not Boonen, Sagan, Degenkolb or Kristoff and he will never be like them.

Of course not. No one thinks he is. What does that have to do with some wishing he'd try and target PR? You don't have to be those riders to compete in PR.

To make it into the final selection of Roubaix you DO need to be like those riders.

 

[Jspear]

Re: Re:

You know you're not a good cyclist when they use a top 30 in a race to brag.

So know Cav isn't a good cyclist, or do you mean just in the context of PR? And I don't think anyone is bragging. The above post certainly wasn't bragging. You seem to be reading that into the comment. No one knows how good or bad Cav would really be if he tried, because he's never targeted PR as a main objective.

I've heard how amazing Cav's top 30 was around 1500 times already this season, including from Cav himself. Give me a break.

He's not Boonen, Sagan, Degenkolb or Kristoff and he will never be like them.

Of course not. No one thinks he is. What does that have to do with some wishing he'd try and target PR? You don't have to be those riders to compete in PR.

To make it into the final selection of Roubaix you DO need to be like those riders.

Or just similar. Check out every PR. There's usually always a rider or two or three that you wouldn't expect to be there. I'm not saying Cav would be guaranteed a high placing if he really tried, but he could do better than your giving him credit for.