-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Cav is the goat of sprints. is true that he hadn't great opponents between 2008-2011 but in his prime, even a top kittel didn't have a chance against him. cav 2009 was such a beast that his milan san remo victory was so impressive. cav isn't a sprinter like kittel, he can follow the peloton at hills, he is very strong on windy stages. if we look only for the palmares, i would choose cav's palmares.
Re:
Cavendish is better sprinter all the time.
Easily. He got a better palmare now.
26 year old Sagan is more productive when compared with 26 year old cavendish.
Boonen, Cancellera, Cavendish, Contrador are the greatest since 2000.
I will see Sagan top them and become one of the best all the time.
Cavendish is better sprinter all the time.
Easily. He got a better palmare now.
26 year old Sagan is more productive when compared with 26 year old cavendish.
Boonen, Cancellera, Cavendish, Contrador are the greatest since 2000.
I will see Sagan top them and become one of the best all the time.
Re: Re:
Nibali is clearly ahead of Cavendish. Valverde as well. And of course Froome.toolittle said:
Re: Re:
As far as I'm concerned, Boonen, Valverde, Contador and Cancellara are above everyone else in the current peloton.
In the second group are Nibali, Froome and Cavendish.
Then, in the third group of riders, Purito, Gilbert, Sagan, Wiggins, Cunego, Rebellin and maybe Quintana
Netserk said:
As far as I'm concerned, Boonen, Valverde, Contador and Cancellara are above everyone else in the current peloton.
In the second group are Nibali, Froome and Cavendish.
Then, in the third group of riders, Purito, Gilbert, Sagan, Wiggins, Cunego, Rebellin and maybe Quintana
Re: Re:
*Gilbert and Sagan probably ahead of Cav, and Vino should be on the list somewhere. EDIT: and If we are talking the 2000's, then Lance's 5 Tours ranks him near the very top.
EDIT2: and of course, Bettini is way ahead of Cav as well.
Well, the order of Nibali and Valverde (and Froome!) greatly depends on how much one values 1st vs. podium, but other than those two, I agree.Mr.White said:
*Gilbert and Sagan probably ahead of Cav, and Vino should be on the list somewhere. EDIT: and If we are talking the 2000's, then Lance's 5 Tours ranks him near the very top.
EDIT2: and of course, Bettini is way ahead of Cav as well.
Re: Re:
If you have Wiggins there, why not have Cadel too? I know as an Aussie i'm expected to defend Cadel, so i'll try be as neutral as possible.
Evans' career as a GT rider who could podium races spanned from 2007-13 (could even argue from 2006), with a podium at the Giro being something Wiggins couldn't do. I know Wiggins won the ITT at the WC, but Evans won a Road Race which is usually deemed better. Wiggins' Olympic gold is great too, but Tony would have had a better chance of victory if he hadn't crashed in the TDF beforehand. Stage race wise Wiggins racked up all his victories based off the ITT's and Team Sky's strength, in a one year period, whereas Evans was competing for a much longer time period. We also know that Wiggins won the 2012 TDF because his closest competitor was his own teammate who was ordered to not ride for 1st.
I'm not counting Wiggins track wins, since we're in the road section (although I can understand how his versatility could rank him highly).
Mr.White said:
If you have Wiggins there, why not have Cadel too? I know as an Aussie i'm expected to defend Cadel, so i'll try be as neutral as possible.
Evans' career as a GT rider who could podium races spanned from 2007-13 (could even argue from 2006), with a podium at the Giro being something Wiggins couldn't do. I know Wiggins won the ITT at the WC, but Evans won a Road Race which is usually deemed better. Wiggins' Olympic gold is great too, but Tony would have had a better chance of victory if he hadn't crashed in the TDF beforehand. Stage race wise Wiggins racked up all his victories based off the ITT's and Team Sky's strength, in a one year period, whereas Evans was competing for a much longer time period. We also know that Wiggins won the 2012 TDF because his closest competitor was his own teammate who was ordered to not ride for 1st.
I'm not counting Wiggins track wins, since we're in the road section (although I can understand how his versatility could rank him highly).
I see we're all making random arbitrary groups of uncomparable riders here. Let's call that progress. It's off season anyway.
Re: Re:
I was talking about active riders. Cadel would certainly be in that company...
greenedge said:
I was talking about active riders. Cadel would certainly be in that company...
Just looking at victories, Cav is obviously way ahead. I wouldn't say he wins much less now than he did back when many say were the easy years though. He obviously had his untouchable year in 2009 which might be seen as easier, but Griepel only won 3 less races than Cavendish in 2009. In 2013 they all had a great season together and Kittle won 13 races and Griepel 13. So far, Sagan's untouchable year was 2013, but again Cavnedish only 3 victories behind Sagan in 2013.
Measuring the value of a race victory is more difficult. You can generalise, but I think it will be Cavendish as greatest sprinter of all time and Sagan will perhaps pass Kelly, but he needs to win more than 33 races in one season to surpass Kelly in my opinion.
Cavendish:Sagan
2016 11:7
2015 14:10
2014 11:7
2013 19:22
2012 15:16
2011 13:15
2010 11:5
2009 23:3
2008 17:/
2007 11:/
2006 4:/
2005 1:/
Total 150:85
Measuring the value of a race victory is more difficult. You can generalise, but I think it will be Cavendish as greatest sprinter of all time and Sagan will perhaps pass Kelly, but he needs to win more than 33 races in one season to surpass Kelly in my opinion.
Cavendish:Sagan
2016 11:7
2015 14:10
2014 11:7
2013 19:22
2012 15:16
2011 13:15
2010 11:5
2009 23:3
2008 17:/
2007 11:/
2006 4:/
2005 1:/
Total 150:85
Re:
So it's all about number of wins? Sagan best season was 2013? Not the one where he actually won classics, a monument, a green jersey and 3 tour stages, the european title, the world title... All while wearing the rainbow jersey? This season alone surpasses anything Cav did during his career.samhocking said:
End of the day Sagan is no Kelly and of course Cavendish is no Merckx, but then this isn't the 70s or 80s either!
Re:
Just looking at victories, Cavendish is almost equal to Greipel, and behind Petacchi, Cipollini, Zabel, etc. What's your point? It's about who has a better palmares, not who has more victories
samhocking said:
Just looking at victories, Cavendish is almost equal to Greipel, and behind Petacchi, Cipollini, Zabel, etc. What's your point? It's about who has a better palmares, not who has more victories
Re: Re:
This whole thread doesn't really have a point. You can't compare palamares for two different types of rider lol! Just some fun with numbers. If you want a point, then Cav has won more races than Sagan and Sagan will never have the palamares of Kelly at the current rate of wins. Happy?
Mr.White said:
This whole thread doesn't really have a point. You can't compare palamares for two different types of rider lol! Just some fun with numbers. If you want a point, then Cav has won more races than Sagan and Sagan will never have the palamares of Kelly at the current rate of wins. Happy?
Re: Re:
Of course you can, you can compare palmares of totally different riders, you can compare whoever you want. Only when riders are with similar characteristics, the task is much easier. And by the way Sagan and Cavendish aren't that much different, both are contesting bunch sprints, and one of them can't handle tough classics, the other one can. Comparing palmares means comparing their careers, means comparing how successful they were, means comparing who the better rider is. That's the point of this thread!
Cav has more wins you say, true. But does that mean he's the better rider of the two? I could name 20-30 riders from the back of my head who have less wins, but better riders than Cav.
And what the f***k Kelly has with this discussion?!
samhocking said:
Of course you can, you can compare palmares of totally different riders, you can compare whoever you want. Only when riders are with similar characteristics, the task is much easier. And by the way Sagan and Cavendish aren't that much different, both are contesting bunch sprints, and one of them can't handle tough classics, the other one can. Comparing palmares means comparing their careers, means comparing how successful they were, means comparing who the better rider is. That's the point of this thread!
Cav has more wins you say, true. But does that mean he's the better rider of the two? I could name 20-30 riders from the back of my head who have less wins, but better riders than Cav.
And what the f***k Kelly has with this discussion?!
We must be watching different riders. I've seen Cav sprint to 30-odd bunch sprint victories in the Tour de France and i've seen Sagan win 2 bunch sprints in Tour de France. I've seen Sagan win sprints out of select groups, i've rarely seen Cav win a sprint out of a select group. I've seen Sagan solo clear to win hilly races, i've never seen Cav solo clear to win solo in hilly races. They are not more similar than you think. Dozens of riders are more similar to Cavendish than Sagan and dozens more similar to Sagan than Cavendish before i'd even begin comparing these two.
As for Kelly, Sagan's the only rider at this time who stands even the remotest of chances of matching Kelly. Sagan is basically the Kelly of this generation. This year Sagan is number 1 ranked rider for the first time in his career, Kelly was number one ranked rider for 5 years straight. This is what I mean, by comparing the two riders I believe are the most similar in terms of types of palamares and riding styles.
As for Kelly, Sagan's the only rider at this time who stands even the remotest of chances of matching Kelly. Sagan is basically the Kelly of this generation. This year Sagan is number 1 ranked rider for the first time in his career, Kelly was number one ranked rider for 5 years straight. This is what I mean, by comparing the two riders I believe are the most similar in terms of types of palamares and riding styles.
Re:
Kelly and Sagan were/are both great classics riders with very fast finish. All similarities stops here. Should I remind you that Kelly won Vuelta, has multiple top-10 placings in the Tour, won Paris-Nice freaking 7 times, won Tour de Suisse, Pais Vasco and Catalunya. Or do you think Sagan is capable of achieving such feats? Kelly scored points in all races: classics, stage races, grand tours. Only rider in the current peloton who is capable of such things is Alejandro Valverde, although Kelly was faster and far better TT-ist, but much worse climber.
No, I don't think Sagan is like Kelly. There are certain similarities, but there are much bigger differences
samhocking said:
Kelly and Sagan were/are both great classics riders with very fast finish. All similarities stops here. Should I remind you that Kelly won Vuelta, has multiple top-10 placings in the Tour, won Paris-Nice freaking 7 times, won Tour de Suisse, Pais Vasco and Catalunya. Or do you think Sagan is capable of achieving such feats? Kelly scored points in all races: classics, stage races, grand tours. Only rider in the current peloton who is capable of such things is Alejandro Valverde, although Kelly was faster and far better TT-ist, but much worse climber.
No, I don't think Sagan is like Kelly. There are certain similarities, but there are much bigger differences
Re:
Cav can't compete in Sagans ideal terrain, but Sagan can most definitely compete in Cavs preferred terrain. Sagan is right up there in the flatest of sprints.
samhocking said:
Cav can't compete in Sagans ideal terrain, but Sagan can most definitely compete in Cavs preferred terrain. Sagan is right up there in the flatest of sprints.
The biggest sprinters objectives are the Tour de France. Sagan winning 2 compared to Cav's 30 is not being right up there lol just like Cav not winning a big classic is not being right up there which is how you're measuring this anyway?
Mr.White - Kelly turned pro in 1977. He won Vuelta 11 years into his career in 1988 and won it by winning sprint time bonuses and destroying every climber for two minutes or more in the ITT. It's not possible to win a GT like that anymore, so Sagan, even though a similar rider, will never be able to match this no matter how good he is.
Mr.White - Kelly turned pro in 1977. He won Vuelta 11 years into his career in 1988 and won it by winning sprint time bonuses and destroying every climber for two minutes or more in the ITT. It's not possible to win a GT like that anymore, so Sagan, even though a similar rider, will never be able to match this no matter how good he is.
Re:
My main point was Sagan is more similar to Cav than Cav is to Sagan. Sagan can sprint pretty darn fast. He can place 1-5 sprinting against the best guys in the world.
samhocking said:
My main point was Sagan is more similar to Cav than Cav is to Sagan. Sagan can sprint pretty darn fast. He can place 1-5 sprinting against the best guys in the world.
Re:
Vuelta 1988 was not flat affair, there were some serious mountains on the route, like Cobertoria, Pajares, Naranco, Valdezcaray, Cerler Alto, Andorra mountains... Kelly climbed tremendously in that Vuelta, he was among the best climbers there, along with Parra, Fuerte and Alvaro Pino. He dropped race leader at the time Laudelino Cubino, who was a really good climber, on Cerler Alto. Time bonuses were not a big factor in his win, his climbing and superior time-trialing were. Sagan is not capable of such climbing nor TT-ing, at least not yet. That's the point I'm trying to make here. Kelly was serious GT and particularly stage race specialist, Sagan is light years far from that
samhocking said:
Vuelta 1988 was not flat affair, there were some serious mountains on the route, like Cobertoria, Pajares, Naranco, Valdezcaray, Cerler Alto, Andorra mountains... Kelly climbed tremendously in that Vuelta, he was among the best climbers there, along with Parra, Fuerte and Alvaro Pino. He dropped race leader at the time Laudelino Cubino, who was a really good climber, on Cerler Alto. Time bonuses were not a big factor in his win, his climbing and superior time-trialing were. Sagan is not capable of such climbing nor TT-ing, at least not yet. That's the point I'm trying to make here. Kelly was serious GT and particularly stage race specialist, Sagan is light years far from that
Re: Peter Sagan vs. Mark Cavendish. Who has the best palmare
Sagan + Valverde = Kelly
Cavendish = best bunch sprinter of all time
Sagan = Cavendish = $$$$$
Would that be fair statements?
Sagan + Valverde = Kelly
Cavendish = best bunch sprinter of all time
Sagan = Cavendish = $$$$$
Would that be fair statements?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram