Rank 1-4: Boonen, Cancellara, Contador & Valverde

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Winning points classification at the Tour (aka green jersey) I rate slightly higher than winning a stage at this same event, and equal as lets say 10th place in the GC. And I'm being generous here, far more than UCI, CQ Rankings or ProCyclingStats. As I said earlier, it's not really a serious competition

Finishing 10th in the Tour gives you as many CQ points as two stages victories which is pretty rediculous. This probably isn't the thread for it, but if I were to make a points system it would look something like this:

1. 600
2. 300
3. 200
4. 100
5. 90
6. 80
7. 75
8. 70
9. 65
10. 60

Stage victory: 75
Green jersey/mountains jersey: 75

Well this seems OK to me.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Winning points classification at the Tour (aka green jersey) I rate slightly higher than winning a stage at this same event, and equal as lets say 10th place in the GC. And I'm being generous here, far more than UCI, CQ Rankings or ProCyclingStats. As I said earlier, it's not really a serious competition

Nobody remembers top ten placings unless you won or were on the podium.

I don't think I've seen half the riders in the top ten of this year's Tour even once during the TV broadcast. I don't even know what team Meintjes rides for. The first time I saw Kreuziger was during stage 20. Adam Yates was fourth, but if it wasn't for that freak crash I wouldn't have noticed him once.

I'd easily take the green jersey over a second place at the Tour. Sagan is the rider of this Tour, without a doubt.

I still remember the media attention Boonen got when he won the Green Jersey. Jurgen VDB's fifth place in the Tour pales in comparison.

For me it's Froome, with Sagan comfortably in 2nd place. But you forgot the fact that Sagan won 3 stages and had a load of 2nd and 3rd spots. All that combined makes him 2nd best in this Tour for me, but without those stages he wouldn't be in that place. Remember Sagan last year? I could hardly put him in the top 5 riders of that Tour, Froome, Quintana, Valverde, Greipel were all better than him. So, to conclude, Green Jersey alone for me isn't some kind of spectacular achievement. But if you add couple of stages, the picture is different

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Winning points classification at the Tour (aka green jersey) I rate slightly higher than winning a stage at this same event, and equal as lets say 10th place in the GC. And I'm being generous here, far more than UCI, CQ Rankings or ProCyclingStats. As I said earlier, it's not really a serious competition

Nobody remembers top ten placings unless you won or were on the podium.

I don't think I've seen half the riders in the top ten of this year's Tour even once during the TV broadcast. I don't even know what team Meintjes rides for. The first time I saw Kreuziger was during stage 20. Adam Yates was fourth, but if it wasn't for that freak crash I wouldn't have noticed him once.

I'd easily take the green jersey over a second place at the Tour. Sagan is the rider of this Tour, without a doubt.

I still remember the media attention Boonen got when he won the Green Jersey. Jurgen VDB's fifth place in the Tour pales in comparison.

For me it's Froome, with Sagan comfortably in 2nd place. But you forgot the fact that Sagan won 3 stages and had a load of 2nd and 3rd spots. All that combined makes him 2nd best in this Tour for me, but without those stages he wouldn't be in that place. Remember Sagan last year? I could hardly put him in the top 5 riders of that Tour, Froome, Quintana, Valverde, Greipel were all better than him. So, to conclude, Green Jersey alone for me isn't some kind of spectacular achievement. But if you add couple of stages, the picture is different

I remember Sagan's attempts at winning stages a lot more then whatever the *** Quintana or Valverde did in that Tour. Losing because of cowardice. They'd rather finish second and third than one of them winning.

Greipel was better, yes, because he won 4 stages. Quintana and Valverde won a combined tally of zero stages.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Winning points classification at the Tour (aka green jersey) I rate slightly higher than winning a stage at this same event, and equal as lets say 10th place in the GC. And I'm being generous here, far more than UCI, CQ Rankings or ProCyclingStats. As I said earlier, it's not really a serious competition

Nobody remembers top ten placings unless you won or were on the podium.

I don't think I've seen half the riders in the top ten of this year's Tour even once during the TV broadcast. I don't even know what team Meintjes rides for. The first time I saw Kreuziger was during stage 20. Adam Yates was fourth, but if it wasn't for that freak crash I wouldn't have noticed him once.

I'd easily take the green jersey over a second place at the Tour. Sagan is the rider of this Tour, without a doubt.

I still remember the media attention Boonen got when he won the Green Jersey. Jurgen VDB's fifth place in the Tour pales in comparison.

For me it's Froome, with Sagan comfortably in 2nd place. But you forgot the fact that Sagan won 3 stages and had a load of 2nd and 3rd spots. All that combined makes him 2nd best in this Tour for me, but without those stages he wouldn't be in that place. Remember Sagan last year? I could hardly put him in the top 5 riders of that Tour, Froome, Quintana, Valverde, Greipel were all better than him. So, to conclude, Green Jersey alone for me isn't some kind of spectacular achievement. But if you add couple of stages, the picture is different

I remember Sagan's attempts at winning stages a lot more then whatever the **** Quintana or Valverde did in that Tour. Losing because of cowardice. They'd rather finish second and third than one of them winning.

Greipel was better, yes, because he won 4 stages. Quintana and Valverde won a combined tally of zero stages.

Well I guess we have different views then. IMO Valverde was fairly better than Sagan that Tour, Quintana too, although I admit he could have been more aggressive and brave.

 

[toolittle]

Re: Re:

It shows he's got a shot at more diffrerent parcourses. Climber, so always in winning group, good enough sprint to always challenge the sprint, somehow always beaten. Was he ever the strongest on the WCRR. I don't think so

Because he is almost always overcooked by excessive amount of racing days compared to others (and especially racing days on form)...Also he is marked as favourite so he can't do any suprise attack like f.e. Kwiatkowski...

When discussing best rider, I will count BIGGEST WINS only. 2nd means loser.

For best riders, more races means more wins. Best riders won biggest races.
Best riders may lose once or twice due to bad luck. They will bag some biggest Wins before retire. They will show that he is unbeatable at their top forms.

No one could beat contrador in GT when he was on his best form.
No one could beat Cancellera in TT when was he on his best form.
No one could beat Bonnen in Classic when was on his best form

For losers, more races means "need more races to make more result." Then, more close lose results. 2nd tiers riders will come close in Biggest races and win some "Less important races".

Losers are losers. They are 2nd best. Valverde lose consistently in biggest races for so many years. This indicates he is not the best.

He need to win WCRR , Olympic and Lambodi this year (or 2 WC RR and more biggest classics wins before retire) to become best rider of the generation.

 

[toolittle]

Re: Re:

I rated Valverde as 2nd best hilly classic riders of the generation behind Philippe Gilbert.
Philippe Gilbert show us that he is unbeatable when he is on his best form.

Many althletes cannot keep his best form for sickness, life style and training. But Gilbert is the strongest when he was on fire.

 

[Thepirateisgood]

You are all quite crazy, some more than others.
I'm not saying I'm any better than anyone - surely I'm not, just an observation.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

I rated Valverde as 2nd best hilly classic riders of the generation behind Philippe Gilbert.
Philippe Gilbert show us that he is unbeatable when he is on his best form.

Many althletes cannot keep his best form for sickness, life style and training. But Gilbert is the strongest when he was on fire.

Well I rate him 1st, easily...

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

It shows he's got a shot at more diffrerent parcourses. Climber, so always in winning group, good enough sprint to always challenge the sprint, somehow always beaten. Was he ever the strongest on the WCRR. I don't think so

Because he is almost always overcooked by excessive amount of racing days compared to others (and especially racing days on form)...Also he is marked as favourite so he can't do any suprise attack like f.e. Kwiatkowski...

When discussing best rider, I will count BIGGEST WINS only. 2nd means loser.

For best riders, more races means more wins. Best riders won biggest races.
Best riders may lose once or twice due to bad luck. They will bag some biggest Wins before retire. They will show that he is unbeatable at their top forms.

No one could beat contrador in GT when he was on his best form.
No one could beat Cancellera in TT when was he on his best form.
No one could beat Bonnen in Classic when was on his best form

For losers, more races means "need more races to make more result." Then, more close lose results. 2nd tiers riders will come close in Biggest races and win some "Less important races".

Losers are losers. They are 2nd best. Valverde lose consistently in biggest races for so many years. This indicates he is not the best.

He need to win WCRR , Olympic and Lambodi this year (or 2 WC RR and more biggest classics wins before retire) to become best rider of the generation.

No one could beat Valverde in Ardennes Double (Fleche/Liege) when he was on his best form

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

It shows he's got a shot at more diffrerent parcourses. Climber, so always in winning group, good enough sprint to always challenge the sprint, somehow always beaten. Was he ever the strongest on the WCRR. I don't think so

Because he is almost always overcooked by excessive amount of racing days compared to others (and especially racing days on form)...Also he is marked as favourite so he can't do any suprise attack like f.e. Kwiatkowski...

When discussing best rider, I will count BIGGEST WINS only. 2nd means loser.

For best riders, more races means more wins. Best riders won biggest races.
Best riders may lose once or twice due to bad luck. They will bag some biggest Wins before retire. They will show that he is unbeatable at their top forms.

No one could beat contrador in GT when he was on his best form.
No one could beat Cancellera in TT when was he on his best form.
No one could beat Bonnen in Classic when was on his best form

For losers, more races means "need more races to make more result." Then, more close lose results. 2nd tiers riders will come close in Biggest races and win some "Less important races".

Losers are losers. They are 2nd best. Valverde lose consistently in biggest races for so many years. This indicates he is not the best.

He need to win WCRR , Olympic and Lambodi this year (or 2 WC RR and more biggest classics wins before retire) to become best rider of the generation.

This is one of those ridiculous circular arguments. I suppose that Contador wasn't on his best form every time he didn't win a GC, and Boonen and Gilbert weren't on their best form every time they didn't win a classic - that's why they didn't win one.

You could equally say that everytime Valverde is on best form he wins the Vuelta or a classic. Just an utterly meaningless statement.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

I rated Valverde as 2nd best hilly classic riders of the generation behind Philippe Gilbert.
Philippe Gilbert show us that he is unbeatable when he is on his best form.

Many althletes cannot keep his best form for sickness, life style and training. But Gilbert is the strongest when he was on fire.

Well I rate him 1st, easily...

He's not.

Gilbert:

World Championship Road Race: 2012
Liège-Bastogne-Liège: 2011
Giro di Lombardia: 2009, 2010
Amstel Gold Race: 2010, 2011, 2014
Flèche Wallonne: 2011
Clasica San Sebastian: 2011
GP de Quebec: 2011
Strade Bianche: 2011
Brabantse Pijl: 2011, 2014
Paris-Tours: 2008, 2009
Giro del Piemonte: 2009, 2010

He basically won every single hilly classic race there is.

 

[DanielSong39]

Valverde has a lot of high finishes in big events but not a whole lot of wins. At the end of the day he has 1 Vuelta victory and 3 classics victories. Those are Phillippe Gilbert numbers.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

I rated Valverde as 2nd best hilly classic riders of the generation behind Philippe Gilbert.
Philippe Gilbert show us that he is unbeatable when he is on his best form.

Many althletes cannot keep his best form for sickness, life style and training. But Gilbert is the strongest when he was on fire.

Well I rate him 1st, easily...

If you don't take Valverde's grand tour results into account (and gilbert's results in the cobbles for that matter) and focus purely on hilly classics, Gilbert easily has better palmares

 

[Angliru]

Re:

Valverde has a lot of high finishes in big events but not a whole lot of wins. At the end of the day he has 1 Vuelta victory and 3 classics victories. Those are Phillippe Gilbert numbers.

You must mean "monuments" and not "classics"..

 

[Valv.Piti]

Gilbert had the single most dominant season I've seen, but Valverde is miles ahead of him.

 

[DanielSong39]

Re: Re:

Valverde has a lot of high finishes in big events but not a whole lot of wins. At the end of the day he has 1 Vuelta victory and 3 classics victories. Those are Phillippe Gilbert numbers.

You must mean "monuments" and not "classics"..

Yeah, the major classics.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

Gilbert had the single most dominant season I've seen, but Valverde is miles ahead of him.

Yeah, let's ignore 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 where he won some of the biggest hilly classics in the world.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

Gilbert had the single most dominant season I've seen, but Valverde is miles ahead of him.

Yeah, let's ignore 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 where he won some of the biggest hilly classics in the world.

Gilbert has had a few really good years (and one insane one), but he can't hold a candle to Valverde who has done what he does for 13 years. Gilbert has really lacked that consistency. Pretty even in the classics, but Gilbert has no GT-game to speak of, especially not compared to Valverde

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Gilbert had the single most dominant season I've seen, but Valverde is miles ahead of him.

Yeah, let's ignore 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 where he won some of the biggest hilly classics in the world.

Gilbert has had a few really good years (and one insane one), but he can't hold a candle to Valverde who has done what he does for 13 years. Gilbert has really lacked that consistency. Pretty even in the classics, but Gilbert has no GT-game to speak of, especially not compared to Valverde

Completely irrelevant to the question of who's the better hilly classics rider

 

[joe_papp]

Re: Re:

Gilbert had the single most dominant season I've seen, but Valverde is miles ahead of him.

Yeah, let's ignore 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2014 where he won some of the biggest hilly classics in the world.

Gilbert has had a few really good years (and one insane one), but he can't hold a candle to Valverde who has done what he does for 13 years. Gilbert has really lacked that consistency. Pretty even in the classics, but Gilbert has no GT-game to speak of, especially not compared to Valverde

Completely irrelevant to the question of who's the better hilly classics rider

Gilbert certainly has posted some amazing results, but it seems like he's been off his game for the last couple of years. I mean, I know he won a couple of Giro stages last year, and Amstel in 2014, but his time at BMC has been a bit of a bust.

Gilbert's 2011 season, cortico-fueled or not, was spectacular. It's a shame that the Belgian hasn't been able to been as consistent a producer as Valverde, however. Maybe the potential change to Quick-Step would somehow rejuvenate his career.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

I rated Valverde as 2nd best hilly classic riders of the generation behind Philippe Gilbert.
Philippe Gilbert show us that he is unbeatable when he is on his best form.

Many althletes cannot keep his best form for sickness, life style and training. But Gilbert is the strongest when he was on fire.

Well I rate him 1st, easily...

If you don't take Valverde's grand tour results into account (and gilbert's results in the cobbles for that matter) and focus purely on hilly classics, Gilbert easily has better palmares

OK. Let's do that then:

Gilbert:

1x WCRR
1x Liege + 1 podium
2x Lombardia

3x Amstel
1x Fleche
1x San Sebastian
1x Quebec

2x GP de Wallonie, 2x Gran Piemonte, Strade Bianche, Vuelta a Murcia




Valverde:

6 WCRR podiums
3x Liege + 3 podiums
2 Lombardia podiums

4x Fleche
2x San Sebastian

3x Klasika Primavera, Trofeo Deia, Roma Maxima, GP Indurain, Paris-Camembert



As I see this is pretty equal. But we also must take into consideration the fact that Gilbert rode much more races than Valverde (races of this kind). Gilbert is exclusively one-day racer, Valverde on the other hand is also GT and stage race specialist. For example Valverde never rode any of the Canadian classics and didn't rode Lombardia for 6 consecutive years (2007-2012). So as their hilly classics record is similar, yet Valverde rode much less, I would give him advantage over Gilbert

 

[Jagartrott]

If you only count the victories, it's clearly Gilbert.
Gilbert also raced other classics, like Omloop, MSR, RVV + races like Eneco that Valverde never contests AND also participates and wins stages in GTs.

1x WCRR
1x Liege
2x Lombardia

3x Amstel
1x Fleche
1x San Sebastian
1x Quebec

2x GP de Wallonie, 2x Gran Piemonte, Strade Bianche, Vuelta a Murcia

vs.

3x Liege

4x Fleche
2x San Sebastian

3x Klasika Primavera, Trofeo Deia, Roma Maxima, GP Indurain, Paris-Camembert

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

I rated Valverde as 2nd best hilly classic riders of the generation behind Philippe Gilbert.
Philippe Gilbert show us that he is unbeatable when he is on his best form.

Many althletes cannot keep his best form for sickness, life style and training. But Gilbert is the strongest when he was on fire.

Well I rate him 1st, easily...

If you don't take Valverde's grand tour results into account (and gilbert's results in the cobbles for that matter) and focus purely on hilly classics, Gilbert easily has better palmares

OK. Let's do that then:

Gilbert:

1x WCRR
1x Liege + 1 podium
2x Lombardia

3x Amstel
1x Fleche
1x San Sebastian
1x Quebec

2x GP de Wallonie, 2x Gran Piemonte, Strade Bianche, Vuelta a Murcia




Valverde:

6 WCRR podiums
3x Liege + 3 podiums
2 Lombardia podiums

4x Fleche
2x San Sebastian

3x Klasika Primavera, Trofeo Deia, Roma Maxima, GP Indurain, Paris-Camembert



As I see this is pretty equal. But we also must take into consideration the fact that Gilbert rode much more races than Valverde (races of this kind). Gilbert is exclusively one-day racer, Valverde on the other hand is also GT and stage race specialist. For example Valverde never rode any of the Canadian classics and didn't rode Lombardia for 6 consecutive years (2007-2012). So as their hilly classics record is similar, yet Valverde rode much less, I would give him advantage over Gilbert

Honestly I think that this list perfectly sums up why imo Valverde is behind Contador, Cancellara and Boonen. Dozens of podium places but not as many wins as he could have. Gilbert had way less years in which he was able to win all those races but in the few races in which he was at his best he won extremely often. Valverde was always good but never a guy who just won race after race like Gilbert in 2011. He would probably swap all his WC podiums for only one win and maybe even all his Lombardia podiums because absolutely nobody cares about podiums in cycling, especially on the high level of Valverde.

Moreover this list isn't even almost complete. There are races both have won but they are only on one of the lists and races like the brabantse pijl are completely missing.

 

[Andy262]

Putting Contador up against the other three feels a bit like comparing chalk and cheese.

Early era Contador was utter brilliance in the mountains. Valverde can compete in almost anything but has f*cked up tactically so often. Boonen and Cancellara a bit more alike, hard as nails and born winners. Cancellara gave me one of my favourite cycling moments ever when he soloed off the peloton to bridge to the leaders and win bronze in Beijing. Awesome piece of riding to get a medal, and no doubt knowing it would be bronze at best. That was hunger.

1. Cancellara
2. Contador
3. Valverde
4. Boonen

 

[Mr.White]

Re:

If you only count the victories, it's clearly Gilbert.
Gilbert also raced other classics, like Omloop, MSR, RVV + races like Eneco that Valverde never contests AND also participates and wins stages in GTs.

1x WCRR
1x Liege
2x Lombardia

3x Amstel
1x Fleche
1x San Sebastian
1x Quebec

2x GP de Wallonie, 2x Gran Piemonte, Strade Bianche, Vuelta a Murcia

vs.

3x Liege

4x Fleche
2x San Sebastian

3x Klasika Primavera, Trofeo Deia, Roma Maxima, GP Indurain, Paris-Camembert

Well you listed 16 wins vs 16 wins, and you say it's clearly Gilbert. Would you explain please?
What the hell Eneco Tour has got to do with this?!
Gilbert wins stages in GT's you say. Well it's 9 vs 14 in Valverde's favor. I missed the point again?