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

Page 17 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

1= Numerous? Your hatred to Valverde really makes your arguments worth a lot less.
Nah, I just checked his Dutch wiki page, I now see they also counted Post-Tour Crit wins, which is really stupid of them to do.

Regardless, I did the math and Valverde has won 99 races to date. Sagan, as a 26 year old, has won 87 races so far (not counting his 5 green jerseys in the Tour). Boonen is full of *** when it comes to Valverde and Sagan.
 
While I do agree that it is very likely Sagan would win a lot more important races compared to Valverde by the end of his career and Valverde is definitely 4th out of these 4 guys, Valverde is still an insane talent that can perform in every race that he enters, which is a pretty unique talent and I do think that he's the most talented rider of this generation. But, in terms of achievements right now, he's definitely a level below Contador, Boonen and Cancellara, possibly Froome and Nibali as well.
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
DFA123 said:
Exactly, that confirms it. Easier to win GT's than hilly monuments.
This is up there with the most stupid posts I've read on this forum
Not surprised with that kind of reading comprehension. If you take things out of context then they will seem stupid. :rolleyes:

In the modern era it is clearly easier for the top GT riders to win a GT than it is for the top hilly classic riders to win monuments. A quick look at the odds makes that clear. The favourites for GTs are usually around evens - or even lower - before the race. The favourites for hilly monuments are usually a longer shot than 5/1. The competition has so much more depth in monuments and tactics and luck play such a greater role.
 
Re: Re:

toolittle said:
Alexander Vinokourov and Danilo Di Luca are most similar to valverde in term of palmares and doping history.
And they were the two most exciting riders to watch and root for, after Valverde.

Vino's stage 13 win in the 2010 TdF was glorious - so inspiring - and his lifting the Olympic gold in the road race in London was master-class.

It's only unfortunate that his emails were hacked and the deal w/ Kolobnev exposed.

btw: anyone remember his Olympic silver medal?

Vino is definitely mafia, but he was my favorite rider until he retired. Valverde now occupies that mantle.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
PremierAndrew said:
DFA123 said:
Exactly, that confirms it. Easier to win GT's than hilly monuments.
This is up there with the most stupid posts I've read on this forum
Not surprised with that kind of reading comprehension. If you take things out of context then they will seem stupid. :rolleyes:

In the modern era it is clearly easier for the top GT riders to win a GT than it is for the top hilly classic riders to win monuments. A quick look at the odds makes that clear. The favourites for GTs are usually around evens - or even lower - before the race. The favourites for hilly monuments are usually a longer shot than 5/1. The competition has so much more depth in monuments and tactics and luck play such a greater role.
You don't actually believe that do you? Poels, the winner of this year's LBL, is nothing more than a domestique in races like the Giro or Tour.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
DFA123 said:
PremierAndrew said:
DFA123 said:
Exactly, that confirms it. Easier to win GT's than hilly monuments.
This is up there with the most stupid posts I've read on this forum
Not surprised with that kind of reading comprehension. If you take things out of context then they will seem stupid. :rolleyes:

In the modern era it is clearly easier for the top GT riders to win a GT than it is for the top hilly classic riders to win monuments. A quick look at the odds makes that clear. The favourites for GTs are usually around evens - or even lower - before the race. The favourites for hilly monuments are usually a longer shot than 5/1. The competition has so much more depth in monuments and tactics and luck play such a greater role.
You don't actually believe that do you? Poels, the winner of this year's LBL, is nothing more than a domestique in races like the Giro or Tour.
There are about 25 riders at the start of every monument that have a realistic shot at winning it. There are about three in most GTs. All teams are trying to win a monument - in GTs only about five teams are solely focused on the GC. All the contenders peak for monuments, they don't for GTs.

Of course the depth is much greater in monuments. The fact that a rider like Poels can win shows how unpredictable and impossible to control they are for the favourites. The exact opposite of a GT - where the strongest rider basically has to commit a major tactical blunder or crash not to win.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
PremierAndrew said:
DFA123 said:
Exactly, that confirms it. Easier to win GT's than hilly monuments.
This is up there with the most stupid posts I've read on this forum
Not surprised with that kind of reading comprehension. If you take things out of context then they will seem stupid. :rolleyes:

In the modern era it is clearly easier for the top GT riders to win a GT than it is for the top hilly classic riders to win monuments. A quick look at the odds makes that clear. The favourites for GTs are usually around evens - or even lower - before the race. The favourites for hilly monuments are usually a longer shot than 5/1. The competition has so much more depth in monuments and tactics and luck play such a greater role.
That says nothing about how hard it is to win, but more about variebility of results.
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
PremierAndrew said:
DFA123 said:
Exactly, that confirms it. Easier to win GT's than hilly monuments.
This is up there with the most stupid posts I've read on this forum
Not surprised with that kind of reading comprehension. If you take things out of context then they will seem stupid. :rolleyes:

In the modern era it is clearly easier for the top GT riders to win a GT than it is for the top hilly classic riders to win monuments. A quick look at the odds makes that clear. The favourites for GTs are usually around evens - or even lower - before the race. The favourites for hilly monuments are usually a longer shot than 5/1. The competition has so much more depth in monuments and tactics and luck play such a greater role.
That says nothing about how hard it is to win, but more about variebility of results.
The two are clearly linked :rolleyes:

A top GT rider should rack up a GT win a season if they avoid crashes. It's way harder for a top hilly classics rider to win a monument a season. They are way too hard to control. This belief that racking up GTs is more impressive than racking up hilly monuments is completely outdated in the modern era - where teams can completely stifle GTs and reduce them to a test of power.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Red Rick said:
DFA123 said:
PremierAndrew said:
DFA123 said:
Exactly, that confirms it. Easier to win GT's than hilly monuments.
This is up there with the most stupid posts I've read on this forum
Not surprised with that kind of reading comprehension. If you take things out of context then they will seem stupid. :rolleyes:

In the modern era it is clearly easier for the top GT riders to win a GT than it is for the top hilly classic riders to win monuments. A quick look at the odds makes that clear. The favourites for GTs are usually around evens - or even lower - before the race. The favourites for hilly monuments are usually a longer shot than 5/1. The competition has so much more depth in monuments and tactics and luck play such a greater role.
That says nothing about how hard it is to win, but more about variebility of results.
The two are clearly linked :rolleyes:

A top GT rider should rack up a GT win a season if they avoid crashes. It's way harder for a top hilly classics rider to win a monument a season. They are way too hard to control. This belief that racking up GTs is more impressive than racking up hilly monuments is completely outdated in the modern era - where teams can completely stifle GTs and reduce them to a test of power.
There are 5 Monuments each year, only 3 Grand Tours. You can also only ride one GT in top shape because it takes a lot out of you. That's why the Giro-Tour double hasn't been done since 1998.

You can ride numerous Monuments in top shape: the same riders target Milan-San Remo, the Ronde van Vlaanderen and Paris-Roubaix. If you skip Roubaix you can also combine the Ronde, LBL and Lombardia, as Gilbert has done numerous times.

Riders winning multiple Monuments in the same season is a lot more common than riders winning two GTs in the same season.

Here's a list of the active riders who accomplished a double:

Boonen:

Ronde van Vlaanderen, Paris-Roubaix and the WC RR (!) - 2005
Ronde van Vlaanderen and Paris-Roubaix - 2012

Cancellara:

Ronde van Vlaanderen and Paris-Roubaix - 2010
Ronde van Vlaanderen and Paris-Roubaix - 2013

Degenkolb:

Milan-San Remo and Paris-Roubaix - 2015

Contador:

Giro and Vuelta - 2008
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Hilly monuments, not monuments. Valverde obviously has no chance of winning Roubaix and hardly a chance in MSR or Flanders if not preparing 100% for those races which is hard with the Ardennes AND 2 GT's in mind.
Nibali was third in Milan-San Remo, second in LBL and third in the Tour all in the same year.

I thought Valverde was so incredibly versatile and competitive in every race?
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
Boonen disagree.

He says that the likes of piti can easily compete in PR.

He said the same about nibali btw, who even proved that he could win PR
 
Nah, MSR is too early season to peak if you want to peak in the Ardennes week as well. Not to mention that MSR is super hard to win, even in peak shape. I don't think there's a huge difference between riding MSR at 90% shape and 100% shape, especially if you're one of the attackers on the Poggio. Though I do agree that that achievement by Nibali is underrated.

I think the pool of contenders for de Ronde van Vlaanderen actually is almost equally as small as GT's. Every year there's like 3 favourites that stand out the most, and almost every year of them wins it. Milan Sanremo is usually the only monument where 25 different riders can win. That's not because it's hard, that's because it's relatively easy.

Besides, I think it's harder to be awesome for three weeks, than for 1 day.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
Valv.Piti said:
Hilly monuments, not monuments. Valverde obviously has no chance of winning Roubaix and hardly a chance in MSR or Flanders if not preparing 100% for those races which is hard with the Ardennes AND 2 GT's in mind.
Nibali was third in Milan-San Remo, second in LBL and third in the Tour all in the same year.

I thought Valverde was so incredibly versatile and competitive in every race?
So podiums count now then do they? :confused:

In that case lets look at Valverde's 2014. 3rd Vuelta, 2nd Lombardia, 3rd WC, 2nd LBL, 3rd Strade Bianche and 4th at the Tour de France. Plus wins at FW and San Sebastian. You won't find a rider with a season anything like that versatility and consistency in the last 25 years.
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
Nibal and Gilbert are the only guys who can win every classic.

Maybe piti too, but he's not super impressive on flat cobbles, so idk
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
Nah, MSR is too early season to peak if you want to peak in the Ardennes week as well. Not to mention that MSR is super hard to win, even in peak shape. I don't think there's a huge difference between riding MSR at 90% shape and 100% shape, especially if you're one of the attackers on the Poggio. Though I do agree that that achievement by Nibali is underrated.

I think the pool of contenders for de Ronde van Vlaanderen actually is almost equally as small as GT's. Every year there's like 3 favourites that stand out the most, and almost every year of them wins it. Milan Sanremo is usually the only monument where 25 different riders can win. That's not because it's hard, that's because it's relatively easy.

Besides, I think it's harder to be awesome for three weeks, than for 1 day.
How many times is the winner of a GT awesome for three weeks? You could argue Froome this season perhaps. But Nibali certainly wasn't. Nor was Aru at the Vuelta last year, and Contador had off days in the Giro last year as well. Their strengths shines through overall though - because the effect of three weeks basically takes luck (barring crashes) and the odd bad moment or tactical decision out of the equation. In hilly monuments, they vey often decide the race.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
Red Rick said:
Nah, MSR is too early season to peak if you want to peak in the Ardennes week as well. Not to mention that MSR is super hard to win, even in peak shape. I don't think there's a huge difference between riding MSR at 90% shape and 100% shape, especially if you're one of the attackers on the Poggio. Though I do agree that that achievement by Nibali is underrated.

I think the pool of contenders for de Ronde van Vlaanderen actually is almost equally as small as GT's. Every year there's like 3 favourites that stand out the most, and almost every year of them wins it. Milan Sanremo is usually the only monument where 25 different riders can win. That's not because it's hard, that's because it's relatively easy.

Besides, I think it's harder to be awesome for three weeks, than for 1 day.
How many times is the winner of a GT awesome for three weeks? You could argue Froome this season perhaps. But Nibali certainly wasn't. Nor was Aru at the Vuelta last year, and Contador had off days in the Giro last year as well. Their strengths shines through overall though - because the effect of three weeks basically takes luck (barring crashes) and the odd bad moment or tactical decision out of the equation. In hilly monuments, they vey often decide the race.
Being good for 3 weeks is harder than being good for one day. GTs arent' won in a day, but can be lost in a day. It's that simple. Why didn't Aru come close to winning the Giro last year? He had 2 bad days. Tactics and luck aren't taken out of the equation. Ask Porte. Ask Contador.

GT's are a lot longer, and efforts in GTs are longer. That's why small differences are more significant in GTs, and why they show more clearly.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
El Pistolero said:
Valv.Piti said:
Hilly monuments, not monuments. Valverde obviously has no chance of winning Roubaix and hardly a chance in MSR or Flanders if not preparing 100% for those races which is hard with the Ardennes AND 2 GT's in mind.
Nibali was third in Milan-San Remo, second in LBL and third in the Tour all in the same year.

I thought Valverde was so incredibly versatile and competitive in every race?
So podiums count now then do they? :confused:

In that case lets look at Valverde's 2014. 3rd Vuelta, 2nd Lombardia, 3rd WC, 2nd LBL, 3rd Strade Bianche and 4th at the Tour de France. Plus wins at FW and San Sebastian. You won't find a rider with a season anything like that versatility and consistency in the last 25 years.
How is that versatile? All races where climbers can perform well.

I never said podiums counted, if Nibali had won LBL and MSR that year I'd consider him the best currently active cyclist. I'm just pointing out that it's possible for a GC rider to win Milan-San Remo, LBL and do well in the Tour. Nibali proved that, so Valverde has no excuses if he's sooo versatile, talented and consisted as you guys claim. Besides, Nibali's podiums in 2012 are much more impressive than those of Valverde in 2014.
 
Re:

Miburo said:
Nibal and Gilbert are the only guys who can win every classic.

Maybe piti too, but he's not super impressive on flat cobbles, so idk
One (albeit extremely impressive) result on the cobbles when all the specialists are either at 75%ish or not present in the Tour and suddenly Nibali can get a top 10 in every classic? Let alone win.

Even in pouring rain, Stybar Sagan Canc etc would crush Nibali at PR. Unless ofc Fuglsang is also better than the classics specialists.
And Nibali has shown absolutely nothing to suggest he could compete at races like E3 and RVV
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Miburo said:
Nibal and Gilbert are the only guys who can win every classic.

Maybe piti too, but he's not super impressive on flat cobbles, so idk
One (albeit extremely impressive) result on the cobbles when all the specialists are either at 75%ish or not present in the Tour and suddenly Nibali can get a top 10 in every classic? Let alone win.

Even in pouring rain, Stybar Sagan Canc etc would crush Nibali at PR. Unless ofc Fuglsang is also better than the classics specialists.
And Nibali has shown absolutely nothing to suggest he could compete at races like E3 and RVV
Cancellara and Sagan also peak for the Tour, Nibali just obliterated them. He's certainly one of the most versatile cyclists out there, but he (wisely) chooses to focus mainly on the Grand Tours. Unless you have a killer sprint, it's hard to win Monuments on a consistent basis.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nibali won E3 Harelbeke if he ever decided to target it... Kwiatkowski and Geraint Thomas have won it after all.
 
Re:

Miburo said:
Boonen disagree.

He says that the likes of piti can easily compete in PR.
N
He said the same about nibali btw, who even proved that he could win PR
To actually prove you can win Paris-Roubaix one would have had to have actually ridden it and at some point been in contention for the win. IMO of course.
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
Miburo said:
Boonen disagree.

He says that the likes of piti can easily compete in PR.
N
He said the same about nibali btw, who even proved that he could win PR
To actually prove you can win Paris-Roubaix one would have had to have actually ridden it and at some point been in contention for the win. IMO of course.
Yeah. I think that's pretty common sense, no matter what Boonen or any former winner says. Especially depending on the way that it's said or asked.
 
Jul 15, 2016
7
0
0
These guys represents the greatest of our generation. However its no doubt that Grand tours trumps all so in that regard the number one place is easy, Ive never witnessed a more complete GT rider in my life time, at his best could TT with the best in the world and climb like noone before him add that he only got better during a 3 week race duo to his incredible recovery its simply no match and unbeatable. Boonen and Cancellera are also two unique riders which has dominated their areas for ages, incredible strong and rare talents ive comed to rest with that we might not see in sometime. (off note there is this guy called Sagan which also has that unnatural talent and could become this great but his story is still beeing written and its to early to tell if he will get to that lvl or not but he certaintly got the talent for it but it remains to be seen if he can win and dominate as much as these guys did) as for Valverde I feel he falls betwen two chairs standing up against these juggernauts, that is not a dig to Valverde which is a incredible rider of his own but those classics hed won is not so much respected as GT's and the cobbles.

So my list goes as this:

1. Contador - Without a doubt the greatest GT rider of our generation, noone even comes close to challenging him, you could also make the case that hes the best grand tour rider of all time. Not only dominating GT's for over 10 years but also winning GT's grand tours for that long is never been done before by anyone and should speak for itself of how great he is, not even Hinault could manage that, add to it that Contador did it in a time and era that cycling has evolved and is more competetive it only goes to show what a unique talent weve been witnessing. Count yourself lucky to beeing able to seen him makin history, cause it is not very likely you will see someone of his talent dominating GT's for more than 10 years in your lifetime again.

2. Boonen AND Cancellera I cant decide of the two. Unlike Contador which noone even comes close to in GT regards these two actually battled it out against each other and I just cant decide which one I will give the nod of whom is the greatest of them. Their both so unique and talented and won so much, nearly the same amount aswell I feel its impossible to rate the one higher than the other. Extremely talented, strong and above all else which is often forgotten incredible mentall thoughness.

4. Valverde - As stated before I feel against these juggernauts he falls betwen two chairs. Not even close to Contador in GT regards and overshadowned by Boonen and Cancellera for the classics. A good GT rider which is also even better at the classics is very uncommon and it is exactly for this reason Valverde deserves to be mentioned as the 4 best rider of our generation which is by no means something bad if someone believes that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY