We could argue for years if it's harder to win monuments or gt's and right now I don't care which one is harder to win. But what is the point of the whole discussion? Do you seriously want to say a monument win is worth more than a gt win? Because I don't see any other reason why one should even argue about this.DFA123 said:Not surprised with that kind of reading comprehension. If you take things out of context then they will seem stupid.PremierAndrew said:
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.
Thats just not what the two posts above were about.DFA123 said:So podiums count now then do they?El Pistolero said:Nibali was third in Milan-San Remo, second in LBL and third in the Tour all in the same year.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.
I thought Valverde was so incredibly versatile and competitive in every race?
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.