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

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

Bardamu said:
El Pistolero said:
Mr.White said:
Marino Lejarreta, Claude Criquielion, Miguel Indurain, Gianni Bugno, Claudio Chiappucci, Lance Armstrong, Davide Rebellin, Francesco Casagrande, Laurent Jalabert, Paolo Bettini, Philippe Gilbert and of course Alejandro Valverde :p All winners of San Sebastian! E3 was maybe a bigger race in the 80's, but just maybe. From 90's and the World Cup it's not a contest at all!

As for a green jersey, well I only know couple of sprinters who want to win that jersey. The same guys who contest Hamburg Classic, so there's your answer. Valverde himself could won it multiple times if he wanted!

And I see you're mentioning Gilbert time and time again, which is really funny stuff. Gilbert is a Ardennes specialist, who lives at the foot of La Redoute and focus every year on that races. Yet some GT rider from Spain, easily beats his record by some margin. You really shouldn't mention him and Valverde in the same conversation, cause the difference is not small!
Lombardia is a nicer race than LBL anyway. ;)

Valverde could never win the green jersey, man how biased are you? Take a look at the winners of E3 Harelbeke, all big names. Kwiatkowski, Sagan, Boonen, Cancellara, Geraint Thomas, Pozzato, etc. That's 3 world champions on the list in recent years. CSS is poorly televised and organized, and has low viewer ratings. It's a wonder it's still WT.
It's a build-up race for Flanders, so ofcourse big names will win it. I'm not rating Amstel
higher than I should solely because it has had great winners during the years?
And CSS is an after-thought race for Tour de France riders, what's your point?
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
Mr.White said:
El Pistolero said:
Valv.Piti said:
You are incredible, Pistolero.
Hardly, facts are Boonen has more than double the amount of big wins than Valverde. Same goes for Cancellara and Contador. He clearly doesn't belong in this discussion.
Would you name them, please! Actually Valverde has more WT level wins then Boonen...

And you're arguably the only person who thinks that Valverde doesn't belong in this list out of 40-50 posters. In fact many of them thinks he's No.2 or 3. I think this speaks enough...
I made a thread recently and the majority said Nibali had a better palmares than Valverde.
Better palmares =/= better cyclist

Nibali does have a better palmares, especially considering age, but Valverde is by far the better rider
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
Bardamu said:
El Pistolero said:
Mr.White said:
Marino Lejarreta, Claude Criquielion, Miguel Indurain, Gianni Bugno, Claudio Chiappucci, Lance Armstrong, Davide Rebellin, Francesco Casagrande, Laurent Jalabert, Paolo Bettini, Philippe Gilbert and of course Alejandro Valverde :p All winners of San Sebastian! E3 was maybe a bigger race in the 80's, but just maybe. From 90's and the World Cup it's not a contest at all!

As for a green jersey, well I only know couple of sprinters who want to win that jersey. The same guys who contest Hamburg Classic, so there's your answer. Valverde himself could won it multiple times if he wanted!

And I see you're mentioning Gilbert time and time again, which is really funny stuff. Gilbert is a Ardennes specialist, who lives at the foot of La Redoute and focus every year on that races. Yet some GT rider from Spain, easily beats his record by some margin. You really shouldn't mention him and Valverde in the same conversation, cause the difference is not small!
Lombardia is a nicer race than LBL anyway. ;)

Valverde could never win the green jersey, man how biased are you? Take a look at the winners of E3 Harelbeke, all big names. Kwiatkowski, Sagan, Boonen, Cancellara, Geraint Thomas, Pozzato, etc. That's 3 world champions on the list in recent years. CSS is poorly televised and organized, and has low viewer ratings. It's a wonder it's still WT.
It's a build-up race for Flanders, so ofcourse big names will win it. I'm not rating Amstel
higher than I should solely because it has had great winners during the years?
And CSS is an after-thought race for Tour de France riders, what's your point?
You're making E3 bigger than it is. Nobody is making San Sebastian bigger than it is.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
El Pistolero said:
Mr.White said:
El Pistolero said:
Valv.Piti said:
You are incredible, Pistolero.
Hardly, facts are Boonen has more than double the amount of big wins than Valverde. Same goes for Cancellara and Contador. He clearly doesn't belong in this discussion.
Would you name them, please! Actually Valverde has more WT level wins then Boonen...

And you're arguably the only person who thinks that Valverde doesn't belong in this list out of 40-50 posters. In fact many of them thinks he's No.2 or 3. I think this speaks enough...
I made a thread recently and the majority said Nibali had a better palmares than Valverde.
Better palmares =/= better cyclist

Nibali does have a better palmares, especially considering age, but Valverde is by far the better rider
So Nibali, an inferior rider according to you, is able to amass a greater palmares than a superior rider? Doesn't that actually make Nibali a great rider? Flawed logic.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re:

Bardamu said:
He is not implying Nibali isn't a great rider.
I'm implying Valverde is a terrible rider if he can't amass a greater palmares than Nibali despite being "superior" (and 4 years older, so he had more time to rack up wins).

I rather see someone try to go all out for the win and finish 25th in the end than wheelsucking everyone for second or third. That's why Valverde will never be a great rider and I stand by that.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
Better palmares =/= better cyclist

Nibali does have a better palmares, especially considering age, but Valverde is by far the better rider
So Nibali, an inferior rider according to you, is able to amass a greater palmares than a superior rider? Doesn't that actually make Nibali a great rider? Flawed logic.
Had this discussion many times. Tactically he's better than Valverde sure, and that is part of being a great rider. But Nibali has also had a lot of luck as well, whereas Valverde had very bad luck in a lot of his grand tours. Just look at the guys Nibali has beaten in his GT victories
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
Better palmares =/= better cyclist

Nibali does have a better palmares, especially considering age, but Valverde is by far the better rider
So Nibali, an inferior rider according to you, is able to amass a greater palmares than a superior rider? Doesn't that actually make Nibali a great rider? Flawed logic.
Had this discussion many times. Tactically he's better than Valverde sure, and that is part of being a great rider. But Nibali has also had a lot of luck as well, whereas Valverde had very bad luck in a lot of his grand tours. Just look at the guys Nibali has beaten in his GT victories
Valverde for one :D In the Giro, Tour and Vuelta.....
 
Jul 29, 2012
11,703
3
0
Or even a classic? He usually just *** up himself, like lombardia 2 years ago or LBL when di luca won.

Nothing to do with bad luck, he's just an idiot.
 
Re:

Miburo said:
What bad luck did piti have that prevented him from winning a GT? lol
Well he was never going to win but he was certainly on for a podium before that puncture in the crosswinds in the 2013 Tour that led to him losing 9 minutes.

And imo at least, a podium in the Tour is a bigger achievement than winning some classics, such as Omloop
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Miburo said:
What bad luck did piti have that prevented him from winning a GT? lol
Well he was never going to win but he was certainly on for a podium before that puncture in the crosswinds in the 2013 Tour that led to him losing 9 minutes.

And imo at least, a podium in the Tour is a bigger achievement than winning some classics, such as Omloop
Well, I won't deny that, but when we're talking about the 5 biggest cyclists in the peloton, I prefer to look mainly at wins. Podium places can be useful if it's a tiebreaker or something.
 
May 26, 2012
105
0
0
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
Bardamu said:
He is not implying Nibali isn't a great rider.
I'm implying Valverde is a terrible rider if he can't amass a greater palmares than Nibali despite being "superior" (and 4 years older, so he had more time to rack up wins).

I rather see someone try to go all out for the win and finish 25th in the end than wheelsucking everyone for second or third. That's why Valverde will never be a great rider and I stand by that.
Little bit OT, but i am seriously curious about this:

Can I ask why some people on this forum thinks Valverde is wheelsucker? Especially Contador's fans...which is weird to me, because in my point of view if Valverde is wheelsucker, than Contador is even bigger...Contador is attacking and soloing a lot, but I have never ever seen him working in reduced group. He is always wheelsucking until he attacks. On the other hand, I can't think any big name who is working at front more than Valverde.
I am not saying that Contador is wheelsucker...For me wheelsuckers are riders like Quintana, Majka, Van Garderen etc.
So I am seriously asking because my definition of wheelsucker is probably wrong...
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
Miburo said:
What bad luck did piti have that prevented him from winning a GT? lol
Well he was never going to win but he was certainly on for a podium before that puncture in the crosswinds in the 2013 Tour that led to him losing 9 minutes.

And imo at least, a podium in the Tour is a bigger achievement than winning some classics, such as Omloop
Well, I won't deny that, but when we're talking about the 5 biggest cyclists in the peloton, I prefer to look mainly at wins. Podium places can be useful if it's a tiebreaker or something.
Ofcourse wins are the most important, but podiums can show consistency of a rider. You call Boonen the best classics rider, but after his WC victory he has been a non-factor in every world championships. Difficult to call him one of the greatest one-day riders of his generation, because the WC is the most important one-day race of the year.
The fact he has one gold medal and Valverde 0 (but still has 6 podiums), gives Boonen maybe a better palmares (win is more important), but it shows that Valverde is the far better rider.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re:

Miburo said:
Or even a classic? He usually just **** up himself, like lombardia 2 years ago or LBL when di luca won.

Nothing to do with bad luck, he's just an idiot.
Valverde is like Gerrans, but where Gerrans intelligently makes good use of his limited resources, Valverde is so tactically inept that he fails to win even when he's comfortably the strongest, through his phobia of attacking. He is indeed an idiotic bike racer.
 
I think this Tour de France has shown us that winning GTs is overrated. They are so controlled these days that if you are the best climber you basically win. There's no reel need for tactics - the strongest climber just invariably wins. Any rider who is among the top 3 climbers in the world can fairly easily rack up a GT each year if they want to. Padding out their palmares.

Monuments and classics are where the really value lies in the modern era. You have to be both one of the strongest riders AND have great tactics to win. You also need to have a much more rounded power profile being able to have great aerobic and anaeobic endurance. This is something that's changed from the mid 80s onwards - but the best and most talented riders nowadays are all certainly classics specialists. GT's just show who is the best climber - not the best rider or best tactician.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re:

DFA123 said:
I think this Tour de France has shown us that winning GTs is overrated. They are so controlled these days that if you are the best climber you basically win. There's no reel need for tactics - the strongest climber just invariably wins. Any rider who is among the top 3 climbers in the world can fairly easily rack up a GT each year if they want to. Padding out their palmares.

Monuments and classics are where the really value lies in the modern era. You have to be both one of the strongest riders AND have great tactics to win. You also need to have a much more rounded power profile being able to have great aerobic and anaeobic endurance. This is something that's changed from the mid 80s onwards - but the best and most talented riders nowadays are all certainly classics specialists. GT's just show who is the best climber - not the best rider or best tactician.
I'd refine that to best power climber; even in this ridiculous era of emasculated TTs, the guy who can TT up a mountain best is almost always the winner. It's a simple wattage test.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

Bardamu said:
El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
Miburo said:
What bad luck did piti have that prevented him from winning a GT? lol
Well he was never going to win but he was certainly on for a podium before that puncture in the crosswinds in the 2013 Tour that led to him losing 9 minutes.

And imo at least, a podium in the Tour is a bigger achievement than winning some classics, such as Omloop
Well, I won't deny that, but when we're talking about the 5 biggest cyclists in the peloton, I prefer to look mainly at wins. Podium places can be useful if it's a tiebreaker or something.
Ofcourse wins are the most important, but podiums can show consistency of a rider. You call Boonen the best classics rider, but after his WC victory he has been a non-factor in every world championships. Difficult to call him one of the greatest one-day riders of his generation, because the WC is the most important one-day race of the year.
The fact he has one gold medal and Valverde 0 (but still has 6 podiums), gives Boonen maybe a better palmares (win is more important), but it shows that Valverde is the far better rider.
Or it just shows that the route has suited Valverde more often than Boonen... When's the last time there was a WC with cobbles? Or echelons? Those are the things Boonen excels at. Most of the time the WC is hilly.
 
Aug 16, 2013
7,619
0
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Miburo said:
What bad luck did piti have that prevented him from winning a GT? lol
Well he was never going to win but he was certainly on for a podium before that puncture in the crosswinds in the 2013 Tour that led to him losing 9 minutes.

And imo at least, a podium in the Tour is a bigger achievement than winning some classics, such as Omloop
He was totally blown away by Purito in the Alps.

And he didn't work that much for Quintana that year. Just like this year.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
Bardamu said:
El Pistolero said:
PremierAndrew said:
Miburo said:
What bad luck did piti have that prevented him from winning a GT? lol
Well he was never going to win but he was certainly on for a podium before that puncture in the crosswinds in the 2013 Tour that led to him losing 9 minutes.

And imo at least, a podium in the Tour is a bigger achievement than winning some classics, such as Omloop
Well, I won't deny that, but when we're talking about the 5 biggest cyclists in the peloton, I prefer to look mainly at wins. Podium places can be useful if it's a tiebreaker or something.
Ofcourse wins are the most important, but podiums can show consistency of a rider. You call Boonen the best classics rider, but after his WC victory he has been a non-factor in every world championships. Difficult to call him one of the greatest one-day riders of his generation, because the WC is the most important one-day race of the year.
The fact he has one gold medal and Valverde 0 (but still has 6 podiums), gives Boonen maybe a better palmares (win is more important), but it shows that Valverde is the far better rider.
Or it just shows that the route has suited Valverde more often than Boonen... When's the last time there was a WC with cobbles? Or echelons? Those are the things Boonen excels at. Most of the time the WC is hilly.
No excuse. A great classics-rider should be able to ride over hills. WC-routes never have high mountains, so all-rounders should be able to fight for victory in most years.
Last year it had cobbles btw.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,463
0
0
Re: Re:

No excuse. A great classics-rider should be able to ride over hills. WC-routes never have high mountains, so all-rounders should be able to fight for victory in most years.
Last year it had cobbles btw.
One section with easy cobbles doesn't make for a cobbled race... And Boonen is no longer on his old level anymore anyway, but he still won plenty of big races when he was. The 2005 WC was hilly enough to drop all sprinters except Boonen. He was also top ten in the 2006 WC. The Ronde van Vlaanderen also has plenty of short hills, which suit Boonen perfectly. Roubaix and the Ronde are fundamentally different races, despite both featuring cobbles. Only the great can win both: Boonen and Cancellara. Then there's Gent-Wevelgem which has a couple of cobbled hills, but it can still be won by sprinters. Not many riders have the talent to win both Gent-Wevelgem, the Ronde van Vlaanderen and Paris-Roubaix. No current cyclist but Boonen has done it. And he's record holder in ALL these races.

A great classics-rider should be able to get over cobbles as well, yet Valverde sucks at it, as we saw during the Tour in 2014. Firenze was basically a climber's race and the Olympics is as well this year. So you're wrong on that as well.
 
Mar 22, 2011
410
0
0
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
Mr.White said:
El Pistolero said:
Valv.Piti said:
You are incredible, Pistolero.
Hardly, facts are Boonen has more than double the amount of big wins than Valverde. Same goes for Cancellara and Contador. He clearly doesn't belong in this discussion.
Would you name them, please! Actually Valverde has more WT level wins then Boonen...

And you're arguably the only person who thinks that Valverde doesn't belong in this list out of 40-50 posters. In fact many of them thinks he's No.2 or 3. I think this speaks enough...
Going by that logic, Cav is the greatest rider in the peloton
Yes. Cav is best sprinter all the time.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
No excuse. A great classics-rider should be able to ride over hills. WC-routes never have high mountains, so all-rounders should be able to fight for victory in most years.
Last year it had cobbles btw.
One section with easy cobbles doesn't make for a cobbled race... And Boonen is no longer on his old level anymore anyway, but he still won plenty of big races when he was. The 2005 WC was hilly enough to drop all sprinters except Boonen. He was also top ten in the 2006 WC. The Ronde van Vlaanderen also has plenty of short hills, which suit Boonen perfectly. Roubaix and the Ronde are fundamentally different races, despite both featuring cobbles. Only the great can win both: Boonen and Cancellara. Then there's Gent-Wevelgem which has a couple of cobbled hills, but it can still be won by sprinters. Not many riders have the talent to win both Gent-Wevelgem, the Ronde van Vlaanderen and Paris-Roubaix. No current cyclist but Boonen has done it. And he's record holder in ALL these races.

A great classics-rider should be able to get over cobbles as well, yet Valverde sucks at it, as we saw during the Tour in 2014. Firenze was basically a climber's race and the Olympics is as well this year. So you're wrong on that as well.
Also Mendrisio and Beijing.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
No excuse. A great classics-rider should be able to ride over hills. WC-routes never have high mountains, so all-rounders should be able to fight for victory in most years.
Last year it had cobbles btw.
One section with easy cobbles doesn't make for a cobbled race... And Boonen is no longer on his old level anymore anyway, but he still won plenty of big races when he was. The 2005 WC was hilly enough to drop all sprinters except Boonen. He was also top ten in the 2006 WC. The Ronde van Vlaanderen also has plenty of short hills, which suit Boonen perfectly. Roubaix and the Ronde are fundamentally different races, despite both featuring cobbles. Only the great can win both: Boonen and Cancellara. Then there's Gent-Wevelgem which has a couple of cobbled hills, but it can still be won by sprinters. Not many riders have the talent to win both Gent-Wevelgem, the Ronde van Vlaanderen and Paris-Roubaix. No current cyclist but Boonen has done it. And he's record holder in ALL these races.

A great classics-rider should be able to get over cobbles as well, yet Valverde sucks at it, as we saw during the Tour in 2014. Firenze was basically a climber's race and the Olympics is as well this year. So you're wrong on that as well.
You say that the WC is almost always perfectly suited for climbers, yet the only climbers to win it in recent memory are Rui Costa and Cadel Evans. It's the same if I say the WC is always sprinter friendly because of Hushovd, Cavendish and Sagan.

I agree that a great classics rider should be able to do cobbles as well, but looking at how Valverde does in Strade Bianche I'm sure he could have done Flanders as well if he wanted. Not so sure about Roubaix though.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A Professional Road Racing 22

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS