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

[rghysens]

Re:

Also, let's not act like Valverde is the only one of the GT riders to have targeted classics successfully. Just look at Joaquim Rodriguez and Vincenzo Nibali. I'm personally more impressed by the way Nibali rode at the mini-Roubaix stage in the Tour of 2014. He rode the likes of Cancellara and Sagan off his wheel. He was a beast back then. Also when was the last time a GT winner landed on the podium of Milan-San Remo before Nibali?

(The answer is 1995)

Well, when Jalabert landed on the podium of MSR in 1995, he hadn't won a GT yet.
So the answer could be: 1992.

 

[DanielSong39]

Here are some questions.

What would Froome have to do to surpass Contador's accomplishments?
What would Nibali have to do to surpass Froome's accomplishments?
What would Sagan have to do to surpass Cancellara/Boonen?
How good a chance is there that we'll see a sprinter at the level of Cavendish in our lifetime?

 

[Cannibal72]

Re:

Here are some questions.

What would Froome have to do to surpass Contador's accomplishments?
What would Nibali have to do to surpass Froome's accomplishments?
What would Sagan have to do to surpass Cancellara/Boonen?
How good a chance is there that we'll see a sprinter at the level of Cavendish in our lifetime?

Froome would have to win a Giro and a Vuelta.
To my mind, Nibali has already surpassed Froome; Olympic/world gold and LBL would seal that for me.
Sagan either has to become as good a cobbles rider as Cance/Boonen - and thus win Flanders thrice and Roubaix at least that much - or as versatile as just about anyone around, which means to me winning 4 of the 5 monuments and maybe challenging in one-week stage races. I suspect that the rider we should be comparing Sagan to is neither Cance or Tommeke, but Sean Kelly. Specialisation has obviously made it nigh-on impossible to get the palmares Kelly did, but I genuinely believe Sagan could win L-B-L.
None at all.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

Here are some questions.

What would Froome have to do to surpass Contador's accomplishments?
What would Nibali have to do to surpass Froome's accomplishments?
What would Sagan have to do to surpass Cancellara/Boonen?
How good a chance is there that we'll see a sprinter at the level of Cavendish in our lifetime?

- 2 Giro's, 2 Vuelta's or thereabouts, at least, and hope Contador doesn't win more
- A whole load of nothing. I think Nibali is ahead, by a considerable margin.
- Not sure this should be his goal. Sagan has even more talent than those two, so I don't know that he should always have the same goals. He definitely has a wider decision tree than those 2 ever had. I'd say 2 more years like this, and he'd already be there, at 28.
Don't know. Cav has the whole package, though Gaviria might be the next big thing.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

One reason why Contador can never be considered a true cycling giant, is the fact that he only ever targeted stage races. A true great would also target monuments and the worlds. Contador, in spite of his massive talent, has never done that. That is a terrible shame, I believe.

Well, I don't think people in the future will care about that because racing is so specialised now. Of course, if he somehow won a big one-day race, it would seal his place in the history of the sport, but I don't think he really needs it.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Here are some questions.

What would Froome have to do to surpass Contador's accomplishments?
What would Nibali have to do to surpass Froome's accomplishments?
What would Sagan have to do to surpass Cancellara/Boonen?
How good a chance is there that we'll see a sprinter at the level of Cavendish in our lifetime?

- A whole load of nothing. I think Nibali is ahead, by a considerable margin.

3 Tours and 2 Giros, 1 Tour & 1 Vuelta are pretty similar achievements. Nibali's 2012 podiums in MSR and LBL along with his GdL are all that separate him and Froome right now, and success for Froome at the Olympics would significantly close down that gap (Froome's 2012 bronze and record in week long stage races would also need to be considered)

 

[Fernandez]

Re:

Here are some questions.

What would Froome have to do to surpass Contador's accomplishments?
What would Nibali have to do to surpass Froome's accomplishments?
What would Sagan have to do to surpass Cancellara/Boonen?
How good a chance is there that we'll see a sprinter at the level of Cavendish in our lifetime?

Good questions!!
1st: in 2 or 3 years at this form he will be at the same level as Contador, or even above.
2nd: they are different type of riders. Nibali is an all rounder and Froome an stage races cyclist. But if he continues winning at his level, he will have a very nice palmares when he retires. In a GTs point of view, I dont think he will be never as good as Froome.
3rd: I dont think Sagan is already far from Cancellara and Boonen. At this level, he will be far above of these two when he retires.
4th: difficult we´ll see a more prolific sprinter than Cavendish in a LOT of time.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re: Re:

One reason why Contador can never be considered a true cycling giant, is the fact that he only ever targeted stage races. A true great would also target monuments and the worlds. Contador, in spite of his massive talent, has never done that. That is a terrible shame, I believe.

Well, I don't think people in the future will care about that because racing is so specialised now. Of course, if he somehow won a big one-day race, it would seal his place in the history of the sport, but I don't think he really needs it.

He has the qualities to at least have a good shot at Lombardia, and some of the Worlds we saw the past 10 years were also within his reach. That's why I think it's a damn shame he didn't even try. Nibali did, Valverde did, even Cadel Evans did - all with success.

 

[Billie]

Re:

Here are some questions.

How good a chance is there that we'll see a sprinter at the level of Cavendish in our lifetime?

Only 15 months since Petacchi retired. So surely you'll have seen another sprinter of Cavendish in your lifetime.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

One reason why Contador can never be considered a true cycling giant, is the fact that he only ever targeted stage races. A true great would also target monuments and the worlds. Contador, in spite of his massive talent, has never done that. That is a terrible shame, I believe.

Well, I don't think people in the future will care about that because racing is so specialised now. Of course, if he somehow won a big one-day race, it would seal his place in the history of the sport, but I don't think he really needs it.

He has the qualities to at least have a good shot at Lombardia, and some of the Worlds we saw the past 10 years were also within his reach. That's why I think it's a damn shame he didn't even try. Nibali did, Valverde did, even Cadel Evans did - all with success.

These riders are miles ahead of Contador in terms of one-day racing. He simply hasn't got the quality for that races

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

One reason why Contador can never be considered a true cycling giant, is the fact that he only ever targeted stage races. A true great would also target monuments and the worlds. Contador, in spite of his massive talent, has never done that. That is a terrible shame, I believe.

Well, I don't think people in the future will care about that because racing is so specialised now. Of course, if he somehow won a big one-day race, it would seal his place in the history of the sport, but I don't think he really needs it.

He has the qualities to at least have a good shot at Lombardia, and some of the Worlds we saw the past 10 years were also within his reach. That's why I think it's a damn shame he didn't even try. Nibali did, Valverde did, even Cadel Evans did - all with success.

These riders are miles ahead of Contador in terms of one-day racing. He simply hasn't got the quality for that races

I'd say it's just worse risk/reward than stage races. He'd be very likely to be at the pointy end of the race if he tried, but very unlikely to win.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

I'd say it's just worse risk/reward than stage races. He'd be very likely to be at the pointy end of the race if he tried, but very unlikely to win.

He showed some potential in them the few times he gave them a shot, but as he says himself, he needs to prepare differently to have a realistic chance of winning, and even then the chance would be minimal: not worth sacrificing his stage race campaign for. He's much better suited to stage races anyway, first of all because he's a proper climber and to win a one-day race/Monument you have to have a bit of a punch, but also because in stage races his consistency, allround ability and recovery come into play.

 

[Jakub]

Re: Re:

One reason why Contador can never be considered a true cycling giant, is the fact that he only ever targeted stage races. A true great would also target monuments and the worlds. Contador, in spite of his massive talent, has never done that. That is a terrible shame, I believe.

Well, I don't think people in the future will care about that because racing is so specialised now. Of course, if he somehow won a big one-day race, it would seal his place in the history of the sport, but I don't think he really needs it.

He has the qualities to at least have a good shot at Lombardia, and some of the Worlds we saw the past 10 years were also within his reach. That's why I think it's a damn shame he didn't even try. Nibali did, Valverde did, even Cadel Evans did - all with success.

These riders are miles ahead of Contador in terms of one-day racing. He simply hasn't got the quality for that races

Well, more imporant is that they are all at least one level (Nibali), or two levels (Valverde, Evans) below AC in GT racing. It is simply so and it makes sense, in Valverde's case I very long didn't understand why did he even try to do well in GT, but let's face it: apart from us, the hardcore fans, people only know Tour de France and a bit Giro and a little little bit Vuelta and Paris-Roubaix.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Why have you wondered why Valverde targeted GT's? Without his ban, and without focusing 100% on TdF, he could easily have won 3 Vueltas. Easily. He is a superb stage racer, especially in the Vuelta. The problem with him was the illusion about winning the Tour, I think especially after beating Armstrong in 2005. Then two DNF's and mediocre performances in 07 and 08.

 

[Angliru]

Re:

Why have you wondered why Valverde targeted GT's? Without his ban, and without focusing 100% on TdF, he could easily have won 3 Vueltas. Easily. He is a superb stage racer, especially in the Vuelta. The problem with him was the illusion about winning the Tour, I think especially after beating Armstrong in 2005. Then two DNF's and mediocre performances in 07 and 08.

There's an excellent article/interview with Valverde in the latest Soigneur magazine. A very revealing, in depth look into his motivations. Expensive as hell though ($30.00)!!

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

Why have you wondered why Valverde targeted GT's? Without his ban, and without focusing 100% on TdF, he could easily have won 3 Vueltas. Easily. He is a superb stage racer, especially in the Vuelta. The problem with him was the illusion about winning the Tour, I think especially after beating Armstrong in 2005. Then two DNF's and mediocre performances in 07 and 08.

There's an excellent article/interview with Valverde in the latest Soigneur magazine. A very revealing, in depth look into his motivations. Expensive as hell though ($30.00)!!

Not really worth, but sounds interesting! Make a PDF (I assume you have it)

 

[Atwood]

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

 

[Nick C.]

Remember Valverde finished 3rd and 4th in the Vuelta in 2003 and 2004 after pulling out/abandoning as a neo-pro in 2002. I think he featured in an attack over the top of the Poggio that came to naught @ 2005 or so. He was the next big thing, along with Popovych, who was doing the same in the Giro, when the Tour began in 2005. Once Basso, Ullrich and Vino were prohibited form starting the Tour in 2006, he became a favorite, rather than a "let's see what he can do." Getting passed or nearly passed by Rasmussen in a TT in 2007 was pretty much the end of any thoughts that he would compete for a Tour. Around that time he started to feature in Liege and Purito, if I recall correctly, was an excellent foil.

 

[loge1884]

purely based on (weighted) results:
1. Contador
2. Cancellara
3. Valverde
4. Boonen

Valverde could catch up with Spartacus, but he would need some serious results ....

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

purely based on (weighted) results:
1. Contador
2. Cancellara
3. Valverde
4. Boonen

Valverde could catch up with Spartacus, but he would need some serious results ....

Boonen has 4 more Monument wins and was World Champion on the road in 2005. That one Vuelta win of Valverde can't possibly close the enormous gap between their palmares.

As for other classics, he won the following:

- Gent-Wevelgem (2004, 2011, 2012)
- E3 Harelbeke (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012)

Semi-classics:

- Kuurne-Brussel-Kuurne (2007, 2009, 2014)
- Dwars door Vlaanderen (2007)
- Scheldeprijs (2004, 2006)
- Paris-Brussels (2012)

Boonen has even stood more on the podium in Paris than Valverde:

- Won the Champs-Elysées sprint in 2004
- Won the Green Jersey in 2007 (which I do rate higher than coming second or third in the Tour GC)

There are only two, maybe three, notable races missing on Boonen's palmares (that a rider of his capabilities can win):

- Milan-San Remo: stood on the podium twice.
- Omloop het Nieuwsblad: there's still next year.
- Paris-Tours: came second once.

Although a Giro stage would also have been nice.

 

[loge1884]

Boonen 4th in that list is what I remember from my very own Excel-Sheet list of Top500 riders of all time (based on their results in all bigger races (personally I would cheer more for Boonen than for Valverde, but that is not my point here) .... but I'll give you more details tomorrow, when I have the sheet at hand ....

 

[Mr.White]

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

 

[El Pistolero]

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.

 

[Angliru]

Re: Re:

Why have you wondered why Valverde targeted GT's? Without his ban, and without focusing 100% on TdF, he could easily have won 3 Vueltas. Easily. He is a superb stage racer, especially in the Vuelta. The problem with him was the illusion about winning the Tour, I think especially after beating Armstrong in 2005. Then two DNF's and mediocre performances in 07 and 08.

There's an excellent article/interview with Valverde in the latest Soigneur magazine. A very revealing, in depth look into his motivations. Expensive as hell though ($30.00)!!

Not really worth, but sounds interesting! Make a PDF (I assume you have it)

I really thought about plopping down the $30 but instead just plopped down in one of the book stores comfy chairs and read the article and skimmed through the mag while I was there. I just couldn't justify spending $30 for that. Now if it were RIDE magazine out of Australia I likely would've bought it on the spot!

 

[Hugo Koblet]

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