Richard Carapaz discussion thread

Page 26 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Carapaz will end up with a better career than Quintana and he's much better tactically.
You're so right on this attributes to current day.
Hard to say how his whole career will go as he'll be in a box at Ineos. Next year with Bernal could be pivotal in both careers and there are plenty of new riders coming up. That could make them second tier.
His ambition may take him elsewhere and that hasn't worked out for Nairo. Comparatively Carapaz is a much better suited to the current peloton dynamics, though. His willingness to take risks has paid off but those opportunities will be fewer now that he's been in the limelight, I think. We'll find out what he's made of and what alliances he can build.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Tbh with Carapaz' luck Quintana would've won the Tour
Stop hating on Carapaz! FFS lol

BTW not a question of bad luck if A) you're racing for Movistar and B) your strongest teammate by far is predictably racing for 3rd place.

Signing for Movistar and having to deal with the consequences is not bad luck, but bad decision making.

But yes, Quintana "should have" won that year. Don't think it would have been close if Froome didn't have Sky to back him up.
 
Stop hating on Carapaz! FFS lol

BTW not a question of bad luck if A) you're racing for Movistar and B) your strongest teammate by far is predictably racing for 3rd place.

Signing for Movistar and having to deal with the consequences is not bad luck, but bad decision making.

But yes, Quintana "should have" won that year. Don't think it would have been close if Froome didn't have Sky to back him up.
Carapaz won his only GT at Movistar.

I just contest the ultimate racer trope based on what, one big win where both tactics and luck played a large role?
 
Carapaz won his only GT at Movistar.

I just contest the ultimate racer trope based on what, one big win where both tactics and luck played a large role?
If you only look at the stage results and tactics, yeah, luck played a big role. In reality, though, Roglic and, to a lesser extent, Nibali, were toast. Carapaz just didn't need to attack anymore after that, but was breathing through the nose basically. No one but Carapaz could have won that GT, IMO.
 
Carapaz won his only GT at Movistar.

I just contest the ultimate racer trope based on what, one big win where both tactics and luck played a large role?
You don't have to be an ultimate racer to get better results than Quintana, his last podium was in 2017 at the age of 27. Whatever talents he showed in the early days as a super climber haven't turned into the once predicted victories in grand tours. He's only 31 now. Froome, Nibali, Contador even Valverde were all doing much better than Quintana at the same age. A multiple grand tour winner who can't even win the KOM in a grand tour now let alone make the top 10 or win a stage. I can't think of another grand tour winner in recent times with that much talent that has dropped off so much so quickly at such an early age. Aru and Dumoulin I guess are part of a larger group of grand tour riders at the crossroads of their careers.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Jul 7, 2021
26
45
130
Tbh with Carapaz' luck Quintana would've won the Tour
I consider it inadequate to discredit another woman's or man's achievement that was built through years of hard work with one sweeping statement. Your post would be more honest if you would be so kind as to give us your definition of luck, in particular in the context of professional cycling.

My understanding ( and I would assume that of many others to) luck is the realization of one of several event that is associated with a low probability ( likewise if one or several event with high probability are not realized, etc.).
I have read here a few times now that Carapaz was "lucky, that Roglic and Nibali looked at each other".
Well, I have trouble with associating winning/losing a tactical battle with luck. I think we can all agree that Nibali and Roglic are not random number generators but rational agents in the race. When Carapaz attacked he forced the two leaders to make a hard choice in an instant. Now their reaction was basically the result of a calculus based on the following parameters:
  1. current strength at that moment
  2. estimation of strength and ability of Carapaz in that situation
  3. estimation of own ability to make up the last time on this or later stages
  4. Risk/reward of staying back/following/counterattacking
Now in hindsight we know that both probably misread the situation ( and that is assuming that they would have had the strength and 1 was not the primary reason that they stayed back). But in order to establish this as luck you would have to assume that the calculus with the same parameters would have lead to a different result if done several times and that the actual outcome was that with a lower probability attached to it. I'm not convinced of either. And Carapaz being the agent causing imposing this challenge on the two would make me even more hesitant to call it look.

Mind you, I am not saying that luck never is part of the outcome (it can even play a heavy role) but you need to try a bit harder if you want to have an honest and level debate.
 
Last edited:
Carapaz was never dropped in that Giro, the only times he did not finish in the front group was when Landa was up the road so he did not go all out.
He lost 2'04'' to Nibali in the three ITTs (and not counting bonus seconds, his net loss from crashes on stage 3 and 4 was 28''), so without the hesitation of Nibali in the penultimate weekend, the onus would have been on Carapaz to drop Nibali and take substantial time on him, not the other way around. I think that would only have been possible on stage 20, and I doubt he could have taken a minute on Nibali there if he needed to.
 
Reactions: Rollthedice

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts