Richard Carapaz discussion thread

Page 27 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
Be fair with your comparisons, Froome and Quintana were at their top level for a pretty similar period, Nairo was just younger when it started.

I think the advantage Carapaz has over Quintana is that finishing kick. Quintana at his best could ride people off his wheel up a steep incline, but he never had the acceleration that Carapaz has; it’s won him stages at the Giro and Vuelta, it was a part of how he got the gap in Tokyo, it gives him options, in attack and defending a lead, that Nairo never had.

I can see Carapaz winning a monument. Less so Quintana.
 
Carapaz won his Giro based on getting a gap while everyone waited for someone else to close him down.

After that stage, Movistar, for once, got their tactics absolutely perfect and leveraged the fact that they had the 2 best climbers in the race to extend his lead and secure the win.

Luck happens when opportunity meets preparation, and Carapaz took his opportunity with both hands.
 
I doubt that Carapaz went all out in the last TT.

And on the San Carlo stage all the looking around was rather likely on the last climb, so being strong enough to get the gap on the San Carlo and then extend it on the downhill was a bit more than luck for me. Or IOW, Carapaz fully deserved to benefit from his own strength vis a vis riders who came to the last climb in a group and were not confident enough to give a full on chase.
 
He was the best climber, but the weakest TTer of the three on the podium. It would be easier to assess overall strength if everyone went full gas on all the decisive stages (which goes in both directions).
But they didn't, and Im frankly sick and tired of the debate regarding that race. To me, Carapaz winning had absolutely nothing lucky about it. He won that race fair and square against a bit past his prime Nibali and a pretty tired Roglic.
 
But they didn't, and Im frankly sick and tired of the debate regarding that race. To me, Carapaz winning had absolutely nothing lucky about it. He won that race fair and square against a bit past his prime Nibali and a pretty tired Roglic.
Agreed that he won absolutely fair and square, and I too wouldn't categorise Nibali being an idiot too obsessed with Roglič as luck -- that's just not the same as Carapaz therefore necessarily being the overall strongest rider.
 
Be fair with your comparisons, Froome and Quintana were at their top level for a pretty similar period, Nairo was just younger when it started.

I think the advantage Carapaz has over Quintana is that finishing kick. Quintana at his best could ride people off his wheel up a steep incline, but he never had the acceleration that Carapaz has; it’s won him stages at the Giro and Vuelta, it was a part of how he got the gap in Tokyo, it gives him options, in attack and defending a lead, that Nairo never had.

I can see Carapaz winning a monument. Less so Quintana.
Not sure about him winning a monument but it would have to be Lombardy or Liege but I think he will win more grand tours and he's definitely more versatile than Quintana and with a better TT which also helps in today's grand tours. The days of pure climbers riding away from the field in the mountains are pretty much over and the gaps at the top of GC are generally closer than they used to be, even though every so often you will get a Pogacar or Nibali type Tour result.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
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.
Nibali like Schleck in the 2011 Tour, tried to turn it into a match race with Roglic. Pre Tour Shleck only talked about Contador as a big rival for the win. For all of his so called race craft Nibali messed up while Schleck was always a tactical dwarf with natural talent and a fear of descents which Evans also took good advantage of on the Gap stage.
 
Dumoulin crashing out. 0 luck
Roglic getting ill. 0 luck.
Nibali completely misreading the race. 0 luck.
Landa losing time after the stage 4 crash and riding a disastrous ITT so he ends up working for Carapaz. 0 luck.
Queen stage being nerfed due to weather conditions. 0 luck.

Carapaz was likely on average the best climber in the 2019 Giro. And I don't argue that he's an undeserved or an unworthy winner either. But categorically arguing there was 0 luck is honestly a ridiculous position.
 
Reactions: Eeslliw
Dumoulin crashing out. 0 luck
Roglic getting ill. 0 luck.
Nibali completely misreading the race. 0 luck.
Landa losing time after the stage 4 crash and riding a disastrous ITT so he ends up working for Carapaz. 0 luck.
Queen stage being nerfed due to weather conditions. 0 luck.

Carapaz was likely on average the best climber in the 2019 Giro. And I don't argue that he's an undeserved or an unworthy winner either. But categorically arguing there was 0 luck is honestly a ridiculous position.
Luck is very important part of life, without it you can achieve only death. That's unlucky...:p

But luck is also reinforced by good preparation and willingness to grab chances when they appear.
 
Carapaz vs Quintana. Maybe Quintana's quick decline has led to people forgetting how good he was from 2013 to 2017. Carapaz might end up with a better career but he's already 28. Winning more GTs than Quintana? That's a tough ask. Only 2 active cyclists have won more than 2 GTs. And Carapaz is pretty far behind in top-level one-week races, too. I also don't think the Olympics translates well to potential success in other one-day races.
 
Dumoulin crashing out. 0 luck
Roglic getting ill. 0 luck.
Nibali completely misreading the race. 0 luck.
Landa losing time after the stage 4 crash and riding a disastrous ITT so he ends up working for Carapaz. 0 luck.
Queen stage being nerfed due to weather conditions. 0 luck.

Carapaz was likely on average the best climber in the 2019 Giro. And I don't argue that he's an undeserved or an unworthy winner either. But categorically arguing there was 0 luck is honestly a ridiculous position.
Ok then, do you mind going over the last 10 years of GTs and analyzing them the same way? Cause I can guarantee you that you will end up with the same conclusion - that the winner was 'lucky'. So I guess he was lucky, but what does it matter when every god damn winner of the big GTs can be considered 'lucky' if those are our criteria?

Also, that last sentence. Likely the best climber? No, he was the best climber hands down which was THE biggest reason he won the race. Which wasn't luck.
 
Dumoulin crashing out. 0 luck
Roglic getting ill. 0 luck.
Nibali completely misreading the race. 0 luck.
Landa losing time after the stage 4 crash and riding a disastrous ITT so he ends up working for Carapaz. 0 luck.
Queen stage being nerfed due to weather conditions. 0 luck.

Carapaz was likely on average the best climber in the 2019 Giro. And I don't argue that he's an undeserved or an unworthy winner either. But categorically arguing there was 0 luck is honestly a ridiculous position.
Are you seriously including "Landa riding a bad TT" in the "luck" category? You type that with a straight face?
 
Ok then, do you mind going over the last 10 years of GTs and analyzing them the same way? Cause I can guarantee you that you will end up with the same conclusion - that the winner was 'lucky'. So I guess he was lucky, but what does it matter when every god damn winner of the big GTs can be considered 'lucky' if those are our criteria?

Also, that last sentence. Likely the best climber? No, he was the best climber hands down which was THE biggest reason he won the race. Which wasn't luck.
Always a degree of luck involved obviously, but riders have won GTs with comparatively bad luck recently as well.

Fact is still that he gained more time by tactical blundering of opponents and crashing than the eventual time gap he won by and after that he didn't need to really attack anymore.
Are you seriously including "Landa riding a bad TT" in the "luck" category? You type that with a straight face?
You ignored the Puccio crash. And unless Landa rides a disastrous TT each and every single time there is still an element of randomness and let's say bad luck to be avoided at least.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Dumoulin crashing out. 0 luck
Roglic getting ill. 0 luck.
Nibali completely misreading the race. 0 luck.
Landa losing time after the stage 4 crash and riding a disastrous ITT so he ends up working for Carapaz. 0 luck.
Queen stage being nerfed due to weather conditions. 0 luck.

Carapaz was likely on average the best climber in the 2019 Giro. And I don't argue that he's an undeserved or an unworthy winner either. But categorically arguing there was 0 luck is honestly a ridiculous position.
Carapaz was as lucky in that giro as Roglic was in LBL (as in jackpot lucky). Most ppl didn't know Carapaz was going to be that strong. Now he's consistently strong and a very exciting rider.
 
Oh yes, Jackpot lucky, hence why nobody came even close to putting him in difficulty?
Nibali dropped him on Civiglio and without Landa on Mortirolo (nevermind Gavia was cut from that stage) maybe the outcome could have been different. But yes, Landa was there and by the time Nibali needed to put him in difficulty it was too late since he allowed Carapaz to gain THREE MINUTES PLUS in two stages while arguing with Roglic in one and being 17 seconds behind Carapaz on the descent from San Carlo then inexplicably waiting for an exhausted Caruso to chase for him and the bunch of hangers-on.

In Nibali's defence I'd say nobody in his right mind would chase on Lago Serru the second captain of Movistar (if it ever was declared like that), a rider who's only result was a lucky 4th in last Giro while Roglic, number one rival was at that time almost 2 minutes in front. When he arrived and realized the time he lost to Carapaz we were blessed with the visionary statement:

"Roglic is well placed overall but if he continues to ride like that he won't win this Giro. I won't win it too but neither will he."

He made sure his prophecy is fulfilled in the next stage. As for Carapaz, he made most of what an outsider can do, surprise the favourites and in Nibali's case it was the second GT he lost by focusing on the wrong guys until it was too late. This doesn't mean that Carapaz and Horner were not worthy winners, they crossed the line first and that's it. Over.
 
Jul 7, 2021
26
45
130
This will also be my last post on this subject as I consider this tiresome. Lumping together stage 13 and 14 together is just being dishonest. The "looking at each other" argument can be made for stage 14 but not for a MTF like stage 13. It was apparent that Nibali and Roglic had not the form/strength to stay with Carapaz that day. I remember that stage pretty well. In particular Roglic worked hard to try to cut the deficit and Nibali attacked late.

Valvi.piti already highlighted the inconsistencies in regards to the perception of this GT on this forums. I have recently registered here but this seems to be one GT contested to no end. We all are subject to our own biases and but let the man have his glory. Roglic and Nibali have their place secured as two of the very best riders of their generation and not winning this Giro does not phase that. Still this Giro was not bestowed on Carapaz by Nibali and Roglic but he won it fair and square by clearly being the best climber in the race. So everybody who after more than 2 years (!) is still not able to cope with this fact should take a step back and consider if he reevaluated the GT wins of his/her favorite rider with the same scrutiny.

Back to topic: I assume Pogacar to win 5-6 GT in the next 3 years so I don't expect Carapaz to add to his total and the he will reach the tail end of his prime.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Back to topic: I assume Pogacar to win 5-6 GT in the next 3 years so I don't expect Carapaz to add to his total and the he will reach the tail end of his prime.
How? I think he wins a lot (assuming he finishes them without incident), but averaging 2 a year for 3 years seems a stretch, only 2 people have won 2 in a year in the last 20 years.
 
Reactions: Eeslliw

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS