Richard Carapaz discussion thread

Page 28 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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
Jul 29, 2021
123
178
530
Hi, new user here.
It is a pity that a thread on such a great rider spends so much time arguing he shouldn't have won the Giro.I sometimes feel that South Americans and specially an Ecuadorian like Carapaz get less credit than riders from more traditional cycling nations. There are very few GT's where we can say someone won without any luck, what about 2016 Giro or 2014 Tour? And ever since Carapaz showed how a world class he is, in my view today after the Slovenians he's the best GT rider around. Let's not forget that in 2020 Vuelta Roglic won through bonus seconds, on the road he finished behind Richie, and also with a big help of Movistar. So they basically traded GT's here.
 
Jul 7, 2021
26
45
130
Of course it can. Unless you think they were weaker than Majka.
Sigh... the intelligent dishonesty in this thread is reaching levels that are hard to tolerate.

I will try one last time:
The output of a rider on a given stageis the result of complex, multi-causal function often amplifying already volatile input and so resulting in a certain performance variance.
You on the other hand seem to perceive cycling through a very simple form a regression based one or very few data points (for a riders performance ).

Translation: you treat some 30-odd seconds gap to another rider as a benchmark for others riders in the race. That only works if you assume a level of consistency of performance that you will not be able to support through data when arguing about sports. Obviously this will lead to your though process where the only explanation for a generally weaker rider like Majka outperforming Nibali/Roglic is that "they did not want to perform better".

I cannot tell if you applicate this way of thinking because fits your prefered narrative more or if you just don't know better. But unless you try to grasp these concepts there is no common ground to engage in any meaningful discussion and quiet frankly not worth my time.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
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.
Agree!

But not really that surprising to me that mainly the Nibali fans arguing for the opposite. Its tiring to listen to how Nibali gifted Carapaz loads of minutes and how he could have known a little brown farmer boy from Equador was good at cycling etc etc, but it is what is is.

To most watching that race, the strongest rider won.
 
Sigh... the intelligent dishonesty in this thread is reaching levels that are hard to tolerate.

I will try one last time:
The output of a rider on a given stageis the result of complex, multi-causal function often amplifying already volatile input and so resulting in a certain performance variance.
You on the other hand seem to perceive cycling through a very simple form a regression based one or very few data points (for a riders performance ).

Translation: you treat some 30-odd seconds gap to another rider as a benchmark for others riders in the race. That only works if you assume a level of consistency of performance that you will not be able to support through data when arguing about sports. Obviously this will lead to your though process where the only explanation for a generally weaker rider like Majka outperforming Nibali/Roglic is that "they did not want to perform better".

I cannot tell if you applicate this way of thinking because fits your prefered narrative more or if you just don't know better. But unless you try to grasp these concepts there is no common ground to engage in any meaningful discussion and quiet frankly not worth my time.
It could have happened that Majka were to be stronger than Nibali on a MTF in that Giro, but watching the stage it was clear that Nibali was no weaker than Majka but was caught in a starring contest with Roglič. To deny that the latter happened and to suggest that the time gaps on that stage were down to strength alone is laughable.

But in your more nuanced and complex understanding of cycling, I take it that Menchov and Samu were also stronger than Andy and Contador on Ax-3 in 2010?
 
Hi, new user here.
It is a pity that a thread on such a great rider spends so much time arguing he shouldn't have won the Giro.I sometimes feel that South Americans and specially an Ecuadorian like Carapaz get less credit than riders from more traditional cycling nations. There are very few GT's where we can say someone won without any luck, what about 2016 Giro or 2014 Tour? And ever since Carapaz showed how a world class he is, in my view today after the Slovenians he's the best GT rider around. Let's not forget that in 2020 Vuelta Roglic won through bonus seconds, on the road he finished behind Richie, and also with a big help of Movistar. So they basically traded GT's here.
On the other hand, He should have won the 2020 Vuelta!!! :D
 
Reactions: Rollthedice
Sigh... the intelligent dishonesty in this thread is reaching levels that are hard to tolerate.

I will try one last time:
The output of a rider on a given stageis the result of complex, multi-causal function often amplifying already volatile input and so resulting in a certain performance variance.
You on the other hand seem to perceive cycling through a very simple form a regression based one or very few data points (for a riders performance ).

Translation: you treat some 30-odd seconds gap to another rider as a benchmark for others riders in the race. That only works if you assume a level of consistency of performance that you will not be able to support through data when arguing about sports. Obviously this will lead to your though process where the only explanation for a generally weaker rider like Majka outperforming Nibali/Roglic is that "they did not want to perform better".

I cannot tell if you applicate this way of thinking because fits your prefered narrative more or if you just don't know better. But unless you try to grasp these concepts there is no common ground to engage in any meaningful discussion and quiet frankly not worth my time.
What I think is really going on here is some positions taken in an argument get categorically misrepresented and countered with absolute blanket statements that are somewhat ridiculous.

When there's 3 big acts of chance that go his way, I think it's dishonest to say he had no good luck. And nobody is claiming he wasn't strong or that he's a *** rider or that he was an unworthy winner, but that also has no bearing on luck. Meanwhile, when you bring up Roglic and Nibali looking at each other it seems treated as "yeah they could've followed Carapaz" which is a strawman or it gets handwaved away with "doesn't matter was stronger climber", to which your entire argument applies that you can't extrapolate that to all mountain stages in that Giro.

He lost like 2'30 or more in ITTs. He climbed better on average. Was it 2'30 better? I woudln't know. And neither does anyone with any large degree of certainty. So arguing that there in fact was a degree of uncertainty isn't exactly ridiculous.

Agree!

But not really that surprising to me that mainly the Nibali fans arguing for the opposite. Its tiring to listen to how Nibali gifted Carapaz loads of minutes and how he could have known a little brown farmer boy from Equador was good at cycling etc etc, but it is what is is.

To most watching that race, the strongest rider won.
But offering 0 actual arguments beyond basic fallacies does not tire does it? So in this discussion I have a fairly decent grasp of who's engaging in any constructive way.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
Jul 7, 2021
26
45
130
Well after rereading my last post, I have to concur that my tone was unnecessarily harsh and rather detrimental to the point I was trying to make. Therefore I offer you my apology, Netserk and hope you accept. I don't think that your perception of cycling is generally any more simple than mine. Some things just tend to trigger me.

Nontheless my point still stands that referring Majka as some baseline for Nibali's/Roglic's normal performance does not hold much weight for me. In the end we can only agree to disagree on this but my perception that day was that neither guy was at their best that day and they really had to pace themselves for the late rally during the last 2-3 km. For my this stage was fundamentally different from stage 14. Further Carapaz was not taking any risks on that last itt.

I never proclaimed "zero luck" included, but as stated before you will always need a bit of that.
I register that you don't consider the Nibali/Roglic thing as the sole or biggest contributor to the GT result, but quiet frankly I does not often appear that way. I personally would suggest to let it rest after 2+ years and let Carapaz have his deserved glory. Otherwise it will just stir the already tired discussions and I think we all will find a more valuable use of our time.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I don't know if it's because Carapaz is from Ecuador. I guess it's more that there aren't many Spanish-speaking members here and those that are are often Movistar-fans who are no longer in love with Carapaz... Instead, there's a huge bunch of hardcore Nibali and Roglic fans here... so, not really a wonder they don't appreciate Carapaz that much ;)
Then there are quite some British Ineos fans here, but I have a feeling they prefer a British rider like Pidcock...
I think in general Carapaz gets some love and respect, but stays underrated, which is in part due to where he's from and who he's racing for, but partly due to the way he races, a bit unpredictable and taking advantage of situations, instead of for instance doing superior time trials or outclimbing everyone despite them doing everything to prevent it.
He does have his strengths, a good punch, a really good climbing level, an attacking spirit, and he's also a good descender, but I suppose he will never be a truely dominant rider. That being said I think Nibali for instance has never been a dominant rider either, so actually Carapaz would deserve a few more fans.

As to his Giro win, it was both lucky and strong, hardly anybody wins a GT without luck, even when someone wins a GT in the dominant way Pogacar just did people come and say "but if Roglic had been at his best"... It sure wasn't a fluke.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Jul 29, 2021
123
178
530
Instead, there's a huge bunch of hardcore Nibali and Roglic fans here... so, not really a wonder they don't appreciate Carapaz that much ;)
I'm more of a Roglic fan than a Carapaz fan, but his tenacious challange of 2020 Vuelta only made me admire him. Rogla was clearly tired and Carapaz made it very hard for him, much harder than 19 vuelta.

but partly due to the way he races, a bit unpredictable and taking advantage of situations, instead of for instance doing superior time trials or outclimbing everyone despite them doing everything to prevent it.
He's a sneaky and smart rider, feigns and attacks, never in a domineering froomishy style, which I personally hate. I love his style, perhaps not to everyone's liking. Look at the Olympic win, except during Pogacar's attack, he was always ate the leading group, but never ahead, never showing himself, only appeared when he felt McNulty's attack was the decisive one. I cannot but admire his tatical feeling, his race reading. Woods made 500 fruitless attacks, Carapaz only one.

That being said I think Nibali for instance has never been a dominant rider either, so actually Carapaz would deserve a few more fans.
Exactly. Usually there are 2 or 3 dominant riders in any given time. Today they are Primoz and Tadej. Let's say Dumoulin has a stronger engine and better legs than Carapaz, even so Carapaz has a Palmarés just as good and even may surpass him if he gets another GT win (I wouldn't bet against this).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY