Rider with the best palmares relative to their ability?

[Parrulo]

it still amazes me how did bert grabsh won the worlds.

wasn't the same year when sven stuft was third?

 

[Christian]

I'd say Stijn Devolder

/edit: and Damiano Cunego

 

[ultimobici]

Ludo Dierckxsens.

There has to be a massive "what if?" about his career. He was 30 when he jacked in his job at Daf spraying trucks to turn Pro. Maybe that is why he rode the way he did.

 

[ultimobici]

I'd put Cunego on that list. That he has a GT on his palmares seems pretty flukey.

Not really when you're a virtual unknown on the main threat's team. Gives you a bit of a free pass to attack and get a gap.

 

[roundabout]

Not really when you're a virtual unknown on the main threat's team. Gives you a bit of a free pass to attack and get a gap.

As far as i remember Cunego was pretty hyped up even before 2004.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

And he had just won the Giro del Trentino in dominant fashion.

 

[nobilis]

it still amazes me how did bert grabsh won the worlds.

wasn't the same year when sven stuft was third?

Yeah in 2008, but without Cancellara.
Tuft finished 2nd despite a bike change for a flat tire.

 

[ultimobici]

As far as i remember Cunego was pretty hyped up even before 2004.

While he had won Trentino in April he was a third year pro who had only just started to show his ability at that level. He had not won anything significant in his first two seasons, although he was Junior World Champion in 1999.

But being on defending champion Simoni's team meant that he would not be the main threat at all. All eyes would be on the previous year's Maglia Rosa rather than Cunego. How would they know that he'd stick the boot into Simoni for them?

 

[MADRAZO]

Rolf Sorensen had a very good career and was never the strongest or fastest in any of the races he won. He'd be my pick.

 

[sublimit]

Actually, you could argue Sean Kelly. Wasnt the greatest sprinter around, wasnt a particularly good climber, average time triallist, but won just about everything.

He could sprint in his early days.. Sort of like an early Hushovd but with a better TT, Climbing skills.

2 x M-S-R, 2 x Paris- Roubaix so the guy had a lot of natural class not just lucky with a late attack and hoping everybody just sits up.

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

Cavendish

No doubt his sprint is fantastic... but some would say it defies his natural abilities to make to the finish line to use it as much as he does.

Saw a story some where that British Cycling had no interest in him at all when he was young because he tested so poorly. The fact he's overcome those early predictors of his ability is pretty amazing. That or British Cycling's talent screening tests are rubbish?

Mentally, I find him to be one of the strongest riders in the sport. And its fascinating how he can mitigate his physical weaknesses in some areas of the sport and maximize his assets. His MSR win really stands out as an example of this.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Actually, you could argue Sean Kelly. Wasnt the greatest sprinter around, wasnt a particularly good climber, average time triallist, but won just about everything.

This sort of argument could be applied to almost any of the all-rounder greats of past eras, and I think misses the point that being able to do everything really well (if not as well as the best specialists) in and of itself represents a very high level of talent.

You are underestimating Kelly's abilities as a sprinter, a climber and a time triallist, by the way. An "average" time triallist does not win the GP des Nations for instance.

You don't fluke your way to Kelly's palmares.

 

[Hoop Dogg]

Bias (being an Aussie) but I'll go in the current era Cadel Evans. A mountain biker until a fair age (as far as pro cycling goes) then scored a WC, flech wallone, a few GT stages and podiums. Not too bad, especially if you consider his crack in the giro back when he was at mapei.

 

[The Hitch]

Bias (being an Aussie) but I'll go in the current era Cadel Evans. A mountain biker until a fair age (as far as pro cycling goes) then scored a WC, flech wallone, a few GT stages and podiums. Not too bad, especially if you consider his crack in the giro back when he was at mapei.

Cadel Evans = definately the opposite. A guy who has gone into 3 grand tours as the total favourite and not won one.

 

[shouldawouldacoulda]

This sort of argument could be applied to almost any of the all-rounder greats of past eras, and I think misses the point that being able to do everything really well (if not as well as the best specialists) in and of itself represents a very high level of talent.

You are underestimating Kelly's abilities as a sprinter, a climber and a time triallist, by the way. An "average" time triallist does not win the GP des Nations for instance.

You don't fluke your way to Kelly's palmares.

Agreed.

I believe Kelly won Paris-Nice seven times. He was nothing but a supreme talent who maximized his abilities in all types of races - winning hilly + cobbled classics, week long tours and Grand Tours. In his winningest season I think he had nearly 50 victories.

Too bad its out of print but the Kelly autobiography (by David Walsh I think) is one of the best cycling books of all time. It really captured the late 70's -> 80's era of pro cycling well. And you can't take anything away from reading it other than that Kelly was an absolute talent who lived a life of supreme discipline pursuing his career as a cyclist.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Yup, wanted to say Nibali and Arroyo too, but you beat me to it.
Would say Rodriguez (yes him) and Wiggins are honourable mentions. Rodriguez was pretty much always valverde's top domestique and now he had the chance to ride for himself and finishes 1 UCI ranking and top 3 CQ ranking...

ummm...
the exact reason why his palmares isn't what it should be...

 

[El Pistolero]

Meh, Rodriguez had a good season and all, but he didn't really win all that much this year and that's the only thing that matters.

UCI ranking rewards quantity over quality.

It's comparable to the tennis rankings really(at least for this year). The current number one with the women got that spot by playing a **** load of matches, but she isn't really all that good (yet) and got her *** kicked quite easily by the number 3 at the Masters.

Rodriguez also never really came close to winning in all the races he got a good placing in this year(besides perhaps Fleche Wallone)

His time trial skills make it clear he'll never win a GT, not even the Vuelta.

Don't got me wrong though, Rodriguez is a very good cyclist, but I just don't hold that much value for the UCI rankings.

 

[Epicycle]

Dirk Demol.

 

[ultimobici]

This sort of argument could be applied to almost any of the all-rounder greats of past eras, and I think misses the point that being able to do everything really well (if not as well as the best specialists) in and of itself represents a very high level of talent.

You are underestimating Kelly's abilities as a sprinter, a climber and a time triallist, by the way. An "average" time triallist does not win the GP des Nations for instance.

You don't fluke your way to Kelly's palmares.

True. To even consider Kelly's achievements a fluke is absurd. He won every Monument bar the Ronde multiple times. 2 PR, 2 MSR, 2 LBL & 3 Lombardias. His GP des Nations was won at the height of Mottet's reign when it was a valued win.

 

[boardhanger]

True. To even consider Kelly's achievements a fluke is absurd. He won every Monument bar the Ronde multiple times. 2 PR, 2 MSR, 2 LBL & 3 Lombardias. His GP des Nations was won at the height of Mottet's reign when it was a valued win.

Correct. And the only 'SPECLIZATION' Kelly did was racing from and winning from Feb to Oct.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

To be fair, dim never said that Kelly fluked his way to his palmarès - there's more than one way that somebody who isn't the best sprinter, TTer or climber can win many a race. Fluke may be one way, but when you do it as often as Kelly did that can be discarded as obviously not the case. You can do it by being tactically superb, knowing when to expend energy and when not to, and outsmarting the other riders. There were faster sprinters, more natural TTers and better climbers than Kelly in his day. But he knew what he had to do to beat all of them, and did.

 

[boardhanger]

When Kelly won the '88 Vuelta he also won the points jersey. Now thats class.

 

[simo1733]

I vote Andrei Tchmil.His gretest talent was that he was a total hard nut, as was Sean Kelly.

 

[blaxland]

I vote Andrei Tchmil.His gretest talent was that he was a total hard nut, as was Sean Kelly.

Id also like to add Sean Yates to that list...hard as nails.

 

[Praetor]

oscar freire - no doubt about it. WCS, MSR, Paris Tours etc etc etc etc etc etc

If anything, Freire is an underachiever.

He is a rare talent, combining strength with great speed. He even gets stronger and faster if the distance is longer and he needs very little time to attain great form.

Yes, 3 WC's, 3 times MSR and a green jersey are great, but with his skills, he should be equaling Zabel in green jerseys and Bettini in classic victories.

Now, he was just that guy you never saw until the final kilometer in the same couple of races for 10 years. That and he stumbled upon a green jersey in the Tour by accident.

I partly blame Rabobank for this. He got great wins for them without them having to really support him, so they let him do his thing. Great results with very little team-effort, very easy for 'em. Had they actually supported him more often (instead of Michael "born to be second" Boogerd), he might have gotten them much more.

Perhaps typical of that team, Menchov also got his grand tour wins without much help from the team, but in his case, I don't think he would have gotten even further with more support, he used that weakness as a strength by being kinda invisible and no one expected anything else from him.