The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Nobody really wins 5 tours without winning a tonne of stages, stage placings, minor jerseys, etc.
Roglic attacked at 350m to go this year and everyone said he was a fool for attacking too early.
Actually, which ranking is it?
It is a sprint because it ends in a sprint. When was the last time it wasn't decided by a sprint?
Well the principle of "it's worth less cause they just sit on their teammates and do nothing until the final 200m" is exactly the same for that race, even if it's physiologically different.
I'm quite surprised with Cancellara so far ahead of other non-GT riders of his era (and ahead of both Froome and Contador!). In the CQ rankings, Cancellara always scored low, but here he is the 2nd best in the 21st century (behind Valverde, I presume). And CQ has almost the same weight given to TT championships. Strade Bianche is clearly overrated here (especially the first two wins of Canc), but that should only make a very minor difference (10 pts).
How would you define a sprint then? How steep must the finish be to not be included in the sprint category? Is Champs Elysees a sprint stage then?
Boonen was not a pure sprinter, but a puncheur with an excellent sprint. But he was outclassed by Cancellara when push came to shove, whose motor was just bigger. Of course winning is part of cycling, but not every win is equal to others. Only two or three teems can have a potential Tour winner on their rosters. All the other teams have to make due with the resources they have to try and get wins in situations outside GC, which is why the overall winner is the most accomplished rider in the peloton, against whom all others are awarded their relative status and merits. But the king is the king.
No, but the Tour is the Tour. Or do you not think the Tour winner is not the biggest among the Bigs? To make things more obvious, Tour winners, because they are such gifted and special riders have in the history of cycling also been capable of winning the Giro and Vuelta, the classics, World's, PN, TA. So for me the difference is among the riders who can win some of the other races, but not the Tour, which demonstrates a limit in their greatness. That's it. Of course, cycling is not just the Tour, but the French race is a pretty massive trump card when set against the careers of riders with excellent palmares who have not won it.
See my last post. I agree with you, but as I wrote the Tour is just the most prestigious accomplishment in cycling. All those riders were greats. Moser was a great rider, but Hinault was greater. Kelly was a great rider, but Lemond was greater. Bettini was a great rider, but Ullrich was greater.
Hinault was greater than Moser
Guess the stage finish (from inrng):
Guess the stage finish (from inrng):
The Finish: another city finish to cheer, previous arrivals in [...] have been outside town/ But before the city comes into sight there’s a climb at the 8km to go point. 1.5km at 5% sounds like nothing but remember after 230km it’s a touch more but it’s no Poggio either, just a small drag. There’s a fast descent between 3km and 2km to go then the road flattens out briefly. It drops again, 500m at 4% and a crash risk given the speed but the road is very wide. With 1km to go they cross the Vienne river on a wide bridge and from here there’s 750m to the finish, the road rises at 5-6% all the way to the line.
Fair enough, we all have our own definitions. You wouldn't categorize the Worlds in Copenhagen won by Cavendish ahead of Goss and Greipel in a 82 man peloton was a sprint then?
When Hushovd was first over the line (ahead of Rojas) among the riders in the peloton on Mont des Alouettes, was that not decided in a sprint?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram