Maybe we've been selling Pereiro short this whole time though.Oscar's win was the result of pure chaos and confusion, a mere fluke. The exception that confirms the rule.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!
Maybe we've been selling Pereiro short this whole time though.Oscar's win was the result of pure chaos and confusion, a mere fluke. The exception that confirms the rule.
But would you say Thomas > Cancellara/Boonen?
Still laughing a rider would give up their career for a lesser one.
Says the biggest Cipo fan here. You're insinuating that Cav or Cipo would want to have LeMond's results or they had a lesser career than LeMond just because they are sprinters, that is false. Based off what I listed, they equaled and bettered what is their overall to LeMond's. They have both achieved almost everything they wanted for the type of rider they are. Sprinters don't say they want a career like LeMond, they want one like Cav, Cipo, or Petacchi. Grand Tour riders would rather have results than others but LeMond though if they reach LeMond they are content and happy. Cav lost 4 years to sickness and injury when he could have won more.I know you are a Cav fanboy but this is silly, I want you to see how many people agree that LeMond had a lesser career than Cav or Cipo. Also, you and others frequently claim Cav is the greatest, yet this ranking has Cipo well ahead of Cav so is this system wrong or is Cipo the greatest sprinter of all time?
Remember Greg LeMond, 3 Tour Titles, 2 Podium finishes, 2 World Titles, 2 Podium finishes, A Dauphine title, Podium finishes at Milan-San Remo, L-B-L, Lombardy. A rider who could win GTs, TTs, Mountain stages, One day races yet lost his best years to injury and was never the same after.
Says the biggest Cipo fan here. You're insinuating that Cav or Cipo would want to have LeMond's results or they had a lesser career than LeMond just because they are sprinters, that is false. Based off what I listed, they equaled and bettered what is their overall to LeMond's. They have both achieved almost everything they wanted for the type of rider they are. Sprinters don't say they want a career like LeMond, they want one like Cav, Cipo, or Petacchi. Grand Tour riders would rather have results than others but LeMond though if they reach LeMond they are content and happy. Cav lost 4 years to sickness and injury when he could have won more.
Remember, they have 52 and 57 GT stages, 4 and 3 points classification, monument, Worlds, one day races, stage races for one, and wins a plenty for both of them. That is nothing to sniff out just because they are "sprinters".
Hard to compare the two with you when you constantly beat around the bush comparing the two. Based off the points he should have at the first system, Cav should be at 497, 22 behind Cipo off him winning GW. And if you don't believe that, you can ask Pantani_lives. That is not well ahead. Cipo while great, was allowed to beat up on worse Italian sprinters in races that wanted him to win, specifically the Giro. The more successful he got each year, the more sprint stages there was. It is easy to win stages when the organizers are trying to assist you. On top of having track success.
As for liking Cipo, I do not like him at all as it was him that started the whole leadout train fad.
Yes, and I am not arguing either should be in the top 20 or 30 or 40. I think they are fine where they are. Any higher and you would need to combine their results with Boonen. I'm sure that would be the most but they know what their ability is going in. Almost every rider has said their dream is a Tour de France win with others then going Worlds, Flanders, or Paris-Roubaix. So let's say Merlier when he started wasn't saying he could win Grand Tours and compete in every monument besides MSR. He would like a career like Cav or Cipo. But just because they did not have the ability to contend for Grand Tours or different monuments does not mean they had lesser careers than LeMond or Fignon and that is my point. I probably went about it the wrong way and I am sorry.We are talking about greatest cyclists, not sprinters. The races that the best cyclists want to win are the GTs, World Champs and Monuments, period. The only reason any cyclist would want to win anything else is that they do not have the talent to win the major races. Given the choice at the start of a career of being a 2/3 time Tour champion or winning a load of sprint stages, I would say 95% of cyclists would prefer to be a Tour de France Champion. Throw in winning World Titles and competing for Monuments on a regular basis and there would be even less doubt.
As for liking Cipo, I do not like him at all as it was him that started the whole leadout train fad. I just believe he was a better cyclist(that word again) and if he had applied himself like he did in 02, he would have had a much better career.
Yes, it does mean that.But just because they did not have the ability to contend for Grand Tours or different monuments does not mean they had lesser careers than LeMond or Fignon and that is my point.
Where do you think a good rank is for them?Yes, it does mean that.
[QUOTE="tobydawq, post:
Yes, and I am not arguing either should be in the top 20 or 30 or 40. I think they are fine where they are. Any higher and you would need to combine their results with Boonen. I'm sure that would be the most but they know what their ability is going in. Almost every rider has said their dream is a Tour de France win with others then going Worlds, Flanders, or Paris-Roubaix. So let's say Merlier when he started wasn't saying he could win Grand Tours and compete in every monument besides MSR. He would like a career like Cav or Cipo. But just because they did not have the ability to contend for Grand Tours or different monuments does not mean they had lesser careers than LeMond or Fignon and that is my point. I probably went about it the wrong way and I am sorry.
We could say that about a lot of cyclists unfortunately. Sometimes the ones that have all the talent, do not work as hard compared to those they are more talented than.
Your post had an "or", not an "and", as in "or different monuments".Where do you think a good rank is for them?
Does that mean Nibali had a better career than Cancellara or Boonen because they could not compete for a Grand Tour and he could compete for monuments and Grand Tours? Or Cunego?
Fair point. So in your opinion, would Gilbert be a better rider than Canc or Boonen because he has podium or won every monument compared to their three?Your post had an "or", not an "and", as in "or different monuments".
I never said they were more talent than others. Their results of what they can achieve equaled the two riders you listed in what they can achieve. This is a list of all time cyclists, not all time grand tour riders. Sprinters are cyclists. just like classic riders are still cyclists. Does that mean Cancellara and Boonen had worse careers than LeMond and Fignon considering they were well above them but never sniffed Grand Tour success. They are the two greatest sprinters. Where do you think they should rank.Where do you think a good rank is for them?
Does that mean Nibali had a better career than Cancellara or Boonen because they could not compete for a Grand Tour and he could compete for monuments and Grand Tours? Or Cunego?
So basically you are now admitting that sprinters are less talented and focus on sprinting because of that, but because they win a load of lesser races, they are somehow still equal to the true talents who win the great races that all riders dream about. Nope, they are still less talented and lesser riders.
Not necessarily, but I think it has real weight in such a comparison.Fair point. So in your opinion, would Gilbert be a better rider than Canc or Boonen because he has podium or won every monument compared to their three?
So, biased or not, I'm naturally going to see the Tour champions as a level above the classics winners, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize their greatness. I just see the Tour winners as being on a superior physiological level.
Question can be asked for me how far away GTs are from the different monuments in terms of range, and I would certainly consider GT + any monument more verstaile than a range that is cobbles + MSR. Simarly, the old Lombardia route simply wasn't very hard
Sanremo is a bigass lottery race.GT + Liege wins since 2000
6 people
Sanremo + Ronde
3 people
GT + Lombardia since 2000
4 people
Sanremo + Roubaix
2 people
number of different people who did the 'less' versatile double
3
number of different people who did the 'more' versatile double
8
No, I didn't heard World Tour riders talking how the Tour is much harder than the Giro and Vuelta. I've heard them talking how it is harder, but I also heard them talking how Giro and Vuelta are bloody hard too.
Pogacar should have more points for his Tour win than Roglic for Vuelta, but not significantly, maybe 20-30% more at most.
That's how much is the Tour value bigger than the Giro and Vuelta.
Sanremo is a bigass lottery race.
Despite the fact that you seem to go out of your way to be offensive, I'll respond to your post.Well, they're not, they're just lighter. This seems very ill-conceived and highly ignorant of the qualities of good one-day riders.
Despite the fact that you seem to go out of your way to be offensive, I'll respond to your post.
I doub't I'm highly ignorant of the qualities of pro racers, one-day riders or otherwise, having raced against a number of them in my day. Being lighter isn't the only factor in being qualified to win a grand tour, the engine has to be statospheric. Lot's of ultra light cyclists can't keep up with bigger riders on the cols, because their motors are insufficient. And being super light is often a handicap in the tts, so their goes your theory out the door. Talk about "ill-concieved and highly ignorant of the qualities". Being light is only one component among other physiological variables that make a grand tour champion. Indurain, for one thing, was not super light, but this was apparently compensated for by a stratospheric aerobic capacity and incridible power efficiency.
On my supposed high ignorance of the qualities of good one-day riders, a previous post up thread exposes that I recognize the physical gifts need to win those events.
You seem to be obsessed and rather peeved with me not considering classics specialists as being at the same level fitness necessary to win the grand tour. Well, can't do much to help you there, so you'll have to accept brooding over your own annoyance.
And I don't think its disputable that to hold such high condition over three weeks is somewhat more daunting and impressive than just being at peak on a given day, not that that isn't also very impressive.
It's a bit galling that you keep doing this, clutching your pearls and being all precious.Despite the fact that you seem to go out of your way to be offensive, I'll respond to your post.
That’s fair. I think Canc has a lot of extra weight from his Olympic and Words TT success plus bigger stage races wins. It would have been awesome to see all three against the other in their prime across the cobbled races.Not necessarily, but I think it has real weight in such a comparison.
My apologies for any offense I may have caused, but I think you should take a look in the mirror. I too find it rather galling to be told, often with a rather condescending and dissmisive tone, that I'm talking nonesense. That there may be matters to disagree about fine, but that I'm talking utter nonesense no way. But I'm not going to despute it any further.It's a bit galling that you keep doing this, clutching your pearls and being all precious.
You are by far the rudest, most patronising person in the thread. Nobody is being offensive, they are calling you out for talking nonsense. It's literally the point of a forum.