Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread

Page 993 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The notion that it's generally more difficult to dominate in a bigger sample of professional riders is pretty straighforward to understand. Take the largest out of 300 random numbers and the largest out of 3000. The level required to dominate the larger group is higher with a very high probability. National champions hardly ever become world champions etc. If Pogacar had to rival only guys from Slovenia and Italy (for instance) his dominance would be absurd even in 2021-2023. Not saying that he's greater than Merckx (Eddy's achievement advantage is too obvious for now) but this factor definitely accounts for something. Merckx is the GOAT but IMO Pogacar has the best level ever.
Exactly and only logical. Very good post and you're obviously right. We measure the best by w/kg, FTP, climbing numbers, aerobic engine, power-to-weight, how people manage their lactic acid, etc, etc, etc.
In general, everything that actually is measurable in performance numbers is what defines best. (It's not fair, but it's factual, and describes best and literally the objective meaning of what it is.) It isnt based on alternative things which are impossible to define and are infact undisputable.

What defines greatness, which is entirely different, is wins. It's not hard to separate the two really. And if some people don't differentiate the two for whatever reason, who cares. It doesn't change anything and still two different things and it's just facts. And you don't have to be a fan or whatever of him to say it, it's common sense. He currently is the best to ever sit on a bike by every measurable performance number there is, and it isn't even close.

His 24 season is also the single greatest season of all time btw. But its to early but it also account for something taking into account the era indeed, hes still only 26 and alot more to do first, lets see. All that topic is subjective, best however is facts and measurable, its easy stuff.
 
Exactly and only logical. Very good post and you're obviously right. We measure the best by w/kg, FTP, climbing numbers, aerobic engine, power-to-weight, how people manage their lactic acid, etc, etc, etc.
In general, everything that actually is measurable in performance numbers is what defines best. (It's not fair, but it's factual, and describes best and literally the objective meaning of what it is.) It isnt based on alternative things which are impossible to define and are infact undisputable.

What defines greatness, which is entirely different, is wins. It's not hard to separate the two really. And if some people don't differentiate the two for whatever reason, who cares. It doesn't change anything and still two different things and it's just facts. And you don't have to be a fan or whatever of him to say it, it's common sense. He currently is the best to ever sit on a bike by every measurable performance number there is, and it isn't even close.

His 24 season is also the single greatest season of all time btw. But its to early but it also account for something taking into account the era indeed, hes still only 26 and alot more to do first, lets see. All that topic is subjective, best however is facts and measurable, its easy stuff.
You can't compare numbers between Pogacar and Merckx. Technology plays a relevant role in favouring Pogacar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snipeheem
What defines greatness, which is entirely different, is wins. It's not hard to separate the two really. And if some people don't differentiate the two for whatever reason, who cares. It doesn't change anything and still two different things and it's just facts. And you don't have to be a fan or whatever of him to say it, it's common sense.
And what does the "G" stand for in GOAT?

It's a distinction mostly ignored by his fans in this thread.
 
And what does the "G" stand for in GOAT?

It's a distinction mostly ignored by his fans in this thread.
Who said greatness stands for wins or any other objective metric?

One can make narrowly bound statements like the "most winning at X race or combination of races" or "highest recorded (estimated) w/kg" on X climb etc. The rest is just wordsoup of personal judgement.
 
He is spending a lot of his training in Cipressa. He is obsessed.

Tadej Pogacar rides with Philippe Gilbert's son
"Tadej Pogacar recently filled Alan with happiness. Despite his 14th birthday, the young cycling enthusiast already has a solid knowledge of the environment, inherited from his father, the Belgian legend Philippe Gilbert. On Instagram, he surprised everyone by sharing photos of his training alongside the Slovenian champion and his girlfriend Urska zigart, arousing a lot of interest on social media."


86667_3.jpg
 
Statistically speaking, there should be hundreds if not thousands of better writers than Shakespeare today, so he can't be in contention for GOAT.
Well. It is often assumed that, statistically speaking, there should be better writers than Shakespeare today. However, this assumption does not necessarily hold statistically.

Shakespeare emerged from a historical pool of well over 20-30 billion people who have lived since writing was invented. This is far greater than today's population of 8 billion. The key question is ofc how many of these had the opportunity to write at a high level. The talent pool at any given moment is larger today than at any point in history, but not necessarily when considering all of human history combined.

Also, exceptional talent is not evenly or randomly distributed. Assuming that more people automatically lead to more genius writes relies on a linear probability model, which may not apply to very very rare abilities.

Society, technology, and cultural values also influence creative expression, meaning that the conditions that produced Shakespeare may not be as common or relevant today. Beyond statistics, Shakespeare’s legacy is not just about writing skill but also about impact. Many modern writers may be superior, but cultural and historical factors determine how they are perceived today (as much less great).
 
Last edited:
Tadej Pogacar rides with Philippe Gilbert's son
"Tadej Pogacar recently filled Alan with happiness. Despite his 14th birthday, the young cycling enthusiast already has a solid knowledge of the environment, inherited from his father, the Belgian legend Philippe Gilbert. On Instagram, he surprised everyone by sharing photos of his training alongside the Slovenian champion and his girlfriend Urska zigart, arousing a lot of interest on social media."


86667_3.jpg
People's champion. I still remember when Cav was in the Tour and broke Merckx's record and his son was more excited to see Pogacar.
 
A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave; a whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service; and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir of a mongrel b*tch; one whom I will beat into clamorous whining if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.

Nobody does it better, before or since, they call him the Eddy Merckx of English Literature, the GOAT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Well. It is often assumed that, statistically speaking, there should be better writers than Shakespeare today. However, this assumption does not necessarily hold statistically.

Shakespeare emerged from a historical pool of well over 20-30 billion people who have lived since writing was invented. This is far greater than today's population of 8 billion. The key question is ofc how many of these had the opportunity to write at a high level. The talent pool at any given moment is larger today than at any point in history, but not necessarily when considering all of human history combined.

Also, exceptional talent is not evenly or randomly distributed. Assuming that more people automatically lead to more genius writes relies on a linear probability model, which may not apply to very very rare abilities.

Society, technology, and cultural values also influence creative expression, meaning that the conditions that produced Shakespeare may not be as common or relevant today. Beyond statistics, Shakespeare’s legacy is not just about writing skill but also about impact. Many modern writers may be superior, but cultural and historical factors determine how they are perceived today (as much less great).
Fernando Pessoa is the best writer ever. I invite everyone to read his poems. He was fluent in English too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pozzovivo