Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread

[Salvarani]

This is one of the reasons probably. If you can't win the race every year, it's value increases.

The race has value and is a big event but it is not on the same level as the GTs, monuments and WC.

History is the most important thing to take into account here, and the Olympics event for a long time was only for amateurs. Thats just a fact.

While the other races has way more history and lore to them.

 

[Shortcut]

This is one of the reasons probably. If you can't win the race every year, it's value increases.

Of course you are the one who thinks that. So if some sprinter is injured at his only chance( if they even get one) in career that should define him for his next 15 years( even if he wins everything else in those 15 years). Or some climber.. OG were won from guys who were never concidered best in their generation, so is pretty much lottery.

 

[Berflamand]

Of course you are the one who thinks that. So if some sprinter is injured at his only chance( if they even get one) in career that should define him for his next 15 years( even if he wins everything else in those 15 years). Or some climber.. OG were won from guys who were never concidered best in their generation, so is pretty much lottery.

What are the chances a sprinter wins the TdF, Lombardia or Liège?

Ofcourse not winning the Olympics won't define any riders career, not even Pogi's (or perhaps maybe only Pogi's but that's because he does win everything and can rightly be considered the GOAT). That doesn't mean it can't be considered a big win.

Actually, winning the Olympics does define most riders careers, just like winning a Monument or GT do.

I really don't follow your logic here.

 

[Berflamand]

The race has value and is a big event but it is not on the same level as the GTs, monuments and WC.

History is the most important thing to take into account here, and the Olympics event for a long time was only for amateurs. Thats just a fact.

While the other races has way more history and lore to them.

I agree that the Olympics in cycling lacks the history the other races have but for me personally that's why I rank it amongst the other big wins and not above them like in a lot of other sports where the Olympics are the true pinnacle of their sport.

 

[Salvarani]

I agree that the Olympics in cycling lacks the history the other races have but for me personally that's why I rank it amongst the other big wins and not above them like in a lot of other sports where the Olympics are the true pinnacle of their sport.

Thats your opinion.

In my opinion it is below the GTs, monuments and WC.

It is still a big event and a race thats holds great value. It is big if you win it.

However, it cant be looked at in the same way given the history of the sport and the other races.

No offense to the track guys either, but they know and are aware. The Olympics events for cycling and cycling, as a sport, are just two different entities in this matter.

 

[peterfin]

An amateur won my local hill climb last week with 6.2 w/kg for 42 minutes before adjusting for altitude.

I think he tried to go pro at some point but wasn't cut out for the demands of professional road racing, besides producing lots of watts.

The amateurs of today are better than the pro's of less than a decade ago apparantly.

 

[scribers]

This is one of the reasons probably. If you can't win the race every year, it's value increases.

Imagine how holy it would be for a mountains/classic rider if 2-3 of those ORR were a sprinter's race. Conversely, you cannot be one of the all time great sprinters if you can't win ORR

 

[YavorD]

Of course you are the one who thinks that. So if some sprinter is injured at his only chance( if they even get one) in career that should define him for his next 15 years( even if he wins everything else in those 15 years). Or some climber.. OG were won from guys who were never concidered best in their generation, so is pretty much lottery.

Wait, why would I exactly think that?

Nobody said that the Olympics defy someone's career in cycling (although it kinda does for Casartelli), but for some riders winning Olympics MAY be a very important (Pogacar said that they are a major target). So I'm not sure what are you implying here.


After all the Olympics are the biggest sporting event.

 

[YavorD]

Imagine how holy it would be for a mountains/classic rider if 2-3 of those ORR were a sprinter's race. Conversely, you cannot be one of the all time great sprinters if you can't win ORR

Nobody said that. What is it with people reading whatever they want in thes thread today?

 

[Salvarani]

Imagine how holy it would be for a mountains/classic rider if 2-3 of those ORR were a sprinter's race. Conversely, you cannot be one of the all time great sprinters if you can't win ORR

Cavendish is gutted. Track silver medal means nothing as well.

Knighthood revoked

 

[Peyroteo94]

This is one of the reasons probably. If you can't win the race every year, it's value increases.

So when LA won the TdF 7 times in a row, the Tour lost value?

 

[peterfin]

It's pretty easy to rank them:

• Olympics RR comes first because Remco has won it and Pogi hasn't
• LBL comes second because Remco has won it twice
• Worlds RR comes third because Remco has won it
• MSR and PR come joint fourth because Pogi hasn't won it
• RVV comes fifth because Pogi has won it twice
• GdL comes sixth because Pogi has won it five times

All jokes aside, personally I'd definitely rank Olympics as a big win amongst Worlds and the Monuments and I do think I already held that position even before Remco won the Olympics.

For example, Van Avermaet won PR and the Olympics but (at least in Belgium) I think he will be remembered much more for his Olympic title (as 'Gouden Greg').

I also think that if Pogi doesn't manage to win an Olympics title before retirement and he had the option to trade one of his Monument wins (let's say one of his Lombardia wins) for an Olympics title, he wouldn't doubt it for a second.

An olympic title is a very special win for sure. There are many people who know nothing about cycling but hold winning gold at the olympics in very high regard. I am pretty sure it is high on Pogacar's list too. His decision not to try to win the 2024 title remains a question mark for me. Waiting 4 years longer seems risky to me.

 

[Peyroteo94]

An amateur won my local hill climb last week with 6.2 w/kg for 42 minutes before adjusting for altitude.

I think he tried to go pro at some point but wasn't cut out for the demands of professional road racing, besides producing lots of watts.

Jesus. He is definitely better than some pros.

 

[YavorD]

So when LA won the TdF 7 times in a row, the Tour lost value?

No.

 

[scribers]

So when LA won the TdF 7 times in a row, the Tour lost value?

lol. Yes

 

[hfgon1]

To be honest. If I think about Carapaz, the first thing I think of is his Olympic Gold Medal and not his Giro win.

In case of Pogacar, the Olympics are quite irrelevant. He has won so much that the olympic gold medal doesnt decide about his legendary career. It seems like just a add-on, but that tells more about Pogacars career than about the Olympics. But I'm quite sure Pogacar would really like to win it in 2028. On the other side it is to mention that he probably would have already won the gold medal if he wouldnt have skipped Paris but this will be fiction for the rest of his career and still a discussable decision. Would be interesting if he ever regrets that decision if he wont be able to win Olympic gold.

 

[Shortcut]

To be honest. If I think about Carapaz, the first thing I think of is his Olympic Gold Medal and not his Giro win.

In case of Pogacar, the Olympics are quite irrelevant. He has won so much that the olympic gold medal doesnt decide about his legendary career. It seems like just a add-on, but that tells more about Pogacars career than about the Olympics. But I'm quite sure Pogacar would really like to win it in 2028. On the other side it is to mention that he probably would have already won the gold medal if he wouldnt have skipped Paris but this will be fiction for the rest of his career and still a discussable decision. Would be interesting if he ever regrets that decision if he wont be able to win Olympic gold.

For Carapaz it makes sense, he won OG gold medal for his country and for Equador that is huge deal. For Slovenia not so much since i always think in terms of Roglic how he won Gts and even LBL has more value than his olimpic gold. About Pogacar and skipping OG, it was really amazing decision when you think about him as a person. Not including Urska in womens team because of clear coruption is just to much. If he would still go, that would be totally backstabbing and sign of a loser mentality. Anyone who knows what trully hapenned in that case should praise Pogacar even more.

 

[Blanco]

Olympics is big for the person who wins it.

Olympics is a big thing in general.

Cycling and its history has way more depth though, than this race.

It shouldnt be spoken in the same way as GTs, monuments and WC.

It is just a separate thing. Still a big thing, but a separate thing.

Yeah, it's a separate thing, I agree, but I think it's abig thing in cycling too. If you speak, for instance, about Van Avermaet, you will say he won PR and Olympics RR out of biggest races, you won't throw in that basket races like Omloop, E3 and GW.Yes, you can mention that he won them too, but you will put them as a lesser feat.
Or Carapaz, everyone will say he's a Giro winner AND Olympic champion.
So it;s a big thing definitelly.How big, I don't know, but you could definitelly mention it together with the most biggest races of cycling.

 

[Blanco]

For Carapaz it makes sense, he won OG gold medal for his country and for Equador that is huge deal. For Slovenia not so much since i always think in terms of Roglic how he won Gts and even LBL has more value than his olimpic gold. About Pogacar and skipping OG, it was really amazing decision when you think about him as a person. Not including Urska in womens team because of clear coruption is just to much. If he would still go, that would be totally backstabbing and sign of a loser mentality. Anyone who knows what trully hapenned in that case should praise Pogacar even more.

There's a difference in winning OG in time trial and winning it in a road race. In terms of cycling though...

 

[Salvarani]

Yeah, it's a separate thing, I agree, but I think it's abig thing in cycling too. If you speak, for instance, about Van Avermaet, you will say he won PR and Olympics RR out of biggest races, you won't throw in that basket races like Omloop, E3 and GW.Yes, you can mention that he won them too, but you will put them as a lesser feat.
Or Carapaz, everyone will say he's a Giro winner AND Olympic champion.
So it;s a big thing definitelly.How big, I don't know, but you could definitelly mention it together with the most biggest races of cycling.

It is a big achievement, but it does not compare to the greatest races of this sport with all its history.

Olympics is just a separate event with its own context and history. You said it yourself "Giro winner AND Olympic champion".

It just cant be compared or viewed in the same light as the pinnacle of the sport, but can be listed as a big achievement nonetheless.

Just as the WC in football means a lot more than the Olympic gold. Other sports put a lot more value on other races and events, rather than the Olympics as well.

Like the Golf Majors means more than winning the gold at the Olympics.

Because of history and tradition of the different sports.

For some sports it is biggest you can win, in some sports it will just never be.
For the individual that wins it will definitely be a big achievement for many reasons, but thats not what was argued.

 

[Shortcut]

There's a difference in winning OG in time trial and winning it in a road race. In terms of cycling though...

Exactly, that is argument i was waiting for, since everybody is saying that OG gold (!!)means something special, even though that never meant anything in cycling. The same goes for RR and TT difference (as you said it). So if it is about OG then gold should be equal if you got on TT or RR, but if it is about history of cycling then OGRR in terms of greatness doesn't mean much.

 

[Cycling111]

To be honest. If I think about Carapaz, the first thing I think of is his Olympic Gold Medal and not his Giro win.

In case of Pogacar, the Olympics are quite irrelevant. He has won so much that the olympic gold medal doesnt decide about his legendary career. It seems like just a add-on, but that tells more about Pogacars career than about the Olympics. But I'm quite sure Pogacar would really like to win it in 2028. On the other side it is to mention that he probably would have already won the gold medal if he wouldnt have skipped Paris but this will be fiction for the rest of his career and still a discussable decision. Would be interesting if he ever regrets that decision if he wont be able to win Olympic gold.

You said it, a Giro. The Tour is far superior to the Giro, and so is the WC.

The cycling at Olympics weren't professional until the 90s. It was an amateur category, like football. That's why winning the WC is much more important in football. Ask Messi, who has both.

Carapaz's case is curious, because some people values his Olympic more since las year than when he won them 🙄.

Bernal will transcend more for his tour than Samuel Sanchez.l . Cycling in the Olympic Games is quite comparable to football, ther are other titles that are above the historical list of achievements. It doesn't have the historical roots than other sports because it's been an amateur sport in Olympics for years.

 

[hfgon1]

You said it, a Giro. The Tour is far superior to the Giro, and so is the WC.

The cycling at Olympics weren't professional until the 90s. It was an amateur category, like football. That's why winning the WC is much more important in football. Ask Messi, who has both.

Carapaz's case is curious, because some people values his Olympic more since las year than when he won them 🙄.

Bernal will transcend more for his tour than Samuel Sanchez.l . Cycling in the Olympic Games is quite comparable to football, ther are other titles that are above the historical list of achievements. It doesn't have the historical roots than other sports because it's been an amateur sport in Olympics for years.

Football, or soccer, is a bad comparison as it is a U-23 competition there where only three older players are able to compete. So it is not about being the best of the best.

In road cycling the Olympics dont have the history and I'm with you that Tour or Worlds are more important. But the Olympics are still something very special, especially as they are only every 4 years and you mostly have only one or two chances, an absolute maximum of 3 chances, in your career.

 

[Salvarani]

Football, or soccer, is a bad comparison as it is a U-23 competition there where only three older players are able to compete. So it is not about being the best of the best.

In road cycling the Olympics dont have the history and I'm with you that Tour or Worlds are more important. But the Olympics are still something very special, especially as they are only every 4 years and you mostly have only one or two chances, an absolute maximum of 3 chances, in your career.

It is a valid comparison as it was for a long time only an amateur sport, as many others when it comes to the Olympics.

The U23 rule in football, for the Olympics, only came about in the 90s btw. Professionals were allowed in the 80s, but they quickly changed the format of the event. It was made to not compete with FIFA and the importance of the WC.

Sort of like cycling limiting the field heavily for its event in the Olympics.

Olympics and the sport itself, are just two separate things. Two different entities.

It doesnt mean it is not special or not a big achievement to win the Olympics, but its impact for ones legacy within the sport is limited.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

The amateurs of today are better than the pro's of less than a decade ago apparantly.

This British lawyer is an interesting case. He's contested hill climbing competitions and won a lot. I think he's a perfect example of a guy with a big engine (VO2max and anaerobic threshold like good pros) but lacking the base for longer races. Obviously this ability is trainable for such a super-fit guy but for some reason he chose a different life path (I don't know his past, maybe he tried but gave up on pro-cycling).