The best 10 riders in the world

[The Hitch]

So does classicomano Luigi

Right, and your point is?

 

[42x16ss]

When did he ever come 2nd in the Olympics???

As for the great 'conspiracy' against Canc... Such things have ofc never happened to Boonen, nor has he lost races because his team mate was up the road...

As for 2nd places, well cycling is about winning. A rider like Hoste might appreciate his 2nd places, but champions shouldn't be measured by losses. Oh and Boonen and Canc have just as many podiums in monuments, with Boonen having more wins.

All I know is that both will rightfully be remembered as two of the best hardman classics riders of all time, behind Merckx and roughly on par with guys like De Vlaeminck, Van Looy and Kelly.

You can argue that Cancellara has greater versatility than Boonen due to his TT skills but Boonen spent a couple of years as (arguably) the best sprinter in the world and has several GT stage wins, a green jersey and a WC RR title - something Cancellara still hasn't achieved.

IMHO its splitting hairs, Boonen and Cancellara are by far the two premiere one day riders of the last decade, especially on the cobbles and I have no issue with people choosing either over the other.

 

[Arredondo]

I actually believe he may have won less since the competition in 'his' races was extremely high in the '70s and he wouldn't have won in liege or lombardia...

But maybe he would have been better than everbody else and won around 11, who can say?

The most stupid thing to do is comparing times. The thing about the 70's and the 80's, is that they are romanticised, just because it's quite a long time ago.

Or do you think that André Dierickx, Roger Swerts, Guido van Sweevelt (i'm taking the top-10 from PR 1975) are better riders then the likes of Sebastien Turgot, Damien Gaudin and Niki Terpstra? In 20/30 years time, Boonen, Cancellara, Ballan, Pozzato would get the credits, a lot of riders in the 70's and 80's get nowadays.

 

[Arredondo]

Right. Are you sure all kinds of great, poetic and romantic stories you heard about those riders haven't influenced you?

You can't compare them, because in current times, you can't win a big race anymore unless you're have the specific qualities for it. Back then, you had riders who could win GT's, LBL and cobbles classics.

However, Cancellara will be remembered as a top rider, surely a great champion. But the likes of Merckx, Anquetil, Gimondi, Indurain, and even Ocaña, Bobet, will be remembered more, just because they won the most beautiful and popular race.

 

[Netserk]

IMHO its splitting hairs, Boonen and Cancellara are by far the two premiere one day riders of the last decade, especially on the cobbles and I have no issue with people choosing either over the other.

Which was why I posted this (which started this line of discussion):

I mean Kelly, Bettini and Boonen would all imho rank equal or higher than him in an all-time ranking, and that's just some of the more 'recent' classics riders.

To which the response was:

Boonen and Bettini? No way. Kelly and many others I never saw in real time of course, but it's simply unthinkable there have been 10 or more übermonsters like Cancellara, ever.

 

[Roderick]

The most stupid thing to do is comparing times. The thing about the 70's and the 80's, is that they are romanticised, just because it's quite a long time ago.

Or do you think that André Dierickx, Roger Swerts, Guido van Sweevelt (i'm taking the top-10 from PR 1975) are better riders then the likes of Sebastien Turgot, Damien Gaudin and Niki Terpstra? In 20/30 years time, Boonen, Cancellara, Ballan, Pozzato would get the credits, a lot of riders in the 70's and 80's get nowadays.

The most stupid thing, yes. But also the thing that's been done most. And not only in cycling. But haven't we all done it once in a while? And to answer your question, no I do not think the riders you mentioned are better riders than the present day riders.

 

[Netserk]

You can't compare them, because in current times, you can't win a big race anymore unless you're have the specific qualities for it. Back then, you had riders who could win GT's, LBL and cobbles classics.

However, Cancellara will be remembered as a top rider, surely a great champion. But the likes of Merckx, Anquetil, Gimondi, Indurain, and even Ocaña, Bobet, will be remembered more, just because they won the most beautiful and popular race.

What has Indurain done that can't be done in this era?

 

[Arredondo]

What has Indurain done that can't be done in this era?

I'm not saying he does things that can't be done nowadays. I'm just saying he will be more remembered than Cancellara because he's won 5 tours, and 2 Giro's btw.

 

[Arredondo]

The most stupid thing, yes. But also the thing that's been done most. And not only in cycling. But haven't we all done it once in a while? And to answer your question, no I do not think the riders you mentioned are better riders than the present day riders.

Of course we all do, and that makes cycling fun. But in the end, it's just as useluss to compare Messi with Cruijff, Eusebio, Maradona, Rivera etc, and comparing Thiago Silva (a defender) with Messi and Ronaldo (attacking players).

 

[Netserk]

I'm not saying he does things that can't be done nowadays. I'm just saying he will be more remembered than Cancellara because he's won 5 tours, and 2 Giro's btw.

Contador will also be more remembered than Canc. I don't get your point.

 

[Arredondo]

Contador will also be more remembered than Canc. I don't get your point.

It was a response to the fact that Flamin said he can't remember 10 more 'übermonsters' like Cancellara. Yes, i could say Contador, or Lemond, or Coppi, but it was not my goal to name every rider who will be remember more than Canc.

In terms of classic riders, even Bartoli, Museeuw and Argentin are more übermonsters than Cancellara.

 

[Echoes]

I kind of understand your point but kind of don't.

So you are saying that the fact that a hill - which isn't very steep - could be selective because it's in such a long race, means that it is a hilly race? What if it was totally flat until then? Would it still be a hilly race? That would seem absurd to me, akin to calling Paris-Tours a hilly classic. I mean, it's possible for a bunch of riders to come to the end of the Clásica San Sebastián together, does that make that a flat race? How about the Frankfurt Maitagrennen?[...]

Yes I'm saying it. Most riders agree with me. The Poggio isn't steep but ... seems steep when climbed after 290km.

The Tour of Flanders are very easy, the only critical point on it is the Koppenberg. All those who told me they climbed the Kapelmuur confirmed to me that it's cakewalk, let's not talk about the Tenbosse or the Bosberg. However climbing the Bosberg and the Tenbosse after 230km or 240km resp. was much different. But the Poggio does not come up after 230km but after 290km ! That is much something else. Besides the Poggio is not the only climb on Milan-Sanremo. Your comparison with Paris-Tours is absurd because Paris-Tours is just 250km (even less I think) and the Poggio much harder than the Côte du Petit Pas d'Âne !

Anyway, all I meant is that for all these classics, what matters most is the distance, next come the climbs. This is something I'm sure of.

[Also, while it was undoubtedly shocking that Zabel won San Remo at the time, but since his win 6 other sprinters - Cipo, Óscarcito, Ale-Jet, Cav, Goss and Ciolek - have won it. While Freire and Goss are both more than adept at getting over obstacles and Goss won it from a group of only 8 so it can't be considered a sprint victory per se, 50 riders came in the lead group in 2002, 70 in 2004, 50 in 2005, 75 in 2006 even if Pippo's win wasn't truly a sprint, 60 in 2007 and 50 in 2009. It's turning back into the race it once was and should be, but for a decade after Zabel the groups coming in to contest the sprint together were far too large for it to be considered a hilly race. Obviously a sprint like that would not be possible in a genuine hilly race like Liège, or a race with a hill finish like Flèche, but Amstel Gold moved the finish to the Cauberg because they didn't want sprinters like Zabel winning, and even back when Olaf Ludwig won the group contesting the victory was far smaller than that]

Pozzato did not win in a sprint, he countered an attack by Ballan on the Poggio and resisted the return of the peloton because he sucked Ballan's wheel under the false excuse that Boonen was behind, lol.

Goss climbs hills very well but Ciolek climbs even better. I also know for sure that he loves the cold. Ciolek did not win Milan-Sanremo but Cogoleto-Sanremo, though the distance cut was compensate by the cold, but I still think it was an awful decision by RCS. Besides, Goss won because Pozzato only raced to make Gilbert lose and Ciolek won because Cancellara only raced to make Sagan lose.

We haven't had a bunch sprint in Sanremo since the peloton is said to be "clean-ish". Only 8-man groups at most.

Even Cavendish did not win in a sprint. He was 2 seconds ahead and he wouldn't have won if Haussler had sprinted for himself.

The Amstel route change was stupid. Avoiding sprint? But in 2005, you had a massive bunch sprint on the Cauberg, won by Di Luca... The Arrow never finishes in a bunch sprint. Are you joking?

I'm not saying he does things that can't be done nowadays. I'm just saying he will be more remembered than Cancellara because he's won 5 tours, and 2 Giro's btw.

Right and if I remember him, that's just because people like you are constantly reminding me of him, okay ! Otherwise I'd gladly forget about him ! Contadull, ubermonster ???

 

[Netserk]

We haven't had a bunch sprint in Sanremo since the peloton is said to be "clean-ish". Only 8-man groups at most.

Even Cavendish did not win in a sprint.

Trolololol.

 

[The Hitch]

What has Indurain done that can't be done in this era?

Giro tour double.

 

[Netserk]

Contador could very well have pulled it off with a little better luck and holding more back in the Giro.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yes I'm saying it. Most riders agree with me. The Poggio isn't steep but ... seems steep when climbed after 290km.

Doesn't make it a hilly Classic. Just because a race is very very long doesn't make a flat race with a couple of hills into Liège-Bastogne-Liège. Please, for crying out loud, stop taking this as me saying that it is a weaker race than LBL because it's flatter. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that Milan-San Remo is not a hilly Classic, because that term is used to denote races that favour the puncheurs and climbers. You know, like the ones that are up and down all day, not the ones that have a few hills among a long flat race. Riders who would be unlikely to win San Remo often win, say, the Ardennes classics, but how many recent winners of San Remo would win in the Ardennes? Gerrans. Arguably Pozzato or Freire. The riders suited to each race are different. Don't try to say that because Gilbert could win it that this makes it the same as races solely built for puncheurs.

The Tour of Flanders are very easy, the only critical point on it is the Koppenberg. All those who told me they climbed the Kapelmuur confirmed to me that it's cakewalk, let's not talk about the Tenbosse or the Bosberg. However climbing the Bosberg and the Tenbosse after 230km or 240km resp. was much different. But the Poggio does not come up after 230km but after 290km ! That is much something else. Besides the Poggio is not the only climb on Milan-Sanremo. Your comparison with Paris-Tours is absurd because Paris-Tours is just 250km (even less I think) and the Poggio much harder than the Côte du Petit Pas d'Âne !

The distance is only part of it, though, it's what's in it. Bosberg and Tenbosse after 230 or 240 is an issue for two reasons:
1) because of the bergs, there have been several up-and-down moments already by that point
2) because of the nature of the race and where the main climbs are, the riders have often been in small groups and working harder for longer in RVV than in most recent San Remo editions, where there has been at least some level of péloton bunch until Cipressa

Now, whether or not you think this cancels out the additional 50-60k in San Remo is another question. But just saying one comes after 230k and one after 290k disregards several other factors that make the race what it is. Poggio after 190k would be nothing, I often say... but that would be wrong if that 190k had been non-stop up-and-down, which would make it a genuine hilly classic, but would rob Milan-San Remo of much of its beauty and history.

Anyway, all I meant is that for all these classics, what matters most is the distance, next come the climbs. This is something I'm sure of.

Does this apply in non-Classics too, or only in one-day races? I'm just thinking, is the distance always more important than the climbing? I disagree. Unless you're willing to say The Worst Race In The World® is a harder race than Omloop, Dwars door Vlaanderen or Flèche.

Pozzato did not win in a sprint, he countered an attack by Ballan on the Poggio and resisted the return of the peloton because he sucked Ballan's wheel under the false excuse that Boonen was behind, lol.

That's why I said it wasn't truly a sprint. There was no time gap, and behind Pozzato there WAS a bunch sprint - it was the biggest bunch to have come to the finish together in the history of San Remo, and they were contesting the victory, but the winner wasn't part of the bunch that was sprinting because he held them off.

Goss climbs hills very well but Ciolek climbs even better. I also know for sure that he loves the cold. Ciolek did not win Milan-Sanremo but Cogoleto-Sanremo, though the distance cut was compensate by the cold, but I still think it was an awful decision by RCS. Besides, Goss won because Pozzato only raced to make Gilbert lose and Ciolek won because Cancellara only raced to make Sagan lose.

We haven't had a bunch sprint in Sanremo since the peloton is said to be "clean-ish". Only 8-man groups at most.

Even Cavendish did not win in a sprint. He was 2 seconds ahead and he wouldn't have won if Haussler had sprinted for himself.

That's as may be (disagree on Cav, because it's not like he soloed away, it's just that he put in one of the most impressive sprints you'll ever see to earn that time gap), but it doesn't change that bunch sprinters still do think they have a chance at winning San Remo - and they do. They just sometimes have to do it by different means, which is good. As you say, maybe the worst days of it are over, and the race can recover its former glories in terms of spectacle. But when Freire won in 2010 you had Garzelli riding on the front on the Poggio trying to string it out as best he can... and Ale-Jet riding third wheel breathing through his nose. They've had to tinker with the route in recent years to stop it becoming "the sprinter's classic" and restore it to its former glory. They have increased the number of hills, this much is true. But a "hilly Classic" usually does not have such a ginormous amount of flat in it... and most races I would consider genuine "hilly Classics" have at least 10 genuine climbs.

Milan-San Remo is a great race, a great race with a lot of history. But it is not a proper "hilly classic" and it is all the better for it.

The Amstel route change was stupid. Avoiding sprint? But in 2005, you had a massive bunch sprint on the Cauberg, won by Di Luca... The Arrow never finishes in a bunch sprint. Are you joking?

Of course the Arrow never finishes in a bunch sprint, in the context of this discussion. Yes, it is a sprint up the Mur de Huy every single year. But this is exactly why La Flèche Wallonne is a hilly race and Milan-San Remo isn't. Because La Flèche Wallonne can ONLY be won by puncheurs and climbers. Because they are the ONLY ones who can sprint at 17%. The same goes for the Cauberg. You're being disingenuous, because of course it was a bunch sprint on the Cauberg. Between puncheurs and climbers. If a group of 40 or however many it was in 2005 comes to the finish for a sprint together in San Remo, Danilo di Luca doesn't win. Somebody like Cavendish or Petacchi does. And those guys couldn't win a sprint up the Cauberg, because, you know, they're sprinters. You know full well that when we talk about sprinters in the context of hilliness of San Remo, we are meaning the kind of people who compete in bunch sprints in dull flat stages of stage races all year round, not Alejandro fricking Valverde.

 

[Pentacycle]

Yes I'm saying it. Most riders agree with me. The Poggio isn't steep but ... seems steep when climbed after 290km.

The Tour of Flanders are very easy, the only critical point on it is the Koppenberg. All those who told me they climbed the Kapelmuur confirmed to me that it's cakewalk, let's not talk about the Tenbosse or the Bosberg. However climbing the Bosberg and the Tenbosse after 230km or 240km resp. was much different. But the Poggio does not come up after 230km but after 290km ! That is much something else. Besides the Poggio is not the only climb on Milan-Sanremo. Your comparison with Paris-Tours is absurd because Paris-Tours is just 250km (even less I think) and the Poggio much harder than the Côte du Petit Pas d'Âne !

The Tour of Flanders is hard because of the fight for position and succession of hills, not the distance per se. That is why the Omloop and E3 will also force a selection of the strongest cobbled riders.

MSR is hard because of the length, not because of the amount of climbing. The capi are only there to force a selection of the riders with the best endurance and form, not the best climbers.

Paris-Tours is hard since it's a race at the end of the season, and many riders are riding on their last legs, craving for the off-season. Only the classics riders with a good mentality and perseverance will fight for the podium here. You can't compare this with a race in March.

Tbh I think many riders will agree with this too

 

[barmaher]

MSR has been very good the last three years. Goss, Gerrans and Ciolek all won races with a lot of intrigue. I think it has already recovered and I worry about the new route.

 

[Echoes]

Doesn't make it a hilly Classic. Just because a race is very very long doesn't make a flat race with a couple of hills into Liège-Bastogne-Liège. Please, for crying out loud, stop taking this as me saying that it is a weaker race than LBL because it's flatter. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that Milan-San Remo is not a hilly Classic, because that term is used to denote races that favour the puncheurs and climbers.

But it does. History does not lie.

You know, like the ones that are up and down all day, not the ones that have a few hills among a long flat race. Riders who would be unlikely to win San Remo often win, say, the Ardennes classics, but how many recent winners of San Remo would win in the Ardennes? Gerrans. Arguably Pozzato or Freire. The riders suited to each race are different. Don't try to say that because Gilbert could win it that this makes it the same as races solely built for puncheurs.

Of course you'll tell me it's not recent but for me they aer: Fignon, Fondriest and Bettini not only could have but also did it. They are recent enough. I saw them race live and I'm not old, lol. Then Cancellara and Gerrans could.

The distance is only part of it, though, it's what's in it. Bosberg and Tenbosse after 230 or 240 is an issue for two reasons:
1) because of the bergs, there have been several up-and-down moments already by that point
2) because of the nature of the race and where the main climbs are, the riders have often been in small groups and working harder for longer in RVV than in most recent San Remo editions, where there has been at least some level of péloton bunch until Cipressa

I did not say the distance was the only explanation for it to be a hard race. I said it was the main factor. What you and Pentacycle are saying is correct but secondary. I'd reply to him here because I disagree on the GPE3, which often ended up in a bunch sprint, which backs up my theory. Volk is different because of the weather.

That's why I said it wasn't truly a sprint. There was no time gap, and behind Pozzato there WAS a bunch sprint - it was the biggest bunch to have come to the finish together in the history of San Remo, and they were contesting the victory, but the winner wasn't part of the bunch that was sprinting because he held them off.

When Tchmil won Flanders in 2000, there also was a 60-man bunch behind, also contesting victory, atually th pack survived the Bosberg together and if it wasn't for Tchmil, there would have been a huuuuge sprint in Meerbeke, something that none of you could ever imagine, I gess.

Had Pozzato been willing to cooperate with Ballan, the peloton wouldn't have been in the picture. In the end he was lucky Ballan was good enough to have pursued his effort because Poz' strategy could have proved a disaster.

That's as may be (disagree on Cav, because it's not like he soloed away, it's just that he put in one of the most impressive sprints you'll ever see to earn that time gap),

When Haussler attacked he created an impressive gap, straightway. It's for me already an indication that the peloton was exhausted by a terribly hard race. But then you saw him zigzag as if he really thought Hushovd was on his wheel... He could have won with a 5 second lead if he had wanted it to. You only needed to apply the Pythagoras Theorem. Just shows one of the biggest weaknesses in the current peloton: lack of ambition.

and most races I would consider genuine "hilly Classics" have at least 10 genuine climbs.

Milan-San Remo is a great race, a great race with a lot of history. But it is not a proper "hilly classic" and it is all the better for it.

I guess you understand that on hill may be enough for me, if it's significant enough. 10 climbs? Crazy ! It excludes many of them.

The 1982 Milan-Sanremo had 4 significant climbs in my opinion: Turchino, Capo Berta, Cipressa and Poggio and two additional ones Capi Mele and Cervo, which perhaps don't mean a lot. Recently, you had another one: the Maniè, replaced this year by the Pompeiana, but I don't think it was necessary.

All these climbs are made hard by the race distance.

Of course the Arrow never finishes in a bunch sprint, in the context of this discussion. Yes, it is a sprint up the Mur de Huy every single year. But this is exactly why La Flèche Wallonne is a hilly race and Milan-San Remo isn't. Because La Flèche Wallonne can ONLY be won by puncheurs and climbers. Because they are the ONLY ones who can sprint at 17%. The same goes for the Cauberg. You're being disingenuous, because of course it was a bunch sprint on the Cauberg. Between puncheurs and climbers. If a group of 40 or however many it was in 2005 comes to the finish for a sprint together in San Remo, Danilo di Luca doesn't win. Somebody like Cavendish or Petacchi does. And those guys couldn't win a sprint up the Cauberg, because, you know, they're sprinters. You know full well that when we talk about sprinters in the context of hilliness of San Remo, we are meaning the kind of people who compete in bunch sprints in dull flat stages of stage races all year round, not Alejandro fricking Valverde.

The fact that the contenders are different does not change the fact that every edition of the Arrow since 2004 have ended in an uphill sprint with some 60 riders in front at the foot of the Mur de Huy. The winners sucked wheels all day, just like any good modern sprinters do. Again it proves my point that the distance is important for strong men to create gaps.

Amstel route to Valkenburg is not harder than the one to Maastricht, quite on the contrary. There were as many climbs when Zabel won. Besides the last Amstel to Maastricht was won by Sansone/Bartoli who outsprinted a group of 4. But that's another topic.

Paris-Tours is hard since it's a race at the end of the season, and many riders are riding on their last legs, craving for the off-season. Only the classics riders with a good mentality and perseverance will fight for the podium here. You can't compare this with a race in March.

That's right.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

All these climbs are made hard by the race distance.

Yes, because the distance is what makes Milan-San Remo hard, not the terrain. The terrain is what makes Liège-Bastogne-Liège hard, hence why that is called a hilly classic, and Milan-San Remo isn't.

The fact that the contenders are different does not change the fact that every edition of the Arrow since 2004 have ended in an uphill sprint with some 60 riders in front at the foot of the Mur de Huy. The winners sucked wheels all day, just like any good modern sprinters do. Again it proves my point that the distance is important for strong men to create gaps.

Of course, the Mur de Huy is always a sprint, but not by pure sprinters of the likes that could not compete in the Ardennes. They don't even show up because they can't win there.

If you're trying to argue Milan-San Remo is a better race than Flèche, then you will get no argument from me, because it is. But Flèche is a hilly Classic, and Milan-San Remo is not.

Amstel route to Valkenburg is not harder than the one to Maastricht, quite on the contrary. There were as many climbs when Zabel won. Besides the last Amstel to Maastricht was won by Sansone/Bartoli who outsprinted a group of 4. But that's another topic.

Sure, but they were upset by Zabel winning and the move of the finish from Maastricht to Valkenburg was designed to prevent versatile sprinters from winning (a bid that still nearly failed as Óscar Freire will point out).

I make the argument, a versatile guy like Zabel or Freire winning does not mean that a race cannot be hilly. But a race that belongs under the classification "hilly classic" should not be able to be won by Mark Cavendish or Mario Cipollini. Yes, the worst of those days seem to be behind us now and the race is rehabbing its image (and becoming hillier in the process, it would seem). But Cipo or Cav wouldn't have won AGR into Maastricht, or San Sebastián, or any other genuine "hilly Classic" type race.

If you want comparison to Worlds courses, you seem to think people saying Milan-San Remo isn't hilly are making the implication it is Copenhagen. It is not. It is perhaps a harder version of Geelong, or maybe Lisboa. Enough hills to force a selection, but capable of being won by sprinters who can stand the pace and distance. But a real, genuine 'hilly Classic' to my mind is more like Mendrisio or Firenze.

 

[Netserk]

F-W is more of a sprinters' classic than M-SR though.

 

[Echoes]

Yes, because the distance is what makes Milan-San Remo hard, not the terrain. The terrain is what makes Liège-Bastogne-Liège hard, hence why that is called a hilly classic, and Milan-San Remo isn't.

What makes Milan-Sanremo is the distance/climb combo. That's not Echoes speaking but Laurent Fignon.

Sure, but they were upset by Zabel winning and the move of the finish from Maastricht to Valkenburg was designed to prevent versatile sprinters from winning (a bid that still nearly failed as Óscar Freire will point out).

Dekker and Sansone were the last to win in Maastricht. In breakaways. Moving to the Cauberg made sprints more likely, though they be uphill sprints. It was a real silly decision.

I make the argument, a versatile guy like Zabel or Freire winning does not mean that a race cannot be hilly. But a race that belongs under the classification "hilly classic" should not be able to be won by Mark Cavendish or Mario Cipollini.

Cipolata in his prime was unable to win it. You know I'm not entitled to say how he did. Milan-Sanremo in such context is no longer Milan-Sanremo. The distance is cancelled by *****

Cav can climb if he wants. Remember him defying Boonen on the Kemmel.

 

[raddone]

Contador could very well have pulled it off with a little better luck and holding more back in the Giro.

He didn't.

 

[Netserk]

He didn't.

No ****ing **** Sherlock.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

What makes Milan-Sanremo is the distance/climb combo. That's not Echoes speaking but Laurent Fignon.

But Echoes speaking said that the distance was the most important part of it. As opposed to Libertine Seguros, who says that in "hilly" classics the climbs would be the most important, and hence Milan-San Remo is something different, and arguably more unique.

Dekker and Sansone were the last to win in Maastricht. In breakaways. Moving to the Cauberg made sprints more likely, though they be uphill sprints. It was a real silly decision.

And hopefully the new finish will reverse some of that, because at times (like the 2005 race as mentioned) it became a bit like Flèche but on a less interesting final climb.

Cipolata in his prime was unable to win it. You know I'm not entitled to say how he did. Milan-Sanremo in such context is no longer Milan-Sanremo. The distance is cancelled by *****

Cav can climb if he wants. Remember him defying Boonen on the Kemmel.

Cipolata still did win it, even if the unmentionable came into it.

Cav isn't the total mug on the hills that people often make him out to be. But still, any race that he wins is not one that I can consider a "hilly classic". Could Cav win in the Ardennes? San Sebastián? Lombardia? Tre Valli Varesine? Those are what I'm thinking of when I say 'hilly classics'. The hills of Sanremo are not the defining characteristic of the race; it is more multifaceted than that.