Teams & Riders The Big 6

[Berniece]

Winning the biggest races in the world theres a big two only in reality: Poggo, Mvdp.

That’s not the definition of this group. If one of them attends the race, they win.

Which you can still say about Pogacar, MVDP, Evenepoel and Vingegaard

 

[peterfin]

That is how this has been conceived and understood for a long time.

Indeed but not by all current posters

 

[Samu Cuenca]

It's the Big 9 now: Pog, Rog, Vingo, Remco, Del Toro, Van der Poely, Van Aerty, McNulty, and a 40 year old lawyer who looks a little bit like Froomey.

 

[RedheadDane]

He only turned 17 in September. How tall is he going to be?

Tall!

 

[red_flanders]

That’s not the definition of this group. If one of them attends the race, they win.

That’s the big 1.

 

[Peyroteo94]

That’s the big 1.

Big 2. MSR and PR.
It's what James said basically.

 

[Berniece]

That’s the big 1.

If Vingegaard attends a stage race, he wins it if Pogacar isn’t there. Because he’s so much better than the next one. Again, if one of them attend a race they win it. Pidcock isn’t part of this group because there are many riders that might beat him for victory.

 

[AmRacer]

If Vingegaard attends a stage race, he wins it if Pogacar isn’t there. Because he’s so much better than the next one. Again, if one of them attend a race they win it. Pidcock isn’t part of this group because there are many riders that might beat him for victory.

If Yates isn't riding the Giro, Toro wins.

 

[Cycling111]

If MVDP hadn't gone, Pogacar would have won all 5 Monuments in one year 😅

 

[red_flanders]

Big 2. MSR and PR.
It's what James said basically.

The number refers to riders, not races.

 

[red_flanders]

If Vingegaard attends a stage race, he wins it if Pogacar isn’t there. Because he’s so much better than the next one. Again, if one of them attend a race they win it. Pidcock isn’t part of this group because there are many riders that might beat him for victory.

That different than “if one of them attends a race, they win”. Which is exactly 1 person.

 

[Peyroteo94]

The number refers to riders, not races.

Big 2 because of MSR and PR... Pogacar can't beat (yet) MVP in those races.

 

[Berniece]

That different than “if one of them attends a race, they win”. Which is exactly 1 person.

It’s more that if one of them attends the race, one of them will always win. It could be that multiple of them race or only one of them.

 

[James M]

It’s more that if one of them attends the race, one of them will always win. It could be that multiple of them race or only one of them.

No, because that only applies to two people here if everyone attends. Jonas and Remco can only win if a certain someone doesn't attend. Hence why its a big 2 on those terms. Pretty obvious.

 

[Berflamand]

No, because that only applies to two people here if everyone attends. Jonas and Remco can only win if a certain someone doesn't attend. Hence why its a big 2 on those terms. Pretty obvious.

That's only if you exclude TT's.

Which is understandable if you do but Remco's dominance in TT's combined with his impact on road races (f.e. clearly being the second best hilly one day racer) is enough for me to include him in a Big 'whatever the number' unless we're talking about the Big 1 which is obviously Pogacar.

 

[James M]

That's only if you exclude TT's.

Which is understandable if you do but Remco's dominance in TT's combined with his impact on road races (f.e. clearly being the second best hilly one day racer) is enough for me to include him in a Big 'whatever the number' unless we're talking about the Big 1 which is obviously Pogacar.

I did, Remco is obviously in a league of his own in TT.

I understand people might refer to this differently, which is fine of course. To me, being 'big' anything in these settings simply means winning the biggest races vs the best. Performance-wise, I’d gladly include Remco and Jonas atm, but imo thats different at least to me. I guess it comes down to how you define it.

 

[red_flanders]

Big 2 because of MSR and PR... Pogacar can't beat (yet) MVP in those races.

Gotcha. By and large, the only one close is Pogi. With your points, the definition to which I replied is the Big 0.

The definition of "shows up to a race w/o the other big riders and wins for sure" is still IMO the definition of the "Big N".

 

[Berniece]

No, because that only applies to two people here if everyone attends. Jonas and Remco can only win if a certain someone doesn't attend. Hence why its a big 2 on those terms. Pretty obvious.

You can make up your own definition if you want but that’s not what the meaning was of this original big 6.

 

[hayneplane]

Gotcha. By and large, the only one close is Pogi. With your points, the definition to which I replied is the Big 0.

The definition of "shows up to a race w/o the other big riders and wins for sure" is still IMO the definition of the "Big N".

That is essentially what the criteria is designed to be.

There are clearly other great riders but none who simply don’t lose to those outside the top 6 except when very badly out of form/hustling back from injury.

 

[Peyroteo94]

That is essentially what the criteria is designed to be.

There are clearly other great riders but none who simply don’t lose to those outside the top 6 except when very badly out of form/hustling back from injury.

For that logic is big 4 (what I defend)

Remco - TTs and hilly classics
MVP - Cobbled classics
Pogacar - Everything
Vingegaard- Stage races

 

[James M]

You can make up your own definition if you want but that’s not what the meaning was of this original big 6.

Well, it's a matter of definition but if that's the criteria, then the big 6 is nothing but nonsense in 2025. Its clearly dwindled to the big 2 in reality then. Unless you want to create your own definition and results, then by all means.

 

[Berniece]

Well, it's a matter of definition but if that's the criteria, then the big 6 is nothing but nonsense in 2025. Its clearly dwindled to the big 2 in reality now. Unless you want to create your own definition and results, then by all means.

The definition is that if one of these riders races, they win.

Pogacar can say this for almost everything
Evenepoel can say this for ITT and any long hilly classic.
MVDP can say this for most long 1 day races as long as it’s not only focused on w/kg
Vingegaard can say this about any stage race and GT
Roglic used to be able to say this, because he would win any stage race
WVA used to be able to say this because it used to be him and Mathieu dominating that scene.

Del Toro can’t say this. It’s not sure that if he would ride LBL without Pogi/Evenepoel, he would win for example.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

The definition is that if one of these riders races, they win.

Pogacar can say this for almost everything
Evenepoel can say this for ITT and any long hilly classic.
MVDP can say this for most long 1 day races as long as it’s not only focused on w/kg
Vingegaard can say this about any stage race and GT
Roglic used to be able to say this, because he would win any stage race
WVA used to be able to say this because it used to be him and Mathieu dominating that scene.

Del Toro can’t say this. It’s not sure that if he would ride LBL without Pogi/Evenepoel, he would win for example.

If there are n pros in WT races then there is big n: each of them wins if others are absent.

 

[James M]

The definition is that if one of these riders races, they win.

Pogacar can say this for almost everything
Evenepoel can say this for ITT and any long hilly classic.
MVDP can say this for most long 1 day races as long as it’s not only focused on w/kg
Vingegaard can say this about any stage race and GT
Roglic used to be able to say this, because he would win any stage race
WVA used to be able to say this because it used to be him and Mathieu dominating that scene.

Del Toro can’t say this. It’s not sure that if he would ride LBL without Pogi/Evenepoel, he would win for example.

I understand. Then the definition of the whole big 6 is nonsense and based on *** criteria. Because the same thing you say about Jonas, Remco, etc., can be said about the guys further down the list if Jonas and Remco don't show up either. Then the definition is just based on mental gymnastics.

It only applies to someone if someone else doesn't show up, and so the list becomes endless per definition. Thats a flawed definition. In real terms it only applie to two people if everyone show up. Aka in the reality its a big 2.