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's 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.

 

[Sciatic]

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".

I think that misses the original point. It was if one of them attends the race and the others aren't there they will win. Or if only 2 are in a race and the others aren't they will fight for the win. Yes, you could say there just a Big 1, but what's the point of that?

 

[Peyroteo94]

Hasn't Remco won just one race this whole year outside of TT? Pijl or something unless Im remembering wrong? smashed in ardennes, smashed in Tour and thats enough to be considered making it a big '4' per these definitions?

Imo, the whole 4 or 6 now in 25 just feels like mental gymnastics based on flawed criteria to force a narrative.

Sorry but two guys are winning every big races for 24 months straight and even in a more dominating fashion, I think its fair to call it a big two currently.

If he is in good shape, I'm pretty sure he wins any important hilly classic (this year - LBL, GdL, WC) without Pogacar.
For me it's all about this:
Originally, we had a big 6 so we need to look if any of them can win easily specific races without all the other 5.

Roglic, without WVA, Pogi, Remco, MVP, Vingegaard, would win any GT he enters (without bad luck)? The answer is no IMO. So Roglic is out of the Big 6. Reduced to big 5.

WVA, without all other 5, can dominate cobbled classics? The answer is no right now. Reduced to big 4.

Remco, without all other 5, can dominate hilly classics (GdL, LBL and WC - when the route is for puncheurs/climbers). The answer is yes.

Pogacar - For sure.

MVP - For sure in cobbled classics and MSR + WC when the route is for puncheurs.

IMO, it's a big 4 but if we don't exclude "aliens", there is only a Big 2 but with Pogacar miles ahead of MVP.