but once he actually does decide to... oh boyWeirdly reassuring that he can’t just decide to be a climber now
but once he actually does decide to... oh boyWeirdly reassuring that he can’t just decide to be a climber now
Someone told him that it was a mountain stage and he thought "mountain bike stage...go hard all day".
Maybe, just maybe, with perfect luck and everything, he might win an easier one, I guess. But honestly one of the reason why I like him a fair bit more than Van Aert is that while he is an extremely strong rider he cannot just laugh and stomp 99% of the peloton on all terrains (well, he's got the potential to be a great TTist, but he isn't one yet). So, while I enjoyed his ride today, I'm kind of relieved he didn't win.His climbing is a little sad in the sense that it's not good enough to win mountain stage breakaways even if he does all the descending attacks and tactics in the world.
Everytime I hear about so called greats, if they lose hours in the GTs because of the climbs I'm left wondering. I realize this is unpopular but so be it.Maybe, just maybe, with perfect luck and everything, he might win an easier one, I guess. But honestly one of the reason why I like him a fair bit more than Van Aert is that while he is an extremely strong rider he cannot just laugh and stomp 99% of the peloton on all terrains (well, he's got the potential to be a great TTist, but he isn't one yet). So, while I enjoyed his ride today, I'm kind of relieved he didn't win.
I'm not sure I get your point. You're saying that truly great cyclists should always be able to top the GC in GTs? If so, yes, I think that has been a pretty unpopular idea since the 70s or so.Everytime I hear about so called greats, if they lose hours in the GTs because of the climbs I'm left wondering. I realize this is unpopular but so be it.
There are many words to describe MvdP's climbing today. Sad isn't one of them I wouldn't have thought. He had people scared today (Inc the giro social media team). That was a hard mountain stage and no one would expect him to have been at the pointy end at that stage. But there he was, holding his gap.His climbing is a little sad in the sense that it's not good enough to win mountain stage breakaways even if he does all the descending attacks and tactics in the world.
Of course you're relieved he didn't win - you sound like a WVA fan, and you know if MVDP focused on the road he'd beat WVA straight up even more easily than he already does. WVA is great in his own right, but he's not MVDP in terms of talent or "panache". The record bears that out.Maybe, just maybe, with perfect luck and everything, he might win an easier one, I guess. But honestly one of the reason why I like him a fair bit more than Van Aert is that while he is an extremely strong rider he cannot just laugh and stomp 99% of the peloton on all terrains (well, he's got the potential to be a great TTist, but he isn't one yet). So, while I enjoyed his ride today, I'm kind of relieved he didn't win.
70s? Nah. A number of riders post 70s in my mind qualify. I reserve "great" for an Alexander of the sport. It seems to be thrown around too lightly these days. Doubtless MvDP is a spectacular rider, I was just musing over the fact that, despite his "greatness," he is a couple of hours behind in this Giro. So how should we refer to those fighting for GC?I'm not sure I get your point. You're saying that truly great cyclists should always be able to top the GC in GTs? If so, yes, I think that has been a pretty unpopular idea since the 70s or so.
GC riders?So how should we refer to those fighting for GC?
I literally said that I like VdP a 'fair bit' (= a lot) more than VA in the post you quote, lol. The reason why I didn't mind him missing out on this win is precisely the reason why I like WvA less. I prefer riders who excel in a couple of niches and maximize their chances to win based on them rather than riders who can win no matter what. That's why I favour MvdP and Remco over Wva and Pog.Of course you're relieved he didn't win - you sound like a WVA fan, and you know if MVDP focused on the road he'd beat WVA straight up even more easily than he already does. WVA is great in his own right, but he's not MVDP in terms of talent or "panache". The record bears that out.
70s? Nah. A number of riders post 70s in my mind qualify. I reserve "great" for an Alexander of the sport. It seems to be thrown around too lightly these days. Doubtless MvDP is a spectacular rider, I was just musing over the fact that, despite his "greatness," he is a couple of hours behind in this Giro. So how should we refer to those fighting for GC?
Does Pidcock not have a World Tour road win?Put those riders who are hours ahead of MvdP in a CX, or XC MTB World Cup season, and see how good they are. They'd be lapped every race - doesn't make them poor riders, it's not what they are. Similarly, MvdP is a big guy, he can't possibly beat 'skinny little climbers' on GC.
He's the only current rider with World Tour road wins, CX World Cup, XCO & XCC World Cup wins.....
Does Pidcock not have a World Tour road win?
Meh. He gets 1'30 headstarts like candy and then finishes 3 minutes down.The most incredible thing about yesterday's performance is that, according to some posters here, he should have abandoned the Giro after stage 10 or 11.
Instead, he is battling it out with the climbers on multi mountain Alpine stages. BEAST!
You are a bit harsch, on the top of the climb it wasn't close to 3 minutes yet. But in the remaining 8km rolling terrain he had nothing to gain anymore.Meh. He gets 1'30 headstarts like candy and then finishes 3 minutes down.
No (and neither a XCC win).
His only road win (pro) was on Brabantse Pijl.
I get all that. Admittedly, as I have said elsewhere, I consider the GC Bigs to be the genetic freaks of the sport, with special motors. All I'm saying is that the word "great" (magnus) should be used sparingly. What about Indurain for all that? Good question and there is no mathematical answer. I'm just aware that, even if a MvDP were to try for GC, he has no chance of being up there, whereas we saw what Pogacar did in his first Flanders (a fish out of water). Now that's greatness. But anyone is free to see things otherwise.GC riders?
Look, I get your point, but you either go for GC or you don't care about how much time you lose: one or two hours, it's all the same. Isn't Sagan a 'truly great' cyclist? What about Cavendish, or Gilbert? And if you argue that both Classics and GT wins are required to make a rider truly great, then what about Froome and Contador?
The only great riders in the peloton would be Pog, Rog, and Vincenzo Nibali (maybe Valverde as well).