I can’t decide if you’re arguing just to argue or if you’re being serious. This whole dumb discussion is around climbing skills and whether Remco has proven he can climb with or better than Vingegaard. Cookster stated that Remco gained time on Vingegaard on the Galibier and cited it as an example of a time that Remco proved he was as strong or stronger than Vingegaard on the climbs. I pointed out that he actually just proved he was stronger on the flat in a group than Vingegaard was solo on the flat, as that is how he gained time, not uphill.
Is your argument that because he and a large group caught Vingegaard before the end, it should be counted as evidence that Remco and, presumably, the entire group (Roglic, Ayuso, Carlos Rodriguez) are as strong or stronger at climbing than Vingegaard? Or are we just flapping in the wind here.
Regarding the bolded, are you suggesting Remco is a good descender so dropping back was smart because he knew he’d be able to catch Vingegaard on the other side? He finished the climb 24 seconds ahead of Roglic and Ayuso but then was caught on the other side during the descent. If you made a typo and meant the opposite of what you said, I agree: He wisely rode all out so he’d have a head start on the climb to his competitors for third (first and second being up the road out of his reach despite his clear efforts to stay with them). If he’d ridden with them, they’d have dropped him like a stone on the descent and he’d have lost time to the top 6 or so.