Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread

[Extinction]

I would not claim to know Roglic his mind. But i stand by my statement that for me winning a giro and 4 vuelta is better (and bigger) than winning 1 Tour. I'd say 1 giro and 1 vuelta combo might even edge a Tour win, but just barely cause vuelta like it or not is just not as big as winning the giro let alone the tour. The vuelta remains a GT and third most important GC. But Giro and Tour just have more history.

Remco skipping the tour in favour of the giro would have nothing to do with him evading his opponents. Simply with him maximizing his chances to actually win the GT by choosing the one that suit him most. For me if he wins the Tour the Giro becomes more important from that moment on, and if he wins the giro, the tour becomes more important from then on. But that's just me. I don't see the tour as a must ride for any rider. The tour is the bigger race, but giro is still near as important to try and win for me.

To me people that insist someone needs to ride the tour just cause it's biggest race, sponsors. ... Honestly i don't care about that stuff. no doubt the sponsors do. but i don't. At the end of your career i feel you need to have done everything possible to have won as much as possible. Not do the races cause your sponsors want them. I think Lefevre is one the very best, but he too was moaning about the olympics. Well, pretty sure Remco will forever be happy he fully focused on them.

I appreciate your sentiments, but, really, the Tour is so much bigger than the Giro and Vuelta for a rider like Roglic and Evenepoel. For an Aru, fine, a Vuelta is a huge accomplishment, but not even four of them compensates for the Tour Roglic lost. In 20 years nobody will remember his 4 Vueltas, but only the Tour he lost. I know that's harsh, but the truth. Ask Fignon

 

[Sciatic]

He'll start the tdf. But depending on the giro reveal he might be better of doing that. I disagree with people saying he should do the tdf cause it's the biggest race. He should put his main focus on the GT that suits him most(between the giro and tour).

Sponsors have an impact on those decisions too. They want their biggest name in the biggest race.

 

[Sciatic]

I disagree with the previous post. never understood people fixation with the tour. It's one of the big 3 and you want to win it. But i rather have roglic giro and vuelta wins over 1 tour win. whereas some would take the 1 tour win over the giro and vuelta wins. Mind you i do think giro historically is worth more than the vuelta. And i understand the tour is the biggest race in cycling. But if i can only have 1 GT peak, and the giro offers 100 kms of flat TT, i know where i am going if i'm remco. even if he won't win the giro/tour over the TT. He can still get a cushion over some of his rivals with a long flat TT. It's part of how he won the vuelta.

If you’ve been reading on here for a few years (or go back and read), you’ll know that the regular posters don’t rate the Tour higher than other races or find the racing better, although the Pog vs Ving rivalry has added a bit more interest. But there’s no getting around the fact that the Tour is the 800 lb gorilla of the cycling industry and the cycling world. So many teams’ sponsors and managers prioritize that as their season target. It’s simply bigger, but most on here don’t think it’s better.

ed. You can do the conversion to kilos on your own

 

[KoopaCycling]

I appreciate your sentiments, but, really, the Tour is so much bigger than the Giro and Vuelta for a rider like Roglic and Evenepoel. For an Aru, fine, a Vuelta is a huge accomplishment, but not even four of them compensates for the Tour Roglic lost. In 20 years nobody will remember his 4 Vueltas, but only the Tour he lost. I know that's harsh, but the truth. Ask Fignon

That has more to do with storylines. Not with value. Flawed storylines if you look a bit deeper. Fignon won 2 tours btw. Value=/= storylines. Drama sells even more than succes at the end of the day.

 

[AmRacer]

That has more to do with storylines. Not with value.

The best GT riders should always race the Tour, especially if they are WC.

 

[KoopaCycling]

That is your believe narrated by media and tour bias. Me i'm not into the tour or nothing story. In truth until money became the biggest defining factor most italians would focus on the giro, and most spaniards on the vuelta as their main goal. Money talks, but it don't determine all. History matters for me. And Giro history is nothing to sniff at. If a rider wants to build his season around the giro, i'm all for it. After all i'm just a fan, not a sponsor who needs to think about money.

 

[Extinction]

If you’ve been reading on here for a few years (or go back and read), you’ll know that the regular posters don’t rate the Tour higher than other races or find the racing better, although the Pog vs Ving rivalry has added a bit more interest. But there’s no getting around the fact that the Tour is the 800 lb gorilla of the cycling industry and the cycling world. So many teams’ sponsors and managers prioritize that as their season target. It’s simply bigger, but most on here don’t think it’s better.

ed. You can do the conversion to kilos on your own

I certainly don't say a better race, but the simple truth is that no other race commands that every rider participating has aimed to be in the highest form possible. And it draws the truly biggest engines among those who can potentially win it. Neither the Giro nor Vuelta do that, which are for lesser talents, unless the Tour champion wants a double.

 

[AmRacer]

That is your believe narrated by media and tour bias. Me i'm not into the tour or nothing story. In truth until money became the biggest defining factor most italians would focus on the giro, and most spaniards on the vuelta as their main goal. Money talks, but it don't determine all. History matters for me. And Giro history is nothing to sniff at. If a rider wants to build his season around the giro, i'm all for it. After all i'm just a fan, not a sponsor who needs to think about money.

You cannot be biased for or against the single biggest race, the Tour. It's the most important race. Remco has already tried both the Giro and Vuelta without the Tour.

 

[Extinction]

That is your believe narrated by media and tour bias. Me i'm not into the tour or nothing story. In truth until money became the biggest defining factor most italians would focus on the giro, and most spaniards on the vuelta as their main goal. Money talks, but it don't determine all. History matters for me. And Giro history is nothing to sniff at. If a rider wants to build his season around the giro, i'm all for it. After all i'm just a fan, not a sponsor who needs to think about money.

And those Italians and Spaniards, with few exceptions, could not win the Tour. It's no wonder a Frenchman hasn't won the Tour since Hinault in 85. That right there is the colossal difference in magnitude. And I'm not sniffing at these races, which are maginficent in their own right, but considering the issue with regards to a talent such as Evenepoel, who is "condemned" to do the Grand Bouclé at least until it becomes evident he can't win it, but by that time he'll be on another contract.

 

[KoopaCycling]

Seems that you can be biased from the number of people who insist you need to race the tour. You really don't. now clearly evenepoel loves the tour, so no doubt you all will get to see him at the tdf. I'm just saying i disagree with the sentiment he needs to be at the tour. Like i said, if the giro profile suits him better, i'd rather seen him put his main focus on that. Obviously many here are of the mantra you need to be at the tour cause it's the biggest, and won't budge from that. But neither will I. I rly don't feel you automatically need to show up at the tour. Obviously i want him at the tour more often than not. But if the giro has a parcours that suits him perfectly. I rather see him ride the giro as his main focus that particular year.

 

[KoopaCycling]

And those Italians and Spaniards, with few exceptions, could not win the Tour. It's no wonder a Frenchman hasn't won the Tour since Hinault in 85. That right there is the colossal difference in magnitude.

Coppi, Bartali, Gimondi, Nibali disagree with you.
Delgado, Indurain, Contador disagree as well.
And then there are the list of riders that def. had the talent but somehow never won it.

Cycling has become bigger since 85. so point is flawed to begin with. (money)
Since 2010 only Contador won the vuelta for spain.
Only Basso, Scarponi and Nibali won the giro for italia.
Contador won the tdf, nibali won the tdf, basso was capable of winning the tdf.

 

[Extinction]

Seems that you can be biased from the number of people who insist you need to race the tour. You really don't. now clearly evenepoel loves the tour, so no doubt you all will get to see him at the tdf. I'm just saying i disagree with the sentiment he needs to be at the tour. Like i said, if the giro profile suits him better, i'd rather seen him put his main focus on that. Obviously many here are of the mantra you need to be at the tour cause it's the biggest, and won't budge from that. But neither will I. I rly don't feel you automatically need to show up at the tour. Obviously i want him at the tour more often than not. But if the giro has a parcours that suits him perfectly. I rather see him ride the giro as his main focus that particular year.

Heh, unless Pog shows up. Should he do the Giro then? Hell yes! And then the Tour!

 

[KoopaCycling]

Heh, unless Pog shows up. Should he do the Giro then? Hell yes! And then the Tour!

Like I said, i believe he should look at the parcours of the Giro and Tour each year, and decide which suits him more. (coupled with his other objectives for that year).

Remco should not determine his races by his opponents. But by his own strenghts. You win some, you lose some, (hell, against Pogacar and vingegaard he might always lose) but that is sports.

 

[AmRacer]

Like I said, i believe he should look at the parcours of the Giro and Tour each year, and decide which suits him more. (coupled with his other objectives for that year).

Remco should not determine his races by his opponents. But by his own strenghts. You win some, you lose some, (hell, against Pogacar and vingegaard he might always lose) but that is sports.

Tour of Denmark, Tour of Norway...that's the races for you. No, Remco is good enough to be at the biggest race. No reason to avoid it anymore

 

[Extinction]

Like I said, i believe he should look at the parcours of the Giro and Tour each year, and decide which suits him more. (coupled with his other objectives for that year).

Remco should not determine his races by his opponents. But by his own strenghts. You win some, you lose some, (hell, against Pogacar and vingegaard he might always lose) but that is sports.

Right, but he himself said the Tour is his destiny. He knows he doesn't have a choice.

 

[Oldermanish]

I appreciate your sentiments, but, really, the Tour is so much bigger than the Giro and Vuelta for a rider like Roglic and Evenepoel. For an Aru, fine, a Vuelta is a huge accomplishment, but not even four of them compensates for the Tour Roglic lost. In 20 years nobody will remember his 4 Vueltas, but only the Tour he lost. I know that's harsh, but the truth. Ask Fignon

Very much the point for Primoz. To be that close and then see the disappointment on your teammates faces. Only one thing will bury that memory where it belongs.

 

[Extinction]

Very much the point for Primoz. To be that close and then see the disappointment on your teammates faces. Only one thing will bury that memory where it belongs.

One thing I admire about Primoz is his ability to bounce back after huge disappointment and trama. Fignon never really bounced back from his 89 defeat to Lemond. Then again, he thought the race was stollen from him by unapproved tri-bars and he was French on home soil.

 

[Extinction]

Coppi, Bartali, Gimondi, Nibali disagree with you.
Delgado, Indurain, Contador disagree as well.
And then there are the list of riders that def. had the talent but somehow never won it.

Cycling has become bigger since 85. so point is flawed to begin with. (money)
Since 2010 only Contador won the vuelta for spain.
Only Basso, Scarponi and Nibali won the giro for italia.
Contador won the tdf, nibali won the tdf, basso was capable of winning the tdf.

Nibali was a one trick poney who won under most lucky circumstances. Contador kept doing the Tour, but never was the same after clengate. The others regularly road the Tour, so I don't get your point. Cycling may have gotten bigger since 85, although arguably it's only gotten more global, while the fanbase hasn't really increased significantly, as it has certainly gotten smaller in Europe. Why is it that no Frenchman has won the Tour in so long, while Italians and Spaniards continued to win their national GTs? It's because the Tour is so much bigger and harder to win. So my point isn't flawed, however you may see things otherwise.

 

[Oldermanish]

One thing I admire about Primoz is his ability to bounce back after huge disappointment and trama. Fignon never really bounced back from his 89 defeat to Lemond. Then again, he thought the race was stollen from him by unapproved tri-bars and he was French on home soil.

Yeah, Fignon also had bad saddle sores for the one effort that forces you to stay in an uncomfortable position. As for any theft; he tested tri-bars a few times and he and his tech guys chose not to use them. There's no guarantee he would have done better and could've done much worse. He didn't lose the TT by 8 seconds; just the Tour.

 

[Extinction]

Yeah, Fignon also had bad saddle sores for the one effort that forces you to stay in an uncomfortable position. As for any theft; he tested tri-bars a few times and he and his tech guys chose not to use them. There's no guarantee he would have done better and could've done much worse. He didn't lose the TT by 8 seconds; just the Tour.

Right, I'm quoting, however, what he said in his book.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Perhaps I didn't explain my point well. It's not the Tour per se, if not for a rider of his calibre. Would we have expected anything less from Merckx, Hinault, Fignon or Lemond? No, their talent was such that it's impossible to miss a Tour in your palmarès. If we were talking about any other rider than Evenepoel, it wouldn't matter if he won lots of big races, but not the Tour. Remco's an excellent climber and TTist with a huge engine, so a natural Tour pedigree and a race he wants ardently to win. Evenepoel, in the final analysis, will have an asterix on his career of he doesn't win the Tour against Pogacar and Vingegaard. He could win a bunch of classics, GTs, worlds (although with this Pogacar there is nothing for anyone else) and he would still, without the Tour, be less touted. Roglic came into cycling from another sport, who, in contrast to Remco, did not have the incredible expectations placed upon him; and then blew it in the only Tour he could have won. Does Roglic's 4 Vueltas and 1 Giro compensate for the lost Tour? Ask yourself would Roglic trade a win in that Tour for his other GTs and the answer is obvious. Yes. So, with this much talent, winning another monument, Vuelta, a Giro or WC won't make a difference for Remco, the way a Tour would against them. The problem is the current gap between them, an abyss.

I admire the consistency in your stance, but I cannot be even close to agreeing that 1 tour is worth more than 1 giro and 4 vuelta's. Each of those grand tour wins bought a level of happiness and satisfaction to Roglic that was surely each worth at least 20% of a tour win, and sure, there is an element of being unfulfilled in his career because he hasn't won the tour, but if he had won that tour and then just lost that 1 giro and 4 vuelta's then his career would still be unfulfilled (probably more so), but in a different way.

Roglic will be more remembered in my opinion than Sastre, and probably more so than Evans (and if history does not prove that to be so then it would be because of his countryman Pogacar racing in the same era), and he would be more satisfied with his career than Sastre (Evans could be a ? there because of his WC). Is that a reasonable statement?

As for Remco, he is only 3rd in the pecking order, so if the giro offers a better parcours for him (and Vingegaard and Pogacar skip it) then it makes sense for him to race it. In regards to the sponsors argument, I somewhat agree. But he could tell them he is racing both (when really he is only targeting the giro) with the argument "well Pogacar did it, it's good training for the tour", and happily take his giro win and top 10 tour finish over a non start and a 3rd place at the tour.

(Bit of a side topic): I think that Remco beating Pogacar head to head next year at LBL or Lombardia would be a pretty big deal anyway, and much more realistic than beating Pogacar at the tour also.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Just to elaborate further, I don't think it's as clear cut to say, "2 giro's far exceeds 1 tour" or that "1 tour always exceeds 4 giro's" so to speak. I think that career narratives/arcs and the way in which races are won also play a part. Also consider that the human ego is never entirely satisfied, at least not for long; Roglic' tour win in 2020 would not have completed his career, especially as it came quite early. Consider what his narrative would be now if he traded his 5 GT's for 1 tour....."Well, Roglic was somewhat lucky to win the tour before Pogacar reached his peak and before Vingegaard came along; that luck seems further emphasised after his failure to even win one of the lesser grand tours despite numerous close calls/opportunities. " As opposed to, "Well, Roglic came back from adversity on numerous occasions to win five grand tours, not bad at all for a former professional ski jumper who some cycling fans derided as being merely a 'mountain sprinter' (but never a Slovenian Spilak)."

Whereas for Evans his tour (actual, rather than hypothetical for Roglic) win is a bit different in my opinion. Because he had those near misses early in his career, and it felt like his time may have passed. I believe his 2012 Tour win means more to him then it would have if it came earlier, even if he was a better cyclist then.

And what about Froome? I'm not even sure if he'd trade his 1 giro for another (2018?) tour. Holding all 3 GT's at once is very memorable, and the manner in which he won that race certainly was.

 

[KoopaCycling]

Someone said Tour of Norway, ... honestly you are deliberately trying to be condescending, when you well know that wasn't the point i'm making. Trying to twist words and intent.

as to the guy thinking no french winners is a good point.
1 french rider won the vuelta since 1985 (Jalabert)
1 french rider won the giro since 1985 (Fignon)

So rly, it's not so much that the level of competition is that much harder (it's a bit harder yes, but others are hard as well) it's that french riders haven't been that good at GT since then. Same for Belgian riders if we are being honest. And yes it's also cause the sport has become more global.

Since 85 we've seen american, russian, british, colombian, australian, slovenian , Khazak, Irish, Danish riders win GT's. All of whose nationalities unless i'm wrong (could very well be, only did a quick check) had never won a GT before 85.

 

[Extinction]

I admire the consistency in your stance, but I cannot be even close to agreeing that 1 tour is worth more than 1 giro and 4 vuelta's. Each of those grand tour wins bought a level of happiness and satisfaction to Roglic that was surely each worth at least 20% of a tour win, and sure, there is an element of being unfulfilled in his career because he hasn't won the tour, but if he had won that tour and then just lost that 1 giro and 4 vuelta's then his career would still be unfulfilled (probably more so), but in a different way.

Roglic will be more remembered in my opinion than Sastre, and probably more so than Evans (and if history does not prove that to be so then it would be because of his countryman Pogacar racing in the same era), and he would be more satisfied with his career than Sastre (Evans could be a ? there because of his WC). Is that a reasonable statement?

As for Remco, he is only 3rd in the pecking order, so if the giro offers a better parcours for him (and Vingegaard and Pogacar skip it) then it makes sense for him to race it. In regards to the sponsors argument, I somewhat agree. But he could tell them he is racing both (when really he is only targeting the giro) with the argument "well Pogacar did it, it's good training for the tour", and happily take his giro win and top 10 tour finish over a non start and a 3rd place at the tour.

(Bit of a side topic): I think that Remco beating Pogacar head to head next year at LBL or Lombardia would be a pretty big deal anyway, and much more realistic than beating Pogacar at the tour also.

You are right, but only in so far as the specific nature of Roglic's predicament. That the other wins in GTs take away some of the sting of losing the Tour like that is doubtless, but it does not compensate. And he is still licking the wounds, judging from his nervousness and constant falling in the Grande Bouclé, which just can't be chalked up to bad luck. Fall once, fall twice, three times, it's bad luck, fall 5, 7, 8, 9 times you are the problem. As far as Remco beating Pog at Liege is concerned, if the level remains like this the great Remco gets beaten on home turf.

 

[Luthor]

The emphasis on Tour is a marketing gimmick thanks to Armstrong and the French media who pushed narratives like Lemond/Fignon or Poulidor. Lussari was a much better story but Giro doesn't have the pull. Regarding sponsorship it depends on the market, Giro is more watched than Tour in Italy https://www.cyclingopinions.com/wp-...TV-Viewing-Professional-Road-Cycling-2019.pdf

The 80% mark is ridiculous and nowhere near truth. A lot of people have heard about TdF as the competition but very few actually watch it or even know the competitors. Most people just see some news with the winner and move on, similar to rugby Six Nations for example. Unless you are the actual winner, a Giro win is more valuable than 2nd in Tour. Look at Vinge this year, who tf gave a *** about him getting 2nd.

I've laughed a lot about people introducing Pog as some mainstream star but actually he's nowhere near someone like Doncic despite not winning anything big so far. Cycling is far from mainstream, TdF being something that casuals watch is one of the biggest marketing lies. That's mostly true in France and the 80% figure is only relevant to French teams.

Roglic would never trade what he gained for 1 Tour, nobody sane rates Evans/Wiggins/Thomas above him all-time. Not even worth comparing to no-names like Sastre/Pereiro. Rominger, Poulidor or Binda have no Tours but people will still see them as TdF winners worthy.