Not here to pick at the underlying sentiment of your message here, but I will use it as a launch pad for a tangential comment based on a lot of the discussion I've seen on these boards. The reason people debate Bernal vs. Quintana at age 22, Pogacar vs. Remco at age 21, etc., is, presumably, because they think early results are good predictors of future results. However, in modern cycling, we have seen as many late bloomers (Froome, Roglic, Wiggins, GT, Valverde, etc.) as early bloomers (Contador, Pogacar, Quintana, Bernal, etc.) and few (none?) of those early bloomers maintained that pace of achievement through their 30s. This is not scientific, but generally it seems like riders get 5-7 years on top before they decline - even if that decline is still high-achieving (see: Nibali).Aw, that's cute. I guess winning multiple pro stage races, becoming the European TT champion, getting 2nd in the Worlds TT, and winning San Sebastian in one's first attempt at a classic is "nothing of consequence". Remind me where Froome was at age 21? I forget with all the great stories, was he a miner? Working on a farm? Never heard of bikes? Recovering from one of his many bouts of Bilharzia?
My point being, where someone was at 21 is an OK predictor of their palmares, but likely a very high p-value. Results >>>> potential results. Overall results >>>> age group results. Having said that, would love to see Remco ignite his legend with a Giro victory. But even if he does, I'll take "under" on him winning more GTs than Froome.