• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

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

Page 534 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Should we change the thread title?


  • Total voters
    123
The remarkeable thing about Van Aert is his consistency in scoring podiums in basically all one-day races and time trials he enters and in all stages of 1-week races or GT's he decides to compete. It's why he is consistently top 3 in the UCI rankings next to riders like Pogacar, Remco or Roglic and generally with less race days in total. If we would value stage results a bit more than GC's, he would be the first on the ranking.
True but winning monuments and GTs trumps consistency in winning stages. If you can win both monuments and GTs you are in another league. And because GC leaders don't go stage hunting, for their eyes are set on the bigger prize, they can win less stages then their real strength would otherwise permit.
 
The remarkeable thing about Van Aert is his consistency in scoring podiums in basically all one-day races and time trials he enters and in all stages of 1-week races or GT's he decides to compete. It's why he is consistently top 3 in the UCI rankings next to riders like Pogacar, Remco or Roglic and generally with less race days in total. If we would value stage results a bit more than GC's, he would be the first on the ranking.

I remember well the great era of Zoetemelk, the best rider of the 70s and 80s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
I actually think we are simply blessed to have two such fabulous (but different) talents.

Going off of @Logic-is-your-friend who brings up Remco’s plethora of solo wins. Yes, that is likely the only way he can win, but you still have to do it.

At the Worlds he even tried to isolate himself with nigh on 70 km to go. He attacked often and also chased others down expending the type of energy that usually kills off a rider later on. The commentators all said he was painting a red target on his back and was wasting energy. They, like many of us, underestimate him.

And yet he was still the freshest and when he got the gap he could TT away not losing any time to the main peloton.

He has done this often.

He also seems to be able to drop top riders even on a flat or faux-plat, often right after they are cresting a climb. No one else seems to do that, or has the power/recovery left to do that.

You will not find me saying he is better than Pog. Not yet anyway.

However he is unique.

In a way I find more exciting than any other today.
 
Are you saying Valverde's, who has raced against both over the last few years, is a baseless argument? That's rich.
Yes. Unironically.

Valverde's word cannot be superior if he doesn't even have to give any arguments for his position. That's ***. By that logic any statement Valverde makes about cycling must be true cause he would definitely know better.

Ex pro's in any sport have flaming garbage takes all the time. And they contradict each other all the time. So they can't all be right. So how do you judge them then? By their own success in the sport or by the merit of the argument?
 
Yes. Unironically.

Valverde's word cannot be superior if he doesn't even have to give any arguments for his position. That's ***. By that logic any statement Valverde makes about cycling must be true cause he would definitely know better.

Ex pro's in any sport have flaming garbage takes all the time. And they contradict each other all the time. So they can't all be right. So how do you judge them then? By their own success in the sport or by the merit of the argument?

I agree with that.

And when it comes to what Valverde said I think we should respect his opinion, but we probably shouldnt take his word for it without him offering some insight or motivation as to why that is his opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VayaVayaVaya
Yes. Unironically.

Valverde's word cannot be superior if he doesn't even have to give any arguments for his position. That's ***. By that logic any statement Valverde makes about cycling must be true cause he would definitely know better.

Ex pro's in any sport have flaming garbage takes all the time. And they contradict each other all the time. So they can't all be right. So how do you judge them then? By their own success in the sport or by the merit of the argument?
His argument is implied! What does he need to say? He kicked our arses out there like I have never experienced? Would that be satisfactory to you?
 
Last edited:
Non-exhaustive list of potential biases at play in Valverde’s proclamation (and our posts):
  • Recency bias: Valverde had just been beaten by Remco when he made the comments.
  • Availability bias: Remco had a recent run of success so Valverde rated that higher than Pogacar’s broader body of work.
  • Anchoring bias: Remco was the original “next Mercx” and it is difficult to shake the initial perspective. In fact this might lead to…
  • Confirmation bias: Only paying attention to facts that confirm the view of Remco as the best and disregarding evidence to the contrary.
  • Hot hand fallacy: Because Remco is on a tear, he will continue without impediment from others.
  • Exposure bias: He raced Evenpoel head to head a lot more than Pogi and Vingo, including in the Vuelta.
  • Country bias: Remco honored and won his home tour.
  • Audience bias: He was speaking to Belgians, not Slovenians.
 
Non-exhaustive list of potential biases at play in Valverde’s proclamation (and our posts):
  • Recency bias: Valverde had just been beaten by Remco when he made the comments.
  • Availability bias: Remco had a recent run of success so Valverde rated that higher than Pogacar’s broader body of work.
  • Anchoring bias: Remco was the original “next Mercx” and it is difficult to shake the initial perspective. In fact this might lead to…
  • Confirmation bias: Only paying attention to facts that confirm the view of Remco as the best and disregarding evidence to the contrary.
  • Hot hand fallacy: Because Remco is on a tear, he will continue without impediment from others.
  • Exposure bias: He raced Evenpoel head to head a lot more than Pogi and Vingo, including in the Vuelta.
  • Country bias: Remco honored and won his home tour.
  • Audience bias: He was speaking to Belgians, not Slovenians.
Otherwise he could have been just mind-boggled.