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

[mrgmyers]

None so far, because he hasn't won the Tour yet. Looking forward to the onions however

You said if he wins one tour, not one Tour de France! But nice body swerve fair play!

 

[Extinction]

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.

 

[Big Doopie]

…Take Bernhard Hinault for example. His "analyses" have always been the purest of excrements.

You give me the badger. I raise you a cannibal. Eddy Merckx, the very worst analyst/prognosticator of all time.

 

[Big Doopie]

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.

 

[Big Doopie]

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.

 

[kingjr]

I remember well the great era of Zoetemelk, the best rider of the 70s and 80s.

I don't know, wasn't Zoetemelk known for sitting on people's wheels quite a bit? Because that's not really the case for van Aert.

 

[Big Doopie]

I don't know, wasn't Zoetemelk known for sitting on people's wheels quite a bit? Because that's not really the case for van Aert.

my only point was emphasizing placings over wins.

i think WvA is a great rider.

 

[Red Rick]

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?

 

[Salvarani]

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.

 

[Andre]

I judge Valverde's statement by its unconditional truth. By its Socratic intelligence. For his instinctive knowledge.

 

[Andre]

I judge Valverde's statement by its unconditional truth. By its Socratic intelligence. For his instinctive knowledge.

..etc

 

[Extinction]

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?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Never put too much stock in declarations made by current or former cyclists. Most of them are idiots to begin with judging by their decision making during a race. It also usually leads to shooting yourself in the foot, when the inevitable donkey comment drops by the same cyclist you once heralded as an expert.

 

[Netserk]

Is he expected to (co-)lead the team in Flèche next year? Will he race Amstel?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

We don't know yet.

 

[Netserk]

Okay.

 

[Big Doopie]

We don't know yet.

I know everything.

That’s why I am on an Internet forum.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

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.

 

[Cookster15]

Over the next years we shall see how much Valverde's assessment holds up

Vaya's list confirms my view. For Valverde's assessment to hold up Remco will need to be better than Merckx - at least in grand tours and non-sprint friendly one day races.

I also doubt we have to wait "years".

 

[Extinction]

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.

 

[Extinction]

Vaya's list confirms my view. For Valverde's assessment to hold up Remco will need to be better than Merckx - at least in grand tours and non-sprint friendly one day races.

I also doubt we have to wait "years".

Why bring the past or future into the equasion? He was talking about now.

 

[Cookster15]

Why bring the past or future into the equasion? He was talking about now.

Well of course for Remco to be as superior as Valverde claimed now the past and future is equally relevant. You don't become that strong out of nowhere.

 

[Extinction]

Well of course for Remco to be as superior as Valverde claimed now the past and future is equally relevant. You don't become that strong out of nowhere.

True, but we can't compare cycling in the 60s-70s to today. The sport is more scientific, global, has 40+ years of evolution on its back. It's like comparing Michelangelo to Bernini, who was greater?

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Ah yes the little known “mind boggled bias.”

Otherwise he could have been just mind-boggled.

 

[Extinction]

Ah yes the little known “mind boggled bias.”

Bull-sheet. Look if he was mind-boggled, it's because he hasn't seen anything like it. Anyone who has raced knows class when he sees it, at the various levels in relative declination. Someone attacks and it's like a rocket taking off and you say what the fook?!? Not gonna get that wheel. When Valverde is the one saying it from first hand experience, there is no bias, but pure honest sensation.