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

[Eddy Evenepoel]

If this was actually a thing, then I'm proud to present to you Mr. Froome - a rider twice as exciting as your guy...

It’s really funny that when you say it like this you make it sound like Froome has twice as many posts in his thread. And that’s not anywhere near the truth.

 

[bNator]

again someone who only filters out what fits his narrative.

Everyone wears filter glasses here. You, for instance, are trying to prove Remco is the most exciting rider in peloton. You can never prove anything so subjective. It's ridiculous, I'm sorry... It's abundantly clear that for an average Remco fan, it will be more exciting watching Remco scratch his nose than Roglič dropping everyone and their mother 60 km from the finish (disclaimer: that was a figure of speech)...

It’s really funny that when you say it like this you make it sound like Froome has twice as many posts in his thread. And that’s not anywhere near the truth.

Yeah I saw the numbers wrong. Thought he had 1900 pages but has 19000 posts... But Froome being just as exciting as Remco, is not bad for making a point either. Point being - number of posts does not correlate to how exciting a rider is...

 

[Divergence]

1.I always listen to the Belgian interview, and like with Herrada yesterday, the Spanish, and with Ganna, the Italian etc.
If he's easy in Roglic' wheel, it implies he thinks he Could (not Would) have won and is giving arguments why. If he couldn't follow Roglic and had 10 meters at the line, he would have said he wouldn't have won anyway. He just says it like it is. Many times in interviews when he didn't win, he said he didn't have the legs.
2. Again, he explained why he accelerated: in the first place to keep his position, and second, who knows there would be some time gaps. It was a no-risk move in a stage where no one wanted to risk it.
3. His wheel was slipping, and once at speed he stayed at the same distance of Roglic. Should he say he couldn't follow Roglic because he felt weak, while he wasn't? Again, he says it like it is.

You can call it excuses, I call it post-stage analysis. He could also just say nothing or give an explanation without saying anything, e.g.
1. when Roglic won he could just say he sprinted and Roglic won. That would be saying nothing, because that's what we saw on TV. But the neutral fan would ask himself: why did Remco pull all the way from the top of the climb to the finish and do the perfect lead-out? Why was he riding like simply riding to not face a time gap and come in quickly?).
2. In the stage yesterday he could have said he accelerated to try and gap other riders. Everybody knows though that his acceleration was simply to late to try and create any reasonable gaps. By adding some more info about his rationale (making sure he doesn't get attacked and he retains position) explains to the novice cycling fan why he did what he did.
3. In the stage where he said his wheel slipped, he could have simply said Roglic was faster (we all saw that Roglic got the kick). But that doesn't explain / say why he was about to overtake Mas and suddenly didn't. Now Remco explained it, it all made more sense, and Remco stating he felt great indicates that this shouldn't be seen as a weak moment, just a small mistake (in the same order as missing the best line in a curve and getting gapped etc.).

All these little snippets of info is what makes the race more interesting. So just be happy to have those details, and if you don't like them, ignore them / ignore Remco and this forum topic. That makes life much simpler and for some, much more enjoyable (living in their simple, comfortable bubble), it seems.

1a. I explained why I wrote "would" and not "could". It was his tone and wording implying this. Additionally, I suppose you do not understand Slovenian, maybe you would like Rog a bit better if you were to listen to him speaking in Slovenian.
2a. The acceleration is not the problem. He said little acceleration whilst trying to distance others and not succeeding, thus implying that maybe he could have distanced the other had he tried.
3a. He was obliviously weaker then Rog and he got saved by Mas.

1b. Not knowing is one thing and I believe him, but I believe he still tried to be first across the line but he got beaten. He than saying that Rog was not really fast is childish.
2b. Again all good. But he said he did a little accelerating whilst obviously trying to distance the others. It was a sprint (and not a little acceleration) and he got nowhere.
3b. He got to Mas' wheel and he went backwards. Maybe it was a wheel slip but he was not catching Rogla.

In the end it comes down to the way he deals with adversity. His LR podcast was great and endearing. But his unwillingnes to accept others are better and always finding excuses is only endearing to fans of him (like you) whilst for the rest of us it comes across as childish. Especially when it is so obvious.

 

[Volderke]

Everyone wears filter glasses here. You, for instance, are trying to prove Remco is the most exciting rider in peloton. You can never prove anything so subjective. It's ridiculous, I'm sorry... It's abundantly clear that for an average Remco fan, it will be more exciting watching Remco scratch his nose than Roglič dropping everyone and their mother 60 km from the finish (disclaimer: that was a figure of speech)...


Yeah I saw the numbers wrong. Thought he had 1900 pages but has 19000 posts... But Froome being just as exciting as Remco, is not bad for making a point either. Point being - number of posts does not correlate how exciting a rider is...

I explained how I define / measure the excitement a rider provides, and you can think of it what you want, but presenting it in numbers of e.g. views on youtube of pre-race and post-race interviews, number of posts on forums (such as this one), amount of press (and especially priority the press gives) to interview Remco,... All points to him being the most interesting / exciting for the biggest group of people.

That doesn't imply you have to find him the most interesting, and it doesn't imply that being interesting / exciting means he is the best rider or saying the most clever things (the opposite can make you more interesting). It's not a valuation of said rider or even a measurement of popularity (I reckon Sepp Kuss is more popular as being less divisive) just an observation that Remco is entertaining, for his fans and his adversaries all the same.

 

[Elos Anjos]

I just love the "Justin Bieber is more entertaining than XXX because it has more views" argument.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

Yeah I saw the numbers wrong. Thought he had 1900 pages but has 19000 posts... But Froome being just as exciting as Remco, is not bad for making a point either. Point being - number of posts does not correlate how exciting a rider is...

It’s probably a good indicator of how much the total of interest (excitement, interesting story, performance level etc) a rider is. And it says a lot about Remco reaching the same amount of posts at the age of 23 than Froome has at the age of 38.

——————

I don’t think it’s controversial at all to say that Remco is one of (Pogacar, MVDP etc definitively belongs in the same bracket) the most exciting riders in the world.

However I don’t think it’s justified to claim that Remco has been a significantly more exciting rider in this Vuelta and anyone else of the GC guys. I think those that claims that are putting a lot of weight on stuff outside the bike race (media comments) and the other side are looking at only the bike race and therefore there is a collision of views.
This Vuelta has in my opinion been very dull, partly because of the stages and also because of the neutralizations, and no GC rider really deserves credit for being exciting in the bike race so far in the Vuelta. Hopefully that will change in the coming days.

 

[Berniece]

This whole 811 pages a fueled by a pure delusion and rosy glasses of crazy Belgium Remco fans and the rest of the world trying to take those glasses off them. It has nothing to do with riders "panache" or excitement. Just a delusion.

Ah yes, delusion. How many 22 year olds do you know won a GT, Monument and WCC in the same year?

 

[Volderke]

1a. I explained why I wrote "would" and not "could". It was his tone and wording implying this. Additionally, I suppose you do not understand Slovenian, maybe you would like Rog a bit better if you were to listen to him speaking in Slovenian.
2a. The acceleration is not the problem. He said little acceleration whilst trying to distance others and not succeeding, thus implying that maybe he could have distanced the other had he tried.
3a. He was obliviously weaker then Rog and he got saved by Mas.

1b. Not knowing is one thing and I believe him, but I believe he still tried to be first across the line but he got beaten. He than saying that Rog was not really fast is childish.
2b. Again all good. But he said he did a little accelerating whilst obviously trying to distance the others. It was a sprint (and not a little acceleration) and he got nowhere.
3b. He got to Mas' wheel and he went backwards. Maybe it was a wheel slip but he was not catching Rogla.

In the end it comes down to the way he deals with adversity. His LR podcast was great and endearing. But his unwillingnes to accept others are better and always finding excuses is only endearing to fans of him (like you) whilst for the rest of us it comes across as childish. Especially when it is so obvious.

1. I unfortunately don't understand Slovenian, but I have never said I don't like Roglic or I don't find him interesting. It's just that Roglic has serious competition in terms of interesting riders, like Pogacar, MvdP, Evenepoel and some others (who I find more interesting).
2. His acceleration was little as in: late, but it was obviously all out for a moment just to test the competition if there were any gaps to be made. The moment he saw Kuss was quickly on the wheel, Remco backed off in the end.
3. He didn't have the blistering change in pace like Roglic, true, but he was fighting his bike and part of that was because he didn't have traction and isn't the best bike handler. If the line was 1K further, I reckon Roglic could have kept and even increased the gap, but Remco indicated that the initial gap wasn't because he didn't have the legs, which I take as info that he feels confident he can counter attacks by Roglic, so chances that Remco would have crawled back were as big based on what Remco claims. We'll see if Roglic attacks again in the next 10 days, if he can get a gap or if not.

Remco seems to be a sore loser in the sense that he hates losing and in his English speaking interviews (usually the first interview after the finish), you mostly see that his post-race frustration of losing is dominating. In Remco's Dutch-speaking interviews, I see a rider who is giving a balanced and fair analysis where he lost the race, while congratulating the winner.

 

[Volderke]

I just love the "Justin Bieber is more entertaining than XXX because it has more views" argument.

How else would you measure entertainment?
Skijumping is very entertaining, but the number of people entertained by it are mainly living in a radius of 100K around the Alps.
Bambi movies, on the other hand, entertain people around the world.

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

In my mind there are 5 ways for sport fans to discuss about an athlete.

A) The super fan. Defending the athlete left and right and love basically everything the athlete do. This fan often tries attacking the competitors of their dude.
Example: so called die hard Messi fans that gets excited about every pass and spend quite some time saying CR is *** and enjoy calling him Penaldo.

B) The “I like this dude” fan. Have a soft spot for the athlete and like him better than some of the major competitors, but are able to see things the athlete does bad.
Example: a guy that really enjoys watching Messi play football and hope his team wins, but also sees Messi is pretty lazy and doesn’t contribute to the team defensively and also doesn’t try to defend him with life as stake for the tax case.

C) The neutral fan. Doesn’t really care about any of the involved athletes and just want to enjoy a good show. Credits the athletes that do well, no matter who it is.
Example: a guy that enjoys Messi play and also think CR is really good and accepts that some people prefer one and others prefer the other.

D) The “I don’t really like this dude” fan. Prefer other athletes, but can still give this dude credit if he does something well, but often with the thought of “but my guy would’ve probably been better” in the back of their mind.
Example: fans that don’t like Barcelona and are not really Messi fans. Still able to give him credit for the amazing things, but prefer other players with a different set of skills.

E) The hater. Doesn’t want the athlete to do well and enjoy when the athlete don’t succeed. Often big fans of a strong competitor. Complains a lot about the fans of the athlete. Like to claim they are neutral but the second they write something about the athlete they fool no one.
Example: die hard CR fans that thinks Messi is mediocre and nowhere near the quality of CR. Believes the World Cup in Qatar was rigged for Argentina and truly believes Pessi is a funny nickname.

———

Of course there are plenty of nuances in each category.

When it comes to Remco I’m in category B. I think he’s a great cyclist, but still have plenty of room for improvement. I think he comes across as a good dude, for example in the Lantern Rouge interview, but he clearly have some stupid reactions in the heat of the moment that he should learn to avoid. I think Pogacar and MVDP (for example in MVDP vs WVA I’m seeing myself in B for Mathieu and in D for Wout) is atleast equal to him for entertainment value and in races they race against each other im not necessarily hoping Remco wins. Same goes for Remco vs Uno-X riders, but that’s not really a relevant question as of 2023…

In this forum we clearly have a lot of people that belongs in both category A, B, C, D and E.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I have not had textual relations with either Roglič or Evenepoel. Does that make me delusional, or just boring?

 

[peterfin]

@Volderke There are a few here that are a waste of time to argue with. They will always sherry pick your arguments to make claims that fit their view. They won't change or admit they may be wrong.

 

[Berniece]

In my mind there are 5 ways for sport fans to discuss about an athlete.

A) The super fan. Defending the athlete left and right and love basically everything the athlete do. This fan often tries attacking the competitors of their dude.
Example: so called die hard Messi fans that gets excited about every pass and spend quite some time saying CR is *** and enjoy calling him Penaldo.

B) The “I like this dude” fan. Have a soft spot for the athlete and like him better than some of the major competitors, but are able to see things the athlete does bad.
Example: a guy that really enjoys watching Messi play football and hope his team wins, but also sees Messi is pretty lazy and doesn’t contribute to the team defensively and also doesn’t try to defend him with life as stake for the tax case.

C) The neutral fan. Doesn’t really care about any of the involved athletes and just want to enjoy a good show. Credits the athletes that do well, no matter who it is.
Example: a guy that enjoys Messi play and also think CR is really good and accepts that some people prefer one and others prefer the other.

D) The “I don’t really like this dude” fan. Prefer other athletes, but can still give this dude credit if he does something well, but often with the thought of “but my guy would’ve probably been better” in the back of their mind.
Example: fans that don’t like Barcelona and are not really Messi fans. Still able to give him credit for the amazing things, but prefer other players with a different set of skills.

E) The hater. Doesn’t want the athlete to do well and enjoy when the athlete don’t succeed. Often big fans of a strong competitor. Complains a lot about the fans of the athlete. Like to claim they are neutral but the second they write something about the athlete they fool no one.
Example: die hard CR fans that thinks Messi is mediocre and nowhere near the quality of CR. Believes the World Cup in Qatar was rigged for Argentina and truly believes Pessi is a funny nickname.

———

Of course there are plenty of nuances in each category.

When it comes to Remco I’m in category B. I think he’s a great cyclist, but still have plenty of room for improvement. I think he comes across as a good dude, for example in the Lantern Rouge interview, but he clearly have some stupid reactions in the heat of the moment that he should learn to avoid. I think Pogacar and MVDP (for example in MVDP vs WVA I’m seeing myself in B for Mathieu and in D for Wout) is atleast equal to him for entertainment value and in races they race against each other im not necessarily hoping Remco wins. Same goes for Remco vs Uno-X riders, but that’s not really a relevant question as of 2023…

In this forum we clearly have a lot of people that belongs in both category A, B, C, D and E.

Nice overview. For myself it's like this, with the exception that when the race is MVDP v. WVA, then WVA drops to category D

A - MVDP/Evenepoel
B - WVA/Pogacar
C - Everyone else
D -Nathan Van Hooydonck, Tim Wellens, Florian Vermeersch
E - No one

 

[bNator]

How else would you measure entertainment?
Skijumping is very entertaining, but the number of people entertained by it are mainly living in a radius of 100K around the Alps.
Bambi movies, on the other hand, entertain people around the world.

The "more people like it" was never a good measure of quality TBH. Start with what kind of movies the majority like to watch to who they end up voting for. But this is not even the "more people like him" case. More posts on this forum means nothing more than what it says it means: more posts on this forum. Of course we can have theories why that is: Maybe Remco is more polarising (and polarising != exciting). Maybe this forum has a a higher than usual representation of people from Belgium. Maybe some people have made it their personal quest to reach post count record in Remco thread. And maybe he's more exciting... Your guess is just as good as mine (I guess) but there is certainly no proven correlation between amount of posts and rider being exciting. As indicated by Froome having tons of posts.

 

[Volderke]

I have not had textual relations with either Roglič or Evenepoel. Does that make me delusional, or just boring?

you are giving me Bill Clinton vibes!

 

[Elos Anjos]

A - MVDP/Roglic/Pogacar
B - Quintana/Almeida
C - Everyone else
D -Remco/Soler/Colbrelli/Froome
E - No one

 

[Volderke]

The "more people like it" was never a good measure of quality TBH. Start with what kind of movies the majority like to watch to who they end up voting for. But this is not even the "more people like him" case. More posts on this forum means nothing more than what it says it means: more posts on this forum. Of course we can have theories why that is: Maybe Remco is more polarising (and polarising != exciting). Maybe this forum has a a higher than usual representation of people from Belgium. Maybe some people have made it their personal quest to reach post count record in Remco thread. And maybe he's more exciting... Your guess just as good as mine (I guess) but there is certainly no proven correlation between amount of posts and rider being exciting. As indicated by Froome having tons of posts.

country of origin is for sure a factor.
But even then: Pantani was imho more exciting than Armstrong, and Armstrong had the US audience + most of the English-speaking audience interested in cycling thanks to his origin, while Pantani was a 'classic' Italian (anti)hero. Roglic, Vingegaard, MvdP,
Evenepoel all come from small countries, but there are definitely more Belgians on this forum than e.g. Slovenians or even Danish. The fact that the English speaking press covers a lot of Evenepoel stories, indicates that it's not only the home fan base that is pushing / pulling the hype train.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

I think I have a lot of riders that are at the top of the A/B split down toward neutrality, but clear nuances there.
A - no one
B - Roglic, Pogacar, Wout, Kuss, situationally Remco
C - most riders, situationally Remco
D - situationally Remco, Soler, Vingegaard
E - no one

I’d put Evenpoel in C but he flexes down to D when riding against a B rider (or when forum fans are too much) and up to B when riding a monument.

 

[bNator]

Good job to everyone, admitting they are type A fans sometimes... Now let's wait for the first hater to come clean

 

[Berflamand]

A - Evenepoel/Messi
B - Other SQS riders
C - All other riders
D - /
E - Cristiano Ronaldo/Every other rider when they beat Evenepoel

 

[Volderke]

@Volderke There are a few here that are a waste of time to argue with. They will always sherry pick your arguments to make claims that fit their view. They won't change or admit they may be wrong.

Even those are clearly entertained as they keep coming back to this thread

A: no one
B: no one
C: almost everyone, and will defend all of them towards people in cat. D and E, so for those people, I seem to have those riders in cat. A or B.
D: no one
E: no one

Category F: Failed in life, obviously flawed humans, but first thing you feel is pity and not hate:
Jan Ullrich, Marco Pantani, Frank Vandenbroucke

Category G: bad apples (like F but also a bad / fake / poisonous character, making me angry, but hating is a step too far for me)
Lance Armstrong, Philippe Gaumont, Riccardo Ricco, Richard Virenque

 

[chickenlips]

Ah yes, delusion. How many 22 year olds do you know won a GT, Monument and WCC in the same year?

Who gives a flying eff, apart from his die hards.

 

[chickenlips]

Good job to everyone, admitting they are type A fans sometimes... Now let's wait for the first hater to come clean

I don't hate the lad, he's a great rider. It's just 90% of the posts in this thread make me want to hate the lad.

 

[KZD]

Who gives a flying eff, apart from his die hards.

Let me make this clear to you.

If you don't care about a rider, whoever he is, winning three of the biggest races in road cycling in the same year, you don't like this sport.

 

[ManicJack]

Let me make this clear to you.

If you don't care about a rider, whoever he is, winning three of the biggest races in road cycling in the same year, you don't like this sport.

If you don't care that one team, whoever they are, wins all 3 GT's in the same year, you don't like this sport. See, it works both ways.