Why would you "peel them off"? That seems excessive and a little bit strange...no?Indeed if you peel off those three wins, he only won one WT race. People should measure their excitement a bit.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Why would you "peel them off"? That seems excessive and a little bit strange...no?Indeed if you peel off those three wins, he only won one WT race. People should measure their excitement a bit.
None so far, because he hasn't won the Tour yet. Looking forward to the onions however
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.
…Take Bernhard Hinault for example. His "analyses" have always been the purest of excrements.
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 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.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.
Yes. Unironically.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?
..etcI judge Valverde's statement by its unconditional truth. By its Socratic intelligence. For his instinctive knowledge.
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?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?
We don't know yet.
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.Over the next years we shall see how much Valverde's assessment holds up
Otherwise he could have been just mind-boggled.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.
Why bring the past or future into the equasion? He was talking about now.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".
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.Why bring the past or future into the equasion? He was talking about now.
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?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.
Otherwise he could have been just mind-boggled.