bnators take for the most part is really not controversial.
Can't regard Remco as an elite GT GC racer yet. There's only 2 anyway. If we talk about the ones behind, not a scandalous take either. There's 2 things he hasn't proven yet:
1) multi climb high mountain stages. Not his fault, he did't design the Vuelta 22 and certainly not choose to get Covid in the Giro.
2) He can win in a group where everybody has specifically prepared for this, where it's the main goal for all contenders. Impossible to prove that in the Vuelta, there's always a bunch of +1 riders there, where it's the second season goal after the Giro or after the Tour. Winning something when it's your main goal, but the second one for many of the others is not as convincing as winning the Giro or the Tour, where it's the goal for all contenders really. This year it's the +1 for Remco too though, so already a more even playing field than 2022. Still whatever happens, the Vuelta just is not a good GT for definitive answers.
Until that is done, I'm not ready to declare him to be number 3 in the GT world either. Yes he won the Vuelta. I think rather highly of Mas, even higher of Vuelta Mas, he beat him clearly, certainly worth something. But see above. He's below Hindley, Carapaz, Roglic etc. for the moment. Because they simply have proven more. But he has the potential to reach and overtake that group. But yes, he indeed has to prove it. Nobody is putting Ayuso, Rodriguez and Arensman as elite GT riders yet (I hope at least). But they all have the potential to become that. Remco has won a Vuelta, they haven't, he's ahead of them. Logic, everybody will agree. Same logic puts Hindley for example above Remco right now. Giro win and second place, even after a finally slightly disappointing Tour, he's in the group behind the 2 GT superstars. But he'll have to confirm it again in 24. Remco has the
potential to be much better, but Arensman has that too. Would Ayuso winning the Vuelta put him ahead of Remco? Not for me, because this year it would be Ayuso who is the guy who has this as season goal nr 1, while Vingegaard, Roglic, Thomas, Remco have it as +1
And no, there's no special rule for Remco, that he has to prove stuff. Even if the whining about poor Remco having to prove things in this thread never stops. Lots of riders have to prove themselves all the time. Roglic before the Giro had lots to prove too, does he still have it? Can he win something other than the Vuelta? Thomas as well, he has to prove that he isn't over the hill yet in every GT he starts by now. Age. This Vuelta too, Roglic has to prove once again that he hasn't lost a step. After all nobody really knows after the Giro, everybody fell asleep at some point in this boredom festival, no clue what he did.... Vinge? Has to prove the ability to ride 2 GTs. It took Froome quite a few tries to finally get the Tour-Vuelta double right. Remco on the other hand doesn't have to prove he is a top classic rider anymore. While nobody seems to know what to make of the course in Glasgow, everybody seems to agree that Remco is one of the riders to watch. More than Pogacar (and no, not because Pogacar has to prove his worth, but because coming from the Tour, even unsure if he should start or not, just doesn't inspire much confidence)
> Remco drops Roglic left, right and center in the Vuelta. A minute here, a minute there. Another minute in the time trial: 'No, it's not fair.
Roglic is still recovering from his crash in the Tour. Doesn't count.'
> Remco crashes and loses 48 seconds on Sierra de la Pandera: Huh, crash? Doesn't matter. Crashes are part of the game, nothing to see here.'
> Roglic crashes out of the Vuelta: 'No, this Vuelta doesn't count for Remco. Roglic crashed.
'
> Remco puts three quarters of a minute into Roglic in less than 20 kilometers in the Giro: 'No, not fair. Roglic is still recovering from his Vuelta crash.'
> Remco contracts covid, which forces him to subsequently withdraw from said Giro, but not before winning the second time trial despite illness: 'Huh, illness? Part of the game bro, nothing to see here. This one counts by the way.'
You got most things wrong.
-Remco drops Roglic at the Vuelta. Acknowledging that Roglic's preparation wasn't ideal, that a perfectly prepared Roglic might be stronger. None of us really knows how much it hampered him, but seems likely that without the Tour crash he'd been stronger. That's all. That simple acknowledgment is all it would take. It doesn't take away anything from Remco actually, he can only beat the riders that are there in the form they have. The failure to acknowledge that hurts your credibility though.
-Well, it
is part of cycling. And same as for Roglic, while nobody knows for sure how much it hampered him, it seems very likely that it did.
- Actually very few people think that Roglic would have somehow managed to get the time back in the remaining stages.
- Any quotes for that one? Doubt it.
-Again making stuff up.
But the answer seems to be in this sentence here:
Peak Remco is all that should be debated.
It's about peak Remco only. If he is in peak shape it counts. The condition of other riders is irrelevant. Logical, no? Remco is the best, so he wins. His opponents shape doesn't matter. If he doesn't win, can't have been peak. Yes, that's not what Big Doopie meant I guess, but well, in the end for many seems to be how it is. Can't remember ever reading something like "Remco didn't win, rider xyz was just better" here...
You can fabricate all you want, but if you check things I actually said - I specifically said both of these count as special circumstance:
Why deal with opinions when you can just buld strawmen seems to be popular in this thread.
My take is completely different. The entire race I was sure Remco does not stand a chance against those guys (Thomas, Roglic & Tao) when the real mountains come.
Hm, here we disagree. I thought it would be possible that he would lose time. And the Giro. But was far from sure. Losing some time more likely, losing enough to lose rosa.. 50/50.
Anyway, we'll see more in the Vuelta. Even if as I said the Vuelta is not really a good GT for answers.
What will be interesting is how the Giro guys show up. 21+22 it was surprising how many of them failed to deliver in the Vuelta, Almeida only really, Arensman 22 a bit, after doing failing towards teh end of the Giro, he was there in the Vuelta. Landa, Bernal, Carapaz, etc etc, all disappointed in 21-22. Not sure why, maybe getting a second peak simply too much for most riders? Breaks too long, so had to rebuild from scratch, better to keep the condition at a certain level? Tired from the Giro? No clue really. Let's see how they deal with it this time. Roglic did well in 19, so presumably knows how to do it. The rest.. .we'll see.
For Vinge the question of course is how well he recovered from the Tour. He certainly went deep a few times there..
How well have Mas+Carapaz recovered from their crash?
So as usual the result won't really give too many answers, too many riders with question marks.
Biggest question of course is: Will Pello Bilbao start? Because if he is, he wins. Only rider to drop Vingegaard in the Tour in ages (well, kind of dropping him) and undroppable by Remco in a one day race, nobody will beat Bilbao!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram