Let's not mix up "Nibali vs Remco as GT riders" and "Nibali vs Remco as overall riders". In the first discussion Remco has a looong way to go, in the second he doesn't have a very long way to go.
The dangers of data his that you forget you are comparing the incomparable.Nibali had 52 Pro wins and Remco is already at 50. Regarding the quality of those wins, the PCS all time ranking could be used as a reasonable reference. Remco currently has 68% of the points of Nibali. Unless Remco fades the coming years and never reaches his current level it is hard to see why he wouldn't surpass Nibali and this in a period with exceptional competitors.
Remco has underachieved so farNibali overachieved massively in his career.
Like Maxim IglinskyNibali raced against exceptional riders, as well, and he is one himself.
He overachieved GT by a small amount but underachieved classics somewhatNibali overachieved massively in his career.
I was thinking about Valverde, Contador, Froome, Sagan, Cancellara, Pinot, Evans, Joaquim Rodríguez, Quintana and so on. It was a really bad time, I guess.Like Maxim Iglinsky
Good point. There's also no data for factoring points based on the overall quality of the field.I was thinking about Valverde, Contador, Froome, Sagan, Cancellara, Pinot, Evans, Joaquim Rodríguez, Quintana and so on. It was a really bad time, I guess.
Data has its limitations but it's the best tool we have. Qualitative assessment are partly subjective and as such always reason for controversy.The dangers of data his that you forget you are comparing the incomparable.
It's a good exercise to compare riders from different seasons through overall points, but if you forget that it's a comparison with many flaws and not really an objective measure of how one rider fares with another, you tend to get to not very amusing conclusions.
For the sake of comparison, winning 1000 points with a win at the Tour is not the same as five wins in Grande Premio Miguel Indurain (5x200). But in terms of points, it is.
Yeah, I think that Nibali will have better GT career than Remco. Nibali had a great career as a Grand Tour rider, I doubt Remco will surpass him, I find nothing weird about that.Obviously the best comparison is made at the end, but you are now already saying that you doubt he'll reach the palmares of a rider as Nibali. I'm saying maybe the trajectories should be compared at the same age, since I would assume younger riders still have time to grow. Maybe Remco will plateau and never win a GT again, but that's a weird thing to say for someone who already won one. So I found the assumption that Nibali will have had a better career than Remco weird.
I will never forget that cobble stage in the tour, he did it much better than Pogi. Truly amazing. And Fuglesang was even better that day, truly spectacular.For me Nibali has an incredible palmares because of his overall talent and grit, but I would say it's a rider that overextended his palmares over other more talented riders than himself through daring and cunning.
It's difficult. The best thing is to say that on average they are comparable if they are years and not decades apart and if you are only looking at an overall score. If you look at particular wins such as TdF wins or monument wins it becomes important.Good point. There's also no data for factoring points based on the overall quality of the field.
But I think it's an overall tendency to think that past riders had an easier time than all the epic wins of your favorite rider![]()
Data is a tool, but as any tool, it is ambiguous. You have to be able to frame it in order to make it "talk" wisely. Otherwise you're just a sorcerer's apprentice spilling out "facts" about "rankings" and "performances" in order to justify your already subjective preferences.Data has its limitations but it's the best tool we have. Qualitative assessment are partly subjective and as such always reason for controversy.
This is very debatable.He’s 23. He’s facing the best generation of GC riders since the 80s.
No, he didn't. In classics he won a MSR because nobody cared about him and he took advantage of that. He was a very smart rider but he never had the skillset to win a MSR. But MSR is a lottery, Pogacar will probably never win it and he is better than peak Nibali by a long margin. Sagan never won a MSR too. Nibali could have won a Liège (2012 I think?) but he never was close in other monuments, not in Flandres, not in Roubaix, not in MSR (other editions), not in Worlds (was close in making podium in 2013). He never underachieved in classics. In GT's, he is an overachiever. He would never win a Tour against Froome or Contador but he won. He was very lucky in a couple of GT's too. But for some reason his nickname is The shark of Messina and I miss guys like Nibali, guys like him try everything to win and always find a way to win. He really belongs to the old italian school (and probably he is the last) who are fierceful competitors and those guys were part of my youth as a big fan of cycling. Oh man, miss my boys Di Luca, Bartoli, Bettini, Cippo, Sovoldelli, Simoni, Garzelli, etc.He overachieved GT by a small amount but underachieved classics somewhat
Sure. That's why using a relatively balanced tools such as PCS is reasonable but not perfect. There is a thread in this forum with a similar ranking system that could be used too and may be better. The best would be to ask a capable and neutral third party to do an objective study using tools like this and other data points if we want more depth. In any case, all qualitative discussions here are colored and quantitave may be if the data is fitted to the arguments but even if it can be trusted as objective it has limitations and can only be used for approximations.Data is a tool, but as any tool, it is ambiguous. You have to be able to frame it in order to make it "talk" wisely. Otherwise you're just a sorcerer's apprentice spilling out "facts" about "rankings" and "performances" in order to justify your already subjective preferences.
He won Lombardia twice.Nibali could have won a Liège (2012 I think?) but he never was close in other monuments, not in Flandres, not in Roubaix, not in MSR (other editions), not in Worlds (was close in making podium in 2013).
He won Milano San Remo 'cause he had great endurance and the race that year was hard because of rain and head wind, none of the favourite was able to produce a decent acceleration on the Poggio. Trentin tried to chase him on the flat but exploded after 500 meters. He was the best that day. Plus he has a podium and 2 other top 10 to his name in the race.No, he didn't. In classics he won a MSR because nobody cared about him and he took advantage of that. He was a very smart rider but he never had the skillset to win a MSR. But MSR is a lottery, Pogacar will probably never win it and he is better than peak Nibali by a long margin. Sagan never won a MSR too. Nibali could have won a Liège (2012 I think?) but he never was close in other monuments, not in Flandres, not in Roubaix, not in MSR (other editions), not in Worlds (was close in making podium in 2013). He never underachieved in classics. In GT's, he is an overachiever. He would never win a Tour against Froome or Contador but he won. He was very lucky in a couple of GT's too. But for some reason his nickname is The shark of Messina and I miss guys like Nibali, guys like him try everything to win and always find a way to win. He really belongs to the old italian school (and probably he is the last) who are fierceful competitors and those guys were part of my youth as a big fan of cycling. Oh man, miss my boys Di Luca, Bartoli, Bettini, Cippo, Sovoldelli, Simoni, Garzelli, etc.
I get that, which is why I intimated that if Nibali can win all three GTs, then Remco should not yet be written off.He surely is, but Nibali wasn't the biggest talent out there, yet he had a phenomenal career. In terms of GT's purely, there's a long way in front of Remco to reach Nibali.
Pretty straightforward, it’s textbook cognitive dissonance.I don‘t know what people are smoking in this thread, after „GT winner isn‘t a GT rider“, we now get „MSR winner didn‘t have the skillset to win MSR“. Is Sepp Kuss a GC rider? Obviously yes.
Did Gerald Ciolek have what it takes to win MSR? Yes.
I consider Contador, Purito, and Valverde the previous generation of 2003. The Froome Nibali is more 2008, but it’s apples to oranges since they overlappedI was thinking about Valverde, Contador, Froome, Sagan, Cancellara, Pinot, Evans, Joaquim Rodríguez, Quintana and so on. It was a really bad time, I guess.
I didnt think about it from a generation type of standpoint, even though those in particular spanned over multiple ones.I consider Contador, Purito, and Valverde the previous generation of 2003. The Froome Nibali is more 2008, but it’s apples to oranges since they overlapped
Many riders have better results at their age than Nibali had at the same age. Do you expect for everyone of them to have a better career than Nibali?Obviously the best comparison is made at the end, but you are now already saying that you doubt he'll reach the palmares of a rider as Nibali. I'm saying maybe the trajectories should be compared at the same age, since I would assume younger riders still have time to grow. Maybe Remco will plateau and never win a GT again, but that's a weird thing to say for someone who already won one. So I found the assumption that Nibali will have had a better career than Remco weird.