Top 10 male riders of the 21st century.

[LaFlorecita]

...and instead including Ryder????? I'm curious too. I'm still trying to figure my ten.

I thought sir fly's list was more interesting

 

[Netserk]

Does it matter?

Obviously. It's the difference between 5 and 6 Tour wins for Armstrong. Another Liege for Bettini. Olympic gold for Ullrich. A MSR, Amstel and green jersey for Zabel. Another Vuelta for Heras.

Some will order the riders after what they archived in the 21st century, others after what they archived from 2000 onwards. The OP is clear. This thread is about the 21st century.

 

[LaFlorecita]

A shame as that means Ullrich's Olympic gold doesn't count then. Only 5 Tour wins for Armstrong means he loses to Contador. And Bettini only has 1 Liege win then

^I guess this means you were looking for an argument from the start then

Obviously. It's the difference between 5 and 6 Tour wins for Armstrong. Another Liege for Bettini. Olympic gold for Ullrich. A MSR, Amstel and green jersey for Zabel. Another Vuelta for Heras.

Some will order the riders after what they archived in the 21st century, others after what they archived from 2000 onwards. The OP is clear. This thread is about the 21st century.

 

[Angliru]

Sorry but many people being ignorant doesn't change fact.

What's next? More people than not believe in God. Does that mean that he exists?

Please just let it go.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Ordinarily I'd be in LaFlo's corner for this, I dislike the pedantry on decades/centuries and when they begin and end. Ultimately I see a case for both, but popular parlance has it one way, which is 99,9% of the time the definition used.

However, Miburo once asked for "best riders of the year" then flipped out at me for including Marianne Vos, called me a troll and said it was obvious it was about men's racing only despite that they had never made any statement to that effect and that Zam and Hitch had both also mentioned Vos, then twisted my words to make out I was insulting them. So netserk has, as far as I'm concerned, carte blanche to be as pedantic as they like, we've got plenty of these list threads and I'm sure a new one will come up a couple of months down the line anyhow.

 

[Netserk]

^I guess this means you were looking for an argument from the start then

No, it meant I took notice from the start. Looking for an argument would be if you continued to discuss it, even though you were factually wrong. It should never be wrong to stand on the side of truth and factuality.

 

[jaylew]

Sorry, but being wilfully ignorant doesn't change what is the factual truth. You may not like it. Too bad for you. Fact is that the 21st century started in 2001.

If you want you can discuss in another thread the best riders from 2000 onwards. However the discussion in this thread is about results from 2001 onwards. Deal with it.

You really don't have to behave this way, Netserk. You can find a bunch of "official" 21st century lists and more than half of them include 2000. We're talking about a silly forum discussion, here. You haven't even participated. If you want to make a list and leave out 2000, fine. We can even discuss how your list would differ if you included 2000.

I'm done with this conversation here. I'm only discussing the lists from here on out as it's ruining the thread. Send me a PM or start a thread in general and I'll discuss it with you there if that's what you want.

 

[Netserk]

You really don't have to behave this way, Netserk. You can find a bunch of "official" 21st century lists and more than half of them include 2000.

You can find a lot of things based on wrong premises on the internet. That doesn't make them right.

We're talking about a silly forum discussion, here. You haven't even participated.

Yes I have. In my very first post I wrote that losing the 6th straight Tour win made Lance rank lower than Contador.

If you want to make a list and leave out 2000, fine. We can even discuss how your list would differ if you included 2000.

Or even better. Everyone reads the OP and make their list about results in the 21st century only. Would make a lot more sense to compare lists based on the same premise

I'm done with this conversation here. I'm only discussing the lists from here on out as it's ruining the thread. Send me a PM or start a thread in general and I'll discuss it with you there if that's what you want.

You are free to not post about this if you don't want to, just like I am free to do so. What would be ruining the thread would be if some started to make a list including Merckx and Coppi, also based on results outside of the 21st century.

 

[jaylew]

I dislike the pedantry on decades/centuries and when they begin and end. Ultimately I see a case for both, but popular parlance has it one way, which is 99,9% of the time the definition used.

My sincere apologies, LS. I've misrepresented you.

 

[Angliru]

I thought sir fly's list was more interesting

I chose to disregard his and Echoes for obvious reasons.

Here's mine in no particular order:

Oscarito "The Cat" Freire
Tom Boonen
Mark Cavendish
Alberto Contador
Paulo Bettini
Alejandro Valverde
Fabian Cancellara
Vincenzo Nibali
Lance Armstrong
Cadel Evans

Honorable mention: Roberto Heras, Philippe Gilbert, Gilberto Simoni, Alessandro Petacchi, Damiano Cunego, Ivan Basso, Joaquin "Purito" Rodriguez, Danilo Diluca, Alexandre Vinokourov, Denis Menchov

 

[cineteq]

Armstrong
Contador
Evans
Basso
Ullrich
Vinokourov
Cancellara
Valverde
Boonen
Bettini

Special mention
Rasmussen
Ricco

 

[Netserk]

1st: Contador
2nd: Boonen
3rd: Armstrong
4th: Cancellara
5th: Bettini
6th: Freire
7th: Nibali
8th: Vino
9th: Valverde
10th: Cunego

 

[Angliru]

Armstrong
Contador
Evans
Basso
Ullrich
Vinokourov
Cancellara
Valverde
Boonen
Bettini

Special mention
Rasmussen
Ricco

I must have a T-Mobile block. I forgot Zabel and Der Kaiser.

 

[burning]

Armstrong
Cancellara
Contador
Boonen
Valverde
Freire
Bettini
Gilbert
Evans
Rebellin

 

[Netserk]

Re. Zabel: How does one green jersey, one MSR, two P-T, one Hamburg and some smaller results make him a top-10 material?

 

[LaFlorecita]

No, it meant I took notice from the start. Looking for an argument would be if you continued to discuss it, even though you were factually wrong. It should never be wrong to stand on the side of truth and factuality.

But why would you mention it if it was so obvious which results were included and which weren't if someone asked for the best riders since 2000 would you also say "this means 6 wins for Lance not 7 " to me it seems as if you wanted to start a discussion about it which is what you got.

 

[Netserk]

But why would you mention it if it was so obvious which results were included and which weren't if someone asked for the best riders since 2000 would you also say "this means 6 wins for Lance not 7 " to me it seems as if you wanted to start a discussion about it which is what you got.

Because I was aware that there are a lot of ignorant people in this world. That I mentioned it clearly shows that I wanted this misconception out of the way early, so everyone could base their list on the same premise.

 

[Red Rick]

Thread is detoriating easier than I thought. The one year is really unimportant, unless you want to show that you can use wikipedia

Any list is gonna be super arbitrary and if you use a point system you'll get some ridiculous outcomes too. So I'mma go ahead and say

1rst place Contador
2nd place is not good

 

[Angliru]

Because I was aware that there are a lot of ignorant people in this world. That I mentioned it clearly shows that I wanted this misconception out of the way early, so everyone could base their list on the same premise.

The OP first stated it would include just the 21st century and then said it would encompass the past 15 years. With this being the very beginning of 2015 one would think it was his/her intention to include the year 2000. His thread, his rules. It's open to interpretation based on those facts until he/she says otherwise.

 

[Angliru]

Thread is detoriating easier than I thought. The one year is really unimportant, unless you want to show that you can use wikipedia

Any list is gonna be super arbitrary and if you use a point system you'll get some ridiculous outcomes too. So I'mma go ahead and say

1rst place Contador
2nd place is not good

Thank you for brightening this thread with your humor. I love it!

 

[Dr. Juice]

1. Contador
2. Armstrong ( just the Tour vs all 3 GT's and a lot of 1-week races)
3. Bettini
4. Boonen
5. Cancellara
6. Heras
7. Petacchi
8. Basso
9. Ullrich
10. Simoni

Edit: Including 2000. It should really begin with 2000. There are 9 numbers/cyphers existing. 0-9 . 0 the first one and 9 the last one ( if we take a decade...2000-2009 would be 1 decade etc). So 2000- 2099 the 21st century.

 

[Netserk]

Thread is detoriating easier than I thought. The one year is really unimportant, unless you want to show that you can use wikipedia

Any list is gonna be super arbitrary and if you use a point system you'll get some ridiculous outcomes too. So I'mma go ahead and say

1rst place Contador
2nd place is not good

Say that to Armstrong, Bettini and Ullrich.

 

[cineteq]

Thread is detoriating easier than I thought. The one year is really unimportant, unless you want to show that you can use wikipedia

It is unimportant, plus all palmares before 2000, from all riders who finished their careers in XXI century, should be accounted for as well.

 

[ILovecycling]

thats tough,


1.Boonen
2.Contador
3.Armstrong
4.Freire
5.Cancellara
6.Valverde
7.Nibali
8.Bettini
9.Schleck
10.Zabel

 

[LaFlorecita]

Thread is detoriating easier than I thought. The one year is really unimportant, unless you want to show that you can use wikipedia

Any list is gonna be super arbitrary and if you use a point system you'll get some ridiculous outcomes too. So I'mma go ahead and say

1rst place Contador
2nd place is not good

Yes this