Top 5 GT Riders: Order & Discussion

[FoxxyBrown1111]

1-Horner (coz age, training kms & health don´t matter to him, the greatest ever)
2-Froome (great transfo)
3-Wiggins (another great transfo; if he would want he could come back any time for another GT win)
4-AC (teflon I)
5-Valve (teflon II)

 

[Rollthedice]

So Purito will be 8 minutes down in GC against any of those big 4?

I was of course exaggerating but either way he is far down in GC against those four in any GT they would compete and I like him but how on earth can you loose a GT to Hesjedal?

 

[Arredondo]

I was of course exaggerating but either way he is far down in GC against those four in any GT they would compete and I like him but how on earth can you loose a GT to Hesjedal?

If he's on topform, of course he isn't way down in GC. That's just to much. Actually it's too bad Nibali and Purito haven't raced a GT against each other both in full mode. If Nibali was good, Purito was less and vice versa.

The big four are better. Agree with that. But mostly because of the TT. Purito just sucks and will never win a GT because of that TT. But based on pure climbing, he isn't lesser then Nibali. The Purito of the Alps last year would have have come close to Nibali this year, i'm sure about that.

Quintana, Froome and Contador are more regular during a GT if you look at climbing in the high mountains. But if Purito has a really good day, he can beat everybody out there. He just isn't regular enough.

Giro 2012 was just an example of underestimating your rivals and the fact Purito was a different rider back then. In the Vuelta later that year, he was already a lot better then the Giro. If you compare him back then with the Purito of the Tour 2013, Hesjedal just had the luck he had to fight against the ''first version''.

 

[Netserk]

If he's on topform, of course he isn't way down in GC. That's just to much. Actually it's too bad Nibali and Purito haven't raced a GT against each other both in full mode. If Nibali was good, Purito was less and vice versa.

The big four are better. Agree with that. But mostly because of the TT. Purito just sucks and will never win a GT because of that TT. But based on pure climbing, he isn't lesser then Nibali. The Purito of the Alps last year would have have come close to Nibali this year, i'm sure about that.

Quintana, Froome and Contador are more regular during a GT if you look at climbing in the high mountains. But if Purito has a really good day, he can beat everybody out there. He just isn't regular enough.

Giro 2012 was just an example of underestimating your rivals and the fact Purito was a different rider back then. In the Vuelta later that year, he was already a lot better then the Giro. If you compare him back then with the Purito of the Tour 2013, Hesjedal just had the luck he had to fight against the ''first version''.

When was that?

Here's the grand total of times Purito has beaten Nibali in a GT:

0

 

[Jspear]

1. Alberto Contador. He is the top GT rider of this era. Even though he has had some bad luck and lost a couple gt's, he still has the best palmares of any currect GT rider. I still think he has one or two GT wins in him. I put him on equal terms with CF as far as current form.

2. Chris Froome. I personally think CF will only win 1 more Tour even though he wants many more.

3. Vincenzo Nibali. Even after this Tour I still put him half a notch down from AC and CF. I do think he is a more complete rider and his palmares are way better than CF's. I think if he tries the Giro and Vuelta again that he can add another GT or two to his palmares.

4. Nario Quintana. I think he is the best climber right now. His weakness is his TTing. Personally I think he is the new AC. He'll take home lots of GT's.

5. Joaquin Rodrigeuz. Will go down in history as one of the great GT riders who never actually won one.

 

[Arredondo]

When was that?

Here's the grand total of times Purito has beaten Nibali in a GT:

0

You don't read my post properly. It's not the first time ofc, but i will try to explain it to you once. Do you have a pen and paper?

Vuelta 2010: Nibali was beaten by Purito in some of the mountain stages. Won the GT though due to the fact Purito rode like a grandpa in the TT. But, Nibali rode the Giro and build his whole second part of the season to the Vuelta. Purito RODE THE TOUR and tried to hold his form till the third week of the Vuelta. Well, it's rather pathetic (to use your view concering Rodriguez) that Nibali actualy got beaten his **** in some mountain stages by a guy who rode a tough Tour.

Giro 2011: Purito had bronchitis, that's why he rode bad the first two weeks. In the last week he finally found his better form and rode 1.30 (!!) min. away from Nibali on Sestriere.

Vuelta 2011: Both were bad. I'm not going to call the 7th in the Vuelta as the winner.

Vuelta 2013: Purito rode a really hard Tour, so it was logical he wasn't at his best anymore in the Vuelta. Still beated Nibali in some mountain stages (Pena Cabarga, Formigal, Naranco).

So no, they haven't fought against each other with both their full capacities. Well, that he's won 3 GT's doesn't say that much in this dicussion.

 

[retzko]

I believe that J Rod would never win a GT thats really balanced ( 2 decent ITT ) and has top GC riders...


But today you have Giro and Vuelta with very little ITT km s , probably because there home riders are not really good at it. And you can hardly call the Vuelta balanced these days with al those 2 km hilltop sprints.

The Vuelta routes where not that bad in the 90 s and until lmid 2000 s.
But after Puerto and all the doping cases ( esp damaging was that of Roberto heras the record holder ?) the number of TV viewers dropped big and they decided that the only way to save the vuelta was to increase the MTF and shorten the stages.

 

[Netserk]

You don't read my post properly. It's not the first time ofc, but i will try to explain it to you once. Do you have a pen and paper?

Vuelta 2010: Nibali was beaten by Purito in some of the mountain stages. Won the GT though due to the fact Purito rode like a grandpa in the TT. But, Nibali rode the Giro and build his whole second part of the season to the Vuelta. Purito RODE THE TOUR and tried to hold his form till the third week of the Vuelta. Well, it's rather pathetic (to use your view concering Rodriguez) that Nibali actualy got beaten his **** in some mountain stages by a guy who rode a tough Tour.

Giro 2011: Purito had bronchitis, that's why he rode bad the first two weeks. In the last week he finally found his better form and rode 1.30 (!!) min. away from Nibali on Sestriere.

Vuelta 2011: Both were bad. I'm not going to call the 7th in the Vuelta as the winner.

Vuelta 2013: Purito rode a really hard Tour, so it was logical he wasn't at his best anymore in the Vuelta. Still beated Nibali in some mountain stages (Pena Cabarga, Formigal, Naranco).

So no, they haven't fought against each other with both their full capacities. Well, that he's won 3 GT's doesn't say that much in this dicussion.

How about you read my post properly then? Did you note the part I underlined?

 

[Arredondo]

I believe that J Rod would never win a GT thats really balanced ( 2 decent ITT ) and has top GC riders...


But today you have Giro and Vuelta with very little ITT km s , probably because there home riders are not really good at it. And you can hardly call the Vuelta balanced these days with al those 2 km hilltop sprints.

The Vuelta routes where not that bad in the 90 s and until lmid 2000 s.
But after Puerto and all the doping cases ( esp damaging was that of Roberto heras the record holder ?) the number of TV viewers dropped big and they decided that the only way to save the vuelta was to increase the MTF and shorten the stages.

Gosh, 2 ITT's? I'm glad you aren't the guy responsible for the route of the GT's then You can remove all the mountain stages if you do that.

 

[Angliru]

1. Froome
2. Contador
3. Quintana/Nibali
5. Uran

Froome still holds the edge because of his climbing (which I believe can only be matched or surpassed by Contador and Quintana) and his ability versus the clock which is superior to all of his rivals. Contador's improvisational skills along with his climbing which I rate superior to Quintana and Nibali in his 2014 form gives him the edge over that duo. Additionally I don't see either of them matching Contador versus the clock. The 2014 Contador I rate as even with Froome in the mountains. I would rate Quintana superior to Nibali, impressive as Nibali was at the Tour, Quintana IMO would still drop Vincenzo in the mountains with the added thought that he will only get better. Nibali's edge over all of his rivals is his tactical sense, willingness to take risks and of course his overall bike handling skills. Uran is a step below the big 4 here but alone in his position above others like Valverde, Aru, Kelderman, Pinot, Bardet, Majka, Purito and Horner.

 

[Arredondo]

How about you read my post properly then? Did you note the part I underlined?

Fantastic you're saying it. In fact it shows Nibali never fought against a Purito in top form. He always found a Purito who rode the Tour already or was sick. Well, that even shows Nibali has had such luck during his career

 

[Netserk]

Fantastic you're saying it. In fact it shows Nibali never fought against a Purito in top form. He always found a Purito who rode the Tour already or was sick. Well, that even shows Nibali has had such luck during his career

All it shows is that you're fast to accuse me of not reading your posts, while you hadn't read mine. Surprise factor: zero.

 

[Arredondo]

All it shows is that you're fast to accuse me of not reading your posts, while you hadn't read mine. Surprise factor: zero.

The underlinded sentence is onedimensional. It doesn't matter how i read it, it doesn't chance the discussion or view on it.

Because there hasn't been a GT where Purito was good and Nibali less, it has the be the other way ofc.

 

[retzko]

Gosh, 2 ITT's? I'm glad you aren't the guy responsible for the route of the GT's then QUOTE]

Not so long ago there was like 100 km ITT in most TDF....

And when you had indurian etc there was also more timetrial kms in Giro etc.

I prefer ITT above flat sprinter stages and it s real cycling.

You can remove all the mountain stages if you do that.

Today Mountain stages dont get balanced by ITT s. A rider like Indurian would today have very little chance to win a GT.

 

[Arredondo]

Gosh, 2 ITT's? I'm glad you aren't the guy responsible for the route of the GT's then QUOTE]

Not so long ago there was like 100 km ITT in most TDF....

And when you had indurian etc there was also more timetrial kms in Giro etc.

I prefer ITT above flat sprinter stages and it s real cycling.



Today Mountain stages dont get balanced by ITT s. A rider like Indurian would today have very little chance to win a GT.

It's the discussion what you base as the most essential of a GT. The climbing aspect? The TT aspect? Or the fact the winner has to be allround?

But if you're putting 2 ITT's in it, that two time trials blows the impact (or time gains) of the 6/7 or 8 mountains stages away. I think that because organisers are putting 6 mountain stages in a 3-week race, they're saying they think climbing is the most important aspect. Then you can't put two TT's in it, because then is the balance of importance completely gone.

 

[retzko]

Well today the mountain stages seem to have less of an impact then before( also because of the shorter stags but also because less quality differ.)..
At least between the top tier. but then again a TDF should be Always like it was between 70 and 100 km ITT.

A GT should provide equal opportunity for a Time trialer who can climb( type Van garderen , Ullrich etc) or for al climber who can Time trial( Contador , nibali etc). A pure climber should only be able to win if he is that good that he can erase his ITT weakness with a bold move in the Mountains.( like Pantani). And cobbes should also be there now and then because they are also integral part of road racing.

A GT should never become a pure climbers contest.

 

[Arredondo]

Well today the mountain stages seem to have less of an impact then before( also because of the shorter stags but also because less quality differ.)..
At least between the top tier. but then again a TDF should be Always like it was between 70 and 100 km ITT.

A GT should provide equal opportunity for a Time trialer who can climb( type Van garderen , Ullrich etc) or for al climber who can Time trial( Contador , nibali etc). A pure climber should only be able to win if he is that good that he can erase his ITT weakness with a bold move in the Mountains.( like Pantani). And cobbes should also be there now and then because they are also integral part of road racing.

A GT should never become a pure climbers contest.

But if you're putting two TT's in it, you will get a Tour 2012. Where there is one guy who is so superiour in the TT, that the climbers are already so demotivated, that there is no real fight anymore. That Tour had really weak opponents ofcourse, that's true.

You can say of Indurain what you want, but he was capable of destroying his opponents in the mountains too (Val Louron '91, La Plagne '95), if he was in the mood.

I think one big TT is a must. But two is too much in my opinion. The best winner of a GT is a guy who is in the basis a climber, but with a good till solid TT.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The gaps opened by the current mountain stages are small. This is because:

a) with crappy mountain stages with little except the MTF, everybody's fresh at the base of the final climb so the gaps created are small
b) with a lack of TT mileage, the climbers don't have that much time they have to pick up on the more TT-biased contenders, therefore they don't have to take risks to get it
c) with the increased strength in depth in major teams, more riders have domestiques intact on the final climb, which exacerbates point a).

You can easily balance 100km of ITT, as long as the mountain stages are difficult enough. Just the same as you can entice riders to attack further out if you give them a hard stage where the final climb is easy and an earlier climb is tougher (Mortirolo-Aprica is the ultimate example of this), and a descent finish doesn't have to be a finish en bloc if the stage leading there is tough enough that the climb will blow people apart.

The 2007 Tour had two 50km ITTs and it was about to be won by Michael fricking Rasmussen.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But if you're putting two TT's in it, you will get a Tour 2012. Where there is one guy who is so superiour in the TT, that the climbers are already so demotivated, that there is no real fight anymore. That Tour had really weak opponents ofcourse, that's true.

There were two factors to the Tour 2012 that need to be added on to it though.

1) the mountain stages were pants and everybody knew the TTs would be decisive
2) Sky had already decimated the climbers in the mountains on Planche des Belles Filles, so the climbers were demotivated because they were behind from the TTs AND they knew they probably wouldn't get any rope in the mountains either.

If the climbers felt they had a chance, and the mountain stages were well designed enough to give them that chance, they would have attacked. Remember Quintana in the 2013 Tour?

 

[roundabout]

Even 150km of ITTs with the same mountain stages wouldn't have stopped the 2007 vintage Rasmussen

 

[retzko]

You can easily balance 100km of ITT, as long as the mountain stages are difficult enough

Completely correct... 100 ITT kms is nothing if the mountain stages are hard enough and if they get used by the climbers to make a difference.

You have to take more risks ... and you get better cycling.

And in a non epo period indurian would never be able to destroy his opponents on a MTF. EVEN mediocore rijs could fly on hautacam with the just amount.

The ITT s serve also to give another opportunity to make a difference in the GC. otherwise you mostly only have the MTF s and one TT and if you are Lucky an echelon stage or a medium mountain stage.

1 ITT for 21 stages is just not enough. You can Always make one of both hilly.

 

[Arredondo]

There were two factors to the Tour 2012 that need to be added on to it though.

1) the mountain stages were pants and everybody knew the TTs would be decisive
2) Sky had already decimated the climbers in the mountains on Planche des Belles Filles, so the climbers were demotivated because they were behind from the TTs AND they knew they probably wouldn't get any rope in the mountains either.

If the climbers felt they had a chance, and the mountain stages were well designed enough to give them that chance, they would have attacked. Remember Quintana in the 2013 Tour?

Very true that well designed stages invite riders to attack from far out. Perhaps the Giro 2010 is the best example, as you say the stage to Aprica. But the most important fact ofcourse that was a really attacking Giro, is because Arroyo got 10 minutes so the likes of Basso and Scarponi had to attack from far out to overtake him. And ofcourse because there were afraid of Evans, who was in front before the Zoncolan.

If you have nice designed stages, the next step is to actually have riders who have a attacking nature (Contador, Quintana, Schleck, Nibali).

But the stages Quintana attacked, doesn't have it do it with a combination of his nature (attacking rider who knows he has the endurance to do it), his place in GC (he was like 8th in GC back then) and tactics from the team (by the time he attacked from far to Ax 3-Domaines and Ventoux, Valverde was still the leader)? If he was 2nd in GC back then, would he have done the same?

 

[scholar]

Valverde has more right to be on this list than Purito. And I write that as someone who despises the former and would like nothing more than to see the latter win a GT.

 

[Escarabajo]

Let's stop using the Schleck name in the GC conteneders topic!!

Thanks.

 

[HappyLoser]

Definitely:

1. AC, because he has 6(7) GT wins + really impressive results this year.
2. CF, because he's the only one, who can beat AC.
3. NQ, because he's the best climber all over the world right now.
4. VN, because he's a true warrior and sometimes he's lucky.
5. RUU, because he's got a real chance to win a GT next year.