Mambo95 said:
The original poster, who you prompt abused, asked (not said) if he was the 'best' not 'greatest'. There's a subtle difference - best is at their peak, greatest is more of a career thing.
EVER.
So a darrigade getting eight stages, or Cipolini winning 9 GT stages, a points jersey, MSR and WC are being surpassed already?
Incidently, the excellent Inner Ring blog had asked the same question, and he's very knowledgeable (although he said greatest):
http://inrng.com/2011/07/cavendish-the-greatest-sprinter-of-all-time/
Who then goes on about TdF stages as a yardstick *shrug*. His article is clearly inaptly named.
The example isn't flawed as the WR is an indication of the fastest at their best, not a reflection of their career acheivements. Yet your argument was the opposite, based purely on career achievements, with no regard to who is actually the fastest.
It certainly isn't so clear cut:
In Usains case it's all of it. He won all great prices and is the fastest man ever. A case certainly can be made for him.
However Cavendish hasn't broken a record yet.
But now I'll add some more arguments: If we are not looking at palmares, allow me to add the competition in the mix.
How many great sprinters at their prime are there nowadays?
Greipel?
Farrar?
Now compare that with those Mario had to deal with.
Zabel, Mc Ewen,
Pettachi
You will agree comparing this is extremely tricky... hence we resort to; palmares.
Your arguements aren't without merit, but when you react to a very reasonable question by calling people stupid fanboys who nothing about the history of cycling, then you're not going to come out of it looking good.
It is stupid because it is without regards of cycling history and certainly has all the ingredients of a fanboy reaction.
Since when is a facepalm reaction so bad? Since when is pointing out the facts so abusive?
I might not come out looking good for those who don't regard facts as important... *shrug*.