Vélo d'Or 2015

[hrotha]

Paris-Nice, Romandie, Dauphiné, Tour and Olympic gold medal. Methinks you're underrating it just because it was Wiggins who won al that stuff.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I dont find how any rider this year could be chosen before Valverde. He has been number one in the UCI ranking, procyclingstats ranking, CQ ranking and whatever ranking made this year, soooo... The only rider who comes close to Valverde in these rankings is Kristoff.

I think it is people just being contrary for the sake of it, or biased either against Valverde or for another rider.

The guy was a whisker away from doing the Ardennes triple, then followed it up with a TDF podium, Vuelta points jersey, National Championship and numerous other impressive victories in stage races. Plus he finished top 5 in every major one day race that he entered. He's not just by far the best rider this season, it's one of the most impressive seasons by any rider in the last 30 years.

I agree with King Boonen that Degenkolb is the only one that deserves a mention in comparsion - because the double he achieved was incredible - but it still falls well short of Valverde's achievements. Kristoff and Sagan had one major achievement each and a bunch of minor results, with both disappointing in the Grand Tours. Nowhere near Valverde - who exelled in both monuments and GTs this year.

Please. What Valverde did is in a category with riders winning 2 GT's in a year? In the last 5 years alone, there were 2 better years (Phil 2011, Wiggo 2012).

Gilbert and Wiggo not even close to Valverde imo. They both excelled in only one of either one day races or grand tours. It's relatively easier to do well in one or the other because you train exclusively for them - to do well in both in the same season is rare because the demands are different and it requires mainting a high level of form for so long. To put in a great performance in every major race you target - either one day or grand tour - as Valverde did this year is unprecedented in the modern era.

Even more incredible when you think how little role his team played in most of his victories. Certainly could not say the same about Wiggo.

Let's also not forget that Gilbert's season came when the best Ardennes rider of his generation wasn't allowed to compete. Wiggins' great season came when the best Grand Tour rider of his generation wasn't allowed to compete. You can only beat what is infront of you, but it takes away a bit from the achievements for me.

 

[Brullnux]

Do you really think that Valverde, or anyone really, could have beaten Gilbert of 2011?

Also, Valverde's season will not be one that we will remember in 10 years or so as clearly as Gilbert 2011. We remember standout feats, less so feats of great consistency.

 

[Flamin]

Re: Re:

I dont find how any rider this year could be chosen before Valverde. He has been number one in the UCI ranking, procyclingstats ranking, CQ ranking and whatever ranking made this year, soooo... The only rider who comes close to Valverde in these rankings is Kristoff.

I think it is people just being contrary for the sake of it, or biased either against Valverde or for another rider.

The guy was a whisker away from doing the Ardennes triple, then followed it up with a TDF podium, Vuelta points jersey, National Championship and numerous other impressive victories in stage races. Plus he finished top 5 in every major one day race that he entered. He's not just by far the best rider this season, it's one of the most impressive seasons by any rider in the last 30 years.

I agree with King Boonen that Degenkolb is the only one that deserves a mention in comparsion - because the double he achieved was incredible - but it still falls well short of Valverde's achievements. Kristoff and Sagan had one major achievement each and a bunch of minor results, with both disappointing in the Grand Tours. Nowhere near Valverde - who exelled in both monuments and GTs this year.

Please. What Valverde did is in a category with riders winning 2 GT's in a year? In the last 5 years alone, there were 2 better years (Phil 2011, Wiggo 2012).

Gilbert and Wiggo not even close to Valverde imo. They both excelled in only one of either one day races or grand tours. It's relatively easier to do well in one or the other because you train exclusively for them - to do well in both in the same season is rare because the demands are different and it requires mainting a high level of form for so long. To put in a great performance in every major race you target - either one day or grand tour - as Valverde did this year is unprecedented in the modern era.

Even more incredible when you think how little role his team played in most of his victories. Certainly could not say the same about Wiggo.

Let's also not forget that Gilbert's season came when the best Ardennes rider of his generation wasn't allowed to compete. Wiggins' great season came when the best Grand Tour rider of his generation wasn't allowed to compete. You can only beat what is infront of you, but it takes away a bit from the achievements for me.

Riders doing well in GT's and hilly classics is not that rare. An amazing ride in de Ronde and then the Ardennes quadruple, now THAT is rare. Gilbert 2011 was from another planet.

About Wiggo. Sure, Valverde did great in pretty much every race he entered. Wiggo won pretty much every race he entered. Just saying...

Oh, and Valverde was lucky that he wasn't allowed to compete in 2011, not the other way around

 

[Mr.White]

Re:

Do you really think that Valverde, or anyone really, could have beaten Gilbert of 2011?

Also, Valverde's season will not be one that we will remember in 10 years or so as clearly as Gilbert 2011. We remember standout feats, less so feats of great consistency.

We also remember standout riders of great consistency, less so riders with one standout year!

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Do you really think that Valverde, or anyone really, could have beaten Gilbert of 2011?

Also, Valverde's season will not be one that we will remember in 10 years or so as clearly as Gilbert 2011. We remember standout feats, less so feats of great consistency.

This I agree with, and I think that is the main problem here. Valverde's season has been amazing, but he had a nearly as amazing season last year so it has almost become normal for him. Kristoff and Degenkolb have had more 'breakthrough' and perhaps eye-catching seasons - but ultimately their achievements don't stack up to what Valverde has done this year.

Riders doing well in GT's and hilly classics is not that rare

You sometimes get a rider doing well in one GC and one hilly classic in the same season. What is very rare - unprecedented in fact - in the modern era of specialization, is one rider challenging in every single one day race that he entered and also challenging in one GT (one with the highest quality field in many years), and claiming a jersey in another.

It's the combination of depth and range of high performances in Valverde's season that really stands out.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Do you really think that Valverde, or anyone really, could have beaten Gilbert of 2011?

Also, Valverde's season will not be one that we will remember in 10 years or so as clearly as Gilbert 2011. We remember standout feats, less so feats of great consistency.

We also remember standout riders of great consistency, less so riders with one standout year!

But we were talking about a season, not a career. ofc Valverde's career is better, but he has never had a season of 2011 Gilbert

 

[Flamin]

Re: Re:

Riders doing well in GT's and hilly classics is not that rare

What is very rare - unprecedented in fact - in the modern era of specialization, is one rider challenging in every single one day race that he entered and also challenging in one GT (one with the highest quality field in many years), and claiming a jersey in another.

Hasn't Purito been doing this in like the past 5 years?

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Do you really think that Valverde, or anyone really, could have beaten Gilbert of 2011?

Also, Valverde's season will not be one that we will remember in 10 years or so as clearly as Gilbert 2011. We remember standout feats, less so feats of great consistency.

We also remember standout riders of great consistency, less so riders with one standout year!

But we were talking about a season, not a career. ofc Valverde's career is better, but he has never had a season of 2011 Gilbert

Apart from this season. There's not much point arguing this though because it depends on how much you weight performances in one day races / grand tours etc... whether you take into account the strength of opposition, style of performance... For me Valverde's season this year is more impressive, but Gilbert's was obviously great as well.

Hasn't Purito been doing this in like the past 5 years?

Valverde won just one fewer classic this season than Purito has won in his whole career. So no.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Riders doing well in GT's and hilly classics is not that rare

What is very rare - unprecedented in fact - in the modern era of specialization, is one rider challenging in every single one day race that he entered and also challenging in one GT (one with the highest quality field in many years), and claiming a jersey in another.

Hasn't Purito been doing this in like the past 5 years?

Not nearly to the same extent. Purito is competitive only in extreme hilly classics, Valverde is competitive on pretty much every terrain. Also in GT's, Valverde is more complete and consistent, thus more successful rider.

 

[Flamin]

Re: Re:

Do you really think that Valverde, or anyone really, could have beaten Gilbert of 2011?

Also, Valverde's season will not be one that we will remember in 10 years or so as clearly as Gilbert 2011. We remember standout feats, less so feats of great consistency.

We also remember standout riders of great consistency, less so riders with one standout year!

But we were talking about a season, not a career. ofc Valverde's career is better, but he has never had a season of 2011 Gilbert

Apart from this season. There's not much point arguing this though because it depends on how much you weight performances in one day races / grand tours etc... whether you take into account the strength of opposition, style of performance... For me Valverde's season this year is more impressive, but Gilbert's was obviously great as well.

Hasn't Purito been doing this in like the past 5 years?

Valverde won just one fewer classic this season than Purito has won in his whole career. So no.

So now it's only about winning? Because Valverde didn't win that much this year, yet you claim he had one of the most impressive seasons in the past 30 years.

Purito challenges in the Ardennes, minimum 1 GT (more often 2) and Lombardia(/Worlds), which is in my book what you said to be unprecedented in this area.

 

[Flamin]

Re: Re:

Riders doing well in GT's and hilly classics is not that rare

What is very rare - unprecedented in fact - in the modern era of specialization, is one rider challenging in every single one day race that he entered and also challenging in one GT (one with the highest quality field in many years), and claiming a jersey in another.

Hasn't Purito been doing this in like the past 5 years?

Not nearly to the same extent. Purito is competitive only in extreme hilly classics, Valverde is competitive on pretty much every terrain. Also in GT's, Valverde is more complete and consistent, thus more successful rider.

This is not about who's the most succesful rider. Obviously Valverde is.

 

[Valv.Piti]

I think guys voting for Degenkolb/Kristoff simply value the cobble classic monuments + MSR higher than the L-B-L. I somewhat get that (at least Flandern + P-R), but lets not forgot that he was extremely close to get the rare triple and was insanely consistent, probably more than ever, over the whole season, when Kristoff and Degenkolb more or less was a no show after their springs compared to Valv who just mixed it up whereever he went. I think that the Tour especially should count in his favor considering how hard he has tried in the past, how he over 3 weeks were better riders than Nibali and Contador and he was able to ride Sebastian, Vuelta, WCR and Lombardia at a very high level. Well, maybe minus the Vuelta compared to 12-14, but he somehow still grabbed the points jersey which is a sign of consistency nevertheless.

I hate when other people are discounting other member/persons opinion, but I seriously don't understand not voting for Valverde in this one...

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Do you really think that Valverde, or anyone really, could have beaten Gilbert of 2011?

Also, Valverde's season will not be one that we will remember in 10 years or so as clearly as Gilbert 2011. We remember standout feats, less so feats of great consistency.

We also remember standout riders of great consistency, less so riders with one standout year!

But we were talking about a season, not a career. ofc Valverde's career is better, but he has never had a season of 2011 Gilbert

Apart from this season. There's not much point arguing this though because it depends on how much you weight performances in one day races / grand tours etc... whether you take into account the strength of opposition, style of performance... For me Valverde's season this year is more impressive, but Gilbert's was obviously great as well.

Hasn't Purito been doing this in like the past 5 years?

Valverde won just one fewer classic this season than Purito has won in his whole career. So no.

So now it's only about winning? Because Valverde didn't win that much this year, yet you claim he had one of the most impressive seasons in the past 30 years.

Purito challenges in the Ardennes, minimum 1 GT (more often 2) and Lombardia(/Worlds), which is in my book what you said to be unprecedented in this area.

Purito peaks for one or two classics and one GT per year. Valverde performs incredibly in every hilly classic and every GT that he enters. It's consistency, range and depth. Purito has done well in Lombardia - which is the most suitable classic for a GT specialist - but he's pretty hit and miss in the Ardennes. Normally has one good race, but lacks the consistency of Valverde and only has one win there in his whole career.

Valverde didn't win that much this year,

Not sure if this is serious, but the guy won a monument, a classic, a GT stage, a GT points jersey, his national championships and three tough stages in Catalunya.

 

[bala v]

Re: Re:

Do you really think that Valverde, or anyone really, could have beaten Gilbert of 2011?

Also, Valverde's season will not be one that we will remember in 10 years or so as clearly as Gilbert 2011. We remember standout feats, less so feats of great consistency.

We also remember standout riders of great consistency, less so riders with one standout year!

But we were talking about a season, not a career. ofc Valverde's career is better, but he has never had a season of 2011 Gilbert

Apart from this season. There's not much point arguing this though because it depends on how much you weight performances in one day races / grand tours etc... whether you take into account the strength of opposition, style of performance... For me Valverde's season this year is more impressive, but Gilbert's was obviously great as well.

Hasn't Purito been doing this in like the past 5 years?

Valverde won just one fewer classic this season than Purito has won in his whole career. So no.

So now it's only about winning? Because Valverde didn't win that much this year, yet you claim he had one of the most impressive seasons in the past 30 years.

Purito challenges in the Ardennes, minimum 1 GT (more often 2) and Lombardia(/Worlds), which is in my book what you said to be unprecedented in this area.

There is one difference, Valverde is good in EVERY race he enters, which is not the case with Purito, nor any other rider in today's peloton. That's the real value of Valverde. We didn't have rider with those characteristics, well.., since Jalabert and Kelly before him

 

[maltiv]

Re:

I think guys voting for Degenkolb/Kristoff simply value the cobble classic monuments + MSR higher than the L-B-L. I somewhat get that (at least Flandern + P-R), but lets not forgot that he was extremely close to get the rare triple and was insanely consistent, probably more than ever, over the whole season, when Kristoff and Degenkolb more or less was a no show after their springs compared to Valv who just mixed it up whereever he went. I think that the Tour especially should count in his favor considering how hard he has tried in the past, how he over 3 weeks were better riders than Nibali and Contador and he was able to ride Sebastian, Vuelta, WCR and Lombardia at a very high level. Well, maybe minus the Vuelta compared to 12-14, but he somehow still grabbed the points jersey which is a sign of consistency nevertheless.

I hate when other people are discounting other member/persons opinion, but I seriously don't understand not voting for Valverde in this one...

Maybe people rate wins over placings?

Valverde barely won anything after april, in fact he only won TWO races since the beginning of may until season end. Kristoff won 9 in the same period, and also had lots of good placings as well (4th WC, 3rd Montreal, 2nd Vattenfall).

Moreover, since June, Valverde scored 1487 pcs points over 58 race days, while Kristoff scored 1087 pcs points over 46 race days. So I don't see how you can argue that Kristoff was a "no-show" compared to Valverde.

 

[Echoes]

Of course there's a big difference between a win and high places but this idea that only wins matter is ridiculous. First you cannot always win and every rider has more losses than wins in one season. Besides, if you are 10th in one race, you have a better result than ~180 riders. Taking high places into consideration is the best way to assess the consistency of a rider because nobody can always win. The idea that only victories matter is encouraging noughties type of specialization which a true cycling fan should hate.

That's why I rate Van Avermaet above Degenkolb. Despite his loss at Paris-Roubaix - in a near sprint - the former has had a much more impressive season, beside Paris-Roubaix.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I think guys voting for Degenkolb/Kristoff simply value the cobble classic monuments + MSR higher than the L-B-L. I somewhat get that (at least Flandern + P-R), but lets not forgot that he was extremely close to get the rare triple and was insanely consistent, probably more than ever, over the whole season, when Kristoff and Degenkolb more or less was a no show after their springs compared to Valv who just mixed it up whereever he went. I think that the Tour especially should count in his favor considering how hard he has tried in the past, how he over 3 weeks were better riders than Nibali and Contador and he was able to ride Sebastian, Vuelta, WCR and Lombardia at a very high level. Well, maybe minus the Vuelta compared to 12-14, but he somehow still grabbed the points jersey which is a sign of consistency nevertheless.

I hate when other people are discounting other member/persons opinion, but I seriously don't understand not voting for Valverde in this one...

Maybe people rate wins over placings?

Valverde barely won anything after april, in fact he only won TWO races since the beginning of may until season end. Kristoff won 9 in the same period, and also had lots of good placings as well (4th WC, 3rd Montreal, 2nd Vattenfall).

Moreover, since June, Valverde scored 1487 pcs points over 58 race days, while Kristoff scored 1087 pcs points over 46 race days. So I don't see how you can argue that Kristoff was a "no-show" compared to Valverde.

You have to also weigh the importance of the race. Surely nobody believes that getting loads of wins at Tour des Fjords, Tour of Qatar and Three Days of Panne is a better achievement than finishing third in a top quality field Tour de France and winning a GT stage and points jersey. If so, then you must believe that Cavendish and Cippolini are the two greatest riders of all time. Kristoff had five main goals for the season - MSR, RVV, PR, Worlds and the Tour de France. The first four of which were all very well suited to his strengths - and he won one of them, which is pretty good, but hardly exceptional. He was completely missing at the Tour. He had a very good season in the minor races - but who will care about that in 10 years time, all they will remember is his one win at RVV.

If you go by PCS or UCI rankings then Valverde has been the best rider this season. If you go by consistency then he has also been the best. If you go only by big wins, he is probably joint with Degenkolb and posisbly Froome. If you put it all together then Valverde is clearly the best.

 

[Brullnux]

No one this year has had an exceptional season. Valverde has been exceptionally consistent, but only really has 3 big wins (not including Catalunya stages, Spanish RR or points jersey). It was very good but not exceptional. Degenkolb has 2 monuments, a stage win at a GT. Some would argue that his is better (not me) and it is easy to see where they're coming from. Degenkolb in one year has managed more diversity on monument wins than Valverde in 10. However, I do believe Valverde had the best year, but claims of 'best season in 30 years' are so very wrong.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

No one this year has had an exceptional season. Valverde has been exceptionally consistent, but only really has 3 big wins (not including Catalunya stages, Spanish RR or points jersey). It was very good but not exceptional. Degenkolb has 2 monuments, a stage win at a GT. Some would argue that his is better (not me) and it is easy to see where they're coming from. Degenkolb in one year has managed more diversity on monument wins than Valverde in 10. However, I do believe Valverde had the best year, but claims of 'best season in 30 years' are so very wrong.

I don't agree with that at all, but it's all down to how you value different achievements. When was the last time a rider won two classics and finished on the podium in the Tour de France in the same season? The reason why I think that is such a good achievement is because they are the races where the best riders aim to peak.

You have to compete against the Ardennes specialists at their peak and the GT specialists at their peak. To do so well against both in the same season has been very rare in the last 30 years. To dominate the Ardennes week and then challenge for the GC at the TdF is unprecedented nowdays. In the TdF he was only beaten by two riders that structured their whole season and built everything around the race. In the Ardennes he was the most marked rider and still completely controlled the finish of two of the races and was a whisker away from winning the other one. For me, that is an exceptional season by itself. Add in his achievements elsewhere and it is truly phenomenal.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

I think guys voting for Degenkolb/Kristoff simply value the cobble classic monuments + MSR higher than the L-B-L. I somewhat get that (at least Flandern + P-R), but lets not forgot that he was extremely close to get the rare triple and was insanely consistent, probably more than ever, over the whole season, when Kristoff and Degenkolb more or less was a no show after their springs compared to Valv who just mixed it up whereever he went. I think that the Tour especially should count in his favor considering how hard he has tried in the past, how he over 3 weeks were better riders than Nibali and Contador and he was able to ride Sebastian, Vuelta, WCR and Lombardia at a very high level. Well, maybe minus the Vuelta compared to 12-14, but he somehow still grabbed the points jersey which is a sign of consistency nevertheless.

I hate when other people are discounting other member/persons opinion, but I seriously don't understand not voting for Valverde in this one...

Maybe people rate wins over placings?

Valverde barely won anything after april, in fact he only won TWO races since the beginning of may until season end. Kristoff won 9 in the same period, and also had lots of good placings as well (4th WC, 3rd Montreal, 2nd Vattenfall).

Moreover, since June, Valverde scored 1487 pcs points over 58 race days, while Kristoff scored 1087 pcs points over 46 race days. So I don't see how you can argue that Kristoff was a "no-show" compared to Valverde.

You do realize that Kristoff is a sprinter?! And Valverde is not! Truth is that Valverde's second half of the season was better than Kristoff's, which is why his whole year was more successful, cause in first half they were both amazing.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

I think guys voting for Degenkolb/Kristoff simply value the cobble classic monuments + MSR higher than the L-B-L. I somewhat get that (at least Flandern + P-R), but lets not forgot that he was extremely close to get the rare triple and was insanely consistent, probably more than ever, over the whole season, when Kristoff and Degenkolb more or less was a no show after their springs compared to Valv who just mixed it up whereever he went. I think that the Tour especially should count in his favor considering how hard he has tried in the past, how he over 3 weeks were better riders than Nibali and Contador and he was able to ride Sebastian, Vuelta, WCR and Lombardia at a very high level. Well, maybe minus the Vuelta compared to 12-14, but he somehow still grabbed the points jersey which is a sign of consistency nevertheless.

I hate when other people are discounting other member/persons opinion, but I seriously don't understand not voting for Valverde in this one...

Maybe people rate wins over placings?

Valverde barely won anything after april, in fact he only won TWO races since the beginning of may until season end. Kristoff won 9 in the same period, and also had lots of good placings as well (4th WC, 3rd Montreal, 2nd Vattenfall).

Moreover, since June, Valverde scored 1487 pcs points over 58 race days, while Kristoff scored 1087 pcs points over 46 race days. So I don't see how you can argue that Kristoff was a "no-show" compared to Valverde.

You are right, a no show was a stretch on Kristoff, but since the Tour still is the absolute biggest race on the calendar and he didnt do anything there over 3 weeks, I would say his second half was mediocre compared to Valverde who performed better than ever at that event. And that SHOULD count a lot - and thats why Valverde safely edges out Degenkolb and Kristoff.

 

[Brullnux]

Won two classics and podium of the Tour might be a long time, but 2 classics and podium of both Giro and Vuelta; or a monument, 2nd in another, 2nd in the Worlds, 3rd Tour and 4th Vuelta are average years for Purito

Doing well at hilly classics and GTs isn't that rare for Valverde and Purito.

 

[Arredondo]

Purito's 2012 season was better then Valverde's 2015 season.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Won two classics and podium of the Tour might be a long time, but 2 classics and podium of both Giro and Vuelta; or a monument, 2nd in another, 2nd in the Worlds, 3rd Tour and 4th Vuelta are average years for Purito

Doing well at hilly classics and GTs isn't that rare for Valverde and Purito.

But that is the point I'm making. It is easier to do well at the Giro and the Vuelta in addition to the classics because you are generally up against either second tier GC riders at their peak, or first tier GC riders who are not at their peak.

The Tour de France, the classics and the worlds are generally the only races which the top riders will aim to peak for. To do well in both the classics and the TdF in the same season means that you are up against the best riders from each field at their peak. That's not the case with the other GTs.

Also Purito has only won three classic races in his whole career - so it's hardly an average year for him.