Not in the slightest. My views of the monuments being the greatest races in cycling have been made clear many, many times. Specialisation and focusing on GTs has killed the excitement in cycling. As far as I'm concerned, a guy who can win all three GTs and win a monument is better than someone who doesn't even try.Valv.Piti said:And you dont consider yourself biased?King Boonen said:Instantly proving both your bias and why one of the riders considered does not come close to my list in this section of the forum.Valv.Piti said:Yup, Nibali is definetely the best GT-rider of his generation after winning Lombardia, a race where the 3 best climbers in the world doesnt participate, one of whom have won 9 GT's compared to 3 of Nibali. I see your reasoning, its super logical and makes sense!
Nibali is a much better rider than those 3 (2 of them don't even come close). Nibali is a GT rider. Nibali is the therefore the best GT rider of his generation. Its the same reason Bobet and Thys are better than LeMond. Anquetil, Merckx and Hinault are better than Indurain because of it.
Anyways, I dont think this is worth of a debate.