Teams & Riders Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

Page 338 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
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!
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.

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.
And you dont consider yourself biased?

Anyways, I dont think this is worth of a debate.
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.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
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!
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.

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.
And you dont consider yourself biased?

Anyways, I dont think this is worth of a debate.
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.
Okay, but as well as you consider me being biased, I reserve my right to consider you biased when you think Nibali is a better GT-rider than Contador which I think Contador has proved time and time again he is. Nibali has, as far as I am concerned, only beaten Contador once, in 2015, after winning the Giro.

If Nibali is a better rider than Contador, well I think thats highly debatable still and I dont wanna get caught in the moment, but winning all 3 GT's and a monument surely is a big feat. I still think Contador, overall, still is the bigger rider, but I can see your arguing for Nibali in that regard. In regard to being the better Grand Tour-rider, I cannot.
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Okay, but as well as you consider me being biased, I reserve my right to consider you biased when you think Nibali is a better GT-rider than Contador which I think Contador has proved time and time again he is. Nibali has, as far as I am concerned, only beaten Contador once, in 2015, after winning the Giro.

If Nibali is a better rider than Contador, well I think thats highly debatable still and I dont wanna get caught in the moment, but winning all 3 GT's and a monument surely is a big feat. I still think Contador, overall, still is the bigger rider, but I can see your arguing for Nibali in that regard. In regard to being the better Grand Tour-rider, I cannot.
Nibali is a GT rider is he not? You can't argue against that can you? Therefore, if I think he is the best of the current riders who would be classified as GT riders, it is pretty obvious I think he is the best GT rider of his generation.

The only place I'm willing to discuss Contador is where, as far as I'm concerned, any discussion about Contador belongs and that definitely isn't here. I'll leave that at that.
 
It is nice in these days that someone can win all GT´s and even some monuments, contador is better GT competitor numbers are quite clear but Nibali is more complex, he was close to win even world championship, MSR or LBL
I am only curious if some days he will try roubaix or flanders would be interesting even if I am not giving him too much chance
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
Okay, but as well as you consider me being biased, I reserve my right to consider you biased when you think Nibali is a better GT-rider than Contador which I think Contador has proved time and time again he is. Nibali has, as far as I am concerned, only beaten Contador once, in 2015, after winning the Giro.

If Nibali is a better rider than Contador, well I think thats highly debatable still and I dont wanna get caught in the moment, but winning all 3 GT's and a monument surely is a big feat. I still think Contador, overall, still is the bigger rider, but I can see your arguing for Nibali in that regard. In regard to being the better Grand Tour-rider, I cannot.
Nibali is a GT rider is he not? You can't argue against that can you? Therefore, if I think he is the best of the current riders who would be classified as GT riders, it is pretty obvious I think he is the best GT rider of his generation.

The only place I'm willing to discuss Contador is where, as far as I'm concerned, any discussion about Contador belongs and that definitely isn't here. I'll leave that at that.
But that's 2 completely different things we are arguing then. Im not arguing Contador is a better rider than Nibali, but that Contador is the better rider in terms of GT-racing which simply can't be debated due to the two rider's palmares.
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
Okay, but as well as you consider me being biased, I reserve my right to consider you biased when you think Nibali is a better GT-rider than Contador which I think Contador has proved time and time again he is. Nibali has, as far as I am concerned, only beaten Contador once, in 2015, after winning the Giro.

If Nibali is a better rider than Contador, well I think thats highly debatable still and I dont wanna get caught in the moment, but winning all 3 GT's and a monument surely is a big feat. I still think Contador, overall, still is the bigger rider, but I can see your arguing for Nibali in that regard. In regard to being the better Grand Tour-rider, I cannot.
Nibali is a GT rider is he not? You can't argue against that can you? Therefore, if I think he is the best of the current riders who would be classified as GT riders, it is pretty obvious I think he is the best GT rider of his generation.

The only place I'm willing to discuss Contador is where, as far as I'm concerned, any discussion about Contador belongs and that definitely isn't here. I'll leave that at that.
But that's 2 completely different things we are arguing then. Im not arguing Contador is a better rider than Nibali, but that Contador is the better rider in terms of GT-racing which simply can't be debated due to the two rider's palmares.
I refer you to my second paragraph.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
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!
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.

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.
And you dont consider yourself biased?

Anyways, I dont think this is worth of a debate.
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.
You are so right. GT's are so overrated that everyone concentrates on them which somehow means that they are less important than monuments...I guess. Nibali is just the better gc rider than contador, just like Valverde who is a clearly better classics rider than Boonen because, both are classics riders but Valverde has won a gt too, while Boonen hasn't. As far as I'm concerned, a guy who can win three monuments and a gt is better than someone who doesnt even try.

To close the discussion can you please write here that Valverde is the better classics rider than Boonen so these silly other forum members stop writing irrelevant informations like the number of gt's he won :rolleyes:
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
1
0
OMG, this is ridiculous... nibali better than contador... just hilarious. i would love to see contador at the giro only to fu## nibali's ass!!!
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
The only place I'm willing to discuss Contador is where, as far as I'm concerned, any discussion about Contador belongs and that definitely isn't here. I'll leave that at that.
You're completely delusional if you don't believe anything in that context applies to Nibali as well. You're even more biased than I thought.

Basically your opinion is based on clinic-related arguments and "Monuments are the best races" - well, I think you will have to accept not everyone will share that opinion.
Deal with it.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
Okay, but as well as you consider me being biased, I reserve my right to consider you biased when you think Nibali is a better GT-rider than Contador which I think Contador has proved time and time again he is. Nibali has, as far as I am concerned, only beaten Contador once, in 2015, after winning the Giro.

If Nibali is a better rider than Contador, well I think thats highly debatable still and I dont wanna get caught in the moment, but winning all 3 GT's and a monument surely is a big feat. I still think Contador, overall, still is the bigger rider, but I can see your arguing for Nibali in that regard. In regard to being the better Grand Tour-rider, I cannot.
Nibali is a GT rider is he not? You can't argue against that can you? Therefore, if I think he is the best of the current riders who would be classified as GT riders, it is pretty obvious I think he is the best GT rider of his generation.

The only place I'm willing to discuss Contador is where, as far as I'm concerned, any discussion about Contador belongs and that definitely isn't here. I'll leave that at that.
But that's 2 completely different things we are arguing then. Im not arguing Contador is a better rider than Nibali, but that Contador is the better rider in terms of GT-racing which simply can't be debated due to the two rider's palmares.
I refer you to my second paragraph.
You are literally the most annoying member I have accounted in here to have a decent debate with. Oh well, I guess I just wont get some people sometimes
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
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!
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.

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.
And you dont consider yourself biased?

Anyways, I dont think this is worth of a debate.
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.
You are so right. GT's are so overrated that everyone concentrates on them which somehow means that they are less important than monuments...I guess. Nibali is just the better gc rider than contador, just like Valverde who is a clearly better classics rider than Boonen because, both are classics riders but Valverde has won a gt too, while Boonen hasn't. As far as I'm concerned, a guy who can win three monuments and a gt is better than someone who doesnt even try.

To close the discussion can you please write here that Valverde is the better classics rider than Boonen so these silly other forum members stop writing irrelevant informations like the number of gt's he won :rolleyes:
Valverde comes very close to being better than Boonen, but he doesn't have a world title and his three monument come no where near Boonens 7. Come back to me when he does have a world title, then I'll reconsider.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
King Boonen said:
The only place I'm willing to discuss Contador is where, as far as I'm concerned, any discussion about Contador belongs and that definitely isn't here. I'll leave that at that.
You're completely delusional if you don't believe anything in that context applies to Nibali as well. You're even more biased than I thought.

Basically your opinion is based on clinic-related arguments and "Monuments are the best races" - well, I think you will have to accept not everyone will share that opinion.
Deal with it.
I am perfectly happy to accept it, you people are entitled to be wrong.

It seems you and Club Contador rolled out of the BertieLove thread to engage in an argument. You didn't have to come in this thread and you can leave any time.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Valverde comes very close to being better than Boonen, but he doesn't have a world title and his three monument come no where near Boonens 7. Come back to me when he does have a world title, then I'll reconsider.
hahaha, you say valverde is a weaker classics rider than boonen because monuments statistic is 3-7, but Nibali is the better gt rider than contador because gt statistic is only 3-7. This is so ridiculous :D :D :D
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
Okay, but as well as you consider me being biased, I reserve my right to consider you biased when you think Nibali is a better GT-rider than Contador which I think Contador has proved time and time again he is. Nibali has, as far as I am concerned, only beaten Contador once, in 2015, after winning the Giro.

If Nibali is a better rider than Contador, well I think thats highly debatable still and I dont wanna get caught in the moment, but winning all 3 GT's and a monument surely is a big feat. I still think Contador, overall, still is the bigger rider, but I can see your arguing for Nibali in that regard. In regard to being the better Grand Tour-rider, I cannot.
Nibali is a GT rider is he not? You can't argue against that can you? Therefore, if I think he is the best of the current riders who would be classified as GT riders, it is pretty obvious I think he is the best GT rider of his generation.

The only place I'm willing to discuss Contador is where, as far as I'm concerned, any discussion about Contador belongs and that definitely isn't here. I'll leave that at that.
But that's 2 completely different things we are arguing then. Im not arguing Contador is a better rider than Nibali, but that Contador is the better rider in terms of GT-racing which simply can't be debated due to the two rider's palmares.
I refer you to my second paragraph.
You are literally the most annoying member I have accounted in here to have a decent debate with. Oh well, I guess I just wont get some people sometimes
No, I'm one of the most consistent and I abide by the rules. That's not my fault.
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
King Boonen said:
Valverde comes very close to being better than Boonen, but he doesn't have a world title and his three monument come no where near Boonens 7. Come back to me when he does have a world title, then I'll reconsider.
hahaha, you say valverde is a weaker classics rider than boonen because monuments statistic is 3-7, but Nibali is the better gt rider than contador because gt statistic is only 3-7. This is so ridiculous :D :D :D
If you want to classify Valverde as a Classics rider I'll compare him to other classics riders using my criteria. I have always been extremely consistent in that, even when we were picking top 10 lists a while ago.

Nibali is a GT rider. I will compare him to other GT riders. His winning a monument puts him above the rest as far as I am concerned. People are free to disagree with that, but that's my opinion.
 
Re:

bassano said:
It is nice in these days that someone can win all GT´s and even some monuments, contador is better GT competitor numbers are quite clear but Nibali is more complex, he was close to win even world championship, MSR or LBL
I am only curious if some days he will try roubaix or flanders would be interesting even if I am not giving him too much chance
This man/woman seems to get what I'm getting at...

I doubt he'll try the cobbled classics unless he bulks up towards the end of his career. Seeming him take Flanders would be awesome though.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
I am perfectly happy to accept it, you people are entitled to be wrong.

It seems you and Club Contador rolled out of the BertieLove thread to engage in an argument. You didn't have to come in this thread and you can leave any time.
May I mention that I like Nibali way more than Contador.

King Boonen said:
Gigs_98 said:
King Boonen said:
Valverde comes very close to being better than Boonen, but he doesn't have a world title and his three monument come no where near Boonens 7. Come back to me when he does have a world title, then I'll reconsider.
hahaha, you say valverde is a weaker classics rider than boonen because monuments statistic is 3-7, but Nibali is the better gt rider than contador because gt statistic is only 3-7. This is so ridiculous :D :D :D
If you want to classify Valverde as a Classics rider I'll compare him to other classics riders using my criteria. I have always been extremely consistent in that, even when we were picking top 10 lists a while ago.

Nibali is a GT rider. I will compare him to other GT riders. His winning a monument puts him above the rest as far as I am concerned. People are free to disagree with that, but that's my opinion.
But why is your criteria for classic riders completely different compared to you criteria for gt riders? You say Nibali is the better gt rider than AC because he won a monument.
Then I say Valverde has to be the better classics rider than Boonen because he has won a gt, but somehow you still say that are two completely different situations.
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
King Boonen said:
I am perfectly happy to accept it, you people are entitled to be wrong.

It seems you and Club Contador rolled out of the BertieLove thread to engage in an argument. You didn't have to come in this thread and you can leave any time.
May I mention that I like Nibali way more than Contador, and you are just too stupid to see that you are false

King Boonen said:
Gigs_98 said:
King Boonen said:
Valverde comes very close to being better than Boonen, but he doesn't have a world title and his three monument come no where near Boonens 7. Come back to me when he does have a world title, then I'll reconsider.
hahaha, you say valverde is a weaker classics rider than boonen because monuments statistic is 3-7, but Nibali is the better gt rider than contador because gt statistic is only 3-7. This is so ridiculous :D :D :D
If you want to classify Valverde as a Classics rider I'll compare him to other classics riders using my criteria. I have always been extremely consistent in that, even when we were picking top 10 lists a while ago.

Nibali is a GT rider. I will compare him to other GT riders. His winning a monument puts him above the rest as far as I am concerned. People are free to disagree with that, but that's my opinion.
But why is your criteria for classic riders completely different compared to you criteria for gt riders? You say Nibali is the better gt rider than AC because he won a monument.
Then I say Valverde has to be the better classics rider than Boonen because he has won a gt, but somehow you still say that are two completely different situations.
Firstly, knock it off with the insults. If you don't like the discussion then don't have it. I don't tolerate rude people in real life and I certainly won't tolerate rudeness on here. I have no idea if English is your first language so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. Post, not poster. You can call my posts wrong as much as you want.

My criteria isn't different. I value the monuments over every other race, I have always been very clear about that. So 7 monuments and a world title (RR not TTT) is much better than 1 GT and 3 monuments in my eyes. If Valverde gets a RR world title I would re-evaluate although I would prefer to see him get Lombardia to be honest.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Guy wont concede that winning Lombardia has absolutely positively nothing to do with who is the best rider to ride a 3 weeks race. I dont think its worth to even try to debate it.....
Guy/girl doesn't understand that even when you classify a rider as a particular type you still take into account ALL of their victories and some people really don't care very much about GTs.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
Guy wont concede that winning Lombardia has absolutely positively nothing to do with who is the best rider to ride a 3 weeks race. I dont think its worth to even try to debate it.....
Guy/girl doesn't understand that even when you classify a rider as a particular type you still take into account ALL of their victories and some people really don't care very much about GTs.
And thats fine. That makes Nibali a better overall rider, but not a better rider in terms of riding Grand Tours. It's clinically proven. I dont know how you even can debate that.
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
Guy wont concede that winning Lombardia has absolutely positively nothing to do with who is the best rider to ride a 3 weeks race. I dont think its worth to even try to debate it.....
Guy/girl doesn't understand that even when you classify a rider as a particular type you still take into account ALL of their victories and some people really don't care very much about GTs.
And thats fine. That makes Nibali a better overall rider, but not a better rider in terms of riding Grand Tours. It's clinically proven. I dont know how you even can debate that.
Post of the year.
 
The day that Nibali beats a somewhat decent rider in a GT is the day that I would even consider calling him a great rider, never mind a legend. What an amazing GT rider - beating the likes of Velits, Uran, an Evans past his prime and JC Peraud - the dominant riders of their generation. Credit where it's due, his ride today was great, and his palmares may suggest otherwise, but Nibali can never be considered alongside Contador as far as this generation goes (and Canc Bonnen Cav (and Sagan in the future most likely) are much more special riders as far as I'm concerned)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS