Teams & Riders Vincenzo Nibali discussion thread

Page 339 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
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.
You literally wrote this 5 minutes ago: 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.

But no, English isnt my main language either, but at least Im not a total *** towards people.
 
Re:

PremierAndrew said:
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)
Nibali beat both Froome and Contador in the "biggest" race of the year. Maybe they need some bike handling tips and then they can try and get close to his greatness.
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
King Boonen said:
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.
You literally wrote this 5 minutes ago: 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.

But no, English isnt my main language either, but at least Im not a total *** towards people.
Please point out the insult? I did exactly what I said, post not poster. Plus I thought you were making a joke, sorry if you weren't. You, however, haven't. I'll await an apology.
 
I think it's really important to distinguish versatility, classic palmares, GC palmares, etc. You can call Nibali the most versatile GT winner, but don't call him greater than a guy who's got 4(6*) GT's on him just because he won a monument.
 
Re: Nibali discussion thread

@KingBoonen
Okay, sorry for that stupid.
But still, you can't simply say that monuments are worth more than gt's, so Nibali is the better gt rider than AC, and call other people false if they disagree. Its okay if you say to yourself monuments are worth more, but you are the person who came up with the "I am right and you are wrong" argument. Its just no secret that for most people a gt win is more important, so if you do this discussion you have to do it unbiased.

To come back to the discussion itself, what about all the other races contador won. Nibali has two more world tour stage races. Contador has 5 gc's + 19 stages.

King Boonen said:
Nibali beat both Froome and Contador in the "biggest" race of the year. Maybe they need some bike handling tips and then they can try and get close to his greatness.
and this is actually the point where I should quit discussing (although I wont because this is surprisingly funny). Honestly, are you a troll

ps: nope english is not my main language.
 
Re:

PremierAndrew said:
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)
Yeah, quite simillar riders like Contador beat in half of occasions he won some GT, just stop underrating Nibali GT victories by your personal opinion to some rider, it is same GT win as all others and if Nibali is not great GC rider, who apart Contador actually is?
 
Re: Nibali discussion thread

Gigs_98 said:
@KingBoonen
Okay, sorry for that stupid.
But still, you can't simply say that monuments are worth more than gt's, so Nibali is the better gt rider than AC, and call other people false if they disagree. Its okay if you say to yourself monuments are worth more, but you are the person who came up with the "I am right and you are wrong" argument. Its just no secret that for most people a gt win is more important, so if you do this discussion you have to do it unbiased.

To come back to the discussion itself, what about all the other races contador won. Nibali has two more world tour stage races. Contador has 5 gc's + 19 stages.

King Boonen said:
Nibali beat both Froome and Contador in the "biggest" race of the year. Maybe they need some bike handling tips and then they can try and get close to his greatness.
and this is actually the point where I should quit discussing (although I wont because this is surprisingly funny). Honestly, are you a troll

ps: nope english is not my main language.
No problem at all, that's why I gave you the benefit of the doubt :)

I'm merely comparing Nibali against the other riders you would generally classify him with. Otherwise how far do we break it down. Do we have to compare every single aspect of a rider in a separate category? I feel that's pretty pointless. Nibali is a GT rider, I compare him against other GT riders but with what I feel is important. I am perfectly happy for people to disagree, in fact I readily accept it in many conversations with people. These are my criteria and they are important to me. You'll notice it wasn't me who started these discussions, it was others coming into the Nibali thread wanting to argue Contador is better (basically).

The "I am right, you are wrong" is the essence of all this. We all have our own criteria on which we judge riders. I am extremely clear on what mine are and I fully accept that others can disagree, but people are trying to tell me my opinion is wrong, that doesn't work. They have come into a thread where people will obviously be fans of Nibali and picked a fight. I don't do that in other threads, there are abundant reasons I could give that other riders shouldn't even be considered but that would get me banned and I play by the rules. If they don't like my assessment, they can disagree, but on my criteria, Nibali is the greatest. That's purely up to me, feel free to completely disagree :)



The point about 2014 is perfectly valid and not trolling. You have to finish a race to win it. Both Froome and Contador left that race under suspicions that it was through their own poor decision making that they crashed. You don't beat people by being the first round course if you can't finish it.
 
Re: Re:

bassano said:
PremierAndrew said:
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)
Yeah, quite simillar riders like Contador beat in half of occasions he won some GT, just stop underrating Nibali GT victories by your personal opinion to some rider, it is same GT win as all others and if Nibali is not great GC rider, who apart Contador actually is?
People constantly do this. You can only beat who's there and who finishes. You don't win all three GTs by chance or by beating nobodies otherwise we'd have a long list of people who have done it, not 6.
 
But KB, we have never argued Contador is a better rider than Nibali, in fact that wasnt what we (at least I) was arguing about. We have argued who was the better 3 week rider, not best rider, which in term doesnt have anything to do with riding and winning monuments, just as who is the best classics rider doesnt have anything to do with how good you are at 3 weeks stage racing.
 
If we are talking about GT riders then we should judge them on their performance in the most prestigous GT

Of recent winners that put them in this order for podiums

Froome 1 - 1- 2
Contador 1 - 1
Andy S / Evans 1-2-2
Wiggo / Nibs 1-3

So Nibs is not the greateset GT rider of this generation.

Of course Nairo Q may surpass them all by the end of their careers.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
But KB, we have never argued Contador is a better rider than Nibali, in fact that wasnt what we (at least I) was arguing about. We have argued who was the better 3 week rider, not best rider, which in term doesnt have anything to do with riding and winning monuments, just as who is the best classics rider doesnt have anything to do with how good you are at 3 weeks stage racing.
You argued about King Boonen's opinions which he repeatedly said that they are, obviously, his own. He explained what the criteria is on which he bases his opinion in ranking riders. Then some trols jumped in and everything went downhill with Contador magically appearing again in a discussion about Nibali.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
But KB, we have never argued Contador is a better rider than Nibali, in fact that wasnt what we (at least I) was arguing about. We have argued who was the better 3 week rider, not best rider, which in term doesnt have anything to do with riding and winning monuments, just as who is the best classics rider doesnt have anything to do with how good you are at 3 weeks stage racing.
I am merely using the classification of GT rider to compare the complete palmares of people who would usually be compared. I don't think it's fair to compare classics riders with GT riders with Sprinters and decide on one best, but I will compare GT riders against each other, Classics riders, Sprinters etc. When I do that comparison I'll take into account all of their wins (you're first or you're last...) and assess them on what I think is important. To me, that monument puts Nibali above every single GT rider of the current crop.

If you want to dissect every aspect of a rider that's fine, but that means dissecting the course they won on, the competition, how favourable it was (Wiggins), how good their team was (Wiggins), how fit they were, did they crash and so on until it becomes meanlingless (to me).

I am using the classification to compare people of similar attributes against my criteria and Nibali's monument puts him over the others, not least because it requires a degree of non-specialisation the others are not willing to risk. People are of course free to disagree with that, but that is what matters to me in a rider.


If you want to see a real argument I could say that I think Hinault was actually better than Merckx... :)
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
But KB, we have never argued Contador is a better rider than Nibali, in fact that wasnt what we (at least I) was arguing about. We have argued who was the better 3 week rider, not best rider, which in term doesnt have anything to do with riding and winning monuments, just as who is the best classics rider doesnt have anything to do with how good you are at 3 weeks stage racing.
I am merely using the classification of GT rider to compare the complete palmares of people who would usually be compared. I don't think it's fair to compare classics riders with GT riders with Sprinters and decide on one best, but I will compare GT riders against each other, Classics riders, Sprinters etc. When I do that comparison I'll take into account all of their wins (you're first or you're last...) and assess them on what I think is important. To me, that monument puts Nibali above every single GT rider of the current crop.

If you want to dissect every aspect of a rider that's fine, but that means dissecting the course they won on, the competition, how favourable it was (Wiggins), how good their team was (Wiggins), how fit they were, did they crash and so on until it becomes meanlingless (to me).

I am using the classification to compare people of similar attributes against my criteria and Nibali's monument puts him over the others, not least because it requires a degree of non-specialisation the others are not willing to risk. People are of course free to disagree with that, but that is what matters to me in a rider.


If you want to see a real argument I could say that I think Hinault was actually better than Merckx... :)
So Nibbes has one monument win and know he's the greatest. So is one monument worth 4 gt's in your opinion?
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
But KB, we have never argued Contador is a better rider than Nibali, in fact that wasnt what we (at least I) was arguing about. We have argued who was the better 3 week rider, not best rider, which in term doesnt have anything to do with riding and winning monuments, just as who is the best classics rider doesnt have anything to do with how good you are at 3 weeks stage racing.
I am merely using the classification of GT rider to compare the complete palmares of people who would usually be compared. I don't think it's fair to compare classics riders with GT riders with Sprinters and decide on one best, but I will compare GT riders against each other, Classics riders, Sprinters etc. When I do that comparison I'll take into account all of their wins (you're first or you're last...) and assess them on what I think is important. To me, that monument puts Nibali above every single GT rider of the current crop.

If you want to dissect every aspect of a rider that's fine, but that means dissecting the course they won on, the competition, how favourable it was (Wiggins), how good their team was (Wiggins), how fit they were, did they crash and so on until it becomes meanlingless (to me).

I am using the classification to compare people of similar attributes against my criteria and Nibali's monument puts him over the others, not least because it requires a degree of non-specialisation the others are not willing to risk. People are of course free to disagree with that, but that is what matters to me in a rider.


If you want to see a real argument I could say that I think Hinault was actually better than Merckx... :)
So Nibbes has one monument win and know he's the greatest. So is one monument worth 4 gt's in your opinion?
I agree with him. For a cyclist that already won all GTs, winning a monument is much more impressive than continue amassing Giros and Vueltas.
So Nibali might not be the best rider purely in GTs, but if Boonen classifies him as a GT rider, then he is the best among cyclists classified as GT riders (if you can follow that logic).
I think it is between him and Valverde as best cyclist of this generation, but since Valverde is stained by a clinic ban, I think the title goes to Nibali. If only one of them could win a WC, that would pretty much settle the discussion
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Jspear said:
King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
But KB, we have never argued Contador is a better rider than Nibali, in fact that wasnt what we (at least I) was arguing about. We have argued who was the better 3 week rider, not best rider, which in term doesnt have anything to do with riding and winning monuments, just as who is the best classics rider doesnt have anything to do with how good you are at 3 weeks stage racing.
I am merely using the classification of GT rider to compare the complete palmares of people who would usually be compared. I don't think it's fair to compare classics riders with GT riders with Sprinters and decide on one best, but I will compare GT riders against each other, Classics riders, Sprinters etc. When I do that comparison I'll take into account all of their wins (you're first or you're last...) and assess them on what I think is important. To me, that monument puts Nibali above every single GT rider of the current crop.

If you want to dissect every aspect of a rider that's fine, but that means dissecting the course they won on, the competition, how favourable it was (Wiggins), how good their team was (Wiggins), how fit they were, did they crash and so on until it becomes meanlingless (to me).

I am using the classification to compare people of similar attributes against my criteria and Nibali's monument puts him over the others, not least because it requires a degree of non-specialisation the others are not willing to risk. People are of course free to disagree with that, but that is what matters to me in a rider.


If you want to see a real argument I could say that I think Hinault was actually better than Merckx... :)
So Nibbes has one monument win and know he's the greatest. So is one monument worth 4 gt's in your opinion?
I agree with him. For a cyclist that already won all GTs, winning a monument is much more impressive than continue amassing Giros and Vueltas.
So Nibali might not be the best rider purely in GTs, but if Boonen classifies him as a GT rider, then he is the best among cyclists classified as GT riders (if you can follow that logic).
I think it is between him and Valverde as best cyclist of this generation, but since Valverde is stained by a clinic ban, I think the title goes to Nibali. If only one of them could win a WC, that would pretty much settle the discussion
I get what he's saying (though I disagree.) Now I'm just trying to figure out how many gt's make up the value of a single monument.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
damian13ster said:
Jspear said:
King Boonen said:
Valv.Piti said:
But KB, we have never argued Contador is a better rider than Nibali, in fact that wasnt what we (at least I) was arguing about. We have argued who was the better 3 week rider, not best rider, which in term doesnt have anything to do with riding and winning monuments, just as who is the best classics rider doesnt have anything to do with how good you are at 3 weeks stage racing.
I am merely using the classification of GT rider to compare the complete palmares of people who would usually be compared. I don't think it's fair to compare classics riders with GT riders with Sprinters and decide on one best, but I will compare GT riders against each other, Classics riders, Sprinters etc. When I do that comparison I'll take into account all of their wins (you're first or you're last...) and assess them on what I think is important. To me, that monument puts Nibali above every single GT rider of the current crop.

If you want to dissect every aspect of a rider that's fine, but that means dissecting the course they won on, the competition, how favourable it was (Wiggins), how good their team was (Wiggins), how fit they were, did they crash and so on until it becomes meanlingless (to me).

I am using the classification to compare people of similar attributes against my criteria and Nibali's monument puts him over the others, not least because it requires a degree of non-specialisation the others are not willing to risk. People are of course free to disagree with that, but that is what matters to me in a rider.


If you want to see a real argument I could say that I think Hinault was actually better than Merckx... :)
So Nibbes has one monument win and know he's the greatest. So is one monument worth 4 gt's in your opinion?
I agree with him. For a cyclist that already won all GTs, winning a monument is much more impressive than continue amassing Giros and Vueltas.
So Nibali might not be the best rider purely in GTs, but if Boonen classifies him as a GT rider, then he is the best among cyclists classified as GT riders (if you can follow that logic).
I think it is between him and Valverde as best cyclist of this generation, but since Valverde is stained by a clinic ban, I think the title goes to Nibali. If only one of them could win a WC, that would pretty much settle the discussion
I get what he's saying (though I disagree.) Now I'm just trying to figure out how many gt's make up the value of a single monument.

I am not sure if you can quantify that. For a rider like Valverde probably 1 GT> multiple monuments.
For a rider like Nibali and other GT riders, monument>> additional GTs.

Some fans like riders who specialize in just one thing, some (including myself) find it boring and are more impressed with riders such as Valverde and Nibali
 
Re:

del1962 said:
If we are talking about GT riders then we should judge them on their performance in the most prestigous GT

Of recent winners that put them in this order for podiums

Froome 1 - 1- 2
Contador 1 - 1
Andy S / Evans 1-2-2
Wiggo / Nibs 1-3

So Nibs is not the greateset GT rider of this generation.

Of course Nairo Q may surpass them all by the end of their careers.
Count just TdF for clasify best GT rider is sick from the start to end I am considerind much better someone who is able to win different GT´s then someone who year after year is able to ride only TdF which is much more predictable and easier to control then Vuelta or Giro
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
Valv.Piti said:
But KB, we have never argued Contador is a better rider than Nibali, in fact that wasnt what we (at least I) was arguing about. We have argued who was the better 3 week rider, not best rider, which in term doesnt have anything to do with riding and winning monuments, just as who is the best classics rider doesnt have anything to do with how good you are at 3 weeks stage racing.
You argued about King Boonen's opinions which he repeatedly said that they are, obviously, his own. He explained what the criteria is on which he bases his opinion in ranking riders. Then some trols jumped in and everything went downhill with Contador magically appearing again in a discussion about Nibali.
Is he just "stating his opinion" if he said multiple times that people with a different opinion are "wrong"?
 
Nibali is a great rider with a great palmares. He has won all three GTs and one monument. Pretty complete rider. He's not the very best in any discipline but he has got what it takes to come out a winner many times.

So you tell me if I overrate or underrate him
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
So Nibbes has one monument win and know he's the greatest. So is one monument worth 4 gt's in your opinion?
This is where it gets interesting, because it comes down to discussion. Like with Valverde Vs. Boonen. That one Vuelta doesn't put him above Boonen for me, he'd need probably another two Vueltas or a Giro or Tour in terms of GTs. If he won the WCRR or LBL then it gets very close, he'd probably just nick it but that depends on if Boonen can fire in the cobbled classics one last time. Kelly is better than both.

There are two active GT riders who have won all three GTs which puts them head and shoulders above the rest. Only 6 people in the entire history of racing have managed that. Not Coppi, Indurain, Bobet, Bartali, Gimondi, Pantani, Fignon etc. Some of the greatest GT riders to ever throw a leg over the bike.

As far as I'm concerned, what makes a better GT rider, in my opinion, is one who can put himself on possibly the most elite list in cycling and go out and win monuments. That's my opinion, people can disagree as much as they want but they won't change it.
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
I agree with him. For a cyclist that already won all GTs, winning a monument is much more impressive than continue amassing Giros and Vueltas.
So Nibali might not be the best rider purely in GTs, but if Boonen classifies him as a GT rider, then he is the best among cyclists classified as GT riders (if you can follow that logic).
I think it is between him and Valverde as best cyclist of this generation, but since Valverde is stained by a clinic ban, I think the title goes to Nibali. If only one of them could win a WC, that would pretty much settle the discussion
Basically 100% agree with this.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts