Timmy-loves-Rabo said:
Franklin's your logic is flawed. Initially you said Dekker was a far better GT contendor because he could TT.
Not initially, I still say that...
A TT is decisive, but on a whole scope of things climing more so.
Sure.
Otherwise Martin and Canc would be the main contenders.
Uhm that's flawed. I never and nowherer said that you do not have to climb. I do say that above average climbing+ excelellent TTing almost always beats excellent climbing and above average TTing
if it comes to GT wins.
Dekker may have beat Gesink in the tt a minute or two. But gesink would have done more damage in the climbing.
Considering it's harder to make a difference in the mountains this is rather contentious. Thomas has shown that he could keep up in the high mountains and Robert is hardly the super attacker.
GTs are generally decided by the ITT, but in the sense the best TT of the 'climbers'. AC is the best climber in the world. His ITT was not great by any means last year.
AC didn't have his best year, but we all know that. And yet he finished it off in the TT.
But to go back to the argument, you do realize that this is not in contention with what I said??? I say TD is a better TT-er, so he had more chance than RG who is so far abysmal at (GT) TT-ing.
The position I hold and every argument fired at me only shows that actually my position is indeed rather logical. And the mountain of evidence supports it all the way.
Your dislike of TD and like fior RG should not blind you for the potential either has/had.
Menchov was one of the best climbers each time he won a GT.
Sure
Nibbles climbed his way into a position at the vuelta to easily take the lead in the itt. His climbing allowed him to go up against Mosquera, rather then Velits.
Sure
FACT: Evans lost the tour in the climbs not the itt.
Both occasions.
Uhmmmm..... not so sure as we can simply argue that AC won his GT the first time by holding him off in the TT... but ok.
FACT: Leipheimer lost all those GTs in the mountains not the ITT.
Sure
LA might've been a great TTr, he was also the best in the mountains for the most part.
Sure
AC just won the giro in the mountains. He destroyed the giro in the mountains.
Sure
Valverde won the Vuelta in the mountains
Sure
Nowhere will I contend it ^^. However oddly.... ever so oddly... the majority of the GT's is decided in the TT, which is acknowledged by all.
Sorry, nothing here that makes me believe in RG.
so do I think DT is a better GC potential because he can TT and is a good climber.
Logic says you should.
Or do I think Gesink is a better candidate for GTs because he is one of the best climbers, and has excellent endurance. Which trends suggest is the most necessary ingredient. Yes, yes I do.
First off, RG is a follower in the mountains (GT's). He certainly is one of the last to falter, but attacking in a GT is not his style.
Where does he get the needed time to win a GT? He can't do a "Menchov" and wrap it up in a TT.
Also; endurance being the most necessary ingredient? ? What is endurance in this context? If you mean constant high performance, sure, but given his lack of weaponry it's not enough to let RG win a GT.
Whereas TD, not only did he not really test himself in a GT as main man, it remains to be seen if he can (could) be constant.
So if I look at potential, RG, however great a guy, hasn't got the arsenal to win a GT. Not an attacker, yet not a good TT.... Whereas TD at least did have his good TT as a saving grace. It's not a coincidence TD won Tirenno and Romandie, whereas RG only won Oman.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram