who are the most overrated riders in the peloton in your opinion?

[Spine Concept]

You are indeed a young man, so I guess it's no problem that you confuse GT with climbing

This strange myth is being disproven year after year, but somehow some people are still starstruck by the dramatic television images of climbing riders. But even recently both Denis and Alberto have shown time upon time that the key is the TT.

A GT is won in the TT.

Dekker was so much better at that discipline that he had indeed a much bigger chance to win a GT than RG.

Unless RG does a top ten TT in a GT he will never win one. Simply because he can't shake those who are better at the TT. This is why I hope Kruijswijk will deliver as I truly don't see how RG is ever going to win a GT unless he dramatically improves.



you know what is so sad... that even on this forum simple facts are always being snowed under by emotions. It's not a coincidence that as a neopro AC first shone in TT's. But people only see him as the uber-climber. he is that of course, but it's based on a solid TT.

What about Andy Schleck? He seems to be disproving that notion. If not for Contador he would have won the tour twice already whilst sucking at time trialing. He never did a top 10 either in an itt at the tour. At the 07 Giro you have to consider the competition.

 

[Parrulo]

a tour may be won in the ITT but its lost in the mountains. as good as dekker is he hadn't proved to be able to put the pressure on the really high mountains while RG feels at home there.

besides gesink's TT seems to be pretty good this season

 

[Franklin]

What about Andy Schleck? He seems to be disproving that notion. If not for Contador he would have won the tour twice already whilst sucking at time trialing. He never did a top 10 either in an itt at the tour. At the 07 Giro you have to consider the competition.

Considering AS never won a GT I would say he exactly proves my point.

Remember the last TT? AS would have won the Tour had he been a good TT specialist.

 

[theyoungest]

You are indeed a young man, so I guess it's no problem that you confuse GT with climbing

This strange myth is being disproven year after year, but somehow some people are still starstruck by the dramatic television images of climbing riders. But even recently both Denis and Alberto have shown time upon time that the key is the TT.

A GT is won in the TT.

Dekker was so much better at that discipline that he had indeed a much bigger chance to win a GT than RG.

Unless RG does a top ten TT in a GT he will never win one. Simply because he can't shake those who are better at the TT. This is why I hope Kruijswijk will deliver as I truly don't see how RG is ever going to win a GT unless he dramatically improves.



you know what is so sad... that even on this forum simple facts are always being snowed under by emotions. It's not a coincidence that as a neopro AC first shone in TT's. But people only see him as the uber-climber. he is that of course, but it's based on a solid TT.

You seem to live in the past. With the GT courses currently in fashion, you mainly have to be a climber, and a moderately adequate TTist. Ivan Basso won the Giro last year, remember? Gesink is a better TTist than him (and also than Kruijswijk, BTW). Vincenzo Nibali is hardly earth-shattering in TTs either.

 

[Spine Concept]

Considering AS never won a GT I would say he exactly proves my point.

Remember the last TT? AS would have won the Tour had he been a good GT specialist.

I assume you mean TT specialist? Furthermore, you went on and missed the point. No one has come closer to winning the tour over the last couple of years than Schleck - bar Conta. Heck, he might still win last year's tour depending on Contador's case. Then your point would be moot. Sorry, I simply disagree with you.

 

[Franklin]

a tour may be won in the ITT but its lost in the mountains. as good as dekker is he hadn't proved to be able to put the pressure on the really high mountains while RG feels at home there.

You just have to follow. Dennis Mencov has shown that three times now. Don't forget that TD was the one who pulled the Peleton through the Pyrenees the year Rasmussen won the TdF (and then actually didn't win^^). TD wasn't an pure climber, but he certainly could climb.

I'd say TD is a bit like Nibbles. And as his palmares was quite impressive and developing, I'd still say TD had more potential than RG has.

besides gesink's TT seems to be pretty good this season

I'm not convinced. His TT in the Dauphine was mediocre.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Absolutely not, he never was and never will be better in the high mountains.

Actually, at the point Dekker was at his height, he was a better climber than Gesink (f.ex Romandie, Dekker 2nd between Anton, Gadret and Horner, Gesink 13th at +45)...
However, Gesink was a neo-pro and Dekker started doing horrible when Gesink jumped up. So to say Dekker NEVER was a better climber is simply untrue

 

[Franklin]

I assume you mean TT specialist? Furthermore, you missed the point. No one has come closer to winning the tour over the last couple of years than Schleck. Heck, he might still win last year's tour depending on Contador's case. Then your point would be moot. Sorry, I simply disagree with you.

How can you disagree when we look at history. Even Pantani all of a sudden did fantastic TT's when he won GT's. Or look at Michael Rasmussen's TT in the year he almost won the TdF.

I guess Sastre is the exception (though he is not as bad as AS).

The mountain of evidence proves both Climbing and TT-ing is important. TD was allegedly more allround, hence he had more chance to win a GT.

Spine Concept, you are answering with emotion while year after year it's shown that someone who can't TT will not win a GT. I on the other hand don't say you don't need to climb... but just like Cancellara won't win a GT, a pure climber can't win one either.

 

[theyoungest]

You just have to follow. Dennis Mencov has shown that three times now. Don't forget that TD was the one who pulled the Peleton through the Pyrenees the year Rasmussen won the TdF (and then actually didn't win^^). TD wasn't an pure climber, but he certainly could climb.

Yes, that's the example that is always used when making the case for Thomas Dekker the GT rider. Problem is, there aren't any other examples. Neither do we know anything about his recovery.

I'd say TD is a bit like Nibbles. And as his palmares was quite impressive and developing, I'd still say TD had more potential than RG has.

Thomas Dekker is/was a much better time trialist than Nibali, but a worse climber.

I'm not convinced. His TT in the Dauphine was mediocre.

As was his form. He reached 400 W average in that TT, he expects to reach 430 W in the Tour.

 

[Spine Concept]

How can you disagree when we look at history. Even Pantani all of a sudden did fantastic TT's when he won GT's. Or look at Michael Rasmussen's TT in the year he almost won the TdF.

I guess Sastre is the exception (though he is not as bad as AS).

The mountain of evidence proves both Climbing and TT-ing is important. TD was allegedly more allround, hence he had more chance to win a GT.

Spine Concept, you are answering with emotion while year after year it's shown that someone who can't TT will not win a GT. I on the other hand don't say you don't need to climb... but just like Cancellara won't win a GT, a pure climber can't win one either.

Franklin, your argument is flawed since I never said that in general a rider is more likely to win a GT without being able to TT. I simply said that it should not always be the case, Andy is a great illustration. Simple as that. You seem to be taking this way too seriously and consequently reading things between the lines which are inexistent. Thus, I might not be the one answering out of emotion and I still disagree with you, sorry.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Yes, that's the example that is always used when making the case for Thomas Dekker the GT rider. Problem is, there aren't any other examples. Neither do we know anything about his recovery.


Thomas Dekker is/was a much better time trialist than Nibali, but a worse climber.


As was his form. He reached 400 W average in that TT, he expects to reach 430 W in the Tour.

Better would be to say, a more inconsistent climber. On his best days Dekker has been more impressive than Nibali ever was in the mountains, but he also has far more bad days. Nibali is far more consistent of a climber.
But Nibali has never ridden a mountain like Dekker in Suisse and Romandie

 

[Angliru]

Considering AS never won a GT I would say he exactly proves my point.

Remember the last TT? AS would have won the Tour had he been a good TT specialist.

Is there such a thing as a "bad TT specialist"?

 

[theyoungest]

Spine Concept, you are answering with emotion while year after year it's shown that someone who can't TT will not win a GT. I on the other hand don't say you don't need to climb... but just like Cancellara won't win a GT, a pure climber can't win one either.

When you just ignore the evidence to the contrary, you're always right. Like I said, Ivan Basso really isn't a great time trialist. And neither is Nibali (yes, he won the Vuelta in the time trial. But he did so by getting 15th, not a great result by any means)

 

[Angliru]

How can you disagree when we look at history. Even Pantani all of a sudden did fantastic TT's when he won GT's. Or look at Michael Rasmussen's TT in the year he almost won the TdF.

I guess Sastre is the exception (though he is not as bad as AS).

The mountain of evidence proves both Climbing and TT-ing is important. TD was allegedly more allround, hence he had more chance to win a GT.

Spine Concept, you are answering with emotion while year after year it's shown that someone who can't TT will not win a GT. I on the other hand don't say you don't need to climb... but just like Cancellara won't win a GT, a pure climber can't win one either.

Gilberto Simoni couldn't TT himself out of a paperbag and he won 2 Giro's and it would've been 3 if he hadn't been betrayed by his team management in 2004 and 4 if not for the Peruvian candy debacle.

The course is what decides. If you have a gt heavy in mtf's and light in ITT's then a climber could win.

Using your logic, Bavarianrider would be considered a genius and Tony Martin would be a favorite for every gt that he enters.

Edit: I want to make it clear that I'm a big, big Gibo fan!

 

[boomcie]

Is there such a thing as a "bad TT specialist"?

There are some people who specialize in doing bad time trials. Gadret for instance is a bad TT specialist

 

[Parrulo]

Better would be to say, a more inconsistent climber. On his best days Dekker has been more impressive than Nibali ever was in the mountains, but he also has far more bad days. Nibali is far more consistent of a climber.
But Nibali has never ridden a mountain like Dekker in Suisse and Romandie

oh boy D_T has a bit of ACF in him

 

[Spine Concept]

I'm not convinced. His TT in the Dauphine was mediocre.

He did three very impressive TT's prior to the Dauphine one. He won the Oman one and consolidated his overall win, and podiumed as a direct result of his tt-results for the other two in TA and PV. Unsurprisingly, you want to focus on the Dauphine one where he was not in top shape. I do understand why you picked out that one seeing as it is a copy of the tour one. However, that's hardly fair everything considered.

 

[Angliru]

There are some people who specialize in doing bad time trials. Gadret for instance is a bad TT specialist

Touche'! Certainly he wouldn't have that on his resume.

 

[Franklin]

You seem to live in the past. With the GT courses currently in fashion, you mainly have to be a climber, and a moderately adequate TTist. Ivan Basso won the Giro last year, remember? Gesink is a better TTist than him (and also than Kruijswijk, BTW). Vincenzo Nibali is hardly earth-shattering in TTs either.

Gesink better than Basso at the TT? Uhm wow. You took this years results I assumed and forgot Basso's past? But Sure, last year's Giro lacked the TT mileage... but that was quite extraordinary even for current fashions.

Pray tell, when did Nibbles get his Red jersey last year?
Pray tell, how does Mencov win GT's?

This is actually the present, not the past.

Moderately adequate TTing will not bring you victories.

But I have it easy. Not only are statistics (including recent) flatout on my side, the future will undoubtedly prove my point.

but what I really don't understand why youguys prefer wishful thinking over cold hard facts. It's bloody hard to argue against me when the evidence is so lopsided in my favor.

This is not being arrogant... how can you straight-facedly say that the TT isn't decisive? Was last years final TT something you guys just blotted out of your memory? Mencov rushing the podium, AC keeping the yellow...

I do understand why you picked out that one seeing as it is a copy of the tour one. However, that's hardly fair everything considered.

I certainly hope you are right. But I'm not sure these early TT's are representative.

But I like to be proven wrong about Robert

Gilberto Simoni couldn't TT himself out of a paperbag and he won 2 Giro's and it would've been 3 if he had been betrayed by his team management in 2004 and 4 if not for the Peruvian candy debacle.

Ok, granted. You get Simoni. I'll take two contemporaries: Heras, Il Falco.

 

[Spine Concept]

I certainly hope you are right. But I'm not sure these early TT's are representative.

But I like to be proven wrong about Robert

In any case, they do attest to the fact that he has improved his time trialing greatly.

 

[theyoungest]

Gesink better than Basso at the TT? Uhm wow. You took this years results I assumed and forgot Basso's past? But Sure, last year's Giro lacked the TT mileage... but that was quite extraordinary even for current fashions.

Give me one impressive TT result by Ivan Basso after his return from suspension.

Pray tell, when did Nibbles get his Red jersey last year?

Yes, in the TT, but like I said: by getting 15th. I wouldn't put it past Gesink to get 15th in a TT.

Pray tell, how does Mencov win GT's?

He does so in the TT, yes. However, that's not the only way.

This is actually the present, not the past.

Moderately adequate TTing will not bring you victories.

Yes it does, as I've just pointed out.

Anything else in your post reeks of arrogance, although you claim not to be.

 

[Spine Concept]

Ok, granted. You get Simoni. I'll take two contemporaries: Heras, Il Falco.

There you go, my point stands. Both historically and presently. Though generally speaking, time trialing is decisive, it doesn't have to be every time.

 

[Franklin]

Give me one impressive TT result by Ivan Basso after his return from suspension.

Considering he only did well in one GT so far I have none

Even if Ivan suddenly starts to be worse at the TT than Robert (which is wishful thinking until this is tested in the TdF), he's an exception on the rule. He won a GT with 25 flat TT kilometres. That is even in todays mountainous GT's extremely little.

The problem with your position is that the last years almost every GT is decided in the TT. Yes, the mountains split the boys from the men. Yes, you can loose a GT in the mountains.

But the decision is usually made in the TT. Nibali, Mencov, Alberto Contador. Those are current stars and the last GT's they won were decided in the GT. Basso is the odd man out... and I'm still not sure how he will do in a TT when it counts. So far he hasn't been in a postion where it mattered.

Yes it does, as I've just pointed out.

Anything else in your post reeks of arrogance, although you claim not to be.

Don't get mad when the cold facts are there. It's not arrogant if I point out the facts. I can't help it that generally TT's are decisive. I can't change history, all I can do is point out that even with todays courses it's the TT that brings the decision.

Serioiusly, why don't you accept facts? Is it so bad to say that TT's are decisive? It seems I'm striking a nerve here with a lot of people.

There you go, my point stands. Both historically and presently. Though generally speaking, time trialing is decisive, it doesn't have to be every time.

Okay: for the record: Generally time trialinging is decisive.

See how this admonition works towards my stance about Robert (or Andy Schleck)?

 

[theyoungest]

Even if Ivan suddenly starts to be worse at the TT than Robert (which is wishful thinking until this is tested in the TdF), he's an exception on the rule. He won a GT with 25 flat TT kilometres. That is even in todays mountainous GT's extremely little.

I'm sure that Ivan would have liked to be a bit better than Robert at TTing in the Tirreno, since he rode Ivan off the podium there. I'm almost certain that, barring crashes etc, he'll beat Ivan in this TT as well. Not that it would necessarily matter, I doubt one of them will be fighting for the win.

 

[Spine Concept]

Considering he only did well in one GT so far I have none

Even if Ivan suddenly starts to be worse at the TT than Robert (which is wishful thinking until this is tested in the TdF), he's an exception on the rule.

Good thing you mentioned the TDF specifically, cause Gesink already has one on him at the Tirreno this year where he bumped him from the podium.

Edit: Youngest beat me to it. Darn it.