Who deserves the Vélo d'Or the most so far?

[Mr.White]

Point classification at the Tour of France, just like in any stage races is not underrated. It's overrated.

If you consider a stage win as a great performance (which in itself is already an overrating re: flat stages), you should never consider a final point classification as a great performance, since stage wins are instrumental in winning a point classification. So it's almost like you are judging twice the same achievement. A bit as thoufh I said Ferdi Kübler made a great achievement by winning the Tryptique ardennais beside winning the Arrow and Liège. The point classification is really anecdotal. Few riders are really interested in it.

I'd also rate the Tour of Flanders easier than most other classics. Sagan won two of the easiest spring classics, actually (and two of the easiest late season single-day races). Amstel Gold is way harder than Flanders (every cyclotourists who've ever climbed both kinds of hills will tell you). Needless to say, the Rio route was incomparably harder !!!

Spot on considering the points classification! It's a joke. Sagan had a spectacular season, but the green jersey is not among his greatest feats. And some posters said that this green jersey is more valuable than podium at the Tour!!! Oh my God! Nobody remembers podium places, but the green jersey is memorable!!! I think we don't follow the same sport

 

[Jancouver]

Re:

Ok pistolero, let me write a post in your style explaining why Froome > Sagan and Quintana > GVA

Sagan's won one monument all season, and that was with his biggest competition, GVA, absent, so it doesn't really count. Apart from that he's won a bunch of irrelevant races that nobody cares about. He only won the green jersey at the Tour because the organisers favour him with the points system. Real cyclists should be able to climb as well, not just get dropped over cat 1 climbs, so the green jersey really should go to a guy like Froome, who can climb, descend, do well on short punchy stuff, echelons and TTs.

GVA has also only won a bunch of small races, and his only big win of the season was at the olympic road race, which he won due to crashes any way.

Meanwhile, Froome and Quintana have won a grand tour, the biggest races in road cycling, each as well as podiuming another.

In fact you know what, I'm so blinded by bias that I'm going to say Chaves also had a better season than Sagan and GVA after podiuming two GTs as well

WOW ... so Ronde doesn't count because one rider was missing and the rest are irrelevant wins?

So the TdFstages, Td Swiss, Td California, Quebec, and Gent - Wevelgem are all irrelevant races?

Please tell me that you had too many drinks or I would have to suggest a cycling doctor visit.

 

[Ruby United]

Re:

If Froome hadn't bettered Quintana's 1-3, this would have gone down as an iconic season by Quintana in the modern era, even without all his other stage race victories. Arguably the best performance in consecutive grand Tours since Pantani (excluding Froome this season ofc)

Carlos Sastre 2008: 1st in Tour, 3rd in Vuelta (that's much better)
If Vuelta to Giro counts then also Contador (he won the Vuelta in 2014 and Giro in 2015)

 

[Big Doopie]

Re: Re:

Quintana was out of shape.

this is a huge fallacy.

quintana was not out of shape. he was run ragged by those long flat stages in the wind. so his legs were rubber when they got to the mountains.

this is precisely how herrera was beaten by hinault.

a GT is supposed to test ALL-ROUNDERS.

That is why HISTORICALLY very few pure climbers win GTs.

And that is the way it SHOULD be.

the problem with the ridiculous vuelta is that the stages are super short and basically NONE of them are flat. the vuelta no longer crowns the best all-rounder, but just the best climber.

it is a pathetic GT.

 

[Ruby United]

Re: Re:

Quintana was out of shape.

this is a huge fallacy.

quintana was not out of shape. he was run ragged by those long flat stages in the wind. so his legs were rubber when they got to the mountains.

this is precisely how herrera was beaten by hinault.

a GT is supposed to test ALL-ROUNDERS.

That is why HISTORICALLY very few pure climbers win GTs.

And that is the way it SHOULD be.

the problem with the ridiculous vuelta is that the stages are super short and basically NONE of them are flat. the vuelta no longer crowns the best all-rounder, but just the best climber.

it is a pathetic GT.

I agree in principle with what you are saying. The lack of long flat or dulating stages in the Vuelta is quite ridicolous. Furthermore, the lack of time trialling in all Grand Tours now is quite frankly appalling. However, I don't agree with your point about Quintana being run ragged. If so then how come in the two tours he came second he became better as the Tour went on. Similiarly in the Giro he won he reached peak form in the last week of the race. In fact, if anything, Quintana usually looks fresher as Grand Tours climax, contrary to your point.

 

[jsem94]

There was a time when the Vuelta didn't even have summit finishes. How far things have gone since...

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Quintana was out of shape.

this is a huge fallacy.

quintana was not out of shape. he was run ragged by those long flat stages in the wind. so his legs were rubber when they got to the mountains.

this is precisely how herrera was beaten by hinault.

a GT is supposed to test ALL-ROUNDERS.

That is why HISTORICALLY very few pure climbers win GTs.

And that is the way it SHOULD be.

the problem with the ridiculous vuelta is that the stages are super short and basically NONE of them are flat. the vuelta no longer crowns the best all-rounder, but just the best climber.

it is a pathetic GT.

Lol, the Vuelta has many flat run-ins and only an uphill finish. Him being tired from those long windy flat sections is just BS, except perhaps on the stage where echelons were formed, but he made it in the front group there anyway, so he can't have been that terrible at it. He simply didn't have it this Tour.

 

[El Pistolero]

Point classification at the Tour of France, just like in any stage races is not underrated. It's overrated.

If you consider a stage win as a great performance (which in itself is already an overrating re: flat stages), you should never consider a final point classification as a great performance, since stage wins are instrumental in winning a point classification. So it's almost like you are judging twice the same achievement. A bit as thoufh I said Ferdi Kübler made a great achievement by winning the Tryptique ardennais beside winning the Arrow and Liège. The point classification is really anecdotal. Few riders are really interested in it.

I'd also rate the Tour of Flanders easier than most other classics. Sagan won two of the easiest spring classics, actually (and two of the easiest late season single-day races). Amstel Gold is way harder than Flanders (every cyclotourists who've ever climbed both kinds of hills will tell you). Needless to say, the Rio route was incomparably harder !!!

Spot on considering the points classification! It's a joke. Sagan had a spectacular season, but the green jersey is not among his greatest feats. And some posters said that this green jersey is more valuable than podium at the Tour!!! Oh my God! Nobody remembers podium places, but the green jersey is memorable!!! I think we don't follow the same sport

I sure as hell remember Sagan's performance this Tour more than Quintana's. Of course a green jersey is better than a third place in the Tour. I'm not sure what sport you're following, is it called losing?

Quintana made it into the top ten only once in this year's Tour, Sagan made it into the top ten on 10 stages, that's almost half the entire Tour de France! That's a much more impressive performance than getting third in the Tour.

I don't remember who got third in the Tour, but I do remember who won green jerseys since I've been following cycling seriously.

2007: Boonen
2008: Freire
2009: Hushovd
2010: Petacchi
2011: Cav
2012-2016: Sagan

 

[jsem94]

A green jersey is not better than a third place. But a green jersey and a couple of stage wins is much better.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

A green jersey is not better than a third place. But a green jersey and a couple of stage wins is much better.

The last time the third place finisher won a stage in the same year was 2007 (and his results were scrapped, but I'm still going to count it). People really over-rate cyclists who finish third in the Tour.

 

[greenedge]

Re:

Ok pistolero, let me write a post in your style explaining why Froome > Sagan and Quintana > GVA

Sagan's won one monument all season, and that was with his biggest competition, GVA, absent, so it doesn't really count.

Cancellara?

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

I'm well aware of how it works tyvm. Just goes to show though that if you're biased and unwilling to be rational, there's a way to discredit any achievement

Except Sagan would have still won if the rules changed like you suggested. So your argument makes no sense.

Yeah, Contador crashed out, so Froome's Tour win is kinda asterisked, but Contador wasn't the favourite to win overall at the point that he crashed out (unlike Landa and Kruijswijk at this year's Giro, Anton at the 2010 Vuelta, and Froome/Contador at the 2014 Tour). It's more comparable to the 2013 Giro where Nibali was probably the favourite even before Wiggins' crash. But anyway, Froome has proved time and time again over the past few years that he's the best stage racer out there right now.

He has proven time and time again that he has the strongest team. He lost the Vuelta 3 times now because he couldn't count on the same strong team support as in the Tour. Froome has proven time and time again over the past few years that he can't win without relying on the strongest team support the sport has ever seen.

Look at the Vuelta fields in Indurain's era, and look at the Vuelta fields now. The past 5 editions of the Vuelta have been absolutely stacked. If you go back 10 years, I'd also agree that the WC RR was a bigger achievement than the Vuelta. But those days are gone.

Yes, I suggest you take a look at the Vuelta's field. Look at how many stages were won by cyclists who have never won a stage before. The field isn't stacked, but incredibly thin. Even if you want to look at only GC contenders I only see guys who were tired from the Tour or injuries. The WC RR is still a bigger achievement: all the best riders in the world contest it and you get to wear the rainbow jersey all year. That gives you a lot more media attention and sponsors will be happy to give you more money to support their product. Winning the WC RR will make you much more bank than winning the Vuelta. Claiming the Vuelta is bigger than the WC RR is like claiming Roberto Heras is bigger than Oscar Freire.

Yeah, none of the top guys make the Vuelta their primary goal of the season, but going by that logic absolutely noone makes Strade, AGR, FW, E3, Omloop, Canada etc their top goals.

You can peak for multiple one-day races throughout the season, that's why those races you mentioned have a very good field usually. You can only peak for one GT in a season.

And you say Nibali values WCRR over Vuelta. Well Froome clearly valued a Vuelta over Olympic gold. Unless of course you're trying to tell me that Froome was in better shape at the Olympics than he was at the Vuelta

That's because Froome is a crappy one-day racer and never had a chance to win gold in the road race. He simply doesn't have what it takes to be a classics specialist: a Nibali or Valverde he is not. The time trial field at the Olympics was much stronger than in the Vuelta and that's why he only managed to get bronze there (would've been fourth if Dennis didn't have that mechanical).

 

[Sandisfan]

Re: Re:

Quote: Except Sagan would have still won if the rules changed like you suggested. So your argument makes no sense.

The changes in part were to take away Sagan's ability to get points on stages that weren't pure sprinter stages. They made first place worth 50 points and I believe 2nd is worth 30 points and non-sprinter stages stayed 30 points. So Sagan's 2nd and 3rds were devalued compared to a pure sprinter like Cavendish who if he only picked up points in 4 stages and those were 1sts (200 Pts), Sagan could for instance have 7 2nds and that would that be worth 210 points. Now to be fair if those were the only points each received , not likely for Sagan, 4 1sts would be more desirable than 7 2nds. But as we know Sagan usually wins a couple of races/stages and he finishes in the top 5 or 10 places so often it's incredible. He animates races to make even more humdrum tours more interesting. Note: A win on a non-sprint stages could have Sagan with 3 1sts and four 2nds and 210 points.

Also the points at the "sprint points" were changed so that instead of small points available at 2 or three different places where almost all of the intermediate points were taken by the break. Now there are more points available at one sprint point with more positions, instead of I believe 3 riders getting points it's something like 12 to 15 or so riders get points that are still available when the peloton arrives at the sprint line. This also creates sprints where often the riders in the break are not interested in contesting the sprint with many miles left in the race so that at the sprint the break just rolls through and ignores the sprint and it was very anticlimactic for the assembled crowds.

 

[42x16ss]

Point classification at the Tour of France, just like in any stage races is not underrated. It's overrated.

If you consider a stage win as a great performance (which in itself is already an overrating re: flat stages), you should never consider a final point classification as a great performance, since stage wins are instrumental in winning a point classification. So it's almost like you are judging twice the same achievement. A bit as thoufh I said Ferdi Kübler made a great achievement by winning the Tryptique ardennais beside winning the Arrow and Liège. The point classification is really anecdotal. Few riders are really interested in it.

I'd also rate the Tour of Flanders easier than most other classics. Sagan won two of the easiest spring classics, actually (and two of the easiest late season single-day races). Amstel Gold is way harder than Flanders (every cyclotourists who've ever climbed both kinds of hills will tell you). Needless to say, the Rio route was incomparably harder !!!

Spot on considering the points classification! It's a joke. Sagan had a spectacular season, but the green jersey is not among his greatest feats. And some posters said that this green jersey is more valuable than podium at the Tour!!! Oh my God! Nobody remembers podium places, but the green jersey is memorable!!! I think we don't follow the same sport

I sure as hell remember Sagan's performance this Tour more than Quintana's. Of course a green jersey is better than a third place in the Tour. I'm not sure what sport you're following, is it called losing?

Quintana made it into the top ten only once in this year's Tour, Sagan made it into the top ten on 10 stages, that's almost half the entire Tour de France! That's a much more impressive performance than getting third in the Tour.

I don't remember who got third in the Tour, but I do remember who won green jerseys since I've been following cycling seriously.

2007: Boonen
2008: Freire
2009: Hushovd
2010: Petacchi
2011: Cav
2012-2016: Sagan

I might just pick this up and run with it, because El Pickle is on to something here IMO. Since I started following cycling:

Green Jersey Winners: 3rd Place

2016 Sagan Quintana
2015 Sagan Valverde
2014 Sagan Pinot
2013 Sagan Rodriguez
2012 Sagan Nibali
2011 Cav F. Schleck
2010 Petacchi Menchov
2009 Hushovd Armstrong
2008 Freire Kohl
2007 Boonen Leipheimer
2006 McEwen Kloeden
2005 Hushovd Ullrich
2004 McEwen Basso
2003 Cooke Vinokourov
2002 McEwen Rumsas
2001 Zabel Beloki
2000 Zabel Beloki
1999 Zabel Escartin
1998 Zabel Julich
1997 Zabel Pantani
1996 Zabel Virenque
1995 Jalabert Riis

Apart from Cooke as the anomaly, the Green Jersey list is strong, very strong. Sure, there's some great riders in the third place list but for nearly half, those third places are the among the highlights of their careers - if not the highlight (eg: Julich, Rumsas, Leipheimer, Kohl, Escartin, Schleck, Pinot, Kloeden, Beloki).

 

[Sandisfan]

Point classification at the Tour of France, just like in any stage races is not underrated. It's overrated.

If you consider a stage win as a great performance (which in itself is already an overrating re: flat stages), you should never consider a final point classification as a great performance, since stage wins are instrumental in winning a point classification. So it's almost like you are judging twice the same achievement. A bit as thoufh I said Ferdi Kübler made a great achievement by winning the Tryptique ardennais beside winning the Arrow and Liège. The point classification is really anecdotal. Few riders are really interested in it.

I'd also rate the Tour of Flanders easier than most other classics. Sagan won two of the easiest spring classics, actually (and two of the easiest late season single-day races). Amstel Gold is way harder than Flanders (every cyclotourists who've ever climbed both kinds of hills will tell you). Needless to say, the Rio route was incomparably harder !!!

Spot on considering the points classification! It's a joke. Sagan had a spectacular season, but the green jersey is not among his greatest feats. And some posters said that this green jersey is more valuable than podium at the Tour!!! Oh my God! Nobody remembers podium places, but the green jersey is memorable!!! I think we don't follow the same sport

I sure as hell remember Sagan's performance this Tour more than Quintana's. Of course a green jersey is better than a third place in the Tour. I'm not sure what sport you're following, is it called losing?

Quintana made it into the top ten only once in this year's Tour, Sagan made it into the top ten on 10 stages, that's almost half the entire Tour de France! That's a much more impressive performance than getting third in the Tour.

I don't remember who got third in the Tour, but I do remember who won green jerseys since I've been following cycling seriously.

2007: Boonen
2008: Freire
2009: Hushovd
2010: Petacchi
2011: Cav
2012-2016: Sagan

I might just pick this up and run with it, because El Pickle is on to something here IMO. Since I started following cycling:

Green Jersey Winners: 3rd Place

2016 Sagan Quintana
2015 Sagan Valverde
2014 Sagan Pinot
2013 Sagan Rodriguez
2012 Sagan Nibali
2011 Cav F. Schleck
2010 Petacchi Menchov
2009 Hushovd Armstrong
2008 Freire Kohl
2007 Boonen Leipheimer
2006 McEwen Kloeden
2005 Hushovd Ullrich
2004 McEwen Basso
2003 Cooke Vinokourov
2002 McEwen Rumsas
2001 Zabel Beloki
2000 Zabel Beloki
1999 Zabel Escartin
1998 Zabel Julich
1997 Zabel Pantani
1996 Zabel Virenque
1995 Jalabert Riis

Apart from Cooke as the anomaly, the Green Jersey list is strong, very strong. Sure, there's some great riders in the third place list but for nearly half, those third places are the among the highlights of their careers - if not the highlight (eg: Julich, Rumsas, Leipheimer, Kohl, Escartin, Schleck, Pinot, Kloeden, Beloki).

Very Sharp analysis.

But then I'm a huge Sagan fan but no bias you buy that don't you? the no bias part that is.

P.S. I found it funny that when I previewed my post I realized I wrote Shark not Sharp but then I'm a San Jose Shark fan (ice hockey NHL)

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

Ok pistolero, let me write a post in your style explaining why Froome > Sagan and Quintana > GVA

Sagan's won one monument all season, and that was with his biggest competition, GVA, absent, so it doesn't really count. Apart from that he's won a bunch of irrelevant races that nobody cares about. He only won the green jersey at the Tour because the organisers favour him with the points system. Real cyclists should be able to climb as well, not just get dropped over cat 1 climbs, so the green jersey really should go to a guy like Froome, who can climb, descend, do well on short punchy stuff, echelons and TTs.

GVA has also only won a bunch of small races, and his only big win of the season was at the olympic road race, which he won due to crashes any way.

Meanwhile, Froome and Quintana have won a grand tour, the biggest races in road cycling, each as well as podiuming another.

In fact you know what, I'm so blinded by bias that I'm going to say Chaves also had a better season than Sagan and GVA after podiuming two GTs as well

WOW ... so Ronde doesn't count because one rider was missing and the rest are irrelevant wins?

So the TdFstages, Td Swiss, Td California, Quebec, and Gent - Wevelgem are all irrelevant races?

Please tell me that you had too many drinks or I would have to suggest a cycling doctor visit.

the same like the tour win doesn't count as froome had no one to beat there after contador had abandoned.

 

[Amnes2015]

wow, amazing
if some new member posted the crap this guy with 11k posts does he would have been banned instant for trolling

i have him on ignore but very unfortunate quoting shows up

it's not even worth responding to this kind of stuff, "Tour Vuelta double is no big deal" level.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

wow, amazing
if some new member posted the crap this guy with 11k posts does he would have been banned instant for trolling

i have him on ignore but very unfortunate quoting shows up

it's not even worth responding to this kind of stuff, "Tour Vuelta double is no big deal" level.

El Pickle has been a few times :lol:

You learn to live with it.

 

[Pricey_sky]

Re: Re:

That's because Froome is a crappy one-day racer and never had a chance to win gold in the road race. He simply doesn't have what it takes to be a classics specialist: a Nibali or Valverde he is not. The time trial field at the Olympics was much stronger than in the Vuelta and that's why he only managed to get bronze there (would've been fourth if Dennis didn't have that mechanical).

Yes the Olympic TT field was much more stacked than the Vuelta, however you can put a direct form line to it by the performance of Castroviejo. Froome only beat him by 4 seconds over 54k In Rio, yet beat him by 44s over just 37k at the Vuelta. It's not unreasonable to think he'd have finished 60-70s clear of him in Rio on that form, so I think its fair to say had he been in Vuelta TT form at Rio he'd have been very close to gold. But of course then holding that form would surely have been nearly impossible going into the Vuelta and he'd have faded badly and maybe only finished 4th on GC.

It depends what is better in terms of a Tour-Olympics-Vuelta achievement, a 1st-gold-4th or a 1st-bronze-2nd.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

That's because Froome is a crappy one-day racer and never had a chance to win gold in the road race. He simply doesn't have what it takes to be a classics specialist: a Nibali or Valverde he is not. The time trial field at the Olympics was much stronger than in the Vuelta and that's why he only managed to get bronze there (would've been fourth if Dennis didn't have that mechanical).

Yes the Olympic TT field was much more stacked than the Vuelta, however you can put a direct form line to it by the performance of Castroviejo. Froome only beat him by 4 seconds over 54k In Rio, yet beat him by 44s over just 37k at the Vuelta. It's not unreasonable to think he'd have finished 60-70s clear of him in Rio on that form, so I think its fair to say had he been in Vuelta TT form at Rio he'd have been very close to gold. But of course then holding that form would surely have been nearly impossible going into the Vuelta and he'd have faded badly and maybe only finished 4th on GC.

It depends what is better in terms of a Tour-Olympics-Vuelta achievement, a 1st-gold-4th or a 1st-bronze-2nd.

That also has to be taken into the context of a standalone TT vs a stage race TT, where recovery plays a bigger part. Froome is a stage racer where recovery is essential, and therefore should do better in a TT - comparatively at least - towards the end of a GT. Castroviejo may well have focused his season around the Olympics TT as well. It's just as likely that Castroviejo had better form at Rio and had tailed off in the Vuelta.

 

[dacooley]

the key is sagan is a superhero whilst froome should be shamefully exiled from cycling

 

[Valv.Piti]

Are we really arguing that green jersey > 3rd place? I don't agree with that at all.

However, no question that Sagan's TdF was far more impressive than Quintana's due to how he won the jersey and that he picked up 3 stage wins. But as a standalone, would you seriously rather win the green jersey than podium Le Tour?

 

[Pantani_lives]

In an attempt to be objective I came to the following order:

1. Sagan
2. Froome
3. Quintana

It should be between these three. That European title gives Sagan the edge, because he was already in contention before that win.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

That's because Froome is a crappy one-day racer and never had a chance to win gold in the road race. He simply doesn't have what it takes to be a classics specialist: a Nibali or Valverde he is not. The time trial field at the Olympics was much stronger than in the Vuelta and that's why he only managed to get bronze there (would've been fourth if Dennis didn't have that mechanical).

Yes the Olympic TT field was much more stacked than the Vuelta, however you can put a direct form line to it by the performance of Castroviejo. Froome only beat him by 4 seconds over 54k In Rio, yet beat him by 44s over just 37k at the Vuelta. It's not unreasonable to think he'd have finished 60-70s clear of him in Rio on that form, so I think its fair to say had he been in Vuelta TT form at Rio he'd have been very close to gold. But of course then holding that form would surely have been nearly impossible going into the Vuelta and he'd have faded badly and maybe only finished 4th on GC.

It depends what is better in terms of a Tour-Olympics-Vuelta achievement, a 1st-gold-4th or a 1st-bronze-2nd.

That also has to be taken into the context of a standalone TT vs a stage race TT, where recovery plays a bigger part. Froome is a stage racer where recovery is essential, and therefore should do better in a TT - comparatively at least - towards the end of a GT. Castroviejo may well have focused his season around the Olympics TT as well. It's just as likely that Castroviejo had better form at Rio and had tailed off in the Vuelta.

Well, I know Castroviejo had a lot of work to do for Quintana, but come on. TTs in stage races work against the GC guys because while Froome was busy burning all his matches on the climbs against Quintana and co, Castroviejo could take it relatively easy

 

[MacBAir]

Re:

Are we really arguing that green jersey > 3rd place? I don't agree with that at all.

However, no question that Sagan's TdF was far more impressive than Quintana's due to how he won the jersey and that he picked up 3 stage wins. But as a standalone, would you seriously rather win the green jersey than podium Le Tour?

A man makes the jersey. A man makes the greatness of his results.

Everything Sagan did, he did it as world champion and with a target on his back. He won the green jersey despite having everything and everyone against him and trying to make him not win it. We know how cycling can be cruel, and how the strongest cyclists have a lot of trouble turning their strength into results when they are the overwhelming favorites and marked by the whole peloton. Fabian was defeated countless times because of it. Same for Tom.

Compare that to pretty much every single GVA win during the last few years, where he was allowed to "go" (see his win, this tour, for example), where he was allowed to "wheelsuck"and so on. Sagan's only option to win the RVV was to be the absolutely strongest, most astute rider and blow everybody off his wheel. No one was going to let him go. Same for pretty much everyone of his big wins. Frankly I don't remember a single GVA win where that was the case. He was always allowed to go.

Sagan did this at GW, RVV, some stages in June, every single one of his Tour stage wins, his Green Jersey, His european title, and his last World's win. The same results from a rider without that pressure don't hold the same value.

However, this logic can't be applied to GT's GC, especially when you have a strong team: You can be a beast in a classic, and not finish in the top20. If you are a GC beast, you are pretty much guaranteed a top 10 or top placing.

All of this is why Sagan is by far the one that deserves the Velo d'Ór the most.