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

[MacBAir]

Re: Re:

Sagan is certainly the best rider in the current peloton, and has been again this year. But the problem is, at the end of the day, his only major win was RVV. Sure, GW and Quebec and 3 Tour stages are also big wins (and same goes for Eneco if he can take it away from Dennis & GVA). But it's not an overly special season. If we look at classics specialists just in this decade, Canc 2010, Gilbert 2011, Boonen 2012 and Canc 2013 all had more successful seasons than Sagan this year.

Meanwhile, Froome's results this season are probably the best for a stage racer since Pantani 1998, especially when you throw in an Olympic medal (yes, 1-2 in Tour-Vuelta is more impressive imo than Contador's Giro-Vuelta double given the gap in between)

That's why Froome deserves it this year unless Sagan wins the Worlds or Lombardia

Sagan this year is clearly better than Boonen 12 and Canc 13. Unbelievable how one could think otherwise.

Because he doesn't have the necessary ability to understand that different circunstantes can influence the worth of a victory. All he can see is "2 wins is twice as good as one win", ignoring everything else.

Cycling isn't about that. Sagan's wins on the tour were worth infinitely more than Cav's wins, for example. But he can't quite grasp why. Riders make races. Riders make wins. Riders make jerseys. Not the other way around.

No one would've beat VDB in Liege, that year. No one. How do you measure the worth of that win? Simple minds can't.

 

[SKSemtex]

The problem is that in cycling (as everywhere) only wins metters.

Acording this formula Sagan won "only" 3 stages and "only" Green jersey. But what I remember is 8 podiums. Some of them more spectacular then some stage wins. ( at least stage 10 - one for Matthews or Champ Elysees). It means each third stage he entered he was few centimeters from win. And this is since his first stage in 2012. Most of the time without any help or train.

According the same formula his last year with no win just "green Jersey" was misarable but it was hell of a show from his side.

But even if we go only for wins in all classification in 2016 Sagan might be in front

Sagan
RVV
GW
Quebec
Euro RR

3 GT stages
2 wins stages at Suisse
2 wins stages at California
2 wins in Eneco
3 wins in point clasification
16 Wins in Total

Froome 11 / Quintana 8

Of course we have here the weight of each win. GT GC wins are more then Green Jerseys wins, GT stage wins are better then one in smaller races. But it is also very discutable. I think it is much harder to win the sprint in Eneco then in Tour (ask Greipel or Kittel) and it is as hard or even harder to win the Tour green jersey then to win yelow. (ask anybody who want to get is from Sagan)

 

[Alexandre B.]

The problem is that in cycling (as everywhere) only wins metters.

Acording this formula Sagan won "only" 3 stages and "only" Green jersey. But what I remember is 8 podiums. Some of them more spectacular then some stage wins. ( at least stage 10 - one for Matthews or Champ Elysees). It means each third stage he entered he was few centimeters from win. And this is since his first stage in 2012. Most of the time without any help or train.

According the same formula his last year with no win just "green Jersey" was misarable but it was hell of a show from his side.

But even if we go only for wins in all classification in 2016 Sagan might be in front

Sagan
RVV
GW
Quebec
Euro RR

3 GT stages
2 wins stages at Suisse
2 wins stages at California
2 wins in Eneco
3 wins in point clasification
16 Wins in Total

Froome 11 / Quintana 8

Of course we have here the weight of each win. GT GC wins are more then Green Jerseys wins, GT stage wins are better then one in smaller races. But it is also very discutable. I think it is much harder to win the sprint in Eneco then in Tour (ask Greipel or Kittel) and it is as hard or even harder to win the Tour green jersey then to win yelow. (ask anybody who want to get is from Sagan)

You mean Vuelta.

 

[SKSemtex]

The problem is that in cycling (as everywhere) only wins metters.

Acording this formula Sagan won "only" 3 stages and "only" Green jersey. But what I remember is 8 podiums. Some of them more spectacular then some stage wins. ( at least stage 10 - one for Matthews or Champ Elysees). It means each third stage he entered he was few centimeters from win. And this is since his first stage in 2012. Most of the time without any help or train.

According the same formula his last year with no win just "green Jersey" was misarable but it was hell of a show from his side.

But even if we go only for wins in all classification in 2016 Sagan might be in front

Sagan
RVV
GW
Quebec
Euro RR

3 GT stages
2 wins stages at Suisse
2 wins stages at California
2 wins in Eneco
3 wins in point clasification
16 Wins in Total

Froome 11 / Quintana 8

Of course we have here the weight of each win. GT GC wins are more then Green Jerseys wins, GT stage wins are better then one in smaller races. But it is also very discutable. I think it is much harder to win the sprint in Eneco then in Tour (ask Greipel or Kittel) and it is as hard or even harder to win the Tour green jersey then to win yelow. (ask anybody who want to get is from Sagan)

You mean Vuelta.

No I mean Tour. To win the sprint in Vuelta is as easy as in California, probably even easier.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

First of all, Sagan is best rider in the peloton this year, but only this year. Previous years he was not the best. Among the best, he was, but on the top, he never was.

Second, you can't look only the biggest wins, or only wins for that matter. By that logic Degenkolb 2015 was better than Sagan this year, and that is very far from truth.

I would have mentioned Degenkolb 2015 in my post if I thought that

But I will say that if Kristoff had done anything after spring last year, that would also be comparable to Sagan this year

Yes, but Sagan's other big wins came in the later season (Tour, Quebec, ERR). And kristoff did pretty well in the late season (2nd Vatenfall, 1st Plouay, 3rd Quebec and 4th WRR), but his early season was worse. 2nd in Sanremo was good but he was nowhere near as good as Sagan in the cobbled races, not even mustering a podium at E3 and Gent-Wevelgem. Sagan's season looks and feels far above Kristoff's even if he had won one or two Tour stages.

 

[Põhja Konn]

One thing that has not featured particularily prominently in this debate thus far, is the shortness of Froome's season. When comparing him with the likes of Sagan in a debate about who has been the standout rider of the year, this aspect must be taken into account. During the period from Dauphine to Vuelta Froome was the best rider in the world, but before and after almost a complete non-factor. Unless the results are being used as a sole criteria of importance, this lack of meaningful racing during the first half of the season should should take him out of contention for this award. Specially as training instead of seriously racing during spring was his own choice, not forced upon him by injury or illness.

Had Froome's and Quintana's results in Tour and Vuelta been the other way around, we would have a tight contest for the best rider of the year. As it is in reality, there really is no competition for Sagan. He has been getting his results (which in themselves are quite impressive) while constantly riding with the proverbial target on his back, with his rivals often trying to make sure he'll lose, before even thinking about winning themselves. For example GVA, for all his strenght and improved tactical awareness, have never had to deal with that kind of obstacles.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Sagan is certainly the best rider in the current peloton, and has been again this year. But the problem is, at the end of the day, his only major win was RVV. Sure, GW and Quebec and 3 Tour stages are also big wins (and same goes for Eneco if he can take it away from Dennis & GVA). But it's not an overly special season. If we look at classics specialists just in this decade, Canc 2010, Gilbert 2011, Boonen 2012 and Canc 2013 all had more successful seasons than Sagan this year.

I completely agree. For the same reason I didn't understand why everyone was hyping Valverde's season last year.

Cause it was a great season! Clearly No.1 last year

 

[DFA123]

Re:

One thing that has not featured particularily prominently in this debate thus far, is the shortness of Froome's season. When comparing him with the likes of Sagan in a debate about who has been the standout rider of the year, this aspect must be taken into account. During the period from Dauphine to Vuelta Froome was the best rider in the world, but before and after almost a complete non-factor. Unless the results are being used as a sole criteria of importance, this lack of meaningful racing during the first half of the season should should take him out of contention for this award. Specially as training instead of seriously racing during spring was his own choice, not forced upon him by injury or illness.

Had Froome's and Quintana's results in Tour and Vuelta been the other way around, we would have a tight contest for the best rider of the year. As it is in reality, there really is no competition for Sagan. He has been getting his results (which in themselves are quite impressive) while constantly riding with the proverbial target on his back, with his rivals often trying to make sure he'll lose, before even thinking about winning themselves. For example GVA, for all his strenght and improved tactical awareness, have never had to deal with that kind of obstacles.

To be fair to Froome, it's almost impossible to sustain any kind of peak for longer than 3 months, when you're targetting the GC in two Grand Tours and also an Olympic medal. It's just not comparable to Sagan, who was basically having rest days in over half the stages in the Tour de France and most of the stage races he completed. It's way easier for a sprinter to maintain somewhere close to top form, than it is for a top GC rider.

As much as we all dislike it, the GC battle in the Tour de France is by far the biggest event in cycling. It's what even non cycling fans follow and what the best riders look to peak for. A rider winning that and that alone is in contention for the Velo d'or. A rider who wins that, plus finishing runner up in another GT and winning more stages along the way than any sprinter has done in GTs this year, is a shoe in for velo d'or - even if he does absolutely nothing for the rest of the year. As it happens, Froome actually won two other stage races and an Olympic medal. It's been a phenomenal year and I think his lack of popularity is clouding judgement as to what a season he has had.

Sagan has quantity of wins, but the quality is just not there. Even if he won the WC it's not close to what Froome has achieved.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

One thing that has not featured particularily prominently in this debate thus far, is the shortness of Froome's season. When comparing him with the likes of Sagan in a debate about who has been the standout rider of the year, this aspect must be taken into account. During the period from Dauphine to Vuelta Froome was the best rider in the world, but before and after almost a complete non-factor. Unless the results are being used as a sole criteria of importance, this lack of meaningful racing during the first half of the season should should take him out of contention for this award. Specially as training instead of seriously racing during spring was his own choice, not forced upon him by injury or illness.

Had Froome's and Quintana's results in Tour and Vuelta been the other way around, we would have a tight contest for the best rider of the year. As it is in reality, there really is no competition for Sagan. He has been getting his results (which in themselves are quite impressive) while constantly riding with the proverbial target on his back, with his rivals often trying to make sure he'll lose, before even thinking about winning themselves. For example GVA, for all his strenght and improved tactical awareness, have never had to deal with that kind of obstacles.

To be fair to Froome, it's almost impossible to sustain any kind of peak for longer than 3 months, when you're targetting the GC in two Grand Tours and also an Olympic medal. It's just not comparable to Sagan, who was basically having rest days in over half the stages in the Tour de France and most of the stage races he completed. It's way easier for a sprinter to maintain somewhere close to top form, than it is for a top GC rider.

As much as we all dislike it, the GC battle in the Tour de France is by far the biggest event in cycling. It's what even non cycling fans follow and what the best riders look to peak for. A rider winning that and that alone is in contention for the Velo d'or. A rider who wins that, plus finishing runner up in another GT and winning more stages along the way than any sprinter has done in GTs this year, is a shoe in for velo d'or - even if he does absolutely nothing for the rest of the year. As it happens, Froome actually won two other stage races and an Olympic medal. It's been a phenomenal year and I think his lack of popularity is clouding judgement as to what a season he has had.

Sagan has quantity of wins, but the quality is just not there. Even if he won the WC it's not close to what Froome has achieved.

He is close already, and he wins Eneco he's at least on par with Froome, let alone WC

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

One thing that has not featured particularily prominently in this debate thus far, is the shortness of Froome's season. When comparing him with the likes of Sagan in a debate about who has been the standout rider of the year, this aspect must be taken into account. During the period from Dauphine to Vuelta Froome was the best rider in the world, but before and after almost a complete non-factor. Unless the results are being used as a sole criteria of importance, this lack of meaningful racing during the first half of the season should should take him out of contention for this award. Specially as training instead of seriously racing during spring was his own choice, not forced upon him by injury or illness.

Had Froome's and Quintana's results in Tour and Vuelta been the other way around, we would have a tight contest for the best rider of the year. As it is in reality, there really is no competition for Sagan. He has been getting his results (which in themselves are quite impressive) while constantly riding with the proverbial target on his back, with his rivals often trying to make sure he'll lose, before even thinking about winning themselves. For example GVA, for all his strenght and improved tactical awareness, have never had to deal with that kind of obstacles.

To be fair to Froome, it's almost impossible to sustain any kind of peak for longer than 3 months, when you're targetting the GC in two Grand Tours and also an Olympic medal. It's just not comparable to Sagan, who was basically having rest days in over half the stages in the Tour de France and most of the stage races he completed. It's way easier for a sprinter to maintain somewhere close to top form, than it is for a top GC rider.

As much as we all dislike it, the GC battle in the Tour de France is by far the biggest event in cycling. It's what even non cycling fans follow and what the best riders look to peak for. A rider winning that and that alone is in contention for the Velo d'or. A rider who wins that, plus finishing runner up in another GT and winning more stages along the way than any sprinter has done in GTs this year, is a shoe in for velo d'or - even if he does absolutely nothing for the rest of the year. As it happens, Froome actually won two other stage races and an Olympic medal. It's been a phenomenal year and I think his lack of popularity is clouding judgement as to what a season he has had.

Sagan has quantity of wins, but the quality is just not there. Even if he won the WC it's not close to what Froome has achieved.

He is close already, and he wins Eneco he's at least on par with Froome, let alone WC

Not even close. Winning RVV, a few sprint stages, a flat stage race and a couple of minor classics comes nowhere near what Froome has achieved this year.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

One thing that has not featured particularily prominently in this debate thus far, is the shortness of Froome's season. When comparing him with the likes of Sagan in a debate about who has been the standout rider of the year, this aspect must be taken into account. During the period from Dauphine to Vuelta Froome was the best rider in the world, but before and after almost a complete non-factor. Unless the results are being used as a sole criteria of importance, this lack of meaningful racing during the first half of the season should should take him out of contention for this award. Specially as training instead of seriously racing during spring was his own choice, not forced upon him by injury or illness.

Had Froome's and Quintana's results in Tour and Vuelta been the other way around, we would have a tight contest for the best rider of the year. As it is in reality, there really is no competition for Sagan. He has been getting his results (which in themselves are quite impressive) while constantly riding with the proverbial target on his back, with his rivals often trying to make sure he'll lose, before even thinking about winning themselves. For example GVA, for all his strenght and improved tactical awareness, have never had to deal with that kind of obstacles.

To be fair to Froome, it's almost impossible to sustain any kind of peak for longer than 3 months, when you're targetting the GC in two Grand Tours and also an Olympic medal. It's just not comparable to Sagan, who was basically having rest days in over half the stages in the Tour de France and most of the stage races he completed. It's way easier for a sprinter to maintain somewhere close to top form, than it is for a top GC rider.

As much as we all dislike it, the GC battle in the Tour de France is by far the biggest event in cycling. It's what even non cycling fans follow and what the best riders look to peak for. A rider winning that and that alone is in contention for the Velo d'or. A rider who wins that, plus finishing runner up in another GT and winning more stages along the way than any sprinter has done in GTs this year, is a shoe in for velo d'or - even if he does absolutely nothing for the rest of the year. As it happens, Froome actually won two other stage races and an Olympic medal. It's been a phenomenal year and I think his lack of popularity is clouding judgement as to what a season he has had.

Sagan has quantity of wins, but the quality is just not there. Even if he won the WC it's not close to what Froome has achieved.

He is close already, and he wins Eneco he's at least on par with Froome, let alone WC

Not even close. Winning RVV, a few sprint stages, a flat stage race and a couple of minor classics comes nowhere near what Froome has achieved this year.

You should check Sagan results more carefully then. Guy won races basically whole year. He was best rider of the spring, he was second best at the Tour, and he's again among the very best, this autumn. Couple of minor classics?! He won WT classics, that's not minor. Minor classic is GP Beghelli, not Gent freaking Wevelgem!!! Two of that "minor classics" certainly makes one big, at least... He won inaugural European Championships, against pretty big competition, that's not minor classic by any means, it's in the rank of WT races. He won 3 stages and green jersey at the Tour, he was easily the second best rider there, he was on the podium in half of the stages for Christ sake!!! He won 4 stages in WT races, that's not small either, it's not Herald Sun Tour you know...He is No.1 in every possible ranking system in the world, and you say he's nowhere near Froome!!! And I'm saying all this in spite of fact that I still think Froome is best rider of the year. I'm just saying margin is very small

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

It's people not understanding one day racing. If winning RvV + GW + EC + WC + Quebec is not even close to winning TdF, that would mean no one-day-racer could ever compete to a tour winner

I keep the other results out of the equation, since I think Sagan's crazy TdF (I think the best TdF a non GC rider has done in the past 20 years) equals Froome's Vuelta and his TdF preparation races.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

It's people not understanding one day racing. If winning RvV + GW + EC + WC + Quebec is not even close to winning TdF, that would mean no one-day-racer could ever compete to a tour winner

I keep the other results out of the equation, since I think Sagan's crazy TdF (I think the best TdF a non GC rider has done in the past 20 years) equals Froome's Vuelta and his TdF preparation races.

Gilbert 2011 was miles better than both Sagan and Froome this season. Surely no-one could dispute that.

Sagan's had a great season; and would certainly be better than Froome if all Froome won was the TdF. But he didn't. He was extremely close to pulling off an unprecedented double in the modern era, winning five GT stages in the process - more than any other rider this season. The other stage races he won and the Olympic medal only put the icing on the cake - they're obviously relatively minor by comparison; but still probably about the same as Sagan's tour stage wins + Quebec.

Sagan's TdF alone is in no way comparable to Froome's Vuelta. Froome won the same number of stages in the Vuelta as Sagan did in the Tour (including the TTT), and they were tougher stages. He also finished 2nd overall and was animating the race nearly every day. Winning stages as Sagan did is great, but it's less of an achievement than winning stages when competing for the GC - as GC riders can't just sit in the gruppetto for 2 days and then target one day.

 

[Durden93]

Re: Re:

One thing that has not featured particularily prominently in this debate thus far, is the shortness of Froome's season. When comparing him with the likes of Sagan in a debate about who has been the standout rider of the year, this aspect must be taken into account. During the period from Dauphine to Vuelta Froome was the best rider in the world, but before and after almost a complete non-factor. Unless the results are being used as a sole criteria of importance, this lack of meaningful racing during the first half of the season should should take him out of contention for this award. Specially as training instead of seriously racing during spring was his own choice, not forced upon him by injury or illness.

Had Froome's and Quintana's results in Tour and Vuelta been the other way around, we would have a tight contest for the best rider of the year. As it is in reality, there really is no competition for Sagan. He has been getting his results (which in themselves are quite impressive) while constantly riding with the proverbial target on his back, with his rivals often trying to make sure he'll lose, before even thinking about winning themselves. For example GVA, for all his strenght and improved tactical awareness, have never had to deal with that kind of obstacles.

To be fair to Froome, it's almost impossible to sustain any kind of peak for longer than 3 months, when you're targetting the GC in two Grand Tours and also an Olympic medal. It's just not comparable to Sagan, who was basically having rest days in over half the stages in the Tour de France and most of the stage races he completed. It's way easier for a sprinter to maintain somewhere close to top form, than it is for a top GC rider.

As much as we all dislike it, the GC battle in the Tour de France is by far the biggest event in cycling. It's what even non cycling fans follow and what the best riders look to peak for. A rider winning that and that alone is in contention for the Velo d'or. A rider who wins that, plus finishing runner up in another GT and winning more stages along the way than any sprinter has done in GTs this year, is a shoe in for velo d'or - even if he does absolutely nothing for the rest of the year. As it happens, Froome actually won two other stage races and an Olympic medal. It's been a phenomenal year and I think his lack of popularity is clouding judgement as to what a season he has had.

Sagan has quantity of wins, but the quality is just not there. Even if he won the WC it's not close to what Froome has achieved.

He is close already, and he wins Eneco he's at least on par with Froome, let alone WC

Not even close. Winning RVV, a few sprint stages, a flat stage race and a couple of minor classics comes nowhere near what Froome has achieved this year.

There's more to cycling than three weeks in July. Both Froome and Sagan are unquestionably the best riders at their disciplines (GTs and one day races). That, at the very least, makes them equal to me. Of the three monuments Sagan competed in this year, he won one of them and was just about as close as you can get in the other. I think what separates Sagan from Froome for me is that although we know Froome is a great rider, we do not know if he could win on his own. Could Froome win the TDF without his exceptionally strong train? I doubt it, but it'd be close. Sagan can win without strong support, we knows this because he's done it before.

I guess what I'm saying is there's more certainty with Sagan then Froome. Froome has never won a mass start race without an incredible team around him, Sagan has.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

One thing that has not featured particularily prominently in this debate thus far, is the shortness of Froome's season. When comparing him with the likes of Sagan in a debate about who has been the standout rider of the year, this aspect must be taken into account. During the period from Dauphine to Vuelta Froome was the best rider in the world, but before and after almost a complete non-factor. Unless the results are being used as a sole criteria of importance, this lack of meaningful racing during the first half of the season should should take him out of contention for this award. Specially as training instead of seriously racing during spring was his own choice, not forced upon him by injury or illness.

Had Froome's and Quintana's results in Tour and Vuelta been the other way around, we would have a tight contest for the best rider of the year. As it is in reality, there really is no competition for Sagan. He has been getting his results (which in themselves are quite impressive) while constantly riding with the proverbial target on his back, with his rivals often trying to make sure he'll lose, before even thinking about winning themselves. For example GVA, for all his strenght and improved tactical awareness, have never had to deal with that kind of obstacles.

To be fair to Froome, it's almost impossible to sustain any kind of peak for longer than 3 months, when you're targetting the GC in two Grand Tours and also an Olympic medal. It's just not comparable to Sagan, who was basically having rest days in over half the stages in the Tour de France and most of the stage races he completed. It's way easier for a sprinter to maintain somewhere close to top form, than it is for a top GC rider.

As much as we all dislike it, the GC battle in the Tour de France is by far the biggest event in cycling. It's what even non cycling fans follow and what the best riders look to peak for. A rider winning that and that alone is in contention for the Velo d'or. A rider who wins that, plus finishing runner up in another GT and winning more stages along the way than any sprinter has done in GTs this year, is a shoe in for velo d'or - even if he does absolutely nothing for the rest of the year. As it happens, Froome actually won two other stage races and an Olympic medal. It's been a phenomenal year and I think his lack of popularity is clouding judgement as to what a season he has had.

Sagan has quantity of wins, but the quality is just not there. Even if he won the WC it's not close to what Froome has achieved.

He is close already, and he wins Eneco he's at least on par with Froome, let alone WC

Not even close. Winning RVV, a few sprint stages, a flat stage race and a couple of minor classics comes nowhere near what Froome has achieved this year.

There's more to cycling than three weeks in July. Both Froome and Sagan are unquestionably the best riders at their disciplines (GTs and one day races). That, at the very least, makes them equal to me. Of the three monuments Sagan competed in this year, he won one of them and was just about as close as you can get in the other. I think what separates Sagan from Froome for me is that although we know Froome is a great rider, we do not know if he could win on his own. Could Froome win the TDF without his exceptionally strong train? I doubt it, but it'd be close. Sagan can win without strong support, we knows this because he's done it before.

I guess what I'm saying is there's more certainty with Sagan then Froome. Froome has never won a mass start race without an incredible team around him, Sagan has.

Of course he could. On his TdF form he's the best climber in the world and by far the best TTist out of GC contenders. He uses his team well in the Tour, but that's like saying Armstrong wouldn't have won without the US Postal train. With or without the train, Froome on July form is the strongest rider.

Similarly, it is obviously easier for Sagan to win without support, because he's a sprinter/classics specialist. Most riders who win monuments and hard classics do it with fairly limited help from their team. It's just the nature of the race.

I'm no fan of Froome and certainly no great fan of the TdF, but you just can't ignore what he's done this year. Sagan has, ultimately, one monument, a couple of classics, 3 GT stages and a few minor races. He's a sprinter, of course he's going to pick up a high number of victories and placings. But the quality just isn't quite there to challenge Froome's results this year - irrespective of the team strength.

 

[Echoes]

Both Froome and Quintana started the Olympic race with ambition. That route was a perfect balance, not too mountainous for heavyweight Van Avermaet and not too punchy/flat for them being lightweight. Actually it suited them better than it suited Greg. Yet Greg crushed them like I crush a spider. So I guess that settles it. You cannot blame Greg for being too heavyweight for the real mountain stuff. Every rider races according to their morphology.

If Greg climbs better than Sagan, which was not the case a few years ago, it's because the latter unexplainably gained severel pounds of muscle mass during the off-season, making sure he cannot climb anymore like used to. A bit like Bettini could no longer climb like used to in the midst of his career.

 

[TomLPC]

Both Froome and Quintana started the Olympic race with ambition. That route was a perfect balance, not too mountainous for heavyweight Van Avermaet and not too punchy/flat for them being lightweight. Actually it suited them better than it suited Greg. Yet Greg crushed them like I crush a spider. So I guess that settles it. You cannot blame Greg for being too heavyweight for the real mountain stuff. Every rider races according to their morphology.

If Greg climbs better than Sagan, which was not the case a few years ago, it's because the latter unexplainably gained severel pounds of muscle mass during the off-season, making sure he cannot climb anymore like used to. A bit like Bettini could no longer climb like used to in the midst of his career.

Quintana didn't race the olympics?

 

[DFA123]

Both Froome and Quintana started the Olympic race with ambition. That route was a perfect balance, not too mountainous for heavyweight Van Avermaet and not too punchy/flat for them being lightweight. Actually it suited them better than it suited Greg. Yet Greg crushed them like I crush a spider. So I guess that settles it. You cannot blame Greg for being too heavyweight for the real mountain stuff. Every rider races according to their morphology.

If Greg climbs better than Sagan, which was not the case a few years ago, it's because the latter unexplainably gained severel pounds of muscle mass during the off-season, making sure he cannot climb anymore like used to. A bit like Bettini could no longer climb like used to in the midst of his career.

Quintana didn't race the olympics?

Indeed. And it also clearly didn't suit Froome or Quintana more. Because it was a classic hard one day race course - not a high mountain stage. That said, GVA's win there was still by far the most impressive victory by any rider this year - just the occasion and the fact he was in a break from 70km out.

 

[MacBAir]

Also GVA didn't crush anyone: The Peloton let him go, he couldn't follow the 3 strongest riders, they got taken out with the weakest of the 3 being left, and Jakob wanted a medal more than anything. In fact, it pains me to have to say this because GVA is without a doubt the 2nd best rider on the peloton, only behind Peter, but he was far from the strongest. It was a cunning win. A crushing win was Peter at RVV.

Greg never had, and probably never will, have a crushing win. And that's fine.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Also GVA didn't crush anyone: The Peloton let him go, he couldn't follow the 3 strongest riders, they got taken out with the weakest of the 3 being left, and Jakob wanted a medal more than anything. In fact, it pains me to have to say this because GVA is without a doubt the 2nd best rider on the peloton, only behind Peter, but he was far from the strongest. It was a cunning win. A crushing win was Peter at RVV.

Greg never had, and probably never will, have a crushing win. And that's fine.

Yep, certainly was crushing of Sagan to cunningly catch Cancellara - the strongest rider on the day - by surprise with an early move.

 

[MacBAir]

Re: Re:

Also GVA didn't crush anyone: The Peloton let him go, he couldn't follow the 3 strongest riders, they got taken out with the weakest of the 3 being left, and Jakob wanted a medal more than anything. In fact, it pains me to have to say this because GVA is without a doubt the 2nd best rider on the peloton, only behind Peter, but he was far from the strongest. It was a cunning win. A crushing win was Peter at RVV.

Greg never had, and probably never will, have a crushing win. And that's fine.

Yep, certainly was crushing of Sagan to cunningly catch Cancellara - the strongest rider on the day - by surprise with an early move.

Sagan crushed Cancellara on all areas, that day. After Fabian ran out of Katusha and Devolder, and gave it a strong dig, I'm sure you remember what Sagan did to Sep and Kwiat. Fabian never came closer, and then Sagan crushed him on the flat.

That' the very definition of a crushing win, isn't it? Stronger on every terrain, and being the cunning rider as well.

GVA will never have a win like that. Or maybe he will. Hopefully at the worlds, if Sagan isn't there.

 

[Mr.White]

Both Froome and Quintana started the Olympic race with ambition. That route was a perfect balance, not too mountainous for heavyweight Van Avermaet and not too punchy/flat for them being lightweight. Actually it suited them better than it suited Greg. Yet Greg crushed them like I crush a spider. So I guess that settles it. You cannot blame Greg for being too heavyweight for the real mountain stuff. Every rider races according to their morphology.

If Greg climbs better than Sagan, which was not the case a few years ago, it's because the latter unexplainably gained severel pounds of muscle mass during the off-season, making sure he cannot climb anymore like used to. A bit like Bettini could no longer climb like used to in the midst of his career.

Greg Van Avermaet deserved his Olympic Gold. He rode great race, brilliant. But he didn't crushed anybody, in fact I could argue that he was pretty lucky. First, he was lucky there was a crash in penultimate descent from Vista Chinesa, peloton split and some strong riders were caught behind (Purito, Alaphilippe, Froome, Valverde, Martin, etc). Riders who would certainly play big role at Vista Chinesa ascent. Second, he was very, very lucky that Nibali and Henao crashed. He wouldn't get any medal if this two stayed on their bikes. So to summarize, he was a well deserved winner, but he was far from strongest, and he certainly didn't crushed anybody

 

[Echoes]

Crash are not always bad luck, which means not always luck for those who remain. It's been said here that Nibali took risks to drop Henao, he crashed by his own mistake and can only blame himself. It's most certainly what also happen with the Alaphilippe crash.

Greg announced for the whole week before he would attack early to make the race a war of attrition and exhaust the puncher before the last lap, he did it and it was a success. Froome could never have beaten him in any way.

Sorry I was not aware of Quintana's withdrawal, was sure he was scheduled to race. My bad, We cannot be informed about everything. :redface:

 

[Brullnux]

Both Froome and Quintana started the Olympic race with ambition. That route was a perfect balance, not too mountainous for heavyweight Van Avermaet and not too punchy/flat for them being lightweight. Actually it suited them better than it suited Greg. Yet Greg crushed them like I crush a spider. So I guess that settles it. You cannot blame Greg for being too heavyweight for the real mountain stuff. Every rider races according to their morphology.

If Greg climbs better than Sagan, which was not the case a few years ago, it's because the latter unexplainably gained severel pounds of muscle mass during the off-season, making sure he cannot climb anymore like used to. A bit like Bettini could no longer climb like used to in the midst of his career.

Greg Van Avermaet deserved his Olympic Gold. He rode great race, brilliant. But he didn't crushed anybody, in fact I could argue that he was pretty lucky. First, he was lucky there was a crash in penultimate descent from Vista Chinesa, peloton split and some strong riders were caught behind (Purito, Alaphilippe, Froome, Valverde, Martin, etc). Riders who would certainly play big role at Vista Chinesa ascent. Second, he was very, very lucky that Nibali and Henao crashed. He wouldn't get any medal if this two stayed on their bikes. So to summarize, he was a well deserved winner, but he was far from strongest, and he certainly didn't crushed anybody

I heard from Nibali that there was no crash, or at least Aru escaped and Nibali bridged halfway down the mountain. The crash didn't really split the peloton I don't think, and if it did it was possible to get back on.

 

[Mr.White]

Both Froome and Quintana started the Olympic race with ambition. That route was a perfect balance, not too mountainous for heavyweight Van Avermaet and not too punchy/flat for them being lightweight. Actually it suited them better than it suited Greg. Yet Greg crushed them like I crush a spider. So I guess that settles it. You cannot blame Greg for being too heavyweight for the real mountain stuff. Every rider races according to their morphology.

If Greg climbs better than Sagan, which was not the case a few years ago, it's because the latter unexplainably gained severel pounds of muscle mass during the off-season, making sure he cannot climb anymore like used to. A bit like Bettini could no longer climb like used to in the midst of his career.

Greg Van Avermaet deserved his Olympic Gold. He rode great race, brilliant. But he didn't crushed anybody, in fact I could argue that he was pretty lucky. First, he was lucky there was a crash in penultimate descent from Vista Chinesa, peloton split and some strong riders were caught behind (Purito, Alaphilippe, Froome, Valverde, Martin, etc). Riders who would certainly play big role at Vista Chinesa ascent. Second, he was very, very lucky that Nibali and Henao crashed. He wouldn't get any medal if this two stayed on their bikes. So to summarize, he was a well deserved winner, but he was far from strongest, and he certainly didn't crushed anybody

I heard from Nibali that there was no crash, or at least Aru escaped and Nibali bridged halfway down the mountain. The crash didn't really split the peloton I don't think, and if it did it was possible to get back on.

Porte and one more rider crashed (I don't remember who), and Spaniards (Valverde) and Brits (Froome) stated that was the main reason for split in the peloton, if I remember correctly...