Who has the best palmares: Valverde vs. Nibali

[rhubroma]

Valverde is an atypical classics rider, who can also go well in the GTs. But the difference between going well in the GTs and winning is huge. Nibali.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Nibali. Higher quality of wins. I really think that's what matters when a palmares gets bigger. Valverde is crazy consistent, and his placings are something crazy, but I'm not gonna rate a guy who has won one unique monument and one GT over the rider who's won all GTs and has a monument win as well. They have the same amount of podiums in GTs and they're really at the point where the total amount of top 10 finishes shouldn't matter at all. The only placings that I really think matter in favour of Valverde are the WCs, but when I think back he's almost always done that by missing the winning move and then win or get close in the group sprint.

I think Valverdes raw talent is overrated, and that his consistency is underrated.

I agree completely. I think placings wise Valverse has the edge, but Nibali has more big wins. Especially if that Liege finally comes.

If Bala wins Bergen 2017 (which might be the last year he is competitive for all we know) then Bala is back. But by then I hope Nibali will have won something else.

Just realised something, when you only take GT and monument victories then Bala = The Little Prince.

 

[Nirvana]

Valverde without any doubt.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Nibali. Higher quality of wins. I really think that's what matters when a palmares gets bigger. Valverde is crazy consistent, and his placings are something crazy, but I'm not gonna rate a guy who has won one unique monument and one GT over the rider who's won all GTs and has a monument win as well. They have the same amount of podiums in GTs and they're really at the point where the total amount of top 10 finishes shouldn't matter at all. The only placings that I really think matter in favour of Valverde are the WCs, but when I think back he's almost always done that by missing the winning move and then win or get close in the group sprint.

I think Valverdes raw talent is overrated, and that his consistency is underrated.

I agree completely. I think placings wise Valverse has the edge, but Nibali has more big wins. Especially if that Liege finally comes.

If Bala wins Bergen 2017 (which might be the last year he is competitive for all we know) then Bala is back. But by then I hope Nibali will have won something else.

Just realised something, when you only take GT and monument victories then Bala = The Little Prince.

Yeah, and that's precisely why this point of view is very wrong. Bala is light years ahead of Cunego, and when you look at their biggest wins, they're pretty close. You have to look at the whole picture. Bala is at the very top of cycling for almost 15 years. I can't compare that to any other rider, not even Boonen, although they started at the same time. I can't compare that to Nibali, who no matter how great his results are, seems to me doesn't have the greatness like Valverde has. And certainly I can't compare that to Cunego who once was a brilliant rider, but that lasted for 4-5 years, while in Valverde's case it lasted from day one to present day.

 

[Tonton]

Two posts deleted. Chill out everyone.

Now IMO, it's apples/oranges. Give me a genie, I get to choose. It would be Nibali. But I can understand anybody else making a different point. Valverde has a HUGE palmares. But for me, a TdF is worth at least 5-6 monuments (I hope Echoes isn't reading this ). And a TdF is everything. One Vuelta each, two Giros for Nibbles. But then, it's me.

So let's agree to disagree. That is a thread that can bring a ton of passion. We all chill. No one is right. It's apples/oranges. Not a good thread actually .

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Bala.
Not surprising considering I've argued that Valverde has the best palmarés in the whole peloton, so obviously also better than Nibali's. I don't think the first post is making Valverde enough justice - those results are just a tip of the iceberg.

Exactly.This a skewed poll with the 1st post designed to get a predetermined winner. Instead of letting the user truly decide, the first post only lists results the OP thinks are worthy. Leaving out 6 WC podiums, for example, borders on absurd.

I'd rather win the WC once and never podium again than getting 6 WC podiums without a win. For me it shows he lacks the killer instinct Nibali and Contador have.

And...you've just proved my point. YOU don't care about anything other than wins in specific races. It's not a complete look at each rider's palmares so your thread title is misleading. It's skewed to produce results based on what YOU think should matter. You're not truly allowing an open debate (though some posters have seen through this and voted for Bala anyway) as it's not a complete look at each rider's palmares.

Well the constraints in the OP are clearly designed to favour Nibali: no consideration of the manner of the wins, no consideration of non-victory results and main focus on major races.

I challenge anyone to try and convince me that Nibali is more talented or a better cyclist than Valverde, but with the considerations set out in this poll, Nibali wins

 

[PremierAndrew]

Two posts deleted. Chill out everyone.

Now IMO, it's apples/oranges. Give me a genie, I get to choose. It would be Nibali. But I can understand anybody else making a different point. Valverde has a HUGE palmares. But for me, a TdF is worth at least 5-6 monuments (I hope Echoes isn't reading this ). And a TdF is everything. One Vuelta each, two Giros for Nibbles. But then, it's me.

So let's agree to disagree. That is a thread that can bring a ton of passion. We all chill. No one is right. It's apples/oranges. Not a good thread actually .

So you would rather have Froome's palmares over Boonen or Cancellara's if we consider the modern era?

 

[Tonton]

Two posts deleted. Chill out everyone.

Now IMO, it's apples/oranges. Give me a genie, I get to choose. It would be Nibali. But I can understand anybody else making a different point. Valverde has a HUGE palmares. But for me, a TdF is worth at least 5-6 monuments (I hope Echoes isn't reading this ). And a TdF is everything. One Vuelta each, two Giros for Nibbles. But then, it's me.

So let's agree to disagree. That is a thread that can bring a ton of passion. We all chill. No one is right. It's apples/oranges. Not a good thread actually .

So you would rather have Froome's palmares over Boonen or Cancellara's if we consider the modern era?

WOW! Yes, two TdF, absolutely. But keep in mind, I'm French. That's why I referred to apples/oranges.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Bala.
Not surprising considering I've argued that Valverde has the best palmarés in the whole peloton, so obviously also better than Nibali's. I don't think the first post is making Valverde enough justice - those results are just a tip of the iceberg.

Exactly.This a skewed poll with the 1st post designed to get a predetermined winner. Instead of letting the user truly decide, the first post only lists results the OP thinks are worthy. Leaving out 6 WC podiums, for example, borders on absurd.

I'd rather win the WC once and never podium again than getting 6 WC podiums without a win. For me it shows he lacks the killer instinct Nibali and Contador have.

And...you've just proved my point. YOU don't care about anything other than wins in specific races. It's not a complete look at each rider's palmares so your thread title is misleading. It's skewed to produce results based on what YOU think should matter. You're not truly allowing an open debate (though some posters have seen through this and voted for Bala anyway) as it's not a complete look at each rider's palmares.

Well the constraints in the OP are clearly designed to favour Nibali: no consideration of the manner of the wins, no consideration of non-victory results and main focus on major races.

I challenge anyone to try and convince me that Nibali is more talented or a better cyclist than Valverde, but with the considerations set out in this poll, Nibali wins

Nibali usually wins in an epic fashion, while Valverde wins by following wheels and then outsprinting everyone on the line.

The constraints in the OP actually favour Valverde as he is four and a half years older than Nibali.

 

[Taxus4a]

Re: Re:

Bala.
Not surprising considering I've argued that Valverde has the best palmarés in the whole peloton, so obviously also better than Nibali's. I don't think the first post is making Valverde enough justice - those results are just a tip of the iceberg.

Exactly.This a skewed poll with the 1st post designed to get a predetermined winner. Instead of letting the user truly decide, the first post only lists results the OP thinks are worthy. Leaving out 6 WC podiums, for example, borders on absurd.

I'd rather win the WC once and never podium again than getting 6 WC podiums without a win. For me it shows he lacks the killer instinct Nibali and Contador have.

For his lack of killer instint Valverde has 97 victories, Contador 74 , Nibali, 37.

You dont give importance Valverde to have a lot of worlds medals (6)... but it has a lot, it is really difficult to be always up there.

Valverde has been 4 times CQ ranking better rider., and he has been in the last 9 years always in the 4 better riders.

It is IMo impossible compare his palmares with Cancellara... yes, Cancellara is a magical rider, but Valverde has a Vuelta a España and podium in Tour and Giro, he is a GT rider a well as a classician rider. Valverde has 3 Lieges and 4 Fleche Valones,... 2 San Sebastian...

He has 15 top ten in GT.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Bala.
Not surprising considering I've argued that Valverde has the best palmarés in the whole peloton, so obviously also better than Nibali's. I don't think the first post is making Valverde enough justice - those results are just a tip of the iceberg.

Exactly.This a skewed poll with the 1st post designed to get a predetermined winner. Instead of letting the user truly decide, the first post only lists results the OP thinks are worthy. Leaving out 6 WC podiums, for example, borders on absurd.

I'd rather win the WC once and never podium again than getting 6 WC podiums without a win. For me it shows he lacks the killer instinct Nibali and Contador have.

For his lack of killer instint Valverde has 97 victories, Contador 74 , Nibali, 37.

You dont give importance Valverde to have a lot of worlds medals (6)... but it has a lot, it is really difficult to be always up there.

Valverde has been 4 times CQ ranking better rider., and he has been in the last 9 years always in the 4 better riders.

It is IMo impossible compare his palmares with Cancellara... yes, Cancellara is a magical rider, but Valverde has a Vuelta a España and podium in Tour and Giro, he is a GT rider a well as a classician rider. Valverde has 3 Lieges and 4 Fleche Valones,... 2 San Sebastian...

He has 15 top ten in GT.

It doesn't take a killer instinct to win races like the Vuelta a Murcia, the Vuelta a Castilla y Leon, the Ruta del Sol, the Vuelta a Burgos, the one-day races in Mallorca, etc.

Races nobody will remember after he retires. Races that could never equal one Tour de France win, even if you racked up 200 wins in such small stage races.

It takes a killer instinct to enter the final two mountain stages of the Giro, in fourth position and 4 minutes and 43 seconds behind, and still manage to win the overall GC after all is said and done. Valverde would have given up in a position like that, but not Nibali. That is why Valverde lacks a killer instinct and the Shark doesn't. He's not afraid to lose, but he's not afraid to win either. You can't say the same about Valverde.

Also Nibali has podiumed Milan-San Remo, Liège-Bastogne-Liège and the Giro di Lombardia. The only GT rider of his generation to podium the freaking sprinter's classic. He even dropped Fabian Cancellara and Peter Sagan on the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix during the Tour de France. He also has quite a few wins in smaller races, but who cares really?

I'm not asking who's the most consistent rider throughout a season (re: your cqranking argument), I'm asking who has the best palmares. And a Tour win is far better than anything on Valverde's palmares.

And Nibali has 46 wins actually.

 

[IndianCyclist]

Re:

Bala. Because I rate his many podiums and top placings in races too.

As has been said, I'd prefer to win one WC than top 3 6x, but I'd still go Bala. It's close though, and if Nibali adds another GT, monument, WC or Olympics, I'd probably go Nibali.

Edit:

But with Valverde's level, he should have won more big races IMHO. He has underachieved considering his massive talent.

Nibali, the opposite. He has overachieved. He's never been one of the best climbers in the world, never one of the best TTers. But he's found a way to win races due to his descending, balls, other riders being garbage or crashing out. But you can only beat what's in front of you and Vincenzo has done it on a number of occasions.

Agree completely with ur reasoning but i go with Nibali

 

[Jspear]

Two posts deleted. Chill out everyone.

Now IMO, it's apples/oranges. Give me a genie, I get to choose. It would be Nibali. But I can understand anybody else making a different point. Valverde has a HUGE palmares. But for me, a TdF is worth at least 5-6 monuments (I hope Echoes isn't reading this ). And a TdF is everything. One Vuelta each, two Giros for Nibbles. But then, it's me.

So let's agree to disagree. That is a thread that can bring a ton of passion. We all chill. No one is right. It's apples/oranges. Not a good thread actually .

So you would rather have Froome's palmares over Boonen or Cancellara's if we consider the modern era?

WOW! Yes, two TdF, absolutely. But keep in mind, I'm French. That's why I referred to apples/oranges.

You're strange!

I personally would want Nibbes palmares especially considering his age, but like Tonton said it's really not comparable.

 

[jaylew]

Re: Re:

Bala.
Not surprising considering I've argued that Valverde has the best palmarés in the whole peloton, so obviously also better than Nibali's. I don't think the first post is making Valverde enough justice - those results are just a tip of the iceberg.

Exactly.This a skewed poll with the 1st post designed to get a predetermined winner. Instead of letting the user truly decide, the first post only lists results the OP thinks are worthy. Leaving out 6 WC podiums, for example, borders on absurd.

I'd rather win the WC once and never podium again than getting 6 WC podiums without a win. For me it shows he lacks the killer instinct Nibali and Contador have.

For his lack of killer instint Valverde has 97 victories, Contador 74 , Nibali, 37.

You dont give importance Valverde to have a lot of worlds medals (6)... but it has a lot, it is really difficult to be always up there.

Valverde has been 4 times CQ ranking better rider., and he has been in the last 9 years always in the 4 better riders.

It is IMo impossible compare his palmares with Cancellara... yes, Cancellara is a magical rider, but Valverde has a Vuelta a España and podium in Tour and Giro, he is a GT rider a well as a classician rider. Valverde has 3 Lieges and 4 Fleche Valones,... 2 San Sebastian...

He has 15 top ten in GT.

It doesn't take a killer instinct to win races like the Vuelta a Murcia, the Vuelta a Castilla y Leon, the Ruta del Sol, the Vuelta a Burgos, the one-day races in Mallorca, etc.

Races nobody will remember after he retires. Races that could never equal one Tour de France win, even if you racked up 200 wins in such small stage races.

It takes a killer instinct to enter the final two mountain stages of the Giro, in fourth position and 4 minutes and 43 seconds behind, and still manage to win the overall GC after all is said and done. Valverde would have given up in a position like that, but not Nibali. That is why Valverde lacks a killer instinct and the Shark doesn't. He's not afraid to lose, but he's not afraid to win either. You can't say the same about Valverde.

Also Nibali has podiumed Milan-San Remo, Liège-Bastogne-Liège and the Giro di Lombardia. The only GT rider of his generation to podium the freaking sprinter's classic. He even dropped Fabian Cancellara and Peter Sagan on the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix during the Tour de France. He also has quite a few wins in smaller races, but who cares really?

I'm not asking who's the most consistent rider throughout a season (re: your cqranking argument), I'm asking who has the best palmares. And a Tour win is far better than anything on Valverde's palmares.

And Nibali has 46 wins actually.

So why not just start a thread titled "Nibs is better than Bala" or "Why Nibali has a better palmares than Valverde" instead of laying out the cases for each based on your personal bias and then trying to make it seem like you're hoping to get a true and open evaluation.

It's a bit like opening a thread "Who has the better stats this year, Curry or Westbrook?" and then in your comparison writing the following while leaving out other stats like rebounds and assists because you don't think they're important stats and you've already decided on Curry:

Curry:

30.1 points
50.4 fg%
45.4 3pt%
90.8 ft%

Westbrook:

23.5 points
45.4 fg%
29.6 3pt%
81.2 ft%

I could have come up with a much better NBA example but I figured I better keep it current.

 

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

Bala.
Not surprising considering I've argued that Valverde has the best palmarés in the whole peloton, so obviously also better than Nibali's. I don't think the first post is making Valverde enough justice - those results are just a tip of the iceberg.

Exactly.This a skewed poll with the 1st post designed to get a predetermined winner. Instead of letting the user truly decide, the first post only lists results the OP thinks are worthy. Leaving out 6 WC podiums, for example, borders on absurd.

I'd rather win the WC once and never podium again than getting 6 WC podiums without a win. For me it shows he lacks the killer instinct Nibali and Contador have.

For his lack of killer instint Valverde has 97 victories, Contador 74 , Nibali, 37.

You dont give importance Valverde to have a lot of worlds medals (6)... but it has a lot, it is really difficult to be always up there.

Valverde has been 4 times CQ ranking better rider., and he has been in the last 9 years always in the 4 better riders.

It is IMo impossible compare his palmares with Cancellara... yes, Cancellara is a magical rider, but Valverde has a Vuelta a España and podium in Tour and Giro, he is a GT rider a well as a classician rider. Valverde has 3 Lieges and 4 Fleche Valones,... 2 San Sebastian...

He has 15 top ten in GT.

It doesn't take a killer instinct to win races like the Vuelta a Murcia, the Vuelta a Castilla y Leon, the Ruta del Sol, the Vuelta a Burgos, the one-day races in Mallorca, etc.

Races nobody will remember after he retires. Races that could never equal one Tour de France win, even if you racked up 200 wins in such small stage races.

It takes a killer instinct to enter the final two mountain stages of the Giro, in fourth position and 4 minutes and 43 seconds behind, and still manage to win the overall GC after all is said and done. Valverde would have given up in a position like that, but not Nibali. That is why Valverde lacks a killer instinct and the Shark doesn't. He's not afraid to lose, but he's not afraid to win either. You can't say the same about Valverde.

Also Nibali has podiumed Milan-San Remo, Liège-Bastogne-Liège and the Giro di Lombardia. The only GT rider of his generation to podium the freaking sprinter's classic. He even dropped Fabian Cancellara and Peter Sagan on the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix during the Tour de France. He also has quite a few wins in smaller races, but who cares really?

I'm not asking who's the most consistent rider throughout a season (re: your cqranking argument), I'm asking who has the best palmares. And a Tour win is far better than anything on Valverde's palmares.

And Nibali has 46 wins actually.

you forgot to mention you love nibali and dislike valverde i guess

 

[Brullnux]

Would Bala had won more big races had he not had his great sprint to rely on?

 

[Taxus4a]

I dont try to compare Vuelta a Burgos or Vuelta a Murcia with Tour de France, but all the victories count, and all the important places counts, although I admit that today in terms of palmares is similar...Valverde has showed he is a good as Nibali for a race as le Tour, once Nibali was better, last year Valverde was better...it depends of the weather.. and despite the important achievements of Nibali in clasics, Lombardies, other races, podium in Milan San Remo and Liege, Valverde ha a better one, so for me Valverde is a better rider, although I like more Nibali. In terms of palmares, Valverde has the double of victories...some of them very important, so for me has a better palmares, but in this case similar, a Tour is a Tour, and palmares is what is in discussion.

It would be fair if Valverde would have San Remo, Lombardia, Worlds,...but he has not,...

 

[Axis]

Seriously ? Nibaly is shabby compared to Valverde ! No more !

 

[Breh]

Re: Re:

So why not just start a thread titled "Nibs is better than Bala" or "Why Nibali has a better palmares than Valverde" instead of laying out the cases for each based on your personal bias and then trying to make it seem like you're hoping to get a true and open evaluation.

 

[Climbing]

Re:

Would Bala had won more big races had he not had his great sprint to rely on?

You know, that’s exactly my thinking.
I don’t think he would have won more, but I’m sure he would have won bigger races.
But I guess when you race so many days a year for years, you need to follow wheels and pace your efforts.
Can’t attack all the time.

But yes, relying on his sprint made him lose opportunities.

Great rider nonetheless.

Won’t judge their palmares, they’re too different to be compared.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Two posts deleted. Chill out everyone.

Now IMO, it's apples/oranges. Give me a genie, I get to choose. It would be Nibali. But I can understand anybody else making a different point. Valverde has a HUGE palmares. But for me, a TdF is worth at least 5-6 monuments (I hope Echoes isn't reading this ). And a TdF is everything. One Vuelta each, two Giros for Nibbles. But then, it's me.

So let's agree to disagree. That is a thread that can bring a ton of passion. We all chill. No one is right. It's apples/oranges. Not a good thread actually .

So you would rather have Froome's palmares over Boonen or Cancellara's if we consider the modern era?

WOW! Yes, two TdF, absolutely. But keep in mind, I'm French. That's why I referred to apples/oranges.

Just out of interest, would you say that this is a common opinion in France, or is that more of a personal opinion? I know, for example, that a lot of Belgians consider RVV to be more important and prestigious than PR, and that from a marketing point of view, in most countries, the only race that non-cycling fans would have heard of is the TdF

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

I dont try to compare Vuelta a Burgos or Vuelta a Murcia with Tour de France, but all the victories count, and all the important places counts, although I admit that today in terms of palmares is similar...Valverde has showed he is a good as Nibali for a race as le Tour, once Nibali was better, last year Valverde was better...it depends of the weather.. and despite the important achievements of Nibali in clasics, Lombardies, other races, podium in Milan San Remo and Liege, Valverde ha a better one, so for me Valverde is a better rider, although I like more Nibali. In terms of palmares, Valverde has the double of victories...some of them very important, so for me has a better palmares, but in this case similar, a Tour is a Tour, and palmares is what is in discussion.

It would be fair if Valverde would have San Remo, Lombardia, Worlds,...but he has not,...

You're free to take everything into consideration for who has the better palmares, the OP is merely a short summary of both their careers. It's not meant to be exhaustive. I personally only care for the big wins and that is my opinion. I'm not trying to force it on anyone.

Nibali is one of six riders to win all three Grand Tours and that puts him above Valverde to me. Just look at the other riders who won all three Grand Tours: Jacques Anquetil, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Felice Gimondi and Alberto Contador. They're all considered legends of cycling. He's also the first Italian national champion to win the Giro since Felice Gimondi!

The amount of big races he won as the national champion is incredible: The Tour, the Giro d'Italia and the Giro di Lombardia.

As for last year's Tour, Nibali wasn't in his best shape, he couldn't handle the pressure of the media at that time. But even then I think he had a better Tour than Valverde... He won a stage in epic fashion and was only one GC spot behind Valverde (and he flatted on Alpe D'huez.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

I dont try to compare Vuelta a Burgos or Vuelta a Murcia with Tour de France, but all the victories count, and all the important places counts, although I admit that today in terms of palmares is similar...Valverde has showed he is a good as Nibali for a race as le Tour, once Nibali was better, last year Valverde was better...it depends of the weather.. and despite the important achievements of Nibali in clasics, Lombardies, other races, podium in Milan San Remo and Liege, Valverde ha a better one, so for me Valverde is a better rider, although I like more Nibali. In terms of palmares, Valverde has the double of victories...some of them very important, so for me has a better palmares, but in this case similar, a Tour is a Tour, and palmares is what is in discussion.

It would be fair if Valverde would have San Remo, Lombardia, Worlds,...but he has not,...

You're free to take everything into consideration for who has the better palmares, the OP is merely a short summary of both their careers. It's not meant to be exhaustive. I personally only care for the big wins and that is my opinion. I'm not trying to force it on anyone.

Nibali is one of six riders to win all three Grand Tours and that puts him above Valverde to me. Just look at the other riders who won all three Grand Tours: Jacques Anquetil, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Felice Gimondi and Alberto Contador. They're all considered legends of cycling. He's also the first Italian national champion to win the Giro since Felice Gimondi!

The amount of big races he won as the national champion is incredible: The Tour, the Giro d'Italia and the Giro di Lombardia. That's something I can also appreciate about him: honouring the national jersey. Too bad he has never won the rainbow jersey (yet)!

As for last year's Tour, Nibali wasn't in his best shape, he couldn't handle the pressure of the media at that time. But even then I think he had a better Tour than Valverde... He won a stage in epic fashion and was only one GC spot behind Valverde (and he flatted on Alpe D'huez.

Go back 4 years in time and look at how many victories Valverde has and then compare it to Nibali. Now I don't think Nibali will ever surpass the quantity of Valverde's victories, but the gap is not as large as you seem to think.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

I dont try to compare Vuelta a Burgos or Vuelta a Murcia with Tour de France, but all the victories count, and all the important places counts, although I admit that today in terms of palmares is similar...Valverde has showed he is a good as Nibali for a race as le Tour, once Nibali was better, last year Valverde was better...it depends of the weather.. and despite the important achievements of Nibali in clasics, Lombardies, other races, podium in Milan San Remo and Liege, Valverde ha a better one, so for me Valverde is a better rider, although I like more Nibali. In terms of palmares, Valverde has the double of victories...some of them very important, so for me has a better palmares, but in this case similar, a Tour is a Tour, and palmares is what is in discussion.

It would be fair if Valverde would have San Remo, Lombardia, Worlds,...but he has not,...

I wouldn't say Valverde is as good as Nibali in a GT or Tour de France, unless Nibali is in bad form like last year. But Valverde is better in classics, no doubt. Although, at the same time, he should have won more.

 

[saganftw]

if i blindly looked at their palmares Nibali would won because 4 GTs are 4 GTs ...but unfortunately i remember the context so i would go with valverde,not all GTs are born equal dispite cliches like "you can only beat whats in front of you" bla bla