Who has the best palmares: Valverde vs. Nibali

[Mr.White]

If someone would invent some kind of ranking in which Nibali is ahead of Valverde, I would be more than glad to see that miracle!

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

If someone would invent some kind of ranking in which Nibali is ahead of Valverde, I would be more than glad to see that miracle!

Roger that.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

If someone would invent some kind of ranking in which Nibali is ahead of Valverde, I would be more than glad to see that miracle!

Who has the better palmares is subjective. They are two riders who have achieved great things in different ways in, albeit, quite similar races, just specialising in the opposite. One is a GT rider who also is very good in classics, the other is a hilly glassics rider who does great things in GTs. Valverde, for sure, is more consistent in GTs than Nibali is in monuments or classics, but I'd say Nibali is slightly more consistent in GTs than Bala is in monuments/classics, excluding Fleche Wallone. You may value podium places more than somebody else, and some may value the variety of Nibali more than you. Nobody can say: Nibali has a better palmares/Valverde has a better palmares without acknowledging that it is an opinion, not a fact. These are not Merckx, Kelly, Coppi or De Vlaeminck, legends of the sport. These are current greats whose palmares can be compared, and argued.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

If someone would invent some kind of ranking in which Nibali is ahead of Valverde, I would be more than glad to see that miracle!

Who has the better palmares is subjective. They are two riders who have achieved great things in different ways in, albeit, quite similar races, just specialising in the opposite. One is a GT rider who also is very good in classics, the other is a hilly glassics rider who does great things in GTs. Valverde, for sure, is more consistent in GTs than Nibali is in monuments or classics, but I'd say Nibali is slightly more consistent in GTs than Bala is in monuments/classics, excluding Fleche Wallone. You may value podium places more than somebody else, and some may value the variety of Nibali more than you. Nobody can say: Nibali has a better palmares/Valverde has a better palmares without acknowledging that it is an opinion, not a fact. These are not Merckx, Kelly, Coppi or De Vlaeminck, legends of the sport. These are current greats whose palmares can be compared, and argued.

That's not really a fair comparison. It is a lot easier for the favourite to do well in a GT, than it is for the favourite to do well in a classic. In a GT, the strongest rider should come out on top over three weeks, because you can make bad decisions and still recover. In a classic, if you make a bad decision then your race is over.

Also there is a lot more competition to win a classic than to win a GT. With most GT's only about four of five teams are seriously targetting the overall win. Whereas in a classic, every team is trying their best to win.

 

[peloton]

Vince has won all GT's and a Monument, easy vote for me

 

[Gigs_98]

IMO the best way to find out how successful a rider is, is to imagine what people will say about that rider in the future. I think all the talk about Nibali only winning gt's because of other riders crashing doesnt matter at all, because in ten years nobody will remember what happened in the first week of the tour de france 2014. I started to watch the first few cycling races in 2008 and do you think I have any idea how the narrative of the gt's in 1998 was? Okay tbh I know a few things but I'm also an absolute cycling freak for my age but still the most important thing I do know is that Pantani won the double and thats about it. And just as I don't really know what happened ten years before I started to watch cycling someone who was born ten years after me will have no idea about what exactly happened in the giro 2016 or the tour 2014. The only thing they will know is that the winner was a rider called Vincenzo Nibali, who they assume, was one of the best riders back then considering he won all gt's and a monument. But at the same time in ten years, who will care about Valverde's wins in Murcia, Castilly y Leon, Burgos and Andalusia? I don't think anyone will. Valverde will ofc also be remembered as the probably best Ardennes rider of his generation and I also think nobody will break his record of WC podiums without a win, anytime soon, but will he be remembered like Nibali? I doubt it.

Valverde has the better palmares, but if I would have to chooses between the careers of the two I would definitely take Nibali's because at the end in cycling it's quality that matters and not quantity.

 

[Red Rick]

Valverde majors in minors and minors in majors

Nibali majors in majors and minors in minors

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

Valverde majors in minors and minors in majors

Nibali majors in majors and minors in minors

Oh please, what a load of ***.

 

[Red Rick]

Perfect summary of thread.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

Perfect summary of thread.

What, you trolling/baiting? If yes, then I'd agree.

 

[Red Rick]

Summary as in, you can only objectively say that Nibali has won bigger things, and Valverde has won more, and from there on subjectivity plays a huge role.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

Summary as in, you can only objectively say that Nibali has won bigger things, and Valverde has won more, and from there on subjectivity plays a huge role.

Nah, you guys try to push an agenda as if Valverde only wins minor races such as Burgos, Murcia, Andalucia etc. Thats what frustrating to read and why I really haven't followed this thread

 

[Miburo]

The only real big races piti won was 3 times LBL and vuelta.

What other big races did he win?

I rather have piti's resume though.

If he was actually smart, he would have had by far the best resume of the current peloton

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

Summary as in, you can only objectively say that Nibali has won bigger things, and Valverde has won more, and from there on subjectivity plays a huge role.

Nah, you guys try to push an agenda as if Valverde only wins minor races such as Burgos, Murcia, Andalucia etc. Thats what frustrating to read and why I really haven't followed this thread

He surely won big races, but just not as many as Nibali. 3 times LBL and 1 Vuelta is what really will be remembered. 4 times FW, 2 times San Sebastian and the Dauphine 2008 are also big, but already not quite on the level of the first two. And then Valverde has countless wins in small one day races, countless wins in small stage races and countless stage wins, but do you think in a few years anyone will care about his 3 stage wins in Catalunya last year? The problem for Valverde is that although he won lots of races there are too many races he hasn't won. He never won MSR, he never won Strade Bianche, he never won the Worlds, he never won AGR, he never won Lombardia, he never won the Bretagne Classic, he never won one of the Canadian classics, he never won any cobbles classic,... (btw, I only mentioned WT races, besides Strade Bianche which already has the importance of a WT race)
Meanwhile Nibali ofc. also didnt win most of these races but they also don't suit him as well as they suit Valverde. However the races which really suit Nibali are gt's and he won all of them. And I just think that a gt win is still worth way more than a monument, especially the tdf.

 

[Brullnux]

4 times Fleche will be rembered more than a single Vuelta, no doubt. It's the race record. Can you name me the 1993 winner of the vuelta from the top of your head? I can't, but I can name you the record holder of Amstel say, the mighty Jan Raas. 4 semi classics and a record > than a single GT.

Edit: Looked it up and it was the Tony Rominger Show, pure domination. Could've picked a better year to prove my point
In my defence it happened like 8 years before I was born.

Well, not that dominant. He only won by like 30 seconds after he attacked on a descent and caused Zülle to crash. That reminds me of something else...

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Summary as in, you can only objectively say that Nibali has won bigger things, and Valverde has won more, and from there on subjectivity plays a huge role.

Nah, you guys try to push an agenda as if Valverde only wins minor races such as Burgos, Murcia, Andalucia etc. Thats what frustrating to read and why I really haven't followed this thread

He surely won big races, but just not as many as Nibali. 3 times LBL and 1 Vuelta is what really will be remembered. 4 times FW, 2 times San Sebastian and the Dauphine 2008 are also big, but already not quite on the level of the first two. And then Valverde has countless wins in small one day races, countless wins in small stage races and countless stage wins, but do you think in a few years anyone will care about his 3 stage wins in Catalunya last year? The problem for Valverde is that although he won lots of races there are too many races he hasn't won. He never won MSR, he never won Strade Bianche, he never won the Worlds, he never won AGR, he never won Lombardia, he never won the Bretagne Classic, he never won one of the Canadian classics, he never won any cobbles classic,... (btw, I only mentioned WT races, besides Strade Bianche which already has the importance of a WT race)
Meanwhile Nibali ofc. also didnt win most of these races but they also don't suit him as well as they suit Valverde. However the races which really suit Nibali are gt's and he won all of them. And I just think that a gt win is still worth way more than a monument, especially the tdf.

This doesn't take into account that it's a lot easier for the strongest rider to win a GT, than it is for the strongest rider to win a classic. The pre-race favourite usually wins a GT, but the pre race favourite rarely wins classics - particularly monuments and worlds. The competition is just so much greater in one day races - particularly nowdays when there are many riders that will aim to peak just for one week or one race during a season.

To win a race like Strade Bianche, Valverde has to beat Cancellara, Sagan, Kwiatkowski, Van Avermaet, Nibali, Stybar, Benoot, Ulissi, Uran, Kreuziger etc... All of whom are giving everything to win the race on that particular day. To win a GT like the Giro just gone, Nibali had to beat Kruijswijk, Chaves, Landa and Valverde. All the other teams were just content to race for a top 10 position, stage hunt or contest sprints. It's nothing like the same level and depth of competition. Plus over three weeks you can make mistakes, have a bad day, get a puncture and still easily win if you are the strongest rider. In a one day race, you can't.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

4 times Fleche will be rembered more than a single Vuelta, no doubt. It's the race record. Can you name me the 1993 winner of the vuelta from the top of your head? I can't, but I can name you the record holder of Amstel say, the mighty Jan Raas. 4 semi classics and a record > than a single GT.

Edit: Looked it up and it was the Tony Rominger Show, pure domination. Could've picked a better year to prove my point
In my defence it happened like 8 years before I was born.

Good point, but IMO still not enough to make Valverde more rememberable than Nibali.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Summary as in, you can only objectively say that Nibali has won bigger things, and Valverde has won more, and from there on subjectivity plays a huge role.

Nah, you guys try to push an agenda as if Valverde only wins minor races such as Burgos, Murcia, Andalucia etc. Thats what frustrating to read and why I really haven't followed this thread

He surely won big races, but just not as many as Nibali. 3 times LBL and 1 Vuelta is what really will be remembered. 4 times FW, 2 times San Sebastian and the Dauphine 2008 are also big, but already not quite on the level of the first two. And then Valverde has countless wins in small one day races, countless wins in small stage races and countless stage wins, but do you think in a few years anyone will care about his 3 stage wins in Catalunya last year? The problem for Valverde is that although he won lots of races there are too many races he hasn't won. He never won MSR, he never won Strade Bianche, he never won the Worlds, he never won AGR, he never won Lombardia, he never won the Bretagne Classic, he never won one of the Canadian classics, he never won any cobbles classic,... (btw, I only mentioned WT races, besides Strade Bianche which already has the importance of a WT race)
Meanwhile Nibali ofc. also didnt win most of these races but they also don't suit him as well as they suit Valverde. However the races which really suit Nibali are gt's and he won all of them. And I just think that a gt win is still worth way more than a monument, especially the tdf.

This doesn't take into account that it's a lot easier for the strongest rider to win a GT, than it is for the strongest rider to win a classic. The pre-race favourite usually wins a GT, but the pre race favourite rarely wins classics - particularly monuments and worlds. The competition is just so much greater in one day races - particularly nowdays when there are many riders that will aim to peak just for one week or one race during a season.

To win a race like Strade Bianche, Valverde has to beat Cancellara, Sagan, Kwiatkowski, Van Avermaet, Nibali, Stybar, Benoot, Ulissi, Uran, Kreuziger etc... All of whom are giving everything to win the race on that particular day. To win a GT like the Giro just gone, Nibali had to beat Kruijswijk, Chaves, Landa and Valverde. All the other teams were just content to race for a top 10 position, stage hunt or contest sprints. It's nothing like the same level and depth of competition. Plus over three weeks you can make mistakes, have a bad day, get a puncture and still easily win if you are the strongest rider. In a one day race, you can't.

There's a reason why you have so many competitors in one day races. You can win a one day race even without being the most talented. But only the creme de la creme can win a GT. So no, it's not easier to win a GT than a one day classic.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

4 times Fleche will be rembered more than a single Vuelta, no doubt. It's the race record. Can you name me the 1993 winner of the vuelta from the top of your head? I can't, but I can name you the record holder of Amstel say, the mighty Jan Raas. 4 semi classics and a record > than a single GT.

Edit: Looked it up and it was the Tony Rominger Show, pure domination. Could've picked a better year to prove my point
In my defence it happened like 8 years before I was born.

Good point, but IMO still not enough to make Valverde more rememberable than Nibali.

But are we talking palmarés or about who will be remembered the most? I think its a pretty big deal distinguish that.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Summary as in, you can only objectively say that Nibali has won bigger things, and Valverde has won more, and from there on subjectivity plays a huge role.

Nah, you guys try to push an agenda as if Valverde only wins minor races such as Burgos, Murcia, Andalucia etc. Thats what frustrating to read and why I really haven't followed this thread

He surely won big races, but just not as many as Nibali. 3 times LBL and 1 Vuelta is what really will be remembered. 4 times FW, 2 times San Sebastian and the Dauphine 2008 are also big, but already not quite on the level of the first two. And then Valverde has countless wins in small one day races, countless wins in small stage races and countless stage wins, but do you think in a few years anyone will care about his 3 stage wins in Catalunya last year? The problem for Valverde is that although he won lots of races there are too many races he hasn't won. He never won MSR, he never won Strade Bianche, he never won the Worlds, he never won AGR, he never won Lombardia, he never won the Bretagne Classic, he never won one of the Canadian classics, he never won any cobbles classic,... (btw, I only mentioned WT races, besides Strade Bianche which already has the importance of a WT race)
Meanwhile Nibali ofc. also didnt win most of these races but they also don't suit him as well as they suit Valverde. However the races which really suit Nibali are gt's and he won all of them. And I just think that a gt win is still worth way more than a monument, especially the tdf.

This doesn't take into account that it's a lot easier for the strongest rider to win a GT, than it is for the strongest rider to win a classic. The pre-race favourite usually wins a GT, but the pre race favourite rarely wins classics - particularly monuments and worlds. The competition is just so much greater in one day races - particularly nowdays when there are many riders that will aim to peak just for one week or one race during a season.

To win a race like Strade Bianche, Valverde has to beat Cancellara, Sagan, Kwiatkowski, Van Avermaet, Nibali, Stybar, Benoot, Ulissi, Uran, Kreuziger etc... All of whom are giving everything to win the race on that particular day. To win a GT like the Giro just gone, Nibali had to beat Kruijswijk, Chaves, Landa and Valverde. All the other teams were just content to race for a top 10 position, stage hunt or contest sprints. It's nothing like the same level and depth of competition. Plus over three weeks you can make mistakes, have a bad day, get a puncture and still easily win if you are the strongest rider. In a one day race, you can't.

There's a reason why you have so many competitors in one day races. You can win a one day race even without being the most talented. But only the creme de la creme can win a GT. So no, it's not easier to win a GT than a one day classic.

You've missed the point. I'm not saying it's easier to win a GT than a classic, rather that the strongest GT rider should win every GT he finishes - because three weeks is enough to iron out minor tactical errors and allow the strength to come through. The strongest classics rider will still lose more races than they win, because the depth of competition is so much greater and tactics have so much more influence on the race.

So saying that Nibali is better because he wins a higher percentage of the big races that he enters, doesn't really tell the whole story.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

This doesn't take into account that it's a lot easier for the strongest rider to win a GT, than it is for the strongest rider to win a classic. The pre-race favourite usually wins a GT, but the pre race favourite rarely wins classics - particularly monuments and worlds. The competition is just so much greater in one day races - particularly nowdays when there are many riders that will aim to peak just for one week or one race during a season.

To win a race like Strade Bianche, Valverde has to beat Cancellara, Sagan, Kwiatkowski, Van Avermaet, Nibali, Stybar, Benoot, Ulissi, Uran, Kreuziger etc... All of whom are giving everything to win the race on that particular day. To win a GT like the Giro just gone, Nibali had to beat Kruijswijk, Chaves, Landa and Valverde. All the other teams were just content to race for a top 10 position, stage hunt or contest sprints. It's nothing like the same level and depth of competition. Plus over three weeks you can make mistakes, have a bad day, get a puncture and still easily win if you are the strongest rider. In a one day race, you can't.

True, but there are just way more one day races than big stage races, and while a one day racer can ride 15 one day races every year, which he could win, a stage racer has a maximum of 2 gt's he can win (usually only 1 since it's hardly possible to win a 2nd gt if you peak for the tour) and a few stage races (and for a stage racer one WT one week stage race win a year is already good). The point I tried to make is that there is hardly anyone who has such a good skill set to win classics as Valverde and still he hasn't won as many classics as many other riders right now. In 2011 Philippe Gilbert won 2 more WT one day races (+Strade Bianche) than Valverde in his whole career. Let's add the 2010 and the 2012 season of Gilbert and you already have one monument more than Valverde and the WC title, Valverde always wanted.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

This doesn't take into account that it's a lot easier for the strongest rider to win a GT, than it is for the strongest rider to win a classic. The pre-race favourite usually wins a GT, but the pre race favourite rarely wins classics - particularly monuments and worlds. The competition is just so much greater in one day races - particularly nowdays when there are many riders that will aim to peak just for one week or one race during a season.

To win a race like Strade Bianche, Valverde has to beat Cancellara, Sagan, Kwiatkowski, Van Avermaet, Nibali, Stybar, Benoot, Ulissi, Uran, Kreuziger etc... All of whom are giving everything to win the race on that particular day. To win a GT like the Giro just gone, Nibali had to beat Kruijswijk, Chaves, Landa and Valverde. All the other teams were just content to race for a top 10 position, stage hunt or contest sprints. It's nothing like the same level and depth of competition. Plus over three weeks you can make mistakes, have a bad day, get a puncture and still easily win if you are the strongest rider. In a one day race, you can't.

True, but there are just way more one day races than big stage races, and while a one day racer can ride 15 one day races every year, which he could win, a stage racer has a maximum of 2 gt's he can win (usually only 1 since it's hardly possible to win a 2nd gt if you peak for the tour) and a few stage races (and for a stage racer one WT one week stage race win a year is already good). The point I tried to make is that there is hardly anyone who has such a good skill set to win classics as Valverde and still he hasn't won as many classics as many other riders right now. In 2011 Philippe Gilbert won 2 more WT one day races (+Strade Bianche) than Valverde in his whole career. Let's add the 2010 and the 2012 season of Gilbert and you already have one monument more than Valverde and the WC title, Valverde always wanted.

I understand your point, but not really sure I agree. Valverde does have a lot of big races available to him - but it's impossible to peak for the Ardennes, San Sebastian, the Worlds and Lombardia each season. Especially if he's doing GTs as well. I don't think it's really fair to compare Valverde with Gilbert - because Gilbert peaks exclusively for one day races each season, while Valverde is winning loads of stage races and podiuming at GTs as well.

I think that's the most impressive part of his palmares - the amazing consistency across both GTs and classics. He does so many races that he's basically competing at 90-95% all year round, yet he's still getting results against riders who are focussing and building their whole schedule around just a handful of race days each year.

I think the best way to compare is to look at the palmares relative to their peers. Valverde's 9 classic wins would be great on their own, but combined with a GT win and so many podiums, plus all the stage races and GT stage wins, it's just unprecedented in the modern era. By contrast, Nibali's palmares - whilst highly impressive - isn't unique for an elite GT rider in this era. For example it's undoubtedly worse than that of Contador or Armstrong.

 

[Red Rick]

More memorable isn't really fair. Nibali, in his own country stands out way more than Valverde. That alone has a big effect on that. And the classics being harder to win if you're the strongest thing cuts both ways.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

More memorable isn't really fair. Nibali, in his own country stands out way more than Valverde. That alone has a big effect on that. And the classics being harder to win if you're the strongest thing cuts both ways.

I would say Fléche Wallonne is by far the easiest race to win if you're the strongest on that type of finish. So that's 4 classic wins... Personally I don't rate FW that high, it's way too boring and formulaic. I'll remember Nibali's Lombardia win a lot more than any of Valverde's wins in FW.

 

[Red Rick]

Yeah, in classics being the fastest is often more important than being the strongest