Who has the best palmares: Valverde vs. Nibali

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

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.

Ok yeah I agree with that. But piti should still have won a lot more considering his talent. Inexcusable that he's never won the wc or lombardia considering his ability

 

[CheckMyPecs]

FW needs something fresh and new, more variety to make it interesting.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

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.

Ok yeah I agree with that. But piti should still have won a lot more considering his talent. Inexcusable that he's never won the wc or lombardia considering his ability

Agreed, he probably should have won those at least once each, but I think their time in the season haven't help. He's normally entering them having done two GTs, numerous classics and a few stage races as well. Especially in recent years when he's gone full throttle at both the Tour and the Vuelta (and San Sebastian in between), he must be running close to empty by the time the worlds and lombardia come around.

Compare that with Nibali during by far his biggest triumph in 2014. Absolutely anonymous for 49 weeks of the year, and putting absolutely everything into the three weeks at the Tour.

 

[Mr.White]

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.

Valverde won 9 WT one-day races, so I don't know what the hell are you talking about Gilbert's 2011! Of the classics races Valverde rides only Ardennes, San Sebastian and WCRR, and in last 3 years Lombardia. He won 9 times, podium 18 times, and was top 10 - 36 times, out of 56 times he entered these races. That's incredibly high percentage. Only Tom Boonen (16), Philippe Gilbert (13) and Fabian Cancellara (10) won more, but all 3 of them entered much more races than Valverde

 

[Breh]

Re:

FW needs something fresh and new, more variety to make it interesting.

Nah, FW is fine. LBL needs some more excitement.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: 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.

So that means FW is a hardest race to win, if you're not the strongest. That means Valverde is strongest rider in history in this type of races. I rate FW pretty high, because only the strongest wins, unlike Lombardia. And I will remember Nibali's Lombardia win just as any Valverde's FW, or for example Oliver Zaugg's win

 

[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.

Valverde won 9 WT one-day races, so I don't know what the hell are you talking about Gilbert's 2011! Of the classics races Valverde rides only Ardennes, San Sebastian and WCRR, and in last 3 years Lombardia. He won 9 times, podium 18 times, and was top 10 - 36 times, out of 56 times he entered these races. That's incredibly high percentage. Only Tom Boonen (16), Philippe Gilbert (13) and Fabian Cancellara (10) won more, but all 3 of them entered much more races than Valverde

I was talking about different races. In 2011 Gilbert won all three Ardennes races, San Sebastian and Quebec (5 WT races). In his whole career Valverde "only" won FW, LBL and San Sebastian (3 WT races). Ofc. all multiple times but I just wanted to show that classic riders could win way more. Especially Lombardia and Amstel (and in many years also the Worlds) suited him really well but he never won, and I really don't care if he never tried to win other races because this is about what he won and not about what he would have won easily but he just didnt try. I get that he also is a good stage racer, but if he wants to be remembered then he maybe should just ignore a few one week races because a stage win in Catalunya isnt that important anyway.
It's ofc. a good excuse to say he has to train for gt's because he is also a gc rider, but was that really a good idea since he only won one single gt in his career? Tbh thats still more than many other gc riders but these other gc riders also don't another option since this is where they are at their best, while Valverde could also say he just concentrates on one day races for one season.

 

[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.

Valverde won 9 WT one-day races, so I don't know what the hell are you talking about Gilbert's 2011! Of the classics races Valverde rides only Ardennes, San Sebastian and WCRR, and in last 3 years Lombardia. He won 9 times, podium 18 times, and was top 10 - 36 times, out of 56 times he entered these races. That's incredibly high percentage. Only Tom Boonen (16), Philippe Gilbert (13) and Fabian Cancellara (10) won more, but all 3 of them entered much more races than Valverde

I was talking about different races. In 2011 Gilbert won all three Ardennes races, San Sebastian and Quebec (5 WT races). In his whole career Valverde "only" won FW, LBL and San Sebastian (3 WT races). Ofc. all multiple times but I just wanted to show that classic riders could win way more. Especially Lombardia and Amstel (and in many years also the Worlds) suited him really well but he never won, and I really don't care if he never tried to win other races because this is about what he won and not about what he would have won easily but he just didnt try. I get that he also is a good stage racer, but if he wants to be remembered then he maybe should just ignore a few one week races because a stage win in Catalunya isnt that important anyway.
It's ofc. a good excuse to say he has to train for gt's because he is also a gc rider, but was that really a good idea since he only won one single gt in his career? Tbh thats still more than many other gc riders but these other gc riders also don't another option since this is where they are at their best, while Valverde could also say he just concentrates on one day races for one season.

This seems to me a bit of a confused argument. You're saying, on the one hand, that Valverde isn't as good as he could have been, because his results in classics are not diverse enough. He has too many wins in the same races.

Then, on the other hand, you're saying that he would have been better served to forego his GT win, podiums and numerous stage race wins - which all come together to make him by far the most diverse champion of his generation - in order to concentrate on the classics more?

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: 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.

So that means FW is a hardest race to win, if you're not the strongest. That means Valverde is strongest rider in history in this type of races. I rate FW pretty high, because only the strongest wins, unlike Lombardia. And I will remember Nibali's Lombardia win just as any Valverde's FW, or for example Oliver Zaugg's win

No, Valverde is just lucky Contador and Froome don't care for FW or he'd get his ass kicked. If only they put the Mur de Huy in the Tour once to prove me correct. Oh wait...

FW is a boring uphill sprint. Nibali won Lombardia with a 17km solo. That's infinitely better than any one day win by Valverde.

If you ask me Nibali is better at the following things:

- Climbing
- Time trials
- Descending
- Bike handling
- Race smarts
- Cobbles

Valverde is better at:

- Sprinting (both uphill and flat sprints)
- More explosive for short steep hills
- Consistency throughout the season

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: 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.

So that means FW is a hardest race to win, if you're not the strongest. That means Valverde is strongest rider in history in this type of races. I rate FW pretty high, because only the strongest wins, unlike Lombardia. And I will remember Nibali's Lombardia win just as any Valverde's FW, or for example Oliver Zaugg's win

No, Valverde is just lucky Contador and Froome don't care for FW or he'd get his *** kicked. If only they put the Mur de Huy in the Tour once to prove me correct. Oh wait...

FW is a boring uphill sprint. Nibali won Lombardia with a 17km solo. That's infinitely better than any one day win by Valverde.

lol

As someone who strongly dislikes Valverde and really likes Froome and Contador, this is complete and utter bs

 

[Mr.White]

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.

Valverde won 9 WT one-day races, so I don't know what the hell are you talking about Gilbert's 2011! Of the classics races Valverde rides only Ardennes, San Sebastian and WCRR, and in last 3 years Lombardia. He won 9 times, podium 18 times, and was top 10 - 36 times, out of 56 times he entered these races. That's incredibly high percentage. Only Tom Boonen (16), Philippe Gilbert (13) and Fabian Cancellara (10) won more, but all 3 of them entered much more races than Valverde

I was talking about different races. In 2011 Gilbert won all three Ardennes races, San Sebastian and Quebec (5 WT races). In his whole career Valverde "only" won FW, LBL and San Sebastian (3 WT races). Ofc. all multiple times but I just wanted to show that classic riders could win way more. Especially Lombardia and Amstel (and in many years also the Worlds) suited him really well but he never won, and I really don't care if he never tried to win other races because this is about what he won and not about what he would have won easily but he just didnt try. I get that he also is a good stage racer, but if he wants to be remembered then he maybe should just ignore a few one week races because a stage win in Catalunya isnt that important anyway.
It's ofc. a good excuse to say he has to train for gt's because he is also a gc rider, but was that really a good idea since he only won one single gt in his career? Tbh thats still more than many other gc riders but these other gc riders also don't another option since this is where they are at their best, while Valverde could also say he just concentrates on one day races for one season.

What a nonsense! How many WT classics did Cancellara won?! And he rides them his whole life! The reason he is so special is because there are no riders like him anymore. Riders who can win classics and also be highly competitive in GT's. He is among top 3-4 classics riders of his generation (with Boonen, Cancellara and Gilbert) and also stands very high as a GT rider (I see only Contador, Nibali and perhaps Froome above him). And on top of that he wins loads of races, like some kind of a sprinter. That's why he's so unique. It's pity if you can't see that!

 

[Mr.White]

Re: 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.

So that means FW is a hardest race to win, if you're not the strongest. That means Valverde is strongest rider in history in this type of races. I rate FW pretty high, because only the strongest wins, unlike Lombardia. And I will remember Nibali's Lombardia win just as any Valverde's FW, or for example Oliver Zaugg's win

No, Valverde is just lucky Contador and Froome don't care for FW or he'd get his *** kicked. If only they put the Mur de Huy in the Tour once to prove me correct. Oh wait...

FW is a boring uphill sprint. Nibali won Lombardia with a 17km solo. That's infinitely better than any one day win by Valverde.

If you ask me Nibali is better at the following things:

- Climbing
- Time trials
- Descending
- Bike handling
- Race smarts
- Cobbles

Valverde is better at:

- Sprinting (both uphill and flat sprints)
- More explosive for short steep hills
- Consistency throughout the season

Wow. You just confirmed your huge cycling knowledge!

 

[El Pistolero]

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.

Valverde won 9 WT one-day races, so I don't know what the hell are you talking about Gilbert's 2011! Of the classics races Valverde rides only Ardennes, San Sebastian and WCRR, and in last 3 years Lombardia. He won 9 times, podium 18 times, and was top 10 - 36 times, out of 56 times he entered these races. That's incredibly high percentage. Only Tom Boonen (16), Philippe Gilbert (13) and Fabian Cancellara (10) won more, but all 3 of them entered much more races than Valverde

I was talking about different races. In 2011 Gilbert won all three Ardennes races, San Sebastian and Quebec (5 WT races). In his whole career Valverde "only" won FW, LBL and San Sebastian (3 WT races). Ofc. all multiple times but I just wanted to show that classic riders could win way more. Especially Lombardia and Amstel (and in many years also the Worlds) suited him really well but he never won, and I really don't care if he never tried to win other races because this is about what he won and not about what he would have won easily but he just didnt try. I get that he also is a good stage racer, but if he wants to be remembered then he maybe should just ignore a few one week races because a stage win in Catalunya isnt that important anyway.
It's ofc. a good excuse to say he has to train for gt's because he is also a gc rider, but was that really a good idea since he only won one single gt in his career? Tbh thats still more than many other gc riders but these other gc riders also don't another option since this is where they are at their best, while Valverde could also say he just concentrates on one day races for one season.

What a nonsense! How many WT classics did Cancellara won?! And he rides them his whole life! The reason he is so special is because there are no riders like him anymore. Riders who can win classics and also be highly competitive in GT's. He is among top 3-4 classics riders of his generation (with Boonen, Cancellara and Gilbert) and also stands very high as a GT rider (I see only Contador, Nibali and perhaps Froome above him). And on top of that he wins loads of races, like some kind of a sprinter. That's why he's so unique. It's pity if you can't see that!

Cancellara has won 8 WT one-day races, but when you look at it more closely:

- 7 of those wins are in Monuments. Valverde only won 3 Monuments.
- Cancellara won 3 different Monuments, while Valverde won only one.
- Cancellara also won the Strade Bianche 3 times. It might not be WT, but I consider it to be more prestigious than winning FW or the Clasica San Sebastian. And I'm sure many pros would agree with me on that. Strade Bianche has one of the best fields when it comes to one-day races.

Both Cancellara and Boonen have a far better palmares than Valverde actually, but that's not the question I'm asking in this thread.

 

[Brullnux]

I think it's fair to say Piti fans and Squalo fans will never agree on this unless either Valverde wins a WC and a couple of other monuments and/or a GT, or Nibali wins another couple of GTs, the Olympics, Liege and why not a WC too. This of course relies on the other nor winning anything during that time. Until then it can, and will, be discussed ad nauseam.

 

[bassano]

Cancellara and Boonen ofcourse have better monuments palmares and boonen is also world champion, but valverde did podium in all 3 GTs, won vuelta, have lot of medals from wolrd championships
I like Valverde and even more I like Rodriguez because both they are competitive all season but for me Nibali palmares is more rare then Valverde one even if he never can not win so many races as Valverde bacause he must be alone in finish to win the race

 

[peloton]

Valverde won the Vuelta due to Evans' bad luck.
He is an excellent rider, no question about that. But Nibali's palmares are better, imo

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

What a nonsense! How many WT classics did Cancellara won?! And he rides them his whole life! The reason he is so special is because there are no riders like him anymore. Riders who can win classics and also be highly competitive in GT's. He is among top 3-4 classics riders of his generation (with Boonen, Cancellara and Gilbert) and also stands very high as a GT rider (I see only Contador, Nibali and perhaps Froome above him). And on top of that he wins loads of races, like some kind of a sprinter. That's why he's so unique. It's pity if you can't see that!

Yes two TdFs barely beats a Vuelta, so perhaps Froome might be a more successful GT rider. And Valverde is better and more successful than Quintana, Aru, Evans, Schleck etc etc isn't he?

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

What a nonsense! How many WT classics did Cancellara won?! And he rides them his whole life! The reason he is so special is because there are no riders like him anymore. Riders who can win classics and also be highly competitive in GT's. He is among top 3-4 classics riders of his generation (with Boonen, Cancellara and Gilbert) and also stands very high as a GT rider (I see only Contador, Nibali and perhaps Froome above him). And on top of that he wins loads of races, like some kind of a sprinter. That's why he's so unique. It's pity if you can't see that!

Yes two TdFs barely beats a Vuelta, so perhaps Froome might be a more successful GT rider. And Valverde is better and more successful than Quintana, Aru, Evans, Schleck etc etc isn't he?

And here we came to the essence of the problem. Yes I think Vuelta win, 7 GT podiums (1 Tour, 1 Giro, 5 Vuelta), 15 GT Top-10, 14 GT stage wins (4 Tour, 1 Giro, 9 Vuelta), 3x Points classification (Vuelta) beats everything Quintana and Aru did in their respective GT careers. Evans and Schleck are not active anymore so I won't comment about them. And yes I think Froome has an advantage, but not that very much. It's not down to GT wins only, you know. They're by far the most important aspect, but not the only one.

 

[bassano]

Re: 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.

So that means FW is a hardest race to win, if you're not the strongest. That means Valverde is strongest rider in history in this type of races. I rate FW pretty high, because only the strongest wins, unlike Lombardia. And I will remember Nibali's Lombardia win just as any Valverde's FW, or for example Oliver Zaugg's win

What a nonsense, FW is crappy and boring race decided always only in last km which many of best riders do not ride or do not take seriously
Lombardia is way above and Nibali won it because he was strongest

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

What a nonsense! How many WT classics did Cancellara won?! And he rides them his whole life! The reason he is so special is because there are no riders like him anymore. Riders who can win classics and also be highly competitive in GT's. He is among top 3-4 classics riders of his generation (with Boonen, Cancellara and Gilbert) and also stands very high as a GT rider (I see only Contador, Nibali and perhaps Froome above him). And on top of that he wins loads of races, like some kind of a sprinter. That's why he's so unique. It's pity if you can't see that!

Yes two TdFs barely beats a Vuelta, so perhaps Froome might be a more successful GT rider. And Valverde is better and more successful than Quintana, Aru, Evans, Schleck etc etc isn't he?

Well, he does have a better record than all of them at this moment. 1 win, 7 podiums, 3 points classifications and 14 stage victories.

There's a bit more to GT's than just the GC. Froome has the edge there, but Valverde has a more impressive palmares in every other area.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

What a nonsense! How many WT classics did Cancellara won?! And he rides them his whole life! The reason he is so special is because there are no riders like him anymore. Riders who can win classics and also be highly competitive in GT's. He is among top 3-4 classics riders of his generation (with Boonen, Cancellara and Gilbert) and also stands very high as a GT rider (I see only Contador, Nibali and perhaps Froome above him). And on top of that he wins loads of races, like some kind of a sprinter. That's why he's so unique. It's pity if you can't see that!

Yes two TdFs barely beats a Vuelta, so perhaps Froome might be a more successful GT rider. And Valverde is better and more successful than Quintana, Aru, Evans, Schleck etc etc isn't he?

And here we came to the essence of the problem. Yes I think Vuelta win, 7 GT podiums (1 Tour, 1 Giro, 5 Vuelta), 15 GT Top-10, 14 GT stage wins (4 Tour, 1 Giro, 9 Vuelta), 3x Points classification (Vuelta) beats everything Quintana and Aru did in their respective GT careers. Evans and Schleck are not active anymore so I won't comment about them. And yes I think Froome has an advantage, but not that very much. It's not down to GT wins only, you know. They're by far the most important aspect, but not the only one.

Evans and Schleck were certainly part of Valverde's generation.

I interpreted your post as 'Valverde has a greater calibre than all those guys I mentioned' as opposed to a palmares discussion. But considering GTs only, I'd still rather have any of Evans Sastre Basso Mechov or Schleck's palmares (I'm giving Schleck the 2010 Tour) from Bala's generation

 

[Valv.Piti]

Are you kidding? Sartre's palmarés rather than Valverde's? Im defo out.

This is ludicrous.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

Are you kidding? Sartre's palmarés rather than Valverde's? Im defo out.

This is ludicrous.

When it comes to Grand Tours, Sastre definitely has a better palmares. He's a Tour winner. Every pro cyclist would trade one Vuelta win and 7 GT Podiums in for one Tour win.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Are you kidding? Sartre's palmarés rather than Valverde's? Im defo out.

This is ludicrous.

Lol, Sastre, Schleck and Evans combined have two fewer GT stage wins and two fewer points jerseys than Valverde alone. All have won one GT each (if you're being generous to Schleck), while Valverde has podiums more than all of the others. It's laughable to claim any of them have a better GT palmares.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Are you kidding? Sartre's palmarés rather than Valverde's? Im defo out.

This is ludicrous.

When it comes to Grand Tours, Sastre definitely has a better palmares. He's a Tour winner. Every pro cyclist would trade one Vuelta win and 7 GT Podiums in for one Tour win.

Looks like the July fans have arrived a month early this year.