Who has the best palmares: Valverde vs. Nibali

[Red Rick]

Re: 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.

So now a Vuelta win isn't way inferior to a Tour win anymore?

 

[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

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

Of course Lombardia is above, i wrote my post in semi-sarcastic manner as a response to El Pistolero. Although I actually do rate FW as serious classic, due to a long history and specific finish. It's a some kind of a World Championship in uphill sprint. And all Ardennes specialists who stands a chance target this race. Absent are only riders who don't want to jeopardize their preparation for Grand Tours ( only Contador and Froome stand some kind of a chance).

 

[El Pistolero]

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.

Sastre has six GT Podiums plus one Tour win.

Yes, he's easily better than Valverde when it comes to Grand Tours.

 

[DFA123]

Re: 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.

So now a Vuelta win isn't way inferior to a Tour win anymore?

Of course it's slightly inferior, but not by a very big margin imo. Especially not the way it was won by Sastre, Schleck* and Evans.

I think when riders have two tour wins that really sets them apart - it's very difficult to get lucky, or to have weak competition twice. But too many pretty average riders - Wiggins, Pereiro, Sastre, Aimar, Riis, Walkowiak - have got lucky, or have had one uncharacteristically good year and have got one victory (usually their only GT win) to put it so far ahead of the other GTs.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: 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.

So now a Vuelta win isn't way inferior to a Tour win anymore?

Of course it's slightly inferior, but not by a very big margin imo. Especially not the way it was won by Sastre, Schleck* and Evans.

I think when riders have two tour wins that really sets them apart - it's very difficult to get lucky, or to have weak competition twice. But too many pretty average riders - Wiggins, Pereiro, Sastre, Aimar, Riis, Walkowiak - have got lucky, or have had one uncharacteristically good year and have got one victory (usually their only GT win) to put it so far ahead of the other GTs.

You can't seriously believe a Vuelta win is only slightly inferior to the Tour lol... Evans and Sastre won the Tour on the road, so I fail to see how their victory is worth less because of how it was won...

Valverde also got lucky when he won his only GT. And the competition sucked.

 

[DFA123]

Re: 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.

So now a Vuelta win isn't way inferior to a Tour win anymore?

Of course it's slightly inferior, but not by a very big margin imo. Especially not the way it was won by Sastre, Schleck* and Evans.

I think when riders have two tour wins that really sets them apart - it's very difficult to get lucky, or to have weak competition twice. But too many pretty average riders - Wiggins, Pereiro, Sastre, Aimar, Riis, Walkowiak - have got lucky, or have had one uncharacteristically good year and have got one victory (usually their only GT win) to put it so far ahead of the other GTs.

You can't seriously believe a Vuelta win is only slightly inferior to the Tour lol... Evans and Sastre won the Tour on the road, so I fail to see how their victory is worth less because of how it was won...

Valverde also got lucky when he won his only GT. And the competition sucked.

Let's take a look at the winners of each throughout Valverde's career:

Tour: Armstrong, Pereiro, Contador, Sastre, Schleck, Evans, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali
Vuelta: Heras, Vino, Menchov, Contador, Valverde, Nibali, Cobo, Horner, Aru

Looks pretty even in terms of quality to me. A few top class riders in each, and a few riders who got lucky or just had one great season. As such, it would be foolish to rate one so much higher than the other.

 

[lenric]

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.

lol

Since his resurgence in 2012, Froome has won 33% of the GTs he has rode (until the end), got himself on the podium 83% of them and finished all of them in the top 5.
As far as we're concerned about Valverde, he won 6.25% of the GTs he rode, got himself on the podium 50% of them and top 5 75%.

Looking down at the numbers in relative terms, Froome is a better GT rider.
Looking down to what both of them have done in terms of GTs, Froome won 2 Tours (nearly 3, if Sky wasn't kissing Wiggins ass) where he faced a strong opposition, such as Valverde.

If you want to compare riders, compare them in the most competitive GT which is the Tour.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Tour: Armstrong, Pereiro, Contador, Sastre, Schleck, Evans, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali
Vuelta: Heras, Vino, Menchov, Contador, Valverde, Nibali, Cobo, Horner, Aru

Looks pretty even in terms of quality to me. A few top class riders in each, and a few riders who got lucky or just had one great season. As such, it would be foolish to rate one so much higher than the other.

That's a dumb way to look at things.

The only reason Contador rode the Vuelta in 2008 was because his team wasn't invited to the Tour. The only reason he rode it in 2012 was because his ban just ended then (and he was still banned during the Tour). And the only reason he won it in 2014 was because he crashed out during the 2014 Tour. The Nibali of 2010 would have gotten slaughtered at the 2014 Tour de France. He was still a puppy then.

The only reason Valverde won the Vuelta was because he didn't ride the Giro or Tour that year (he was banned from racing in Italy) and was fresher than everyone else.

Schleck and Pereiro never won the Tour on the road anyway. The 2006 Tour field was indeed weak because a huge doping schandal eleminated most of the top favorites like Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.

So you see, the Tour has mostly been plagued by huge doping scandals. The Vuelta is nothing more than a consolation price if your Tour failed or you couldn't ride it somehow. The only exception to this has been Froome, who still rode the Vuelta even after he won the Tour.

 

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

Tour: Armstrong, Pereiro, Contador, Sastre, Schleck, Evans, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali
Vuelta: Heras, Vino, Menchov, Contador, Valverde, Nibali, Cobo, Horner, Aru

Looks pretty even in terms of quality to me. A few top class riders in each, and a few riders who got lucky or just had one great season. As such, it would be foolish to rate one so much higher than the other.

That's a dumb way to look at things.

The only reason Contador rode the Vuelta in 2008 was because his team wasn't invited to the Tour. The only reason he rode it in 2012 was because his ban just ended then (and he was still banned during the Tour). And the only reason he won it in 2014 was because he crashed out during the 2014 Tour. The Nibali of 2010 would have gotten slaughtered at the 2014 Tour de France. He was still a puppy then.

The only reason Valverde won the Vuelta was because he didn't ride the Giro or Tour that year (he was banned from racing in Italy) and was fresher than everyone else.

Schleck and Pereiro never won the Tour on the road anyway. The 2006 Tour field was indeed weak because a huge doping schandal eleminated most of the top favorites like Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.

So you see, the Tour has mostly been plagued by huge doping scandals. The Vuelta is nothing more than a consolation price if your Tour failed or you couldn't ride it somehow. The only exception to this has been Froome, who still rode the Vuelta even after he won the Tour.

And Sastre himself in 2008.

 

[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.

lol

Since his resurgence in 2012, Froome has won 33% of the GTs he has rode (until the end), got himself on the podium 83% of them and finished all of them in the top 5.
As far as we're concerned about Valverde, he won 6.25% of the GTs he rode, got himself on the podium 50% of them and top 5 75%.

Looking down at the numbers in relative terms, Froome is a better GT rider.
Looking down to what both of them have done in terms of GTs, Froome won 2 Tours (nearly 3, if Sky wasn't kissing Wiggins ***) where he faced a strong opposition, such as Valverde.

If you want to compare riders, compare them in the most competitive GT which is the Tour.

Look my friend, I don't care who started when, or who could have won or who couldn't!
Valverde has 1 GT win (Vuelta), 7 podiums, 15 top-10, 14 stage wins
Froome has 2 GT wins (Tour), 3 podiums, 6 top-10, 6 stage wins.
I don't take into consideration who could do what in the past, or who will do what in the future. I look only at their respective palmares. And I see Froome is better, thanks to his 2 Tour wins, but as I said not by very much. Cause the man I'm comparing him with, has 4 podiums more, 9 top-10 placings more and 8 stage wins more than him! To me that's fairly close. I admit if Froome continues this way and keeps his level from last 3-4 years, he will be far ahead of anyone bar Contador in terms of GT racing. But we'll talk about it when that happens

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Tour: Armstrong, Pereiro, Contador, Sastre, Schleck, Evans, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali
Vuelta: Heras, Vino, Menchov, Contador, Valverde, Nibali, Cobo, Horner, Aru

Looks pretty even in terms of quality to me. A few top class riders in each, and a few riders who got lucky or just had one great season. As such, it would be foolish to rate one so much higher than the other.

That's a dumb way to look at things.

The only reason Contador rode the Vuelta in 2008 was because his team wasn't invited to the Tour. The only reason he rode it in 2012 was because his ban just ended then (and he was still banned during the Tour). And the only reason he won it in 2014 was because he crashed out during the 2014 Tour. The Nibali of 2010 would have gotten slaughtered at the 2014 Tour de France. He was still a puppy then.

The only reason Valverde won the Vuelta was because he didn't ride the Giro or Tour that year (he was banned from racing in Italy) and was fresher than everyone else.

Schleck and Pereiro never won the Tour on the road anyway. The 2006 Tour field was indeed weak because a huge doping schandal eleminated most of the top favorites like Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.

So you see, the Tour has mostly been plagued by huge doping scandals. The Vuelta is nothing more than a consolation price if your Tour failed or you couldn't ride it somehow. The only exception to this has been Froome, who still rode the Vuelta even after he won the Tour.

I don't really follow your logic there. You seem to be saying that the Tour de France is the most important and high quality tour - except when it isn't, because the best riders aren't there. And the Vuelta is just an afterthought for GT riders - except when it isn't, because the best riders are targetting it.

So the Vuelta was probably a higher standard in 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014. The TdF was a higher standard in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015.

I think that highlights why it is foolish to rank one so highly above the other.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Tour: Armstrong, Pereiro, Contador, Sastre, Schleck, Evans, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali
Vuelta: Heras, Vino, Menchov, Contador, Valverde, Nibali, Cobo, Horner, Aru

Looks pretty even in terms of quality to me. A few top class riders in each, and a few riders who got lucky or just had one great season. As such, it would be foolish to rate one so much higher than the other.

That's a dumb way to look at things.

The only reason Contador rode the Vuelta in 2008 was because his team wasn't invited to the Tour. The only reason he rode it in 2012 was because his ban just ended then (and he was still banned during the Tour). And the only reason he won it in 2014 was because he crashed out during the 2014 Tour. The Nibali of 2010 would have gotten slaughtered at the 2014 Tour de France. He was still a puppy then.

The only reason Valverde won the Vuelta was because he didn't ride the Giro or Tour that year (he was banned from racing in Italy) and was fresher than everyone else.

Schleck and Pereiro never won the Tour on the road anyway. The 2006 Tour field was indeed weak because a huge doping schandal eleminated most of the top favorites like Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.

So you see, the Tour has mostly been plagued by huge doping scandals. The Vuelta is nothing more than a consolation price if your Tour failed or you couldn't ride it somehow. The only exception to this has been Froome, who still rode the Vuelta even after he won the Tour.

I don't really follow your logic there. You seem to be saying that the Tour de France is the most important and high quality tour - except when it isn't, because the best riders aren't there. And the Vuelta is just an afterthought for GT riders - except when it isn't, because the best riders are targetting it.

So the Vuelta was probably a higher standard in 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014. The TdF was a higher standard in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015.

I think that highlights why it is foolish to rank one so highly above the other.

You do realize that the winner of a race is not a good indicator of the quality of the field, right? A small shitty race can have nothing but big winners, but that doesn't make the field as good as the Tour. There are more riders in a GT than only the winner.

If you win the Tour you'll be remembered for years to come and you'll make serious bank... If you win the Vuelta, and just the Vuelta, not so much... The Vuelta is the least prestigious Grand Tour and it will remain that way.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Tour: Armstrong, Pereiro, Contador, Sastre, Schleck, Evans, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali
Vuelta: Heras, Vino, Menchov, Contador, Valverde, Nibali, Cobo, Horner, Aru

Looks pretty even in terms of quality to me. A few top class riders in each, and a few riders who got lucky or just had one great season. As such, it would be foolish to rate one so much higher than the other.

That's a dumb way to look at things.

The only reason Contador rode the Vuelta in 2008 was because his team wasn't invited to the Tour. The only reason he rode it in 2012 was because his ban just ended then (and he was still banned during the Tour). And the only reason he won it in 2014 was because he crashed out during the 2014 Tour. The Nibali of 2010 would have gotten slaughtered at the 2014 Tour de France. He was still a puppy then.

The only reason Valverde won the Vuelta was because he didn't ride the Giro or Tour that year (he was banned from racing in Italy) and was fresher than everyone else.

Schleck and Pereiro never won the Tour on the road anyway. The 2006 Tour field was indeed weak because a huge doping schandal eleminated most of the top favorites like Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.

So you see, the Tour has mostly been plagued by huge doping scandals. The Vuelta is nothing more than a consolation price if your Tour failed or you couldn't ride it somehow. The only exception to this has been Froome, who still rode the Vuelta even after he won the Tour.

I don't really follow your logic there. You seem to be saying that the Tour de France is the most important and high quality tour - except when it isn't, because the best riders aren't there. And the Vuelta is just an afterthought for GT riders - except when it isn't, because the best riders are targetting it.

So the Vuelta was probably a higher standard in 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014. The TdF was a higher standard in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015.

I think that highlights why it is foolish to rank one so highly above the other.

You do realize that the winner of a race is not a good indicator of the quality of the field, right? A small shitty race can have nothing but big winners, but that doesn't make the field as good as the Tour. There are more riders in a GT than only the winner.

If you win the Tour you'll be remembered for years to come and you'll make serious bank... If you win the Vuelta, and just the Vuelta, not so much... The Vuelta is the least prestigious Grand Tour and it will remain that way.

Agree with all of that, but I think where we differ, is how much more a Tour de France is worth. You said one Tour de France win was worth more than a Vuelta and all Valverde's podiums and stages - which is nonsense imo.

And who do you think has made more bank in their career and will be remembered for longer: Valverde or Sastre?

 

[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.

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!

I wrote "Valverde could say he just concentrates on one day races for one season". I didnt write he should just screw all his gc ambitions for ever. The problem Valverde has is that he always tries to do everything. In 2014 Piti won the FW in spring, then went on to lead Movistar in the tdf, followed by the Vuelta he also raced as the leader and then finally tried to win Worlds and Lombardia. At the end Valverde surely had a good season but his besides FW and San Sebastian between the tdf and the vuelta he "only" had tons of wins in small races.
As I wrote, I think that Valverde could have won way more big one day races if he hadn't always tried to win gt's. But ofc I also think that if he had skipped some small classics he could have won more gt's and IMO he also maybe should have skipped the tdf here and then, and maybe he would have managed to win the vuelta another time. At least it isnt really surprising that he can't win a gt when he just rode a super hard tour de france.

 

[lenric]

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.

lol

Since his resurgence in 2012, Froome has won 33% of the GTs he has rode (until the end), got himself on the podium 83% of them and finished all of them in the top 5.
As far as we're concerned about Valverde, he won 6.25% of the GTs he rode, got himself on the podium 50% of them and top 5 75%.

Looking down at the numbers in relative terms, Froome is a better GT rider.
Looking down to what both of them have done in terms of GTs, Froome won 2 Tours (nearly 3, if Sky wasn't kissing Wiggins ***) where he faced a strong opposition, such as Valverde.

If you want to compare riders, compare them in the most competitive GT which is the Tour.

Look my friend, I don't care who started when, or who could have won or who couldn't!
Valverde has 1 GT win (Vuelta), 7 podiums, 15 top-10, 14 stage wins
Froome has 2 GT wins (Tour), 3 podiums, 6 top-10, 6 stage wins.
I don't take into consideration who could do what in the past, or who will do what in the future. I look only at their respective palmares. And I see Froome is better, thanks to his 2 Tour wins, but as I said not by very much. Cause the man I'm comparing him with, has 4 podiums more, 9 top-10 placings more and 8 stage wins more than him! To me that's fairly close. I admit if Froome continues this way and keeps his level from last 3-4 years, he will be far ahead of anyone bar Contador in terms of GT racing. But we'll talk about it when that happens

You're still failing at getting the point.
You can't compare GT riders based only on their palmares, but mainly what they've done against each other, especially in the greatest GT of all, where all the people wants to arrive in top shape. And over there, Valverde got screwed big time by Froome.

Comparing two riders by only looking at their curriculum is fallacious because of a lot of reasons, but mainly due to the fact that the majority of Valverde's podiums were in the Vuelta, where the top riders (such as Froome, Contador or Nibali, not to mention the likes of Schleck and Evans) don't arrive in top shape, or they don't ride it at all if they have ridden the Tour.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Tour: Armstrong, Pereiro, Contador, Sastre, Schleck, Evans, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali
Vuelta: Heras, Vino, Menchov, Contador, Valverde, Nibali, Cobo, Horner, Aru

Looks pretty even in terms of quality to me. A few top class riders in each, and a few riders who got lucky or just had one great season. As such, it would be foolish to rate one so much higher than the other.

That's a dumb way to look at things.

The only reason Contador rode the Vuelta in 2008 was because his team wasn't invited to the Tour. The only reason he rode it in 2012 was because his ban just ended then (and he was still banned during the Tour). And the only reason he won it in 2014 was because he crashed out during the 2014 Tour. The Nibali of 2010 would have gotten slaughtered at the 2014 Tour de France. He was still a puppy then.

The only reason Valverde won the Vuelta was because he didn't ride the Giro or Tour that year (he was banned from racing in Italy) and was fresher than everyone else.

Schleck and Pereiro never won the Tour on the road anyway. The 2006 Tour field was indeed weak because a huge doping schandal eleminated most of the top favorites like Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.

So you see, the Tour has mostly been plagued by huge doping scandals. The Vuelta is nothing more than a consolation price if your Tour failed or you couldn't ride it somehow. The only exception to this has been Froome, who still rode the Vuelta even after he won the Tour.

I don't really follow your logic there. You seem to be saying that the Tour de France is the most important and high quality tour - except when it isn't, because the best riders aren't there. And the Vuelta is just an afterthought for GT riders - except when it isn't, because the best riders are targetting it.

So the Vuelta was probably a higher standard in 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014. The TdF was a higher standard in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015.

I think that highlights why it is foolish to rank one so highly above the other.

When the f**k have you heard one of the top stage racers declare at the start of the season 'my main aim for this year is the Vuelta'

I can almost understand someone trying to justify that a Giro win is at a similar level to a Tour win, but the Vuelta? Give me a break.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

Tour: Armstrong, Pereiro, Contador, Sastre, Schleck, Evans, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali
Vuelta: Heras, Vino, Menchov, Contador, Valverde, Nibali, Cobo, Horner, Aru

Looks pretty even in terms of quality to me. A few top class riders in each, and a few riders who got lucky or just had one great season. As such, it would be foolish to rate one so much higher than the other.

That's a dumb way to look at things.

The only reason Contador rode the Vuelta in 2008 was because his team wasn't invited to the Tour. The only reason he rode it in 2012 was because his ban just ended then (and he was still banned during the Tour). And the only reason he won it in 2014 was because he crashed out during the 2014 Tour. The Nibali of 2010 would have gotten slaughtered at the 2014 Tour de France. He was still a puppy then.

The only reason Valverde won the Vuelta was because he didn't ride the Giro or Tour that year (he was banned from racing in Italy) and was fresher than everyone else.

Schleck and Pereiro never won the Tour on the road anyway. The 2006 Tour field was indeed weak because a huge doping schandal eleminated most of the top favorites like Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.

So you see, the Tour has mostly been plagued by huge doping scandals. The Vuelta is nothing more than a consolation price if your Tour failed or you couldn't ride it somehow. The only exception to this has been Froome, who still rode the Vuelta even after he won the Tour.

I don't really follow your logic there. You seem to be saying that the Tour de France is the most important and high quality tour - except when it isn't, because the best riders aren't there. And the Vuelta is just an afterthought for GT riders - except when it isn't, because the best riders are targetting it.

So the Vuelta was probably a higher standard in 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014. The TdF was a higher standard in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015.

I think that highlights why it is foolish to rank one so highly above the other.

You do realize that the winner of a race is not a good indicator of the quality of the field, right? A small shitty race can have nothing but big winners, but that doesn't make the field as good as the Tour. There are more riders in a GT than only the winner.

If you win the Tour you'll be remembered for years to come and you'll make serious bank... If you win the Vuelta, and just the Vuelta, not so much... The Vuelta is the least prestigious Grand Tour and it will remain that way.

Agree with all of that, but I think where we differ, is how much more a Tour de France is worth. You said one Tour de France win was worth more than a Vuelta and all Valverde's podiums and stages - which is nonsense imo.

And who do you think has made more bank in their career and will be remembered for longer: Valverde or Sastre?

You seem to be ignoring all of Sastre's GT podiums. And Valverde has made more bank and will be remembered for longer simply because of the combination of his GT and classics abilities. But we're only considering GT palmares here, and you know what, Sastre's GT palmares are easily more memorable than Valverde's palmares if you remove both of their non-GT results.

Also people seem to be making a big deal of winning the points classification at the Vuelta. How often do decent sprinters turn up at the Vuelta, where already there is no extra weight for the points jersey to flat stages? It just ends up being a battle between the GT contenders too.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re: Re:

Tour: Armstrong, Pereiro, Contador, Sastre, Schleck, Evans, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali
Vuelta: Heras, Vino, Menchov, Contador, Valverde, Nibali, Cobo, Horner, Aru

Looks pretty even in terms of quality to me. A few top class riders in each, and a few riders who got lucky or just had one great season. As such, it would be foolish to rate one so much higher than the other.

That's a dumb way to look at things.

The only reason Contador rode the Vuelta in 2008 was because his team wasn't invited to the Tour. The only reason he rode it in 2012 was because his ban just ended then (and he was still banned during the Tour). And the only reason he won it in 2014 was because he crashed out during the 2014 Tour. The Nibali of 2010 would have gotten slaughtered at the 2014 Tour de France. He was still a puppy then.

The only reason Valverde won the Vuelta was because he didn't ride the Giro or Tour that year (he was banned from racing in Italy) and was fresher than everyone else.

Schleck and Pereiro never won the Tour on the road anyway. The 2006 Tour field was indeed weak because a huge doping schandal eleminated most of the top favorites like Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich.

So you see, the Tour has mostly been plagued by huge doping scandals. The Vuelta is nothing more than a consolation price if your Tour failed or you couldn't ride it somehow. The only exception to this has been Froome, who still rode the Vuelta even after he won the Tour.

I don't really follow your logic there. You seem to be saying that the Tour de France is the most important and high quality tour - except when it isn't, because the best riders aren't there. And the Vuelta is just an afterthought for GT riders - except when it isn't, because the best riders are targetting it.

So the Vuelta was probably a higher standard in 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2014. The TdF was a higher standard in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2015.

I think that highlights why it is foolish to rank one so highly above the other.

You do realize that the winner of a race is not a good indicator of the quality of the field, right? A small shitty race can have nothing but big winners, but that doesn't make the field as good as the Tour. There are more riders in a GT than only the winner.

If you win the Tour you'll be remembered for years to come and you'll make serious bank... If you win the Vuelta, and just the Vuelta, not so much... The Vuelta is the least prestigious Grand Tour and it will remain that way.

Agree with all of that, but I think where we differ, is how much more a Tour de France is worth. You said one Tour de France win was worth more than a Vuelta and all Valverde's podiums and stages - which is nonsense imo.

And who do you think has made more bank in their career and will be remembered for longer: Valverde or Sastre?

Valverde has won a *** ton of other races outside Grand Tours, which made him a lot of money, and made him more popular (and hated by some). We were however strictly talking about Grand Tours. And I'd take Sastre's achievements over Valverde's achievements in that regard. 7 podiums including one win: the Tour.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

You seem to be ignoring all of Sastre's GT podiums. And Valverde has made more bank and will be remembered for longer simply because of the combination of his GT and classics abilities. But we're only considering GT palmares here, and you know what, Sastre's GT palmares are easily more memorable than Valverde's palmares if you remove both of their non-GT results.

Well, they weren't referenced in the original comment that I was responding to. And, anyway, Valverde's stage wins and points jerseys lift him above what Sastre achieved imo.

Also people seem to be making a big deal of winning the points classification at the Vuelta. How often do decent sprinters turn up at the Vuelta, where already there is no extra weight for the points jersey to flat stages? It just ends up being a battle between the GT contenders too.

Winners in the last 13 years (since Valverde has been riding it): Zabel x2, Petacchi, Hushovd, Bennati, Van Avermaet, Greipel, Cavendish, Mollema, Degenkolb and Valverde x3. Looks like a pretty decent bunch of sprinters to me.

 

[El Pistolero]

The points jerseys in the Giro and Vuelta are worthless. Even Mollema won one. Nizzolo won it twice despite never having won a Giro stage in his career.

Only the green jersey in the Tour is prestigious because all the top sprinters and puncheurs are there and they all want to make it to Paris.

 

[Red Rick]

Green jersey has become the annual Sagan consolidation prize though.

But seriously, Bala's points jerseys make him a better GT rider than Sastre, who by the way won the KOM as well in 2008, but this then seems conveniently forgotten.

What's next, Vuelta white jersey's?

 

[DFA123]

Re:

The points jerseys in the Giro and Vuelta are worthless. Even Mollema won one. Nizzolo won it twice despite never having won a Giro stage in his career.

Only the green jersey in the Tour is prestigious because all the top sprinters and puncheurs are there and they all want to make it to Paris.

Yeah OK. And I guess stage wins are worthless as well. Oh, unless of course they're on Alpe d'Huez when you win only because you're allowed to get away while your stronger team-mates are forced to sit and wait further down the climb.

 

[Red Rick]

Is the Vuelta points jersey a specifically targeted goal, or is it a byproduct from Vueltas having 10 MTF's and maybe the occasional sprint in madrid because you're there anyway and there's only 2 decent sprinters left and you only need to sprint top 15. Stage wins obviously matter.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Is the Vuelta points jersey a specifically targeted goal, or is it a byproduct from Vueltas having 10 MTF's and maybe the occasional sprint in madrid because you're there anyway and there's only 2 decent sprinters left and you only need to sprint top 15. Stage wins obviously matter.

I think Valverde has definitely targetted it; notably last year when he won it on the last stage. It's a bit of a myth that it always goes to climbers anyway - see the list here of riders winning in last 13 years:

Zabel x2, Petacchi, Hushovd, Bennati, Van Avermaet, Greipel, Cavendish, Mollema, Degenkolb and Valverde x3

Valverde's the only serious GC rider that has won it - and, along with Mollema, the only climber; so it's not really fair to dismiss it by saying that it's just a byproduct of having some many MTFs. Even when he didn't win, he came second a few times behind the likes of Zabel and Greipel.

 

[elfed68]

Nibali has the best palmares because of the GT wins, can't top that, but, Valverde has to be the best rider as he's old school and rides throughout the season competing in all sorts of races.
If Valverde was around in Hinault's days he'd be amongst them as one of the legends, go Bala!!!