Who is the most talented rider of the XXI century?

[Angliru]

Re:

It should be Oscar Freire.
Considering talent as the ability to win big without a lot of training, he must be the absolute n.1. Everyone always said how little he trained in comparison to his colleagues, especially because of his back problems. And look at his outstanding palmares.
Pure mesmerizing talent I'd say.

Of course I'm in full agreement!

 

[Miburo]

If you ask me who is the toughest rider mentally of this century, it's contador without a doubt.

Vino also comes to mind, or Evans.

 

[Angliru]

Re:

If you ask me who is the toughest rider mentally of this century, it's contador without a doubt.

Vino also comes to mind, or Evans.

Imagine Wiggins in Contador's shoes during the 2009 season.

 

[Mr.White]

Re:

Forget "podiumed" all 3 gts, theres guys in the 20th century who have won all 3.

How many? Two, Contador and Nibs. How many classics have they won? They've each won one big single day race, neither as important as the Fleche. Neither has won the WC.

I don't know why you mention palmares because if we look at palmares Evans would be lucky to scrape top 10. He has 1 TDF, 1 Worlds. 1 classic. 1 TDF stage. 0 monuments, 0 other gts. There;s guys in the peloton who blow him out of the water.

It isn’t the amount of palmares, it’s the fact that he’s won both GTs and important single day races. Sure, there are guys who have won more one day races. How many of them have won the TDF, or podiumed in more GTs?

The same could be said for 2 or 3 dozen other riders from the last decade. Most weren't as good as Evans but then plenty of them were better. And almost all showed these talents on a more frequent basis.

Two or three dozen riders from the last decade were good enough to win the TDF, podium in the other GTs, and win sprints and bumpy stages?

I remind you, I wasn’t arguing that Evans was the most talented, I was arguing that he might have been the most complete or all-around. Of the guys in this century who were better GT riders, how many won the WC? How many could beat Evans in an uphill sprint? How many were better descenders? How many were better bike handlers?

I think you're focussing on the fact that Evans wasn't the best at anything. But the best all-rounders generally aren't.

Here's a way of looking at it. Suppose you wanted to create a bike team, and could have only one rider, but cloned as many times as necessary. This one rider would be your GC man, but he--clones of him--would also be your domestiques, in the mountains and on the flats, and your sprinter, and sprint leadout men. He would also be your classics rider and TT specialist.

I'd clone Evans for that. As I said before, Vino and Valverde would be good choices, too. Both were better one day racers, and Valverde was a better sprinter. But Evans was a better TTer than Vlaverde, and better than both at GC. Besides his TDF win, he came very close two other times. Neither Vino nor Valverde ever came that close to winning a TDF.

Since the ITT is THE indicator of the engine of a rider, the best ITT'ists are the most talented riders. So Cancellara is the answer.

If size of the engine is your standard, it would have to be some track sprinter. In climbing, of course, power/weight is more important than weight alone.

Sastre, Purito...

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Sastre, Purito...

Hitch's post:
"Forget "podiumed" all 3 gts, theres guys in the 20th century who have won all 3."

 

[Red Rick]

Evans being mentally strong is one of the most ridiculous things i've read this year.

 

[Escarabajo]

I will not put anybody that has not won a GT. Absolutely not. It does not any sense at all!

 

[BigMac]

Re:

I will not put anybody that has not won a GT. Absolutely not. It does not any sense at all!

What about those who never won a Monument or the Worlds? Or even a classic or fairly big importance? ( ) What is the correlation between being very talented and eventually wining a Grand Tour or being a stage racer at all?

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

I will not put anybody that has not won a GT. Absolutely not. It does not any sense at all!

What about those who never won a Monument or the Worlds? Or even a classic or fairly big importance? ( ) What is the correlation between being very talented and eventually wining a Grand Tour or being a stage racer at all?

So which is naturally harder to win, a monument or a GT?

To me a GT.

And you are right, that rider should have been able to win a monument as well. But I will put more weight on a GT.

 

[BigMac]

Re: Re:

I will not put anybody that has not won a GT. Absolutely not. It does not any sense at all!

What about those who never won a Monument or the Worlds? Or even a classic or fairly big importance? ( ) What is the correlation between being very talented and eventually wining a Grand Tour or being a stage racer at all?

So which is naturally harder to win, a monument or a GT?

To me a GT.

And you are right, that rider should have been able to win a monument as well. But I will put more weight on a GT.

So that's it, you just boil it down to which one is ''harder'' to win? And I'd even dispute the objectivity of that claim of yours, that Grand Tours are harder to win than Monuments or even some lesser classics. What exactly does ''naturally'' mean? One's physical aptitude? While stage racing is indeed hard, so is one day racing, in it's own right. While a rider needs endurance over a given period of days to win a GT, he needs other equally demanding traits to win a Monument. If talent and cycling was all about the endurance, or ''natural'' capacity as you say (even though this is highly ambiguous), and a certain rider won a Grand Tour because he excels at those, then he should have absolutely no problem at winning a one day race. What do you have to say about Contador, is he not talented then? What is your list?

 

[King Boonen]

Monuments > everything else.

Boonen.

 

[Brullnux]

Why has nobody said Bettini? Has to be up there with the likes Freire, Valverde, Boonen, Cancellara and Rebellin.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

I will not put anybody that has not won a GT. Absolutely not. It does not any sense at all!

What about those who never won a Monument or the Worlds? Or even a classic or fairly big importance? ( ) What is the correlation between being very talented and eventually wining a Grand Tour or being a stage racer at all?

So which is naturally harder to win, a monument or a GT?

To me a GT.

And you are right, that rider should have been able to win a monument as well. But I will put more weight on a GT.

So that's it, you just boil it down to which one is ''harder'' to win? And I'd even dispute the objectivity of that claim of yours, that Grand Tours are harder to win than Monuments or even some lesser classics. What exactly does ''naturally'' mean? One's physical aptitude? While stage racing is indeed hard, so is one day racing, in it's own right. While a rider needs endurance over a given period of days to win a GT, he needs other equally demanding traits to win a Monument. If talent and cycling was all about the endurance, or ''natural'' capacity as you say (even though this is highly ambiguous), and a certain rider won a Grand Tour because he excels at those, then he should have absolutely no problem at winning a one day race. What do you have to say about Contador, is he not talented then? What is your list?

I am bothered by Contador not winning a monument. Or a World Championship.

But do not agree with your assessment of what is required to win the GT. You just saw what happened last year in the Tour. It requires other things as well. So that's why historically speaking the winners of the Tour has been able to be World Champions as well. I still think it requires a lot more talent to win a GT than a monument. Riders should give up on top 10's placings so they can focus on more reachable goals like winning a monument. A good example of this is Kwiat. On a given day, a well prepared, good physical condition, astute and but not the best talent, can win a monument. Ask Purito what he would trade for a GT. Note how Valverde still tries and fails to win another GT. I am sure that a monument is still on his grasp. It requires less. IMHO.

 

[SeriousSam]

It's true that a monument requires less, because not being a the strongest rider in the race is more compatible with winning it. Luck and randomness can play a role in GTs as well (crashes, mostly), but strength better predicts GT success because you will have at least a couple stages to make it count and because MTF and ITT are less prone to tactics anyway. If you're better, you're going to gain on your opponents.

 

[Netserk]

Well, there's even less randomness in TTs than GTs. So Martin, Malori, Dumoulin, Cancellara and Wiggins are the most talented riders currently?

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Sastre, Purito...

Hitch's post:
"Forget "podiumed" all 3 gts, theres guys in the 20th century who have won all 3."

I agree, of course. I was just replying to Merckx Index who didn't mention these two

 

[Tonton]

When I think "talented", I picture a young guy coming onto the scene, like he was born to race a bike. That, to me is talent. Nothing to do with record: Evans doesn't qualify. More of a blue collar, hard work pays off. I would argue that his first attack was at the WC and he turned around, surprised, and kept going. Not a "natural" IMO. Not Eddy or Hinault, or LeMond, or some who didn't quite fulfill their huge potential, yet had HUGE talent: Fons De Wolf, Frank VDB...

Since 2000, to me, EBH and Sagan fit the bill. And Quintana. That is talent. What happens next is a bit of luck, being smart, and some good'ol hard work to turn talent into success.

 

[nepetalactone]

When I think "talented", I picture a young guy coming onto the scene, like he was born to race a bike. That, to me is talent. Nothing to do with record: Evans doesn't qualify. More of a blue collar, hard work pays off. I would argue that his first attack was at the WC and he turned around, surprised, and kept going. Not a "natural" IMO. Not Eddy or Hinault, or LeMond, or some who didn't quite fulfill their huge potential, yet had HUGE talent: Fons De Wolf, Frank VDB...

Since 2000, to me, EBH and Sagan fit the bill. And Quintana. That is talent. What happens next is a bit of luck, being smart, and some good'ol hard work to turn talent into success.

+10 at least

 

[goggalor]

Valv/Vos.

 

[chiocciolis_calves]

Cancellara. By a fairly wide margin, as well.

 

[greenedge]

When I think "talented", I picture a young guy coming onto the scene, like he was born to race a bike. That, to me is talent. Nothing to do with record: Evans doesn't qualify. More of a blue collar, hard work pays off. I would argue that his first attack was at the WC and he turned around, surprised, and kept going. Not a "natural" IMO. Not Eddy or Hinault, or LeMond, or some who didn't quite fulfill their huge potential, yet had HUGE talent: Fons De Wolf, Frank VDB...

Yes his hard work paid off, but many points support the idea that Evans was one heck of a talented bike rider. You just have to look at the 2005 TDF with all the convicted dopers ahead of him to realise that.

 

[ray j willings]

I think Evans had bags of talent, but he did however IMO lack confidence in his ability.
If he had more confidence Sastre would never have won that tour, Evans would have.
He definitely learnt the hard way but he took the bull by the horns and chased back Andy Schleck on alp d Huez to get his tour win, he made sure that he would not lose like that again.
And what a ride that was, One of the best ever. He towed everyone. No help. awesome.

 

[BigMac]

I think Evans had bags of talent, but he did however IMO lack confidence in his ability.
If he had more confidence Sastre would never have won that tour, Evans would have.
He definitely learnt the hard way but he took the bull by the horns and chased back Andy Schleck on alp d Huez to get his tour win, he made sure that he would not lose like that again.
And what a ride that was, One of the best ever. He towed everyone. No help. awesome.

Sorry if I'm wrong, but I think you mean the Pinerolo - Galibier stage the day before? Yes, his effort was almost as impressive as Andy's that day.

 

[bala v]

When I think "talented", I picture a young guy coming onto the scene, like he was born to race a bike. That, to me is talent. Nothing to do with record: Evans doesn't qualify. More of a blue collar, hard work pays off. I would argue that his first attack was at the WC and he turned around, surprised, and kept going. Not a "natural" IMO. Not Eddy or Hinault, or LeMond, or some who didn't quite fulfill their huge potential, yet had HUGE talent: Fons De Wolf, Frank VDB...

Yes his hard work paid off, but many points support the idea that Evans was one heck of a talented bike rider. You just have to look at the 2005 TDF with all the convicted dopers ahead of him to realise that.

Stop dreaming, everybody doped back then. That TDF proves nothing about his talent

 

[ray j willings]

When I think "talented", I picture a young guy coming onto the scene, like he was born to race a bike. That, to me is talent. Nothing to do with record: Evans doesn't qualify. More of a blue collar, hard work pays off. I would argue that his first attack was at the WC and he turned around, surprised, and kept going. Not a "natural" IMO. Not Eddy or Hinault, or LeMond, or some who didn't quite fulfill their huge potential, yet had HUGE talent: Fons De Wolf, Frank VDB...

Yes his hard work paid off, but many points support the idea that Evans was one heck of a talented bike rider. You just have to look at the 2005 TDF with all the convicted dopers ahead of him to realise that.

Stop dreaming, everybody doped back then. That TDF proves nothing about his talent

Well I have been wasting me time