Who will be bigger?

[theyoungest]

Well, possibly your guy Schleck can make the possibly impossible possible.

If one guy cannot do that, it's Schleck That would mean holding top form for more than 4 weeks in a year... impossible.

 

[Matthijs]

OH OOOOOHHHH OH!!!

Calm down now.

1 monument = 4 Giros

I know its a matter of personal opinion, but you sure that isnt a tad unfair?

There are 5 monuments a year, there are 3 gts. It is possible to ride and compete all 5 monuments, as 1 days dont tire you out like weeks in the mountains. Sure most riders will have trouble competing in all monuments but some riders can.

It is not possible to ride and compete 3 gts. Sastre did it but didnt compete in any. Its become almost impossible, possibly impossible, to compete 2 gts where one is the Tour.

A Gt involves being on top form day after day after day, no faults allowed. Once it reaches the mountains it involves hour after hour of excruciating pain, body on its limit, big risk to health etc.

Moreover it is possible to win a monument, with a bit of luck, the right break, tactics giving the domestique who was supposed to tire out the pack, victory in a classic. Far more difficult for a non favourite to win a GT. Impossible for a non favourite to win the 3 gts needed to under your logic match the monument. Arroyo isnt going to get 3 Laquillas, and he couldnt even take full advantage of the first one.

And do you really think that Ballan with his 1 monument is worth more than a Menchov - 2.75 gts (under your Vuelta = 3, Giro = 4 calculation)?

Is Stijn Devolders 2 RVVs better than COntadors 5 gts?

I agree in general that a GT is more worth than a Monument. But win a monument with luck? They are longer than any other classic, mostly the same contenders for years in a row (just like GT's) which outrules luck if you ask me. Tactics play a big role, but they do in GT's too.
Name the last rider who won a monument by just luck please?

 

[hrotha]

I agree in general that a GT is more worth than a Monument. But win a monument with luck? They are longer than any other classic, mostly the same contenders for years in a row (just like GT's) which outrules luck if you ask me. Tactics play a big role, but they do in GT's too.
Name the last rider who won a monument by just luck please?

But it's easier to be a Guesdon or a Knaven than a Pereiro.

 

[The Hitch]

I agree in general that a GT is more worth than a Monument. But win a monument with luck? They are longer than any other classic, mostly the same contenders for years in a row (just like GT's) which outrules luck if you ask me. Tactics play a big role, but they do in GT's too.
Name the last rider who won a monument by just luck please?

I said BIT of luck, and specified what i meant, getting in a good break, which in my opinion involves "a bit of luck". Especially in LBL. I dont think LBL is always won by the strongest riders. Often you have about 10 favourites, and the ones who get in the winning break win.

This year there were plenty of great riders in earlier breaks who could have won. But with the right tactics and a bit of luck it was VIno and Kolobnev who got in the one which stuck. I think other riders like Gilbert were stronger, but on the day, Kolobnev and Vino got into the winning break. If the break didnt stick, Astana were prepared with Contador.

THis is one of the reasons why many doubt Canc can win LBL. Even if he is the strongest, how do you know which break will be the one that contests the finish, and no matter how good your team, its difficult to controll every break in a race like this.

In gts on the other hand, the winners usually just go head to head, 1 on 1 on 1 in tts and mountains for the win. and even when you do get Arroyo Laquillas, you would need, under the logic i was contesting, 3 such breaks in 3 different gts in order to get the worth of 1 monument.

 

[Kvinto]

But that’s the beauty of monument or any other classic race. You have to take a risk. Being the best in the peloton don’t guarantee you victory, but you have to play All in one single day, showing your best and not thinking of what will be tomorrow. GT is physically harder, but Monument is more exciting for me. That's why I prefer Taylor...

 

[The Hitch]

But that’s the beauty of monument or any other classic race. You have to take a risk. Being the best in the peloton don’t guarantee you victory, but you have to play All in one single day, showing your best and not thinking of what will be tomorrow. GT is physically harder, but Monument is more exciting for me. That's why I prefer Taylor...

I prefer monuments too (other than the fact that they come and go very quickly, whereas gts go on for weeks) but the point i am making is that no way is a = to 3/4 monuments.

ps. You have the wrong country on your location.

Lviv is Polish

 

[Kvinto]

ps. You have the wrong country on your location.

Lviv is Polish

really?

 

[Rocksteady]

If TJ does turn into a Mick Rogers (who was 3 time World TT Champ) and Phinney turns into Canc, we should see some USA domination in TTs, though at this point I have to give the edge in TTs (flat ones) to Phinney.

In the worlds most accurate cycling Simulation (PCM), TJ has more race/stage wins so I voted for him.

 

[maltiv]

In the worlds most accurate cycling Simulation (PCM), TJ has more race/stage wins so I voted for him.

If PCM is the worlds most accurate cycling simulation then EBH will win M-SR, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta Espana, worlds ITT and worlds road race next year

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Things achieved by riding with him don't count. Sorry Maltiv.

If PCM was an accurate simulation we would all suffer from Thomas Dekker's years long domination in virtually any stage race/classics..
Well at least in PCM 2006/2007/2008 when he was the only potential 8 rider with Boonen

I can remember games where the guy was simply impossible to beat when he was in any kind of shape. Winning tours by +15 minutes

 

[Rocksteady]

Things achieved by riding with him don't count. Sorry Maltiv.

If PCM was an accurate simulation we would all suffer from Thomas Dekker's years long domination in virtually any stage race/classics..
Well at least in PCM 2006/2007/2008 when he was the only potential 8 rider with Boonen

I can remember games where the guy was simply impossible to beat when he was in any kind of shape. Winning tours by +15 minutes

Ok, Maybe PCM isn't the most realistic... I still vote TJ.

 

[kurtinsc]

I agree in general that a GT is more worth than a Monument. But win a monument with luck? They are longer than any other classic, mostly the same contenders for years in a row (just like GT's) which outrules luck if you ask me. Tactics play a big role, but they do in GT's too.
Name the last rider who won a monument by just luck please?

It's rare/impossible for a GT to be won by a breakaway.

It almost happened at the Giro this year, but normally, a GT winner is the strongest over the 3 weeks, not someone who survives from an early break.

But we DO have classics winners from breakaways... occasionally even in the big classics (though those are rare). Stuart O'Grady won Paris-Roubaix from a break for example. Dirk Demol did as well. To a certain extent, any rider winning a race from an early break has to be attributed to a bit of luck.

 

[Parrulo]

i think there should be a: neither of them will live up to the hyper created option

cus i would vote for that one.

 

[Marcus135]

i think there should be a: neither of them will live up to the hyper created option

cus i would vote for that one.

I think your right there. I doubt that either of them will be huge, sure they will get some good results in their time but i dont see them winning any huge races.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

Phinney easy.

 

[Boeing]

Ben King IS Large

 

[Christian]

My goodness, this poll is intense. At first Tejay always had around 5 votes more, then it got closer and closer and now Phinney is 1 vote ahead!

 

[davidwilsoon]

I'm voting Tejay. Basically on the strength of his GC potential for the future, and knowing that will be the main source of hype for any US rider.

Phinney will almost certainly be a great time trialist, and if he works hard could even become a future classics rider and do well. But unless Phinney reaches a Cancellara-like level of TTing and Classics ability (which is impossible to predict) he'll never outhype the potential successor to Lance Armstrong with TJ van G, who has produced some very impressive GC performances in Pro races at only 21.

I'd say Phinney is a safer bet. He's well on his way to become one of the best time-trialists in the world, so most likely he'll win lots. We'll see about the classics though.

On the other hand, Van Garderen is a GC guy, and those get ruined all the time. It's easier for him to become good but not great and be another Rogers, with the occasional top 10 at the GTs. Mind you, being another Rogers or somewhat better would still be pretty good

 

[The Hitch]

I'd say Phinney is a safer bet. He's well on his way to become one of the best time-trialists in the world, so most likely he'll win lots. We'll see about the classics though.

On the other hand, Van Garderen is a GC guy, and those get ruined all the time. It's easier for him to become good but not great and be another Rogers, with the occasional top 10 at the GTs. Mind you, being another Rogers or somewhat better would still be pretty good

I swear i read this post before