Who would have Two Big Wins in their Career?

[lartiste]

Re:

There are the under 40 active years old riders that have atleast two career BIG wins

Contador
Boonen
Valverde
Froome
Quintana
Cavendish
Gilbert
Sagan
Degenkolb
Martin
Schleck
Gerrans
Ballan

Recently Retired
Cancellera
Rodriguez
Evans
Devolder

Under 27 that can potentially join the elite list
Demare
Bouhani
Aru
Pinot
Bardet
Kwiatkowski
Alaphilippe
Yates Twins
Matthews
Gavaria
Ewan

Schleck retired ... .

 

[Asero831]

Poll Added..

By legend I mean a slot in the Hall of Fame.

But as far as being on a different level like Boonen, Contador, Valverde, Sagan, Nibali and Cavendish, they are not merely legends, they are icons of the sport.

 

[Escarabajo]

Is Herrera a legend?

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Is Herrera a legend?

Nice . Yes, he paved the way. He won a GT, two CdD, but record-wise, it's a bit light. Big Mac made a great point about charisma, in Herrera's case, novelty. A pioneer. That's a new dimension in this discussion.

And panache. Wheel-suckers may win, but to be a legend you have to have those special moments: Hinault was a legend after LBL '80, only two TdF, but wow! The wow factor has to be there.

Glad to see Vino mentioned, good or bad, he's a legend.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

The word legend is a bit misleading because most people probably reserve that title for a smaller, more elite, subset of these riders. But "two really big wins" is a useful metric when thinking about a rider's place in history. There are plenty of guys who got lucky and took home a big race, particularly the one day races. There really aren't many who've done it twice. Devolder is probably the closest thing there is to a recent rider who won two of these races without obviously belonging to a top tier, and Devolder was very good.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re:

Germain Derycke (you could argue that Derycke deserves a lot more credit in cycling history than he gets, having won San Remo, Roubaix, de Ronde and Liège as well as two World Championships podiums)

I agree with most of your post, but I find myself quite confused by the idea that anyone might not consider a man who won Roubaix, the Ronde, Liege, San Remo and Fleche a legend of the sport. Derycke is obviously a legend unless you are operating with such a narrow definition of legend that only the likes of Merckx, Coppi, Kelly, Bartali qualify.

 

[markene2]

Re:

Cunego is a prime example of someone who did incredible things early in his career (3 monuments + a GT) who isn't considered a legend by everyone because his greatness wasn't sustained for a really long time. And he's still active!

The same can be said about Rebellin, he won 5 monuments and also won the triple in 04. He has extrodinary palmares. He simply didnt retire when he was at the top, and unfortunatly i dont think will be remembered as a legend, the same can be said about Gilbert, even though im not sure if he is over the top yet... As opposed to Vino who retired at the top, even though he has very good palmares, but maybe not legendary his riding style and antics will go down as legendary.

As for your list, i dont see anyone going down as a legend status there, not even Avermaet even though he won the olympics, i dont think he has a big monument in him with the current competiton of Sagan.

For sure Gavaria and Sagan will go down as legends, and i would not be suprised if Alaphilippe joins the list 10 years down the road as a legend. Thats my take on things

 

[Netserk]

Rebellin only won 1 monument.

 

[markene2]

Re:

Rebellin only won 1 monument.

Arent Amstel and Fleche catagorized as monuments?

I somehow always thought they where.... Still his palmares are extrodinary

 

[IndianCyclist]

The key for any palmares to be remembered is the statistical difficulty of it as well as the trying circumstances surrounding a particular feat. Talking about GTs and monuments & WCRR/OGRR then for significant difficulty, it has to be achieved in a single season. Some of the magical seasons that are remembered are the Ardennes triple by Rebellin and Gilbert, Roche's triple crown, Andy Hampsten's 1988 Giro etc. As the difficulty of the races depends on the weather gods and with the new rule of the EWP, it is extremely unlikely to happen. What is extremely unlikely to happen is a long breakaway or a solo win due to the current way of racing. What is left is something that is statistically difficult to achieve which could be in a single season to achieve 1) 1 GT and 1 monument 2) 2 monuments 3) 2 GTs and to achieve it inspite of the Sagan, Valverde Contador, Froome, Quintana. Chavez is the closest to achieve this.

 

[staubsauger]

Gilbert has got the Ardennes grand slam! He absolutely is a legend!

 

[SKSemtex]

It´s funny how Gaviria is the next legend material without any major win yet. Let ´s see first what he can do with big boys this season. He has a great potential for sure and his advantage is the best possible team for one day races but it still will not be so easy. Nobody will want to drag him to the finish line especially in Monument races.

MSR without Le Manie is his race to loose but the rest of "big races" are out of his reach for this moment.

Let´s see. In 3 months from now we will know what kind of legend he might be.
But for sure this going to be very interesting spring. I am so excited.

From the offered list I pick up Chavez as a new legend and I do hope for GVA to get his second "big" win. He deserves it. I really like the idea Sagan and GVA helping each other to get rid of young Gaviria.

 

[Nick C.]

I voted for Chavez, GVA and Sep. I'm not all that sure about Sep, but I saw he was 28 and with Flanders/Roubaix that leaves him 7-8 years.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

You guys sure have some liberal definitions of what makes a legend. To me, the only currently active riders that, based on their current palmares, will become legends are Contador, Boonen and Cavendish. Sagan likely will, Froome has a decent shot at it as well and Quintana is an outside possibility also. Then there are a bunch of young guys with potential to become legends as well, but it's way too early too speculate about that.

To answer the question: Some of the riders in the poll have the potential to grab two wins (Stannard, Stybar, Vanmarcke certainly won't though), but none of them the potential to become legends.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

You guys sure have some liberal definitions of what makes a legend. To me, the only currently active riders that, based on their current palmares, will become legends are Contador, Boonen and Cavendish. Sagan likely will, Froome has a decent shot at it as well and Quintana is an outside possibility also. Then there are a bunch of young guys with potential to become legends as well, but it's way too early too speculate about that.

To answer the question: Some of the riders in the poll have the potential to grab two wins (Stannard, Stybar, Vanmarcke certainly won't though), but none of them the potential to become legends.

I say Nibali and Valverde also are legends. At least more so than Cavendish is.

GVA needs to win a BUNCH of races to be even considered one atm.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Re: Re:

You guys sure have some liberal definitions of what makes a legend. To me, the only currently active riders that, based on their current palmares, will become legends are Contador, Boonen and Cavendish. Sagan likely will, Froome has a decent shot at it as well and Quintana is an outside possibility also. Then there are a bunch of young guys with potential to become legends as well, but it's way too early too speculate about that.

To answer the question: Some of the riders in the poll have the potential to grab two wins (Stannard, Stybar, Vanmarcke certainly won't though), but none of them the potential to become legends.

I say Nibali and Valverde also are legends. At least more so than Cavendish is.

GVA needs to win a BUNCH of races to be even considered one atm.

I disagree on Cavendish vs Valverde and Nibali. I'm not sure if Valverde and Nibali will be remembered in 50 years - perhaps they will - but Cavendish will enter the history books as probably the best sprinter in cycling's history.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

You guys sure have some liberal definitions of what makes a legend. To me, the only currently active riders that, based on their current palmares, will become legends are Contador, Boonen and Cavendish. Sagan likely will, Froome has a decent shot at it as well and Quintana is an outside possibility also. Then there are a bunch of young guys with potential to become legends as well, but it's way too early too speculate about that.

To answer the question: Some of the riders in the poll have the potential to grab two wins (Stannard, Stybar, Vanmarcke certainly won't though), but none of them the potential to become legends.

I say Nibali and Valverde also are legends. At least more so than Cavendish is.

GVA needs to win a BUNCH of races to be even considered one atm.

I disagree on Cavendish vs Valverde and Nibali. I'm not sure if Valverde and Nibali will be remembered in 50 years - perhaps they will - but Cavendish will enter the history books as probably the best sprinter in cycling's history.

I would argue that only if your definition of a sprinter is exceptionally narrow. And even then, Cipollini edges him at the moment for me.

Re Nibali and Valverde, I think history will treat Nibali very kindly. I can see him being rated higher in the future than he is now, just because of his palmares. Won all three tours, a monument and numerous other one day races. His palmares is probably better than his ability; and it is the palmares that will be rememberd in 50 years. Valverde is perhaps the opposite. His remarkable consistency and amazing power profile and ability to compete in any race, could get forgotten over time.

 

[deValtos]

It's not the palmares that is remembered really. It's the stories, always the stories.

There are a lot of riders with better results than say Pantani, Ullrich ...

Froome is doing the right thing by running up mountains. This guy gets it.

Aint no one going to remember the 2014 tour winner in 50 years because nothing happened, there was no story there. It was just another race.

 

[DFA123]

It's not the palmares that is remembered really. It's the stories, always the stories.

There are a lot of riders with better results than say Pantani, Ullrich ...

Froome is doing the right thing by running up mountains. This guy gets it.

Aint no one going to remember the 2014 tour winner in 50 years because nothing happened, there was no story there. It was just another race.

There aren't very many at all from their era. Ullrich's palmares is - now that Armstrong's has been struck off - probably the best of his era. Pantani did the Giro-Tour double, something no-one has come close to repeating since, and won 16 GT mountain stages in style, showing he was the best climber of his generation. They are remembered because of that. There are loads of stories about Chava Jimenez or Jens Voigt; but who will remember them in 50 years time?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Germain Derycke (you could argue that Derycke deserves a lot more credit in cycling history than he gets, having won San Remo, Roubaix, de Ronde and Liège as well as two World Championships podiums)

I agree with most of your post, but I find myself quite confused by the idea that anyone might not consider a man who won Roubaix, the Ronde, Liege, San Remo and Fleche a legend of the sport. Derycke is obviously a legend unless you are operating with such a narrow definition of legend that only the likes of Merckx, Coppi, Kelly, Bartali qualify.

It was less to say that Derycke shouldn't be considered a legend, but to point out people who have minimum two big wins in their career by the definition of the OP but don't get considered in the same reverie as the established list of legends. Derycke actually is a guy I think should be held in higher esteem in cycling history than he usually is as his name regularly gets overlooked.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

You guys sure have some liberal definitions of what makes a legend. To me, the only currently active riders that, based on their current palmares, will become legends are Contador, Boonen and Cavendish. Sagan likely will, Froome has a decent shot at it as well and Quintana is an outside possibility also. Then there are a bunch of young guys with potential to become legends as well, but it's way too early too speculate about that.

To answer the question: Some of the riders in the poll have the potential to grab two wins (Stannard, Stybar, Vanmarcke certainly won't though), but none of them the potential to become legends.

I say Nibali and Valverde also are legends. At least more so than Cavendish is.

GVA needs to win a BUNCH of races to be even considered one atm.

I disagree on Cavendish vs Valverde and Nibali. I'm not sure if Valverde and Nibali will be remembered in 50 years - perhaps they will - but Cavendish will enter the history books as probably the best sprinter in cycling's history.

I don't think we have a real contest between Cav and Bala. First of all, the term "best sprinter" is reserved for special breed of riders who developed in the last 25-30 years, and who can't do pretty much beside sprinting. In the past best sprinters were able to win major classics, some of the hardest races, even stage races and were able to place high in GT's. This new breed can't do that, they can only sprint. That's why riders like Girardengo, Van Steenbergen, Van Looy, Maertens are light years ahead of those so called top sprinters.
On the other hand, we have Valverde, who dominated World rankings for half a decade, and was in the top 5 in the other half. Such consistency we find in the past in the likes of Jalabert, Kelly, Hinault, Merckx, Van Looy, Anquetil, Kubler, Coppi...
So we could compare let's say the weakest of those all-rounders, Jalabert, to best of the sprinters, that would be Cipollini. My humble opinion is that Jaja is ahead of Cipo by some margin. So by that logic, Valverde, who is imo slightly better rider than Jaja, is naturally ahead of Cav who is slightly worse than Cipo. Just my opinion

 

[portugal11]

Re: Re:

The word legend is a bit misleading because most people probably reserve that title for a smaller, more elite, subset of these riders. But "two really big wins" is a useful metric when thinking about a rider's place in history. There are plenty of guys who got lucky and took home a big race, particularly the one day races. There really aren't many who've done it twice. Devolder is probably the closest thing there is to a recent rider who won two of these races without obviously belonging to a top tier, and Devolder was very good.

Gerrans beats devolder...

 

[portugal11]

Re: Re:

You guys sure have some liberal definitions of what makes a legend. To me, the only currently active riders that, based on their current palmares, will become legends are Contador, Boonen and Cavendish. Sagan likely will, Froome has a decent shot at it as well and Quintana is an outside possibility also. Then there are a bunch of young guys with potential to become legends as well, but it's way too early too speculate about that.

To answer the question: Some of the riders in the poll have the potential to grab two wins (Stannard, Stybar, Vanmarcke certainly won't though), but none of them the potential to become legends.

I say Nibali and Valverde also are legends. At least more so than Cavendish is.

GVA needs to win a BUNCH of races to be even considered one atm.

Nibali is the luckiest rider of all time and even though he has a good palmares, he never was really dominant (apart for giro 2013), I don't count tour 2014 because we all know what's happened. For me nibali has not the physical capacity (and never had) to be considered a legend

 

[BigMac]

I don't see how Valverde cannot not be considered a legend.

I'll be telling my grandchildren about him and how he probably was the most talented rider I've seen racing, on par with a Peter Sagan, and that despite him not achieving half of what he could have, few, if any, looked as dominant as him for such a long time.

 

[portugal11]

Re:

I don't see how Valverde cannot not be considered a legend.

I'll be telling my grandchildren about him and how he probably was the most talented rider I've seen racing, on par with a Peter Sagan, and that despite him not achieving half of what he could have, few, if any, looked as dominant as him for such a long time.

Because true cycling fans don't like riders that normally suck wheels until 500 m to the finish line. ( please, i'm talking in the big races and not in these spanish classics like murcia or valencia)