Who would have Two Big Wins in their Career?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Who among these will have Two BIG Wins?

  • Zdenek Stybar (31)

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Wout Poels (29)

    Votes: 5 10.0%
  • Sep Vanmarcke (28)

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Rui Costa (30)

    Votes: 5 10.0%
  • Esteban Chavez (27)

    Votes: 26 52.0%
  • Ian Stannard (29)

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Diego Rosa (27)

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Mikel Landa (27)

    Votes: 4 8.0%
  • Greg Van Avermaet (31)

    Votes: 29 58.0%
  • Niki Trepstra (32)

    Votes: 5 10.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Valverde attacks hard and often in smaller races whereas guys like Gerrans would be sucking the wheel of cadets to win a car park crit in rural Australia
I chuckled! Damn, one of the funnier descriptions of Gerro.

I completely forgot about his Plumelec win; indeed memorable, yellow jersey while making Kirchen and the rest look like juniors. And even though it wasn't a win, he was incredible in Strade Bianche in 2014 when Stybar and GVA hang on for dear life until the end.

He attacked a fair amount in Catalunya as well. 3 stage victories, but unfortunately the win escaped him as it has one too many times.
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
1
0
Re: Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
portugal11 said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
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...
I strongly disagree. Gerrans has a stronger palmares, as befits a stronger rider, and there's little flukey about his wins. He is the punishment the cycling Gods inflict on puncheurs when they ride boringly enough to bring his set of skills into play.
Dan martin fall with 200 m to the finish line in liege 2014...
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
1
0
When i spoke about memorable wins, i was refering big races like gt's, monuments (or even ardenne classics) and one week stage races like tirreno, paris nice, pais vasco or catalunya (not prep races like dauphine, suisse or romandie where 80% of the peloton is worried about le tour or il giro). In dauphine evans was more worried with contador than valverde. So i count 2 or 3 memorable wins in his career. For me he isn't a legend but he had (and have) the potencial to be considered a legend
 
Re:

portugal11 said:
When i spoke about memorable wins, i was refering big races like gt's, monuments (or even ardenne classics) and one week stage races like tirreno, paris nice, pais vasco or catalunya (not prep races like dauphine, suisse or romandie where 80% of the peloton is worried about le tour or il giro). In dauphine evans was more worried with contador than valverde. So i count 2 or 3 memorable wins in his career. For me he isn't a legend but he had (and have) the potencial to be considered a legend
Well he has 3 monuments and 1 GT, so by your definition, he has more than 3 'memorable' wins. That alone doesn't really do Valverde any favour tho compared to the 4 GT's and 1 monument from Nibali. Big wins matter, but especially for Valverde, that really doesn't tell the story about just how good, just how talented and just how consistent he is.
 
Re:

Netserk said:
I said nothing about memorable. I just stressed how Boonen and Valverde aren't comparable. Valverde does have an image of a passive and conservative racer, who prefers to bank a secure podium place than risking everything for the win. There's a good reason for that. He is the antithesis of Vino as a racer, which is why the later is more legendary despite slightly inferior palmares.
in other words a rider I like certainly deserves a status of legend way more than other rider I have a passionate distaste to. great piece of logical thinking. :eek:
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re:

Netserk said:
I said nothing about memorable. I just stressed how Boonen and Valverde aren't comparable. Valverde does have an image of a passive and conservative racer, who prefers to bank a secure podium place than risking everything for the win. There's a good reason for that. He is the antithesis of Vino as a racer, which is why the later is more legendary despite slightly inferior palmares.
More legendary to who?! To me certainly isn't!
 
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
Netserk said:
I said nothing about memorable. I just stressed how Boonen and Valverde aren't comparable. Valverde does have an image of a passive and conservative racer, who prefers to bank a secure podium place than risking everything for the win. There's a good reason for that. He is the antithesis of Vino as a racer, which is why the later is more legendary despite slightly inferior palmares.
More legendary to who?! To me certainly isn't!
More legendary because he had genuinely memorable victories

-beat the sprinters on the Champs-Elysees

-won the Olympics on a largely flat route

-won Liege after a 50k 2-man break
 
I agree. Cycling fans will probably talk about Vino for a very long time and I hope the Vino joke from the race thread polls will never disappear. :lol:
Moreover Valverdes palmares isn't even that much better. Both have won 3 big one day races (monuments/WC/ORR) and both have won a vuelta. Valverde might have more smaller races but imo not enough to make up the advantage Vino has because of his racing style.
 
Gigs_98 said:
I agree. Cycling fans will probably talk about Vino for a very long time and I hope the Vino joke from the race thread polls will never disappear. :lol:
Moreover Valverdes palmares isn't even that much better. Both have won 3 big one day races (monuments/WC/ORR) and both have won a vuelta. Valverde might have more smaller races but imo not enough to make up the advantage Vino has because of his racing style.
CQ all time rankings gives Valverde 27113 points (and counting), while Vino has 12128 points. So, by probably the most objective measure available, there is a huge difference in the quality of their palmares. Vino's GT record is attrocious for a rider of his talent.

Memorable wins are merely a factor, and a relatively minor one. Otherwise you're getting into territory where a rider like Indurain wouldn't be considered legendary.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Re: Re:

roundabout said:
Mr.White said:
Netserk said:
I said nothing about memorable. I just stressed how Boonen and Valverde aren't comparable. Valverde does have an image of a passive and conservative racer, who prefers to bank a secure podium place than risking everything for the win. There's a good reason for that. He is the antithesis of Vino as a racer, which is why the later is more legendary despite slightly inferior palmares.
More legendary to who?! To me certainly isn't!
More legendary because he had genuinely memorable victories

-beat the sprinters on the Champs-Elysees

-won the Olympics on a largely flat route

-won Liege after a 50k 2-man break
He may had some more memorable wins, but that don't makes him a more legendary rider. Or do you think Pantani is more of a legend than Indurain?
 
DFA123 said:
Gigs_98 said:
I agree. Cycling fans will probably talk about Vino for a very long time and I hope the Vino joke from the race thread polls will never disappear. :lol:
Moreover Valverdes palmares isn't even that much better. Both have won 3 big one day races (monuments/WC/ORR) and both have won a vuelta. Valverde might have more smaller races but imo not enough to make up the advantage Vino has because of his racing style.
CQ all time rankings gives Valverde 27113 points (and counting), while Vino has 12128 points. So, by probably the most objective measure available, there is a huge difference in the quality of their palmares. Vino's GT record is attrocious for a rider of his talent.

Memorable wins are merely a factor, and a relatively minor one. Otherwise you're getting into territory where a rider like Indurain wouldn't be considered legendary.
I don't necessarily agree with the bolded. Vino's talent is not measured in W/kg or an incredible combination of speed/endurance/recovery like Valverde. It's rather his racing instinct, as Netserk said, and also unparalleled fighter attitude and brute strength.

I'd say Vinokourov was never a proper GT rider. He was way too inconsistent to rack up high GT placings. I'm also not sure he was a good enough climber to win the 2007 Tour against that Contador and that Rasmussen had he not crashed early on.

Valverde is the ultimate professional blessed with immense gifts from nature, who calculates risk/reward and is Mr. Consistency himself. Vino, on the other hand, was the mercurial epitome of determination, who never raced according to the "rules" of stage racing. This got him great triumphs, failures, and, I believe, somewhat hid the fact that he was never a modern natural GT rider. But man did he know how to make the most out of the situation when on a good day, something which unfortunately cannot always be said about the Don.

They're both legends, and uncomparable.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Also, just two wins at that level means a lot of people are "legends" that you mightn't otherwise consider.

For example, there are many people whose names are often omitted when we go through the big guns of cycling history, especially given that the big GT champions tend to be more well-known the further back into cycling history you go so unless they win multiple times, people who win a couple of the biggest one-day races are lost to time especially if they don't have anything specific that marks their legend (Simpson's and Monséré's premature deaths, for example). The less controlled nature of one-day racing perhaps figures into that, with the number of surprise winners of one day races massively outnumbering the number of true shock winners in the Grand Tours):
Georges Claes (2x Roubaix)
Prosper Depredomme (2x LBL)
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)
Noël Foré (1x Ronde, 1x Roubaix)
Emile Daems (1x Sanremo, 1x Roubaix, 1x Lombardia)
Jo de Roo (2x Lombardia, 1x Ronde)
Joseph Bruyère (2x Liège)
I agree with the main point of your argument. I think the misconception is that most of the young posters on this forum think it's engraved in marble that there's always been five races with the label "Monument". As a matter of fact, the label "Monument" is a recent neologism in cycling vocabulary and is a direct consequence of the UCI re-shuffle of the cycling calendar in 1989 with its abominable World Cup, demoting some single-day races such as the Walloon Arrow or Paris-Brussels while bombing ex nihilo races like the Wincanton Classics with the same status as Paris-Roubaix. Consequently everybody with a little bit of memory at that time would realise that the 5 classics currently labelled "Monument" were superior to the rest of the World Cup events while races like the Walloon Arrow or Paris-Brussels were no longer their equals. Though it might shock some of you, the Walloon Arrow prior to that UCI recast was at least an equivalent to its sister race Liège-Bastogne-Liège or even higher regarded depending on the period (in the fifties & the sixties), despite some panflat routes such as in 1981 (Pierre Chany called it "La Flèchette", "The Dart"). In 1948 the Desgrange-Colombo Challenge was founded (the forerunner to the World Tour) and the Arrow was right away a part of it. Liège-Bastogne-Liège however joined it only in 1951. Before 1951 Liège was a minor race. That's why your example or Prosper Depredomme isn't wisely chosen. He won it against a pretty local field, even the best Belgians didn't race it, even some of the best Walloons of the time. He won there a race that was within his reach but that was by no means the major classic that it later evolved into. Depredomme was just a good domestique on the international field, he was a gregario for Coppi who liked him because he accounted for a good sphere in the team and had a particular sense of humor. Also a race like Paris-Brussels, depending on the period could be much more coveted by the best riders of some given eras than let's say, the Tour of Flanders. Would you believe it? But go palmarès and you'll see, it's blatant.

All this to mean that it's pretty simplistic to claim that there are only a dozen races in the calendar that are worth winning, the rest being peanuts and pretty elitist too. Let's take the example of Franco Bitossi. Two major classics: two Tours of Lombardy. Yet he's up there as one of the greatest champion that the sport has ever had because he also won his share of Italian semis, of stage races and had his share of high places in classics and stage races and Italian semis, etc despite suffering from PVC. Because yes, all these semi-classics in those days, the greatest champions such as Felice Gimondi, Francesco Moser or Franco Bitossi would race like they all were World Championships in themselves. They never left anything away. It should have been a golden era for the smaller race organisers. And yes I also know that some of you would claim that only victories matter. This is of course absurd since every rider lose more than 66% of the races that they enter. If you wish to assess a rider's competitiveness you need to take high places into account. That's why Greg Van Avermaet is already a rider for the ages.

Also the idea that big GT champions are better known in the old days is only true for those who haven't studied that history into details because for the connoisseurs a rivalry between Henri Pélissier and Costante Girardengo in the classics has spoken a lot more to the next generations for several decades than the feats of Firmin Lambot or Léon Scieur on the Tour of France. At that time the best riders would avoid the Tour of France. Pélissier won it because he was challenged to but he hated it. Girardengo won the Tour of Italy but these were two of his victories which he was least famous for. His GP Wolber win (aka World Championship) was his greatest achievement.

It's true that Germain Derycke is not really well remembered. Some would say he had a lot of trouble with the clinic, even addiction (leading to his early death) but most of all he won the Arrow beside his four victories that are now labelled "Monuments" but this Arrow win (1954) was a mass bunch sprint on the Terrasse d'Avroy in Liège and he was declared winner after Ferdi Kübler's (RIP) disqualification for irregular sprint. Then his victory which he should have been best remembered for was his Liège-Bastogne victory in 1957 in extreme weather, snow storm, just like in 1980. Only in 1980 the French knew how to sell the Hinault victory (which was obviously a great achievement) while with regards to the 1957 edition they would refer to the extreme temperature but never refer to the winner. They would also praise the courage of Louison Bobet who was terribly in pain and still manage to finish top10 (Magne welcoming him at the hotel with the rest of the team said: "Gentlemen, stand up, here comes a champion" or something of the sort) but the winner, no. I know a man now in his seventies, with Ardennese roots, who was on the Côte de Wanne back then. He's not necessarily a cycling fanatics but he has clear memories of that day and of Germain Derycke reaching the top in the lead. Also what didn't help Derycke is that the 2nd on the line - Frans Schoubben - was oriented off route because of an official mistake if I'm not mistaken and was classified ex-aequo.

Jo De Roo is more or less remembered. He also won Bordeaux-Paris, Paris-Tours and was a fearsome sprinter. He's best known for winning the third Tour of Lombardy over the Sormano. The irony being that the infamous climb was meant to favour the climbers but in the three editions of the sixties it was twice won by massive "Flandrien"-type: Jo De Roo & Emile Daems. De Roo is also a winner of the Super Prestige Pernod, don't remember which year but perhaps the most surprising winner of its history.

Émile Daems won the first edition of Lombardy over the Sormano. Great Walloon rider. My father remembers him very well. The problem is that he had a very bad crash which hastened the end of his career, if I'm not mistaken. I have a biography of his, written by Claude Degauquier. Apparently he succeeded his post cycling reconversion very well: hotel owner.

Joseph Bruyère however was definitely a great talent, perhaps the best rider among those you mentioned. However he will also mainly be remembered as Merckx's best and most faithful lieutenant. His strengths would have enabled him to be a team leader in his own right but he did not have the mentality and the personality for that. His ego was close to zero. He would rather offer his service to a boss but he had exceptional strengths. In one of his Liège-Bastogne win he dropped Michel Pollentier in the Redoute, cleanly, fair & square. He did have talent. I had the chance to meet him at a cycling book market near Huy. I'm going back there this week (but he won't be there) and could witness how fondly he's remembered here. :)
 
Just to expand on Echoes' post, races such as La Fleche Wallonne, Paris-Bruxelles, Paris-Tours or Blois-Chaville were highlights, classics, as big as LBL or what today we call monuments.

Het-Volk, KBK, so many big rendez-vous for the big guys: and they showed up. GP des Nations, or Criterium des As: look at the winners list: the who is who of cycling. Or Bordeaux-Paris, we can go on and on...

Cycling has changed, "Monuments" were erected as such, while races come and go. La Fleche Wallone is a monument, thank you very much, Ask Eddy,

Let's be careful: once upon a time, the race calendar was very different. When looking at the record, please study.

I give you one: Fons De Wolf. Destroying the field and winning the points competition at the '79 Vuelta, before winning GDL, and MSR when the season resumed, Het-Volk twice...not a legend but what a heck of a rider, and BTW, he finished in the top-5 at the infamous 1980 LBL. To me, a legend. Or just a model: his posture on the bike like VDB, As a competitive rider then, he was the guy.

Being a legend is when kids ride their bike and dream. Fons made me dream. Another point.

Echoes was kind enough not to list the long list of riders who are legends in their own right, winning the toughest races, including Patrick Sercu. One-on-one so much better than Cav or Cippo. In my opinion, the best sprinter ever. Cav needs 35,
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
1
0
People should watch today andalucia's stage and they will know why valverde isn't a lengend at all.
Disgraceful wheelsucker that is moe worried in beating contador than winning/distance his rivals
 
Re:

portugal11 said:
People should watch today andalucia's stage and they will know why valverde isn't a lengend at all.
Disgraceful wheelsucker that is moe worried in beating contador than winning/distance his rivals
Well, he actually rode quite smartly today. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Apr 23, 2013
103
1
8,835
Re:

portugal11 said:
People should watch today andalucia's stage and they will know why valverde isn't a lengend at all.
Disgraceful wheelsucker that is moe worried in beating contador than winning/distance his rivals
I watched. I thought he was pretty great. Nice attack and superbly controlled last kms. What's not to like?
People who think wheelsucking is disgraceful do not get cycling in my opinion. Wheelsucking is like the standout aspect of cycling that makes it such an interesting sport.
I can understand that one prefers more aggressive riders over really passive ones. But Valverde is hardly passive.
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
1
0
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
portugal11 said:
People should watch today andalucia's stage and they will know why valverde isn't a lengend at all.
Disgraceful wheelsucker that is moe worried in beating contador than winning/distance his rivals
Well, he actually rode quite smartly today. Nothing wrong with that.
No he didn't. He was the strongest today (at least for me) and could distance and gain time to everybody but he prefered to wheelsuck contador the entire climb
 
Re: Re:

Cance > TheRest said:
Asero831 said:
There are the under 40 active years old riders that have atleast two career BIG wins

Contador
Boonen
Valverde
Froome
Quintana
Cavendish
Gilbert
Sagan
Cunego
Degenkolb
Martin
Gerrans
Ballan
You forgot Kristoff
Good spot! I'd be very surprised if Kristoff didn't win at least one or two more monument/WC before his career finishes. On form he's almost the perfect rider for MSR. A battle between 2015 form Kristoff and 2016 form Sagan at RVV would be great to see this year as well - I think Kristoff would edge it.

This is a huge year for him though after a disappointing 2016, and with the WC in Norway. Im thinking he could elevate himself to near-legendary status by the end of it.
 
Re: Re:

portugal11 said:
Netserk said:
portugal11 said:
People should watch today andalucia's stage and they will know why valverde isn't a lengend at all.
Disgraceful wheelsucker that is moe worried in beating contador than winning/distance his rivals
Well, he actually rode quite smartly today. Nothing wrong with that.
No he didn't. He was the strongest today (at least for me) and could distance and gain time to everybody but he prefered to wheelsuck contador the entire climb
I don't think he could drop Contador. When should he have tried that? He did his best not to expose himself to Contador, which would have happened if he countered (tried to) his first attack or if he cooperated with him.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS