Why Alberto Contador will never be a champion for the ages

[SergeDeM]

Get yerself a grip.

Being a legend is all about what the majority thinks.

 

[paperbackwriter]

Some may call you a troll because you don't even get your facts right. And when people show that half of your accounts of GTs are missing something you tell them they are clutching at straws. Also you make various points and then you suddenly decide that only one of them is truly valid. That seems more like denial on your part, especially considering that from my observation, not all the people defending Contador here can be called fanboys.

I don't know where the idea that a true cycling legend can only prove to be one through having the strongest legs comes from. It's kind of superficial, don't you think? Nobody is saying that physically Contador is the strongest ever and why would anyone care? Andy Schleck once had amazing climbing legs but that didn't count for much, did it?

For many people, what's fascinating and allows riders to become legendary is the combination of physical strength and the right mentality, which makes guys like Contador carry on and keep winning when an average person would crumble. And for those people it will be worth more what Contador did on Alpe d'Huez stage in 2011 Tour or what he did on Fuente De stage in Vuelta 2012 or that he rides the Vuelta here than if he won all GTs by >3 minutes and added some monuments.

In the end, palmares are of course important (though I guess there's nothing wrong with Contador's palmares) but are they really the main factor in constituting a legend? By denying that Pantani is a legend you'd probably be laughed at by many people who have anything to do with cycling and yet he fits your definition much less than Contador.

 

[HyperMartin]

http://www.dif.dk/da/nyt/dif-nyheder/2013/september/20130927_rasmussen

Interesting. It slipped under the radar of most non-Danish cycling websites. Even when googling with the exact ban dates, only one English-speaking website comes up.

Thanks for the link. I'll remove the 2007 Tour de France from my case against Contador, which is admittedly starting to get a bit flimsy.

His poor classics palmarès and the 2008 Vuelta still irk me, though.

 

[BigMac]

Out of interest how many monument winners in recent years have won GTs? And does it mean that Boonen, Cancellara, Cavendish or Gilbert have any claim to legendary status until they win a GT?

Valverde
Cadel (World Championship = or + important)
Schleck Jr.
...

To the last part: It's nearly impossible for a classics specialist (let alone a sprinter) as those you mentioned to win a GT, on the other hand, it should be easier for GT/climbing specialists to perform well in classics. Boonen, Cancellara, Cavendish and Gilbert may be called legends, yes.

 

[Netserk]

I think Contador is a legend because of primarily two things:

1: I think he is the best/most successful modern stage racer.

2: His racing style.

 

[RownhamHill]

Valverde
Cadel (World Championship = or + important)
Schleck Jr.
...

So, strictly speaking, that's two.

Can anyone make an argument that Schleck Jr is a more legendary cyclist than Contador?

 

[Jagartrott]

Those are details that are so arbitrary they blow my mind. But arbitrary arguments are the only ones you have, so nobody is gonna agree with you, except other trolls. But you've been around this forum for a couple of months, you knew not a lot of people would agree and still you start this thread with arbitrary bull**** arguments. You only made this thread cause you wanted an audience for your trolls

Every argument about what it takes to be a legend is arbitrary.
And stop with the name-calling.

 

[Arredondo]

I think Contador is a legend because of primarily two things:

1: I think he is the best/most successful modern stage racer.

2: His racing style.

About which period are we speaking then?

 

[Akuryo]

Valverde
Cadel (World Championship = or + important)
Schleck Jr.
...

Wow, if we only take palmares to determine what a legend is, than Cadel with one Tour and one World Championship can be called a "legend", what about Boonen/Cancellara? Are they super-hyper-ultra-legends? Boonen has 4x PR, 3x Ronde + 1x Worlds. Cancellara has 3x each Ronde and PR, 4x TT-Worlds and 1x San Remo. That should be more worthy of the status "legend" than Evans and Valverde combined! And I took only the victories and not their countless second/third places in those races.

 

[SergeDeM]

Valverde
Cadel (World Championship = or + important)
Schleck Jr.
...

Valverde = 1 VE, 2 monuments.
Cadel = 1 TDF, 1 WC.
Andy Schleck = 1 TDF, 1 monument.

Contador = 1 GI, 2 TDF, 2 VE.

Even if I thought palmares was the only measure -which I dont- I fail to see how any of these palmares are more legen... dary than Contador's.

 

[Netserk]

About which period are we speaking then?

Same definition as jens_attacks. Post Bernard Tapie.

 

[Angliru]

To become a true legend, you need to rank among the best of all time. Being simply better than your contemporaries is not enough.

In your opinion.

 

[skidmark]

How you win is exactly why contador will go down in history. Fuente de they'll be talking about 20 years from now. I can't think if any other moment in gts the last few years that will have such long term impact.

Yeah, exactly. He's most interesting when he's on the back foot. Fuente De aside, who actually thinks the short stage to Alpe D'Huez in 2011 would have been remotely as exciting without him? Heck, even Andy Schleck's epic ride to the Galibier that year happened because Contador destroyed things on a wet descent of a cat 2 a few days before; otherwise Andy could have ridden conservatively. Even Contador is usually afraid enough on the biggest stage of the Tour to ride cautiously, unless he is behind, like in 2011 or 2013.

That's one reason it's sad that he crashed out this year; in 2011 he was unsuccessful because he was dead from the crazy Giro, in 2012 in Spain he was unsuccessful before Fuente De because he just didn't have his top form back. Same with 2013 (remember the descent of the Alpe?) But in the Tour 2014, he was in tip top shape, so he would have just kept attacking and attacking to get his 2:30 back on Nibali. And Nibali is incredible at riding within limits, anticipating tactics, and descending. So it would have been an insane battle.

Anyway, in the overall discussion, yes of course Contador will never be as great an overall rider as Merckx and Hinault, due to their ability to operate at a high level on one-day races and in GC battles. That's fine, it doesn't mean he's not an all-time legend, so I don't get the tone of the OP that 'he's not that great'. He's had an incredible career, and talking about him as a comparable GC rider to Merckx, Hinault, Anquetil, Coppi, etc seems totally appropriate to me.

 

[Angliru]

PS: Why are Contador fans so defensive? Their default attitude is to call me a liar and/or a troll.

Someone says Contador wasn't that dominant after all? Must be a troll.
Someone says other riders were better? Must be a troll.
Someone says Contador's competition was weak in certain GTs? Must be a troll.

And it is always thus.

To me, this stinks of fanboyist denial.

Why are you generalizing? Not everyone that has posted to this thread has called you a troll or a liar. Is it your intent to incite and provoke or to debate the merits of Contador's accomplishments? Your post could lead one to believe that your intent was do the former more than the latter.

 

[Arredondo]

Same definition as jens_attacks. Post Bernard Tapie.

I will not deny that then

Of course Contador is a legend. You can win big races, but winning big races and being religion on a bike, makes that extra step to a true legend.

Contador had something in common with Pantani in that they are both more then just turning that pedals as hard as you can. It's about a identity of a country, about passion, about showing your weak side too. And about entertaining the crowds, which is basically what sport is about. Most cyclist forgot that, luckily Contador don't.

 

[BigMac]

Valverde = 1 VE, 2 monuments.
Cadel = 1 TDF, 1 WC.
Andy Schleck = 1 TDF, 1 monument.

Contador = 1 GI, 2 TDF, 2 VE.

Even if I thought palmares was the only measure -which I dont- I fail to see how any of these palmares are more legen... dary than Contador's.

Only two of those. I don't think Schleck is. I have explained why I consider Cadel and Valverde more legendary than Contador. I'd prefer to win the World Championship over any amount of Grand Tour's there is. And I don't think I am the only one. I would switch two L-B-L over a serious amount of Grand Tours. And I don't think I am the only one. And regarding this last case, Valverde, If there is any doubt from me on how he ranks against Contador regarding legendary status, I said that Alejandro winning this year's WC would make it clear.

Why are you generalizing? Not everyone that has posted to this thread has called you a troll or a liar. Is it your intent to incite and provoke or to debate the merits of Contador's accomplishments? Your post could lead one to believe that your intent was do the former more than the latter.

He clearly stated Contador fans (read fanboys), of course not everyone posting in this thread.

 

[Arredondo]

Only two of those. I don't think Schleck is. I have explained why I consider Cadel and Valverde more legendary than Contador. I'd prefer to win the World Championship over any amount of Grand Tour's there is. And I don't think I am the only one. I would switch two L-B-L over a serious amount of Grand Tours. And I don't think I am the only one. And regarding this last case, Valverde, If there is any doubt from me on how he ranks against Contador regarding legendary status, I said that Alejandro winning this year's WC would make it clear.

I can't point one single argument shich shows Valverde is more of a legend (or a legend at all) then Contador.

- He's a boring personality of the bike
- He shows for many years now that he's a made GT rider, nothing really special. It's an insult to Contador to have him compared with Valverde
- He's won a couple of nice classics, true, but not the amount which makes him a legend.
- He's just a cyclist who doesn't bring joy in a race. If he's there, OK, if not, nobody wil bother (expect the fans).

 

[Red Rick]

Only two of those. I don't think Schleck is. I have explained why I consider Cadel and Valverde more legendary than Contador. I'd prefer to win the World Championship over any amount of Grand Tour's there is. And I don't think I am the only one. I would switch two L-B-L over a serious amount of Grand Tours. And I don't think I am the only one. And regarding this last case, Valverde, If there is any doubt from me on how he ranks against Contador regarding legendary status, I said that Alejandro winning this year's WC would make it clear.



He clearly stated Contador fans (read fanboys), of course not everyone posting in this thread.

You'd rather have the riding style and palmares of Simon Gerrans than those of Alberto Contador?

 

[BigMac]

I can't point one single argument shich shows Valverde is more of a legend (or a legend at all) then Contador.

- He's a boring personality of the bike
- He shows for many years now that he's a made GT rider, nothing really special. It's an insult to Contador to have him compared with Valverde
- He's won a couple of nice classics, true, but not the amount which makes him a legend.
- He's just a cyclist who doesn't bring joy in a race. If he's there, OK, if not, nobody wil bother (expect the fans).

Of course, a matter of opinion. I'm sure many, not only the fans, find Valverde a great rider and one which does bring joy to the race. I am indifferent to Contador, and his presence (or not), in whatever race it is, doesn't get my attention. The same could be said about Purito - I'm sure you think he doesn't apply to your first and last points, but I for one, do. I think he is quite irritating as a rider and somewhat boring. If you could elaborate on your second point, I'd be thankful, because I'm not sure if I understand it right.

 

[SergeDeM]

Only two of those. I don't think Schleck is. I have explained why I consider Cadel and Valverde more legendary than Contador. I'd prefer to win the World Championship over any amount of Grand Tour's there is. And I don't think I am the only one. I would switch two L-B-L over a serious amount of Grand Tours. And I don't think I am the only one. And regarding this last case, Valverde, If there is any doubt from me on how he ranks against Contador regarding legendary status, I said that Alejandro winning this year's WC would make it clear.

Valverde won't be remembered and will never be mentioned with the likes of Coppi and Hinault. Contador will. Heck, he already is mentioned with those legends as one of them by most. What you prefer is a rider's palmares is irrelevant. Modern cycling only allows for multiple GT wins or multiple monument wins, not both.

Bonus question. Is Indurain a legend? I know in Spain and Latin America he is.

He clearly stated Contador fans (read fanboys), of course not everyone posting in this thread.

I called him a troll but I'm not a fanboy. He's trolling us quite successfully I might add.

 

[icefire]

2010 Tour de France: He's been stripped of it, but let's have a look at it nevertheless. The asterisk on this one is pretty big: he won the race thanks to the Chaingate episode. Whether it was a malicious, deliberate attack or a serendipitous coincidence, a true cycling legend doesn't win simply because he attacked his rival when he had a mechanical.

The asterisk here is actually on the official winner in the books. One of his teammates neutralised stage 2 when he was 4 minutes behind Menchov and 2 minutes behind Contador. Interestingly, that same teammate forgot to neutralise stage 3 after everyone but 6 riders were blocked on the road due to a crash involving the winner's brother.

 

[Miburo]

Once again this person posted inaccurate information and ignored information essential for most of his arguments. And his conclusions were rather ridiculous.

So either he's an idiot that doesn't know what he's talking about or he's a troll for ignoring it on purpose.

This isn't me being mean, or defensive, i'm just telling the truth.

You can say there's no need for name calling and i definitely don't need it for my argument but that's my conclusion to his opening post, if he can prove me wrong i'll apologize.

I don't get it why people are always mad when you call them that. Not my fault that he posted this, i didn't force him to do it. If you can't handle it, then look up your information so that you won't look like a fool.

This is what i hate about journalists, their information is many times inaccurate. It annoys me to no end, i won't sugarcoat for the sake of someone's feelings.

 

[BigMac]

You'd rather have the riding style and palmares of Simon Gerrans than those of Alberto Contador?

I don't know how you got that impression as such is not even implied in my post. In no way Valverde and Cadel resemble Gerrans.

 

[Red Rick]

I don't know how you got that impression as such is not even implied in my post. In no way Valverde and Cadel resemble Gerrans.

You'd take 2LBL's over a serious amount of GT wins. I was assuming you meant that you'd also take one LBL and one MSR (2 completely different classics, different qualities needed, more alround right?) over a serious amount of GT's, which would imply you'd take Gerrans' palmares over Contador's

 

[SergeDeM]

You'd take 2LBL's over a serious amount of GT wins. I was assuming you meant that you'd also take one LBL and one MSR (2 completely different classics, different qualities needed, more alround right?) over a serious amount of GT's, which would imply you'd take Gerrans' palmares over Contador's

I'd like to see how much Tinkov would offer Gerrans and compare that to Contador's paycheck