Why Alberto Contador will never be a champion for the ages

[kingjr]

Contador is definitely a legend, but for me Valverde qualifies too, because I think he's pretty much the best bike-rider out there. Not in terms of GC-results, but in terms of his range and consistency throughout the year (6 times over 2000 cq-points in his last 7 racing-years, 4 times WC-Podium, could have been 5 if he hadn't led out Freire for his third). And because I love his riding style.
And because of one of my favourite moments since I watch cycling, Courchevel 2005
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YczUgIbP91A

And this of course

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgrX7D0mRqo

 

[Publicus]

Perhaps this is what cycling forums are supposed to be about, but this thread seems only driven by the OP's desire to prove that his opinion is correct. He starts with the premise that Contador is not a legend primarily because (1) he's not won a classic or monument and (2) his GT wins are not dominate. Those two things, in and of themselves, do not a legend make.

Merckx is not a legend because he won a classic or a GT, it was the sheer number of victories and his utter domination of cycling during his era. I've never gone back and examined who Merckx beat for each race or his winning margin, because those things don't matter IMO whether he is a legend. I know of him, not because I've watched him, but because he's exploits precede him (i.e., they are legendary).

Merckx is a legend, but he is not the standard for defining someone a legend. Their actions and exploits in their respective field against their competition/foes when viewed by others are what ultimately will make an individual a legend.

So to the OP's credit, s/he's right that Contador has never won a classic or a monument and likely never will. With the exception of the 2009 TdF and the 2011 Giro d'Italia, he's not won GT's by multiple minute margins. I still watch the climb to Verbier and Arcalis. Etna. His spectacular implosion at the 2009 Paris Nice and resurgence the very next day. Fuente De. His utter domination of the 2011 Giro field. How gutted I felt when he crashed out of the 2014 TdF. How proud I was that he kept fighting during the 2011 and 2013 TdF because he'd rather risk it all to win than race to secure 2nd place.

You go ahead and talk about what he hasn't done and why he isn't Merckx or someone else from cycling's past, or critique him for not winning more convincingly. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy whatever remains of his legendary career.

 

[Arredondo]

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.

1) I think Valverde is a great rider. 2) Of course the fact if you think someone brings joy to a race is bounded if you're fan or not.

I am indifferent to Contador, and his presence (or not), in whatever race it is, doesn't get my attention.

I'm partly indifferent in terms of Contador. If he isn't there, i will not miss him in the sense most of the people here do. For me, the race doesn't get more disappointing. But on the other hand, i'm glad if he's there, because he's a guy who always fight and one of the few who attacks to win. Cycling is better with him then without.

You can see what you want of Valverde, he's a calculating rider who doesn't like to take much risk (just as Purito).

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 i'm looking at Purito, i can even understand some of Netserk's hate towards him. I had moments where i was irrated too, like the stage to the Stelvio. Of course i know that as a rider, he's not the most spectaculair rider. He's a little bit of a profiteur ofcourse. He's not a Contador. Cycling can miss Purito really well. And i bet 50% (or even more) of the forum doesn't bother if he's attending this Vuelta or not.

But what triggers me about Purito is that i think he's got great charisma of the bike, and enjoys every moment in the spotlight (just look at him how he celebrates victories at the podium). He's also got a good opinion in interviews and good insights and humor. I also like him because he's a top rider in GT's and classics. And ik like him because he wins, and mostly loses beautifully.

But hey, that's part of being a fan (just like you with Valverde), at a certain point we start to think the given cyclist is the best in the world and cycling can't without them

If you could elaborate on your second point, I'd be thankful, because I'm not sure if I understand it right.

I think that Contador as a GT rider is so above anyone else who has ridden in the period 2007-2014 (expect Quintana, who is coming up), that he's a legend already at that point. Like i said, i don't think Valverde has won enough monuments to be called a legend, and his results in GT's (how good they are) are also not on a level that's from a legend.

 

[BigMac]

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.

He won't be remembered by me, at least the way I do with Valverde and Evans. Note that the OP is trying to be more objective than I, as I don't think he would label Valverde or Cadel legendary, according to his standards. I am going over a more personal point-of-view (in what I considered to be a more important/prestigious race (not what riders I prefer due to fanboyism)) based on the original argument - which I think is valid - that in order to be considered a legend alongside the likes of Merckx, Hinault and others, Contador lacks at least a victory in a monument or greater classic. As to modern cycling only allowing for either multiple GT wins or multiple monument wins, not both, I think it is baloney. I strongly believe Nibali is able to win at least a couple of monuments.

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

Perhaps, yes.

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

He's not trolling but making a valid point which indeed goes against the opinion of the majority, which means nothing.

 

[Jagartrott]

Perhaps this is what cycling forums are supposed to be about, but this thread seems only driven by the OP's desire to prove that his opinion is correct. He starts with the premise that Contador is not a legend primarily because (1) he's not won a classic or monument and (2) his GT wins are not dominate. Those two things, in and of themselves, do not a legend make.

Merckx is not a legend because he won a classic or a GT, it was the sheer number of victories and his utter domination of cycling during his era. I've never gone back and examined who Merckx beat for each race or his winning margin, because those things don't matter IMO whether he is a legend. I know of him, not because I've watched him, but because he's exploits precede him (i.e., they are legendary).

Merckx is a legend, but he is not the standard for defining someone a legend. Their actions and exploits in their respective field against their competition/foes when viewed by others are what ultimately will make an individual a legend.

So to the OP's credit, s/he's right that Contador has never won a classic or a monument and likely never will. With the exception of the 2009 TdF and the 2011 Giro d'Italia, he's not won GT's by multiple minute margins. I still watch the climb to Verbier and Arcalis. Etna. His spectacular implosion at the 2009 Paris Nice and resurgence the very next day. Fuente De. His utter domination of the 2011 Giro field. How gutted I felt when he crashed out of the 2014 TdF. How proud I was that he kept fighting during the 2011 and 2013 TdF because he'd rather risk it all to win than race to secure 2nd place.

You go ahead and talk about what he hasn't done and why he isn't Merckx or someone else from cycling's past, or critique him for not winning more convincingly. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy whatever remains of his legendary career.

This is a good post.
But my question: do you not think Contador should once try to win a monument, or the WC? I think he should, and I think he could win - especially if they also change the MSR parcours (if you can peak for Paris-Nice, you can do the same for MSR).

 

[BigMac]

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 take Gerran's palmares (the two monuments) over some of Contador's Grand Tours, yes. I would not take Gerran's riding style over Contador's. The other difference between Gerrans and Cadel and Valverde is that both latter have won a Grand Tour. And whilst Gerrans is not the rider to win Grand Tours, he is not what most would call a classics specialist either (read Cancellara, Boonen, Gilbert) nor did he achieve as much, so I look at him differentely (in that, as I wrote before, I consider those three legendary).

 

[SergeDeM]

He won't be remembered by me, at least the way I do with Valverde and Evans. Note that the OP is trying to be more objective than me, as I don't think he would label Valverde or Cadel legendary, according to his standards. I am going over a more personal point-of-view (in what I considered to be a more important/prestigious racen (not what riders I prefer due to on fanboyism)) based on the original argument - which I think is valid - that in order to be considered a legend alongside the likes of Merckx, Hinault and others, Contador lacks at least a victory in a monument or greater classic. As to modern cycling only allowing for either multiple GT wins or multiple monument wins, not both, I think it is baloney. I strongly believe Nibali is able to win at least a couple of monuments.

Basically there are no standards for defining a cycling legend. Each one of us has his own, but if we were all to submit lists we'd find Contador on most of them. Let's leave it at "He's a legend for most fans". No reasoning on palamares, style, panache or whatever is going to change that.
I don't think we'll see multiple GT and monument winners anytime soon but I do hope Nibali proves me wrong.

Perhaps, yes.

No monuments. There are no set rules for being a legend.

He's not trolling but making a valid point which indeed goes against the opinion of the majority, which means nothing.

I still think it's the opinion of the majority that validates whether someone is legendary or not. For me Herrera is legendary but he's probably not on most people's lists so I wouldn't start a thread saying "Why Herrera will always be legendary".

 

[Petr_H.s.k.]

No matter, what you say... the answer is: because he already is.

 

[Publicus]

This is a good post.
But my question: do you not think Contador should once try to win a monument, or the WC? I think he should, and I think he could win - especially if they also change the MSR parcours (if you can peak for Paris-Nice, you can do the same for MSR).

It honestly wouldn't change how I view him. If he finds a course (classic/WC) that is suitable for his characteristics/strengths and can pull off a win, then that's just one more feather in the cap IMO. Of course, if the course is changed to suit his characteristics/strengths more, some will argue that he didn't "really" win a classic/WC because the course was different than in the past.

 

[the sceptic]

pretty impressive that such an obvious troll op has gathered so many replies.

 

[BigMac]

pretty impressive that such an obvious troll op has gathered so many replies.

Go complain in the Moderators thread, go, go.

 

[djpbaltimore]

I also don't think Contador will go down as one of the all time greats in my book. He is definitely the best GT rider of his generation but I think his racing CV is not quite diverse enough to warrant a place on the top tier of cycling immortals. IMO, winning the TDF 5 times is a much greater feat than winning all three GTs in a career, so I would even rate Contador behind Indurain.

As Nibali has demonstrated in recent years, winning a monument is much easier said than done. But Nibali has animated so many of those races that I give him credit for his consistently strong placings. As for Contador in the classics.... crickets chirping... And to me, that is a hole in his resume. Not the fact that he hasn't won a big one day race, but the fact that he has very rarely even been noticeable in them. This seems like a minor point, but when you are talking about the best of all time, this seems to me like a valid argument to make.

I would've kept the 2007 TDF in the OP. It is one of the rarest of TDFs in the modern era where the strongest rider on the road (Rasmussen) did not win. People talk about Contador's bad luck in the TDF, but many gloss over this stroke of good fortune.

I also feel that the legend of Contador often outstrips the reality. Last year, it was a common refrain to hear that Contador would risk his place on the podium to try a heroic long range attack because victory was his only goal. Of course, he proceeds to act more like Valverde, racing to defend his podium place more than victory. The fact that he was beaten so soundly in his prime is another small demerit in his account.

Overall, Contador is a supremely gifted bike racer and champion, but his relative place in history seems like a legitimate debate. And one that probably could be better served without the personal sniping.

 

[LaFlorecita]

pretty impressive that such an obvious troll op has gathered so many replies.

I must admit I don't think Contador is a legend either, well imo he is but objectively he isn't. But the OP is a troll still some interesting discussion in here. Not sure what to think of BigMac's reasoning that Valverde and Cuddle are more legendary than Berto.

 

[senatorrick]

I'm going to dismiss the O.P comments completely, simply because Contador's career is still ongoing! I'll be back after he retires! And I have a strong feeling the O.P may be Armstrong or Andy

 

[LaFlorecita]

I also don't think Contador will go down as one of the all time greats in my book. He is definitely the best GT rider of his generation but I think his racing CV is not quite diverse enough to warrant a place on the top tier of cycling immortals. IMO, winning the TDF 5 times is a much greater feat than winning all three GTs in a career, so I would even rate Contador behind Indurain.

As Nibali has demonstrated in recent years, winning a monument is much easier said than done. But Nibali has animated so many of those races that I give him credit for his consistently strong placings. As for Contador in the classics.... crickets chirping... And to me, that is a hole in his resume. Not the fact that he hasn't won a big one day race, but the fact that he has very rarely even been noticeable in them. This seems like a minor point, but when you are talking about the best of all time, this seems to me like a valid argument to make.

I would've kept the 2007 TDF in the OP. It is one of the rarest of TDFs in the modern era where the strongest rider on the road (Rasmussen) did not win. People talk about Contador's bad luck in the TDF, but many gloss over this stroke of good fortune.

I also feel that the legend of Contador often outstrips the reality. Last year, it was a common refrain to hear that Contador would risk his place on the podium to try a heroic long range attack because victory was his only goal. Of course, he proceeds to act more like Valverde, racing to defend his podium place more than victory. The fact that he was beaten so soundly in his prime is another small demerit in his account.

Overall, Contador is a supremely gifted bike racer and champion, but his relative place in history seems like a legitimate debate. And one that probably could be better served without the personal sniping.

1st bolded part: maybe you hardly ever notice him because he almost never races 1-day races?

2nd bolded part: 1 lucky year vs 8 unlucky years. Hmm.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I'm going to dismiss the O.P comments completely, simply because Contador's career is still ongoing! I'll be back after he retires! And I have a strong feeling the O.P may be Armstrong or Andy

That would be interesting

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Other than serving as a monument to the OP's ignorance, why is this thread still around?

 

[senatorrick]

Other than serving as a monument to the OP's ignorance, why is this thread still around?

Total Troll thread!! Nothing more nothing less

 

[Arredondo]

Total Troll thread!! Nothing more nothing less

You can discuss about it. Actually it's quite interesting question. The arguments of the OP are ****, but not the essential question.

 

[djpbaltimore]

1st bolded part: maybe you hardly ever notice him because he almost never races 1-day races?

2nd bolded part: 1 lucky year vs 8 unlucky years. Hmm.

The first is a ‘chicken or the egg’ argument. Does he not get good results because he is not frequently racing in them or is he not racing in them because he does not expect to get good results. His WC race last year was not very memorable considering the parcours. Of course, YMMV.

I think the bad luck argument is slightly overblown. What was his bad luck in 2011? That he chose to ride the Giro beforehand? That he chose not to follow Schleck’s attack?

 

[senatorrick]

You can discuss about it. Actually it's quite interesting question. The arguments of the OP are ****, but not the essential question.

Yes fine to discuss his career to date, but that can be done I. The Contador thread but to already dismiss him as a legend when he's still racing is bull crap

 

[Netserk]

The first is a ‘chicken or the egg’ argument. Does he not get good results because he is not frequently racing in them or is he not racing in them because he not does not expect to get good results. His WC race last year was not very memorable considering the parcours. Of course, YMMV.

I think the bad luck argument is slightly overblown. What was his bad luck in 2011? That he chose to ride the Giro beforehand? That he chose not to follow Schleck’s attack?

That Karpets crashed him? That he got injured? His time loss in the first stage?

 

[HyperMartin]

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.

What makes you think your apology is desired, or even worth anything? Your wanton use of childish insults speaks far more about you than about me.

 

[LaFlorecita]

The first is a ‘chicken or the egg’ argument. Does he not get good results because he is not frequently racing in them or is he not racing in them because he not does not expect to get good results.

Bit of both I think the latter is the case, which results into the former

His WC race last year was not very memorable considering the parcours. Of course, YMMV.

He was working for Piti and Purito

I think the bad luck argument is slightly overblown. What was his bad luck in 2011? That he chose to ride the Giro beforehand? That he chose not to follow Schleck’s attack?

That he crashed 10000000 times, got elbowed to the ground by a big Russian with a mullet, and lost over 1 minute on the very first stage because of a crash

 

[Angliru]

Simply put, he peaked too early.

...and Cadel peaked too late.