I am wondering, if someone had similar thoughts. Winning TDF has been always considered the highest achievement in cycling. There is no doubt Froome is the best grandtour rider now. Despite unable winning TDF Sagan is considered to be the best rider. What do you think about it?
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Winning TDF vs being the best rider
- Thread starter animir
- Start date
are you refering to the world tour ranking?
purito and valverde won it several times and they didn't win the tour.
purito and valverde won it several times and they didn't win the tour.
Re:
Of course it is also one possibility to measure achievements in cycling, but it was not my intention in this post.
I was rather thinking about best race vs best rider and some possible contradiction, e. g. the best rider is someone else, or the best race is not the best anymore.
Sorry for the question being posted unter the poll and not above it.
carolina said:
Of course it is also one possibility to measure achievements in cycling, but it was not my intention in this post.
I was rather thinking about best race vs best rider and some possible contradiction, e. g. the best rider is someone else, or the best race is not the best anymore.
Sorry for the question being posted unter the poll and not above it.
Has winning the TDF always been considered the pinnacle of cycling and thus the winner being rated the worlds best cyclist?
Personally I don't think it has and only someone who is a July fan would consider it so these days, Froome has been good this season but Sagan has been winning races right through the season including some pretty big races so I'd rate him higher than Froome at this point.
Personally I don't think it has and only someone who is a July fan would consider it so these days, Froome has been good this season but Sagan has been winning races right through the season including some pretty big races so I'd rate him higher than Froome at this point.
I think GT courses should sometimes not be filled with MTFs, to the point that Sagan could win one.
Re:
I disagree. Well, it would be welcomed not to fill it with MTFs like it has been recently, but France, Spain and Italy have big mountains and so they need to be included. GT's, and all stage races, should represent the geography of the country.
On the thread: TdF is the biggest race and the race most strive to win. Some years, the winner of the race can definitely be considered the best cyclist on the planet, but more often than not, thats not the case IMO. Sagan is the best rider in the peloton today hands down and riders like Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde and maybe even Rod has been the best rider in the world for a period without winning the TdF. You don't even have to be the best stage racer to win the race - Sastre, fx.
TMP402 said:
I disagree. Well, it would be welcomed not to fill it with MTFs like it has been recently, but France, Spain and Italy have big mountains and so they need to be included. GT's, and all stage races, should represent the geography of the country.
On the thread: TdF is the biggest race and the race most strive to win. Some years, the winner of the race can definitely be considered the best cyclist on the planet, but more often than not, thats not the case IMO. Sagan is the best rider in the peloton today hands down and riders like Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde and maybe even Rod has been the best rider in the world for a period without winning the TdF. You don't even have to be the best stage racer to win the race - Sastre, fx.
Re: Re:
Fine, but sometimes older GTs didn't have so much climbing and non-climbers or GT contenders could sometimes win. For instance, Maertens winning the '77 Vuelta.
Valv.Piti said:
Fine, but sometimes older GTs didn't have so much climbing and non-climbers or GT contenders could sometimes win. For instance, Maertens winning the '77 Vuelta.
Re: Re:
But is that preferable? I mean, would it be more interesting to watch? Maybe.TMP402 said:
Maertens is a bad example as he was going to win Giro in the same year if he didn't crashed out (His domestique Pollentier won Giro that year). That dude was just a freak.
And no, Tour winner is often not the best cyclist in that year. Ex: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 (?), 2014, 2015 (?), 2016
And no, Tour winner is often not the best cyclist in that year. Ex: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 (?), 2014, 2015 (?), 2016
I agree with the consensus opinion in this thread that cycling achievement is subjective and only truly exists in the hearts and minds of the fans. Winning the tour is meaningless if you aren't popular.
Re:
Then substitute Maertens for Kelly in the 80s - yes he was a freak too. But maybe Sagan and even GVA are also freaks and could prove it if given a chance.
burning said:
Then substitute Maertens for Kelly in the 80s - yes he was a freak too. But maybe Sagan and even GVA are also freaks and could prove it if given a chance.
Re: Re:
Well, the battle between GT contenders and versatile riders who can win flat finishes would interesting to me at least. The fact is that Froome would probably start favourite on even the flattest TDF in decades, but unlike the present GT format - which you can easily divide into [flat stages for sprinters or the break] and [stages with some significance for the GC], every stage would count in a flattish GT: if Sagan won a sprint, that could be of great consequence to his chances. If Sagan won, say, four flat stages, the climbers would then have to do their best on modest climbs to claw back the 40 seconds. I'll admit this idea is, unless there were often crosswinds, likely to lead to people only tuning in for the last five minutes.
Valv.Piti said:
Well, the battle between GT contenders and versatile riders who can win flat finishes would interesting to me at least. The fact is that Froome would probably start favourite on even the flattest TDF in decades, but unlike the present GT format - which you can easily divide into [flat stages for sprinters or the break] and [stages with some significance for the GC], every stage would count in a flattish GT: if Sagan won a sprint, that could be of great consequence to his chances. If Sagan won, say, four flat stages, the climbers would then have to do their best on modest climbs to claw back the 40 seconds. I'll admit this idea is, unless there were often crosswinds, likely to lead to people only tuning in for the last five minutes.
Re: Re:
For me the race is always better, if more riders or different types of riders have a chance. Olympic road race was a good example of hard climbing in a hard race. Despite it was expected to be only for climbers, it was won by a classics rider. Of course crashes had its influence but the race was already hard before the climbs and together with smaller teams it weakend the climbers a bit, so that also riders like GVA had their change. I would welcome if there are more races or stages like that. Maybe even grandtour, which would be not only for climbers, although even in this case nibali would be still the top favorite as he is a very good climber and has the stamina of classics riders.
TMP402 said:
For me the race is always better, if more riders or different types of riders have a chance. Olympic road race was a good example of hard climbing in a hard race. Despite it was expected to be only for climbers, it was won by a classics rider. Of course crashes had its influence but the race was already hard before the climbs and together with smaller teams it weakend the climbers a bit, so that also riders like GVA had their change. I would welcome if there are more races or stages like that. Maybe even grandtour, which would be not only for climbers, although even in this case nibali would be still the top favorite as he is a very good climber and has the stamina of classics riders.
Re:
2015 is not (?), 2007 is, and 2010 maybe, if you consider Contador the winner of that Tour
burning said:
2015 is not (?), 2007 is, and 2010 maybe, if you consider Contador the winner of that Tour
For 2015: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30325
For 2010, the best rider is Cancellara and I would say it is not close at all.
2007 indeed deserves a question mark as nobody stands out in that year, but I would say Killer has the best year in 2007.
For 2010, the best rider is Cancellara and I would say it is not close at all.
2007 indeed deserves a question mark as nobody stands out in that year, but I would say Killer has the best year in 2007.
Re:
I think some GTs should be about translating so that I have a chance to win one too. It's only fair.TMP402 said:
You want to make GT's winnable for non climbers, then you should get rid of the GC altogether. It is completely logical that the biggest time differences are made on big mountains, so a balanced parcours in absolute terms will always be won by a rider can climb well. Clasic riders can win classics, sprinters get sprints, yada yada yada. And no, winning the Tour doesn't make you the best rider in the world. It makes you the TdF winner. Any specialization of rider can be the among the best in the world if they're good enough at what they do. Doesn't mean every type of rider should be able to win the TdF. That is absolutely garbage reasoning of the highest order.
Re: Re:
[/quote]
I think some GTs should be about translating so that I have a chance to win one too. It's only fair.[/quote]
Mountain tops belongs to GTs but I still think it can be done maybe differently.
If you have an easy stage and than a hard mountain top, than it is the stage or race for the best climbers.
But if the climbers have to race hard before the climbs maybe on some classics like terrain, than being a good climber is not enough and also another riders have some chance to limit their losses, or even win.
[/quote]
I think some GTs should be about translating so that I have a chance to win one too. It's only fair.[/quote]
Mountain tops belongs to GTs but I still think it can be done maybe differently.
If you have an easy stage and than a hard mountain top, than it is the stage or race for the best climbers.
But if the climbers have to race hard before the climbs maybe on some classics like terrain, than being a good climber is not enough and also another riders have some chance to limit their losses, or even win.
The Tour is about being the best overall rider. You have the right to dislike Froome, but you can't deny he isn't the most complete rider in the peloton atm. For sure, Sagan is the most entertaining one and really allround too, but Froome can TT, ride on the flat, riding in the wind and climb like a true boss.
For sure he can't sprint, like Sagan, but i think a Tour de France should be about the combination climbing + TT'ing + handle the flat stages well. Without being a decent climber (let's say among the best 10 climbers in a race), you should not win a race like the Tour imo.
For sure he can't sprint, like Sagan, but i think a Tour de France should be about the combination climbing + TT'ing + handle the flat stages well. Without being a decent climber (let's say among the best 10 climbers in a race), you should not win a race like the Tour imo.
Of course you can be the best rider without winning the tour. I wasn't a cycling fan then, but I would guess that Indurain was regarded as the best cyclist during his Giro-Tour double years. Pantani probably the same for 98. Aside from those years and maybe some of the Armstrong years the best cyclist was probably not a tour winner. You more or less have to win two GTs in one year or win a GT+ a monument/worlds to be considered the best cyclist in the world as a grand tour contender.
Re:
Sure you can:
-Better climber? Froome
-Better TTer? Froome
-Better sprinter? Sagan
-Better cobbles rider? Sagan
-Better at short climbs? Sagan
-Better at medium climbs? Froome
Just because the Tour/GTs weigh Froome strengths more than Sagan's does not mean he is the better overall rider.
Arredondo said:
Sure you can:
-Better climber? Froome
-Better TTer? Froome
-Better sprinter? Sagan
-Better cobbles rider? Sagan
-Better at short climbs? Sagan
-Better at medium climbs? Froome
Just because the Tour/GTs weigh Froome strengths more than Sagan's does not mean he is the better overall rider.
myrideissteelerthanyours said:
Wiggins couldn't win PR but did win the Tour, so classics are more elite.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 24K
-
Tour Down Under 2025 - Men's (Jan. 21-26)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 276
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram