Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Greatest British Cyclist

1356789

Posts

  • For years GB means nothing in road cycling and to compensate people had to imagine olympics and stuff means something.

    Ask any non GB person who the biggest GB cyclist ever is, 99,99999% will answer Froome.


    I think you're still living in a Tour bubble

    The viewing stats for Brits watching the Tour are still miniscule compared to the viewing figures for say the London Olympics. Your stat works for Wiggins, not for Froome

    Furthermore, the mud thrown around during the Tour about Froome doping...some of it is sticking, far from everyone is following the 'the French are just being sore losers' shizz. Since I got back from France on Monday, I've had mate after mate asking me if I think Froome dopes. None of them are going on about what a great ride he put in, all they want to talk about is whether he's a doper.

    Would they not be doing that whoever won, especially if the English press was making a big deal about the winner?



    No, I dont think so. Nibali last year - whoosh, passed them all by.

    The point is, there was SO much media coverage of it, that its become - for some, or for many - THE talking point. So yeah, some of the mud seems to be sticking. Might disappear over time, but its fresh now.
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,912
    For years GB means nothing in road cycling and to compensate people had to imagine olympics and stuff means something.

    Ask any non GB person who the biggest GB cyclist ever is, 99,99999% will answer Froome.


    I think you're still living in a Tour bubble

    The viewing stats for Brits watching the Tour are still miniscule compared to the viewing figures for say the London Olympics. Your stat works for Wiggins, not for Froome

    Furthermore, the mud thrown around during the Tour about Froome doping...some of it is sticking, far from everyone is following the 'the French are just being sore losers' shizz. Since I got back from France on Monday, I've had mate after mate asking me if I think Froome dopes. None of them are going on about what a great ride he put in, all they want to talk about is whether he's a doper.

    Would they not be doing that whoever won, especially if the English press was making a big deal about the winner?



    No, I dont think so. Nibali last year - whoosh, passed them all by.

    The point is, there was SO much media coverage of it, that its become - for some, or for many - THE talking point. So yeah, some of the mud seems to be sticking. Might disappear over time, but its fresh now.

    Proper mud only sticks with proper evidence… Even the loudest echo fades before long.
    Then you're just left with these guys…
    2LRTKs2.jpg
  • For years GB means nothing in road cycling and to compensate people had to imagine olympics and stuff means something.

    Ask any non GB person who the biggest GB cyclist ever is, 99,99999% will answer Froome.


    I think you're still living in a Tour bubble

    The viewing stats for Brits watching the Tour are still miniscule compared to the viewing figures for say the London Olympics. Your stat works for Wiggins, not for Froome

    Furthermore, the mud thrown around during the Tour about Froome doping...some of it is sticking, far from everyone is following the 'the French are just being sore losers' shizz. Since I got back from France on Monday, I've had mate after mate asking me if I think Froome dopes. None of them are going on about what a great ride he put in, all they want to talk about is whether he's a doper.

    Would they not be doing that whoever won, especially if the English press was making a big deal about the winner?



    No, I dont think so. Nibali last year - whoosh, passed them all by.

    The point is, there was SO much media coverage of it, that its become - for some, or for many - THE talking point. So yeah, some of the mud seems to be sticking. Might disappear over time, but its fresh now.

    Proper mud only sticks with proper evidence… Even the loudest echo fades before long.
    Then you're just left with these guys…
    2LRTKs2.jpg




    And that indeed might happen. Assuming nothing does emerge. Just that its a bit on the fresh and smelly side right now.
  • frenchfighterfrenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Top four seems reasonable to me. I think you could put Cav, Cooke and Froome in any order 2-4. Wiggo wins by dint of variety and longevity. When Froome wins a bunch sprint I might re-assess things!

    I don't think Burton can be sensibly compared to current riders given the way the sport has changed since her day.
    Utter nonsense, the ONLY way you can compare is to how they perform against their peers.
    BB was and is the greatest British cyclist ever, to suggest not be considered as you do is frankly absurd considering you state Wiggins is the greatest by virtue of longevity and variety !

    Her Palmares dwarf all others both in number and in comparison to her peers (& the men!)and also over vastly greater years.

    She won just a measly SEVEN world champs, five track, two road, medalled in the world champs between 1959 to 1973, the ladies World road races were ridiculously short affairs and she hated the sit in and sprint, so often led the others from the gun, any proper distance would have seen her win a lot more burning off the wheel suckers. If she had had the olympics and stage races to compete in she would have bossed those too despite being in an era were the eastern European ladies were drugged up like crazy.
    There were no time trial world champs either for women which would have added to her tally.

    First women to surpass 25miles/hr, she did the 50 miles/2hr, 100 miles/4 hours and the infamous 277.25 in 12 hours, a distance many would struggle to reach even now.
    Her range from individual pursuit on the track to record holder at 12 hours on the road and everything else inbetween is unparalelled.
    Best British All Rounder for 25 years.
    All whilst being a mum and a housewife and keen gardener whilst winning most of her titles, Burton would have killed the cycling scene these days if she was professional and was a force of nature the likes of which we'll never likely see again.

    Excluding team events & the 25 BBAR titles she had 97 individual wins, as I said that would have being far greater had she had the luxury of Olympics, Commonwealth's, Europeans to ride.
    Her records/titles;
    10 miles -1973 - 21:25
    25 miles -1976 - 53:21
    50 miles -1976 - 1:51:30
    100 miles-1968 -3:55:05

    World Pursuit Champion in 1959/60/62/63/66, (silver '61/64/68, bronze 1966/70/73)

    World Road Champion in 1960 and 1967 (silver '61)

    National Road Champion in 1959/60/63/68/70/71/72/73/74

    National Pursuit Champion in 1960/61/63/65/66/67/68/70/71/72/73/74

    National 25 Champion in 1958, 59, 60, 61, 62, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

    National 50 Champion in 1958, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

    National 100 Champion in 1958, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75

    Thanks for the info - I know very little about Beryl.

    Pretty impressive palmares over a very long period which is even more impressive.

    Question I would have though is what sort of competition was she facing specifically with the Nats titles? Two or three riders?
    Contador is the Greatest
  • frenchfighterfrenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    CYCLING WEEKLY’S ALL-TIME RANKING

    Last update July 26 2015. Ranking will be updated regularly.

    1 Mark Cavendish 3,560 points
    Pro: 2007-present
    2 Chris Froome 3,215 points
    Pro: 2007-present
    3 Robert Millar 2,900 points
    Pro: 1980-1995
    4 Bradley Wiggins 2,710 points
    Pro: 2002-present
    5 Tom Simpson 2,545 points
    Pro: 1958-1967
    6 Chris Boardman 1,965 points
    Pro: 1993-2000
    7 David Millar 1,580 points *
    Pro: 1997-2014
    8 Barry Hoban 1,455 points
    Pro: 1962-1981
    9 Michael Wright 800 points
    Pro: 1962-1976
    10 Max Sciandri 675 points **
    Pro: raced as a British rider 1995-2004
    11 Sean Yates 635 points
    Pro: 1982-1996
    12 Geraint Thomas 630 points
    Pro: 2006-present
    13 Brian Robinson 605 points
    Pro: 1952-1963
    14 Malcolm Elliott 380 points
    Pro: 1984-1997
    15 Ben Swift 300 points
    Pro: 2007-present
    16 Ian Stannard 245 points
    Pro: 2007-present
    17 Roger Hammond 235 points
    Pro: 1998-2011
    18 Jeremy Hunt 230 points
    Pro: 1996-2012
    19 Steve Cummings 220 points
    Pro: 2005-present
    20 Alex Dowsett 200 points
    Pro: 2011-present
    21 Vin Denson 155 points
    Pro: 1959-1969
    22 Alan Ramsbottom 150 points
    Pro: 1961-1966
    23= Graham Jones 120 points
    Pro: 1979-1988
    23= Paul Sherwen 120 points
    Pro: 1978-1987


    Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/british-racing/cycling-weeklys-all-time-ranking-of-british-pro-riders-70858#olzkKSroZcKwmVUq.99
    Contador is the Greatest
  • philbar72philbar72 Posts: 2,228
    Top four seems reasonable to me. I think you could put Cav, Cooke and Froome in any order 2-4. Wiggo wins by dint of variety and longevity. When Froome wins a bunch sprint I might re-assess things!

    I don't think Burton can be sensibly compared to current riders given the way the sport has changed since her day.
    Utter nonsense, the ONLY way you can compare is to how they perform against their peers.
    BB was and is the greatest British cyclist ever, to suggest not be considered as you do is frankly absurd considering you state Wiggins is the greatest by virtue of longevity and variety !

    Her Palmares dwarf all others both in number and in comparison to her peers (& the men!)and also over vastly greater years.

    She won just a measly SEVEN world champs, five track, two road, medalled in the world champs between 1959 to 1973, the ladies World road races were ridiculously short affairs and she hated the sit in and sprint, so often led the others from the gun, any proper distance would have seen her win a lot more burning off the wheel suckers. If she had had the olympics and stage races to compete in she would have bossed those too despite being in an era were the eastern European ladies were drugged up like crazy.
    There were no time trial world champs either for women which would have added to her tally.

    First women to surpass 25miles/hr, she did the 50 miles/2hr, 100 miles/4 hours and the infamous 277.25 in 12 hours, a distance many would struggle to reach even now.
    Her range from individual pursuit on the track to record holder at 12 hours on the road and everything else inbetween is unparalelled.
    Best British All Rounder for 25 years.
    All whilst being a mum and a housewife and keen gardener whilst winning most of her titles, Burton would have killed the cycling scene these days if she was professional and was a force of nature the likes of which we'll never likely see again.

    Excluding team events & the 25 BBAR titles she had 97 individual wins, as I said that would have being far greater had she had the luxury of Olympics, Commonwealth's, Europeans to ride.
    Her records/titles;
    10 miles -1973 - 21:25
    25 miles -1976 - 53:21
    50 miles -1976 - 1:51:30
    100 miles-1968 -3:55:05

    World Pursuit Champion in 1959/60/62/63/66, (silver '61/64/68, bronze 1966/70/73)

    World Road Champion in 1960 and 1967 (silver '61)

    National Road Champion in 1959/60/63/68/70/71/72/73/74

    National Pursuit Champion in 1960/61/63/65/66/67/68/70/71/72/73/74

    National 25 Champion in 1958, 59, 60, 61, 62, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

    National 50 Champion in 1958, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

    National 100 Champion in 1958, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75

    Thanks for the info - I know very little about Beryl.

    Pretty impressive palmares over a very long period which is even more impressive.

    Question I would have though is what sort of competition was she facing specifically with the Nats titles? Two or three riders?


    Contextually she didn’t use any decent aero stuff, this was all a generic steel road bike or sometimes fixed on a given circuit near her. She was amateur, so probably didn’t train as hard or as often as she could. Those times using the technology of the time are pretty special in terms of TTing. That palmares, for that level of competition is exceptional.
  • Great TTer that Beryl Burton was; would she have been able to live with a rampaging Nicole Cooke - or with Emma Pooley in the mountains of a tour?
    Given her output and obvious stamina/speed over very long distances and with the same kit I think the question should be would Cooke & Pooley be able to live with BB, not the other way around. 8)

    Let's not forget that Cooke did the Olympic and World RR double in 2008, beating Vos both times. It's hard to imagine a higher level of performance than that, given Vos's status in the history of women's cycling.

    I think it BB and Cooke had gone head to head, BB would have wilted under Cooke's paint-blistering stare. :)
  • frenchfighterfrenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    philbar72, are you saying the two or three UK ladies she was competing with were 'pros', had aero equipment, non-steel bikes?
    Contador is the Greatest
  • Great TTer that Beryl Burton was; would she have been able to live with a rampaging Nicole Cooke - or with Emma Pooley in the mountains of a tour?
    Given her output and obvious stamina/speed over very long distances and with the same kit I think the question should be would Cooke & Pooley be able to live with BB, not the other way around. 8)

    Let's not forget that Cooke did the Olympic and World RR double in 2008, beating Vos both times. It's hard to imagine a higher level of performance than that, given Vos's status in the history of women's cycling.

    I think it BB and Cooke had gone head to head, BB would have wilted under Cooke's paint-blistering stare. :)



    Cooke's father would have claimed BCF were giving BB preferential treatment, and when BB had beaten NC, that would have been the excuse
  • disgruntledgoatdisgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    CYCLING WEEKLY’S ALL-TIME RANKING

    Last update July 26 2015. Ranking will be updated regularly.

    1 Mark Cavendish 3,560 points
    Pro: 2007-present
    2 Chris Froome 3,215 points
    Pro: 2007-present
    3 Robert Millar 2,900 points
    Pro: 1980-1995
    4 Bradley Wiggins 2,710 points
    Pro: 2002-present
    5 Tom Simpson 2,545 points
    Pro: 1958-1967
    6 Chris Boardman 1,965 points
    Pro: 1993-2000
    7 David Millar 1,580 points *
    Pro: 1997-2014
    8 Barry Hoban 1,455 points
    Pro: 1962-1981
    9 Michael Wright 800 points
    Pro: 1962-1976
    10 Max Sciandri 675 points **
    Pro: raced as a British rider 1995-2004
    11 Sean Yates 635 points
    Pro: 1982-1996
    12 Geraint Thomas 630 points
    Pro: 2006-present
    13 Brian Robinson 605 points
    Pro: 1952-1963
    14 Malcolm Elliott 380 points
    Pro: 1984-1997
    15 Ben Swift 300 points
    Pro: 2007-present
    16 Ian Stannard 245 points
    Pro: 2007-present
    17 Roger Hammond 235 points
    Pro: 1998-2011
    18 Jeremy Hunt 230 points
    Pro: 1996-2012
    19 Steve Cummings 220 points
    Pro: 2005-present
    20 Alex Dowsett 200 points
    Pro: 2011-present
    21 Vin Denson 155 points
    Pro: 1959-1969
    22 Alan Ramsbottom 150 points
    Pro: 1961-1966
    23= Graham Jones 120 points
    Pro: 1979-1988
    23= Paul Sherwen 120 points
    Pro: 1978-1987


    Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/racing/british-racing/cycling-weeklys-all-time-ranking-of-british-pro-riders-70858#olzkKSroZcKwmVUq.99

    I'd love to know how Robert Millar is rated as better than Wiggins or Swift better than Stannard's 2xOmloop
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • bobmcstuffbobmcstuff Posts: 10,008
    philbar72, are you saying the two or three UK ladies she was competing with were 'pros', had aero equipment, non-steel bikes?

    I think what he's saying is that getting a 21:25 in a 10TT on a 1970s steel bike with no aero kit is pretty damn impressive however you look at it :D
  • bobmcstuffbobmcstuff Posts: 10,008


    I'd love to know how Robert Millar is rated as better than Wiggins or Swift better than Stannard's 2xOmloop

    Surely they explain the points system?
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    My vote is with my old uni mate, Norb. (Or Rob as he prefers to be known)

    http://road.cc/content/news/154034-video-rob-holden-takes-hour-boris-bike

    ;)
  • CrozzaCrozza Posts: 991
    Then you're just left with these guys…
    2LRTKs2.jpg

    Is that Paolini?

    its the wild eyes that give him away :wink:
  • smithy21smithy21 Posts: 2,204
    So how many Tour wins would Froome or any future great need to overhaul Beryl Burton? :roll:
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,655
    CYCLING WEEKLY’S ALL-TIME RANKING
    3 Robert Millar 2,900 points
    Pro: 1980-1995
    4 Bradley Wiggins 2,710 points
    Pro: 2002-present

    I'd love to know how Robert Millar is rated as better than Wiggins

    He was there or thereabouts for a long time. And these rankings only include road, is that correct?
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,912
    That winning a top one day race equals winning the Giro or Vuelta in their points system discredits it, in my view.
  • adr82adr82 Posts: 4,002
    CYCLING WEEKLY’S ALL-TIME RANKING
    3 Robert Millar 2,900 points
    Pro: 1980-1995
    4 Bradley Wiggins 2,710 points
    Pro: 2002-present
    I'd love to know how Robert Millar is rated as better than Wiggins

    He was there or thereabouts for a long time. And these rankings only include road, is that correct?
    They include the Olympic RR and TT, but no track events. They also awarded points for other classifications in the GTs, so Millar would have picked up extra for things like taking the KOM in the TdF and Giro in 84 and 87 respectively, although you also get points for days spent in yellow so Wiggins would gain from that! They also awarded points for high placings rather than simply winning, and although he didn't win all that often Millar has a lot of good placings in both stage and one-day races (including the World Champs, LBL, Romandie, CdD, PN and Lombardy). Of the 14 GTs he finished, he was in the top 20 in 12 of them, including a 4th at the Tour, 2nd at the Giro and two 2nds at the Vuelta, and he won 5 stages in the process (3 TdF, 1 Giro, 1 Vuelta). Easily the best British stage racer ever until Froome came along.
  • Bo DukeBo Duke Posts: 1,058
    1. Brad. Olympic and Road success, what achievements.
    2. Hoy. Like Redgrave, to maintain dominance at the very top for successive Olympics over so many years.
    3. Cav. The greatest sprinter, whats he upto 26 Tour stages?
    4.Tommy. No Simpson, no top 3.

    Froome? at this stage maybe 6-7.
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 7,069
    Contrary to the post a bit above it is difficult to compare Beryl Burton to modern riders. Listing domestic time trial wins is meaningless as they are domestic not international wins. It's probably a fair guess that she'd have had a few Olympic gold medals from the track had that option existed back then but we have plenty of riders with gold medals who haven't made the list. It always come down to international wins on the road and I don't think it's clear cut she should be above Cooke, Cooke was the strongest rider in the world for a number of years and would have racked up multiple world titles had she had the support her main rivals did. I know Burton may have faced the same situation and she did win a couple of world road race titles but I'd want to see more evidence than has been presented here to say the best couldn't be argued either way. Ultmately it may come down to longevity but Cooke at her peak was special.

    When it comes to putting either at number one though that just ignores the gulf in depth between mens and womens cycling. There are so few women racing that it's impossible to value winning a womens event as on a par with winning the male equivalent. I'm not saying a woman couldn't be ranked 1 in this list but she'd need to have the palmares of Vos and none of the UK riders do. For me whether it's Cooke or Burton the highest it could reasonably be argued either can be placed is 5th behind our two Tour winners, Cav and Simpson. That's the other thing, for those that place Millar higher an Simpson, what did he win that outranks Simpson's monuments and World Champs?
    AFC Mercia women - sign for us
  • adr82adr82 Posts: 4,002
    That's the other thing, for those that place Millar higher an Simpson, what did he win that outranks Simpson's monuments and World Champs?
    It ultimately boils down to personal subjective opinions on the importance of any given event, whether it's only wins that should count, etc. As this thread demonstrates it's interesting to discuss/argue about, but everyone is going to make up their mind in the end :)
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,655
    That's the other thing, for those that place Millar higher an Simpson, what did he win that outranks Simpson's monuments and World Champs?
    It ultimately boils down to personal subjective opinions on the importance of any given event, whether it's only wins that should count, etc. As this thread demonstrates it's interesting to discuss/argue about, but everyone is going to make up their mind in the end :)

    This is a genuine point, and not trolling, but does the fact it is proven that Simpson took PEDs have a bearing on his ranking?
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 7,069
    edited July 2015
    I agree it's inherently subjective I just think Millar was around a lot longer and so clocked up a lot of placings but in a shorter career Simpson has some wins in the biggest one day races - 3 monuments, a world champs, Paris Nice and Bordeaux Paris - Millar only really won the Dauphine that compares with any of those.
    AFC Mercia women - sign for us
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,912
    CYCLING WEEKLY’S ALL-TIME RANKING
    3 Robert Millar 2,900 points
    Pro: 1980-1995
    4 Bradley Wiggins 2,710 points
    Pro: 2002-present
    I'd love to know how Robert Millar is rated as better than Wiggins

    He was there or thereabouts for a long time. And these rankings only include road, is that correct?
    They include the Olympic RR and TT, but no track events. They also awarded points for other classifications in the GTs, so Millar would have picked up extra for things like taking the KOM in the TdF and Giro in 84 and 87 respectively, although you also get points for days spent in yellow so Wiggins would gain from that! They also awarded points for high placings rather than simply winning, and although he didn't win all that often Millar has a lot of good placings in both stage and one-day races (including the World Champs, LBL, Romandie, CdD, PN and Lombardy). Of the 14 GTs he finished, he was in the top 20 in 12 of them, including a 4th at the Tour, 2nd at the Giro and two 2nds at the Vuelta, and he won 5 stages in the process (3 TdF, 1 Giro, 1 Vuelta). Easily the best British stage racer ever until Froome came along.

    The Cycling Weekly rating system smacks of trying to decide the argument through accountancy. I don't disagree with your appraisal of Robert Millar and his standing, but we're talking about "Greatest" here. This will mean different things to different people, but "being routinely amongst the world's best" doesn't qualify for Greatness in the same way as "beating the world's best" in a Grand Tour. Wiggins managed to piece everything together for probably the single greatest season by a Brit in 2012, but perhaps loses marks compared with the sheer number of results over more years that Millar had at that level. Yet, then Wiggins's track success should also be factored in as powerful evidence of his versatility.
    Road racing is unique in terms of the conditions it encompasses and the challenges it presents. And GTs have evolved over a hundred years into the ultimate expression of that.

    I love Cav, but I just can't go with his ranking.
    If they were in an orchestra playing a symphony, Cav would be playing the cymbals - all about the big ending (maybe a crash?); whereas Froome, Wiggins, Millar etc would be the virtuoso violinist/pianist having to perform throughout. The only time anyone gives a toss about the cymbal player before the finish is if he fcuks up.
  • adr82adr82 Posts: 4,002
    I agree it's inherently subjective I just think Millar was around a lot longer and so clocked up a lot of placings but in a shorter career Simpson has some wins in the biggest one day races - 3 monuments, a world champs, Paris Nice and Bordeux Paris - Millar only really won the Dauphine that compares with any of those.
    That's exactly what I mean though - Millar didn't actually win many races, but for example he was far better and more consistent than Simpson in GTs. If you feel GTs are much more important than monuments, that inclines you to favour Millar over Simpson even though he never quite managed to win one. On the other hand if you think a monument/WC win is the equivalent of a GT win, then it's obviously natural to feel Simpson should be ranked higher.
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    The Cycling Weekly rating system smacks of trying to decide the argument through accountancy. I don't disagree with your appraisal of Robert Millar and his standing, but we're talking about "Greatest" here. This will mean different things to different people, but "being routinely amongst the world's best" doesn't qualify for Greatness in the same way as "beating the world's best" in a Grand Tour. Wiggins managed to piece everything together for probably the single greatest season by a Brit in 2012, but perhaps loses marks compared with the sheer number of results over more years that Millar had at that level. Yet, then Wiggins's track success should also be factored in as powerful evidence of his versatility.
    Sure, of course it means different things, that's what I've been saying. I wasn't trying to argue Millar as being the greatest, although I do think he was a better stage racer than Wiggins. The 2012 season was incredible, but you also saw how quickly it all fell apart on him the following year. I'm personally inclined to value consistency over a single near-perfect season (and I have a soft spot for Millar :)), but I can understand the opposite viewpoint.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 7,069
    On the other hand it could be argued a bike race is about crossing the line first, not totting up total time from a number of stages.
    AFC Mercia women - sign for us
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 3,912
    adr82 wrote:
    and I have a soft spot for Millar :)

    Anyone who doesn't is a bell end. And that's me trying not to be absolute about such things...
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,158
    The nice thing about these threads is that you get a history lesson. I note that Simpson won three monuments and finished in the top 10 in the other two. He also finished 6th in the tour. Not bad!
  • On the other hand it could be argued a bike race is about crossing the line first, not totting up total time from a number of stages.

    Another consideration is whether you go for long term consistency or simply look at the best season. Whilst consistency is admirable, having a Wiggins 2012 type season is probably better in the "sub-Merckx" levels of performance. (Though Wiggo himself has churned out results consistently as well.)
Sign In or Register to comment.