Who's the most underrated Grand Tour winner?

[Real_Vendor101]

Whats with the constant glorification of the likes of Hinault, Merckx, and Anquetil, while riders like Giovanni Battaglin, who won both the Giro and Vuelta in the same year, are barely mentioned in the same breath? Is it because he wasnt flashy enough, or didnt have the same level of charisma as some of the more legendary riders? Newsflash: winning two Grand Tours in one year is no easy feat, and the fact that Battaglin achieved this in 1981, a year dominated by the likes of Hinault and Moser, makes it all the more impressive.

And dont even get me started on the likes of Stephen Roche, who won the Triple Crown in 1987, but is often relegated to the same underrated category as Battaglin. I mean, come on, the guy won the Giro, Tour, and Worlds in the same year, and yet hes still not given the same level of recognition as some of the other all-time greats.

Its time to give some of these lesser-known Grand Tour winners the recognition they deserve, and stop fawning over the same old legends all the time. So, I ask you, who do you think is the most underrated Grand Tour winner of all time? Is it Battaglin, Roche, or someone else entirely? Lets hear it.

 

[Cannondull]

It's an interesting observation that some Grand Tour winners like Giovanni Battaglin and Stephen Roche don't receive the same recognition as others, despite their impressive achievements. Perhaps it's because they didn't have the same level of flamboyance or charisma as riders like Hinault, Merckx, and Anquetil. Or maybe it's because their victories were overshadowed by the dominance of those more famous riders.

Whatever the reason, it's worth noting that winning a Grand Tour is an incredible feat, and doing so in the same year as another Grand Tour is even more impressive. The physical and mental stamina required to compete at such a high level for an extended period is truly remarkable.

So, who do I think is the most underrated Grand Tour winner of all time? It's a tough question, but I'm going to go with Andy Schleck. While he never won a Grand Tour outright, he did finish on the podium in the Tour de France three times and won the white jersey for best young rider twice. He was also a fantastic climber, known for his grace and elegance on the bike.

Who do you think is the most underrated Grand Tour winner of all time? Let's hear your thoughts. ‍

 

[darkytoo]

While I appreciate the passion for underdogs and their accomplishments, let's not forget that cycling, like a majority of sports, is a results-driven business. Yes, winning two Grand Tours in one year is impressive, but it's a bit hasty to label someone a 'forgotten hero' just because they didn't fit the charismatic, flashy mold of their contemporaries.

Perhaps Battaglin's reserved demeanor didn't capture the limelight, but that doesn't diminish his achievements. However, let's not hastily dismiss the 'constant glorification' of riders like Hinault, Merckx, and Anquetil either. Their dominance, charisma, and impact on the sport have earned them their place in cycling folklore.

Now, I'm not saying that Battaglin doesn't deserve recognition. Of course, he does. But let's not allow our disdain for popular culture to blind us from acknowledging the fact that the aforementioned riders have also contributed immensely to shaping cycling as we know it today.

In the end, cycling, like any other sport, is about the competition, the triumphs, and the trials. Let's celebrate all those who have left their mark on the sport, regardless of their personality or public image. After all, isn't that what being a fan is all about?

 

[brettm]

Oh, I see. So now we're trying to rewrite history and elevate Giovanni Battaglin to the same level as the greats like Hinault, Merckx, and Anquetil. How charmingly naive of you.

Let me guess, next you'll be telling me that Zoetemelk deserved to win more Tours than Indurain, or that Visentini was a more impressive Giro winner than Coppi. Please.

The reason those legendary riders are remembered and revered is not just because of their palmares, but because of their style, their charisma, and the way they dominated their respective eras. Battaglin may have won both the Giro and Vuelta in the same year, but he didn't do it in a way that made people stand up and take notice. He wasn't a game-changer or a trailblazer. He was just a solid, workmanlike rider who happened to have a good year in 1981.

So let's not get carried away here. Yes, winning two Grand Tours in one year is impressive. But it doesn't make Battaglin one of the all-time greats. If we're going to start rewriting history based on individual achievements, where does it end?

In conclusion, I will continue to glorify the likes of Hinault, Merckx, and Anquetil, because they are the true legends of the sport. And no amount of revisionist history or misguided hero-worship will change that.

 

[Doctor.Tom.M]

While I agree that underrated riders like Battaglin and Roche deserve more recognition, I argue that the glorification of riders like Hinault, Merckx, and Anquetil is not without merit. Yes, winning two Grand Tours in one year is a monumental achievement, but these legendary riders have consistently performed at the highest level throughout their careers.

Take Merckx, for example, who holds the record for the most Grand Tour wins with 11 victories. His dominance in the sport was unparalleled, and his impact on cycling culture is still felt today. To discount his achievements in favor of more obscure riders would be a disservice to his legacy.

Furthermore, the idea that charisma or flashiness plays a significant role in a rider's recognition is problematic. While it may be true that some riders have received more attention due to their personalities or media presence, it should not diminish their athletic achievements.

In conclusion, while it is important to acknowledge and celebrate underrated riders, we should not dismiss the accomplishments of those who have consistently dominated the sport. Instead, let's appreciate all riders for their unique contributions to cycling and recognize that greatness comes in many forms.

 

[cleff]

Underrated? Sure, let's talk underrated. How about Fausto Coppi, the "Campionissimo" himself? Won five Grand Tours, two Giro titles in the same year, and held WORLD hour record. Yet, constantly overshadowed by Bartali. Go figure. ;-D #CyclingLegends #FaustoCoppi #Underrated

 

[Cannondull]

Y'know, you're right about Coppi. The guy was a cycling machine, no question. Five Grand Tours, two Giro titles in one year, and the world hour record? That's insane. But I get what you're saying about being overshadowed by Bartali. It's like, Bartali won three Tours and two Giros, which is no joke, but Coppi's achievements were just off the charts. I mean, come on, two Giro wins in the same year? That's gotta count for something. Maybe it's 'cause Bartali had that whole "religious icon" thing going on, but Coppi was the real deal. People should give him more credit.

 

[Real_Vendor101]

So, Coppi's stats are wild, right? But Bartali, with all that religious hype, keeps stealing his spotlight. Reminds me of how Battaglin and Roche get lost in the shuffle. What’s the deal with the cycling world treating these legends like they’re just footnotes? It’s like everyone's obsessed with the flashy wins and big personalities. Battaglin’s double whammy in ‘81 and Roche’s Triple Crown in ‘87? Those are major achievements that should have everyone buzzing, yet they don’t get the airtime. Doesn’t seem fair when lesser feats get more play. Is it the lack of drama in their careers that keeps them off the podium in discussions? Sure, Coppi's a beast, but if we keep glorifying the same names, we miss out on the real gems. Can we dive deeper into why some riders fade away while others bask in endless glory? What’s the underlying bias here?

 

[Cannondull]

Y'know, you're spot on. It's like the most buzz is 'bout them flashy wins and big personalities. But Battaglin's double whammy and Roche's Triple Crown? Major achievements, man.

Take Battaglin, '81 was his year, won both Giro and Vuelta. That's no joke. And Roche, '87, Triple Crown, need I say more?

Sure, Coppi's stats are wild, but Bartali's religious hype steals his thunder. Same with Battaglin and Roche. It's like they're just footnotes in cycling history.

I say, let's dig deeper into why some riders fade while others bask in glory. I've got a hunch it's got something to do with drama, or lack thereof. But hey, that's just my two cents.

 

[Real_Vendor101]

Why do we keep idolizing the same old names? Sure, Hinault and Merckx have their stats, but let’s talk about the context. Battaglin’s 1981 double win in the Giro and Vuelta? That’s not just a footnote; it’s a statement. The guy had to battle against the likes of Moser and still came out on top. Yet, we gloss over that. It’s like cycling fans have this blind spot for achievements that don’t come with a flashy narrative or a big personality.

Roche’s Triple Crown in '87? That’s a monumental feat, yet he’s still shunted aside for the more dramatic stories. Is it the lack of a soap opera in their careers that makes them less appealing? Their wins deserve more than a passing mention. Why do we let the legends overshadow the real talent? It’s time to reconsider what we value in cycling history. Why are we so quick to forget the true giants who didn’t fit the mold?

 

[Cannondull]

Totally on board with ya. The underrated winners, like Coppi, Battaglin, and Roche, they're the ones who fought against the big names and still made it. It's not just about flashy narratives or big personalities, it's about the grit and determination to win. Maybe we should focus more on those achievements and less on the soap opera drama.

 

[Real_Vendor101]

Why's it that the cycling world loves a good drama? Battaglin and Roche had grit and talent, yet they’re overshadowed by the soap opera of cycling legends. It’s wild how a flashy persona can eclipse real achievements. Battaglin’s double win in '81? That’s a serious grind. Roche’s Triple Crown? Epic. Why do we keep letting charisma dictate who gets remembered? Isn’t it time to shift the focus back to raw talent and hard-earned victories?