Are you related to Danny Pate, by any chance?

Better climber than Rogers? Rogers has finished in the top 10 of both the Tour de France and the Giro. That's something any half decent climber can do, right?

I can't be bothered to have an argument with a fanboy tbh. If you really want to you could do a poll to see how many people think Pate is a better climber than Rogers and see how well that goes! Next you'll be telling me that Renshaw's quicker than Cav but he's never had the chance to show it.

Jens Voigt shows it when he pulls the peleton along for the Schlecks in the mountains in the TDF, Pate is a domestique he is built to go like a train for so long, Pate doesn't have the kick on a climb to drop other riders.

Please. Just because I am from the same place doesn't mean I am automatically biased. Look at the results, it is there for all to see. And since most people here don't know a lot about Danny, I'm sure they would say that Rogers is better. The majority of people also used to think that the Earth was flat, doesn't mean they were right.

The fact is that if Michael Rogers were a better climber than Danny, then he would have better results in the mountains. But this is not the case. Danny is a podium contender for summit finishes, while Rogers has never displayed this ability.

That enough Pate Hate for one night I think? In the end, it doesn't matter because Valverde will crush all of them

And by the way, Cav is definitely faster than Renshaw.

Jesus. There's a big difference in keeping up with Gerrans & Egoi Martinez on a climb, and keeping up with the heads of state of the Tour de France on a climb. I'll leave it at that.

Okay.

Here are Pates Results:
https://www.cqrank...derid=3137

And Rogers:
https://www.cqrank...iderid=114

Here are the results for all to see. So far I see nothing though, atleast to convince me that Pate is a better climber.

Are you forgetting Rogers has also suffered from Illnesses over recent years so has been unable to show his true climbing ability through medical conditions.

Big LOL on both the highlighted parts

And yes he has. Rogers HAS better results as climber than Pete. Look at CQ ranking for the sake of it even :

https://www.cqrank...iderid=114

V

https://www.cqrank...derid=3137

Do you see the difference in results ? And don't say Pate wasn't given chances as you said he was better climber than Rogers with no prove of consistent results

That's my point though, results can be deceiving. But Alakagom was the one saying that results tell all, and I merely gave a counterexample that shows how Danny could seem better. And like I said, the only reason that Danny doesn't have as many big results is because he never had the opportunity to shine. But if you gave each of them the same circumstances, Danny could have achieved more. But I realize that you can't go back in time, and I do recognize that Rogers has achieved more results.

I think at this point we need to drop it, because obviously this forum doesn't like Danny for some reason and I don't want everyone to spam this thread with hatred for the one Dan Fan.

Now back on topic!

Alright, all I'm going to say is this:

Tour de France Summit Podium Places:
Danny Pate: 1
Michael Rogers: 0

It's happening again! Time for some popcorns and F5!

I cba to write a response back now.

Willunga begins shortly, let's hope for some great racing at last.

I don't think anyone hates Danny Pate, its a matter of opinion, which everyone is entitled too, Pate is a breakaway, work horse, Rogers is a medial one week stage racer/ domestique, completely different riders in my opinion.

Perhaps Pate results seem better, but you have take into consideration, how many of them are from a breakaway, the class of the field present on the day, the fitness of the talent on display.

How about Top 100 finish in a Grand Tour GC?

One stage in the breakaway doesn't mean he's one of the top climbers in the world. (Although, I have no clue which stage you're speaking of)

Pate isn't any better at climbing than Hincapie.

And I like Danny Pate, I just dont see how you come up with these conclusions.

I really hope Danny Pate wins today.

It was the stage to Prato Nevoso I think in 2008, Gerrans won the stage, so I guess Gerrans is a better climber than Rogers too, even though Gerrans isnt a climber at all, which btw Pate isnt a climber either.

Bushwackers I made you a sig.

I said that's enough Pate Hate. You can mold statistics to look any way you'd like, but the facts remain the same. And I would say that yes, Gerrans is a phenomenal rider, and Egoi Martinez is a great climber as well. And as I have said countless times before, the only reason he doesn't have Grand Tour GC results is because he has always been forced to work for others.

We can go in circles all night, but you are simply wrong to deny Danny Pate's strength.

Thanks, but I'm not saying that! I'm just saying that he is a good climber that is better than Rogers.

This is worse than me supporting Valverde through and through, I never thought anyone could equal.

Yess Pate has strength, but he isnt a natural climber. He was in a break with what I would a very good hilly classics rider (Gerrans) and and domestique/ breakaway rider (Martinez), you can't compare him to someone who can put a slight kick in on a climb and has been a natural climber all his career, Voigt has strength he can't beat Rogers on a climb. That's the poitn everyone is trying to make, just because he has a few decent result from a break, doesnt make him better than a natural climber.