That is a great example, although I still feel Popovych is destined for a GT victory in a really off-year. My guess would be the Vuelta in 2013, when he'll be 33 and all the big name riders will be at the 100th Tour (which I think Prudhomme is going to go insane with). That is however, still a massive longshot.

2 at what Isso says.

Ofcourse there are talents who do make it and who keep being superstars. But there's more no's than yesses.

Ruben, I have never had problems with you like others....but you can't bring Dekker in here. Who knows how long he was doping while winning those races.

Please chrica, just back off, don't get into that. Ruben's already had enough problems with people sticking the Dekker thing in his face.

Sorry man. Ruben....no worries, everyone has opinions!

Well, I never really thought of myself as a "fan" of Boasson Hagen. I've just been impressed by his progression this year and think it likely that he keeps progressing (for whatever that's worth).

I do find it interesting that on this board people are very quick to attack others who predict development in some riders while doing the same with their favorites. Some of the "anti-Hagen" crowd were big proponents of Cav in 2007 (when he hadn't beaten any elite sprinters yet), and some of the "pro-Hagen" guys now were anti Cav in 2007.

Some of this criticism seems very targeted for some reason. (okay... I know the reason... national loyalty for the most part).


Obviously, we don't know how anyone will develop. But it's a fun thing to talk about. And if we're guessing which guys will continue to develop well, people like Boassan Hagen, Gesink or Dekker before the drug stuff seem like good bets. Will they all? Of course not. But Hagen turning into a good hilly classics rider seems like less of a stretch then Wiggins finishing top 5 at the Tour did a year ago. I don't see that sort of discussion (or thinking Gesink could win a GT or Dekker pre-doping) as being that unrealistic.


Right now, Hagen seems like a very good flat rider and decent sprinter who can get over hills well. Thinking he can win a race like Milano-Sanremo seems to make sense... it seems suited toward his riding ability... without any real development.

San Sebastian is similar is a bit hillier, but might be in his current range. Lombardia might be as well. The Ardennes right now are not... and may never be. But he's shown a lot of improvement in the hills so far so I don't see why you discount it immediately either.


For me, watching riders develop is one of the most fun parts of cycling. Guessing how they'll develop is part of the enjoyment of being a cycling fan.

Yeah I know that, it's just that there are no certainties. A rider with an awesome season at age 22 can still turn out to be an early peaker (like Popovych).
And a rider who looks like nowhere good enough for world class at the same age, wins big races 5 years later.

Erik Dekker for instance was 30 when he suddenly won 3 tour stages, clasica san sebastian and a year later the world cup. Nobody ever could guess that from a rider who won little tours like ENECO Tour when it was still smaller (Ronde van Nederland 2.3 on UCI) and other small races (Dekker was kinda like Posthuma right now).

Stef Clement won the Dutch TT championship with 49 secs to number two, Koos Moerenhout. According to himself, he worked quite hard for this after the Tour, so it isnt a real suprize to him he won.

Too bad we wont see the jersey in Assen next saturday

Wielinga lost 7 mins on the winner

I wonder why he doesnt have any team atm?

I agree with the general gist of your post, it makes sense, is logically constructed and all that jazz, but for one point. Hagen has shown results on cobbles, flats, time trials, but he has yet to show immense talent on the hills. I don't see how he's shown his "potential" for the Ardennes, so forgive me if I am proven wrong in 4 years time, but unless he looses more weight he won't be winning any Ardennes classics. And I'd vouch a small dog on that.

yesyes and you can keep telling us how he is not really good and he can keep winning. Doesn't matter.

Where have I ever said he's not good? I just said he's not Ardennes Classic win good.

Kadel, you are possibly the shittest reader I have ever known. If you haven't got anything constructive to say in a discussion, just butt the fuck out.

Didn't he retire at one point?

Well, he's shown that he can handle smaller hills... but nothing like the Ardennes yet. And right now I don't think he's a guy who's going to win an uphill finish. But what we've seen in some races is the ability to win stages with hills near the finish but a flat run up to the line. More Milan-Sanremo type races then the Ardennes.

I may be wrong, but it's seemed to me like some of his wins or high finishes have been in stages and races that were quite hilly... not the ardennes by any stretch, but nothing you'd call flat or rolling either. There's a big jump between that and the Ardennes... but as I said the Ardennes are not right now in his current range and may never be.

Yea, maybe not the Ardennes yet. He did win that stage in the Giro that was quite hilly adding to his ability as a Puncheur. I also think that sometimes, the tougher the finish (rain, tight corner, very technical) suits his abilities.

Plus it helps when you can TT like a beast! I think he will be great for races with TT's and stages like Eneco, Poland. But I think others have stated this as well.

The problem with using Milan San Remo as an example race he could win doesn't mean he's anything special on hills. As everyone used to say, Cavendish can't climb for toffee, yet he managed to improve enough to get over and win. I certainly do think Hagen could win an even bigger race than Gent Wevelgem, and yes, MSR is well within his reach if he displays some of his Giro form early season, but as to that, and the Giro stages, showing his hill ability, I'm less inclinded to believe he'll do anything spectacularily big on very very hilly courses.

As chrica mentions, the tougher the race - weather, road surface, etc , wise, the better he seems to do.

Even if he stays at this same level for the rest of his career, no one could knock what he's done so far, and I'm certainly not about to do that. Ever.

You weren't around when that guy joined the forum, so let me show you just how pointless it is to pay him any attention. In his mind:

Muslim = Terrorist
non-Christian = Evil
Nihilism = Evil
Communism = Evil
Socialism = Evil

Did I quote you? You must be the most shitty reader I ever saw. It was a general reply to the thread.

look man you replied after rjc's post and you obviously were refering to rjc's argument don't embarass yourself