Comprehensive Climbers Ranking

[Peyresourde]

Relative performance already outweighs absolute performance.

Tip: It is called results.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

This is definitely interesting. You’ve put a lot of thought and hard work into it. Thank you! It seems like the big gap that people are kind of dancing around is relative finish. Like there should be deductions based on gap to the leader and/or additions for winning with a big margin. Perennial finishers in the 5-10 range just seem like they shouldn’t be ranked above winners. Like does anyone really believe Richie Porte was better than 2018-2022 Roglic? Same with the Nibali discussion above.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Relative performance already outweighs absolute performance.

Tip: It is called results.

Did I miss that results are a factor in this ranking?

 

[Pozzovivo]

Did I miss that results are a factor in this ranking?

The results are first converted into time on the final climb, which is then converted into w/kg values, which are then adjusted for factors we believe are important and labeled “performance,” which is then converted into a ranking, which in practice a new set of results.

 

[Peyresourde]

This ranking is based purely on w/kg performances with some adjustments for conditions. Many of the discussions hinge on the fact that this is not enough to define how good a climber someone is. And I agree with that.

I privately have a second ranking where I also adjust for these two categories:
Attack (subcategories: Spirit, Change of Pace, (uphill) Sprint
Consistency (subcategories: climb types, stage hardness, stage to stage, season(s))

These aspects combined are easily worth ~ 0.2 W/kg (or even more in extreme cases).

Some riders Armstrong or also Pogacar and Roglic from (19-22) then shoot up the rankings, while riders like Ullrich, Sastre and Quintana suffer.

But I probably won't publish that ranking as it is even more subjective and I instead invite everyone to draw their own conclusions from my 'pure w/kg' ranking

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

This ranking is based purely on w/kg performances with some adjustments for conditions. Many of the discussions hinge on the fact that this is not enough to define how a good a climber someone is. And I agree with that.

I privately have a second ranking where I also adjust for these two categories:
Attack (subcategories: Spirit, Change of Pace, (uphill) Sprint
Consistency (subcategories: climb types, stage hardness, stage to stage, season(s))

These aspects are combined are easily worth ~ 0.2 W/kg (or even more in extreme cases).

Some riders Armstrong or also Pogacar and Roglic from (19-22) then shoot up the rankings, while riders like Ullrich, Sastre and Quintana suffer.

But I probably won't publish that ranking as it is even more subjective and I instead invite everyone to draw their own conclusions from my 'pure w/kg' ranking

I totally hear you. If you make too many adjustments and assumptions it almost gets to the point where we might as well just make up our own rankings. A lot of what you've done here makes sense. In terms of the eye test and what I've witnessed, adjustments that result in Lance, Pogacar, and Roglic jumping up and Saste and Quintana dropping off makes sense to me.