Cyclingranking.com is a bit perplexing.

[ingsve]

I don't know how many of you are familiar with cyclingranking.com but their ranking system seems very strange to me.

Here is what they say about their ranking:

Scoring method
It is only possible to score points in roadraces.
All roadraces have been classified according to difficulty, importance and status of that race in its specific timeframe.
Due to the incompleteness of results in the early years of cycling, some kind of anciennity percentage has been applied to the raw scores. As results become more complete every day now, these percentages will decrease and hopefully eventually not be necessary any more.
The scoring scheme will NOT be published and NOT be provided.

What seemed strange when I was looking at it right now was that they ranked Cadel Evans as no 1 for 2009 so far and that Silence Lotto also had Phillippe Gilbert in the top 3. Looking at that you certainly wouldn't think that Silence Lotto has had anything close to a bad season this year which I think most of us would agree that they have.

Looking at the numbers it seems that they give quite alot of weight on stage races and must certainly vary alot depending on which stage race it is as well. It also seems that the point system is rather flat going down a result list. There doesn't seem to be a big diffrence between winning and finishing further down in the top 10.

Perhaps that's a good thing? I don't know.

Would you say that cyclingranking.com gives an adequate picture of cycling history if you look at the historical ranking?

 

[bianchigirl]

Whilst I appreciate the fact that Armstrong barely scrapes into their all time top 20, a little more transparency about their system would be appreciated as the 2009 rankings seem unfathomable and more based on whim than reality.

But their historical rankings give a great picture of the sport - hopefully those new to it will do some investigating about who these riders are that this site dares to rank above the mighty Lance

 

[ElChingon]

I think their ranking system is dead on! If you look deep enough you'll find the info you seek on their transparancy.

 

[Bala Verde]

I always use

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/start.asp

 

[ingsve]

I always use

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/start.asp

Ya, I like that too. I believe they use the old UCI world ranking as base and I always like that ranking.

 

[jaylew]

I always use

http://www.cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/start.asp

Yes, CQ is much better. And you can always see exactly how many points a rider earned for every race.

 

[il_fiammingo]

Yes, CQ is much better. And you can always see exactly how many points a rider earned for every race.

cyclingranking.com is even more ridiculous than cyclinghalloffame.com. I hope the guys of cqranking.com manage to create their ranking for the years prior to 2003.

 

[Fantasio]

But their historical rankings give a great picture of the sport - hopefully those new to it will do some investigating about who these riders are that this site dares to rank above the mighty Lance

You say?
Rebellin ahead of Coppi? Nobody in his/her right mind would ever think something like that.
Almost every single rider is misplaced (Merckx being the only exception)!

 

[Fantasio]

cyclingranking.com is even more ridiculous than cyclinghalloffame.com. I hope the guys of cqranking.com manage to create their ranking for the years prior to 2003.

Just wait a week more, and I'll provide something very simple, but at least much better than cyclingranking.
What really bothers me - about them - is that I wrote to them, and said "I don't to want to know your ranking system, but please do something otherwise your data will become worthless", and they never even answered.