Greats among Active Riders (quick answer)

[Carols]

By definition Great should only be the elite. Therefore I see no need to list lesser greats and will reduce my list to Contador and Cancellera. I will remove Valverde who only made it as the result of responding to this post right after he won yesterday!

 

[DFA123]

Re:

The lesser great 6 for me: Nibali, Purito, Cavendish, Gilbert, Cunego.
The last one is a bit harder for me. I guess it should be Wiggo, but if we're strictly talking road cycling he achieved 70% of his palmares in one year. Does having a sensational year in an average career qualify you as an all time great? I wouldn't say so.

Finally someone mention Cunego. Maybe it's difficult sometimes to remember that you were once really good, until you become somekind of relic like Rebellin (whose last big win is ironically more recent than Cunego's IIRC). But yeah, I agree Cunego deserves real consideration for this lesser greats category.

Cunego definitely ahead of Rodriguez for me; more monument wins and more GT wins. I haven't seen any mention of Basso so far - he'd be ahead of Wiggins for me if we ignore all the track stuff.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

AC, Boonen, Cance, Valverde, Nibali

 

[therhodeo]

Hilarious seeing Wiggins mentioned.

 

[Fernandez]

Not so difficult, at least checking the UCI points rankings. We have the list of the best riders per year since 2005(UCI Pro Tour and UCI World Tour). These are the results:
2005: Danilo Di Luca
2006: Alejandro Valverde
2007: Cadel Evans
2008: Alejandro Valverde
2009: Alberto Contador
2010: Joaquim Rodriguez
2011: Philippe Gilbert
2012: Joaquim Rodriguez
2013: Joaquim Rodriguez
2014: Alejandro Valverde

And these are quite an objetive results, so for me for the last 10 years should be between Valverde and Rodriguez. No sign of Boonen or Cancellara, sorry.

 

[Nick C.]

Contador, Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde. Nothing new there. Gilbert and Nibali are next. If Purito converted a podium in a GT, WC or Liege he would be there. Cav and Petacchi represent the sprinters at the next table. If Wiggins why not Froome. Aren't their palmares the same on the road other than the Worlds TT? Froome has the bonus of having success more than once. I would vote neither on them but am curious.

 

[Nick C.]

Contador, Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde. Nothing new there. Gilbert and Nibali are next. If Purito converted a podium in a GT, WC or Liege he would be there. Cav and Petacchi represent the sprinters at the next table. If Wiggins why not Froome. Aren't their palmares the same on the road other than the Worlds TT? Froome has the bonus of having success more than once. I would vote neither on them but am curious.

 

[Panda Claws]

Re:

Not so difficult, at least checking the UCI points rankings. We have the list of the best riders per year since 2005(UCI Pro Tour and UCI World Tour). These are the results:
2005: Danilo Di Luca
2006: Alejandro Valverde
2007: Cadel Evans
2008: Alejandro Valverde
2009: Alberto Contador
2010: Joaquim Rodriguez
2011: Philippe Gilbert
2012: Joaquim Rodriguez
2013: Joaquim Rodriguez
2014: Alejandro Valverde

And these are quite an objetive results, so for me for the last 10 years should be between Valverde and Rodriguez. No sign of Boonen or Cancellara, sorry.

Do you seriously think that this ranking is an objective one?

100 points for Tour Down Under and 100 points for RVV. So good!
Philippe Gilbert is the only classic rider that managed to have a chance on this ranking, and that was in 2011 form.

CQranking is better, at least and that ranking manages to undervalue Fabian Cancellara quite immensely.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Cancellara, Contador, Boonen, Cavendish, Valverde in that order. Cavendish will go above Boonen & Contador in my books if he gets 9 more TdF Stage wins to equal Merckx's record. Likewise, if Contador gets the double, he'll stay above Cavendish unless Cav gets another 9 stage wins along with another monument + Rainbow Jersey.

Gilbert, Nibali, Rebbelin, Petacchi & Wiggins also get a mention

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re:

Contador, Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde. Nothing new there. Gilbert and Nibali are next. If Purito converted a podium in a GT, WC or Liege he would be there. Cav and Petacchi represent the sprinters at the next table. If Wiggins why not Froome. Aren't their palmares the same on the road other than the Worlds TT? Froome has the bonus of having success more than once. I would vote neither on them but am curious.

Wiggins palmares as a cyclist far exceed Froome's. As a road cyclist, Froome is probably better because of the competition in his wins, but Wiggins' combo of TdF and track success is quite impressive to say the least.

 

[IndianCyclist]

if we are talking about all cycling then Sven Nys & Marianne Vos spring to mind

 

[Electress]

Re: Re:

Contador, Boonen, Cancellara, Valverde, the real big 4, others are way behind. And in that order too...

This...

Aside from the big four who have already been identified, I think Cavendish deserves a mention. I know sprinters aren't very popular, and I'm certainly not his biggest fan, but 25 stage wins in the TdF is a hell of an achievement in any generation. Throw in a WC and Milan San Remo, and he will be remembered for a long time.

And this.

DITTO.

Greats to me implies more than just wins though. I think it suggests that they in some way transcend the sport. On that score, Cavendish more than deserves a mention. He doesn't get enough credit for being the beginning of the UK interest in the sport IMO.

 

[SyroboiII]

Cavendish, Voigt, Wiggins, Cancellara. The real big four IMO.

 

[SyroboiII]

Ok, Voigt is not active anymore. But I'm sure "Shut up legs" would have been up there if he had took another year.

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

Not so difficult, at least checking the UCI points rankings. We have the list of the best riders per year since 2005(UCI Pro Tour and UCI World Tour). These are the results:
2005: Danilo Di Luca
2006: Alejandro Valverde
2007: Cadel Evans
2008: Alejandro Valverde
2009: Alberto Contador
2010: Joaquim Rodriguez
2011: Philippe Gilbert
2012: Joaquim Rodriguez
2013: Joaquim Rodriguez
2014: Alejandro Valverde

And these are quite an objetive results, so for me for the last 10 years should be between Valverde and Rodriguez. No sign of Boonen or Cancellara, sorry.

Do you seriously think that this ranking is an objective one?

100 points for Tour Down Under and 100 points for RVV. So good!
Philippe Gilbert is the only classic rider that managed to have a chance on this ranking, and that was in 2011 form.

CQranking is better, at least and that ranking manages to undervalue Fabian Cancellara quite immensely.

It depends the point of view, i guess you would like it more if your favourite rider had won it one or more times. As a spanish, i like it much because we won it seven of the ten times.
But apart from that, the UCI ranking rewards a consistency through a entire season and not just riders who peaks for two or three one day races in a year.

 

[LaFlorecita]

The problem with those rankings is that they give away a lot of points for podium places, while greatness is determined by wins and style and not podium places or top 10's

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

It depends the point of view, i guess you would like it more if your favourite rider had won it one or more times. As a spanish, i like it much because we won it seven of the ten times.
But apart from that, the UCI ranking rewards a consistency through a entire season and not just riders who peaks for two or three one day races in a year.

I think we went through this in a different thread a few weeks ago. The ranking is a joke and serves no purpose other than deciding the order of team cars.

As an example, a rider winning Paris Roubaix, Strade Bianche, Giro d'italia and the World Championships would end up with fewer points than a guy that wins Tour Down Under, Tour de Pologne and Quebec. Which of them would you say has had the better season? As a means of judging who has been the best rider in a season, it is deeply flawed.

 

[SyroboiII]

Re:

The problem with those rankings is that they give away a lot of points for podium places, while greatness is determined by wins and style and not podium places or top 10's

You forgot charisma and attacking ability. That's why I included Jens Voigt. Definitely one of the great riders who will be remembered for a long period of time.

 

[Fernandez]

Re:

The problem with those rankings is that they give away a lot of points for podium places, while greatness is determined by wins and style and not podium places or top 10's

So in that way, who do you think rode a better Ardennes week? Kiatkowski or Alaphillippe. The wins are important, but someone who can performance podiums through the entire season it is just not in everybodys hands.

 

[Red Rick]

Lets not forget that winning TDU + PN is just as important as a Tour victory.

 

[Fernandez]

Re: Re:

It depends the point of view, i guess you would like it more if your favourite rider had won it one or more times. As a spanish, i like it much because we won it seven of the ten times.
But apart from that, the UCI ranking rewards a consistency through a entire season and not just riders who peaks for two or three one day races in a year.

I think we went through this in a different thread a few weeks ago. The ranking is a joke and serves no purpose other than deciding the order of team cars.

As an example, a rider winning Paris Roubaix, Strade Bianche, Giro d'italia and the World Championships would end up with fewer points than a guy that wins Tour Down Under, Tour de Pologne and Quebec. Which of them would you say has had the better season? As a means of judging who has been the best rider in a season, it is deeply flawed.

You took it to the extreme, but if it is the way you say its clearly not fair. But as i say, there are no cases like you put in the example.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

The problem with those rankings is that they give away a lot of points for podium places, while greatness is determined by wins and style and not podium places or top 10's

So in that way, who do you think rode a better Ardennes week? Kiatkowski or Alaphillippe. The wins are important, but someone who can performance podiums through the entire season it is just not in everybodys hands.

Alaphilippe IMO, but only because Kwiatkowski was extremely disappointing. These rankings are good to see who was the most consistent rider, not necessarily the best. As an example, Valverde finished ahead of Contador in the WT ranking last year, while Contador had 8 WT victories, and Valverde 3. See the issue here? How did Valverde get ahead of Contador? Because of all those podium places of course. But will people remember Valverde for his podium place at Lombardia? Of course not. People remember wins. They may also remember Valverde as a very consistent rider, but podium places do not make a rider one of the greatest ever. A rider with 5 big wins, and 50 podium places, will never be considered a greater cyclist than one with 20 big wins and 10 podium places.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

The problem with those rankings is that they give away a lot of points for podium places, while greatness is determined by wins and style and not podium places or top 10's

So in that way, who do you think rode a better Ardennes week? Kiatkowski or Alaphillippe. The wins are important, but someone who can performance podiums through the entire season it is just not in everybodys hands.

For my money Alaphilippe was better. Consistency beats big win this time

And to reply to La Flo, rider with 10 big wins and 30 podiums is pretty equal if not better than rider with 15 big wins and 10 podiums, so it's not that podium places are irrelevant, especially in big races

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Lets not forget that winning TDU + PN is just as important as a Tour victory.

Beijing and TDU is even as important (well Beijing is gone now so was as important last year ) and 2nd in TDU, Beijing and Poland is better than a TDF win

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

The problem with those rankings is that they give away a lot of points for podium places, while greatness is determined by wins and style and not podium places or top 10's

So in that way, who do you think rode a better Ardennes week? Kiatkowski or Alaphillippe. The wins are important, but someone who can performance podiums through the entire season it is just not in everybodys hands.

Alaphilippe IMO, but only because Kwiatkowski was extremely disappointing. These rankings are good to see who was the most consistent rider, not necessarily the best. As an example, Valverde finished ahead of Contador in the WT ranking last year, while Contador had 8 WT victories, and Valverde 3. See the issue here? How did Valverde get ahead of Contador? Because of all those podium places of course. But will people remember Valverde for his podium place at Lombardia? Of course not. People remember wins. They may also remember Valverde as a very consistent rider, but podium places do not make a rider one of the greatest ever. A rider with 5 big wins, and 50 podium places, will never be considered a greater cyclist than one with 20 big wins and 10 podium places.

It seems like Valverde is judged by different criteria than the rest