How can Kristoff always make it so high on the cqranking?

[Hyman]

This year he has not won any WT stage. He has not been top 3 in any WT event.

Yet he continues to appear third in the cqranking. Really a mystery... For me he is probably the rider of the peloton who benefits the most of the way the ranking is done

He has never been a top 5 rider yet he constantly appears as one of them.

 

[Red Rick]

Who cares about CQ ranking?

 

[PremierAndrew]

A ranking that gives more points for winning a 1.HC race than for a 4th place at a monument is an irrelevant ranking

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

A ranking that gives more points for winning a 1.HC race than for a 4th place at a monument is an irrelevant ranking

All rankings are useless. Just look at what they won and call it a day.

 

[jmdirt]

Crazy idea, you could discuss AK in his thread instead of starting a new one: Kristoff, Alexander: 22770

 

[Popchu]

I love CQ Ranking. It's the best ranking there is. Of course some races are overvalued, but it gives more or less a good idea about a rider's regularity, not necessarily victories.

In the current CQ Ranking Kristoff is third, but that's because Vattenfal (2), Plouay (1), Quebec (3), WC RR (4) are still counting for that ranking. In the 2016 Ranking he is sixth, which is of course still very high, but comprehensible. 6 times top 5 in a Tour de France stage, 4th in Flanders, 6th in Sanremo, 2nd in De Panne / Qatar. I know, 140 points for winning Rund um den Finanzplatz is way too much, but it doesn't make the CQ Ranking completely useless.

 

[hrotha]

A well-made ranking is a very useful approximation, just not The Truth as revealed by the gods. Sprinters tend to do too well in most rankings because they're up there a lot. It's impossible to correct this without applying different ratings to different stages.