• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

How many 'classics' are equal to one monument?

So, just thinking of the year GVA has had so far, how many non monument classics would you have to be offered to never win a monument?
Assuming that you were the sort of rider that could win any classic style race, would there be for example 3 classics you would take, over a victory at a monument e.g. E3, Fleche and Amstel v MSR? Obviously not all classics are weighted the same in peoples eyes (i'm sure a poll on here suggested that PR was by far the most important).
 
I don't think you can put a formula on it regarding weighting. For me it depends a lot on the way it was won, as well as which individual races as you mentioned.. For exampe, I would rate winning a great solo Strade Bianche or Amstel Gold as higher than winning a sprint in Milan-Sanremo. Likewise, Sagan's WC win last year was 100 times less impressive than his win at RVV imo.
 
Re:

DFA123 said:
I don't think you can put a formula on it regarding weighting. For me it depends a lot on the way it was won, as well as which individual races as you mentioned.. For exampe, I would rate winning a great solo Strade Bianche or Amstel Gold as higher than winning a sprint in Milan-Sanremo. Likewise, Sagan's WC win last year was 100 times less impressive than his win at RVV imo.
No, it was not. Not for me. Beating Cav in flat sprint is no less impressive then solo on RVV where Peterberg is a last hill. What was the most impressive last year was underestimation of Sagan by Cance and Sagan's better timetrailing on the way to finish line.
 
Singer01 said:
So, just thinking of the year GVA has had so far, how many non monument classics would you have to be offered to never win a monument?
Assuming that you were the sort of rider that could win any classic style race, would there be for example 3 classics you would take, over a victory at a monument e.g. E3, Fleche and Amstel v MSR? Obviously not all classics are weighted the same in peoples eyes (i'm sure a poll on here suggested that PR was by far the most important).
Let's ask Freddy Maertens and see what he'd trade.
 
Re: Re:

SKSemtex said:
DFA123 said:
I don't think you can put a formula on it regarding weighting. For me it depends a lot on the way it was won, as well as which individual races as you mentioned.. For exampe, I would rate winning a great solo Strade Bianche or Amstel Gold as higher than winning a sprint in Milan-Sanremo. Likewise, Sagan's WC win last year was 100 times less impressive than his win at RVV imo.
No, it was not. Not for me. Beating Cav in flat sprint is no less impressive then solo on RVV where Peterberg is a last hill. What was the most impressive last year was underestimation of Sagan by Cance and Sagan's better timetrailing on the way to finish line.
Well, the WC was a reduced bunch sprint after five and a half hours, where Sagan didn't stick his nose into the wind once. It was a significantly easier win than a longish flat stage of the TdF, because the top sprinters didn't have their normal teams and trains so were relatively weakened.

If you take away the name of the WC, it's a completely unremarkable win for a rider of Sagan's quality. Yet it will go down in the record books as the same as Olano in Duitama or Rui Costa in Florence. Which is baffling really, and shows the limitations of just comparing palmares without examining the context.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
SKSemtex said:
DFA123 said:
I don't think you can put a formula on it regarding weighting. For me it depends a lot on the way it was won, as well as which individual races as you mentioned.. For exampe, I would rate winning a great solo Strade Bianche or Amstel Gold as higher than winning a sprint in Milan-Sanremo. Likewise, Sagan's WC win last year was 100 times less impressive than his win at RVV imo.
No, it was not. Not for me. Beating Cav in flat sprint is no less impressive then solo on RVV where Peterberg is a last hill. What was the most impressive last year was underestimation of Sagan by Cance and Sagan's better timetrailing on the way to finish line.
Well, the WC was a reduced bunch sprint after five and a half hours, where Sagan didn't stick his nose into the wind once. It was a significantly easier win than a longish flat stage of the TdF, because the top sprinters didn't have their normal teams and trains so were relatively weakened.

If you take away the name of the WC, it's a completely unremarkable win for a rider of Sagan's quality. Yet it will go down in the record books as the same as Olano in Duitama or Rui Costa in Florence. Which is baffling really, and shows the limitations of just comparing palmares without examining the context.
Well. It is your impression and your opinion. I am still moreimpressed with his win in Doha then with his win in Richmond. Lets not forget, it was WCRR for sprinters and every single one of them was present. It has the same weight as GVA win in OGRR.
OK GVA's one is a bid greater. :D
 
In my opinion:

Monuments:
1. Paris-Roubaix
2. Ronde van Vlaanderen
3. Liège-Bastogne-Liège
4. Milano-Sanremo
5. Il Lombardia

Classics:
6. Gent-Wevelgem
7. Flèche Wallonne
8. Amstel Gold Race
9. Omloop Het Nieuwsblad
10. E3 Harelbeke
11. Strade Bianche (and rising)

12. Rest are semi-classics, even Paris-Tours these days
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
Monument = 1,5 Classic (GW, Amstel, Fleche), 2 Classics (Het Volk, Strade, E3, San Sebastian, Canadians), 2,5 Classics (Plouay, Hamburg, Paris-Tours)
 
Jul 4, 2015
658
0
0
Visit site
In modern cycling with the new UCI points system there really isn't any difference, imo winning any top level one day race is the same be it a monument or not. It really just comes down to circumstances behind the win. But at the end of the day a one day race is just that, your racing against the same riders. So imo there all equal pretty much
 
Re:

Ramon Koran said:
In modern cycling with the new UCI points system there really isn't any difference, imo winning any top level one day race is the same be it a monument or not. It really just comes down to circumstances behind the win. But at the end of the day a one day race is just that, your racing against the same riders. So imo there all equal pretty much
I'm not sure it's quite so equal. There are a handful of races that all specialists will be at and will be looking to peak for. The 'monuments' (except maybe Lombardia) WC, Olympics and a few classics like FW, AGR and maybe GW as well. I think these races should rank higher in general because to win you have to beat everybody else on something close to top form. Which isn't the case in other World Tour one day races.

Somthing like the Cadel Evans road race or Omloop have thinner fields and very few riders on top form. It would be much easier for a rider to peak and win one of those than it would be to do so in a proper classic.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
SKSemtex said:
DFA123 said:
I don't think you can put a formula on it regarding weighting. For me it depends a lot on the way it was won, as well as which individual races as you mentioned.. For exampe, I would rate winning a great solo Strade Bianche or Amstel Gold as higher than winning a sprint in Milan-Sanremo. Likewise, Sagan's WC win last year was 100 times less impressive than his win at RVV imo.
No, it was not. Not for me. Beating Cav in flat sprint is no less impressive then solo on RVV where Peterberg is a last hill. What was the most impressive last year was underestimation of Sagan by Cance and Sagan's better timetrailing on the way to finish line.
Well, the WC was a reduced bunch sprint after five and a half hours, where Sagan didn't stick his nose into the wind once. It was a significantly easier win than a longish flat stage of the TdF, because the top sprinters didn't have their normal teams and trains so were relatively weakened.

If you take away the name of the WC, it's a completely unremarkable win for a rider of Sagan's quality. Yet it will go down in the record books as the same as Olano in Duitama or Rui Costa in Florence. Which is baffling really, and shows the limitations of just comparing palmares without examining the context.
260+ kms is never "easy", especially when you consider the quality of opposition Sagan had to beat in the sprint. That WC win may seem unremarkable to the naked eye, but to hold nerve in the occasion and retain focus is very commendable. That was not easier than a longish stage of a GT - in a GT there's another 6,7,8 more chances to get it right.
 
Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
SKSemtex said:
DFA123 said:
I don't think you can put a formula on it regarding weighting. For me it depends a lot on the way it was won, as well as which individual races as you mentioned.. For exampe, I would rate winning a great solo Strade Bianche or Amstel Gold as higher than winning a sprint in Milan-Sanremo. Likewise, Sagan's WC win last year was 100 times less impressive than his win at RVV imo.
No, it was not. Not for me. Beating Cav in flat sprint is no less impressive then solo on RVV where Peterberg is a last hill. What was the most impressive last year was underestimation of Sagan by Cance and Sagan's better timetrailing on the way to finish line.
Well, the WC was a reduced bunch sprint after five and a half hours, where Sagan didn't stick his nose into the wind once. It was a significantly easier win than a longish flat stage of the TdF, because the top sprinters didn't have their normal teams and trains so were relatively weakened.

If you take away the name of the WC, it's a completely unremarkable win for a rider of Sagan's quality. Yet it will go down in the record books as the same as Olano in Duitama or Rui Costa in Florence. Which is baffling really, and shows the limitations of just comparing palmares without examining the context.

Let's just skip the fact, that most of us agreed before the race, that the parcours was somewhat not worth a WC .... my personal fear was, there being a finale like in some of the first week TdF stages, i.e. a german vs a british train trying to put Kittel in front of Cavendish - as this was not the case, and the only nation with a possiblity to do a team game in the final being the Belgians (and they failed bitterly), it came down to a fight between the big shots (Sagan vs Cavendish vs Boonen vs the rest) - it wasn't a great show of a victory like RvV 2016 or the worlds in Richmond, but certainly not a meaningless one (even if it wouldn't have been a World Championship) ...
 
Re: Re:

loge1884 said:
DFA123 said:
SKSemtex said:
DFA123 said:
I don't think you can put a formula on it regarding weighting. For me it depends a lot on the way it was won, as well as which individual races as you mentioned.. For exampe, I would rate winning a great solo Strade Bianche or Amstel Gold as higher than winning a sprint in Milan-Sanremo. Likewise, Sagan's WC win last year was 100 times less impressive than his win at RVV imo.
No, it was not. Not for me. Beating Cav in flat sprint is no less impressive then solo on RVV where Peterberg is a last hill. What was the most impressive last year was underestimation of Sagan by Cance and Sagan's better timetrailing on the way to finish line.
Well, the WC was a reduced bunch sprint after five and a half hours, where Sagan didn't stick his nose into the wind once. It was a significantly easier win than a longish flat stage of the TdF, because the top sprinters didn't have their normal teams and trains so were relatively weakened.

If you take away the name of the WC, it's a completely unremarkable win for a rider of Sagan's quality. Yet it will go down in the record books as the same as Olano in Duitama or Rui Costa in Florence. Which is baffling really, and shows the limitations of just comparing palmares without examining the context.

Let's just skip the fact, that most of us agreed before the race, that the parcours was somewhat not worth a WC .... my personal fear was, there being a finale like in some of the first week TdF stages, i.e. a german vs a british train trying to put Kittel in front of Cavendish - as this was not the case, and the only nation with a possiblity to do a team game in the final being the Belgians (and they failed bitterly), it came down to a fight between the big shots (Sagan vs Cavendish vs Boonen vs the rest) - it wasn't a great show of a victory like RvV 2016 or the worlds in Richmond, but certainly not a meaningless one (even if it wouldn't have been a World Championship) ...
Sure, it's certainly not meaningless - and as a sprint victory it was very impressive. My point more generally though was that as fans on a cycling forum (i.e. more than just casual followers), I think we should be looking a bit deeper than just the palmares or results. Not all WC wins are equal, and not all classic wins are equal within the same race - due to style of victory or quality of opposition. I think these nuances are what makes for interesting discussion, rather than trying to impose some ridiculous all-encompassing formula.
 
Re:

DFA123 said:
The problem with that kind of binary logic, is that it gives someone like Ciolek or Zaugg a better classics palmares than a rider like Maertens. And it suggests that Sagan is a worse classics rider than Gerrans.
Perhaps, but I take both into consideration, but do not have a specific number for number of classics which amount to a monument. A monument, in my mind at least, is different from a 'classic', whatever the definition may be, as I have only really been around when there has been a distinct difference between the two. I just don't think there is a set number of classics which equate to a monument.
 
There is a gradation. The monuments are the five most prestigious classics, but they are not exactly equal to each other and some other classics are closer to them than others. Doing an AGR / Flèche double for instance would be at least as prestigious for a puncheur as winning Lombardia but not as big as LBL.