How many 'classics' are equal to one monument?

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

This... i'm pretty sure that gva would prefer to win 2017 ronde than 2017 omloop/harelbeke/GW

You're sure, but I'm not. And I wouldn't swap those 3 for a Ronde, I think they worth more

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

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.

Sagan has two world titles though, which puts him ahead of Gerrans.

 

[portugal11]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

This... i'm pretty sure that gva would prefer to win 2017 ronde than 2017 omloop/harelbeke/GW

You're sure, but I'm not. And I wouldn't swap those 3 for a Ronde, I think they worth more

Sorry but if you have this opinion, you really don't have a clue about cycling. Those races are "just" prep races to ronde (despite their prestige). It's like saying that winning catalunya/romandie/dauphine (froome's calendar) is more relevant than winning le tour

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

This... i'm pretty sure that gva would prefer to win 2017 ronde than 2017 omloop/harelbeke/GW

You're sure, but I'm not. And I wouldn't swap those 3 for a Ronde, I think they worth more

Sorry but if you have this opinion, you really don't have a clue about cycling. Those races are "just" prep races to ronde (despite their prestige). It's like saying that winning catalunya/romandie/dauphine (froome's calendar) is more relevant than winning le tour

You have your opinion, I have mine. I agree De Ronde is great race, one of the biggest, but I tend not to agree that it worth more than winning 3 WT prestigious races, including Gent-Wevelgem (which is no prep race, by any means). If it was Omloop+Kuurne+E3, or even Omloop+DDV+E3, than ok, but in this combo I think 3 worth more than 1. Just my opinion.
Matthew Hayman for example won Paris-Roubaix last year, would you say that his win is bigger than Greg's wins?
And as for TDF comparing, Tour is way bigger than Ronde, although I would gladly took Giro/Vuelta combo rather than Tour itself

 

[portugal11]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

This... i'm pretty sure that gva would prefer to win 2017 ronde than 2017 omloop/harelbeke/GW

You're sure, but I'm not. And I wouldn't swap those 3 for a Ronde, I think they worth more

Sorry but if you have this opinion, you really don't have a clue about cycling. Those races are "just" prep races to ronde (despite their prestige). It's like saying that winning catalunya/romandie/dauphine (froome's calendar) is more relevant than winning le tour

You have your opinion, I have mine. I agree De Ronde is great race, one of the biggest, but I tend not to agree that it worth more than winning 3 WT prestigious races, including Gent-Wevelgem (which is no prep race, by any means). If it was Omloop+Kuurne+E3, or even Omloop+DDV+E3, than ok, but in this combo I think 3 worth more than 1. Just my opinion.
Matthew Hayman for example won Paris-Roubaix last year, would you say that his win is bigger than Greg's wins?
And as for TDF comparing, Tour is way bigger than Ronde, although I would gladly took Giro/Vuelta combo rather than Tour itself[/quote]
Of course it is!!! Is hayman better than gva? Hell no!!! But his roubaix win is bigger than omloop/harelbeke/GW

 

[Mr.White]

To Portugal11:
Let me rephrase it, who do you think had better season, Hayman last year, or Greg this year? Or even better who do you think is the best rider of the season so far?

 

[portugal11]

Re:

To Portugal11:
Let me rephrase it, who do you think had better season, Hayman last year, or Greg this year? Or even better who do you think is the best rider of the season so far?

I already answered

 

[Tonton]

Classiques used to be classiques before the "monument" innovation, which I deeply dislike. FW or GW for example were as big as LBL when I grew up. Courses were longer also, IIRC. Paris-Bruxelles, Paris-Tours (although it changed so many times; Tours-Versailles, Blois-Chaville). AGR. Those were the Classiques. Look at the calendar, the name of the winners...spring in the '70s and '80s was a lot more entertaining, with one notable exception: La Strade.

Het-Volk and the rest were semi-classics and still are.

Things have changed, for me not for the better. I don't like the "monument" stuff. For the younger ones who only know the present format, you missed something .

But again, it is what it is.

 

[WheelofGear]

Why aren't they mixing the hilly and cobbled classics like they used to do? Then riders can't peak for a certain month.

A race like Gent - Wevelgem used to be a highly valued classic on pair with Flanders and Roubaix. Not a "warm-up" for a monument.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Impossible to tell. I'd rank a formidable solo in E-3 over a 60 man bunch sprint at the Via Roma, but Im probably also in the minority there.

 

[ice&fire]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

Oliver Zaugg agrees too

 

[LPP68!]

I think it also depends a lot on the country a rider is from. I guess an Italian rider would have to win a lot of Flemish races to give up a Lombardia or San Remo. And I, being Dutch, feels an AGR-win is a very important thing to aim for in itself, while the rest of the world might feel it is just a higher profile warming up for LBL.

 

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

So you would rather have 1 monument, than 15-20 1 day classics????

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

So you would rather have 1 monument, than 15-20 1 day classics????

No, I have explained it above - I just think they are different, not having grown up in a time when they were completely equal. Obviously I would rather have 20 classics, but, in my mind at least, they are different. so, therefore, no specific amount of classics can make up for a monument or vice versa because I don't think there is any need to be doing so. It's hard to explain, but it makes sense in my mind.

 

[Velolover2]

Re:

I think it also depends a lot on the country a rider is from. I guess an Italian rider would have to win a lot of Flemish races to give up a Lombardia or San Remo. And I, being Dutch, feels an AGR-win is a very important thing to aim for in itself, while the rest of the world might feel it is just a higher profile warming up for LBL.

I doubt any feel that AGR is a warm-up race. It's a real classic, not a semi-classic.

And the peloton in Amstel is made up by a different group of riders than in Liege. At least a bit.

Amstel, Fleche Wallone and Gent-Wevelgem are not semi-classics.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

Oliver Zaugg agrees too

Frans Verbeeck disagrees

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

Oliver Zaugg agrees too

Frans Verbeeck disagrees

Ok, how many 1 week stage races are equal to a GT win?

Same thing, there's no equivalent.

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

Depends on the classics and monument.

Gent-Wevelgem, Amstel and Flèche Wallonne are worth much more than Cyclassics Hamburg or Canadian single-day races.

And Paris-Roubaix should be more prestigious than Il Lombardia.

That's like saying that the TDF is more prestigious than La Vuelta. However you'd still take the Vuelta over say, Romandie, Suisse, Catalunya or the Dauphine.

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

None. A monument is a monument. No specific amount of classics can make up for a monument.

I agree.

Oliver Zaugg agrees too

Frans Verbeeck disagrees

Ok, how many 1 week stage races are equal to a GT win?

Same thing, there's no equivalent.

It's not the same. GT is a 3-week race and we compare that to 1 week race. It's much easier to compare one-day races. But since you mentioned it, I think 2 top 1 week stage races (PN, Tirreno, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphine and Suisse), are not equal to Giro or Vuelta win, but 3 are more than equal. While 3 are not enough to equal Tour, yet 4 tops it. Imho

 

[WheelofGear]

What do you guys think about this rating system?

Tour = 120
Giro, Olympic Gold = 100
Vuelta, Worlds = 80
Monument = 60 (Sanremo, Flanders, Roubaix, Liege, Lombardia)
Large stage race = 40 (Paris-Nice, Tirreno, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphine and Suisse)
Big classics = 30 (Het Volk, GW, Amstel, Fleche, maybe Strade these days)
Smaller stage race = 20 (Down Under, California, Poland, Eneco)
Smaller classics = 15 (Hamburg, Quebec, Montreal)

Any stage race below WT level = 10
Any one-day classic below WT level = 5

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

What do you guys think about this rating system?

Tour = 120
Giro, Olympic Gold = 100
Vuelta, Worlds = 80
Monument = 60 (Sanremo, Flanders, Roubaix, Liege, Lombardia)
Large stage race = 40 (Paris-Nice, Tirreno, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphine and Suisse)
Big classics = 30 (Het Volk, GW, Amstel, Fleche, maybe Strade these days)
Smaller stage race = 20 (Down Under, California, Poland, Eneco)
Smaller classics = 15 (Hamburg, Quebec, Montreal)

Any stage race below WT level = 10
Any one-day classic below WT level = 5

Good.

But I think Worlds and Olympic gold is about even. And I think a monument such as Roubaix is worth much more than San Remo.

E3 is one of the biggest classics which isn't a monument now. Hotly contested, big last showdown before Flanders. I will add that to the list of 30 points, altho a race such as Amstel probably still should weigh more.

And I don't even think Down Under should be at 20. Its a pretty lame race.

 

[El Pistolero]

Re:

What do you guys think about this rating system?

Tour = 120
Giro, Olympic Gold = 100
Vuelta, Worlds = 80
Monument = 60 (Sanremo, Flanders, Roubaix, Liege, Lombardia)
Large stage race = 40 (Paris-Nice, Tirreno, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphine and Suisse)
Big classics = 30 (Het Volk, GW, Amstel, Fleche, maybe Strade these days)
Smaller stage race = 20 (Down Under, California, Poland, Eneco)
Smaller classics = 15 (Hamburg, Quebec, Montreal)

Any stage race below WT level = 10
Any one-day classic below WT level = 5

There's simply no way the Vuelta is equal to the Worlds. The WC gets a lot more publicity than a Vuelta winner.

I'd rather see Gilbert win Milan-San Remo than Paris-Nice four times... It's simply not comparable. I'd rather be known as a one-time Tour winner than a 7-time P-N winner.

The 3 GTs, the 5 Monuments, the Olympic Road Race and the WC Road Race are far bigger than anything else in cycling.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Oliver Zaugg agrees too

Frans Verbeeck disagrees

Ok, how many 1 week stage races are equal to a GT win?

Same thing, there's no equivalent.

It's not the same. GT is a 3-week race and we compare that to 1 week race. It's much easier to compare one-day races. But since you mentioned it, I think 2 top 1 week stage races (PN, Tirreno, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphine and Suisse), are not equal to Giro or Vuelta win, but 3 are more than equal. While 3 are not enough to equal Tour, yet 4 tops it. Imho

So you would seriously rate Richie Porte over Carlos Sastre?????

 

[DFA123]

Re:

What do you guys think about this rating system?

Tour = 120
Giro, Olympic Gold = 100
Vuelta, Worlds = 80
Monument = 60 (Sanremo, Flanders, Roubaix, Liege, Lombardia)
Large stage race = 40 (Paris-Nice, Tirreno, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphine and Suisse)
Big classics = 30 (Het Volk, GW, Amstel, Fleche, maybe Strade these days)
Smaller stage race = 20 (Down Under, California, Poland, Eneco)
Smaller classics = 15 (Hamburg, Quebec, Montreal)

Any stage race below WT level = 10
Any one-day classic below WT level = 5

I'd leave the Worlds and Olympics out of the ranking; just let those two results stand apart. The courses can vary so much that one year it can be a great victory that will stand the test of time; the next year it could be a bunch sprint on a pan-flat course. While the former would certainly rank above winning PR or Flanders, the latter definitely shouldn't. Or perhaps decide how many points those two races offer when the parcours is announced!

 

[Mr.White]

Re: Re:

Oliver Zaugg agrees too

Ok, how many 1 week stage races are equal to a GT win?

Same thing, there's no equivalent.

It's not the same. GT is a 3-week race and we compare that to 1 week race. It's much easier to compare one-day races. But since you mentioned it, I think 2 top 1 week stage races (PN, Tirreno, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphine and Suisse), are not equal to Giro or Vuelta win, but 3 are more than equal. While 3 are not enough to equal Tour, yet 4 tops it. Imho

So you would seriously rate Richie Porte over Carlos Sastre?????

Of course not! But I would easily rate Porte higher than Oscar Pereiro.

Carlos Sastre is not only a TDF winner. Carlos Sastre has a podium in 6 more GT's!!! Carlos Sastre has 15 top10 places in GT's! (only 4 riders have more). Richie Porte isn't close to that.