• 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?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
ok, here is my system of ranking riders all-time:
(for 2017):

Tours
TdF 100, stage & yellow jersey 25, green jersey, polka dot jersey 5
Giro 75, stage & maglia rosa 15
Vuelta 50, stage & lead 10
Tier 1 25, stage 6
Tier 2 12, stage 4
Tier 3 5, stage 1

Tier 1: Paris-Nice, Catalunya, Pays-Basque, Romandie, Suisse
Tier 2: all other WT races
Tier 3: HC continental circuits

One-Day
Worlds, Olympic Gold 75
Worlds TT 40
Monument 50
Tier 1: 25
Tier 2: 10
Tier 3: 4

Tier 1 being E3, Gent-Wevelgem, Amstel, Flêche, San Sebastian
Tier 2 all other WT races
Tier 3 HC continental circuits (e.g. Bruxelles-Kuurne-Bruxelles)


those are purely quantitative rankings .... for the "glory" itself, I wouldn't think 2 jellow jerseys or TdF stages would equal a monument ....
 
Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:


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!


I would not rank a World Championship based on the course, at least not from a pure quantitative view ... whilst I wasn't much convinced of the Doha course last year, it's still a World Championship and the winner is wearing the rainbow jersey the whole year (unless he's wearing a yellow, green or polka-dot jersey) ... and yes, of course some wins are more memorable than others, but same applies to any race ... e.g. Gilbert's win of RvV this year will be a legend for years to come, whilst Gerald Cioleks* MSR 2013 in 20 years will perhaps just be a side-note ....

* I'm trying avoiding the usual Simon G bashing here ....
 
Re: Re:

loge1884 said:

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!


I would not rank a World Championship based on the course, at least not from a pure quantitative view ... whilst I wasn't much convinced of the Doha course last year, it's still a World Championship and the winner is wearing the rainbow jersey the whole year (unless he's wearing a yellow, green or polka-dot jersey) ... and yes, of course some wins are more memorable than others, but same applies to any race ... e.g. Gilbert's win of RvV this year will be a legend for years to come, whilst Gerald Cioleks* MSR 2013 in 20 years will perhaps just be a side-note ....

* I'm trying avoiding the usual Simon G bashing here ....
Ciolek's win in those conditions was quite memorable as well. Maybe a better choice would be 2014 or 2015 MSR...
 
Re: Re:

[/quote]

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

Same thing, there's no equivalent.[/quote]

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[/quote][/quote]
So you would seriously rate Richie Porte over Carlos Sastre?????[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Exactly. But too many people only care about wins!

"The second place is no good" is the cyclingnews forum mantra; one that I don't subscribe to. And I'm a Contador fan :D
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:




Exactly. But too many people only care about wins!

"The second place is no good" is the cyclingnews forum mantra; one that I don't subscribe to. And I'm a Contador fan :D[/quote]

They know nothing then! Even the greatest champions know how hard is to win, and what importance carry 2nd or 3rd place, or even top10 place sometimes. Look at Boonen's 2nd place in Roubaix last year, it's huge, even though he won that race 4 times! Or Gilbert in DDV this year, he was rider of the race easily. He was the reason Lampaert got that win.

That "second place is no good" mantra is childish as I said to one poster here, or at best frivolous
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:



Exactly. But too many people only care about wins!

"The second place is no good" is the cyclingnews forum mantra; one that I don't subscribe to. And I'm a Contador fan :D

They know nothing then! Even the greatest champions know how hard is to win, and what importance carry 2nd or 3rd place, or even top10 place sometimes. Look at Boonen's 2nd place in Roubaix last year, it's huge, even though he won that race 4 times! Or Gilbert in DDV this year, he was rider of the race easily. He was the reason Lampaert got that win.

That "second place is no good" mantra is childish as I said to one poster here, or at best frivolous[/quote]

Yeah, because he raced to win instead of racing for a second or third place like so many other cyclists do. Still, the result means nothing compared to his 56km solo in the Ronde van Vlaanderen.

It's not the result that matters (besides first place), but how you rode to achieve that result. If Gilbert was caught to the line in the Ronde he'd still have done something to be proud of. Why? Because he risked everything to win the race. That's what it means to not care about minor placings.
 
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
42x16ss said:
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.

Yeah but Oscar Pereiro didn't win it on the road, so it's like saying Scarponi or Porte. Mind you, I would probably pick Scarponi. A better example is Cobo, or even Aru perhaps (although Aru has four top 5 results).
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
Mr.White said:
42x16ss said:
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.

Yeah but Oscar Pereiro didn't win it on the road, so it's like saying Scarponi or Porte. Mind you, I would probably pick Scarponi. A better example is Cobo, or even Aru perhaps (although Aru has four top 5 results).

He's also better than the one who won it on the road.. ;)
 
Re:

WheelofGear said:
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

This seriously underrates one day races, Roubaix, Ronde, Lombardia, Liege should all be equal to any of the GT's and personally would rate them alongside the TDF. Same goes for races like Amstel and so should be sitting alongside the bigger one week races.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

StryderHells said:
WheelofGear said:
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

This seriously underrates one day races, Roubaix, Ronde, Lombardia, Liege should all be equal to any of the GT's and personally would rate them alongside the TDF. Same goes for races like Amstel and so should be sitting alongside the bigger one week races.

As much as I like the classics, a Monument win does not equal a GT win, at least not the Giro or Tour.

The World Championship Road Race or the Olympic Road Race surpasses the Vuelta though, no doubt about that. Probably even the Giro. But the Tour is even better than winning two Monuments imo.

That said, many classic specialists have also shown their worth in GTs, and often perform better in them than the cyclists who focus purely on GTs. A stage win in a GT is better than an anonymous top ten.
 
Re: Re:

El Pistolero said:
StryderHells said:
WheelofGear said:
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

This seriously underrates one day races, Roubaix, Ronde, Lombardia, Liege should all be equal to any of the GT's and personally would rate them alongside the TDF. Same goes for races like Amstel and so should be sitting alongside the bigger one week races.

As much as I like the classics, a Monument win does not equal a GT win, at least not the Giro or Tour.

The World Championship Road Race or the Olympic Road Race surpasses the Vuelta though, no doubt about that. Probably even the Giro. But the Tour is even better than winning two Monuments imo.

That said, many classic specialists have also shown their worth in GTs, and often perform better in them than the cyclists who focus purely on GTs. A stage win in a GT is better than an anonymous top ten.

This is more like it. Surely a monument cannot rate alongside a GT (admittedly I am a much bigger fan of stage races).

How about looking at it in this way? A classics rider can realistically peak for four or five races in a year (perhaps 3 of which are monuments/WC, plus another couple of highly rated 'classics' like G-W, F-W) whereas a GT rider can realistically only peak for one (even backing up from the Giro to attempt the Vuelta is difficult as Nibali in 2013 showed). A rider who may also only be the 10-20th strongest rider in a one day race can also on the odd occasion, win (tactics, luck, etc). It is impossible for this to happen in a GT (maybe the 3rd strongest rider....again see Nibali, or Contador 2012 Vuelta).

Except for Oscar to some extent. But that was a one in a century GT.
 

TRENDING THREADS