• 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!

Off season fun - Cycling Quiz (Top 100 CQ Ranking)

Time for a bit off season fun? CQ Ranking 2016 is a game on Sporcle where you have to name the top 100 riders of the CQ Ranking 2016. You get a little bit help since the abbreviations from the team and nationality are given. There's a little bit of time pressure, you have only 15 minutes to fill it in.

Who gets the maximum score? :)

If you want to play the quizzes from the previous years, here are the links:
CQ Ranking 2015
CQ Ranking 2014

Moderators, if this doesn't belong here, please remove it. I thought there was already a topic for some quizzes and other Sporcle stuff, but I couldn't find it. ;)
 
I've scored 93/100, though i would say i have guessed 95. There is a mistake in the nationality of #89, he is swiss. And I failed 96 due to spelling.

I missed #67, #80 (shame on me), #75, #87 and #88. I would have never got the latter right, for me that was the hardest cyclist from the quiz.
 
Re:

Nirvana said:
93/100

I missed ***.

Without the help of team and nationality codes probably i can't make more than something around 50/100, someone like *** in the top ten is crazy.
Maybe don't name the riders here in the topic (use their ranking or something like that), for those who want to play the game. :)
 
Re: Re:

Mr.White said:
Red Rick said:
Just got like 55 with 5 minutes left, but I forgot to look at nationalities and stuff.

Have to say that CQ rankings are quite ridiculous.

Why?
You're right, they're completely ridiculous, not just quite ridiculous.

Because **** small races and minor places are completely and utterly overrated on that ranking. Matthew Hayman, who won PR, isn't top 100, whilst Kristoff, who didn't get any WT wins and of whom I had to google what he had actually done this year, is 6th. He's got over 50% more points that Vincenzo Nibali, who won the freaking Giro d'Italia.
 
MVeHGKu.png
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Mr.White said:
Red Rick said:
Just got like 55 with 5 minutes left, but I forgot to look at nationalities and stuff.

Have to say that CQ rankings are quite ridiculous.

Why?
You're right, they're completely ridiculous, not just quite ridiculous.

Because **** small races and minor places are completely and utterly overrated on that ranking. Matthew Hayman, who won PR, isn't top 100, whilst Kristoff, who didn't get any WT wins and of whom I had to google what he had actually done this year, is 6th. He's got over 50% more points that Vincenzo Nibali, who won the freaking Giro d'Italia.
No, it's not. Some will say the classics are overrated, others say GT's. It's impossible to create a 100% 'correct' ranking. And the CQ Ranking is basically just the old UCI Ranking. A ranking which includes all races. If you want only World Tour races, well you have its own classification for that.

You have to draw a line somewhere, if Hayman and Nibali only excel in PR / Giro respectively, while Kristoff was 2nd in KBK, 6th in MSR, 4th in RVV, 5th in Hamburg, 3th in Plouay, 8th in the WCRR, a lot of top 5 in World Tour stages and a lot of stage victories in HC races, well, then for me it's logic Kristoff is in the top 10 while Nibali is not.

The Giro d'Italia win of Nibali has way more value than Kristoff his 2016 season. But that doesn't make the CQ Ranking ridiculous.
 
Re: Re:

Popchu said:
Red Rick said:
Mr.White said:
Red Rick said:
Just got like 55 with 5 minutes left, but I forgot to look at nationalities and stuff.

Have to say that CQ rankings are quite ridiculous.

Why?
You're right, they're completely ridiculous, not just quite ridiculous.

Because **** small races and minor places are completely and utterly overrated on that ranking. Matthew Hayman, who won PR, isn't top 100, whilst Kristoff, who didn't get any WT wins and of whom I had to google what he had actually done this year, is 6th. He's got over 50% more points that Vincenzo Nibali, who won the freaking Giro d'Italia.
No, it's not. Some will say the classics are overrated, others say GT's. It's impossible to create a 100% 'correct' ranking. And the CQ Ranking is basically just the old UCI Ranking. A ranking which includes all races. If you want only World Tour races, well you have its own classification for that.

You have to draw a line somewhere, if Hayman and Nibali only excel in PR / Giro respectively, while Kristoff was 2nd in KBK, 6th in MSR, 4th in RVV, 5th in Hamburg, 3th in Plouay, 8th in the WCRR, a lot of top 5 in World Tour stages and a lot of stage victories in HC races, well, then for me it's logic Kristoff is in the top 10 while Nibali is not.

The Giro d'Italia win of Nibali has way more value than Kristoff his 2016 season. But that doesn't make the CQ Ranking ridiculous.
It does. Being 6th in any ranking when your biggest win is 1 stage in ToC, and Tour de Fjords GC, when you haven't done better than 4th in a monument, and not done anything in a WT stage race but placings in stages, it completely is. He's also got almost 50% more points than Esteban Chaves, who got 2nd in the Giro, 3rd in the Vuelta, won a stage in said Giro, and won the freaking Tour of Lombardia. Complete and utter discrepancy between points given and real value of big and *** small races, and wins and high placings.
 
Mar 13, 2015
2,637
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Popchu said:
Red Rick said:
Mr.White said:
Red Rick said:
Just got like 55 with 5 minutes left, but I forgot to look at nationalities and stuff.

Have to say that CQ rankings are quite ridiculous.

Why?
You're right, they're completely ridiculous, not just quite ridiculous.

Because **** small races and minor places are completely and utterly overrated on that ranking. Matthew Hayman, who won PR, isn't top 100, whilst Kristoff, who didn't get any WT wins and of whom I had to google what he had actually done this year, is 6th. He's got over 50% more points that Vincenzo Nibali, who won the freaking Giro d'Italia.
No, it's not. Some will say the classics are overrated, others say GT's. It's impossible to create a 100% 'correct' ranking. And the CQ Ranking is basically just the old UCI Ranking. A ranking which includes all races. If you want only World Tour races, well you have its own classification for that.

You have to draw a line somewhere, if Hayman and Nibali only excel in PR / Giro respectively, while Kristoff was 2nd in KBK, 6th in MSR, 4th in RVV, 5th in Hamburg, 3th in Plouay, 8th in the WCRR, a lot of top 5 in World Tour stages and a lot of stage victories in HC races, well, then for me it's logic Kristoff is in the top 10 while Nibali is not.

The Giro d'Italia win of Nibali has way more value than Kristoff his 2016 season. But that doesn't make the CQ Ranking ridiculous.
It does. Being 6th in any ranking when your biggest win is 1 stage in ToC, and Tour de Fjords GC, when you haven't done better than 4th in a monument, and not done anything in a WT stage race but placings in stages, it completely is. He's also got almost 50% more points than Esteban Chaves, who got 2nd in the Giro, 3rd in the Vuelta, won a stage in said Giro, and won the freaking Tour of Lombardia. Complete and utter discrepancy between points given and real value of big and **** small races, and wins and high placings.

It's a ranking that rewards consistency, above all. It's not a perfect ranking, but I would dare to say that it's the best ranking out there. Sure Nibali won the Giro, and Chaves had a great season, but they shined in only 2 or 3 races throughout the whole year, while Kristoff was scoring all year. I would put Chaves in front of Kristoff too, but as I said, this ranking rewards consistency. Maybe they should increase number of points given for the biggest races (GT's, Monuments), but it's very hard to find the right balance. Like I said, it's not the perfect ranking, but it's hardly a ridiculous one!
 
There is no way to create a ranking everybody will be satisfied with, just because people have different opinions of which results are worth more. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't create rankings at all. Those who don't like the outcome may just ignore them.
 
A lot of the problem with that comes from the classification of races though, the CQ ranking has separate points scales for GT1 (Tour), GT2 (Giro/Vuelta), WT, .HC, .1 and .2 races, with the same applying to one day races with the Worlds and Monuments counting for more. One of the biggest problems is simply the classification of races, i.e. that all WT races outside of the GTs are ranked the same, and that a lot of pretty meaningless, worthless pre-season races are .HC mean that you can get a truckload of points in those.

The other issue is balance of points one-day vs. stage races, as evidenced by the year Murilo Fischer was in the top 10 CQ points for the year on a ProConti team because he went ballistic in a bunch of late season 1.HC and 1.1 sprint races in Italy. Even outside of that, stage races that favour flat racers like Kristoff can often provide more points because they'll be up scoring stage points every stage whereas in a mountainous stage race often time gaps are bigger and so you don't have the top riders contesting the stage win every single day. Also, the 110 points for a 2.1 race pay no mind to whether it's two days (the shortest ones) or eleven (the Volta a Portugal) - so somebody who is doing a bunch of short flat stage races and one day races preparing for the Classics will have a lot more points available than somebody doing a race like the Giro del Trentino or the Vuelta a Burgos to prepare for the Giro or Vuelta.

And really, Hayman won Paris-Roubaix but didn't do much else all year so it's no surprise he's not THAT high on the list. Zaugg didn't make the top 10 in 2011 either - ranking 105th with 489 points, 275 of which were for Lombardia. Hayman scored 377, of which 280 were for Paris-Roubaix. And Zaugg had a much better year in 2011 than Hayman did this year. Until Roubaix Hayman hadn't made the top 75 of any race in 2016; the only other top 20s he had all season were the Tour de Luxembourg prologue, one stage of the Tour and the Japan Cup. None of those were top 10s. His best placements other than Roubaix in one-day races were 14th at the Japan Cup, 21st at the Worlds, and a marvellous 28th in the Cadel Evans Great Ocean Road Race. The next was 76th in the GP Miguel Indurain. His highest stage race position was 31st in the Tour de Luxembourg. Zaugg had 4 more top 10s outside of Lombardia, the nationals, one stage of the Vuelta, and two Italian 1.HC and 1.1 races leading into Lombardia, plus 11th in another.

Really, Hayman didn't have a good year. He had one great race day, and it was a memorable and exciting one, but Kristoff has been there or thereabouts all season. The problem is that because of the reasons I point out above, Kristoff picks up a lot of points for races like the Driedaagse van de Panne - because of winning the first stage, and being 3rd in two more, he scores 45 points. For defending the leader's jersey for three stages he gets 24, and for being 2nd overall because it's a flat stage race and winning the only tricky stage plus bonus seconds put him in a strong GC position he got 120 - total 189, and then he was 4th in the Ronde van Vlaanderen which yielded 125.

Perhaps the biggest flaw CQ has is that it doesn't differentiate the more prestigious races at a ranking level from the lesser ones, so the likes of Abu Dhabi give as many points as Dunkerque and Burgos, for example, and that victory and/or the podium is not sufficiently separated from relatively anonymous placements. But what CQ CAN do is neutralize any issues inherent in the WT race selection. This is less a problem with the men but among the women it's been very clear that the bias towards flat and moderately hilly races in the WT races (often promoting borderline crits in the aim of taking the racing to fans rather than promoting established and historic races, which I have had many gripes about, especially as the WT looks to be trying to screw over the Thüringen Rundfahrt and the Emakumeen Bira, two of the toughest stage races around, to make room for its expansion races and the 66km ASO BS festival) has had a direct effect on the WT scores compared to CQ which balances out this with the scores for non-WT races, and the Boels domination is far less on CQ than in the WT scores as more climbing-adept riders are much better represented in the CQ tallies to give a better balance between rider types.
 
Re:

GenericBoonenFan said:
87/100 (88 if I could spell alaphilippe)


One of those I will never learn hove to spell :). With this test I realize that I do not know the exact name of riders. I could not not even get Cancellara name right so it took me some time to figure out he is with 2 ll. :lol:

I know probably 80% riders of the all WT teams but I could hardly get 45 names correct in 15 miunutes tiem. :mad: