Pro riders ranking system

Mar 17, 2009
44
0
0
It might have been discussed already - sorry for the repeat, if it has.

Anyway, there is a wise saying that riders make the races, not the parcours. So why aren't they (UCI) assigning winning points based on the quality of the peloton?

For example, if you look at the sprinter's races - if Cav, Greipel and Sagan are not present in the field, it's not the top level race, so the winning scores should be smaller. If all of them are present and yet somebody else wins it, it certainly is a huge acheivement for that person - he should get all the points in the world!

Let UCI keep the current race gradation system, but the scores should be assigned according to the standings of all the riders, participating in the race.

And yes - it should not matter if Cav rides in high mountains race, or Contador is present in a sprinters parcour, they are there and their presence should raise the score margin anyway - this way we might actually see who is the best rider of them all. It's not like the top level riders such as Cav, or Contador are going to the races not suited to their abilities, anyway.

EDIT: Ok, maybe not all the riders of the peloton, but according to the scores of the top finishing 10 or 20 riders

Current UCI ranking system (based on race level), and the ridiculous IG ranking (prestige?) are total garbage, IMHO.
 
May 3, 2011
1,791
0
0
Surely the points on offer are meant to attract the best riders. To award points based on the riders in the race is too subjective and completely unworkable
 
Mar 17, 2009
44
0
0
Richeypen said:
Surely the points on offer are meant to attract the best riders. To award points based on the riders in the race is too subjective and completely unworkable
Nononon -
Subjective is letting UCI solely decide which race gets world tour points and which one gets pro tour (or whatever) points. Ex.: totally young races, like Tour of Beijing, Britain, California, etc.
Subjective is letting a "board of experts" (old geezers or self-proclaimed "experts") decide which race is prestigious or not.

And again - no matter how prestigious, say.. Paris-Roubaix is - if the best classics riders cannot compete there for one reason or another, it turns into a completely different side-kick kind of race.

And this is very much workable - Well I cannot work out a formula on the spot to calculate the points, sure, but I don't see any other problems with it.
 
Apr 26, 2010
1,035
0
0
So the riders get more points by competing in races that get more points for competing riders who get by competing in races?
 
Mar 17, 2009
44
0
0
It would be more complex than now, but look at this scenario if this system was in place -

For example, many Great Britain (or Spain or US) pros win many races, so, naturally - they become the men you'd need to beat if you want to get more points. It is also natural to assume that British pros would favour their own british races - as a result many strong riders come to GB to try and beat those high ranked british men in a race (for example, Tour of Britain), the race gets more prestige and more attention.
Now, let's say Sagan beats Cavendish in a sprint in Tour of Britain -> Sagan gets more points and eventually he gets to the high place in the ranking, so then he becomes the man to beat. We could assume that Sagan would favor his own national race (is there Tour of Slovakia?), so many other riders come to the race to get his points - Tour of Slovakia gets more attention - BECAUSE THERE IS A STRONG SLOVAKIAN RIDER THERE! Same for China - if there are many strong Chinese riders there one day, then go ahead and come to the Tour of Beijing and fight for their points - you'll get a lot!

Well you get the image - so higher ranked racers promote their own national races - they make the race calendar for the others, many races around the world get more attention because there are strong riders there! Isn't it fair and cool?

The strongest riders determine the prestige of the races - that's the idea!
 
Feb 15, 2011
1,306
0
0
This is essentially how all skiing rankings (FIS) are done. The points are different depending on the strength of the field, so that winning in a stacked field will give you 0.00 pts and winning in a crappy field will only give ~18 pts (low score better). It becomes confusing, is subjective, and somewhat just annoying especially when officials try to use the same scoring system for college and it doesn't work that well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY