Rough Attempt at an All-Time Ranking

Page 17 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
But would you say Thomas > Cancellara/Boonen?


Still laughing a rider would give up their career for a lesser one.
I know you are a Cav fanboy but this is silly, I want you to see how many people agree that LeMond had a lesser career than Cav or Cipo. Also, you and others frequently claim Cav is the greatest, yet this ranking has Cipo well ahead of Cav so is this system wrong or is Cipo the greatest sprinter of all time?

Remember Greg LeMond, 3 Tour Titles, 2 Podium finishes, 2 World Titles, 2 Podium finishes, A Dauphine title, Podium finishes at Milan-San Remo, L-B-L, Lombardy. A rider who could win GTs, TTs, Mountain stages, One day races yet lost his best years to injury and was never the same after.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I know you are a Cav fanboy but this is silly, I want you to see how many people agree that LeMond had a lesser career than Cav or Cipo. Also, you and others frequently claim Cav is the greatest, yet this ranking has Cipo well ahead of Cav so is this system wrong or is Cipo the greatest sprinter of all time?

Remember Greg LeMond, 3 Tour Titles, 2 Podium finishes, 2 World Titles, 2 Podium finishes, A Dauphine title, Podium finishes at Milan-San Remo, L-B-L, Lombardy. A rider who could win GTs, TTs, Mountain stages, One day races yet lost his best years to injury and was never the same after.
Says the biggest Cipo fan here. You're insinuating that Cav or Cipo would want to have LeMond's results or they had a lesser career than LeMond just because they are sprinters, that is false. Based off what I listed, they equaled and bettered what is their overall to LeMond's. They have both achieved almost everything they wanted for the type of rider they are. Sprinters don't say they want a career like LeMond, they want one like Cav, Cipo, or Petacchi. Grand Tour riders would rather have results than others but LeMond though if they reach LeMond they are content and happy. Cav lost 4 years to sickness and injury when he could have won more.

Remember, they have 52 and 57 GT stages, 4 and 3 points classification, monument, Worlds, one day races, stage races for one, and wins a plenty for both of them. That is nothing to sniff out just because they are "sprinters".

Hard to compare the two with you when you constantly beat around the bush comparing the two. Based off the points he should have at the first system, Cav should be at 497, 22 behind Cipo off him winning GW. And if you don't believe that, you can ask Pantani_lives. That is not well ahead. Cipo while great, was allowed to beat up on worse Italian sprinters in races that wanted him to win, specifically the Giro. The more successful he got each year, the more sprint stages there was. It is easy to win stages when the organizers are trying to assist you. On top of having track success.
 
Says the biggest Cipo fan here. You're insinuating that Cav or Cipo would want to have LeMond's results or they had a lesser career than LeMond just because they are sprinters, that is false. Based off what I listed, they equaled and bettered what is their overall to LeMond's. They have both achieved almost everything they wanted for the type of rider they are. Sprinters don't say they want a career like LeMond, they want one like Cav, Cipo, or Petacchi. Grand Tour riders would rather have results than others but LeMond though if they reach LeMond they are content and happy. Cav lost 4 years to sickness and injury when he could have won more.

Remember, they have 52 and 57 GT stages, 4 and 3 points classification, monument, Worlds, one day races, stage races for one, and wins a plenty for both of them. That is nothing to sniff out just because they are "sprinters".

Hard to compare the two with you when you constantly beat around the bush comparing the two. Based off the points he should have at the first system, Cav should be at 497, 22 behind Cipo off him winning GW. And if you don't believe that, you can ask Pantani_lives. That is not well ahead. Cipo while great, was allowed to beat up on worse Italian sprinters in races that wanted him to win, specifically the Giro. The more successful he got each year, the more sprint stages there was. It is easy to win stages when the organizers are trying to assist you. On top of having track success.
We are talking about greatest cyclists, not sprinters. The races that the best cyclists want to win are the GTs, World Champs and Monuments, period. The only reason any cyclist would want to win anything else is that they do not have the talent to win the major races. Given the choice at the start of a career of being a 2/3 time Tour champion or winning a load of sprint stages, I would say 95% of cyclists would prefer to be a Tour de France Champion. Throw in winning World Titles and competing for Monuments on a regular basis and there would be even less doubt.

As for liking Cipo, I do not like him at all as it was him that started the whole leadout train fad. I just believe he was a better cyclist(that word again) and if he had applied himself like he did in 02, he would have had a much better career.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
We are talking about greatest cyclists, not sprinters. The races that the best cyclists want to win are the GTs, World Champs and Monuments, period. The only reason any cyclist would want to win anything else is that they do not have the talent to win the major races. Given the choice at the start of a career of being a 2/3 time Tour champion or winning a load of sprint stages, I would say 95% of cyclists would prefer to be a Tour de France Champion. Throw in winning World Titles and competing for Monuments on a regular basis and there would be even less doubt.

As for liking Cipo, I do not like him at all as it was him that started the whole leadout train fad. I just believe he was a better cyclist(that word again) and if he had applied himself like he did in 02, he would have had a much better career.
Yes, and I am not arguing either should be in the top 20 or 30 or 40. I think they are fine where they are. Any higher and you would need to combine their results with Boonen. I'm sure that would be the most but they know what their ability is going in. Almost every rider has said their dream is a Tour de France win with others then going Worlds, Flanders, or Paris-Roubaix. So let's say Merlier when he started wasn't saying he could win Grand Tours and compete in every monument besides MSR. He would like a career like Cav or Cipo. But just because they did not have the ability to contend for Grand Tours or different monuments does not mean they had lesser careers than LeMond or Fignon and that is my point. I probably went about it the wrong way and I am sorry.

We could say that about a lot of cyclists unfortunately. Sometimes the ones that have all the talent, do not work as hard compared to those they are more talented than.
 
[QUOTE="tobydawq, post:
Yes, and I am not arguing either should be in the top 20 or 30 or 40. I think they are fine where they are. Any higher and you would need to combine their results with Boonen. I'm sure that would be the most but they know what their ability is going in. Almost every rider has said their dream is a Tour de France win with others then going Worlds, Flanders, or Paris-Roubaix. So let's say Merlier when he started wasn't saying he could win Grand Tours and compete in every monument besides MSR. He would like a career like Cav or Cipo. But just because they did not have the ability to contend for Grand Tours or different monuments does not mean they had lesser careers than LeMond or Fignon and that is my point. I probably went about it the wrong way and I am sorry.

We could say that about a lot of cyclists unfortunately. Sometimes the ones that have all the talent, do not work as hard compared to those they are more talented than.
[/QUOTE]

So basically you are now admitting that sprinters are less talented and focus on sprinting because of that, but because they win a load of lesser races, they are somehow still equal to the true talents who win the great races that all riders dream about. Nope, they are still less talented and lesser riders.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Yes, it does mean that.
Where do you think a good rank is for them?

Does that mean Nibali had a better career than Cancellara or Boonen because they could not compete for a Grand Tour and he could compete for monuments and Grand Tours? Or Cunego?

[QUOTE="tobydawq, post:
Yes, and I am not arguing either should be in the top 20 or 30 or 40. I think they are fine where they are. Any higher and you would need to combine their results with Boonen. I'm sure that would be the most but they know what their ability is going in. Almost every rider has said their dream is a Tour de France win with others then going Worlds, Flanders, or Paris-Roubaix. So let's say Merlier when he started wasn't saying he could win Grand Tours and compete in every monument besides MSR. He would like a career like Cav or Cipo. But just because they did not have the ability to contend for Grand Tours or different monuments does not mean they had lesser careers than LeMond or Fignon and that is my point. I probably went about it the wrong way and I am sorry.

We could say that about a lot of cyclists unfortunately. Sometimes the ones that have all the talent, do not work as hard compared to those they are more talented than.
So basically you are now admitting that sprinters are less talented and focus on sprinting because of that, but because they win a load of lesser races, they are somehow still equal to the true talents who win the great races that all riders dream about. Nope, they are still less talented and lesser riders.
[/QUOTE]
I never said they were more talent than others. Their results of what they can achieve equaled the two riders you listed in what they can achieve. This is a list of all time cyclists, not all time grand tour riders. Sprinters are cyclists. just like classic riders are still cyclists. Does that mean Cancellara and Boonen had worse careers than LeMond and Fignon considering they were well above them but never sniffed Grand Tour success. They are the two greatest sprinters. Where do you think they should rank.
 
Where do you think a good rank is for them?

Does that mean Nibali had a better career than Cancellara or Boonen because they could not compete for a Grand Tour and he could compete for monuments and Grand Tours? Or Cunego?



So basically you are now admitting that sprinters are less talented and focus on sprinting because of that, but because they win a load of lesser races, they are somehow still equal to the true talents who win the great races that all riders dream about. Nope, they are still less talented and lesser riders.
I never said they were more talent than others. Their results of what they can achieve equaled the two riders you listed in what they can achieve. This is a list of all time cyclists, not all time grand tour riders. Sprinters are cyclists. just like classic riders are still cyclists. Does that mean Cancellara and Boonen had worse careers than LeMond and Fignon considering they were well above them but never sniffed Grand Tour success. They are the two greatest sprinters. Where do you think they should rank.
[/QUOTE]

You are going off track completely now, I have already said Monuments and World Titles are on the cyclists wish list, and Cancellara and Boonen have lots of those so of course they will compare to LeMond and Fignon. Gts, World Titles and Monuments are what count most. LeMond is on record the only race he would swap is one of his World Titles for a Paris-Roubaix, his best was fourth. Froome has lots of GTs, but is not super high on the list because he won nothing else. I have no issue with that.

Being the best sprinter has little relevance, the nature of sprinting means sprinters will have far more opportunities for wins than any other type of cyclist so they benefit from quantity over quality. Add in the fact that they rely on teamwork more than other type of cyclist also lessens the value of those wins. As Cipo said when he broke Alfredo Bindas record, he was insignificant compared to Binda. For those reasons, I would not have any pure sprinters in the Top 100. Guys like Sagan, Zabel, Freire are different because they could win in non bunch sprint races so had some more all round racing ability.

And to be clear, even though its bugs me that Cipo and Cav have World Titles to their name, I have never suggested devaluing those or their MSR wins in terms of points. Those are still one day Monuments. Stage wins are a different matter.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
I guess it all boils down to how you value certain wins over others. And I'm a fan of all the cycling calendar and actually enjoy whatever races I can watch and am especially interested in the outcome, if there a rider I'd like to see win competing. Fortunately I live in a country in which state television provides live coverage of cycling races from TA, the monuments, some other classics and week long stage races, Tour of the Alpes, Giro, Dauphine, national championships, Tour, World's and Lombardia. It's no secret I'm more impressed with the rare aerobic and endurance qualities necessary to win the grand tours, in particular the Tour. So, biased or not, I'm naturally going to see the Tour champions as a level above the classics winners, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize their greatness. I just see the Tour winners as being on a superior physiological level. And then some of the greatest gran tour champions, were also capable of winning shorter stage races, monuments and World's. But it's not true in the reverse, namely that classics specialists could win grand tours. That's the main difference for me, not that I'm only looking at the Tour as an indicator.
 
Last edited:
So, biased or not, I'm naturally going to see the Tour champions as a level above the classics winners, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize their greatness. I just see the Tour winners as being on a superior physiological level.
Well, they're not, they're just lighter. This seems very ill-conceived and highly ignorant of the qualities of good one-day riders.
 
Question can be asked for me how far away GTs are from the different monuments in terms of range, and I would certainly consider GT + any monument more verstaile than a range that is cobbles + MSR. Simarly, the old Lombardia route simply wasn't very hard
GT + Liege wins since 2000

6 people

Sanremo + Ronde

3 people

GT + Lombardia since 2000

4 people

Sanremo + Roubaix

2 people

number of different people who did the 'less' versatile double

3

number of different people who did the 'more' versatile double

8
 
Reactions: SHAD0W93
No, I didn't heard World Tour riders talking how the Tour is much harder than the Giro and Vuelta. I've heard them talking how it is harder, but I also heard them talking how Giro and Vuelta are bloody hard too.
Pogacar should have more points for his Tour win than Roglic for Vuelta, but not significantly, maybe 20-30% more at most.
That's how much is the Tour value bigger than the Giro and Vuelta.
Here's what I've heard in audio and print interviews, something like this: "The tour is the biggest event in cycling for every World Tour team. This means that the pace is relentless from the start of every stage because every team is trying to make their mark with screen time, stage wins, jersey competitions, etc. It's just bonkers." This isn't about the course being harder, but about the field and the competition being more relentless.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Well, they're not, they're just lighter. This seems very ill-conceived and highly ignorant of the qualities of good one-day riders.
Despite the fact that you seem to go out of your way to be offensive, I'll respond to your post.

I doub't I'm highly ignorant of the qualities of pro racers, one-day riders or otherwise, having raced against a number of them in my day. Being lighter isn't the only factor in being qualified to win a grand tour, the engine has to be statospheric. Lot's of ultra light cyclists can't keep up with bigger riders on the cols, because their motors are insufficient. And being super light is often a handicap in the tts, so their goes your theory out the door. Talk about "ill-concieved and highly ignorant of the qualities". Being light is only one component among other physiological variables that make a grand tour champion. Indurain, for one thing, was not super light, but this was apparently compensated for by a stratospheric aerobic capacity and incredible power efficiency.

On my supposed high ignorance of the qualities of good one-day riders, a previous post up thread exposes that I recognize the physical gifts need to win those events.

You seem to be obsessed and rather peeved with me not considering classics specialists as being at the same level fitness necessary to win the grand tour. Well, can't do much to help you there, so you'll have to accept brooding over your own annoyance.

And I don't think its disputable that to hold such high condition over three weeks is somewhat more daunting and impressive than just being at peak on a given day, not that that isn't also very impressive.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
Despite the fact that you seem to go out of your way to be offensive, I'll respond to your post.

I doub't I'm highly ignorant of the qualities of pro racers, one-day riders or otherwise, having raced against a number of them in my day. Being lighter isn't the only factor in being qualified to win a grand tour, the engine has to be statospheric. Lot's of ultra light cyclists can't keep up with bigger riders on the cols, because their motors are insufficient. And being super light is often a handicap in the tts, so their goes your theory out the door. Talk about "ill-concieved and highly ignorant of the qualities". Being light is only one component among other physiological variables that make a grand tour champion. Indurain, for one thing, was not super light, but this was apparently compensated for by a stratospheric aerobic capacity and incridible power efficiency.

On my supposed high ignorance of the qualities of good one-day riders, a previous post up thread exposes that I recognize the physical gifts need to win those events.

You seem to be obsessed and rather peeved with me not considering classics specialists as being at the same level fitness necessary to win the grand tour. Well, can't do much to help you there, so you'll have to accept brooding over your own annoyance.

And I don't think its disputable that to hold such high condition over three weeks is somewhat more daunting and impressive than just being at peak on a given day, not that that isn't also very impressive.
It simply doesn't make sense to say they are on a different fitness level. If they were, all the one-day races would just be theirs for the taking.
 
Reactions: yaco and SHAD0W93
Despite the fact that you seem to go out of your way to be offensive, I'll respond to your post.
It's a bit galling that you keep doing this, clutching your pearls and being all precious.

You are by far the rudest, most patronising person in the thread. Nobody is being offensive, they are calling you out for talking nonsense. It's literally the point of a forum.
 
It's a bit galling that you keep doing this, clutching your pearls and being all precious.

You are by far the rudest, most patronising person in the thread. Nobody is being offensive, they are calling you out for talking nonsense. It's literally the point of a forum.
My apologies for any offense I may have caused, but I think you should take a look in the mirror. I too find it rather galling to be told, often with a rather condescending and dissmisive tone, that I'm talking nonesense. That there may be matters to disagree about fine, but that I'm talking utter nonesense no way. But I'm not going to despute it any further.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS