Rough Attempt at an All-Time Ranking

Page 19 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
But then how many of monuments/Olympic RR and TT/worlds RR and TT/ stage races/ one day races/ nationals rr and tt/ and stage wins equal a grand tour. I don’t think many would try and argue that Canc, Boonen, and Gilbert had lesser careers than Evans, Heras, and Menchov despite their Grand Tour and other success. Or Cunego and he had quite a bit of success in his rocky career.

People have said before and I agree with that monuments or one day races you have to go all in for because you don’t have another chance. During a Grand Tour the overall contenders are able to rest on days that are not GC relevant. Obviously if all the Grand Tour stages were raced like a monument, stage gaps and DNFs would be higher.
 
Last edited:
Or perfect on the list, Valverde is ahead of Indurian.
7 GTs, 16 GT stages, 9 stage races, Olympic and Worlds TT, 1 NRR, 1 one day, 2 WRR silvers and 1 bronze
Vs
1 GT, 17 GT stages, 7 secondary classifications, 19 stage races, 4 monuments, 1 WRR, 3 NRR, 1 NTT, 11 one day, WRR 2 silver and 4 bronze.

Obviously Indurian was the better GT rider with 7 wins, 2 podiums, and 2 top 10s vs Valverde’s 1 win, 8 podiums, and 11 top 10s but I think many would lean to Valverde for his success in everything, longevity, and consistency across all the races.
 
But than how many of monuments/Olympic RR and TT/worlds RR and TT, stage races, one day races, nationals rr and tt, and stage wins equal a grand tour. I don’t think many would try and argue that Canc, Boonen, and Gilbert had better careers than Evans, Heras, and Menchov despite their Grand Tour and other success. Or Cunego and he had quite a bit of success in his rocky career.

People have said before and I agree with that monuments or one day races you have to go all in for because you don’t have another chance. During a Grand Tour the overall contenders are able to rest on days that are not GC relevant. Obviously if all the Grand Tour stages were raced like a monument, stage gaps and DNFs would be higher.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I think its that linear between the Monument specialists and those of the Tour. Obviously it's more nuanced and all the combinations in terms of evalutation are kind of irresolvable. But I think it's the continuity in terms of sustained power and efficiency that stands out. Ok today the stages have gotten on average shorter, but once upon a time it was not uncommon to race nearly 200 km a day for 3 weeks. However you look at it, racing for an average of +/- 200 km for three weeks is daunting. And then consider all the mountains, the tts, the stress for three weeks. It's just insane. The cumulative fatigue and having to perform under it over a sustained period of time tests and cracks even the most formidable.

PS. Perhaps Andy Hampston put it best when egged on and abetted by Paul Kochli DS of La Vie Claire to try to win the 86 Tour and Hampston said he simply didn't have the energy to do it. (He finished 4th)
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
Or perfect on the list, Valverde is ahead of Indurian.
7 GTs, 16 GT stages, 9 stage races, Olympic and Worlds TT, 1 NRR, 1 one day, 2 WRR silvers and 1 bronze
Vs
1 GT, 17 GT stages, 7 secondary classifications, 19 stage races, 4 monuments, 1 WRR, 3 NRR, 1 NTT, 11 one day, WRR 2 silver and 4 bronze.

Obviously Indurian was the better GT rider with 7 wins, 2 podiums, and 2 top 10s vs Valverde’s 1 win, 8 podiums, and 11 top 10s but I think many would lean to Valverde for his success in everything, longevity, and consistency across all the races.
But in a hundred years Indurain, because he won 5 Tours in a row, will be remembered more than Valverde.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
But in a hundred years Indurain, because he won 5 Tours in a row, will be remembered more than Valverde.
I will say this, it took me till 1918 to recognize a monument winner and 1944 to recognize one that didn’t also win a Grand Tour. We will see first with Kelly in 2092 but I find it hard to believe Kelly or Valverde will be thought of less based off their other success.

And the crappy thing is we won’t be alive to see it almost certainly it someone’s reaction going through all the old posts of the forum during the off-season.
 
Reactions: Extinction
Or perfect on the list, Valverde is ahead of Indurian.
7 GTs, 16 GT stages, 9 stage races, Olympic and Worlds TT, 1 NRR, 1 one day, 2 WRR silvers and 1 bronze
Vs
1 GT, 17 GT stages, 7 secondary classifications, 19 stage races, 4 monuments, 1 WRR, 3 NRR, 1 NTT, 11 one day, WRR 2 silver and 4 bronze.

Obviously Indurian was the better GT rider with 7 wins, 2 podiums, and 2 top 10s vs Valverde’s 1 win, 8 podiums, and 11 top 10s but I think many would lean to Valverde for his success in everything, longevity, and consistency across all the races.
Secondary classifications do not mean much because there was no combination classification in the Tour or Giro when Indurain was at his peak.

Points system in the Tour was also skewed to the sprinters unlike the Vuelta when Valverde was winning his jerseys. Same for the number of stages favoring sprinters.

NRR is also difficult to compare. After Euskaltel stopped, Movistar became the only WT level team vs ONCE, Kelme and others in the 90's. IOW, there was less of a difference in quality between Banesto and others then than it is between Movistar and the other teams in Spain now.

NTT was first held in 1994. In 3 years that Indurain could have done it, he won 1 Worlds and 1 Olympic title. It's obvious that he was the best ITT rider around back then unlike Valverde who IIRC has never entered a Worlds or Olympic TT. Which to me makes the use of a NC ITT title pretty meaningless for comparison purposes.

So without getting into details of races, the more like for like comparison would be

7 GTs, 16 GT stages, 9 stage races, Olympic and Worlds TT, 1 one day, 2 WRR silvers and 1 bronze
Vs
1 GT, 17 GT stages, 19 stage races, 4 monuments, 1 WRR, 11 one day, WRR 2 silver and 4 bronze.

Which is also not a fair comparison, as Valverde actually has 23 stage race wins and Indurain has 18 which is a much smaller difference than 19 to 9.
 
I will say this, it took me till 1918 to recognize a monument winner and 1944 to recognize one that didn’t also win a Grand Tour. We will see first with Kelly in 2092 but I find it hard to believe Kelly or Valverde will be thought of less based off their other success.

And the crappy thing is we won’t be alive to see it almost certainly it someone’s reaction going through all the old posts of the forum during the off-season.
Yea, but cycing between 1918-1944 was another era. They all rode bikes that weighed 20 kilos.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Really?

So you don't think this stage required a fitness level superior to that of the meagre classics riders to complete?

It's not a question of finess level for one day, but 21, over mountains and tts and all the rest. Even if you are being sarcastic, it's disingenuous. And you've made this about "meager classics riders", not me.
 
Secondary classifications do not mean much because there was no combination classification in the Tour or Giro when Indurain was at his peak.

Points system in the Tour was also skewed to the sprinters unlike the Vuelta when Valverde was winning his jerseys. Same for the number of stages favoring sprinters.

NRR is also difficult to compare. After Euskaltel stopped, Movistar became the only WT level team vs ONCE, Kelme and others in the 90's. IOW, there was less of a difference in quality between Banesto and others then than it is between Movistar and the other teams in Spain now.

NTT was first held in 1994. In 3 years that Indurain could have done it, he won 1 Worlds and 1 Olympic title. It's obvious that he was the best ITT rider around back then unlike Valverde who IIRC has never entered a Worlds or Olympic TT. Which to me makes the use of a NC ITT title pretty meaningless for comparison purposes.

So without getting into details of races, the more like for like comparison would be

7 GTs, 16 GT stages, 9 stage races, Olympic and Worlds TT, 1 one day, 2 WRR silvers and 1 bronze
Vs
1 GT, 17 GT stages, 19 stage races, 4 monuments, 1 WRR, 11 one day, WRR 2 silver and 4 bronze.

Which is also not a fair comparison, as Valverde actually has 23 stage race wins and Indurain has 18 which is a much smaller difference than 19 to 9.
I just did it off their major wins listed on wiki which has those numbers.

In my opinion secondary wins get undervalued. They still have to perform and in some riders that’s their highlight. Of course any Olympic, WC, and EC is a better win then Nationals. Look at EBH picking both up, but they’re still wins.

We can also go Olympics though. If pros could ride it, maybe Indurian and other past riders would have had a good Olympic career.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
Philippe Thys won 3 Tours, Henri Pelissier just one, Girardengo won 2 Giros, yet Thys is remembered the least. How to explain that, except that bikes weighed 20 kilos?
You are just trying to spite me. Evidently I've become the shooting target. Ok, fair enough. Perhaps because these were the years between WWI and WWII and sport was at the dawn of modernity (and what Logic said better than me above). Thys' wins evidently got less press, poor bloke. I mean, how can you even compare cycling in 1918-1944 to what came after? What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
I just did it off their major wins listed on wiki which has those numbers.

In my opinion secondary wins get undervalued. They still have to perform and in some riders that’s their highlight. Of course any Olympic, WC, and EC is a better win then Nationals. Look at EBH picking both up, but they’re still wins.

We can also go Olympics though. If pros could ride it, maybe Indurian and other past riders would have had a good Olympic career.
Greatness (IMO) is defined by the big wins in the biggest races against the best riders. The wins in smaller races are wins, true, but I feel a bit uneasy when those wins are used to make up for the lack of 'big' wins.
 
Reactions: Roku and Extinction
So just for clarity what would equal/surpass 1 tour victory, how many monuments?
Good question. Who knows? You are putting me on the spot I'm aware. And anything I might say will certainly be up for ridicule.

How about this, however. I don't think you can campare the two camps, in what's required physiologically, but perhaps equally athletically, to succeed in the ones versus the other. Hell, that's the whole point of the Tour de France and a grand tour.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS