Rough Attempt at an All-Time Ranking

[YavorD]

Yes. Cav is a great sprinter, winning GTs is another level.

Than your PoV is strictly subjective (and wrong imo). You act like everyone ncan be a top sprinter at will, which is obviously not the case. Cavendish can't climb, but Pereiro/Cobo can't win tens of stages in a GT. And the sheer fact that teams (and personal sponsors) were willing to pay him couple of millions shows that his skill is highly rated and perhaps more important for the sponsors than a potential GT winner.

 

[Extinction]

Than your PoV is strictly subjective (and wrong imo). You act like everyone ncan be a top sprinter at will, which is obviously not the case. Cavendish can't climb, but Pereiro/Cobo can't win tens of stages in a GT. And the sheer fact that teams (and personal sponsors) were willing to pay him couple of millions shows that his skill is highly rated and perhaps more important for the sponsors than a potential GT winner.

I'm not talking about salaries and commercial considerarions. It's clear that Cav has earned the big salaries, as the exposure he gives the title sponosrs at the Tour has been immense. No, I was referring to the heirarchy of skillsets, and I'm sorry, even winning 10 sprints at the Tour isn't the achievment of winning yellow in Paris. In fact, you can't even compare these feats. And it doesn't matter that the one winning overall, can't win 10 flat sprint stages. Let's be serious.

As I have perviously suggested, perhaps the Hall of Fame concept suits better what you are saying. There, yes, Cav would earn a place, but arguably not Periero/Cobo, even if Periero/Cobo obejctively have better overall skillsets.

 

[YavorD]

I'm not talking about salaries and commercial considerarions. It's clear that Cav has earned the big salaries, as the exposure he gives the title sponosrs at the Tour has been immense. No, I was referring to the heirarchy of skillsets, and I'm sorry, even winning 10 sprints at the Tour isn't the achievment of winning yellow in Paris. In fact, you can't even compare these feats. And it doesn't matter that the one winning overall, can't win 10 flat sprint stages. Let's be serious.

As I have perviously suggested, perhaps the Hall of Fame concept suits better what you are saying. There, yes, Cav would earn a place, but arguably not Periero/Cobo, even if Periero/Cobo obejctively have better overall skillsets.

There are no better and worse skill. It obviously matters that they can't win 10 sprints. Obviously, you won't ever going to compare Cavendish with Merkx, Hinault, even Pogacar (if he doesn't suddenly decline), but his skill is obviously highly rated and VERY important.

 

[Jspear]

No I get it perfectly well, the history of the sport has determined an objective classification of prestige for events (GTs and monuments first, WCs, classics and major stage races second, then everything else down to the bottom tier of the pyramid), which then establishes the pecking order of the various disciplines (climbers/grimpeurs and tters, rouleurs, finisseurs and sprinters). Riders capable of excelling in events at the top of this pyramid, determine the ranks of greatness. It's no confidence, therefore, that Merckx and Hinault occupy numbers one and two of cycling's all time greats. Then there is that margin of subjectivity in personal preferences and specific value given to individual races and palmarès. But to deny an objective classification of prestige in events and disciplines, the difference between speed vs. strength in that heirarchy, as determining the general parameters upon which any ranking is based, as you suggested in your post, means you don't understand anything as I wrote. What you stated in so many words is that such parameters don't exist and, consequently, all judgment is completely subjective. But this is nonesense.

History has determined a classification of prestige but even within it there is still debate and conversation showing that it is not necessarily objective. That’s my only point. My original comment was made towards a poster using his subjective definition of what racing is to conveniently dismiss what a sprinter does as if it is not as much of racing as going up a mountain.

 

[YavorD]

@Extinction

To be honest with you, I've seen more random riders winning the Tour than suddenly becoming a top sprinters. Pereiro, Wiggins even Froome (pre 2011) to name a few, so perhaps winning a GT is actually easier than being a top sprinter?

 

[Extinction]

There are no better and worse skill. It obviously matters that they can't win 10 sprints. Obviously, you won't ever going to compare Cavendish with Merkx, Hinault, even Pogacar (if he doesn't suddenly decline), but his skill is obviously highly rated and VERY important.

You just contradicted yourself in the space of three sentences. If Merckx is better than Cav, it's because he can win more over varied terrain than the "one trick pony," ergo the sprinters skill is of a lesser caliber than that of the all rounder. Basta, I'm done.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Who said sprinters aren't real cyclists? Not me. I couldn't care less about the NFL debates, which have nothing to do with cycling. Kickers are present during the game all of what 30 seconds? Sprinters have to drag their arses all the way to Paris, if you get my drift. Again there is no comparison between these sports. If you ask me, Lucien van Impe was a far greater cyclist than either Cav or Cipollini, because in a sport where prestige of achievment is most connected with longue duree resistance to fatigue and is often a war of attrition (like Paris-Roubaix or racing up multiple big cols), the Belgian's Tour win is worth more than the others' entire careers. Simply because the French race is the gotha of a sport most celebrated for coming out on top after a greuling odessey. But this is also true of many other races of course.

PS. A more interesting debate, for me at least, would be arguing over who was a greater cyclist between Lucien van Impe versus Tom Boonen or Fabian Cancellara? I say Lucien over Tom or Fabian, although can't deny the legacy of both Boonen and Cancellara considerably outshines Van Impe's. And here I realize it boils down to whether one ranks winning the Tour higher than multiple cobbled monuments. It's a tough call and ultimately subjetive, especially because I'd rank both Boonen and Cancellara as greater than Carlos Sastre. But if you ask me Lemond versus Boonen or Cancellara? Then I say Lemond, both in terms of greatness and legacy, even though he looses both to Hinault. Yet if we were talking simply about physical prowess, irrespective of palmarès, then I say Lemond over Hinault, although it's a tough call because the Badger got so much more out of himself than Greg was able to for various reasons. So much to consider.

You did, on multiple occasions referring to this list is for PRO CYCLISTS and if anyone mentions a sprinter they don’t know real cycling. Along with @pmcg76, this year and last year. The comparison I brought up between the three sports is very similar to what you’re arguing. You’re stating they’re barely a pro cyclist which is what those positions are stated as being in their respective sports. Yet the greatest of all time would be ranked higher on an all time ranking. Which last time I checked, is the name of this thread and what @Pantani_lives was referring too.


Yes we are all aware that you value winning a grand tour over multiple monuments as this was debated last year with you and many posters in this very thread I believe. Just like we’re aware you’d have a solo Tour winner over multiple Giro or Vuelta winner.

I'm not talking about salaries and commercial considerarions. It's clear that Cav has earned the big salaries, as the exposure he gives the title sponosrs at the Tour has been immense. No, I was referring to the heirarchy of skillsets, and I'm sorry, even winning 10 sprints at the Tour isn't the achievment of winning yellow in Paris. In fact, you can't even compare these feats. And it doesn't matter that the one winning overall, can't win 10 flat sprint stages. Let's be serious.

As I have perviously suggested, perhaps the Hall of Fame concept suits better what you are saying. There, yes, Cav would earn a place, but arguably not Periero/Cobo, even if Periero/Cobo obejctively have better overall skillsets.

Well the good thing for Cav, Pereiro, Cobo, you, and me is that none of us have the achievement of winning yellow in Paris.

 

[Extinction]

History has determined a classification of prestige but even within it there is still debate and conversation showing that it is not necessarily objective. That’s my only point. My original comment was made towards a poster using his subjective definition of what racing is to conveniently dismiss what a sprinter does as if it is not as much of racing as going up a mountain.

I get your point, I just don't agree with it. I don't agree that there isn't a heirarchy of achievment in racing based on greater prestige in strength and endurance over sheer speed. And every ranking of race typology agrees with this. Being great at sheer speed makes you less of a great than being great at strength and endurence in this sport. Were it not considered this way, easy flat courses for sprinters would be as prestigious as Paris-Roubaix or Liege etc., but this is merely ridiculous.

 

[YavorD]

You just contradicted yourself in the space of three sentences. If Merckx is better than Cav, it's because he can win more over varied terrain than the "one trick pony," ergo the sprinters skill is of a lesser caliber than that of the all rounder. Basta, I'm done.

u


I did not. I said you can't compare them with All Time Greats. You can, however compare them with an average winner.

That said, Cavendish is a greater rider than many GT winners. As I pointed out it seems easier to become a GT winner than a top sprinter, so your point that suddenly being a sprinter is like second class doesn't make sense.

 

[SHAD0W93]

You just contradicted yourself in the space of three sentences. If Merckx is better than Cav, it's because he can win more over varied terrain than the "one trick pony," ergo the sprinters skill is of a lesser caliber than that of the all rounder. Basta, I'm done.

That’s not even close to the cyclists that are being compared right now and you know it.

 

[Extinction]

You did, on multiple occasions referring to this list is for PRO CYCLISTS and if anyone mentions a sprinter they don’t know real cycling. Along with @pmcg76, this year and last year. The comparison I brought up between the three sports is very similar to what you’re arguing. You’re stating they’re barely a pro cyclist which is what those positions are stated as being in their respective sports. Yet the greatest of all time would be ranked higher on an all time ranking. Which last time I checked, is the name of this thread and what @Pantani_lives was referring too.


Yes we are all aware that you value winning a grand tour over multiple monuments as this was debated last year with you and many posters in this very thread I believe. Just like we’re aware you’d have a solo Tour winner over multiple Giro or Vuelta winner.



Well the good thing for Cav, Pereiro, Cobo, you, and me is that none of us have the achievement of winning yellow in Paris.

No, what I said was that those putting sprinters in the category with GC and classics specialists don't know "real cycling." In no way did I say sprinters weren't "real cyclists." I'm sorry if the difference escaped you. I stand by the rest: the Bartalis, Coppis, Anquetils, Merckxs, Hinaults, Fignons, Lemonds, Indurians, etc. occupy the top teir of the pecking order, then comes the Rick van Looys, the Roger De Vlaemincks, the Francesco Mosers, etc., so forth and so on. Anybody is free to think otherwise, but I doubt the pundits and old journos would disagree with the basic analysis.

 

[SHAD0W93]

No, what I said was that those putting sprinters in the category with GC and classics specialists don't know "real cycling." In no way did I say sprinters weren't "real cyclists." I'm sorry if the difference escaped you. I stand by the rest: the Bartalis, Coppis, Anquetils, Merckxs, Hinaults, Fignons, Lemonds, Indurians, etc. occupy the top teir of the pecking order, then comes the Rick van Looys, the Roger De Vlaemincks, the Francesco Mosers, etc., so forth and so on. Anybody is free to think otherwise, but I doubt the pundits and old journos would disagree with the basic analysis.

No, both of you have been going on for the last two years that sprinters shouldn’t be valued, wins are overrated, and they don’t compare to a basic rider that they won far more of. So shouldn’t be on an all time ranking. Which isn’t ranking the riders skill set according to the OP like you’re trying to argue. No one has ever compared Cav or Cipo to any of those cyclists listed and you know it.

 

[Extinction]

No, both of you have been going on for the last two years that sprinters shouldn’t be valued, wins are overrated, and they don’t compare to a basic rider that they won far more of. So shouldn’t be on an all time ranking. Which isn’t ranking the riders skill set according to the OP like you’re trying to argue. No one has ever compared Cav or Cipo to any of those cyclists listed and you know it.

You are saying that I said sprinters shouldn't be valued. What I've been saying that their victories have a specific or relative weight, those winning GTs and monuments another, which is like Jupiter compared to the Moon.

 

[Red Rick]

You write as if the sport has no hierarchy in terms of results, as if the greatest sprinters (again a noble art) rank in terms of prestige with the greatest GT/monuments winners, which is nonesense. It has nothing to do with denigrating the fast men, for which you are either are being daft or insincere when you state folks hating sprinters, but placing such riders within the established pecking order.

I never disputed the prestige of races, and the fact that sprinters don't tend to win them. Their 'lack' of quality can be reflected in their results i nthe biggest races, not in the 'uurgh they just rely on their teammates' ***.

I do think some of the top sprinters can easily bring up the question how big GT stages are in comparison to some other riders. If you ask me who had a greater career between say Ryder Hesjedal and Andre Greipel I find it hard to say Hesjedal.

 

[Extinction]

I never disputed the prestige of races, and the fact that sprinters don't tend to win them. Their 'lack' of quality can be reflected in their results i nthe biggest races, not in the 'uurgh they just rely on their teammates' ***.

I do think some of the top sprinters can easily bring up the question how big GT stages are in comparison to some other riders. If you ask me who had a greater career between say Ryder Hesjedal and Andre Greipel I find it hard to say Hesjedal.

Ah, that's an interesting comparison. But if you ask me, Hesjedal, as winner of the Giro, was a greater rider than Greipel, regardless if arguably Greipel's career was more "successful." I realize this is controversial, but from my own racing experience, which included events with top tier pros in various disciplines, I've just came to see the sport this way.

 

[Big Doopie]

I feel like the hardest thing in creating any all-time list is how, if at all, to reward longevity:

for instance I would rate the talents of Lemond, Luis Ocana and Freddy Maertens way above Valverde, Poulidor and Zoetemelk. But that also does not seem fair to riders who achieve quantity over a long period.

 

[Jspear]

I feel like the hardest thing in creating any all-time list is how, if at all, to reward longevity:

for instance I would rate the talents of Lemond, Luis Ocana and Freddy Maertens way above Valverde, Poulidor and Zoetemelk. But that also does not seem fair to riders who achieve quantity over a long period.

I wonder if it’s possible (fair) to do it based on the top 10 seasons of each rider?……

 

[Gigs_98]

What I find weirdest in this entire discussion is that the guy rating Cav lower than Cobo is making his entire argument based on "there is an established hierarchy that determines how much a win is worth". Like yeah, we know, I would use literally the same argument to argue Cav>Cobo. There is an established worth for a TdF stage win and that worth is pretty damn high. Also, are we constantly just ignoring Cav won both MSR and the worlds?

 

[Blanco]

PS. A more interesting debate, for me at least, would be arguing over who was a greater cyclist between Lucien van Impe versus Tom Boonen or Fabian Cancellara? I say Lucien over Tom or Fabian, although can't deny the legacy of both Boonen and Cancellara considerably outshines Van Impe's. And here I realize it boils down to whether one ranks winning the Tour higher than multiple cobbled monuments. It's a tough call and ultimately subjetive, especially because I'd rank both Boonen and Cancellara as greater than Carlos Sastre.

Is this some kind of a joke? A poor attempt?
Lucien Van Impe over Boonen and Cancellara?!!!
But, for consolation, they are better than Sastre
Boy, we really are following different sports, it seems...

 

[Big Doopie]

I wonder if it’s possible (fair) to do it based on the top 10 seasons of each rider?……

or do average “points” per season?

but even with that, Lemond would still fare poorly, as 87-88 had zero results due to shooting accident and then 1991-1994 were almost non-existent due to other factors.

maybe do average points over top five (or six?) seasons?

merckx and Hinault would most certainly be in their rightful place in the first two spots. And the likes of Lemond and even Ocana and Maertens would get their due. Froome might climb as well.

 

[Extinction]

Is this some kind of a joke? A poor attempt?
Lucien Van Impe over Boonen and Cancellara?!!!
But, for consolation, they are better than Sastre
Boy, we really are following different sports, it seems...

Says the one with Valverde as his avitar.

 

[Big Doopie]

Is this some kind of a joke? A poor attempt?
Lucien Van Impe over Boonen and Cancellara?!!!
But, for consolation, they are better than Sastre
Boy, we really are following different sports, it seems...

Van Impe podiumed the TDF 5 times (with a win). It is not that far fetched to argue he was potentially a greater cyclist than many. Particularly since he had to contend with first Merckx and then Hinault during his career.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Or we could all make a list ranking out top 50/100 cyclists and see what happens.

 

[Extinction]

You h

or do average “points” per season?

but even with that, Lemond would still fare poorly, as 87-88 had zero results due to shooting accident and then 1991-1994 were almost non-existent due to other factors.

maybe do average points over top five (or six?) seasons?

merckx and Hinault would most certainly be in their rightful place in the first two spots. And the likes of Lemond and even Ocana and Maertens would get their due. Froome might climb as well.

You have to consider the relative weight of results, not a reductive and entirely misleading points system. It's like a chess set, you have the pauns (domestiques), the rooks (sprinters), the knights (finisseurs), the bishops (monument winners), the queens (chief grimpeurs) and the kings (grand tour winners, with the Tour at the top). This is why on the relative scheme to his averages Van Impe outclasses Boonen and Cancellara, but Sastre, who was in any case a second tier outlier, does not. Although I may be mistaken, even likely so, about Sastre. Ha!!! Mere results don't tell the whole tale. And then there is consistency and building on success, which guys like Aru and Dumoulin lacked, although it's fair to say that going for a GT win might cost some shortened careers. That's how demanding it's become.

 

[SHAD0W93]

This is why on the relative scheme to his averages Van Impe outclasses Boonen and Cancellara, but Sastre, who was in any case a second tier outlier, does not. Although I may be mistaken, even likely so, about Sastre. Ha!!!

You’ve already made an argument last year on Sastre being better than Boonen and Cancellara.