Rough Attempt at an All-Time Ranking

[Bonimenier]

It's time for the first Colombian GT winner, three almost forgotten Tour winners, and a cyclo-cross champion.

130 Luis Herrera 195
129 Italo Zilioli 197
128 Wout Van Aert 197
127 Denis Menchov 197
126 Gianbattista Baronchelli 200
125 Gastone Nencini 200
124 Louis Trousselier 201
123 Andrea Tafi 205
122 Georges Ronsse 205
121 Sylvère Maes 205

Van Aert is the second youngest rider in this list. Those silver medals on the road give him the extra points to enter this list.

Wondering who the youngest will be

 

[tobydawq]

Wondering who the youngest will be

Yeah, impossible to tell.

 

[Pantani_lives]

Wondering who the youngest will be

Hint: he has the letters r, e, c and o in his name.

 

[Netserk]

The letter č rather?

 

[Berflamand]

I don't really have an opinion regarding these rankings but reading the discussions about Valverde vs Boonen (and others) I remembered that Boonen himself said that Valverde was/is in his opinion the best of their generation.

Found the article:

DPG Media Privacy Gate

He says:

"Valverde is simply the best rider of our generation. Head and shoulders (above the rest)."

Make of that what you will.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

While i'm not the biggest fan of the site, I think for this topic the PCS all-time ranking does a decent enough job. It doesn't simply take the normal points and adds them over the duration of a rider's career, but they only take into account the best results. I think that's fair considering the fact that if you want to be "part of the discussion" you can't only have a lot of top 10 places, you mainly have to have a lot of wins and podiums. To be the considered among the best, 10 times 8th shouldn't count nearly as much as 1 or 2 actual wins.

Summation of points in level 1 races and higher. Only the points of the top-10 are considered, in stages the top-3. The points are computed according to the following formula: (PCS Points) / result / 10 . If a rider received 100 points for 2nd place, it contributes 100/2/10 = 5 points to his all time total. A rider winning the final GC in the Tour de France contributes 500/1/10 = 50 points to this total. A rider needs at least 50 points to make it to the ranking.

100/2029 results.

#	Rider	Points
1	Merckx Eddy	3767
2	Moser Francesco	2101
3	Kelly Sean	2058
4	De Vlaeminck Roger	1968
5	Hinault Bernard	1963
6	Anquetil Jacques	1842
7	Valverde Alejandro	1805
8	Van Looy Rik	1681
9	Bartali Gino	1504
10	Jalabert Laurent	1498
11	Coppi Fausto	1496
12	Saronni Giuseppe	1492
13	Gimondi Felice	1444
14	Maertens Freddy	1437
15	Zoetemelk Joop	1421
16	Rominger Tony	1329
17	Sagan Peter	1284
18	Zabel Erik	1273
19	Indurain Miguel	1270
20	Binda Alfredo	1265
21	Poulidor Raymond	1260
22	Girardengo Costante	1189
23	Bitossi Franco	1178
24	Cipollini Mario	1133
25	Boonen Tom	1123
26	Rebellin Davide	1090
27	Cavendish Mark	1089
28	Gilbert Philippe	1061
29	Contador Alberto	1059
30	Cancellara Fabian	1041
31	Kübler Ferdinand	1004
32	Greipel André	1003
33	Bobet Louison	1001
34	Petacchi Alessandro	988
35	Nibali Vincenzo	943
36	Van Springel Herman	926
37	Museeuw Johan	926
38	Magni Fiorenzo	917
39	Poblet Miguel	914
40	Froome Chris	909
41	Ocaña Luis	901
42	Zülle Alex	869
43	Perurena Domingo	866
44	Bettini Paolo	851
45	Godefroot Walter	831
46	Raas Jan	821
47	McEwen Robbie	820
48	Roglič Primož	806
49	Freire Óscar	802
50	Verbeeck Frans	796
51	Bugno Gianni	795
52	Roche Stephen	793
53	Rodríguez Joaquim	793
54	Kristoff Alexander	788
55	Fignon Laurent	786
56	Van Steenbergen Rik	786
57	Baronchelli Gianbattista	782
58	Lejarreta Marino	768
59	Guerra Learco	768
60	Janssen Jan	759
61	Knetemann Gerrie	758
62	Van Avermaet Greg	757
63	Mottet Charly	754
64	Vanderaerden Eric	750
65	Anderson Phil	747
66	Argentin Moreno	740
67	Bartoli Michele	734
68	Frantz Nicolas	730
69	Koblet Hugo	723
70	Altig Rudi	721
71	Casagrande Francesco	709
72	Vinokourov Alexandre	706
73	Martin Tony	704
74	Thévenet Bernard	701
75	Quintana Nairo	694
76	LeMond Greg	694
77	Rodríguez Delio	694
78	Fondriest Maurizio	691
79	Chiappucci Claudio	676
80	Evans Cadel	676
81	Motta Gianni	664
82	Sørensen Rolf	661
83	Viviani Elia	659
84	Ullrich Jan	657
85	Dancelli Michele	651
86	Boasson Hagen Edvald	649
87	Darrigade André	648
88	Lasa Miguel María	640
89	Gavazzi Pierino	638
90	Démare Arnaud	633
91	van der Poel Adrie	629
92	Basso Marino	622
93	Cañardo Mariano	613
94	Belloni Gaetano	611
95	Di Luca Danilo	604
96	Olano Abraham	601
97	Voigt Jens	601
98	Leducq André	598
99	Adorni Vittorio	590
100	Cunego Damiano	589

101	Sánchez Samuel	584
102	Hushovd Thor	584
103	Kittel Marcel	578
104	Alaphilippe Julian	577
105	Delgado Pedro	576
106	Armstrong Lance	572
107	Gaul Charly	570
108	Planckaert Eddy	566
109	Zilioli Italo	561
110	Berrendero Julián	555
111	Bontempi Guido	553
112	Pollentier Michel	553
113	Degenkolb John	550
114	Bahamontes Federico	544
115	Kirsipuu Jaan	542
116	Kuiper Hennie	541
117	Tchmil Andrei	541
118	Porte Richie	532
119	Pélissier Henri	527
120	Schotte Briek	519
121	Ekimov Viatcheslav	518
122	Baldini Ercole	516
123	Criquielion Claude	516
124	Richard Pascal	514
125	Thurau Dietrich	510
126	Peeters Ludo	510
127	Impanis Raymond	510
128	Ockers Stan	509
129	Defilippis Nino	506
130	Van Impe Lucien	501
131	Breukink Erik	497
132	Brunero Giovanni	496
133	Van Linden Rik	495
134	Stablinski Jean	495
135	Faber François	494
136	Karstens Gerben	492
137	Kwiatkowski Michał	491
138	Gerrans Simon	486
139	Bouhanni Nacer	484
140	Vandenbroucke Jean-Luc	483
141	Dekker Erik	480
142	Matthews Michael	478
143	Contini Silvano	478
144	Ulissi Diego	477
145	Magne Antonin	476
146	Sercu Patrick	476
147	Ludwig Olaf	475
148	Battaglin Giovanni	474
149	Nijdam Jelle	474
150	Garrigou Gustave	471
151	Duclos-Lassalle Gilbert	468
152	Martin Dan	467
153	Fuglsang Jakob	466
154	Heras Roberto	465
155	Costa Rui	464
156	Chavanel Sylvain	460
157	Basso Ivan	459
158	Bennati Daniele	459
159	Reybrouck Guido	454
160	Thys Philippe	454
161	Garzelli Stefano	453
162	Pogačar Tadej	450
163	Pozzato Filippo	446
164	De Bruyne Alfred	446
165	Thomas Geraint	444
166	Wiggins Bradley	443
167	Simoni Gilberto	440
168	Panizza Wladimiro	440
169	Dufaux Laurent	438
170	Leipheimer Levi	437
171	Agostinho Joaquim	435
172	Sánchez Luis León	433
173	Vandenbroucke Frank	428
174	Dumoulin Tom	427
175	van Poppel Jean-Paul	423
176	Leoni Adolfo	418
177	Voeckler Thomas	417
178	Abduzhaparov Djamolidine	416
179	Pinot Thibaut	415
180	Tafi Andrea	413
181	de Wolf Fons	410
182	Svorada Ján	407
183	Colbrelli Sonny	404
184	Ewan Caleb	403
185	van der Velde Johan	401
186	van Aert Wout	399
187	Galetti Carlo	398
188	Knudsen Knut	397
189	Millar Robert	396
190	Willems Daniel	396
191	Steels Tom	396
192	Pantani Marco	395
193	Terpstra Niki	393
194	Mollema Bauke	388
195	Marie Thierry	387
196	Alavoine Jean	387
197	Petit-Breton Lucien	385
198	Kint Marcel	384
199	O'Grady Stuart	382
200	Wellens Tim	382

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

While i'm not the biggest fan of the site, I think for this topic the PCS all-time ranking does a decent enough job. It doesn't simply take the normal points and adds them over the duration of a rider's career, but they only take into account the best results. I think that's fair considering the fact that if you want to be "part of the discussion" you can't only have a lot of top 10 places, you mainly have to have a lot of wins and podiums. To be the considered among the best, 10 times 8th shouldn't count nearly as much as 1 or 2 actual wins.

27 Cavendish
28 Gilbert
29 Contador
@Red Rick Surely this is good enough for you to summon the ghost of Pisti?

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

27 Cavendish
28 Gilbert
29 Contador
@Red Rick Surely this is good enough for you to summon the ghost of Pisti?

Not sure why you are quoting my post.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I think the PCS ranking does a pretty poor job at this actually, and if you filter retired riders it becomes clear why:

1. Valverde 1805
2. Sagan 1284
3. Rebellin 1090
4. Cavendish 1089
5. Gilbert 1061
6. Greipel 1003
7. Nibali 943
8. Froome 909
9. Roglic 806
10. Kristoff 788
11. Van Avermaet 757

Very clearly biased towards sprinters and to an extent also cobbles specialists, which suggests GC results (and GC wins in particular) are being underrated, and stage wins (and maybe also classics placements) are being overrated. No ranking should have Greipel ahead of both Nibali and Froome. Valverde sitting at double of Froome's score is also very obviously wrong. In addition, the likes of Bouhanni and Wellens making the top 200 is hilarious to me.

 

[Blanco]

Valverde again on top? What a surprise

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Not sure why you are quoting my post.

I’m quoting the pcs ranking embedded in your post

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I think the PCS ranking does a pretty poor job at this actually, and if you filter retired riders it becomes clear why:

1. Valverde 1805
2. Sagan 1284
3. Rebellin 1090
4. Cavendish 1089
5. Gilbert 1061
6. Greipel 1003
7. Nibali 943
8. Froome 909
9. Roglic 806
10. Kristoff 788
11. Van Avermaet 757

Very clearly biased towards sprinters and to an extent also cobbles specialists, which suggests GC results (and GC wins in particular) are being underrated, and stage wins (and maybe also classics placements) are being overrated. No ranking should have Greipel ahead of both Nibali and Froome. Valverde sitting at double of Froome's score is also very obviously wrong.

Points are always biased towards sprinters, because the best sprinters tend to win a lot and there simply are many sprint opportunities per season. This is part of basically any point based system i believe, unless you start devaluing the sprint races. I'm all for doing that, but i guess they are simply a big part of cycling. It's a bit like in tennis, where often big serve guys tend to go further than "better" players with a mediocre serve.

Also, keep in mind the length of a career helps in a points based system. Guys like Greipel or Valverde have been earning points for double as long as many others who quit a lot sooner. Froome for instance was top dog during 5 or 6 years, but did little before and after.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Or maybe it's just that annual rankings really overrate lesser races and podiums and lesser placings precisely cause it's the point of annual rankings to legitimize the lesser races more so thant the biggest races that everyone would love to win even if it gave 0 points.

And many of these all time rankings just add all the yearly points together. If you just look at point valuations of certain achievements there are so many absolute piss takes to not dismiss the rankings entirely.

So when a ranking goes something like Rebellin > Contador/Nibali with Valverde at #4, I don't think it's ridiculous at all to suggest reengineering it a LOT.

Wait till you get to the second page and see the 101-200 order.

 

[Pantani_lives]

In the next group we have four Giro winners from different eras, and the first of three Australians to show up.

120 Tom Dumoulin 206
119 Giuseppe Olmo 208
118 Eric Vanderaerden 208
117 Lucien Petit-Breton 209
116 Francesco Casagrande 210
115 Heiri Suter 210
114 Vittorio Adorni 210
113 Ercole Baldini 213
112 Damiano Cunego 215
111 Phil Anderson 216

Vanderaerden and Suter have both won Flanders & Roubaix. The latter was the first to win them in the same year: 1923.

 

[BigCoward]

While i'm not the biggest fan of the site, I think for this topic the PCS all-time ranking does a decent enough job. It doesn't simply take the normal points and adds them over the duration of a rider's career, but they only take into account the best results. I think that's fair considering the fact that if you want to be "part of the discussion" you can't only have a lot of top 10 places, you mainly have to have a lot of wins and podiums. To be the considered among the best, 10 times 8th shouldn't count nearly as much as 1 or 2 actual wins.

Valverde is better than Coppi apparently, seems legit.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I would also like to point out that Andy Schleck, in a ranking where he gets the 2010 Tour win awarded fully, is down in 450th on the PCS ranking. That's bizarre.

 

[tobydawq]

Valverde is better than Coppi apparently, seems legit.

He won the Vuelta more times.

Also, he rode in an era where there were other good riders.

Jokes aside, imagine if WW2 hadn't made the cycling calendar lie dormant for five years in the middle of Bartali's and the beginning of Coppi's careers. Their stats could have been completely insane.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Valverde is better than Coppi apparently, seems legit.

Coppi had some prime years taken away from him during WWII. Valverde has been riding over 20 years and has always been a contender in most races he started. This is what a ranking based on points does. You could try to rate or rank riders according to their peak years, and then people can start to debate whether peak Froome is better than peak Hinault for instance. And i'm guessing that wouldn't be ok either.

The reason why i think PCS's points based system (as far as points based systems go) is actually good is because it rewards top results. Otherwise you could get riders who had a long career, hardly ever winning, yet scoring very high due to lots of "good" results.

But you will find no ranking on which everybody agrees. Either it will be very subjective, or it'll need to be interpreted according to the rules it follows.

 

[Red Rick]

Coppi had some prime years taken away from him during WWII. Valverde has been riding over 20 years and has always been a contender in most races he started. This is what a ranking based on points does. You could try to rate or rank riders according to their peak years, and then people can start to debate whether peak Froome is better than peak Hinault for instance. And i'm guessing that wouldn't be ok either.

The reason why i think PCS's points based system (as far as points based systems go) is actually good is because it rewards top results. Otherwise you could get riders who had a long career, hardly ever winning, yet scoring very high due to lots of "good" results.

But you will find no ranking on which everybody agrees. Either it will be very subjective, or it'll need to be interpreted according to the rules it follows.

PCS actually makes an effort to use a different system for the all time list. Dividing points by a result is quite aggressive.

But then they proceed to count every race from .1 and up without any other adjustments. So that ranking will literally give Sagan more points for winning Okolo Slovenska than a Simon Yates gets for finishing 3rd in the Giro. And PCS gives a LOT of points for stage wins

 

[Blanco]

I would also like to point out that Andy Schleck, in a ranking where he gets the 2010 Tour win awarded fully, is down in 450th on the PCS ranking. That's bizarre.

A rider who won 10 races in his entire career doesn't really deserve much better placing.

 

[Red Rick]

A rider who won 10 races in his entire career doesn't really deserve much better placing.

How many riders in total have won the Tour de France?

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Coppi had some prime years taken away from him during WWII. Valverde has been riding over 20 years and has always been a contender in most races he started. This is what a ranking based on points does.

And yet he won 7 GTs and 9 monuments. I don't think anyone (except his fans) considers Valverde a greater cyclist than Coppi.

 

[Blanco]

How many riders in total have won the Tour de France?

He didn't even won it.
Nevertheless, many of the Tour winners wouldn't be in top 100. The list is long: Bernal (of course, time is on his side), Thomas, Schleck, Pereiro, Riis, Pingeon, Aimar, Walkowiak, Robic, Lapebie, R.Maes, De Waele, L.Buysse, Lambot, Scieur, Defraye, Pottier, Trousselier, Cornet and Garin.

 

[Pantani_lives]

The next batch contains four world champions and one Olympic champion.

110 Stan Ockers 216
109 Jean Alavoine 217
108 Georges Speicher 221
107 Michel Pollentier 222
106 Jean Stablinski 225
105 José Manuel Fuente 229
104 Greg Van Avermaet 232
103 Guido Bontempi 236
102 Gilberto Simoni 239
101 Marcel Kint 240

This countdown serves well as a journey through cycling history. Tomorrow we will enter the top 100.

 

[Red Rick]

He didn't even won it.

I think we can put Contador all the way on top of the 2000s+ then.