FFS the best threads always when I forget about the forum or I'm away for holidays.
Yea we need to use the thread planning better and take into account Safebets birthday, anniversaries, and all the important stuff.FFS the best threads always when I forget about the forum or I'm away for holidays.
We can, and I am.I think we can put Contador all the way on top of the 2000s+ then.
No matter the point system, it's pretty crazy that the difference between Valverde in 1st and Sagan in 2nd is almost the same as between Sagan and GVA in 11th place.I think the PCS ranking does a pretty poor job at this actually, and if you filter retired riders it becomes clear why:
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.
- Valverde 1805
- Sagan 1284
- Rebellin 1090
- Cavendish 1089
- Gilbert 1061
- Greipel 1003
- Nibali 943
- Froome 909
- Roglic 806
- Kristoff 788
- Van Avermaet 757
Yep, i can agree with that. But i do think the system to subtract points exponentially going down isn't bad for determining or ranking all-time/career best. Looking back at a career, it shouldn't be determined by 6th or 9th places. But i agree about the race cat. should be much more decisive.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
I fully agree with that. I was just noting it's a lot more aggressive than most other systems do, but it works well considering on the rolling 12 month ranking 2nd place in a GT/monument is often like 75 or 80% of the winner.Yep, i can agree with that. But i do think the system to subtract points exponentially going down isn't bad for determining or ranking all-time/career best. Looking back at a career, it shouldn't be determined by 6th or 9th places. But i agree about the race cat. should be much more decisive.
As a child in the late eighties I wondered why cycling, unlike tennis, didn't have a decent world ranking. So I started keeping my own list: 50 points for the Tour winner, 25 points for Paris-Roubaix etc. It was very incomplete, based on the results I found in newspapers. Later, in the late 1990s, I started doing it again. That time I started using books on cycling with old results to compile an all-time list. It's hard to decide which result is worth how many points. What's worth more: finishing third in the Tour, winning three sprint stages in the Giro, or winning Gent-Wevelgem? I came quite far back then, but I stopped keeping track in the following years.
Now with the Internet it's easier to look up old results, so after years of postponing I had a new attempt at compiling an all-time list based on points. The point system is just the one I've been using for myself; it has no official value. It's mostly about wins in big races. I'm too lazy to count every stage win in one-week races and all those places of honour. I'm sure I've also made a lot of mistakes, because I'm too lazy to check everything twice. So I made a top 150 which is, as the title says, only a rough attempt at an all-time list. It only gives a basic idea of what an all-time ranking of men's road cycling could look like if it was done properly.
This is the point system:
STAGE RACES:
*Tour de France: 50/25/10 points for the GC top three. 7 points for a stage win/points classification/King of the mountains.
*Giro & Vuelta: 40/20/8 points for the GC top three. 5 points for a stage win/points classification/King of the mountains.
*20 points for Paris-Nice/Tirreno/Basque Country/Dauphiné/Suisse.
*10 points for Romandie, Catalunya, Burgos, Dunkirk, Midi Libre, etc.
*5 points for smaller stage races.
ONE-DAY RACES
*Road race at World Championships or Olympics: 40/20/10 points for the top three.
*ITT at World Championships or Olympics: 25/10 points for the top two.
*European Championships: 15 points for road race, 10 points for ITT.
*National Championships: 10 points for France/Italy/Spain/Belgium/Netherlands. 5 points for other countries, 5 points for ITT.
*Monument: 25/10 points for top two.
*15 points for Amstel/Gent-Wevelgem/Flèche Wallonne/San Sebastian/Strade Bianche/Paris-Tours/Bordeaux-Paris/former world cup races.
*10 points for Omloop het Nieuwsblad/E3/Emilia/Milan-Turin/Plouay/etc.
*5 points for smaller one-day races, excluding criteriums.
Of course this could lead to endless discussions about what is worth how many points. This system was not designed to benefit certain riders. One specific problem for the current century are the many disqualifications and Green Table decisions. I decided to follow the official results, even if I disagree personally with certain decisions.
The result contains quite a few surprises: some riders finished much higher or lower than I expected myself. Hard workers with a long and steady career finish higher than cyclists with three fabulous seasons who faded afterwards. Some almost forgotten names finish higher than some of the big stars. All-round riders tend to do better than specialists of one discipline. I'm thinking of presenting the top 150 as a countdown in this thread. In spite of its obvious flaws I think the result is quite interesting and can lead to good discussions in the winter season.
I, too, struggle with any critique of objectivity.Uh, so no rankings are ever to be used for anything? What a weird thing to write.
I'd honestly be very interested if we'd compose a top50(100?) cyclists of the 21st century.
Might as well state the obvious.
Categorization/value of races over time. Is there an actual case for Romandie being a tier lower than Pais Vasco? Has Burgos always been as important as Romandie?
Then obviously having races in the ranking that existed only for less than 30 years (ITT Worlds and ITT Olympics) or were open to pros for less than 30 years (Olympics RR). Or the Euros which only had 6 editions.
I mean it's commendable attempt, but also comparing something not really comparable.
Remove Wiggins (considering only road racing) and add Gilbert around the same level as Sagan, this seems like a fairly good ranking. That would mean:17 Froome
29 Contador
35 Nibali
41 Wiggins (track obviously considered)
44 Cancellara
48 Valverde
57 Sagan
69 Freire
82 Booner
95 Cavendish
The Tour might be considered overrated only insofar as traditionally the routes are pretty standard (although that seems to be changing somewhat as of late - but the Giro still has the best routes) and it is usually raced rather conservatively (unlike the Vuelta), once a clear favorite emerges. But it has to be. Everybody knows the stakes for sponsorship publicity and future rider contracts are simply ten times higher than any other race on the calendar. Perhaps in the entertainment value sense, therefore, the Tour is too big for its own good. Yet precisely for this reason every rider, from the team captains to the lowly domestiques, shows up in his absolute very best possible condition. Level of fitness and performance wise no other peloton has the horse power of the Tour. Given all of this, the rider who wins the Tour is usually the one who is a cut above the others in a given year. The one who wins multiple Tours makes an era.About the Tour vs. other races: I think in the public mind the Tour is overrated compared to other races, as if it's the only race that really matters.
I think track, cyclocross, and mountain bike success should be included. The riders results could have been better if they focused on just road instead of branching.Remove Wiggins (considering only road racing) and add Gilbert around the same level as Sagan, this seems like a fairly good ranking. That would mean:
If making my own ranking, I would probably made some minor changes (like changing Contador and Froome and moving Boonen up a couple of places), but all-in-all this seems rather okay.
- Froome
- Contador
- Nibali
- Cancellara
- Valverde
- Gilbert
- Sagan
- Freire
- Boonen
- Cavendish
Alternatively, you could have two different rankings. For me, I'm only able to really consider raod racing. I'm not that into the other variants.I think track, cyclocross, and mountain bike success should be included. The riders results could have been better if they focused on just road instead of branching.
Give negative points for CX and MTB world titles. The disrespectI think track, cyclocross, and mountain bike success should be included. The riders results could have been better if they focused on just road instead of branching.
Remove Wiggins (considering only road racing) and add Gilbert around the same level as Sagan, this seems like a fairly good ranking. That would mean:
If making my own ranking, I would probably made some minor changes (like changing Contador and Froome and moving Boonen up a couple of places), but all-in-all this seems rather okay.
- Froome
- Contador
- Nibali
- Cancellara
- Valverde
- Gilbert
- Sagan
- Freire
- Boonen
- Cavendish
Next time you're getting married, remind us to keep it boring...FFS the best threads always when I forget about the forum or I'm away for holidays.
Don't know. I would have put him before Sagan at my personal ranking. And move Boonen up. So for pure classics specialists, we have Gilbert-Bettini-Boonen-Sagan-Freire in that order.Where is Bettini? He should definitely be in a top 10.
What do yo mean here?I think there's 0 merit to Gilbert > Bettini personally
Gilbert has the rare merit of having won both hilly and cobbled monuments. Can't find any other rider in recent times that can compare to that. He's in a class of his own, so he's hard to rank against other classics specialists.I think there's 0 merit to Gilbert > Bettini personally
I'd honestly be very interested if we'd compose a top50(100?) cyclists of the 21st century.
Everyone with at least 150posts would be eligible to contribute their top50. We'd be able to compose a pretty cute list. No future results are to be included, only 2001 results onwards.