The first batch of the top 100 contains the greatest Norwegian, a Belgian who became a cycling commentator, and a German who has just retired last month.
100 Maurizio Fondriest 240
99 Gerrie Knetemann 241
98 Octave Lapize 242
97 Gianni Motta 245
96 Danilo Di Luca 245
95 Tony Martin 248
94 Robbie McEwen 249
93 Fred De Bruyne 252
92 Thor Hushovd 254
91 Pascal Richard 254
Because of Der Panzerwagen's retirement I can't put anyone in bold this time.
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.
Yes, those are tough calls to make. For the one-week races I gave 20 points for two French races, one Swiss, one Italian and one Spanish. That seemed rather balanced, but it means indeed that Basque Country gets more points than Romandie.
Recent races like European Championships are hard to call. You can hardly treat them as a small race, so 15 points seems fair. The Olympics I only counted since 1996, when they turned professional for cycling.
Then there's the problem of races changing quality over time. I gave the same points to the same race, regardless of its official status that year. I realize that some races have gone up or down in official and unofficial status, but it would be too hard to draw the lines.
About new and old races: some new races have appeared on the calendar, but others have disappeared. E.g. there was no WC time trial in the past, but there was a Grand Prix des Nations. In general I think riders of the 1960s and 1970s have an advantage, because they had a full calendar and they didn't have to compete with countries outside of Western Europe.
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. A list like this is clearly in the advantage of riders with a long and steady career, who perform well throughout the season. However someone who focuses entirely on the Tour and wins it, will always be a bigger star.
If you adjust the points for certain races, and check everything thoroughly, some riders in the lower parts would move up or down ten or fifteen places, but the top part of the list wouldn't change much, because the gaps get bigger towards the top. As the title says this is only a rough attempt, but I do like the result better than other lists I've found on the Internet. Of course there can never be a final and ultimate ranking, but I do like the exercise and the following discussions.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram