Rough Attempt at an All-Time Ranking

[Roku]

I agree sprinting gets overvalued in all rankings (yearly, historic...), but it's hard to establish a proportional and fair ratio.

 

[Netserk]

Divide the value of stage wins with the number of riders in the same time as the winner.

 

[tobydawq]

Divide the value of stage wins with the number of riders in the same time as the winner.

Lol. Nibali's MSR win is basically worth nothing.

 

[Netserk]

Lol. Nibali's MSR win is basically worth nothing.

That wasn’t a stage win.

 

[tobydawq]

That wasn’t a stage win.

True. But the system doesn't make any sense when you consider random breakaway wins.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I've just made the last update of the season to my all-time ranking (top 300) on https://www.kingoftheechelon.com/all-time-pro-cycling-ranking.

I think your system needs a serious overhaul.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Divide the value of stage wins with the number of riders in the same time as the winner.

Indurain approves.

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Last year I promised to update this list once a year. First let's have a look at this year's top 20:

1. Evenepoel 150
2. Pogačar 124
3. Van Aert 71
4. Vingegaard 67
5. Roglič 48
6. Hindley 45
7. Van der Poel 44
8. Mas 40
9. Carapaz 39
10. Démare 36
11. Van Baarle 35
12. Mohorič 30
13. Thomas 30
14. D. Martínez 30
15. Foss 28
16. Laporte 27
17. Pedersen 23
18. Girmay 22
19. Jakobsen 22
20. S. Yates 20

[EDITED]

Evenepoel had a dream year and finishes on top. Pogačar and Van Aert performed well throughout the year and leave the Tour winner behind them.

In the next few posts we'll see what impact this has on the all-time ranking, which I've expanded from a top 170 to a top 180.

I've just made the last update of the season to my all-time ranking (top 300) on https://www.kingoftheechelon.com/all-time-pro-cycling-ranking.

The main takeaways are:

• Roglic enters the Top-50 (°43)
• Pogacar (°65), Van Aert (°92) and Thomas (°97) enter the Top-100
• Carapaz (°168) and Matthews (°174) enter the Top-200
• Vingegaard (°234), Evenepoel (°250) and Van der Poel (°299) enter the Top-300

Because of the limited selection of races and the fact that I only take into account podiums (or top-5 in GT's), the ranking is less suited to provide a view on a yearly basis. But I'll post it anyway:

1 POGACAR, Tadej 914pts
2 EVENEPOEL, Remco 765pts
3 VINGEGAARD, Jonas 732pts
4 VAN AERT, Wout 693pts
5 HINDLEY, Jai 335pts
6 MAS, Enric 331pts
7 VLASOV, Aleksandr 325pts
8 LAPORTE, Christophe 306pts
9 THOMAS, Geraint 302pts
10 ROGLIC, Primoz 300pts
11 CARAPAZ, Richard 288pts
12 HIGUITA, Sergio 246pts
13 VAN BAARLE, Dylan 246pts
14 VAN DER POEL, Mathieu 245pts
15 LANDA, Mikel 242pts
16 MARTINEZ, Daniel Felipe 210pts
17 DEMARE, Arnaud 205pts
18 MOHORIC, Matej 198pts
19 MATTHEWS, Michael 190pts
20 YATES, Simon 166pts
21 GIRMAY, Biniam 163pts
22 KUNG, Stefan 152pts
23 PHILIPSEN, Jasper 140pts
24 COSNEFROY, Benoit 139pts
25 HERMANS, Quinten 136pts

pls fix

-Contador is not to 10
-Valverde is ahead of Indurain and Contador
-Remco is more than one spot below Merckx

Methodology must be flawed

 

[hayneplane]

Obviously Froome spent those 6 years holding onto motos but I still considered him to be from the same generation of cyclists and I do think that Froom was a more dominant gt rider than Contador.

Again you may question how I phrased things, but I stand by my point.

I would really say that Contador had a long period of Grand Tour class and in the first half of his career he was clearly the best but in the second half he was rarely a strong TDF contender but still good enough to win Giro/Vuelta and Froome was number 1 over 3 weeks. 2009 Contador vs 2013 Froome would have been the dream matchup of the 21st century.

 

[proffate]

Who said the list should be just climbers? It is a list of the best cyclists and all I have done is point out that sprinters are always over-rated on theses lists and why, backed up by statistics. I asked why some of the best sprinters are so far ahead of the best climbers and the answer is simple, they get way more chances to win, primarily thanks to their teams yet these rankings are individually ranked.

You did. You just wrote "too much of a reliance on teams for sprinters to be on a best off [sic] list".

The best sprinters on this list are old-timey Belgians and the first pure sprinter of the sprint-train era is somewhere in the 30s, so your conclusion that pure sprinters are highly valued isn't even supported by the data.

 

[proffate]

I agree sprinting gets overvalued in all rankings (yearly, historic...), but it's hard to establish a proportional and fair ratio.

It's actually pretty rare for a single sprinter to stay on top for more than a year or two. I would say that's evidence that sprinting is inherently harder than other disciplines. The lack of consistency means that the only sprinters near the top of any all-time list are actually all-rounders.

The only "important" races sprinters even get a chance to win are WCs (once a decade) and MSR (but even that gets stolen by someone else more often than not).

 

[Cookster15]

It's actually pretty rare for a single sprinter to stay on top for more than a year or two. I would say that's evidence that sprinting is inherently harder than other disciplines. The lack of consistency means that the only sprinters near the top of any all-time list are actually all-rounders

I know what you are getting at but cannot agree and was compelled to reply. No way is sprinting “harder”. Define harder?

Sprinters rely on anaerobic energy systems that expend energy for a very short duration. That means they don’t experience the suffering that GC or climbers do. When they are not sitting in the slipstream of the peloton or their teammates they suffer very little. So sprinting will never be inherently harder no matter if they cannot hold their peak sprinting form for long for whatever physiological reason.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I know what you are getting at but cannot agree and was compelled to reply. No way is sprinting “harder”. Define harder?

Sprinters rely on anaerobic energy systems that expend energy for a very short duration. That means they don’t experience the suffering that GC or climbers do. When they are not sitting in the slipstream of the peloton or their teammates they suffer very little. So sprinting will never be inherently harder no matter if they cannot hold their peak sprinting form for long for whatever physiological reason.

How I read it is it’s a harder discipline to stay at the top for exactly the reason you described compared to other disciplines.

 

[proffate]

I know what you are getting at but cannot agree and was compelled to reply. No way is sprinting “harder”. Define harder?

Sprinters rely on anaerobic energy systems that expend energy for a very short duration. That means they don’t experience the suffering that GC or climbers do. When they are not sitting in the slipstream of the peloton or their teammates they suffer very little. So sprinting will never be inherently harder no matter if they cannot hold their peak sprinting form for long for whatever physiological reason.

Right, difficulty is a pretty nebulous concept. What's easy for Cav is impossible for Andy Schleck and vice versa. Here I am using rarity as a proxy for difficulty.

That said, climbing is more straightforward, generally speaking. Often all you have to do is pedal as hard as you can. If your genetic gifts are the greatest, you'll probably win. As a sprinter, all the stars have to align (luck, talent, focus, and genetics). Complexity and difficulty aren't exactly the same thing, but I think it's a fair use of language given that I'm not writing a legal contract.

And the poster who said that sprinting relies too much on teamwork apparently skipped watching the TDF during the Armstrong or Froome years (or even this year).

 

[pmcg76]

Right, difficulty is a pretty nebulous concept. What's easy for Cav is impossible for Andy Schleck and vice versa. Here I am using rarity as a proxy for difficulty.

That said, climbing is more straightforward, generally speaking. Often all you have to do is pedal as hard as you can. If your genetic gifts are the greatest, you'll probably win. As a sprinter, all the stars have to align (luck, talent, focus, and genetics). Complexity and difficulty aren't exactly the same thing, but I think it's a fair use of language given that I'm not writing a legal contract.

And the poster who said that sprinting relies too much on teamwork apparently skipped watching the TDF during the Armstrong or Froome years (or even this year).

I don't think there are many people who think Armstrongs or Froomes teams played anywhere near as big as role in their victories as what teams play for sprinters. Let's put it like this, if you took away teams I would still be confident that Armstrong/Froome would still win those Tours as they were the strongest individuals there. Do you really believe if they were no teams, that there would still be as many stages or even any stages that would finish in bunch sprints? I really don't think so.

I have provided the stats, there were twice as many sprint stages at the Tour de France between 08-17 as there was between 03-92 or before. Same applies to any 10 year period from 93 onwards. That has little to do with the talent of sprinters and everything to do with teams, yet you keep ignoring this point. Like Cavendish winning 20 Tours stages in 4 years, would he have won 20 if he had been racing between 89-92? hardly when there was only 9 bunch sprints total. There is a very clear and obvious difference.

I also should have clarified I have no issue with the likes of Zabel/Freire/Boonen being on the list as they could clearly race(even though sprints do over-inflate them a bit), but the likes of Cipo/Cav/ Petacchi being up there with some of the true greats, just not at that level at all.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I don't think there are many people who think Armstrongs or Froomes teams played anywhere near as big as role in their victories as what teams play for sprinters. Let's put it like this, if you took away teams I would still be confident that Armstrong/Froome would still win those Tours as they were the strongest individuals there.

We must have been watching completely different races considering Sky came up huge in all of Froome’s wins bar Giro. Froome was strong in the beginning and his team kept it together.

 

[pmcg76]

We must have been watching completely different races considering Sky came up huge in all of Froome’s wins bar Giro. Froome was strong in the beginning and his team kept it together.

OK, let's see if there is anyone else who thinks Froome was not the strongest in those Tours he won, and I say that as someone who loathes Froome. SKY might have strangled those races, but I have little doubt that Froome would have won regardless.

 

[SHAD0W93]

OK, let's see if there is anyone else who thinks Froome was not the strongest in those Tours he won, and I say that as someone who loathes Froome. SKY might have strangled those races, but I have little doubt that Froome would have won regardless.

It’s already been well said Froome was the strongest in the beginning and faded in the end with his team helping him win on this forum. Froome was head and shoulders above everyone in 2013 during the first half and starting cracking in the end. Needing his teammate to get an illegal feed, on top of bending the rules already with the feed before Mount Ventoux. You put Froome on any other team and those second half slumps don’t start looking like wins.

 

[pmcg76]

It’s already been well said Froome was the strongest in the beginning and faded in the end with his team helping him win on this forum. Froome was head and shoulders above everyone in 2013 during the first half and starting cracking in the end. Needing his teammate to get an illegal feed, on top of bending the rules already with the feed before Mount Ventoux. You put Froome on any other team and those second half slumps don’t start looking like wins.

Froome usually had such a lead, it was usually a matter of controlling things which his team undoubtedly helped with, but he was likely to have been strong enough anyways even without the team. At the end of the day, it helps to have team-mates, but if you don't have the legs, all the team-mates in the world won't make much difference(in the mountains).

 

[Extinction]

Froome usually had such a lead, it was usually a matter of controlling things which his team undoubtedly helped with, but he was likely to have been strong enough anyways even without the team. At the end of the day, it helps to have team-mates, but if you don't have the legs, all the team-mates in the world won't make much difference(in the mountains).

Froome would never have been anything, let alone a GT winner, had it not been for his miraculous transformation at Sky. That he had the legs to do anything was because he was on Sky. No Sky, no legs.

 

[Extinction]

If sprinting were easy, everyone would do it.

Why should the best of list be focused on climbers alone? That reeks of personal preference.

The best cyclist ranking, since cycling is an endurance sport, should be about the strongest not the fastest riders. And since the sport's premier events, from the monuments to GTs, are not won by pure sprinters (except for MSR, which is a case apart), with significant time gaps (unlike sprint finishes) demonstrating net strength among the field of finishers; this is why you will find climbers and other big engine riders ranking higher on the list. Sprinting is a noble discipline, but Cav is no Merckx, despite having won the same number of stages at the Tour.

 

[houtdffan]

I would really say that Contador had a long period of Grand Tour class and in the first half of his career he was clearly the best but in the second half he was rarely a strong TDF contender but still good enough to win Giro/Vuelta and Froome was number 1 over 3 weeks. 2009 Contador vs 2013 Froome would have been the dream matchup of the 21st century.

A smart riding Contador in 2013 would have been better. He got suckered into following Froome's accelerations. He should have just went at a steady but hard tempo. He showed in the MTT he was the fastest up the climbs when he didn't have to deal with the accelerations. That's also what his training numbers said

 

[gregrowlerson]

I don't think there are many people who think Armstrongs or Froomes teams played anywhere near as big as role in their victories as what teams play for sprinters. Let's put it like this, if you took away teams I would still be confident that Armstrong/Froome would still win those Tours as they were the strongest individuals there. Do you really believe if they were no teams, that there would still be as many stages or even any stages that would finish in bunch sprints? I really don't think so.

I have provided the stats, there were twice as many sprint stages at the Tour de France between 08-17 as there was between 03-92 or before. Same applies to any 10 year period from 93 onwards. That has little to do with the talent of sprinters and everything to do with teams, yet you keep ignoring this point. Like Cavendish winning 20 Tours stages in 4 years, would he have won 20 if he had been racing between 89-92? hardly when there was only 9 bunch sprints total. There is a very clear and obvious difference.

I also should have clarified I have no issue with the likes of Zabel/Freire/Boonen being on the list as they could clearly race(even though sprints do over-inflate them a bit), but the likes of Cipo/Cav/ Petacchi being up there with some of the true greats, just not at that level at all.

Interesting points.

Essentially, without teams, Cavendish would have probably won very few stages, but peak Froome would still have always gained hours on Cavendish in the mountains.

On the other hand, cycling is also a team sport. So in a way it is like saying that Allen Iverson was a far better basketball player than Dennis Rodman, because if basketball was just one on one rather than five on five, he'd be more successful (though that's also debatable).

Though to contradict myself, basketball is a team sport first, where as road cycling is an individual sport first, but I like this line of discussion.

 

[Elos Anjos]

OK, let's see if there is anyone else who thinks Froome was not the strongest in those Tours he won, and I say that as someone who loathes Froome. SKY might have strangled those races, but I have little doubt that Froome would have won regardless.

Froome only won because of his team tactics. In any other team he would stand a decent chance to be crowned, but the Tour would be much, much more open.

 

[YavorD]

I like people who throw ridiculous examples as "if there were no teams, sprinters wouldn't win that much". While true, if there were no teams, the breaks wouldn't be catched and GT riders wouldn't win nearly as much either.

The main reason Sprinters tend to have a lot more wins than GT riders is because usually the latter doesn't give a *** about many stage wins. Pogacar could've got 6 or 7 stages last year if he wanted.