Rough Attempt at an All-Time Ranking

[pmcg76]

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.

Bingo, nailed this better than i did. Cycling is about endurance, breaking the race up, dropping the other rider etc. Sprinting is the antithesis of this as it is about shutting down and controlling the race for people who have spent the day hiding in the bunch and then appearing in the final km. Yes sprinting is part of the sport, but at least in my early years, it just seemed to be regarded as a bit of a sideshow, even in the cycling media. I mean Cipo won a lot, but was never really taken seriously as a top rider, he garnered more headlines for his behaviour than his actual talent. Somewhere along the line, that changed and sprinters were elevated to new heights, whilst in reality it is still a sideshow.

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.

Cycling is an individual sport with a team element, but that team element varies. Having a strong team as a GT rider can definitely make a difference, but it is still usually the strongest rider winning. In sprinting, teams are much more relevant as if they do not control the race, the chances of a sprint actually happening decrease significantly. As I keep pointing out, but very few are willing to address, the difference in the numbers of bunch finishes from the 80s to the modern era is glaring, and the reason why is obvious, but that upsets people who think sprinters are amazing.

 

[Extinction]

Bingo, nailed this better than i did. Cycling is about endurance, breaking the race up, dropping the other rider etc. Sprinting is the antithesis of this as it is about shutting down and controlling the race for people who have spent the day hiding in the bunch and then appearing in the final km. Yes sprinting is part of the sport, but at least in my early years, it just seemed to be regarded as a bit of a sideshow, even in the cycling media. I mean Cipo won a lot, but was never really taken seriously as a top rider, he garnered more headlines for his behaviour than his actual talent. Somewhere along the line, that changed and sprinters were elevated to new heights, whilst in reality it is still a sideshow.



Cycling is an individual sport with a team element, but that team element varies. Having a strong team as a GT rider can definitely make a difference, but it is still usually the strongest rider winning. In sprinting, teams are much more relevant as if they do not control the race, the chances of a sprint actually happening decrease significantly. As I keep pointing out, but very few are willing to address, the difference in the numbers of bunch finishes from the 80s to the modern era is glaring, and the reason why is obvious, but that upsets people who think sprinters are amazing.

Comparing sprinters to the Bigs is only for the ignorant who don't know real cycling. Having said that, being able to hit 65kph on the flat is a remarkable skill. But it's over in a few seconds with everyone in your trail, not over hours and several cols with sprinters half an hour behind. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Red Rick]

I love how people just make up random dogmatic *** to hate on sprinters. It's basically the equivalent of tennis' pretty backhand arguements.

But then when a top rider is just a sprinter who also can fetch a ball he's one of the best riders in the world.

WHICH ONE IS IT

 

[SHAD0W93]

Comparing sprinters to the Bigs is only for the ignorant who don't know real cycling. Having said that, being able to hit 65kph on the flat is a remarkable skill. But it's over in a few seconds with everyone in your trail, not over hours and several cols with sprinters half an hour behind. Therein lies the difference.

Bingo, nailed this better than i did. Cycling is about endurance, breaking the race up, dropping the other rider etc. Sprinting is the antithesis of this as it is about shutting down and controlling the race for people who have spent the day hiding in the bunch and then appearing in the final km. Yes sprinting is part of the sport, but at least in my early years, it just seemed to be regarded as a bit of a sideshow, even in the cycling media. I mean Cipo won a lot, but was never really taken seriously as a top rider, he garnered more headlines for his behaviour than his actual talent. Somewhere along the line, that changed and sprinters were elevated to new heights, whilst in reality it is still a sideshow.



Cycling is an individual sport with a team element, but that team element varies. Having a strong team as a GT rider can definitely make a difference, but it is still usually the strongest rider winning. In sprinting, teams are much more relevant as if they do not control the race, the chances of a sprint actually happening decrease significantly. As I keep pointing out, but very few are willing to address, the difference in the numbers of bunch finishes from the 80s to the modern era is glaring, and the reason why is obvious, but that upsets people who think sprinters are amazing.

Let’s bring this over to MLB or NFL. Say a player is the greatest right outfielder or kicker of all time. If a list of 100 greatest players was made, they’d be ranked higher than the 10th-30th pitcher or quarterback.

 

[Jspear]

Bingo, nailed this better than i did. Cycling is about endurance, breaking the race up, dropping the other rider etc. Sprinting is the antithesis of this as it is about shutting down and controlling the race for people who have spent the day hiding in the bunch and then appearing in the final km. Yes sprinting is part of the sport, but at least in my early years, it just seemed to be regarded as a bit of a sideshow, even in the cycling media. I mean Cipo won a lot, but was never really taken seriously as a top rider, he garnered more headlines for his behaviour than his actual talent. Somewhere along the line, that changed and sprinters were elevated to new heights, whilst in reality it is still a sideshow.



Cycling is an individual sport with a team element, but that team element varies. Having a strong team as a GT rider can definitely make a difference, but it is still usually the strongest rider winning. In sprinting, teams are much more relevant as if they do not control the race, the chances of a sprint actually happening decrease significantly. As I keep pointing out, but very few are willing to address, the difference in the numbers of bunch finishes from the 80s to the modern era is glaring, and the reason why is obvious, but that upsets people who think sprinters are amazing.

Cycling is about using your body to pedal a bike with two wheels (usually). Pro cycling is about doing this in a racing format. Anything else is just your opinion. Rating one terrain over another is opinion based. Rating cyclist's strengths and weaknesses and giving one more glory than an other is all subjective.

 

[Extinction]

Let’s bring this over to MLB or NFL. Say a player is the greatest right outfielder or kicker of all time. If a list of 100 greatest players was made, they’d be ranked higher than the 10th-30th pitcher or quarterback.

Apart from the fact that you can't compare the two sports, but if you insist on such an analogy what punters are to running backs is like what sprinters are to Bigs. All the other drivel being made here is cockamamie.

 

[Extinction]

Cycling is about using your body to pedal a bike with two wheels (usually). Pro cycling is about doing this in a racing format. Anything else is just your opinion. Rating one terrain over another is opinion based. Rating cyclist's strengths and weaknesses and giving one more glory than an other is all subjective.

You don't know what you are talking about. And in any case, the survey is about ranking PRO CYCLISTS.

 

[Cookster15]

If some here were Australian, I'd swear they would rate Robbie McEwan as being a better rider than Cadel Evans because Robbie has more wins. Sorry but that is simply nonsense.

 

[Extinction]

I love how people just make up random dogmatic *** to hate on sprinters. It's basically the equivalent of tennis' pretty backhand arguements.

But then when a top rider is just a sprinter who also can fetch a ball he's one of the best riders in the world.

WHICH ONE IS IT

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.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Apart from the fact that you can't compare the two sport's, but if you insist on such an analogy what punters are to running backs is like what sprinters are to Bigs. All the other drivel being made here is cockamamie.

Both sports have different positions/roles that receive more acclaim than others. Both sports would rank the greatest of all time in a position over a 10th-30th in that position on an all time list. Further proven with your analogy that the best kicker in the NFL was rated over the 10th best running back that season and the greatest kicker of all time is on the list of 100 greatest players in the NFL history
We’re not talking about two random sprinters, we’re talking about the two greatest sprinters of all time. They’re going to be ranked higher on any all time list by the vast majority over the 10th-30th best climber.

You write as if the sport has no hierarchy in terms of results, which is nonesense. While you either are being daft or insencere when you state folks hating sprinters.

We also know your hierarchy is a 1 time GT winner >>> a multiple monument winner.

 

[Extinction]

Both sports have different positions/roles that receive more acclaim than others. Both sports would rank the greatest of all time in a position over a 10th-30th in that position on an all time list. Further proven with your analogy that the best kicker in the NFL was rated over the 10th best running back that season and the greatest kicker of all time is on the list of 100 greatest players in the NFL history
We’re not talking about two random sprinters, we’re talking about the two greatest sprinters of all time. They’re going to be ranked higher on any all time list by the vast majority over the 10th-30th best climber.



We also know your hierarchy is a 1 time GT winner >>> a multiple monument winner.

I don't agree with the NFL ranking analogy., A better concept would be the Hall of Fame. Indeed the best sprinters shall earn a pace in the cycling Hall of Fame over second and third tier climbers, and rightly so, but this says nothing about the specific weight of being a Marco Pantani versus a Mario Cipollini in terms of legacy and prestige of their achievments. And that is what we are talking about here. On the other hand, cycling is not merely about winning races, but GC and here in all races not flat enough to finish in field sprints, where everyone is awarded the winner's time, pure sprinters are way down (numerically and hence time wise) the rankings.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I don't agree with the NFL ranking analogy., A better concept would be the Hall of Fame. Indeed the best sprinters shall earn a pace in the cycling Hall of Fame over second and third tier climbers, and rightly so, but this says nothing about the specific weight of being a Marco Pantani versus a Mario Cipollini in terms of legacy and prestige of their achievments. And that is what we are talking about here.

Sprinters are being stated as not real cyclists. Many people say kickers aren’t really American football players. The greatest kicker of all time is listed in the NFLs top 100 players of all time ahead of 5th-10th best in other positions.

As far as I know no one has compared the two (which Pantani would be higher on everyone’s list), it started comparing Cav and Cipo being ahead of the rankings of Lucien Van Impe and I’m forgetting the other climber right now. Which turned into the 10th-30th best player.

 

[Extinction]

Sprinters are being stated as not real cyclists. Many people say kickers aren’t really American football players. The greatest kicker of all time is listed in the NFLs top 100 players of all time ahead of 5th-10th best in other positions.

As far as I know no one has compared the two (which Pantani would be higher on everyone’s list), it started comparing Cav and Cipo being ahead of the rankings of Lucien Van Impe and I’m forgetting the other climber right now. Which turned into the 10th-30th best player.

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.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I love how people just make up random dogmatic *** to hate on sprinters. It's basically the equivalent of tennis' pretty backhand arguements.

If you want to compare to tennis, a sprinter would obviously be a one-trick service pony. They get a lot of easy points, doing basically 0.5s of work per point. But as soon as they have to get into a rally, they are screwed. I remember a lot of such players from the 90s, though their names no longer occupy my brain. Most of these dudes won a lot of matches in tie-breaks because of that, not able to win sets on the opponents service, because that required a different skill. Where as getting into the tie-break was enough to get them the set if the opponent only made one mistake. Then there were some guys who were also great players, but relied heavily on their service, and they could often go the distance at Wimbledon or on hardcourt. Kraijceck, Ivanisevic (the best player in history, if only due to his charisma and entertainment value and drama as a result of his anger management issues), that Aussie who once nearly won Wimbledon (Rafter!)...

God damn it was hard being an Ivanisevic fan.

 

[Jspear]

You don't know what you are talking about. And in any case, the survey is about ranking PRO CYCLISTS.

And yet you couldn’t point out a single thing wrong with what I said.

 

[Extinction]

And yet you couldn’t point out a single thing wrong with what I said.

All of it.

 

[KenFiamingo]

I think your system needs a serious overhaul.

I'm open to suggestions

Tbh, i'm actually quite satisfied with; even dispite some minor anomalies which are mostly depending on personal taste.

 

[Extinction]

If you want to compare to tennis, a sprinter would obviously be a one-trick service pony. They get a lot of easy points, doing basically 0.5s of work per point. But as soon as they have to get into a rally, they are screwed. I remember a lot of such players from the 90s, though their names no longer occupy my brain. Most of these dudes won a lot of matches in tie-breaks because of that, not able to win sets on the opponents service, because that required a different skill. Where as getting into the tie-break was enough to get them the set if the opponent only made one mistake. Then there were some guys who were also great players, but relied heavily on their service, and they could often go the distance at Wimbledon or on hardcourt. Kraijceck, Ivanisevic (the best player in history, if only due to his charisma and entertainment value and drama as a result of his anger management issues), that Aussie who once nearly won Wimbledon (Rafter!)...

God damn it was hard being an Ivanisevic fan.

In addition to the one trick pony analogy, I'm also thinking of the star system for rating GT stages (which connects with the point I made about numerical rank and differences in any GC order, whether it be for a one day race or multiple stage races - and it's not for nothing that the Tour is said to be like a string of 21 classics). Well the one star stages are always for the sprinters, where nobody is expected to lose time; whereas the 5 star stages are always in the high mountains and TTs, the ones for the Bigs, where many, especially sprinters (the one trick ponies), are fated to lose big time. This is why say a Cipollini, while winning in a flashy and multiple way (as bunch sprinting permits), is not to be ranked, as I see it, as a greater cyclist than say a Dan Martin or even a Tyler Hamilton (if only he could have stayed on his bike). The most I'd say is that Cipollini was better in his discipline, which, however, in the order of cycling disciplines, occupies the bottom tier of prestige.

 

[Jspear]

All of it.

But like break it down. Prove it. Tell me why the way that we rate cyclist is objective and not subjective.

 

[Extinction]

But like break it down. Prove it. Tell me why the way that we rate cyclist is objective and not subjective.

There is an element of both. Now it's up to you to figure out why and in what proportions. I'll give you a hint 90/10.

 

[Jspear]

There is an element of both. Now it's up to you to figure out why and in what proportions. I'll give you a hint 90/10.

Ugh whatever. You don’t get it. This is still your opinion.

 

[Extinction]

Ugh whatever. You don’t get it. This is still your opinion.

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.

 

[YavorD]

@Extinction
Following your logic, I have a question for you. Is Oscar Pereiro or, say, Cobo greater rider than Cavendish?

 

[Extinction]

@Extinction
Following your logic, I have a question for you. Is Oscar Pereiro or, say, Cobo greater rider than Cavendish?

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

 

[Kaptain Kool]

7 pages arguing about how sprinters are ranked too high when there are hardly any sprinters in the OP's ranking and none very high?