Rough Attempt at an All-Time Ranking

[Kaptain Kool]

For me cycling is about having the courage to win. Sprinters have the courage to mix it up elbow-to-elbow after 200km+ of racing. That should be ranked high. OTOH the fact is time trials were invented solely because so many GC riders don't have the courage to ride in the bunch. Amazing that some posters want a ranking system that rewards cowardice. Modern times, I guess?

 

[Extinction]

You’ve already made an argument last year on Sastre being better than Boonen and Cancellara.

Yea, well, I start from the premise, and in keeping with my chess set analogy, that if you can win the Tour, the universally acknowledged gotha of cycling ( the only race on the calendar that is bigger than cycling itself - as one pro rider recently put it), you are a king of kings. The skillset required to do it, both physically and mentally, is greater than any other event of the sport and entire seasons must be planned arround trying to win it, for which everything else is in function of meeting that goal (ask Vingegaard). Unfortunately in modern cycling, with the general level having risen so high, this means that races Tour winners would in the past have been able to win won't in most cases (a Pogacar at Flanders being a fantastic exception, despite having ultimately fell short) even be on their racing schedule. Such has the sport been forced to change in the age of specialization. The point is that the Tour is the ultimate test of greatness the sport has to offer, like it or not, and thus who wins it automatically earns a very high standing. At the same time, not every Tour winner is a Merckx, a Hinault or a Lemond (who had the skillset to potentially win all the monuments too, even though regretfully - to himself foremost - he didn't win one) or indeed a Pogacar, generational talents that can win just about everywhere (mountains, TTs, cobbles, sprints, GTs and monuments). And clearly Sastre is of a different calibre. So his one, unexpected Tour victory (and he isn't the only one in this category of Tour winners), doesn't automatically place him above riders who have the palmarès of a Boonen or Cancellara, who, while not kings on the chess table, rise above their alloted mere bishop's status. A Nibali though is absolutely greater than a Boonen or a Cancellara. Unfortunately for several here it seems, I would not place one sprinter, not even the greatest of all time, ahead of any Tour winner. The gulf between them is simply too large.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I haven't read all of the above by any means, but the take-away from it is that trying to discuss a cycling hierarchy/all time ranking is no more valid, but no less interesting, than any other comparison of those who cannot be in direct competition: is Shakespeare better than Alan Bennett? Is Steve Redgrave better than Chris Hoy? Is Alan Bennett better than Chris Hoy? No-one can say, but everyone would love to have their say. An attempt can be made to find some objective scale, but the weightings of such a scale are subjective, and (consciously or not) that scale will be constructed to reflect the preferences of its deviser.

So have your opinions by all means, and argue for the validity of those opinions, but acknowledge that that is all they are, and that you are just as wrong as the guy you are arguing with.

 

[Extinction]

I haven't read all of the above by any means, but the take-away from it is that trying to discuss a cycling hierarchy/all time ranking is no more valid, but no less interesting, than any other comparison of those who cannot be in direct competition: is Shakespeare better than Alan Bennett? Is Steve Redgrave better than Chris Hoy? Is Alan Bennett better than Chris Hoy? No-one can say, but everyone would love to have their say. An attempt can be made to find some objective scale, but the weightings of such a scale are subjective, and (consciously or not) that scale will be constructed to reflect the preferences of its deviser.

So have your opinions by all means, and argue for the validity of those opinions, but acknowledge that that is all they are, and that you are just as wrong as the guy you are arguing with.

I don't think it is as subjective as you suggested. When a rider wins GTs, monuments and WCs, he is the best. And sport is not art, in the sense you put it, but agonistic competition, for which the "art" is just crushing It.

 

[Blanco]

Says the one with Valverde as his avitar.

So? What's the point with Valverde avatar?

 

[Blanco]

Van Impe podiumed the TDF 5 times (with a win). It is not that far fetched to argue he was potentially a greater cyclist than many. Particularly since he had to contend with first Merckx and then Hinault during his career.

I didn't say he was not a great cyclist. I only said he was not better than either Boonen or Cancellara.
He was better than Sastre, though..

 

[Extinction]

So? What's the point with Valverde avatar?

That you are clearly confused.

 

[Extinction]

I didn't say he was not a great cyclist. I only said he was not better than either Boonen or Cancellara.
He was better than Sastre, though..

Boonen and Cancellara were great cobbled specialists, winning the Tour requires a different engine size.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I don't think it is as subjective as you suggested. When a rider wins GTs, monuments and WCs, he is the best. And sport is not art, in the sense you put it, but agonistic competition, for which the "art" is just crushing It.

Do you think TGH is a better rider than WVA considering you say GTs are the pinnacle and winning over 3 weeks is better than 1 day?

 

[Extinction]

Do you think TGH is a better rider than WVA considering you say GTs are the pinnacle and winning over 3 weeks is better than 1 day?

What if I put that to you in the reverse? In any case, it's the big cols and 3 weeks why GTs are the pinnacle, when the really big engines come to the fore. As good as Wout is, no, he's not there.

 

[SHAD0W93]

What if I put that to you in the reverse? In any case, it's the big cols and 3 weeks why GTs are the pinnacle, when the really big engines come to the fore. As good as Wout is, no, he's not there.

Do you mean if you were to ask me? WVA is clearly a better cyclist than TGH at this time and probably when their careers finish as well. WVA performs and has won across all terrains and specialties vs TGH’s surprise win at the Giro.

 

[Extinction]

Do you mean if you were to ask me? WVA is clearly a better cyclist than TGH at this time and probably when their careers finish as well. WVA performs and has won across all terrains and specialties vs TGH’s surprise win at the Giro.

I was talking about his limitation, which Tao, for all his inferiority, has surpassed. So who is the better? Tao has perhaps realized his potential. Wout no. When Wout wins Flanders and Roubaix and then Liege and Lombardia, to Tao's Giro then we can talk.

 

[Red Rick]

Do you think TGH is a better rider than WVA considering you say GTs are the pinnacle and winning over 3 weeks is better than 1 day?

Better? No.

Would I take TGHs palmares? Probably.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I don't think it is as subjective as you suggested. When a rider wins GTs, monuments and WCs, he is the best. And sport is not art, in the sense you put it, but agonistic competition, for which the "art" is just crushing It.

And Steve Redgrave and Chris Hoy are not artists. But the essence of my point was the lack of direct (or antagonistic, if you prefer) competition.

 

[Extinction]

And Steve Redgrave and Chris Hoy are not artists. But the essence of my point was the lack of direct (or antagonistic, if you prefer) competition.

Honestly, I'm not following you here. No "lack of direct competition?" What do you mean?

 

[Blanco]

Boonen and Cancellara were great cobbled specialists, winning the Tour requires a different engine size.

Boonen and Cancellara were legends, and still are.
Van Impe not so.
Sastre even less.
Valverde certainly is.
Tao Geoghegan Hart, not in a million years.

If you're right, than I'm certainly confused.

 

[Pantani_lives]

If you compare cycling to athletics, sprinters would be 100 m runners, classic riders would be middle distance runners, and GT riders would be marathon runners. MvdP would be a decathlete.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I was talking about his limitation, which Tao, for all his inferiority, has surpassed. So who is the better? Tao has perhaps realized his potential. Wout no. When Wout wins Flanders and Roubaix and then Liege and Lombardia, to Tao's Giro then we can talk.

Did he? It’s talked of the weakest Grand Tours in recent memory with a strong team and a Covid year. Sure he won and he has that for the rest of his life and will be in the record books but I don’t see how you can watch the way he races and performs vs WVA and say he is the superior rider at this current moment.

Better? No.

Would I take TGHs palmares? Probably.

Really? 1 GT win, 2 GT stages, and 2 minor wins over a monument, 9 GT stages, GT secondary classification, GT tertiary classification, 2 minor stage races, 6 semi to major classics, medals in Olympics, Worlds, and European championships, plus all the minor wins. Yes winning a Grand Tour is huge, but so is everything else WVA has done.

If you compare cycling to athletics, sprinters would be 100 m runners, classic riders would be middle distance runners, and GT riders would be marathon runners. MvdP would be a decathlete.

I was honestly about to use running as a reference. You wouldn’t downgrade Bolts legacy and career vs those that won the marathon.

 

[hayneplane]

If you compare cycling to athletics, sprinters would be 100 m runners, classic riders would be middle distance runners, and GT riders would be marathon runners. MvdP would be a decathlete.

Not really because the prestige of being the fastest man/woman in the world far outweighs being the best marathon runner whereas winning a stage on top of Ventoux from the GC group outweighs the stage win sprint on the final day in Paris by a big margin.

 

[YavorD]

If you compare cycling to athletics, sprinters would be 100 m runners, classic riders would be middle distance runners, and GT riders would be marathon runners. MvdP would be a decathlete.

That's not a good comparison. In athletics sprinters are the best known and perhaps the most respected everyone has heard of Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, Usain Bolt etc. How many have heard of Eliud Kipchoge, Hailey Gebreselassie etc?

In cycling it's basically the other way around your random GT winner (think of Pereiro, TGH, Cobo... are better known and respected than your average sprinter, say Farrar...

 

[Extinction]

Boonen and Cancellara were legends, and still are.
Van Impe not so.
Sastre even less.
Valverde certainly is.
Tao Geoghegan Hart, not in a million years.

If you're right, than I'm certainly confused.

I'm not talking about being a "legend," and then you were around in Van Impe's day to know? I recall he was pretty legendary at the time. Unfortunately, he was king at the wrong Moment, sandwiched as he was between a certain Merckx and a certain Hinault. No, I was talking about engine size and capacity. It's one thing to be able to win one day races, entirely another three week GTs. And I have never thought of Boonen or Cancellara as legendary, which is reserved for very few cyclists, all of whom could win over 3 weeks.

 

[SHAD0W93]

That's not a good comparison. In athletics sprinters are the best known and perhaps the most respected everyone has heard of Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, Usain Bolt etc. How many have heard of Eliud Kipchoge, Hailey Gebreselassie etc?

In cycling it's basically the other way around your random GT winner (think of Pereiro, TGH, Cobo... are better known and respected than your average sprinter, say Farrar...

Almost nobody in their country is knowing Pereiro, Cobo, or TGH. Especially the former two after being awarded or stripped besides hearing their name on the news in passing. About 4 years ago I had a patient from Italy, 67 years old at the time and was visiting Las Vegas while living his whole life in Italy, who never watched cycling, a football (soccer) fan. Yet he heard of Basso, Cunego, Pantani (got real excited when I said his name), Cipo, Petacchi, Bennati, Viviani, and of all people Guardini. He had no clue who Nibali, Garzelli, Simoni, Savoldelli, Di Luca, Bartali, or Coppi. Spanish customer at Discount Tire was a cycling fan and only knew Contador, Freire, Valverde, Sami, Purito, and Rojas.

In America I’m sure more are far more familiar with Tyler Farrar then either of those, especially since he won on 4th of July and it was a big deal. Just like TVG was more well known than Froome.

 

[Extinction]

Almost nobody in their country is knowing Pereiro, Cobo, or TGH. Especially the former two after being awarded or stripped besides hearing their name on the news in passing. About 4 years ago I had a patient from Italy, 67 years old at the time and was visiting Las Vegas while living his whole life in Italy, who never watched cycling, a football (soccer) fan. Yet he heard of Basso, Cunego, Pantani (got real excited when I said his name), Cipo, Petacchi, Bennati, Viviani, and of all people Guardini. He had no clue who Nibali, Garzelli, Simoni, Savoldelli, Di Luca, Bartali, or Coppi. Spanish customer at Discount Tire was a cycling fan and only knew Contador, Freire, Valverde, Sami, Purito, and Rojas.

In America I’m sure more are far more familiar with Tyler Farrar then either of those, especially since he won on 4th of July and it was a big deal. Just like TVG was more well known than Froome.

So you are making a point using some old Italian dude, who never followed ciclismo, but only calcio (and there are infinitely more fans of calcio), as an example to prove your point? And you want to be taken seriously? Let me tell you something, Marco Pantani prior to his downfall was the only cyclist who could make Italians that never watched a bicycle race before turn on the television to witness il Pirata in action. It was truly incredibile.

Aside from asiduous tifosi, who know all the big names and watch the major races on TV or out on the roads, the only cyclist people hear of annually is the one who wins the Tour. That is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.

 

[SHAD0W93]

So you are making a point using some old Italian dude, who never followed ciclismo, but only calcio (and there are infinitely more fans of calcio), as an example to prove your point? And you want to be taken seriously? Let me tell you something, Marco Pantani prior to his downfall was the only cyclist who could make Italians that never watched a bicycle race before turn on the television to witness il Pirata in action. It was truly incredibile.

Aside from asiduous tifosi, who know all the big names and watch the major races on TV or out on the roads, the only cyclist people hear of annually is the one who wins the Tour. That is a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.

Are you serious right now , if you can’t see the point anything would go over your head. But that makes sense considering you pick and choose what you want to reply to while ignoring everything else.

I’m making a point that all three of those riders didn’t win the Tour and had an extremely, extremely small blip of a career. They would barely be known in their home country while Farrar would be more well known in America because of what he won and the date. Yes, some old non cycling fan and who did know. Mostly sprinters, what does that tell you. The whole statement was that sprinters aren’t going to be as well known while you continue to downgrade anyone that hasn’t won a GT no matter how mediocre their career was.
What has been your whole argument? What is the post I responded to? Did you even read it? Did you even read the OP? Because you’ve been stating things have been said when they haven’t been.

 

[Extinction]

Are you serious right now , if you can’t see the point anything would go over your head. But that makes sense considering you pick and choose what you want to reply to while ignoring everything else.

I’m making a point that all three of those riders didn’t win the Tour and had an extremely, extremely small blip of a career. They would barely be known in their home country while Farrar would be more well known in America because of what he won and the date. Yes, some old non cycling fan and who did know. Mostly sprinters, what does that tell you. The whole statement was that sprinters aren’t going to be as well known while you continue to downgrade anyone that hasn’t won a GT no matter how mediocre their career was.
What has been your whole argument? What is the post I responded to? Did you even read it? Did you even read the OP? Because you’ve been stating things have been said when they haven’t been.

Firstly, you are the one saying I've been downgrading people, because you are too obsessed over my affording GT champions a more noble status. But why this is so problematical in a discussion about gauging riders is beyond me. Secondly, I could not give a damn about who is well known or not among those with only a casual or passing interest in the sport. Here we are talking shop and I've stated my position, which I'm willing to defend, based as it is on 40 years of following and practicing the sport, over half of that period in Europe. The truth is that I value great sprinters, great classics riders and great stage racers alike. And I'm neither so blockheaded nor so biased as to not admire the incredible athletic gestures of those specialized in the various disciplines this sport has to offer. However, this thread is about how to rank greatness in cycling and for me, at the expense of being repetitive, the ones who can perform on all terrains over three weeks, especially in July, well they are really the true Bigs of the sport. Having said that, do you think I don't recognize how great were the careers of a Sean Kelly (who even won a Vuelta), a Johan Musseuw, Paolo Bettini, Tom Boonen, Mark Cavendish, etc.? Naturally I do. And among GT champions, not all have had the careers of those guys. However, the fact that there have been GT winners who also won monuments, WCs, etc, but not one day specialists who have won the Tour, demonstrates that these former guys are the most complete and gifted riders of the sport.