Stages vs overall?

Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
How many stages would you need to win, to be regarded as having ridden a better stage race than the overall winner?

Do the types of stages matter, does it still hold for teams?

For example if in the 2013 tour Wiggins wins the tour but fails to secure a single stage, and Cavendish wins 7 stages, who had the better tour. How many stages would Cavendish need for it to be equal.

From a team point of view, tour de suisse 2009 where HTC won 6 of 9 stages, were they more succesful than saxo with 3 stages and the overall win?

EDIT: For reference, by the UCI, for the tour 10 stages would = GC win, but for one week races you'd need 16 stages...which is obviously impossible.
by cycling quotient. 7.5 stages =GC win, and for one week races 5.7 wins = GC win. Does this undervalue the one day racers when they enter stage races?
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,845
0
0
20 stage wins.
Overall win>>>>>>>>>>stage win.

And of course what determines a team or riders success varies between riders. Cav will never have the chance to win the overall so a bunch of stage wins will be he best chance at a successful race. Contador can win the overall, so it won't be a greatly successful race for him unless he does win overall or at the very least podiums.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Afrank said:
20 stage wins.
Overall win>>>>>>>>>>stage win.

And of course what determines a team or riders success varies between riders. Cav will never have the chance to win the overall so a bunch of stage wins will be he best chance at a successful race. Contador can win the overall, so it won't be a greatly successful race for him unless he does win overall or at the very least podiums.
The question would then be if Contador wins the tour without taking a stage vs Cavendish taking 7 stages (or whatever number) which team did better.
Is this your rating for the tour or all stage races?

EDIT: Would it change if it wasn't a sprinter, but a climber who won many stages
Especially from a team point of view I can't see that you win 19 of 20 stages, but another team rider secures the overall yet the team is determined to have done better than you.
 
I think it's almost always going to be the GC winner - definitely in a GT. Possible exception might be a flattish week long stage race where one person wins most of the stages and the winner only wins the TT or wins a stage from a break and is nowhere the other stages. Qatar 2007 comes to mind.

Or possibly something like Cali last year when Sagan won 5 stages and was 2nd in another over a variety of terrain. The first thing that came to mind when I thought of Cali was Sagan. I honestly didn't remember who actually won the GC right away and clicked on CQ:eek: (I'm sure I could have remembered if I'd given it some real thought)

That said, Gesink rode a great race and had a good TT as well as his mountaintop victory, so not completely sure about that one.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
jaylew said:
I think it's almost always going to be the GC winner - definitely in a GT. Possible exception might be a flattish week long stage race where one person wins most of the stages and the winner only wins the TT or wins a stage from a break and is nowhere the other stages. Qatar 2007 comes to mind.

Or possibly something like Cali last year when Sagan won 5 stages and was 2nd in another over a variety of terrain. The first thing that came to mind when I thought of Cali was Sagan. I honestly didn't remember who actually won the GC right away and clicked on CQ:eek: (I'm sure I could have remembered if I'd given it some real thought)

That said, Gesink rode a great race and had a good TT as well as his mountaintop victory, so not completely sure about that one.
I'd say Sagan had a better tour of California than did Gesink. cq points 172 for Sagan vs 198 for Gesink.
 
The WT point system is seriously, really seriously ****ed up.
I can't believe at this point in the season a guy like Sagan has so few points, while he's obiouvsly been the best rider by a great margin during the first part of the season.


That aside, from the point of view of the common people, a GC winner will always mean more than a guy who won, say, 7 stages in the same tour.

On the other hand, if that GC winner is a "one-GT-wonder" of sorts while the other guy has an amazing career in one day races and/or sprints (see for comparisons Giro D'Italia 1999 - Ivan Gotti VS Mario Cipollini, just to make an example), the second one will have much more glory than the previous.
 
Well duh, the WT point system only counts WT races (you know, the ones that Sagan keeps losing to Cancellara), and excludes the 1.HC and 1.1s that Sagan likes to win.

Which is why Sagan is in second place to Cancellara's first at the moment.

Also same reason why Nibali and Froome are 17th and 22nd place while Porte and Quintana are 5th and 6th. Apart from TA where they came in 1st and 2nd, they haven't done any other WT stage races. Giro del Trentino, Criterium International and Tour of Oman are 2.HCs and don't count any points towards the WT.
 
Aug 16, 2011
10,845
0
0
karlboss said:
The question would then be if Contador wins the tour without taking a stage vs Cavendish taking 7 stages (or whatever number) which team did better.
Is this your rating for the tour or all stage races?

EDIT: Would it change if it wasn't a sprinter, but a climber who won many stages
Especially from a team point of view I can't see that you win 19 of 20 stages, but another team rider secures the overall yet the team is determined to have done better than you.
Would be hard to compare which team did better since they would both have achieved their goals. I would say the GC win would be the better (more prestigious) result.
I was thinking mainly GT's in my post, agree with Jaylew unless it's in a week long race, the GC win is going to be the better achievement.

If the climber is one of the GC contenders and is aiming as GC as their main goal then I imagine it would take a few stage wins to make up for not winning GC. Would depend on who the rider was exactly. In terms of achievement in this situation I would say it would take at least 10-12 stages to make winning the stages better than winning the GC.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Pippo_San said:
The WT point system is seriously, really seriously ****ed up.
I can't believe at this point in the season a guy like Sagan has so few points, while he's obiouvsly been the best rider by a great margin during the first part of the season.


That aside, from the point of view of the common people, a GC winner will always mean more than a guy who won, say, 7 stages in the same tour.

On the other hand, if that GC winner is a "one-GT-wonder" of sorts while the other guy has an amazing career in one day races and/or sprints (see for comparisons Giro D'Italia 1999 - Ivan Gotti VS Mario Cipollini, just to make an example), the second one will have much more glory than the previous.
What if it's a GC win vs say 10, 15, or 20 wins?
 
Apr 19, 2010
13
8
8,545
Obviously the overall GC is by far the greatest achievement. But what about GC placings versus a stage win?

For me GC 1-5 > stage win(s)
Stage win > GC 10-15
Not quite sure how to rate GC 6-10 or points/mountain jersey vs. stage win.

Any thoughts?
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,890
0
0
Kompakt said:
Obviously the overall GC is by far the greatest achievement. But what about GC placings versus a stage win?

For me GC 1-5 > stage win(s)
Stage win > GC 10-15
Not quite sure how to rate GC 6-10 or points/mountain jersey vs. stage win.

Any thoughts?
cq ranks a stage win equal with a classification win. uci doesn't seem to rank it. Stage vs GC placing, stage is equal with 14th by the UCI and 18/19 for cq. I think high GC placings are over valued.
 
Another good thread. Overall win valued 20 x more than stage win really sucks.

Just imagine someone winning 20 Le Tour stages, losing only one arriving in bus and not placing even in top 50. What a looser. :D
I am sure he would be well remembered.
 
On a sporting level the overall will always be the most valuable.

But there are many other considerations: TV time/PR (sponsor exposure), records, overall palmares, team goals etc.

And I agree with the boss about points for GC placements. Points shouldn't go deeper than top 5. Pretty steep drop-off curve needed as well. Way too many placements games going on in modern cycling.
 
karlboss said:
EDIT: Would it change if it wasn't a sprinter, but a climber who won many stages
That would make it worse. If a sprinter wins lots of stages it's a great success for him since that is his job. If a climber wins lots of stages but at the same time fails to win the overall then that is still a failure on his part since if you dominate the mountains it's expected that you also win the overall.
 
Kompakt said:
Obviously the overall GC is by far the greatest achievement. But what about GC placings versus a stage win?

For me GC 1-5 > stage win(s)
Stage win > GC 10-15
Not quite sure how to rate GC 6-10 or points/mountain jersey vs. stage win.

Any thoughts?
It really depends on the rider.
If you're a youngster trying to prove yourself at the best possible level I don't mind a 6-10 placement in the GC even if that means wheelsucking all the way to Paris.
But if you've been there before and it's pretty clear you can't hope for more, like a podium, then drop the ambition and go for stage hunting or KoM.

Of course team tactics can play a role here. Being 8th in the GC could be more rewarding than winning a stage. I don't know much about this though.
 
Oct 8, 2012
58
0
0
SafeBet said:
It really depends on the rider.
If you're a youngster trying to prove yourself at the best possible level I don't mind a 6-10 placement in the GC even if that means wheelsucking all the way to Paris.
But if you've been there before and it's pretty clear you can't hope for more, like a podium, then drop the ambition and go for stage hunting or KoM.

Of course team tactics can play a role here. Being 8th in the GC could be more rewarding than winning a stage. I don't know much about this though.
I'd say winning 2-3 stages instead of finishing 6-10th place in a GT made you have a better tour because these are wins (not in points but feeling wise)
 
Dec 16, 2011
345
0
0
I think it's about the amount of days being the best. For example the last Tour of California. Sagan was the best in 5 stages, while Gesink was the best GC rider in two stages. So Sagan - Gesink: 5-2 > Sagan wins
 
SKSemtex said:
Another good thread. Overall win valued 20 x more than stage win really sucks.

Just imagine someone winning 20 Le Tour stages, losing only one arriving in bus and not placing even in top 50. What a looser. :D
I am sure he would be well remembered.
It's not 20x for a GT

WT points is 10x (200 for GC, 20 for stage)
CQ points is 7.5x (600 for GC, 80 for stage)
 
hidache said:
I'd say winning 2-3 stages instead of finishing 6-10th place in a GT made you have a better tour because these are wins (not in points but feeling wise)
Ok but if you go stage hunting there's no guarantee you're gonna actually win one stage, let alone 2 or 3, while it's relatively safe to assume that a consistent rider (say a Van den Broeck) will get a 6-10 placement in most GTs he'll enter, if not better.
 
Mar 17, 2012
1,069
0
0
I think, to properly answer the thread starter´s question, one has to switch to the view of someone who only occasionally follows cycling.

Overall stage race wins count most. The higher ranked the race is, the more valueable.

Exceptions are rare. A good exception is Petacchi in Giro 2003, he won nine stages. Remembering this race, one will always not only think of overall winner Simoni, but also, equally, Petacchi, who actually almost won every second stage, statistically.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY