Top 50 Cyclists - Personal Scoring System - Born 1970 onwards

I tried to come up with a scoring system that will ranking cyclist of recent times. I used ProcyclingStats on how they score cyclists on their all-time rankings.

The list of cyclists considered are
  1. Top 150 cyclists (born 1970 onwards) per Procycling All-Time Ranking
  2. Those outside the Top 150 but got Big Wins. This leads to an additional 28 riders. Making the list 178 riders in all.
So here is the scoring system I used in ranking the 178 cyclists. Each of the three criteria has equal weight:
A. ProcyclingStats All-Time Rankings
B. The total of the five best scoring years of each cyclist as per ProcyclingStats
C. Big Wins (Monuments, GT, WCRR, ORR, World ITT, Olympic ITT). Ties are split by number of Professional Wins). Nibali and Contador both have 7 big wins. Contador will rank higher in this criteria since he has 68 wins compared to 54 by Nibali.



The 178 cyclists were ranked individually on each of the three criteria. Then the average rank is their Raw Score. Ties are split according to their ProcyclingStats All-time Score.
Valverde ranked #1 in Criteria A, #2 in Criteria B and #7 in Criteria C. His raw score is 3.3. Boonen also has raw score of 3.3 but since Valverde ranked higher in Criteria A, he is ranked higher in the list.







 
I tried to come up with a scoring system that will ranking cyclist of recent times. I used ProcyclingStats on how they score cyclists on their all-time rankings.

The list of cyclists considered are
  1. Top 150 cyclists (born 1970 onwards) per Procycling All-Time Ranking
  2. Those outside the Top 150 but got Big Wins. This leads to an additional 28 riders. Making the list 178 riders in all.
So here is the scoring system I used in ranking the 178 cyclists. Each of the three criteria has equal weight:
A. ProcyclingStats All-Time Rankings
B. The total of the five best scoring years of each cyclist as per ProcyclingStats
C. Big Wins (Monuments, GT, WCRR, ORR, World ITT, Olympic ITT). Ties are split by number of Professional Wins). Nibali and Contador both have 7 big wins. Contador will rank higher in this criteria since he has 68 wins compared to 54 by Nibali.



The 178 cyclists were ranked individually on each of the three criteria. Then the average rank is their Raw Score. Ties are split according to their ProcyclingStats All-time Score.
Valverde ranked #1 in Criteria A, #2 in Criteria B and #7 in Criteria C. His raw score is 3.3. Boonen also has raw score of 3.3 but since Valverde ranked higher in Criteria A, he is ranked higher in the list.







I really don't think Boonen's and Sagan's primary specialties are sprints but otherwise, intriguing stuff.
 
Then come up with your own system. Maybe you can make a rule where a rider's points total is cut in half if his surname starts with V.

That might change things.
In fairness, PCS is one of the worst offenders for rewarding quantity over quality.

If we want to measure greatness, then only the great races should count.

Top 3, Tour: 50, 35, 25pts
Top 3, Giro, Vuelta: 40, 25, 20pts
Winners Worlds RR, Monuments M-SR, RVV, P-R, L-B-L, Lombardia: 40pts
Level below: AG, SB, FW, GW, SS, PT, Worlds TT, Olympics RR/TT and even then some of these can be dropped: 20pts
Maybe PN, TA, TdS, DL as stage races: 20pts

Everything else is irrelevant to greatness
 
Last edited:
Then come up with your own system. Maybe you can make a rule where a rider's points total is cut in half if his surname starts with V.

That might change things.
Nah. There simply isn’t any system that works perfectly. I’m Just here to say he’s not at the top while NOT putting forth a better solution. :) For instance, no one thinks Tony Martin is 15th while EVERYONE knows Alberto Contador is #1
 
I think if one was trying to compare cyclists over time it would be necessary to not reward the length of the career so much. The length of the career and simple accumulation of points compared to shorter but more glorious peaks plays to much of a role in these comparisons for me. No, that's not a dig at Valverde, but I'm pretty sure Pogacar has already surpassed most in front of him, including Valverde. Definitely Rebellin. You have worked in that direction, but it's not enough for me. :)
Also the combination of big wins needs to be looked at, I think. So, three different monuments and a GT should count for more than 4 big wins of the same type, especially when all the big wins come from sprints or time trials.

But it's nice work.
 
In fairness, PCS is one of the worst offenders for rewarding quantity over quality.

If we want to measure greatness, then only the great races should count.

Top 3, Tour: 50, 35, 25pts
Top 3, Giro, Vuelta: 40, 25, 20pts
Winners Worlds RR, Monuments M-SR, RVV, P-R, L-B-L, Lombardia: 40pts
Level below: AG, SB, FW, GW, SS, PT, Worlds TT, Olympics RR/TT and even then some of these can be dropped: 20pts
Maybe PN, TA, TdS, DL as stage races: 20pts

Everything else is irrelevant to greatness
These things can never be perfect nor satisfy everyone. For instance I would never have a one day win be worthy of the same amount of points as a GT. I wouldn’t even have it close… my 2 cents.

I would likely do something like this:

Top 3, Tour: 50, 35, 25pts
Top 3, Giro, Vuelta: 30, 20, 10pts
Winners Worlds RR, Monuments M-SR, RVV, P-R, L-B-L, Lombardia: 20pts
Level below: AG, SB, FW, GW, SS, PT, Worlds TT, Olympics RR/TT and even then some of these can be dropped: 15pts
Maybe PN, TA, TdS, DL as stage races: 20pts
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
These things can never be perfect nor satisfy everyone. For instance I would never have a one day win be worthy of the same amount of points as a GT. I wouldn’t even have it close… my 2 cents.

I would likely do something like this:

Top 3, Tour: 50, 35, 25pts
Top 3, Giro, Vuelta: 30, 20, 10pts
Winners Worlds RR, Monuments M-SR, RVV, P-R, L-B-L, Lombardia: 20pts
Level below: AG, SB, FW, GW, SS, PT, Worlds TT, Olympics RR/TT and even then some of these can be dropped: 15pts
Maybe PN, TA, TdS, DL as stage races: 20pts
Whatever about the Tour, monuments/Worlds should be closer to Giro/Vuelta in points and should definitely be worth more than the likes of Paris-Nice. Have monuments at least 25pts and 2nd level stages races 15pts and you won't see me quibble too much.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
These things can never be perfect nor satisfy everyone. For instance I would never have a one day win be worthy of the same amount of points as a GT. I wouldn’t even have it close… my 2 cents.

I would likely do something like this:

Top 3, Tour: 50, 35, 25pts
Top 3, Giro, Vuelta: 30, 20, 10pts
Winners Worlds RR, Monuments M-SR, RVV, P-R, L-B-L, Lombardia: 20pts
Level below: AG, SB, FW, GW, SS, PT, Worlds TT, Olympics RR/TT and even then some of these can be dropped: 15pts
Maybe PN, TA, TdS, DL as stage races: 20pts
How can you suggest the same points for PN, TA,... and for monuments with a straight face?
 
Reactions: Andy262
The good thing about this Top 50 list is there is a good mix of riders
11 Climbers, 8 GC, 10 one-day racers, 15 Sprinters and 6 Time Trialist.

If we dig further to the Top 100
19 Climbers, 21 GC, 24 one-day racers, 26 Sprinters and 10 Time Trialist.

If we would look at the Top 10,
2 Climbers, 2 GC, 2 one-day racers, 3 Sprinters and 1 Time Trialist.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
PCS rating is a bit meh

All races below are rated the same in the point scale for 2003 here


Out of them only the following races were an actual category of 2.2 (which was the 5th tier for stage races back then, as I think Tour and Giro/Vuelta were rated differently) in 2003 in the UCI calendar


Tour de Pologne
Post Danmark Rundt
Volta a Portugal
Deutschland Tour
Tour de Luxembourg
Tour de Picardie
Vuelta Asturias
Course de la Paix
Giro del Trentino
Vuelta a Aragon
KBC Driedaagse van De Panne-Koksijde
Le Tour de Langkawi


Out of 50+ plus races rated the same for 2003 on PCS, 12 were actually higher category races than others in the PCS tier in the actual relevant calendar for 2003.

If one squints a little I suppose one can make the following equivalences in rating categories in 2021-2003 in terms of tiers in the relevant year calendar hierarchy

Tour-Tour
Giro/Vuelta-Giro/Vuelta
2.WT - 2.HC
2.WT tier 2 - 2.1
2.PS - 2.2
2.1 - 2.3

Even dropping/merging the WT expansion still screws up the way the PCS scales work as they would still not be reflective of the actual rating of the race in that year's hierarchy
 
In fairness, PCS is one of the worst offenders for rewarding quantity over quality.

If we want to measure greatness, then only the great races should count.

Top 3, Tour: 50, 35, 25pts
Top 3, Giro, Vuelta: 40, 25, 20pts
Winners Worlds RR, Monuments M-SR, RVV, P-R, L-B-L, Lombardia: 40pts
Level below: AG, SB, FW, GW, SS, PT, Worlds TT, Olympics RR/TT and even then some of these can be dropped: 20pts
Maybe PN, TA, TdS, DL as stage races: 20pts

Everything else is irrelevant to greatness
Interesting thing about this scoring system is that Valverde would still come out on top of it;):D
 
Reactions: Koronin

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS