Top 50 Cyclists - Personal Scoring System - Born 1970 onwards

[Cookster15]

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

Except Alberto can't really sprint and is essentially a GC specialist - cycling is more than GC. I think the ranking has merit. I agree there is no system that works perfectly but this seems like a fair effort. The OPs also says "best cyclist" - cycling is also more than road racing. Track?

 

[Asero831]

Roglic is closer than you think. This is because he is constantly doing the double.
He will be in Chris Froome and Contador bracket by next year.

 

[Asero831]

What is intriguing here is no matter how highly we think of MVDP and WVA, the numbers are simply not there yet. They are ranked 52nd and 66th respectively. Still a long way to get into the Top 15. They might not get there.

They are already 27/26 years old and only has one Big Win each.
Ofcourse most legends get their Big Wins in 27-32 age. But for comparison sake, Sagan , Boonen, already has 4 Big Wins by 27.

 

[tobydawq]

For me it's mostly interesting as such rankings reveal i am not all that biased in the Roglič thread. They show on how close lets say Roglič and Contador already are. Compared to lets say Pogačar and Froome. But still in such thread as this some people claim that for example Pogačar is already way ahead Contador.

A thought on bias.

That wasn't my complaint. My complaint was that Roglic and Contador are very, very different as riders with different riding styles, characteristics and results, hence it makes no sense to say that Roglic is the Contador of this era.

At no point did I say that Roglic is inferior to Contador.

 

[BlueRoads]

Okay, with all due respect to Asero's work, which I'm sure quite some thinking went into, but it's not exactly god's verdict. It's a suggestion of how to do such a rating and honestly, for me it just doesn't pass the eye test yet, of course these things work into both directions and maybe my intuition is wrong and needs to be proven wrong by such scoring systems, but... despite me being German I do for instance think pretty much each of those guys, Zabel and Greipel, but also Tony Martin, are too high up there. Zabel in front of Nibali, also in front of Cavendish, Alaphilippe, Pogacar...?
Greipel more a top cyclist than Pantani?
So you think I'm placing too much weight on the Tour and GCs are not the only thing in cycling, but sprinters and time trialists like Tony Martin are specialists in, compared to a Tour GC, a niche within cycling. While Pogacar is a very good climber, a very good time trialist, quite good at sprinting and has the endurance to win a race of three weeks, the others have one specialty they are going all in for, they prepare exactly for this and usually nothing else, they only have to finish a stage in a GT, nothing more. In addition they get lots, lots of opportunities throughout their career to show themselves in what they are best at, especially the sprinters. But if your goal is to win the hardest three week race in the world, you actually, normally, subordinate all other goals and races.
I know the comparison isn't 100%, but: you cannot do 15 marathons in a year and aim to win them, while you can run 15 100m races during a year and aim to win them. It's much easier to put a bunch of one-day races as targets in a year.
Also, the Tour is not just marketing wise the hardest race in the WT, you just have to look at the average quality of the riders at the start in comparison to other races. And all of those guys, of whom most are super prepared for this time of the year, would like to win it, if they were able to.
Hence, an achievement like Pogacar's this year is a lifetime's achievement, a height that someone like Zabel never reached in his life, 200 one day wins or not.

 

[CyclistAbi]

All of them are behind our Vincenzo

They are all great.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Good one

I am biased, when it comes to Roglič. I have no problems in admitting that. But said that i have no influence on some general pro cycling rating systems. And if they are not rigged Roglič will always be right up there.

 

[CyclistAbi]

That wasn't my complaint. My complaint was that Roglic and Contador are very, very different as riders with different riding styles, characteristics and results, hence it makes no sense to say that Roglic is the Contador of this era.

At no point did I say that Roglic is inferior to Contador.

Fair point. Still personally i would choose Roglič. To be the Contador of the current generation. That is if the question would be who is Contador of the current generation and you have to choose one.

 

[tobydawq]

Fair point. Still personally i would choose Roglič. To be the Contador of the current generation. That is if the question would be who is Contador of the current generation and you have to choose one.

Okay, if you have to pick one, maybe. But the problem is that the riders who win GTs currently also win one-day races, which Contador didn't (and I don't think there has to be a Contador of each era).

 

[CyclistAbi]

Roglic is closer than you think. This is because he is constantly doing the double.
He will be in Chris Froome and Contador bracket by next year.

And lets not forget. If you can win an Olympic ITT and basically a couple of days latter a GT. Both in dominant fashion and against a strong field. If you can do just that and nothing else. Historically speaking you are already an elite.

P.S. AFAIK no rating system has ever included Rogličes ski jumping trophies. Some points for that would for sure be justified.

 

[RedheadDane]

Okay, if you have to pick one, maybe. But the problem is that the riders who win GTs currently also win one-day races, which Contador didn't (and I don't think there has to be a Contador of each era).

It would just be a mess! Would we have to assign "contadoriness" retroactively?

P.S. AFAIK no rating system has ever included Rogličes ski jumping trophies. Some points for that would for sure be justified.

Roglic is definitely the professional cyclist with most skijumping trophies!

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

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

your first sentence hits exactly on the core problem with this method. It improved on the basic PCS formula by giving major wins one third of the weight in the ranking (the other two components are more or less both the PCS ranking). This reduces the unreasonable weighting the raw PCS ranking gives to placings and small wins but still leaves them with far more weight than most critics of PCS style systems think they should have. So the central issue of disagreement is still preserved, even if a little reduced.

The interesting thing about the top of this ranking is that the use of a best five years metric should in theory have disadvantaged riders who accumulated their palmares over long careers, yet Valverde is still at the top. So if you are on the side of the argument that likes PCS or CQ style models, it’s good evidence that any reasonable model of that sort will put Valverde at the top. It doesnt provide similar evidence for those of us who think that really high end careers are distinguished from one another by the really high end wins. (Although you seem to put some weight on podium finishes in big races too, and I don’t when comparing riders at this level)

on another note all of the people in the thread who have been pointing out that the WCITT is not equivalent to the rest of the big wins category are in my view completely right. It’s a great accomplishment but for me the annual top tier is composed of GTs/Monuments/WCRR.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Valverde is listed as a climber? Then again even his own team doesn't know what to list him as.

All of the puncheur-climber types are listed as climbers, Valverde, JRod, Martin. The puncheur-sprinters are listed as one day racers mostly.

 

[roundabout]

Okay, with all due respect to Asero's work, which I'm sure quite some thinking went into, but it's not exactly god's verdict. It's a suggestion of how to do such a rating and honestly, for me it just doesn't pass the eye test yet, of course these things work into both directions and maybe my intuition is wrong and needs to be proven wrong by such scoring systems, but... despite me being German I do for instance think pretty much each of those guys, Zabel and Greipel, but also Tony Martin, are too high up there. Zabel in front of Nibali, also in front of Cavendish, Alaphilippe, Pogacar...?
Greipel more a top cyclist than Pantani?
So you think I'm placing too much weight on the Tour and GCs are not the only thing in cycling, but sprinters and time trialists like Tony Martin are specialists in, compared to a Tour GC, a niche within cycling. While Pogacar is a very good climber, a very good time trialist, quite good at sprinting and has the endurance to win a race of three weeks, the others have one specialty they are going all in for, they prepare exactly for this and usually nothing else, they only have to finish a stage in a GT, nothing more. In addition they get lots, lots of opportunities throughout their career to show themselves in what they are best at, especially the sprinters. But if your goal is to win the hardest three week race in the world, you actually, normally, subordinate all other goals and races.
I know the comparison isn't 100%, but: you cannot do 15 marathons in a year and aim to win them, while you can run 15 100m races during a year and aim to win them. It's much easier to put a bunch of one-day races as targets in a year.
Also, the Tour is not just marketing wise the hardest race in the WT, you just have to look at the average quality of the riders at the start in comparison to other races. And all of those guys, of whom most are super prepared for this time of the year, would like to win it, if they were able to.
Hence, an achievement like Pogacar's this year is a lifetime's achievement, a height that someone like Zabel never reached in his life, 200 one day wins or not.

For all the warts of the PCS rankings with all the races evolution over time, the Ranking position per season table brings out IMO a relatively undisputable conclusion

Erik Zabel

Erik Zabel (born 1970-07-07 in East-Berlin) is a former professional road racing cyclist from Germany, active between 1990 and 2008. His best results are 4 wins in Milano-Sanremo and 12 stage wins in Tour de France.

www.procyclingstats.com

Zabel was genuinely good for 14 years with very little in the way of career interruptions. And that alone accounts for 1/3 of the ranking in this thread.

Cavendish on the other hand has just finished his 15th full season at the top level which include 4 years when he genuinely struggled to get results.

Then of course for the big wins part it is 4 Sanremo wins vs 1 + Worlds. And if one expands the definition of major 1-day races beyond the scope of this thread, the difference becomes larger in favor of Zabel.

Really the only part where Cavendish is unquestionably ahead of Zabel is the GT sprinting and even there the difference is amplified due to Zabel having to ride for 9 years on teams with at least 1 genuine Tour win contender on them while Cavendish only had 2012 Tour on a GC focused team.

Edit: 7 years, you numpty.

 

[Breh]

it's not really fair to compare startlist qualities between monuments and GT's as it doesnt make alot of sense.

 

[Koronin]

All of the puncheur-climber types are listed as climbers, Valverde, JRod, Martin. The puncheur-sprinters are listed as one day racers mostly.

The really funny part about this entire thing is that when Valverde first turned pro the peloton thought he was a sprinter. Yes an actual sprinter, not even a puncheur. You are right they do list them as climbers although I'm not 100% sure that puncheur is even a truly accurate listing for him. I will also say that they don't give the listing for all-rounder either, so they have to put them into something else.

 

[Big Doopie]

Name who is better. The trophy cabinet comment was just funny. And he did one mistake by grabbing a team car yes, but was rightly punished and admit his mistake . Meanwhile everyone else mentioned is grabbing cars and sticky bottle at every race (not to mention all the clinic stuff)

the guy has just always come across as a full-on pr!ck, what can i say...

 

[Big Doopie]

I am biased, when it comes to Roglič. I have no problems in admitting that. But said that i have no influence on some general pro cycling rating systems. And if they are not rigged Roglič will always be right up there.

this is a discussion forum.

never admit to any bias.

simply state things as absolute fact!

what!? are you like some nice person who doesn't want to hide behind the anonymity of the internets?

 

[pmcg76]

For all the warts of the PCS rankings with all the races evolution over time, the Ranking position per season table brings out IMO a relatively undisputable conclusion

Erik Zabel

Erik Zabel (born 1970-07-07 in East-Berlin) is a former professional road racing cyclist from Germany, active between 1990 and 2008. His best results are 4 wins in Milano-Sanremo and 12 stage wins in Tour de France.

www.procyclingstats.com

Zabel was genuinely good for 14 years with very little in the way of career interruptions. And that alone accounts for 1/3 of the ranking in this thread.

Cavendish on the other hand has just finished his 15th full season at the top level which include 4 years when he genuinely struggled to get results.

Then of course for the big wins part it is 4 Sanremo wins vs 1 + Worlds. And if one expands the definition of major 1-day races beyond the scope of this thread, the difference becomes larger in favor of Zabel.

Really the only part where Cavendish is unquestionably ahead of Zabel is the GT sprinting and even there the difference is amplified due to Zabel having to ride for 9 years on teams with at least 1 genuine Tour win contender on them while Cavendish only had 2012 Tour on a GC focused team.

Edit: 7 years, you numpty.

Yeah, consider Zabel has an Amstel Gold and 3 Paris-Tours to his name and there is very little doubt about it. Cavendish might have been the better sprinter, but Zabel was undoubtedly a much better cyclist.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Maybe PN, TA, TdS, DL as stage races: 20pts

You wouldn’t consider ToBC, TdR, or VaC as top tier stage races?

 

[SHAD0W93]

All of them are behind our Vincenzo

Lest us not forget Vincenzo’s true master.

 

[Asero831]

PCS and CQ scoring system is almost the same. There are two main differences in which CQ includes in their scoring system

1. GC Leaders per accumulates points in CQ.
2. CQ includes up to 30th place while PCS only includes Top 10.

Nibali ranks 3rd in CQ while 12th in PCS. Contador, Evans, Cunego tends to rank slightly better in CQ compared to PCS.

Also GVA, Kristoff, Chavanel and Mollema are considerably higher in their CQ rankings.

One interesting note there is that Zabel is consistently good in any scoring system. He is in the same bracket as Gilbert, Bettini and Cav. Perhaps we should look closer at his resume and we will see that he is indeed one of the Iconic Legends of the sport

 

[tobydawq]

One interesting note there is that Zabel is consistently good in any scoring system. He is in the same bracket as Gilbert, Bettini and Cav. Perhaps we should look closer at his resume and we will see that he is indeed one of the Iconic Legends of the sport

Of course he is. The guy was one freak solo attack by Tchmil from winning five consecutive editions of MSR + he should have won a 6th in 2004 where he screwed up by celebrating too early. That alone is the stuff of legends.

But that was all from sprints. His silver in Salzburg wasn't exactly a bunch sprint but it wasn't really based on attacking, either. He was in the final selective group in De Ronde in 2005, though, but on that occasion he was schooled and didn't have the strength to even sprint to a podium against Peter Van Petegem, the same guy he had also lost to in a sprint the one time he made it to the finish in Paris-Roubaix in contention for a high placing (that was in 2000, and in that race his primary strategy had been to place highly rather to win, in order to gain World Cup points (the prime reason for why I hope that competition will never return)).

So I would guess the current forum's relative lukewarm-ness regarding him is to do with his riding style and high reliance of sprinting ability.

 

[roundabout]

Well, he was a sprinter. I don't think he ever performed well as a roleur and I don't remember him being able to get away on the hills either. He could follow, but getting away, no.

 

[pmcg76]

PCS and CQ scoring system is almost the same. There are two main differences in which CQ includes in their scoring system

1. GC Leaders per accumulates points in CQ.
2. CQ includes up to 30th place while PCS only includes Top 10.

Nibali ranks 3rd in CQ while 12th in PCS. Contador, Evans, Cunego tends to rank slightly better in CQ compared to PCS.

Also GVA, Kristoff, Chavanel and Mollema are considerably higher in their CQ rankings.

One interesting note there is that Zabel is consistently good in any scoring system. He is in the same bracket as Gilbert, Bettini and Cav. Perhaps we should look closer at his resume and we will see that he is indeed one of the Iconic Legends of the sport

You wouldn’t consider ToBC, TdR, or VaC as top tier stage races?

Those races can of course be included, especially Pais Vasco which I missed out.