Top 50 Cyclists - Personal Scoring System - Born 1970 onwards

[pmcg76]

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.

Zabel could win in a variety of sprints, flat, uphill or after a rolling stage, a 90s version of Sagan in sprinting terms except better on the flat finishes. A sprinter winning Amstel is no mean feat, especially defeating the defending champion Michael Boogerd who was definitely no sprinter. Zabel wasn't an attacker, but why would you if you could hang on over tough courses and then use your sprint.

I find it strange to see the suggestion that Zabel is undervalued because he was a sprinter when you see the amount of fawning over Cavendish, who is far more limited than Zabel as a cyclist.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I find it strange to see the suggestion that Zabel is undervalued because he was a sprinter when you see the amount of fawning over Cavendish, who is far more limited than Zabel as a cyclist.

He’s definitely the hardier rider between the two for the classics though Cav has been able to get his hands dirty at times. Maybe he is more undervalued based off Telekom/T-Mobile and the confessions vs Cav though he rode for T-Mobile, Sky, and Quickstep.

 

[pmcg76]

He’s definitely the hardier rider between the two for the classics though Cav has been able to get his hands dirty at times. Maybe he is more undervalued based off Telekom/T-Mobile and the confessions vs Cav though he rode for T-Mobile, Sky, and Quickstep.

It would make sense if doping is the reason he has been devalued, that would not be unusual, but the other poster referenced his riding style of not really attacking and I don't think it is that.

By hardier you mean better, because 4 Milan-San Remo, a podium in Paris-Roubaix, 2 x 4th at the Ronde plus an Amstel Victory along with multiple Top 20 finishes in Classic races put him in a different stratosphere compared to Cavs record in the same races. Zabel even has a 3rd at Tirreno-Adriatico and a top 50 finish at the Tour. Not bad for a sprinter.

 

[SHAD0W93]

It would make sense if doping is the reason he has been devalued, that would not be unusual, but the other poster referenced his riding style of not really attacking and I don't think it is that.

By hardier you mean better, because 4 Milan-San Remo, a podium in Paris-Roubaix, 2 x 4th at the Ronde plus an Amstel Victory along with multiple Top 20 finishes in Classic races put him in a different stratosphere compared to Cavs record in the same races. Zabel even has a 3rd at Tirreno-Adriatico and a top 50 finish at the Tour. Not bad for a sprinter.

He absolutely has a better classics record but I am curious on the routes as I am unable to find them. Personally I wouldn’t rate his 3rd in TA as high (while it is a top tier stage race) with 4 sprinters and multiple classics riders in the top 10 from quite a bit of flat stages and then the year after you have Freire, Petacchi, and Hondo finishing on the podium. I would be curious the routes for 2003 and 2004 TA as he finished 8th that year. Yes, he has a top 50 and I doubt Cav could ever finish top 100 in a GT.

 

[tobydawq]

Zabel could win in a variety of sprints, flat, uphill or after a rolling stage, a 90s version of Sagan in sprinting terms except better on the flat finishes. A sprinter winning Amstel is no mean feat, especially defeating the defending champion Michael Boogerd who was definitely no sprinter. Zabel wasn't an attacker, but why would you if you could hang on over tough courses and then use your sprint.

I find it strange to see the suggestion that Zabel is undervalued because he was a sprinter when you see the amount of fawning over Cavendish, who is far more limited than Zabel as a cyclist.

Nobody (except Shadow) is fawning over Cavendish on this forum. He is never mentioned in a discussion as to who is the best rider of the century. And that was what I was talking about.

 

[Jspear]

I find it strange to see the suggestion that Zabel is undervalued because he was a sprinter when you see the amount of fawning over Cavendish, who is far more limited than Zabel as a cyclist.

Cav is generally fawned over in one category. He is one of the greatest (greatest imo) sprinters of all time. There is also recency bias.

 

[Asero831]

Cav is generally fawned over in one category. He is one of the greatest (greatest imo) sprinters of all time. There is also recency bias.

CQ ranks Cav number 20 in the last 30 years. That might be too low for the greatest Sprinter of all-time. PCS meanwhile have him at #6, just a little short of David Rebellin

 

[Extinction]

I'd say in a general greatest of all time search, the sprinters are the fastest of the fastest, the monument winners the fastest of the strongest, the GT winners the strongest of the strongest.

 

[tobydawq]

Yet, strength is defined physiologically as the ability to generate as much force as possible, which is what sprinters are good at, so there we are.

 

[RedheadDane]

I'd say in a general greatest of all time search, the sprinters are the fastest of the fastest, the monument winners the fastest of the strongest, the GT winners the strongest of the strongest.

Then who are the strongest of the fastest? Puncheurs?

 

[Roku]

Nice effort. I like the "Big Wins" concept as it mitigates the sprinters shitload of wins, though i would still reduce the number of sprinters on this ranking (I would say Kittel and Viviani have no place on a Top50, for example, while Demare is a fringe Top50 rather than being close to 30).

I am missing Menchov and Sastre, first one multiple GT winner and podium in all GTs, while Sastre was a TdF winner and several times podium in all GT.

 

[Extinction]

Then who are the strongest of the fastest? Puncheurs?

I actually thought this and then changed the play on words. The strongest of the fastest I'd say is a Bettini or a Bartoli or a Gilbert or, looking back, who....Puncheurs damn it!

 

[tobydawq]

I actually thought this and then changed the play on words. The strongest of the fastest I'd say is a Bettini or a Bartoli or a Gilbert or, looking back, who....Puncheurs damn it!

It used to be Sagan, now it's Van Aert.

 

[pmcg76]

CQ ranks Cav number 20 in the last 30 years. That might be too low for the greatest Sprinter of all-time. PCS meanwhile have him at #6, just a little short of David Rebellin

What has possibly being the best sprinter in the World got to do with rankings? Marco Pantani is one of the greatest climbers of all time, a Tour and Giro to his name plus 3 other GT podium finishes yet he is miles down in these types of rankings. Maybe not for this list, but Lucien Van Impe was one of the greatest climbers of all time as well, but never appears on any greatest cyclist list. Why is the greatest sprinter entitled to appear high in lists when the greatest climbers are not rewarded equally?

 

[SHAD0W93]

I will say I think riders that have won two or more of GT, monument, worlds, and Olympics, and if any other races want to be added, in the same year they should get more points and it grows in total if they won 3/4/5/etc. this would of course cause Merckx and others to be further up but others would move up on a list as well.

 

[Carrick-On-Seine]

It used to be Sagan, now it's Van Aert.

The 2020 and 2021 World Championships say different.

 

[BlueRoads]

The 2020 and 2021 World Championships say different.

What exactly is your negative obsession with van Aert?

 

[tobydawq]

The 2020 and 2021 World Championships say different.

I don't consider Alaphilippe as one of "the fastest".

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I love rankings and making them as well. I'd prefer something quite simple and only including the biggest races if you want to compare over time. Also no points for podium finishes except in GT's. Something like this:

TDF:
1st: 6 points
2nd: 3 points
3rd: 2 points

Giro/Vuelta:
1st: 4,5 points
2nd: 2,25 points
3rd: 1,5 points

Stage TDF:
1st: 1,5 points

Stage Giro/Vuelta:
1st: 1 point

Monument:/Worlds/Olympics:
1st: 3 points

Other WT one-day races:
1st: 1,5 points

WT stages-races:
1st: 2 points

 

[Alexandre B.]

Stage TDF:
1st: 1,5 points

Stage Giro/Vuelta:
1st: 1 point

Petacchi best cyclist in the world, guys.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Petacchi best cyclist in the world, guys.

I know you're joking, but not even close. If you disagree with the points system, you can just say so. This is just my take and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I do think that stages in the GT's are underrated here. Outside the cycling world, noone knows what the WT stage races or one day races or even monuments are, but everyone knows the GT's.

 

[tobydawq]

I know you're joking, but not even close. If you disagree with the points system, you can just say so. This is just my take and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I do think that stages in the GT's are underrated here. Outside the cycling world, noone knows what the WT stage races or one day races or even monuments are, but everyone knows the GT's.

Really? Everyone knows the Vuelta and noone knows Paris-Roubaix apart from avid cycling fans?

I don't think a system where monument podiums are ignored is very good.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Really? Everyone knows the Vuelta and noone knows Paris-Roubaix apart from avid cycling fans?

I don't think a system where monument podiums are ignored is very good.

That came out in a way it wasn't supposed to What I meant to say is that more people know the Vuelta than Paris-Roubaix. But yeah, I could see giving points for podium finishes in monuments, Worlds and Olympics as well. Arter all, a medal at the Olympics or Worlds is a pretty big deal.

 

[Carrick-On-Seine]

I don't consider Alaphilippe as one of "the fastest".

He has messed up quite a few sprints but he won a puncheur stage at The Tour and WvA three wins came from other types of parcours.

 

[Nirvana]

The UCI value a Tour stage win roughly 1/10 of a GC win (120 points Vs. 1000 points), make it perfectly 1/10 to make it easier and IMHO that's a fair value to keep things balanced, going beyond would favour too much sprinters. Something like the PCS ranking where Cavendish got the equivalent points of almost 7 Tour GC wins for his stage wins because winning a stage is valued 1/5 of a GC win is just ridiculous.

For WT stage races I'd give 1/4 of Tour GC win so that winning four of Tirreno, PN, Itzulia, Suisse equals a Tour win.

The problem is with one day races, a monument or Worlds how much should be valued compared to the Tour GC?



Anyway I think points rankings should be used to value only quantity so I'd put (always with a ponderate fair scale of points) everything and also lesser placing, if you want to value only quality just compare the palmares of riders looking especially to big races.