Top 50 Cyclists - Personal Scoring System - Born 1970 onwards

[Extinction]

I could only say that Roglic had a better season than Bernal, and who fulfilled what I think isn't really much important.
Yes, Giro is the first main goal of the season for some GC guys, but they could also ride Vuelta fairly fresh.
And yes, Vuelta is rarely THE main goal of the season, but in recent years Vuelta has stronger field than Giro.
I'd say that in the last 10-15 years they're pretty equal in significance.

The only reason why the Giro has a less strong field than the Vuelta of late, is because of an inexplicable manuever by the UCI in 95 to move the Spanish grand tour to the end of summer. In fact, the UCI seems to have done everything within its power to diminish Italian cycling. Prior to 1995, the Giro was a necessary prize for any of the great champions, better if combined with the Tour in the same year! Now everybody is affraid to tackle the Giro-Tour double, whilst the Vuelta is either a convenient remedy for gt favorites who failed at the Tour or an easier route to a double for those that succeeded or else the perfect trampoline for those looing to arrive in top form at the Worlds. It's all pretty sickening for the Giro, but what did the Italian race do to deserve such disgrace?

 

[Nirvana]

The only reason why the Giro has a less strong field than the Vuelta of late, is because of an inexplicable manuever by the UCI in 95 to move the Spanish grand tour to the end of summer. In fact, the UCI seems to have done everything within its power to diminish Italian cycling. Prior to 1995, the Giro was a necessary prize for any of the great champions, better if combined with the Tour in the same year! Now everybody is affraid to tackle the Giro-Tour double, whilst the Vuelta is either a convenient remedy for gt favorites who failed at the Tour or an easier route to a double for those that succeeded or else the perfect trampoline for those looing to arrive in top form at the Worlds. It's all pretty sickening for the Giro, but what did the Italian race do to deserve such disgrace?

To be fair UCI asked both Giro and Vuelta who would want to move to September and Giro's organizers took that as an insult to them and dug their own grave but only if we look back at the last decade or so, in late 90s/early 00s they were equally mainly a local matter with a number of Spanish teams going to the Giro and a number of Italian teams going to the Vuelta plus a couple of other teams and when the WT (then ProTour) was launched initially the Giro benefitted more with the Vuelta being used by big names mainly as training for the Worlds. IMHO the real step up of the Vuelta was in 2011 with the first deeper high level GC field and then the Purito/Valverde/Contador battle of the following year and Froome going there almost every year.

 

[Blanco]

The only reason why the Giro has a less strong field than the Vuelta of late, is because of an inexplicable manuever by the UCI in 95 to move the Spanish grand tour to the end of summer. In fact, the UCI seems to have done everything within its power to diminish Italian cycling. Prior to 1995, the Giro was a necessary prize for any of the great champions, better if combined with the Tour in the same year! Now everybody is affraid to tackle the Giro-Tour double, whilst the Vuelta is either a convenient remedy for gt favorites who failed at the Tour or an easier route to a double for those that succeeded or else the perfect trampoline for those looing to arrive in top form at the Worlds. It's all pretty sickening for the Giro, but what did the Italian race do to deserve such disgrace?

But what harm did that to Giro? Or did Giro also change date a bit back then?
Vuelta on the other hand was heavily handicapped with April date, overlapping with major classics.

 

[Extinction]

But what harm did that to Giro? Or did Giro also change date a bit back then?
Vuelta on the other hand was heavily handicapped with April date, overlapping with major classics.

What didn't you get in my post regarding how the Vuelta move harmed the Giro? The last lines state it quite clearly. Except for some welcomed improvement in more international competition of late, in the late 90s and 2000s the Giro became a provincial race disputed by Italians without the bigs from other nations, who rather inclined toward tackling the Vuelta, now in a more convinient calander date, after the Tour.

 

[Extinction]

To be fair UCI asked both Giro and Vuelta who would want to move to September and Giro's organizers took that as an insult to them and dug their own grave but only if we look back at the last decade or so, in late 90s/early 00s they were equally mainly a local matter with a number of Spanish teams going to the Giro and a number of Italian teams going to the Vuelta plus a couple of other teams and when the WT (then ProTour) was launched initially the Giro benefitted more with the Vuelta being used by big names mainly as training for the Worlds. IMHO the real step up of the Vuelta was in 2011 with the first deeper high level GC field and then the Purito/Valverde/Contador battle of the following year and Froome going there almost every year.

I think it started with Armstorng in 99. At any rate, I don't think Italy dug its own grave in sticking up for itself and tradition (for being asked to move the Giro to September was an insult). Rather the UCI simply sabotaged the calander, thinking only of lining its pockets with a new international setup, while it cared nothing for tradition. While it was clear Spain and the Vuelta had everything to gain from a late summer date (no more conflict with the classics, a more appealing slot for bigs to tackle a second grand tour and ideally positioned for peaking for the worlds). Italy simply lost a game that was bigger than its means of defending itself.

 

[hayneplane]

I think it started with Armstorng in 99. At any rate, I don't think Italy dug its own grave in sticking up for itself and tradition (for being asked to move the Giro to September was an insult). Rather the UCI simply sabotaged the calander, thinking only of lining its pockets with a new international setup, while it cared nothing for tradition. While it was clear Spain and the Vuelta had everything to gain from a late summer date (no more conflict with the classics, a more appealing slot for bigs to tackle a second grand tour and ideally positioned for peaking for the worlds). Italy simply lost a game that was bigger than its means of defending itself.

Maybe so but I feel that May, July, September for the big 3 week races is a much more balanced cycling calendar than having a season where 4 out of 5 Monuments and all 3 Grand Tours are done and dusted by the start of August.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Maybe so but I feel that May, July, September for the big 3 week races is a much more balanced cycling calendar than having a season where 4 out of 5 Monuments and all 3 Grand Tours are done and dusted by the start of August.

Yes, exactly. And if the Giro organisers preferred to keep its traditional calendar slot rather than switch to a more advantageous one, that’s their decision. I’m all for most of the traditions of the sport, but the idea that the old calendar with all of its problems should be preserved in aspic is absurd.

 

[Extinction]

Yes, exactly. And if the Giro organisers preferred to keep its traditional calendar slot rather than switch to a more advantageous one, that’s their decision. I’m all for most of the traditions of the sport, but the idea that the old calendar with all of its problems should be preserved in aspic is absurd.

So you really think the Giro organizers should have given up the May-June slot to the Vuelta to occupy an unknown quantity in 95? The May-June Giro was a proven tradition. Why should the Giro have been asked to move to September and allow the Vuelta to assume its coveted position? At the time, the big grand tour champions went to the Giro to win, because the Giro-Tour double is the highest achievment in cycling. The Vuelta, the youngest of the three gts, was less prestigious and less sought after beyond the Spanish contenders, even if it had gotten its Merckx and Hinault winners. But it was the Vuelta calendar that was being abandoned, thus it was not up to the Giro to make way for the Vuelta in May-June by moving to September. In hindsight, perhaps giving up the May-Juner slot would have been better for the Giro as a whole, but it could hardly be expected for the organizers to have opted for that at the time. And in any case, May-June without the Giro is like springtime without flowers. No, tradition should not always be preserved in aspic, but throwing its virtues out with the wash (and there are many) is absurd.

What the UCI should have done, was simply move the Vuelta to wherever it wanted, with the Spanish organizers' approval, and not have brought the Giro into the issue.

 

[Extinction]

Maybe so but I feel that May, July, September for the big 3 week races is a much more balanced cycling calendar than having a season where 4 out of 5 Monuments and all 3 Grand Tours are done and dusted by the start of August.

Perhaps, I don't know. Of course, it's been settled for some time now and it is nice to have another gt in late summer, I'll admit. Still I liked the old calendar, when the World's was in early September and the great expectation in August after the Tour for its arrival. And, of course, I liked it when the big champions rode the Giro to win, possibly for the double. The Tour was much more known, but it gave the Giro such a mystic that has perhaps been diminished since the calendar reform. At any rate, to each his own.

 

[Nirvana]

But what harm did that to Giro? Or did Giro also change date a bit back then?
Vuelta on the other hand was heavily handicapped with April date, overlapping with major classics.

The Giro was anticipated a week since 1995 (and another one, sometimes two, since 2002) but I doubt that changed much except for the feasibility of the double with the Tour because nowadays it's impossible to enter the Giro undercooked, hit the peak by the end and keep it for the Tour like Hinault or Indurain used to do when there were only three weeks in between but on the other hand five/six weeks aren't enough to rest and build a proper new peak.

Anyway IMHO if someone wants to go to the Giro goes to the Giro, if wants to go to the Tour goes to the Tour, the big difference is that nowadays then both are likely to go to the Vuelta as secondary target after their main target or to try to save the season if they failed it.

P.S.: the Vuelta didn't overlap with the classics, the start generally was 7/10 days after Liege, only occasionally could overlap with Amstel that was a week after Liege (but before World Cup wasn't as import as as nowadays). Also occasionally there could be an overlap between the third week of the Vuelta and the start of Giro whereas the Giro was always overlapping with Dauphine and sometimes with Suisse.

 

[Blanco]

What the UCI should have done, was simply move the Vuelta to wherever it wanted, with the Spanish organizers' approval, and not have brought the Giro into the issue.

And they did just that! What's the problem then?

 

[Extinction]

And they did just that! What's the problem then?

Did they though?

 

[gregrowlerson]

I don't believe that the Giro has been harmed by staying where it is. Contador added to its prestige, and then we've had most memorable victories of Nibali and Froome as recently as 2016 and 2018. The Vuelta is not on par with the Giro and is being overrated currently due to Roglic' three-peat. By the way, whilst still a great achievement, it wasn't really planned, and I'm sure he'd trade one of those wins for the 2019 Giro.

 

[SHAD0W93]

On the semantics of stage points it can be spread like: 1 for a group finish, 3 for 30 or less, 5 for 10 or less, 7 for 3 or less, 10 for solo as an example. I don’t think it’s fair when a break wins on a flat stage they get lesser points for it being flat. Then if worry is a mass of points for someone with high quality maybe they get let’s say 1 point for 1 stage, 2 points for 2, 3 for 3 stages equaling 6 total earned as an example. Since I think it’s hard winning multiple times and that can be carried over into the other stages.

I think Savoldelli once said Cipollini was among the best descenders out there, probably even better than himself.

Sprinters are said to be the best or most risk taking to make the cut.

 

[tobydawq]

On the semantics of stage points it can be spread like: 1 for a group finish, 3 for 30 or less, 5 for 10 or less, 7 for 3 or less, 10 for solo as an example. I don’t think it’s fair when a break wins on a flat stage they get lesser points for it being flat. Then if worry is a mass of points for someone with high quality maybe they get let’s say 1 point for 1 stage, 2 points for 2, 3 for 3 stages equaling 6 total earned as an example. Since I think it’s hard winning multiple times and that can be carried over into the other stages.


Sprinters are said to be the best or most risk taking to make the cut.

I think it's an intriguing thought to diversify points based on number of finishers on st but this is way, way, way too much. Ten times more points for a solo win than a group sprint win?

 

[SHAD0W93]

I think it's an intriguing thought to diversify points based on number of finishers on st but this is way, way, way too much. Ten times more points for a solo win than a group sprint win?

I was just using the points I put as a visual example. Maybe instead it’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or we start busting out 0.5’s. I don’t know but I think it would be a fair split up since I don’t think it’s fair that if we give less points for a sprint that a breakaway or solo stays away and gets a single point. On the flip side Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Froome, Basso, Contador, and Nibali’s dominating s mountain stage to win is better then Valverde, Purito, or Roglic sprinting out of the group on a mountain stage.

 

[Blanco]

I don't believe that the Giro has been harmed by staying where it is. Contador added to its prestige, and then we've had most memorable victories of Nibali and Froome as recently as 2016 and 2018. The Vuelta is not on par with the Giro and is being overrated currently due to Roglic' three-peat. By the way, whilst still a great achievement, it wasn't really planned, and I'm sure he'd trade one of those wins for the 2019 Giro.

Of course he would trade one of those for one Giro, but would he trade all three for three Giro's, that's a question. Bernal said recently that he would rather win Vuelta than another Tour (this one is for Tour lovers)

 

[CyclistAbi]

Another thing to consider is the name of Wout van Aert likely won't often be right up there with the rest. When calculating such statistics. Then again who wouldn't want to be a cyclist of such caliber. Most names on such lists would likely be prepared to trade.

 

[KenFiamingo]

Always interesting these ranking discussions; and I had them all inside my own head I've been updating my personal ranking for about 20 years now and decided to finally publish it on kingoftheechelon.com. Small side note; the top 100 will be gradually revealed in the next couple of weeks; but as I've already listed the country of these riders, you might be able to fill in the dots.

The funny thing is that your own view on what would be a well-balanced points distribution also changes over time. After 20 years, I suddenly felt the urge to make some recent adjustments in the points schema as it felt like the ranking was a bit skewed in favor of the one-day riders. But in any case, all these types of rankings are wrong by nature.

 

[Blanco]

Always interesting these ranking discussions; and I had them all inside my own head I've been updating my personal ranking for about 20 years now and decided to finally publish it on kingoftheechelon.com. Small side note; the top 100 will be gradually revealed in the next couple of weeks; but as I've already listed the country of these riders, you might be able to fill in the dots.

The funny thing is that your own view on what would be a well-balanced points distribution also changes over time. After 20 years, I suddenly felt the urge to make some recent adjustments in the points schema as it felt like the ranking was a bit skewed in favor of the one-day riders. But in any case, all these types of rankings are wrong by nature.

I'll comment a little about points schema:
Main flaw, imo, is that you must take into consideration that for example Paris-Tours or Paris-Brussels were major races in certain period, but they are not anymore (especially Brussels). So some races in some period worth more, and in other less. Strade Bianche when started was not a top race by any means, but now certainly is. Vuelta also, in the last 15-20 years it's on par with Giro, but before that certainly wasn't.
Also Giro del Lazio and Hamburg have no place with races like Amstel, GW, FW.
Top stage races are given the same amount of points like Monuments, but winning a Monument worth much more I think.

But, nevertheless I think you did a fine job.

 

[KenFiamingo]

I'll comment a little about points schema:
Main flaw, imo, is that you must take into consideration that for example Paris-Tours or Paris-Brussels were major races in certain period, but they are not anymore (especially Brussels). So some races in some period worth more, and in other less. Strade Bianche when started was not a top race by any means, but now certainly is. Vuelta also, in the last 15-20 years it's on par with Giro, but before that certainly wasn't.
Also Giro del Lazio and Hamburg have no place with races like Amstel, GW, FW.
Top stage races are given the same amount of points like Monuments, but winning a Monument worth much more I think.

But, nevertheless I think you did a fine job.

Thanks for your feedback, Blanco.

I thought about how to deal with the changing valuation of races overtime. The rationale behind not creating time specific points schemas is the following: if a race becomes less important, it will attract less big names. So we're talking about occasional winners, decent/mediocre names but not the type of riders that will appear in the top of the all-time ranking anyway. So i'm ok with them receiving a disproportianate amount of points (e.g. Jelle Wallaeys won Paris-Tours twice) as it will not forge the overall outcome of the ranking (Wallaeys ends up in the 700th place). The same principle applies to the classics/monuments as we know them today, but which did not thave that status in their early years of course.

Wether certain races are on par or not, that's the eternal question without a right answer; only arguments in both directions.

But with regards to Giro del Lazio, you convinced me to relagate it to a lower category.

 

[KenFiamingo]

Hey all,

the all-time ranking (until 2021) is finally live on kingoftheechelon.com.
I'll provide an update with the 2022 results after the Tour de France. If things stay the way they are now, Tadej Pogacar and Geraint Thomas will enter the top-100.

 

[pmcg76]

Hey all,

the all-time ranking (until 2021) is finally live on kingoftheechelon.com.
I'll provide an update with the 2022 results after the Tour de France. If things stay the way they are now, Tadej Pogacar and Geraint Thomas will enter the top-100.

2 time Tour winner and Monuments winner amongst other things not in the top 100. Robbie McEwen never won a major race in his career, yet is!!

Same problem as every other dumb list that over rewards sprint stages.