Top 50 Cyclists - Personal Scoring System - Born 1970 onwards

[BlueRoads]

I have no idea, if that would work, but I would try and start with something like this:

Tour win: 50 points
Tour 2nd: 15 points
Tour 3rd: 10 points

Giro win: 25 points
Giro 2nd: 12 points
Giro 3rd: 8 points

Vuelta win: 18 points
Vuelta 2nd: 10 points
Vuelta 3rd: 5 points

MSR, Lombardia win: 8pts. 2nd: 3, 3rd: 1
Flanders, Liège, PR win: 10 pts. 2nd: 4, 3rd: 2

Worlds: 20 points. 2nd: 5. 3rd: 3.

Olympics: 18, 8, 5.

Strade: 5, 3, 1

Other WT one day races and equivalent: 2pts
PN, TA, Basque, Dauphiné: 6 pts.

Stages: 1 for a Tour stage win. For Giro/ Vuelta stage wins: 1/2 points.

Other races: don't matter for the top 100 cyclists in my opinion.

Okay, grill me.

 

[Jspear]

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.

When I was a kid, first I learned there was the Tour and then discovered the other Grand Tours and then later stage races and monuments. Of course this is antidotal.

 

[Jspear]

I have no idea, if that would work, but I would try and start with something like this:

Tour win: 50 points
Tour 2nd: 15 points
Tour 3rd: 10 points

Giro win: 25 points
Giro 2nd: 12 points
Giro 3rd: 8 points

Vuelta win: 18 points
Vuelta 2nd: 10 points
Vuelta 3rd: 5 points

MSR, Lombardia win: 8pts. 2nd: 3, 3rd: 1
Flanders, Liège, PR win: 10 pts. 2nd: 4, 3rd: 2

Worlds: 20 points. 2nd: 5. 3rd: 3.

Olympics: 18, 8, 5.

Strade: 5, 3, 1

Other WT one day races and equivalent: 2pts
PN, TA, Basque, Dauphiné: 6 pts.

Stages: 1 for a Tour stage win. For Giro/ Vuelta stage wins: 1/2 points.

Other races: don't matter for the top 100 cyclists in my opinion.

Okay, grill me.

Not too many complaints. Just - The Giro is only worth half the value of the Tour?!?!

 

[Big Doopie]

I have no idea, if that would work, but I would try and start with something like this:

Tour win: 50 points
Tour 2nd: 15 points
Tour 3rd: 10 points

Giro win: 25 points
Giro 2nd: 12 points
Giro 3rd: 8 points

Vuelta win: 18 points
Vuelta 2nd: 10 points
Vuelta 3rd: 5 points

MSR, Lombardia win: 8pts. 2nd: 3, 3rd: 1
Flanders, Liège, PR win: 10 pts. 2nd: 4, 3rd: 2

Worlds: 20 points. 2nd: 5. 3rd: 3.

Olympics: 18, 8, 5.

Strade: 5, 3, 1

Other WT one day races and equivalent: 2pts
PN, TA, Basque, Dauphiné: 6 pts.

Stages: 1 for a Tour stage win. For Giro/ Vuelta stage wins: 1/2 points.

Other races: don't matter for the top 100 cyclists in my opinion.

Okay, grill me.

actually, this looks super to me, and better than the one i proposed earlier.

 

[Netserk]

Well, it's a bit inelegant.

 

[Extinction]

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.

That's not how I see it, actually. In cycling terms I see the stronger riders being able to do longer sustained efforts at or beyond threashold 20-30-40 minutes, with sprinters getting shelled out the back.

 

[Blanco]

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.

He's not joking, according to this ranking Cavendish is probably the best rider of the current century...

 

[Hugo Koblet]

He's not joking, according to this ranking Cavendish is probably the best rider of the current century...

Yep, I realized that and acknowledge that the points scale isn't very well thought through

Honestly, I think it's very hard to find a points system that's fair to stage wins, but I guess something like 8 stages is equivalent to one GT then.

 

[tobydawq]

I have no idea, if that would work, but I would try and start with something like this:

Tour win: 50 points
Tour 2nd: 15 points
Tour 3rd: 10 points

Giro win: 25 points
Giro 2nd: 12 points
Giro 3rd: 8 points

Vuelta win: 18 points
Vuelta 2nd: 10 points
Vuelta 3rd: 5 points

MSR, Lombardia win: 8pts. 2nd: 3, 3rd: 1
Flanders, Liège, PR win: 10 pts. 2nd: 4, 3rd: 2

Worlds: 20 points. 2nd: 5. 3rd: 3.

Olympics: 18, 8, 5.

Strade: 5, 3, 1

Other WT one day races and equivalent: 2pts
PN, TA, Basque, Dauphiné: 6 pts.

Stages: 1 for a Tour stage win. For Giro/ Vuelta stage wins: 1/2 points.

Other races: don't matter for the top 100 cyclists in my opinion.

Okay, grill me.

Worlds worth double a monument? And 2.5 the Italian monuments? I don't see that making sense. I would rate PR, Flanders and Worlds practically equal.

 

[Blanco]

I have no idea, if that would work, but I would try and start with something like this:

Tour win: 50 points
Tour 2nd: 15 points
Tour 3rd: 10 points

Giro win: 25 points
Giro 2nd: 12 points
Giro 3rd: 8 points

Vuelta win: 18 points
Vuelta 2nd: 10 points
Vuelta 3rd: 5 points

MSR, Lombardia win: 8pts. 2nd: 3, 3rd: 1
Flanders, Liège, PR win: 10 pts. 2nd: 4, 3rd: 2

Worlds: 20 points. 2nd: 5. 3rd: 3.

Olympics: 18, 8, 5.

Strade: 5, 3, 1

Other WT one day races and equivalent: 2pts
PN, TA, Basque, Dauphiné: 6 pts.

Stages: 1 for a Tour stage win. For Giro/ Vuelta stage wins: 1/2 points.

Other races: don't matter for the top 100 cyclists in my opinion.

Okay, grill me.

You can't rate 2nd and 3rd at the Tour at 1/3 and 1/5 of the winner, and at Giro and Vuelta at 1/2 and 1/3. You got to be consistent.
This is also the case with Worlds and Monuments. Also difference in points is too big (20 for the Worlds, 10 and 8 for the Monuments).
Also for the Tour stage 1 point and for the win 50! So you need 50 stages to reach the record of Oscar Pereiro, Carlos Sastre and Sir Bradley!? This is too little for the stage win, or too much for the overall win.
And so on...

 

[Blanco]

Worlds worth double a monument? And 2.5 the Italian monuments? I don't see that making sense. I would rate PR, Flanders and Worlds practically equal.

I would rank all the Monuments equal.
Worlds, 20% more than Monuments.
Tour would worth two Monuments.
Giro and Vuelta 3/4 of the Tour.
Grand Tour stage 1/10 of the overall win.
Biggest one day races 1/2 of the Monument.
Biggest stage races same as above.

 

[Kaptain Kool]

I'd keep it simple.

Tour GC... 50, 25, 10
Giro and Vuelta... 30, 15, 6
Monuments and WC: 20, 10, 4
Other WT Stage Races GC = 5
Other WT One Day Races plus Olympics = 3
GT Stage Win = 1
Other WT Stage Win = 0.5

Let's not remember to forget that this is road racing. Time Trials are not races so events with TTs must be adjusted.
To be honest, Time Trials should really be in their own fringe discipline like BMX, track and that cycle-hockey game the UCI YouTube Channel keeps showing. But that's best left for another discussion.

Time Trial adjustment for stage races: Ultimate Points Earned = (Unadjusted Points)/(2 * #of Time Trials)

So, for example, Pogacar would earn 15.5 points from this year's TdF... 50/(2 * 2 TTs) + 3 Stage Wins.
Whoever finished 2nd and 3rd in GC would earn 6.25 and 2.5 points, respectively, plus one point each for any stages wins if anyone could remember if they won any.

 

[Bonimenier]

I'd keep it simple.

Tour GC... 50, 25, 10
Giro and Vuelta... 30, 15, 6
Monuments and WC: 20, 10, 4
Other WT Stage Races GC = 5
Other WT One Day Races plus Olympics = 3
GT Stage Win = 1
Other WT Stage Win = 0.5

Let's not remember to forget that this is road racing. Time Trials are not races so events with TTs must be adjusted.
To be honest, Time Trials should really be in their own fringe discipline like BMX, track and that cycle-hockey game the UCI YouTube Channel keeps showing. But that's best left for another discussion.

Time Trial adjustment for stage races: Ultimate Points Earned = (Unadjusted Points)/(2 * #of Time Trials)

So, for example, Pogacar would earn 15.5 points from this year's TdF... 50/(2 * 2 TTs) + 3 Stage Wins.
Whoever finished 2nd and 3rd in GC would earn 6.25 and 2.5 points, respectively, plus one point each for any stages wins if anyone could remember if they won any.

The Olympics surely are worth more than 15% of a monument?

Also what an atrocious TT take.

 

[pmcg76]

I would rank all the Monuments equal.
Worlds, 20% more than Monuments.
Tour would worth two Monuments.
Giro and Vuelta 3/4 of the Tour.
Grand Tour stage 1/10 of the overall win.
Biggest one day races 1/2 of the Monument.
Biggest stage races same as above.

Not bad bar one same old problem which I criticised someone else for.

Using such a method
Tour 60
Giro/Vuelta 45
Monuments 30
Worlds 36
One day races/ Stage races 15
Tour/ GT stages 6/5

The problem, Cavendish has the equal of 3 Tour wins and a Giro, Cipollini 4 Giros and a Tour, Petacchi 2 Giros and 2 Vuelta, Kittel 1 Tour(almost 2), Greipel 1 Tour. McEwen 1 Tour and 1 Giro. McEwen GT sprint wins are worth 4 Monuments.

Until people realise that Sprint stages should be awarded lower points than regular stages or all GT stages given something like 1/20 of a GT victory, or not included at all, there will always be a silly bias towards sprinters. Fact is there are between 60-70 GT stages every year which is way more opportunities than most of the other races we want included combined. Look at the palmares of the greats, stage wins are well down the achievement list but as you descend GT stages become more relevant. Kittel, Greipel, McEwen have never won a major race between them. Petacchi has one M-SR, Cav and Cipo have a WC and MSR, but because they can hoover up GT sprints, they get elevated way above their real standing.

 

[Parker]

I've said this before. In Summer 2020 the Spanish sports newspaper did a list of the top 100 sportsmen (just men) of the 21st century.

The cyclists were:

1. Froome
2. Contador
3. Nibali
4. Wiggins
5. Cancellara
6. Valverde
7. Sagan
8. Freire
9. Boonen
10. Cavendish

Obviously there's some Spanish bias there. Swap Freire for Gilbert. Wiggins is in largely for his track cross over, so scrap him. Add Bettini or Pogacar instead and I think you have a solid top ten of the last 20 years.

No points system required. Those systems are just too basic. They generally value longevity and devalue wins compared to podiums. They also value races according to their present value rather than their historic value. And then there's the lack of any acknowledgement of the varying depth of field.

But particularly they lean towards the system designer's favourites

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I would rank all the Monuments equal.
Worlds, 20% more than Monuments.
Tour would worth two Monuments.
Giro and Vuelta 3/4 of the Tour.
Grand Tour stage 1/10 of the overall win.
Biggest one day races 1/2 of the Monument.
Biggest stage races same as above.

I think this is a good take. If we all had to agree to one system, I would have no problem voting for this one. I would rank Olympics on par with Worlds. Not sure where to rank Worlds and Olympics ITTs, though.

 

[OlavEH]

I would rank all the Monuments equal.
Worlds, 20% more than Monuments.
Tour would worth two Monuments.
Giro and Vuelta 3/4 of the Tour.
Grand Tour stage 1/10 of the overall win.
Biggest one day races 1/2 of the Monument.
Biggest stage races same as above.

Fairly agree her, but would rate the biggest stage races a bit more. I think a Daupine win is more worth than Omloop or GP Bretagne.

In addition you would need to decide what races to include and how to value places behind the winner. I think nothing more than the 7 "classic" top one-week-races should be counted. In addition to maximum 10-15 one day races besides the monuments and the championships. The top three could receive points in somewhat like a 3 - 1,5 - 1 formula.

Suggestion:
Tour: 100 - 50 -30
Giro/Vuelta: 80 - 40- 25
Worlds: 60 - 30 - 20
Monuments: 50 - 25 - 16
One week and selected one day: 30 - 15 - 10
Other one day: 20 - 10 - 6
Stages Tour: 8
Stages Giro and Vuelta: 5

 

[Asero831]

I'd keep it simple.

Tour GC... 50, 25, 10

GT Stage Win = 1
Other WT Stage Win = 0.5

It is harder to get 10 stage wins than to get a 3rd place GC. hahaha

 

[tobydawq]

I'd keep it simple.



Time Trial adjustment for stage races: Ultimate Points Earned = (Unadjusted Points)/(2 * #of Time Trials)

So, for example, Pogacar would earn 15.5 points from this year's TdF... 50/(2 * 2 TTs) + 3 Stage Wins.
Whoever finished 2nd and 3rd in GC would earn 6.25 and 2.5 points, respectively, plus one point each for any stages wins if anyone could remember if they won any.

Lol, very simple.

 

[Bonimenier]

I'd keep it simple.

Tour GC... 50, 25, 10
Giro and Vuelta... 30, 15, 6
Monuments and WC: 20, 10, 4
Other WT Stage Races GC = 5
Other WT One Day Races plus Olympics = 3
GT Stage Win = 1
Other WT Stage Win = 0.5

Let's not remember to forget that this is road racing. Time Trials are not races so events with TTs must be adjusted.
To be honest, Time Trials should really be in their own fringe discipline like BMX, track and that cycle-hockey game the UCI YouTube Channel keeps showing. But that's best left for another discussion.

Time Trial adjustment for stage races: Ultimate Points Earned = (Unadjusted Points)/(2 * #of Time Trials)

So, for example, Pogacar would earn 15.5 points from this year's TdF... 50/(2 * 2 TTs) + 3 Stage Wins.
Whoever finished 2nd and 3rd in GC would earn 6.25 and 2.5 points, respectively, plus one point each for any stages wins if anyone could remember if they won any.

So winning a monument in 2021 would get you as many points as winning the Tour AND the Giro?

 

[pmcg76]

I've said this before. In Summer 2020 the Spanish sports newspaper did a list of the top 100 sportsmen (just men) of the 21st century.

The cyclists were:

1. Froome
2. Contador
3. Nibali
4. Wiggins
5. Cancellara
6. Valverde
7. Sagan
8. Freire
9. Boonen
10. Cavendish

Obviously there's some Spanish bias there. Swap Freire for Gilbert. Wiggins is in largely for his track cross over, so scrap him. Add Bettini or Pogacar instead and I think you have a solid top ten of the last 20 years.

No points system required. Those systems are just too basic. They generally value longevity and devalue wins compared to podiums. They also value races according to their present value rather than their historic value. And then there's the lack of any acknowledgement of the varying depth of field.

But particularly they lean towards the system designer's favourites

The only Spanish bias I see in that list is they seem to have bias towards stage racers. Whilst I agree Bettini or Pogacar could be on there and Wiggins not, I think it would be illogical to drop a 3 xWorld Champion/3 x Milan-San Remo/ Paris-Tours winner off the list whilst keeping Cavendish on there.

 

[pmcg76]

Fairly agree her, but would rate the biggest stage races a bit more. I think a Daupine win is more worth than Omloop or GP Bretagne.

In addition you would need to decide what races to include and how to value places behind the winner. I think nothing more than the 7 "classic" top one-week-races should be counted. In addition to maximum 10-15 one day races besides the monuments and the championships. The top three could receive points in somewhat like a 3 - 1,5 - 1 formula.

Suggestion:
Tour: 100 - 50 -30
Giro/Vuelta: 80 - 40- 25
Worlds: 60 - 30 - 20
Monuments: 50 - 25 - 16
One week and selected one day: 30 - 15 - 10
Other one day: 20 - 10 - 6
Stages Tour: 8
Stages Giro and Vuelta: 5

I would consider this close to perfect if stage wins were changed to 5 and 3 respectively and no need for other one day races as list could be endless.

One day races I would consider: Strade Bianche, Zurich, Fleche Wallone, Ghent Wevelgem, Paris-Tours, San Sebastian, Amstel Gold,

 

[OlavEH]

I would consider this close to perfect if stage wins were changed to 5 and 3 respectively and no need for other one day races as list could be endless.

One day races I would consider: Strade Bianche, Zurich, Fleche Wallone, Ghent Wevelgem, Paris-Tours, San Sebastian, Amstel Gold,

E3 should definitely be on the list IMO. One might also consider a selected few secondary (or tertiary) one day races like Omloop, Bretagne, Hamburg Classics. Frankfurt and some other, but that is really not a must.

 

[BlueRoads]

You can't rate 2nd and 3rd at the Tour at 1/3 and 1/5 of the winner, and at Giro and Vuelta at 1/2 and 1/3. You got to be consistent.
This is also the case with Worlds and Monuments. Also difference in points is too big (20 for the Worlds, 10 and 8 for the Monuments).
Also for the Tour stage 1 point and for the win 50! So you need 50 stages to reach the record of Oscar Pereiro, Carlos Sastre and Sir Bradley!? This is too little for the stage win, or too much for the overall win.
And so on...

Yeah, you're right, the stage wins have really been undersold by me... it's just that I don't think they really matter for the legacy of the riders I consider the top, so I just wanted them to be tie-breakers, not have a significant influence... but they should probably be more like three points.

Regarding the consistency of percentages I don't agree with your general conclusion. For me the value of a podium in comparison to the win depends on the race. The exact percentages I wrote up are surely debatable.

 

[Blanco]

Not bad bar one same old problem which I criticised someone else for.

Using such a method
Tour 60
Giro/Vuelta 45
Monuments 30
Worlds 36
One day races/ Stage races 15
Tour/ GT stages 6/5

The problem, Cavendish has the equal of 3 Tour wins and a Giro, Cipollini 4 Giros and a Tour, Petacchi 2 Giros and 2 Vuelta, Kittel 1 Tour(almost 2), Greipel 1 Tour. McEwen 1 Tour and 1 Giro. McEwen GT sprint wins are worth 4 Monuments.

Until people realise that Sprint stages should be awarded lower points than regular stages or all GT stages given something like 1/20 of a GT victory, or not included at all, there will always be a silly bias towards sprinters. Fact is there are between 60-70 GT stages every year which is way more opportunities than most of the other races we want included combined. Look at the palmares of the greats, stage wins are well down the achievement list but as you descend GT stages become more relevant. Kittel, Greipel, McEwen have never won a major race between them. Petacchi has one M-SR, Cav and Cipo have a WC and MSR, but because they can hoover up GT sprints, they get elevated way above their real standing.

Yeah, that is probably a good suggestion. Flat stages should carry the lowest amount of points, then the hilly ones, and then mountain stages. ITT stages also, longer and harder ones should worth more than shorter flat TT's or prologues.
Although I must tell that Cavendish record, for example, certainly is worth more than one Tour de France victory, maybe even two. I mean 34 stages! No one is even close to that of the current generation. And I'm not a sprinters fan at all, on the contrary... Or Cippo, his 42 Giro stages are, I think, more impressive than Savoldelli's two titles.
Sprinters are too one-dimensional, I agree, but they are the fastest guys out there, and speed is often deciding factor for winning races.
Maybe 1/15 of the overall title for the "sprinters stage" should be fair enough, I don't know, or maybe even a little less.., but no less than 1/20.