Velo d’Or 2023

[Armchair Cyclist]

Vélo d´Or is a road cycling award so CX Worlds win is irrelevant.

Not really. It is an award voted for secretly by a panel of journalists voting on whatever grounds they might choose. If they want to vote for someone because they like their haircut, nothing can stop them. If they allow their opinion to be to be influenced by cyclocross, then it is relevant.

 

[Purito1991]

Pogacar has to win the velo d or. He almost won every race he entered.
The races he has not won he was still the strongest and animated the race the most. He just lost against pure specialists or better sprinter (milan sanremo, e3, emilia, wm).
At the tour he had one really bad day. In the first 2 weeks he was at the same level as vingegard and that after a really bad preparation after liege.

 

[Escarabajo]

Pogacar!

 

[Nick2413]

I still go with Vingegaard but since hypotheticals don’t count it’s about VDP vs Pogacar. What’s better, 3 big wins or 2 big wins plus a metric shitton of everything else including a 2nd place at Tour and a wide variety of idiosyncratic wins that aren’t supposed to be possible by the same rider? It would be cool to vote VDP but Pogacar was the most dominant rider this year.

 

[Froome]

Van der poel or vingegaard.

 

[kn0s]

Pogacar has to win the velo d or. He almost won every race he entered.
The races he has not won he was still the strongest and animated the race the most. He just lost against pure specialists or better sprinter (milan sanremo, e3, emilia, wm).
At the tour he had one really bad day. In the first 2 weeks he was at the same level as vingegard and that after a really bad preparation after liege.

Stage 5? Doesn't really matter in this context, but just to correct the last part of your post.

 

[OlavEH]

Have we ever had 3 this strong contenders to Velo d'Or?

MvdP: 2 monuments, Worlds and 2nd in third monument.
Vingegaard: Tour, 2nd in Vuelta, Criterium Dauphine, Basque Country
Pogacar: 2 monuments, 2nd in Tour, PN, Amstel and Fleche.

In most seasons the results for either of this trio would have given them Velo d'Or.

 

[Axel Hangleck]

I'd give to Pogacar; challenged/won in every race, whether cobbled classics/Monuments, hilly classics, and a Grand Tour.....plus a Worlds podium.
MvdP had 2 monuments, 2nd in another and 2 World championships.....

 

[meat puppet]

I'd give it to Vinge because of the way he brutalised everyone in the Tour, and would have easily won the Vuelta if given the green light; or MvdP because of the three (or four) big ones.

Pog was impressive but he was devoured in the race that counts the most, so no.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Vingegaard is absolutely out. Yes, Tour + two WT stage races is impressive, but it's also the fifth time it's happened since 2011. WCRR + 2 monuments and Ronde + Lombardia in a single season had each happened only once since Merckx retired (Boonen 2005 and Kuiper 1981 respectively being the only times). So Vingegaard's combination simply nowhere near as special an achievement, even though it would be enough to win the VdO in most years.

For Van der Poel and Pogacar, it's extremely close by the numbers, and also by uniqueness. In fact, with the numerical approach I proposed earlier in this thread, both would land at 309 points. Which makes me pretty happy with that approach.

4th places anywhere and stage wins/2nd places at second-tier races are pretty irrelevant when it comes to comparing the very best. Nobody is picking Van der Poel over Vingegaard because of a second place at E3, and nobody is picking Vingegaard over Van der Poel because of 3 stage wins at Itzulia.

For me, this is a good season to use for tweaking a numerical approach because it's very easy to accidentally put Pogacar in 1st. For example, in Red Rick's system, you get the following:
Pogacar - 30 + 3*3 from Paris-Nice, 15 from Sanremo, 10 from E3, 60 from Ronde, 30 from Amstel, 30 from Flèche, 50 + 2*10 from the Tour and 23.3 from the Worlds makes 277.3 points
Van der Poel - 60 from Sanremo, 15 from E3, 30 from Ronde, 60 from Roubaix and 70 from the Worlds makes 235 points
Vingegaard - 10 from Paris-Nice, 30 + 3*3 from Itzulia, 30 + 3*2 from Dauphiné and 100 + 10*2 from the Tour makes 205 points

So the system doesn't do what he thinks it should do given that he's said Van der Poel has this locked down. Not a criticism, because as I said previously, that happens really easily this year.

Here's what I'd suggest purely for Vélo d'Or purposes. Key considerations:
- 2 monument wins > any singular first place
- Monument win > any singular second place
- Biggest one-week stage races = biggest non-monument/WC one-day races
- Lower placements are irrelevant
- Multiple big wins in the same season have a stacking effect

Tour - 100, 40 and 20 points for the top-3, 15 points for the points classification and 10 points for stage wins and the KOM classification

Giro and Vuelta - 80, 32 and 16 points for the top-3, 8 points for a minor classification or stage win

Worlds (and Olympics, when applicable) RR - 70, 30 and 15 points for the top-3

Monuments - 60, 24 and 12 points for the top-3

2 wins total in the above - multiply winning points by 1.2. 3 - by 1.5. 4 - by 2. 5 - by 3. Don't think provisions for more are required.

Big 7 one-week stage races (Paris-Nice, Tirreno, Catalunya, Itzulia, Romandie, Dauphiné, Suisse), main other classics (Strade, E3, GW, Amstel, Flèche, CSS), and Worlds (and Olympics) TT - 30 points for the winner

For this season so far, that would give a top-10 of:
Van der Poel - (70 + 60 + 60)*1.5 + 24 = 309
Pogacar - 40 + 2*10 + 15 + 60 + 30 + 30 + 30 = 225
Vingegaard - 100 + 2*10 + 30 + 30 = 180
Roglic - 80 + 8 + 30 + 30 = 148
Evenepoel - 8*2 + 60 + 30 = 106
Van Aert - 30 + 12 + 12 + 30 = 84
Philipsen - 15 + 10*4 + 24 = 79
A Yates - 20 + 10 + 30 = 60
Pidcock - 24 + 30 = 54
Thomas - 32
(with Pedersen and Skjelmose both at 30)

Which seems pretty reasonable to me. The biggest complaint you could make is that Pogacar shouldn't have a quarter more points than Vingegaard - again, kind of inherent to a quantitative system because he's been up there in so many big races. Same issue that puts Valverde as the best rider of this century in so many rankings.

And if Vingegaard were to win the Vuelta, he goes to (100 + 80)*1.2 + 2*10 + 30 + 30 = 296. Meaning he'd need 2 stage wins in addition to that to barely beat Van der Poel in this system. Such a narrow margin is IMO what you should want out of your approach in that scenario.

Of course, you could argue that Vingegaard's winning margin in the Tour means that his Tour should count more heavily than usual but that sort of consideration makes quantification far too complicated.

Updated version of that top-10:
Van der Poel - (70 + 60 + 60)*1.5 + 24 = 309
Pogacar - 40 + 2*10 + 15 + (60 + 60)*1.2 + 30 + 30 + 30 = 309
Vingegaard - 100 + 2*10 + 32 + 2*8 + 30 + 30 = 228 (would have been 312 with a Vuelta win)
Roglic - 80 + 8 + 16 + 2*8 + 12 + 30 + 30 = 192 (would have been 288 with a Vuelta win)
Evenepoel - 2*8 + 4*8 + 60 + 30 + 30 = 168
Kuss - 80 + 8 = 88
Van Aert - 30 + 12 + 12 + 30 = 84
Philipsen - 15 + 10*4 + 24 = 79
A Yates - 20 + 10 + 30 = 60
Pidcock - 24 + 30 = 54
And fwiw, there are seasons where nobody even reaches Evenepoel's point total under this system. This year was nuts.

I do think you need to consider the manner of victory/second place more when it's that close.
Their monuments cancel each other out here - all solo wins, of which Sanremo and RVV were really empathetic. However, Pogacar's second string is less impressive - yes, Paris-Nice was against Vingegaard, but Amstel and Flèche had relatively poor fields this year with no Van der Poel or Van Aert (stronger than any actual competition in the former, no Roglic (stronger in the latter) and no Evenepoel (stronger in either) and a second place at the Tour becomes less powerful when it's seven minutes down on first and without any of the 5-6 next-best GC GT riders there. Conversely, Van der Poel's WCRR was an all-timer in terms of field and style of victory, and his second at Ronde was IMO more impressive than Pogacar's at the Tour. If you consider the CX title too it's definitely Van der Poel, if you don't I can see arguments for both but I'd still lean towards Van der Poel. Had Pogacar kept the Tour close throughout the third week, it would be a different story for me, hence why pure numbers don't tell you everything here.

 

[Brullnux]

I love Pogacar, but you can't give him the velo d'or with his Tour. That was the main aim of his season, and the biggest race of the year for someone like him, and he lost very, very comprehensively.

I think that ends up putting a bit of a muffler on the rest of the year, which may have not been the case had be not crashed at LBL. But, as it stands, MVDP won the two biggest one day races of the year, plus another monument, and I think he deserves it.

 

[Red Rick]

Vingegaard is absolutely out. Yes, Tour + two WT stage races is impressive, but it's also the fifth time it's happened since 2011. WCRR + 2 monuments and Ronde + Lombardia in a single season had each happened only once since Merckx retired (Boonen 2005 and Kuiper 1981 respectively being the only times). So Vingegaard's combination simply nowhere near as special an achievement, even though it would be enough to win the VdO in most years.

For Van der Poel and Pogacar, it's extremely close by the numbers, and also by uniqueness. In fact, with the numerical approach I proposed earlier in this thread, both would land at 309 points. Which makes me pretty happy with that approach.

Updated version of that top-10:
Van der Poel - (70 + 60 + 60)*1.5 + 24 = 309
Pogacar - 40 + 2*10 + 15 + (60 + 60)*1.2 + 30 + 30 + 30 = 309
Vingegaard - 100 + 2*10 + 32 + 2*8 + 30 + 30 = 228 (would have been 312 with a Vuelta win)
Roglic - 80 + 8 + 16 + 2*8 + 12 + 30 + 30 = 192 (would have been 288 with a Vuelta win)
Evenepoel - 2*8 + 4*8 + 60 + 30 + 30 = 168
Kuss - 80 + 8 = 88
Van Aert - 30 + 12 + 12 + 30 = 84
Philipsen - 15 + 10*4 + 24 = 79
A Yates - 20 + 10 + 30 = 60
Pidcock - 24 + 30 = 54
And fwiw, there are seasons where nobody even reaches Evenepoel's point total under this system. This year was nuts.

I do think you need to consider the manner of victory/second place more when it's that close.
Their monuments cancel each other out here - all solo wins, of which Sanremo and RVV were really empathetic. However, Pogacar's second string is less impressive - yes, Paris-Nice was against Vingegaard, but Amstel and Flèche had relatively poor fields this year with no Van der Poel or Van Aert (stronger than any actual competition in the former, no Roglic (stronger in the latter) and no Evenepoel (stronger in either) and a second place at the Tour becomes less powerful when it's seven minutes down on first and without any of the 5-6 next-best GC GT riders there. Conversely, Van der Poel's WCRR was an all-timer in terms of field and style of victory, and his second at Ronde was IMO more impressive than Pogacar's at the Tour. If you consider the CX title too it's definitely Van der Poel, if you don't I can see arguments for both but I'd still lean towards Van der Poel. Had Pogacar kept the Tour close throughout the third week, it would be a different story for me, hence why pure numbers don't tell you everything here.

Still think the multiplier system you have is too aggressive and biased to 1 day races. MvdP got very close to 4 big one days which IIRC would be worth more than winning all 3 GTs in a season. But overall I do rate a system where Kuss>Van Aert for this season

 

[Scarponi]

Have we ever had 3 this strong contenders to Velo d'Or?

MvdP: 2 monuments, Worlds and 2nd in third monument.
Vingegaard: Tour, 2nd in Vuelta, Criterium Dauphine, Basque Country
Pogacar: 2 monuments, 2nd in Tour, PN, Amstel and Fleche.

In most seasons the results for either of this trio would have given them Velo d'Or.

Even Roglics year would easily come 2nd or be in contention most years. Brutal year for anyone not in the big 4

 

[Netserk]

I do think you need to consider the manner of victory/second place more when it's that close.
Their monuments cancel each other out here - all solo wins, of which Sanremo and RVV were really empathetic. However, Pogacar's second string is less impressive - yes, Paris-Nice was against Vingegaard, but Amstel and Flèche had relatively poor fields this year with no Van der Poel or Van Aert (stronger than any actual competition in the former, no Roglic (stronger in the latter) and no Evenepoel (stronger in either) and a second place at the Tour becomes less powerful when it's seven minutes down on first and without any of the 5-6 next-best GC GT riders there. Conversely, Van der Poel's WCRR was an all-timer in terms of field and style of victory, and his second at Ronde was IMO more impressive than Pogacar's at the Tour. If you consider the CX title too it's definitely Van der Poel, if you don't I can see arguments for both but I'd still lean towards Van der Poel. Had Pogacar kept the Tour close throughout the third week, it would be a different story for me, hence why pure numbers don't tell you everything here.

I think Ronde was more similar to Glasgow than Sanremo. Roubaix and Lombardia were similar too in style, depending on how decisive you judge Van Aert's mechanical to have been.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Still think the multiplier system you have is too aggressive and biased to 1 day races. MvdP got very close to 4 big one days which IIRC would be worth more than winning all 3 GTs in a season. But overall I do rate a system where Kuss>Van Aert for this season

I mean, I think all 3 GTs should be worth an additional bonus because it's practically impossible, but it also remains a hypothetical for that very reason so I don't really see it as an issue.

Maybe you could slow down the multiplication for combinations that don't contain GTs a little (e.g. to 1.15, 1.4, 1.7 while keeping other combinations at 1.2, 1.5 and 2) but that wouldn't really change all that much - Pogacar would lose 6 points, Van der Poel 19, which would keep the gap between them at less than 5% which is still firmly 'you need to look at style of victory' territory for me, and a 4 quadruple monument/WCRR season is going to bear everyone else regardless in practice. And slowing the multiplication down further risks putting a Pogacar season where he comes second at Lombardia (249 points) really close to Van der Poel - a factor of (for example) 1.25 for three big one-day races would bump Van der Poel all the way down to 261.5 which doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I think Ronde was more similar to Glasgow than Sanremo. Roubaix and Lombardia were similar too in style, depending on how decisive you judge Van Aert's mechanical to have been.

I'm comparing monument to monument because WCRR > monument. In terms of style, yes, Glasgow is more similar to Ronde than Sanremo was, but in terms of how empathetic the win was, surely setting the all-time Poggio record + achieving the widest winning margin in the race since 1994 is at least as impressive as either of the other two?

 

[Netserk]

in terms of how empathetic the win was, surely setting the all-time Poggio record + achieving the widest winning margin in the race since 1994 is at least as impressive as either of the other two?

No. Keep in mind that Pogi, Ganna & Van Aert were only 3" slower on Poggio and that they too beat the previous record.

That's not to say that it wasn't empathic and deeply impressive, but I rate the performance of Pogi in Ronde on a higher level. It was surreal in a manner that Sanremo wasn't.

 

[Netserk]

The primary weakness of Van der Poel's season is its lack of depth. He surgically peaked for his targets, but with very few race days over the season at a high level. Just like Pogi was beaten at his main event, likewise was Van der Poel beaten in Ronde.

Vingegaard had 68 race days, including back-to-back GTs, and he was only off in Paris - Nice. Pogi had 49 race days, and he was only off when the Tour got decided. Van der Poel had 46 race days, and he was off for most of them.

 

[vwpe]

I'd give it to Vinge because of the way he brutalised everyone in the Tour, and would have easily won the Vuelta if given the green light; or MvdP because of the three (or four) big ones.

Pog was impressive but he was devoured in the race that counts the most, so no.

Devoured in the race that counts? You mean the guy wrode the race with a broken wrist. Geesh some people just either hates or lack of intelligence are mindblowing. Flandern win win im sure you dont grasp the importance of historicaly + lombardia 3 in WC not even close to topform yeah..

Its betwen MVDP and Pog but since MVDP season not that long it should go to Pog but i wouldnt cry if MVDP got it either stellar year from him.

Noone else besides those two are even remotely close to even beeing considered.

 

[Gigs_98]

I can see the argument for both Vingegaard and Pogacar, but I really hope MvdP wins it. I'm looking at the main targets of those three and MvdP is the one who can realistically improve the least there. Pog obviously only got 2nd in the most important race for him but also Vingegaard couldn't do the double which I'm fairly confident he can do in the future. I don't expect this to be the greatest season of either of their careers.

MvdP meanwhile won 3/4 major one day races he realistically had a chance to win, which is a completely insane ratio in one day racing. I don't see him ever having a better year than this.

Now I completely realize why a lot of people will disagree with this as an argument for why MvdP should win (for example, had Pogacar won LBL then undoubtedly he would have had a better season than MvdP despite still missing out on his biggest goal) but only looking at it from the sentimental standpoint this is the reason why it feels like MvdP should win. When people will be looking back at the careers of these three riders everyone will (probably) say 2023 was the year of MvdP's career. I don't think they will say the same about Vingegaard and Pogacar.

 

[Axel Hangleck]

I'd give it to Vinge because of the way he brutalised everyone in the Tour, and would have easily won the Vuelta if given the green light; or MvdP because of the three (or four) big ones.

Pog was impressive but he was devoured in the race that counts the most, so no.

Honestly, people need to lose this obsession with the Tour....It's the sports biggest strength - and also its weakness. As we've seen recently, Jumbo winning the last two editions hasn't brought a new major sponsor.

One event defining a whole sport is nonsensical....

 

[Elos Anjos]

Vingegaard is absolutely out. Yes, Tour + two WT stage races is impressive, but it's also the fifth time it's happened since 2011. WCRR + 2 monuments and Ronde + Lombardia in a single season had each happened only once since Merckx retired (Boonen 2005 and Kuiper 1981 respectively being the only times). So Vingegaard's combination simply nowhere near as special an achievement, even though it would be enough to win the VdO in most years.

For Van der Poel and Pogacar, it's extremely close by the numbers, and also by uniqueness. In fact, with the numerical approach I proposed earlier in this thread, both would land at 309 points. Which makes me pretty happy with that approach.

Updated version of that top-10:
Van der Poel - (70 + 60 + 60)*1.5 + 24 = 309
Pogacar - 40 + 2*10 + 15 + (60 + 60)*1.2 + 30 + 30 + 30 = 309
Vingegaard - 100 + 2*10 + 32 + 2*8 + 30 + 30 = 228 (would have been 312 with a Vuelta win)
Roglic - 80 + 8 + 16 + 2*8 + 12 + 30 + 30 = 192 (would have been 288 with a Vuelta win)
Evenepoel - 2*8 + 4*8 + 60 + 30 + 30 = 168
Kuss - 80 + 8 = 88
Van Aert - 30 + 12 + 12 + 30 = 84
Philipsen - 15 + 10*4 + 24 = 79
A Yates - 20 + 10 + 30 = 60
Pidcock - 24 + 30 = 54
And fwiw, there are seasons where nobody even reaches Evenepoel's point total under this system. This year was nuts.

I do think you need to consider the manner of victory/second place more when it's that close.
Their monuments cancel each other out here - all solo wins, of which Sanremo and RVV were really empathetic. However, Pogacar's second string is less impressive - yes, Paris-Nice was against Vingegaard, but Amstel and Flèche had relatively poor fields this year with no Van der Poel or Van Aert (stronger than any actual competition in the former, no Roglic (stronger in the latter) and no Evenepoel (stronger in either) and a second place at the Tour becomes less powerful when it's seven minutes down on first and without any of the 5-6 next-best GC GT riders there. Conversely, Van der Poel's WCRR was an all-timer in terms of field and style of victory, and his second at Ronde was IMO more impressive than Pogacar's at the Tour. If you consider the CX title too it's definitely Van der Poel, if you don't I can see arguments for both but I'd still lean towards Van der Poel. Had Pogacar kept the Tour close throughout the third week, it would be a different story for me, hence why pure numbers don't tell you everything here.

Props for at least advancing an argument for your choice and not just an opinion based on personal preferences. Fandom tend to forget that discussing cycling is not just opinions and personal tastes: de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum

 

[meat puppet]

To wvpe: I may or may not lack intelligence, but the real question is why a superior wit like yourself is yelling at a cloud on an internet forum.

To AxelH: I don't value TDF that high myself and much prefer one day races. Then again I don't think velo d'or should exclusively reflect my biases. According to my biases MvdP easily wins, despite some lack of depth in his season achievements, as some pointed out above.

To the wider public TDF is the race, however. And despite each and every imaginable excuse (see above), one rider won that not only in a dominant fashion but also by cracking a very worthy and capable opponent, who moreover was in driver's seat for a proportional part of the race.

 

[hayneplane]

The primary weakness of Van der Poel's season is its lack of depth. He surgically peaked for his targets, but with very few race days over the season at a high level. Just like Pogi was beaten at his main event, likewise was Van der Poel beaten in Ronde.

Vingegaard had 68 race days, including back-to-back GTs, and he was only off in Paris - Nice. Pogi had 49 race days, and he was only off when the Tour got decided. Van der Poel had 46 race days, and he was off for most of them.

Totally agree. The Worlds was easier for MVDP than Pog because he was using the Tour as a training camp primarily rather than going in deep day after day like Pogacar and he did not pick up many other wins that come close to the volume or prestige of Pogi secondary wins.

 

[hayneplane]

Devoured in the race that counts? You mean the guy wrode the race with a broken wrist. Geesh some people just either hates or lack of intelligence are mindblowing. Flandern win win im sure you dont grasp the importance of historicaly + lombardia 3 in WC not even close to topform yeah..

Its betwen MVDP and Pog but since MVDP season not that long it should go to Pog but i wouldnt cry if MVDP got it either stellar year from him.

Noone else besides those two are even remotely close to even beeing considered.

Flanders as a non specialist is the biggest deal for me. If MVDP had won Lombardia instead of MSR that would’ve impressed me just as much and made him my top pick.

You have to go back to 1994 for any Grand Tour winner to top 5 Flanders (Bugno who won RVV) and all the way back to 1975 for a Tour de France winner to top 5 Flanders (yep inevitably Eddy Merckx who also won RVV that year).