Velo d’Or 2023

[Squire]

Cunego’s 2004 > Freire’s 2004 and arguably better than Armstrong’s 2004.
1 GT, 4 GT stages, 1 monument, and 13 total wins vs 1 monument, Worlds, 1 GT stage, and 6 total wins

Outside of Italy, the Giro at that time was nowhere near as prestigious as it is now. It was mostly an Italian affair, and the one that Cunego won was particularly soft. And a bit of the same could be said for Lombardia, too. That was my reasoning, anyway. But I would say it's quite close between the three riders. Still leaning towards Armstrong being the correct choice.

Really? I have no idea who you think deserved it then.

I'm sure you could figure that out if you wanted, instead of making your point by writing it that way.

But I realize that giving it to Cav would mean Zabel would be in the picture for 2001 too, so I might have concluded a bit hastily. I still think you can't ask much more of a pure sprinter than what Cav did in 2009 though, when not having a suitable WC like Cipollini in 2002. Contador's 2009 was a rather 'normal' season for a 00s Tour winner, with the big one + one big week-long race. By that metric, Valverde's 2009 wasn't really worse, although the Tour looms quite large over the Vuelta of course. Cav's absolute dominance was more special, in my opinion.

 

[Blanco]

I was thinking about that as well, yes. But then I thought, that 2nd in Ronde could almost cancel out with 3rd from WCRR (especially if we consider the extraordinary effort Pog had to invest to achieve the result) and we're back to square one...

I actually don't mind MVdP getting it. He's had a really great season and personally, I really like the guy.... But objectively speaking, IMO it should be either Pog or Vingegaard (which I don't like as much ).

Vingegaard objectively how?!

 

[bNator]

Vingegaard objectively how?!

Well once we are considering MvdP for the award despite the fact he is a pure one day racer, we should also consider Vingegaard even if he is a pure stage racer. This forum is clearly biased towards one day races but that should not affect objective criteria. Which is that his TDF victory is the biggest achievement in cycling whether we like it or not. UCI points distribution all but confirms that. And he won it back to back and even though it’s a season-based award, back to back has got to count for something.

I’m not saying it is enough to win the Tour and that’s why last year, he was not even in the top 3. This year, however, he had objectively speaking a much better season and has been the best stage racer of the year. And that means he should be at least considered here. Which he isn’t as confirmed by your wonder about my suggestion.

If we apply the criteria of versatility, then MvdP fails just as much as Vingegaard does and the title would go to Pog for the next 5 years or so by default anyway.

And that finally brings us to Pog. He was the 2nd best one day racer this year and 2nd best stage racer. That mere fact should be enough to win, considering the other two are basically nowhere in the opposite side of their spectrum.

So to think again, you are actually correct. It’s Pog > Vingegaard > MvdP for me, due to Vingegaard being more dominant in stage races than MvdP is in one day races.

 

[Netserk]

But I realize that giving it to Cav would mean Zabel would be in the picture for 2001 too, so I might have concluded a bit hastily. I still think you can't ask much more of a pure sprinter than what Cav did in 2009 though, when not having a suitable WC like Cipollini in 2002. Contador's 2009 was a rather 'normal' season for a 00s Tour winner, with the big one + one big week-long race. By that metric, Valverde's 2009 wasn't really worse, although the Tour looms quite large over the Vuelta of course. Cav's absolute dominance was more special, in my opinion.

I don't think riders should be rewarded for their limitations. Tony Martin won almost everything a TTer can win in both 2011 and 2013. Should he have been crowned cyclist of the year for being the best at his narrow specialisation? Is Jasper Philipsen a contender this year?

And for starters, Cav could have won green that year, but he didn't. Where was he in G-W, Hamburg and Kuurne? He won 1 one-day race of note, and then a bunch of stage wins. The difference between narrowly winning Sanremo and dominating the Tour is simply too vast for stage wins to make up for it.

 

[Blanco]

Well once we are considering MvdP for the award despite the fact he is a pure one day racer, we should also consider Vingegaard even if he is a pure stage racer. This forum is clearly biased towards one day races but that should not affect objective criteria. Which is that his TDF victory is the biggest achievement in cycling whether we like it or not. UCI points distribution all but confirms that. And he won it back to back and even though it’s a season-based award, back to back has got to count for something.

I’m not saying it is enough to win the Tour and that’s why last year, he was not even in the top 3. This year, however, he had objectively speaking a much better season and has been the best stage racer of the year. And that means he should be at least considered here. Which he isn’t as confirmed by your wonder about my suggestion.

If we apply the criteria of versatility, then MvdP fails just as much as Vingegaard does and the title would go to Pog for the next 5 years or so by default anyway.

And that finally brings us to Pog. He was the 2nd best one day racer this year and 2nd best stage racer. That mere fact should be enough to win, considering the other two are basically nowhere in the opposite side of their spectrum.

So to think again, you are actually correct. It’s Pog > Vingegaard > MvdP for me, due to Vingegaard being more dominant in stage races than MvdP is in one day races.

The biggest factor by far are the biggest wins, and Mathieu Van Der Poel is leading in that category. Last time when someone accomplished that, 18 years ago, he was the rider of the year. So, he's a natural contender.

Pogacar won two monuments, finished 2nd in the Tour de France, won some other prestigious races, had 17 wins in total. He was arguably the second strongest one day racer. As for the stage races, with his Tour podium and Paris-Nice victory he's at best 3rd in that category, behind Vingegaard and Roglic. He had the widest variety of races he won, but that count for little in this kind of contest.

And finally Vingegaard. Yes, he won the Tour, he was 2nd at Vuelta. He maybe could've won it, but could doesn't count. He won a couple of big stage races and was a dominant stage racer of the year, but Tour+Vuelta 2nd+Itzulia+Dauphine doesn't beat 3 of the biggest one day races + podium in 4th. To beat that he needs a GT double.

So, for me it is:
1.Van Der Poel
2.Pogacar
3.Vingegaard

 

[bNator]

The biggest factor by far are the biggest wins, and Mathieu Van Der Poel is leading in that category.

I’m not sure that’s an established criteria but let’s say you’re right and biggest factor by far are biggest wins. There is no way you can objectively claim MvdP leads in that category.

In fact, if we set a threshold at say 500 UCI points for the victories that are eligible and compare either the sum of UCI points or victory count of all the eligible victories after that, MvdP gets beaten by Pog every time and equals with Vinge in victory count but loses in points sum. Then of course we can move the threshold up and down but I’m not even sure there’s a point where MvdP is the best in either points sum or victory count…

 

[Blanco]

I’m not sure that’s an established criteria but let’s say you’re right and biggest factor by far are biggest wins. There is no way you can objectively claim MvdP leads in that category.

In fact, if we set a threshold at say 500 UCI points for the victories that are eligible and compare either the sum of UCI points or victory count of all the eligible victories after that, MvdP gets beaten by Pog every time and equals with Vinge in victory count but loses in points sum. Then of course we can move the threshold up and down but I’m not even sure there’s a point where MvdP is the best in either points sum or victory count…

Oh yes there is.
Winning Milan-San Remo, Paris-Roubaix and Worlds in the same year is something extraordinary, which doesn't happen every year, or every ten years. It happens very rarely.
And when I said biggest wins, I hoped you know which the biggest wins are. It's not Paris-Nice, or Fleche Wallonne...
And don't bring me that UCI points ***. I, first of all, would love if that points system means that much. This would mean that Alejandro Valverde is one of the best 3-4 cyclist in history, which although I would like very much, simply is not truth.

 

[bNator]

Oh yes there is.
Winning Milan-San Remo, Paris-Roubaix and Worlds in the same year is something extraordinary, which doesn't happen every year, or every ten years. It happens very rarely.
And when I said biggest wins, I hoped you know which the biggest wins are. It's not Paris-Nice, or Fleche Wallonne...
And don't bring me that UCI points ***. I, first of all, would love if that points system means that much. This would mean that Alejandro Valverde is one of the best 3-4 cyclist in history, which although I would like very much, simply is not truth.

Talking about extraordinary achievements. It also happens very rarely that a rider who podiums TDF wins Flanders. When has that even happened the last time? It’s Merckx, I think… When looking at his TDF result from the context of Flanders win, I don‘t think a TDF podium can be just discarded anymore…

And regarding UCI points. They are what they are but if we are talking objectivity, then I guess they still count more than your or my opinion.

But to reiterate my opinion: I don’t mind if MvdP wins it, I just don’t think you can come up with objective criteria where MvdP outscores Pog. There are all sorts of subjective criteria of course which can, and probably will be applied when they give MvdP Velo d’Or this year. One of them which makes a lot of sense to me is for instance their respective progression from the previous season to this one…

 

[Carols]

So if I understand you correctly podiuming Tour de Romandie is equal worth a candidacy of a Velo d'Or as winning RvV, PR or WC? That is a, very interesting way of looking at this sport.

You totally misunderstood but I'm in no mood to debate. Simple with his Big 3 + some showing in a stage race would him eligible. Then he's not a one trick pony.

 

[Blanco]

Talking about extraordinary achievements. It also happens very rarely that a rider who podiums TDF wins Flanders. When has that even happened the last time? It’s Merckx, I think… When looking at his TDF result from the context of Flanders win, I don‘t think a TDF podium can be just discarded anymore…

And regarding UCI points. They are what they are but if we are talking objectivity, then I guess they still count more than your or my opinion.

But to reiterate my opinion: I don’t mind if MvdP wins it, I just don’t think you can come up with objective criteria where MvdP outscores Pog. There are all sorts of subjective criteria of course which can, and probably will be applied when they give MvdP Velo d’Or this year. One of them which makes a lot of sense to me is for instance their respective progression from the previous season to this one…

I gave you a criteria, which I find objective. It's the sheer number of biggest wins (3 Grand Tours + 6 biggest one day races, 7 if it is an olympic year). Van Der Poel has 3, more than anybody else. And the weight of those wins eclipse everything that anybody has done this year, including Pogacar, whose season I aslo consider fantastic.

 

[bNator]

I gave you a criteria, which I find objective. It's the sheer number of biggest wins (3 Grand Tours + 6 biggest one day races, 7 if it is an olympic year). Van Der Poel has 3, more than anybody else. And the weight of those wins eclipse everything that anybody has done this year, including Pogacar, whose season I aslo consider fantastic.

That’s not really objective, because the five biggest one week stage races are weighted the same as monument victory as per the UCI. You considering monuments over biggest one week stage races (which I agree BTW) is subjective…

 

[Blanco]

That’s not really objective, because the five biggest one week stage races are weighted the same as monument victory as per the UCI. You considering monuments over biggest one week stage races (which I agree BTW) is subjective…

So you're telling me that Sean Kelly is the 2nd greatest cyclist of all time, bigger than Hinault, Coppi, Anquetil.., (which BTW you don't agree)?

 

[bNator]

So you're telling me that Sean Kelly is the 2nd greatest cyclist of all time, bigger than Hinault, Coppi, Anquetil.., (which BTW you don't agree)?

Not really. Notice how you only listed GT winners and not monuments winners? That’s because you choose to count victories instead of assigning them a value. I would personally chose to also take into account the sum of points of eligible victory not just the count. If you do that, you don’t have your problem anymore…

But this is a pointless discussion. If you have a beef with the UCI ranking system, then that’s your problem which I really can’t help you with… But it is the only objective reference we have.

The whole point of being objective is to discard any bias on the result. Objectively speaking, Roglic’s 2021 Vuelta victory counts just as much as Kuss’s 2023 Vuelta victory. That’s why we have subjective prizes like Velo d’Or which attempt to cover the circumstances which are not covered by the objective criteria.

 

[Big Doopie]

Cancellara in 2010 was 8th in CQ rankings, yet he won the Velo.
Museeuw in 1996 was 7th in PCS rankings, also won the Velo.
Armstrong was 7th, 6+th, 5th twice and 4th in years he won the Velo.
Contador was 5th in 2007.

Were they worthy of the Velo d'Or?

1996-2010?

Uh no. Lord, no. None of them.

 

[Panda Claws]

Not really. Notice how you only listed GT winners and not monuments winners? That’s because you choose to count victories instead of assigning them a value. I would personally chose to also take into account the sum of points of eligible victory not just the count. If you do that, you don’t have your problem anymore…

But this is a pointless discussion. If you have a beef with the UCI ranking system, then that’s your problem which I really can’t help you with… But it is the only objective reference we have.

The whole point of being objective is to discard any bias on the result. Objectively speaking, Roglic’s 2021 Vuelta victory counts just as much as Kuss’s 2023 Vuelta victory. That’s why we have subjective prizes like Velo d’Or which attempt to cover the circumstances which are not covered by the objective criteria.

What do you mean by sum if points of eligible victory? If monuments and one week stage races give the same amount of points then how would that lead to a different result?

If you just mean that GT's should count for more than one monument that's fine.

 

[bNator]

What do you mean by sum if points of eligible victory? If monuments and one week stage races give the same amount of points then how would that lead to a different result?

If you just mean that GT's should count for more than one monument that's fine.

Yes, I meant the GTs. As soon as TDF counts for two monuments or week stage races, Kelly is no longer better than Hinault…

 

[AmRacer]

So according to some logic, the TdF winner has the biggest engine and should therefore win Velo d'Or.
🤔

 

[Blanco]

Yes, I meant the GTs. As soon as TDF counts for two monuments or week stage races, Kelly is no longer better than Hinault…

So you think monument win and a top week stage race win should count the same?

 

[bNator]

So you think monument win and a top week stage race win should count the same?

Looks like you would reeeally like me to fall for that trap But let me tell you this - it depends on the case. I’m sure there’s a one week stage race that was hard fought with really strong competition while on the other hand there is a lucky winner somewhere of a monument that was at the right place at the right time to reap the reward. In that particular case, a one week stage race would be worth more than a monument, yes. But in general, I’d say on average, a monument victory has more prestige to it than a one week stage race.

But I will say that as many times as necessary. That’s not what we’re discussing at all. We were discussing whether MvdP beats Pog according to objective criteria. And here it was your subjective impression that one week stage races count for nothing when UCI ranking says they count the same as a monument. And secondly, you seem to be assigning the same weight to GT victories and monument victories which is again a completely subjective interpretation.

 

[Keldergoat]

You totally misunderstood but I'm in no mood to debate. Simple with his Big 3 + some showing in a stage race would him eligible. Then he's not a one trick pony.

Winning Worlds with 3500 am, Paris Roubaix and Milan San Remo is not possible when you're a one trick pony.

 

[Blanco]

But I will say that as many times as necessary. That’s not what we’re discussing at all. We were discussing whether MvdP beats Pog according to objective criteria. And here it was your subjective impression that one week stage races count for nothing when UCI ranking says they count the same as a monument. And secondly, you seem to be assigning the same weight to GT victories and monument victories which is again a completely subjective interpretation.

I didn't say they count for nothing, but they surely don't count as a monument win. At best half a monument.
And I'm not assigning same weight to GT victories and monuments. GT victories carries more weight.
Tour
Giro, Vuelta
Worlds and Olympics RR
Monuments
Big stage races, big classics, WC and Olympics ITT
GT stages
Everything else.

Let's hear your criteria?

 

[memyselfandI]

CQ ranking or PCS ranking are not valid ranking criteria. UCI ranking is.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

CQ ranking or PCS ranking are not valid ranking criteria. UCI ranking is.

Because... ?

 

[Blanco]

CQ ranking or PCS ranking are not valid ranking criteria. UCI ranking is.

Niether of this rankings are valid to determine the rider of the year.
They all give too much importance to secondary placings and results, and too little for the biggest wins.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

What is missing too often in these discussions is that different rankings have different purposes. The UCI (and PCS/CQ) rankings attempt to rank every rider. Obviously the pool of riders who can get resulting in the biggest races is limited to an extent, so you need to consider smaller races too for that reason. Winning a 1.1 race is pretty important when you're deciding whether someone is one of the best 200 riders in the world, but does it really matter just as much, if at all, if you're deciding whether Pogacar or Van der Poel had the better season? In addition, the UCI rankings are also used to determine team rankings, and with it automatic wildcards and promotion/relegation. So that's at least two things that the UCI ranking is trying to accomplish that are not determining who is the best rider. That automatically means it isn't going to be a great fit to do so, because it hasn't been designed specifically to do so.

What is also missing too often in these discussions is that every quantification is inherently subjective. Even with the UCI rankings, the foundation is laid by a few people sitting down together and assigning weights to races and placements. And those weights have changed a lot over time. For example, finishing fifth in a Giro stage was worth 4 points last year and 60 points this year. But obviously, that doesn't mean that a fifth place is 15 times as important now.

Finally, monuments and one-week stage races are no longer worth equal UCI points from 2023 onwards - 800 points for winning a monument, 500 points for the biggest one-week races. Which kind of makes @bNator 's argument moot.