Velo d’Or 2023

[fbjim]

I think the problem with a lot of one-week races are that they exist in the shadow of the GTs.

There are a few that people like such as P-N, T-A, Pais Vasco but stuff like TDS and Dauphine tends to get viewed specifically as Tour de France warmup races

 

[Valv.Piti]

@ Rackham: 1 week races in this forum have literally no value. It is my perception.

Nope, and the same for races like SB, E-3, Amstel, Fleche, CSS and the likes. Its literally just monuments and GTs, Olympics, Worlds..

Kinda boring

 

[johnymax]

Nope, and the same for races like SB, E-3, Amstel, Fleche, CSS and the likes. Its literally just monuments and GTs, Olympics, Worlds..

Kinda boring

What do you mean? CSS is basically the most important race on this forum.

 

[Nick2413]

Nope, and the same for races like SB, E-3, Amstel, Fleche, CSS and the likes. Its literally just monuments and GTs, Olympics, Worlds..

Kinda boring

The problem is you have guys like Vingegaard getting beat by Gaudu in PN, and likewise Gaudu barely being top 10 in the Tour when it matters. It’s hard to take those races seriously when most of the top dogs don’t even take them that seriously.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

The problem is you have guys like Vingegaard getting beat by Gaudu in PN, and likewise Gaudu barely being top 10 in the Tour when it matters. It’s hard to take those races seriously when most of the top dogs don’t even take them that seriously.

Don't take them seriously?

Tirreno: Roglic
Paris Nice: Pogacar
Catalunya: Roglic
Pais Vasco: Vingegaard
Dauphiné: Vingegaard
TdS: Skjelmose

5/6 for the big dogs. Who isn't taking those races seriously exactly?

 

[Valv.Piti]

Vingegaard and Pogacar both rode the race 100% to win. Something happened in his prep according to danish media, or something was just a bit off, so he got beat convincinly by a flying Pogacar who obliterated anyone as he does when he rides these races. I'd take Pogacar over anyone in history on these kinda courses in T-A and Paris-Nice in the spring, no contest.

 

[houtdffan]

It's a standardized system, so it's objective.

The point distribution is just terrible.

what would your suggestion be for a better points distribution?

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

For Velo d’Or I would heavily weight wins over all else. If you get second in every race, that is mind boggling, but are you the rider of the year if you never won?

 

[fbjim]

Nope, and the same for races like SB, E-3, Amstel, Fleche, CSS and the likes. Its literally just monuments and GTs, Olympics, Worlds..

Kinda boring

A good reason those races get weighed so heavily is because they have the highest quality startlists of the year.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Don't take them seriously?

Tirreno: Roglic
Paris Nice: Pogacar
Catalunya: Roglic
Pais Vasco: Vingegaard
Dauphiné: Vingegaard
TdS: Skjelmose

5/6 for the big dogs. Who isn't taking those races seriously exactly?

Big 4/big 6 winning something a lot doesn't necessarily equate to prestige though. Consider the winners of the UAE Tour in its five editions:
2019 - Roglic
2020 - A Yates
2021 - Pogacar
2022 - Pogacar
2023 - Evenepoel

Then compare that to the Giro in the same period:
2019 - Carapaz
2020 - Hart
2021 - Bernal
2022 - Hindley
2023 - Roglic

The UAE Tour had a stronger (on paper) winner in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, with both races having similar-level winners this year. So clearly the UAE Tour has had stronger winners overall. Yet nobody in their right mind would value it even remotely close to the Giro.

 

[Red Rick]

what would your suggestion be for a better points distribution?

Basically I would make points structures much more top heavy.

Tour = 100 points
Giro = 80 points
Vuelta + Worlds = 70 points
Monuments = 60 points

Points scored is points/position - i.e. Tour GC winner gets 100 points, 5th gets 20 points, 10th gets 10 points.

10 places count

Big 7 stage races + all the AGR, FW, GW, E3, Strade, CSS, Worlds ITT, one days = 30 points
Points scored is points/position, but only 5 places count

Stage win in WT stage race is 1/10th of overall GC win
KoM or Points classification in GC is 1/10th of overall GC win

Any races below, like BingoBongo, Poland, or the Kuure Brussel Kuurnes, or Tre Vallis are whatever.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

What do you mean? CSS is basically the most important race on this forum.

The most important race on this forum is the 2021 il lombardia where we were on the edge of the seats biting our nails, believing that masnada could be the pogacar-slayer .

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Oh my god. Of course people don't value 1 weeks races and semi classics when talking about the velo d'or, because it's about the best cyclist of the world who won the biggest races of the year. Who had the biggest season.

They don't give the balloon d'or to a guy who won Europa conference league. It wouldn't make sense.

Look forward to velo d'or 2023 Adam Yates for his great tour de romandie performance.

 

[Escarabajo]

Basically I would make points structures much more top heavy.

Tour = 100 points
Giro = 80 points
Vuelta + Worlds = 70 points
Monuments = 60 points

Points scored is points/position - i.e. Tour GC winner gets 100 points, 5th gets 20 points, 10th gets 10 points.

10 places count

Big 7 stage races + all the AGR, FW, GW, E3, Strade, CSS, Worlds ITT, one days = 30 points
Points scored is points/position, but only 5 places count

Stage win in WT stage race is 1/10th of overall GC win
KoM or Points classification in GC is 1/10th of overall GC win

Any races below, like BingoBongo, Poland, or the Kuure Brussel Kuurnes, or Tre Vallis are whatever.

I like it. However, nowdays Vuelta should get 80 points as well.

 

[Netserk]

Basically I would make points structures much more top heavy.

Tour = 100 points
Giro = 80 points
Vuelta + Worlds = 70 points
Monuments = 60 points

Points scored is points/position - i.e. Tour GC winner gets 100 points, 5th gets 20 points, 10th gets 10 points.

10 places count

Big 7 stage races + all the AGR, FW, GW, E3, Strade, CSS, Worlds ITT, one days = 30 points
Points scored is points/position, but only 5 places count

Stage win in WT stage race is 1/10th of overall GC win
KoM or Points classification in GC is 1/10th of overall GC win

Any races below, like BingoBongo, Poland, or the Kuure Brussel Kuurnes, or Tre Vallis are whatever.

For the Vélo d'Or, I'd go heavier still. Every step down the ranking is a halving.

 

[dercuforever]

For Velo d’Or I would heavily weight wins over all else. If you get second in every race, that is mind boggling, but are you the rider of the year if you never won?

depends how you define rider of the year.
For me it would be "rider who impressed me the most".
If someone goes podium in all monuments and in one/two GT, without winning anything, he would still be the most impressive rider.

 

[Blanco]

Basically I would make points structures much more top heavy.

Tour = 100 points
Giro = 80 points
Vuelta + Worlds = 70 points
Monuments = 60 points

Points scored is points/position - i.e. Tour GC winner gets 100 points, 5th gets 20 points, 10th gets 10 points.

10 places count

Big 7 stage races + all the AGR, FW, GW, E3, Strade, CSS, Worlds ITT, one days = 30 points
Points scored is points/position, but only 5 places count

Stage win in WT stage race is 1/10th of overall GC win
KoM or Points classification in GC is 1/10th of overall GC win

Any races below, like BingoBongo, Poland, or the Kuure Brussel Kuurnes, or Tre Vallis are whatever.

Not bad at all.
I would count only 3 places for big stage races and classics, cause what, for example 4th place at the Paris-Nice means?!
But I would count minor races, only wins though, cause win is always difficult. Smaller WT races with 15 points for example, HC - 10 pts, and Cat.1-7 pts

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Not bad at all.
I would count only 3 places for big stage races and classics, cause what, for example 4th place at the Paris-Nice means?!
But I would count minor races, only wins though, cause win is always difficult. Smaller WT races with 15 points for example, HC - 10 pts, and Cat.1-7 pts

I like this too but I might actually count top 5 or so in a monument but only top 3 in a GT or other stage race. Is that crazy? I definitely wouldn’t count anything past top 5 in a GT.

 

[Red Rick]

For the Vélo d'Or, I'd go heavier still. Every step down the ranking is a halving.

Yeah, and maybe more aggressive on the lower races as well.

Basically ranking wise I think Pogacar being #1 on a seasonal ranking is fine this year, but for Velo d'Or I don't think his current season should cut it.

 

[Tim Cahill]

Marc Hirsch still in the running if he does the Canadian double. 5 wins already this year!

Only rider in history to do a full GT-monument style peak for the Tour of Hungary and Giro dell'Appennino

 

[jaylew]

This is the perfect poll for the change vote setting to be enabled since we can change votes as the results come in. I think MVDP was last before Worlds and now he's up to 2nd.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

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.

 

[jaylew]

Basically I would make points structures much more top heavy.

Tour = 100 points
Giro = 80 points
Vuelta + Worlds = 70 points
Monuments = 60 points

Points scored is points/position - i.e. Tour GC winner gets 100 points, 5th gets 20 points, 10th gets 10 points.

10 places count

Big 7 stage races + all the AGR, FW, GW, E3, Strade, CSS, Worlds ITT, one days = 30 points
Points scored is points/position, but only 5 places count

Stage win in WT stage race is 1/10th of overall GC win
KoM or Points classification in GC is 1/10th of overall GC win

Any races below, like BingoBongo, Poland, or the Kuure Brussel Kuurnes, or Tre Vallis are whatever.

I'd probably have bigger points gaps between placings that are significant. So a bigger point discrepancy from 1st to 2nd than from 2nd to 3rd. And a bigger discrepancy from 3rd to 4th than from 4th to 5th since podiums are important and are a goal but riders care much less about 4th vs 5th, for example. Worlds ITT is too high for me. I don't value it all that much these days but others might disagree.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

I'd probably have bigger points gaps between placings that are significant. So a bigger point discrepancy from 1st to 2nd than from 2nd to 3rd. And a bigger discrepancy from 3rd to 4th than from 4th to 5th since podiums are important and are a goal but riders care much less about 4th vs 5th, for example.

Doesn't that already happen here?
100/1 = 100 for 1st
100/2 = 50 for 2nd (50 less than for 1st)
100/3 = 33.3 for 3rd (16.7 less than for 2nd)
100/4 = 25 for 4th (8.3 less than for 3rd)
100/5 = 20 for 5th (5 less than for 4th)

So the gap from 1st to 2nd is larger than the gap from 2nd to 3rd, and the gap from 3rd to 4th is larger than the gap from 4th to 5th.

 

[jaylew]

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.

Certainly interesting but in order to test this type of formula you need to have multiple sets of data. I'd be curious to see what this would yield if you did it for say, the last 25-30 years as it'a always dangerous to come up with a formula which yields what you feel to be the correct answer for only 1 set of data. While I always find this kind of thing interesting ,for something like this award I generally prefer a subjective vote. Any formula you come up with is going to have holes and you're going to get strange winners at times.