What's with the WT points schedule?

[nepetalactone]

Just saw that Porte is still topping the WT rankings and while he's had a fantastic early season, IMO Degenkolb with 2 monuments blows everyone out of the water (I guess Kristoff who's been dominating since Feb. can come close).

What's with the UCI system downplaying one-day races (or maybe overvaluing one-week stage races)? Two monuments (it's called a MONUMENT!) should surely trump even a grand tour GC win, especially when there are several avenues for points on one's way to said GC win?

I'll take any bet that Porte would trade a Sanremo and Paris-Roubaix for his Paris-Nice and Catalunya. Why can't the UCI seem to award points (or do anything) in a sensible fashion? Have they designed the system so points awarded are proportional to generated revenue, favoring multi-day events? I just don't get it....

 

[Jagartrott]

Agreed. Short stage races are definitely overvalued. Nobody remembers who won Catalunya 2 years ago, but everybody remembers who won P-R 2 years ago. Still, the winner of Catalunya earned more UCI points.

 

[LaFlorecita]

It is what it is. In the end neither Porte nor Degenkolb will win, but someone like Valverde or Rodriguez, who score points in stage races and in one-day races.

 

[mariposa]

I suppose this is all a matter of opinion as personally I think that some of the one day races are overrated and some of the stage races underrated in comparison. But as I say it is all a matter of opinion and just highlights how difficult it is to come up with any points system that people agree on.

 

[barmaher]

There have been numerous threads on this before. I agree it is a problem.

It shouldn't be too hard to fix. I think some of the most popular solutions were:

- If a monument is 100 and a GT 200/170, then 1 week stage races should be 80 maximum for a winner.
- WT points for GT placings (and stage races) should stop at 10th place (5th for week-long races), and should tail off quicker. At present 9th in the Tour gets 60 points.9th in the Giro gets 44 points and 5th in the Tour Down Under and Eneco Tour gets 50 points. A rider with these results and nothing else will get 204 points, which is more than 2 monuments. Ludicrous. This could be solved by making Tour go 200-140-100-80-60-40-25-15-10-5. Similar for Vuelta and Giro and make stage races go 80-50-30-15-10-5.
- Consider giving more points for stage wins and placings in both GT and week-long stage races.

But as mariposa says, everyone will have different ideas, and it has been done to death. But I agree, Porte > Degenkolb is ludicous.

 

[ILovecycling]

I had the exact same feeling as you after PR.Its mighty ridiculous that Degenkolb is not topping rankings.otoh it was discussed milion times,its simple - stage races are overestimated.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re:

Agreed. Short stage races are definitely overvalued. Nobody remembers who won Catalunya 2 years ago, but everybody remembers who won P-R 2 years ago. Still, the winner of Catalunya earned more UCI points.

Agreed. These 7-day stage races like Le Dauphine, Tour of Poland, Tour of Romandie etc, that have WT status, grants way too many points. 100 points to the winner, while winning the Vuelta or Giro is only worth 170 points. However I don't think monument wins should be awarded more than or close to a GT win in terms of points. As long as the points for winning a monument exceeds winning i.e. Tour of Poland by a considerable margin, it's acceptable.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Agreed. Short stage races are definitely overvalued. Nobody remembers who won Catalunya 2 years ago, but everybody remembers who won P-R 2 years ago. Still, the winner of Catalunya earned more UCI points.

Agreed. These 7-day stage races like Le Dauphine, Tour of Poland, Tour of Romandie etc, that have WT status, grants way too many points. 100 points to the winner, while winning the Vuelta or Giro is only worth 170 points. However I don't think monument wins should be awarded more than or close to a GT win in terms of points. As long as the points for winning a monument exceeds winning i.e. Tour of Poland by a considerable margin, it's acceptable.

I think all week long stage races are vastly over-valued in terms of points given. They really should only give them about a third of the points that they give for a Grand Tour. You can easily race 4 or 5 week long stage races in a year - but only one or two Grand Tours.

Likewise, most riders will only do two or three monuments a year. They should be worth at least double the points of the clutch of rubbish one day races in late August and early September.

The problem with rating some stage races differently though (i.e. giving lower points to Pologne, Eneco, TDU) is that you would make already unpopular races even more unpopular.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re: Re:

Agreed. Short stage races are definitely overvalued. Nobody remembers who won Catalunya 2 years ago, but everybody remembers who won P-R 2 years ago. Still, the winner of Catalunya earned more UCI points.

Agreed. These 7-day stage races like Le Dauphine, Tour of Poland, Tour of Romandie etc, that have WT status, grants way too many points. 100 points to the winner, while winning the Vuelta or Giro is only worth 170 points. However I don't think monument wins should be awarded more than or close to a GT win in terms of points. As long as the points for winning a monument exceeds winning i.e. Tour of Poland by a considerable margin, it's acceptable.

I think all week long stage races are vastly over-valued in terms of points given. They really should only give them about a third of the points that they give for a Grand Tour. You can easily race 4 or 5 week long stage races in a year - but only one or two Grand Tours.

Likewise, most riders will only do two or three monuments a year. They should be worth at least double the points of the clutch of rubbish one day races in late August and early September.

The problem with rating some stage races differently though (i.e. giving lower points to Pologne, Eneco, TDU) is that you would make already unpopular races even more unpopular.

Yeah, I agree on that point. I think prestigious races like Tirreno-Adriatico and Paris-Nice can survive not being worth as many points as they are now. Riders will participate anyways.
About the canadian classics and Cyclassics/Ouest-France, you have to be careful for the very same reasons you mentioned above. Promoting cycling in Canada is an important task.

 

[gunara]

What about giving monument winner at least closer - if not equal - to the maximum points a one week stage race winner can win (by him winning the GC and every stage)? So the points won by the winner of Pologne won't exceed those won from winning MSR, because it just doesn't seem right. I think it's still less than GT winner's point, so it's safe (154? Just to exceed possible Suisse winner's point), it's close, but a GT winner are likely to collect more than 170 or 200 from stages anyway, and if not, it's his fault.
I also think that current point system is just lucky that Valverde and Rodriguez exist, so rider who can win stage race and one day race can score most point in the end of the year, which makes the system look about right. Without them, it will likely go to dominant stage racers like Contador or Froome, except someone has a crazy season winning all the Ardennes and Lombardia. I'm not doing the maths though...

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I also think that current point system is just lucky that Valverde and Rodriguez exist, so rider who can win stage race and one day race can score most point in the end of the year, which makes the system look about right. Without them, it will likely go to dominant stage racers like Contador or Froome, except someone has a crazy season winning all the Ardennes and Lombardia. I'm not doing the maths though...

You don't need to do the Maths: Phil Gil had UCI do it for you in 2011 when he topped the rankings (winning Ardennes triple, San Sebastián and Québec)

 

[gunara]

I also think that current point system is just lucky that Valverde and Rodriguez exist, so rider who can win stage race and one day race can score most point in the end of the year, which makes the system look about right. Without them, it will likely go to dominant stage racers like Contador or Froome, except someone has a crazy season winning all the Ardennes and Lombardia. I'm not doing the maths though...

You don't need to do the Maths: Phil Gil had UCI do it for you in 2011 when he topped the rankings (winning Ardennes triple, San Sebastián and Québec)

I know, and I mean him With maths I meant I can't really backup my statement that riders like Contador or Froome would have topped it if there weren't Rodriguez and Valverde.

 

[DFA123]

What about giving monument winner at least closer - if not equal - to the maximum points a one week stage race winner can win (by him winning the GC and every stage)? So the points won by the winner of Pologne won't exceed those won from winning MSR, because it just doesn't seem right. I think it's still less than GT winner's point, so it's safe (154? Just to exceed possible Suisse winner's point), it's close, but a GT winner are likely to collect more than 170 or 200 from stages anyway, and if not, it's his fault.
I also think that current point system is just lucky that Valverde and Rodriguez exist, so rider who can win stage race and one day race can score most point in the end of the year, which makes the system look about right. Without them, it will likely go to dominant stage racers like Contador or Froome, except someone has a crazy season winning all the Ardennes and Lombardia. I'm not doing the maths though...

Perhaps they could just reduce the points for the overall GC in week long stage races and increase the points for winning an individual stage. That would favour the classics specialists a bit more, who tend to pick up stage wins without troubling the overall GC, while reducing the number of points for stage race specialists (Porte!). It's ridiculous that you could win 6 out of 7 stages, for example, in Paris Nice and then have an awful time trial - and only pick up 36 points, while the overall winner would get 100.

The big problem though is that some races just aren't worthy of many points, but the UCI has to be seen to give them equal importance in the world tour. It's a joke that a guy winning Quebec, Vattenfall, Tour Down Under and Pologne, would get more points than a guy winning Giro d'Italia, Paris Roubaix, Amstel Gold and Strade Bianche. They need to differentiate more between quality and quantity for sure.

 

[SeriousSam]

The WT points are nothing but an instrument to influence what races teams and riders target. We should accept them as such, not necessarily as a codification of the value to one's palmares a victory brings.

 

[Jagartrott]

I also think that current point system is just lucky that Valverde and Rodriguez exist, so rider who can win stage race and one day race can score most point in the end of the year, which makes the system look about right. Without them, it will likely go to dominant stage racers like Contador or Froome, except someone has a crazy season winning all the Ardennes and Lombardia. I'm not doing the maths though...

You don't need to do the Maths: Phil Gil had UCI do it for you in 2011 when he topped the rankings (winning Ardennes triple, San Sebastián and Québec)

He did more than that (WT only):
9th Tirreno
3rd Milano-San Remo
9th RVV
1st Amstel
1st Flèche
1st LBL
1st San Sebastian
1st Québec - only now did he pass Cadel Evans in the UCI ranking!
3rd Montréal
8th Lombardia
2nd Eneco

 

[happytramp]

I know, and I mean him With maths I meant I can't really backup my statement that riders like Contador or Froome would have topped it if there weren't Rodriguez and Valverde.

 

[happytramp]

I know, and I mean him With maths I meant I can't really backup my statement that riders like Contador or Froome would have topped it if there weren't Rodriguez and Valverde.

I'm pretty sure Valverde or Rodriguez would swap their high WT points tally for an Ardennes triple and a Lombardia.

 

[gunara]

I know, and I mean him With maths I meant I can't really backup my statement that riders like Contador or Froome would have topped it if there weren't Rodriguez and Valverde.

I'm pretty sure Valverde or Rodriguez would swap their high WT points tally for an Ardennes triple and a Lombardia.

Of course they would, and I didn't say otherwise
My thought is that there's nothing wrong in attempting more accurate representation of how each race should be perceived and weighed, even within this artificial frame.

 

[Velolover2]

Agree. I would completely reform the point system.

Tour, the Giro and the Vuelta will give 250, 200 and 150 points to win. Secondary positions will be given relatively less than now.

Instead of the current top 5, riders will only be awarded with points if they are in top 3. But the winner can look forward to more points. 50 points for a TDF stage, Giro = 30, Vuelta = 20. That will favor the sprinters more.

150 points for Monument as well. 100 points for other great classics like G-W or Fléche Wallone. 50 points for lesser classics like GP Montréal.

100 points for the bigger stage races like Paris-Nice or Pais Vasco and 50 for Eneco Tour and Down Under.

 

[nepetalactone]

Re:

Agree. I would completely reform the point system.

Tour, the Giro and the Vuelta will give 250, 200 and 150 points to win. Secondary positions will be given relatively less than now.

Instead of the current top 5, riders will only be awarded with points if they are in top 3. But the winner can look forward to more points. 50 points for a TDF stage, Giro = 30, Vuelta = 20. That will favor the sprinters more.

150 points for Monument as well. 100 points for other great classics like G-W or Fléche Wallone. 50 points for lesser classics like GP Montréal.

100 points for the bigger stage races like Paris-Nice or Pais Vasco and 50 for Eneco Tour and Down Under.

More sensible than the current schedule! Not perfect, but I'm not about to come up with a better system (just complaining without offering a solution is more my thing ).

 

[lemon cheese cake]

Re:r

Agreed. Short stage races are definitely overvalued. Nobody remembers who won Catalunya 2 years ago, but everybody remembers who won P-R 2 years ago. Still, the winner of Catalunya earned more UCI points.

Dan Martin.

More seriously though, enless you follow cycling to the extent that you remember little races like that, Monuments and one day race winners are rememberes more than those.

How I think it should be done:
GTs - 20 points for the winner down to 20th place with one
Monuments - 20 points for the winner down to 20th place with one
One day races/Stage races before GTs/Events like Paris Nice or Tirreno - 15 points for the winner down to one in 15th
Other stage races - 10 points points for the winner down to 20th place with one 10th
Stages - 1 point for the winner
Other jerseys/Competitions - 5 points points for the winner down to with one in 5th
For finishing a race - None. I'm not the kind of person who says that everyone is a winner.