Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Which is a bigger achievement in the TdF, finishing in the Top 20 or winning a stage?

If you say "winning a stage," how about Top 10 vs. winning a stage?
 

·
Back from the dead
Joined
·
20,626 Posts
dennis1215 said:
Which is a bigger achievement in the TdF, finishing in the Top 20 or winning a stage?

If you say "winning a stage," how about Top 10 vs. winning a stage?
The only thing anyone remembers is who won the race, who came in second, maybe the jersey winners, and who won some of the stages.

The only people who care about the top 10 or 20 are riders looking for contracts and directors looking for riders.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,951 Posts
Stage Win. Jerseys are better (except white), podium is better. Everything else is not as good.

IMHO, of course.
 

·
la dolce vita
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
You have a 1 in 198 chance of winning a stage.
You have a 20 in 198 chance of finishing in the top 20.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,613 Posts
mohair_chair said:
The only thing anyone remembers is who won the race, who came in second, maybe the jersey winners, and who won some of the stages.

The only people who care about the top 10 or 20 are riders looking for contracts and directors looking for riders.
a stage win secures local immortality for a European racer. They can retire, return to their hometown, and run the central bar with their podium pic displayed over the bar...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Mootsie said:
You have a 1 in 198 chance of winning a stage.
You have a 20 in 198 chance of finishing in the top 20.
there are 20 stages, so chances are about right, in fact for an average not-well-rounded rider winning a stage is much more of a possibility than getting top 20. But winning a stage is still much better than finishing, say, 18th on GC. Who cares?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Mootsie said:
You have a 1 in 198 chance of winning a stage.
You have a 20 in 198 chance of finishing in the top 20.
thats a 1 in 198 chance of wining each stage over 21 stages which is like a 21 in 198 chance of winning a stage in the tour

i think stage wins from breakaways is more about luck than a high GC placing or its a sprinters orgy so i give more respect to GC placing
 

·
waterproof*
Joined
·
41,608 Posts
A stage win, fer sure. I consider each Tour stage to be equivalent to a semi-classic in difficulty and stature, some going into HC of course. No matter how "unimportant" the stage, you're still up against the strongest, most motivated field of the whole year and on any given day there are dozens of guys who will give it all for the win.

A top 10 is definite resume material also. Top 20, that's more inside baseball, contract negotiation material.
 

·
la dolce vita
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
tinkerbeast said:
thats a 1 in 198 chance of wining each stage over 21 stages which is like a 21 in 198 chance of winning a stage in the tour

i think stage wins from breakaways is more about luck than a high GC placing or its a sprinters orgy so i give more respect to GC placing
Actually the math is off. You have an equal chance for each stage, 1 in 198, so your odds of winning a stage are always 1 in 198.
It's sort of like saying your odds of getting a heads while flipping a coin increase every time you flip it, but in reality it's always 50/50.
 

·
Albert Owen
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
11 Stage wins in two years can only be beaten by getting the Yellow Jersey for winning the whole Tour twice. Contador and Cavendish are the big winners in the last two TdFs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
I think coming in the top 10 or top 20 may be HARDER then winning a stage but winning anything is always better.
 

·
Back from the dead
Joined
·
20,626 Posts
limba said:
I think coming in the top 10 or top 20 may be HARDER then winning a stage but winning anything is always better.
Maybe, but there is no glory for anything less than 3rd place on GC. You don't get to stand on a podium. You don't get a trophy. Basically, you get the same thing that everybody else gets who finishes the race.

Win a stage, and it's something special.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
Mootsie said:
Actually the math is off. You have an equal chance for each stage, 1 in 198, so your odds of winning a stage are always 1 in 198.
It's sort of like saying your odds of getting a heads while flipping a coin increase every time you flip it, but in reality it's always 50/50.
No, the math is correct - chances of winning at least *a single* stage for a given rider in a 21-stage Tour is (assuming everyone has the same shot every time) is very close to 21/198. It's actually 1-(197/198)^21 which is basically 10% - the easiest thing is to consider chances of NOT winning a stage, which is 197/198 and then consider the probability of that happening 21 times in a row... Basic probability 101.

It's like asking what are the odds of getting at least one flip to come up as tails when you throw a coin 21 times vs. throwing it only once - obviously the odds get very close to 1 as
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
I think a top 10 in the GC easily beats a stage win. 11th thru 20th GC, I think the stage win would be more meaningful.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,951 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,613 Posts
55x11 said:
No, the math is correct - chances of winning at least *a single* stage for a given rider in a 21-stage Tour is (assuming everyone has the same shot every time) is very close to 21/198. It's actually 1-(197/198)^21 which is basically 10% - the easiest thing is to consider chances of NOT winning a stage, which is 197/198 and then consider the probability of that happening 21 times in a row... Basic probability 101.

It's like asking what are the odds of getting at least one flip to come up as tails when you throw a coin 21 times vs. throwing it only once - obviously the odds get very close to 1 as
seriously? You would model this assuming a uniform distribution?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
tubadude said:
wrong assumption. makes the math pointless
Well duh! (you have better model of probabilities of stage wins for all 198 riders?! please share).

The point was - *assuming* that obviously naive model, the *math* of original poster is correct, and whoever was criticizing was wrong.

Your point is akin to saying all math is pointless because, for example, no train is ever capable of traveling at uniform speed from point A to point B.

Whether math *model* is good is a different question, I was responding to the criticism of the math, not the model.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top