[Dwayne Barry]

I find this interesting every year as it's an objective ranking based on assigned points to races based on their significance at the time.

http://www.cycling4all.com/index.php?content=banner.php

Interestingly Armstrong ends his career as the 15th ranked rider just behind Jalabert and Indurain, 11th amongst stage race specialists. Boonen makes his first appearance way down in the 300s. He would essentially need about 9 or 10 years equivalent (i.e. 200+ points) to last year to overtake Armstrong in the rankings. Highest ranked active rider is Ullrich in 24th followed by Zabel in 30th.

 

[Old_school_nik]

Another site with alternate view

http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/

I kind of like this ranking. The first 10 or 15 is right on IMHO.

Nik

 

[rocco]

http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/

I kind of like this ranking. The first 10 or 15 is right on IMHO.

Nik

Virenque is too high on the all time list. How does he rate higher than guys like Saronni, Maertens and Delgado?

I have a bunch of problems with the current list. Vandenbroucke seems to be one of the most glaring examples. Rumsas, Steels, Astarloa, Piccoli all seem out of place to me also.

 

[Dwayne Barry]

Virenque is too high on the all time list. How does he rate higher than guys like Saronni, Maertens and Delgado?

I have a bunch of problems with the current list. Vandenbroucke seems to be one of the most glaring examples. Rumsas, Steels, Astarloa, Piccoli all seem out of place to me also.

Looking over how they assign points modern riders would seem to have an advantage because it only ranks by the biggest modern day races and then goes back in time with those races. It is also heavily Grand Tour weighted as none of the lesser stage races yet important stage races like Paris-Nice are included. These two factors probably account for Armstrong, Boonen, etc. relatively high placings. It also mostly gives points just for winning and doesn't take into account other high places. I like the cycling4all one better as it goes deeper into the race calender and deeper in the races and recognizes the significant races across history.

 

[ultimobici]

http://www.cyclinghalloffame.com/

I kind of like this ranking. The first 10 or 15 is right on IMHO.

Nik

How on earth is the Tour worth more than double the Giro and triple the Vuelta?

Surely that skews the result. The Giro should be worth at least 900 points to the Tour's 1300 and the Vuelta has to be worth more like 500 or so points. How can a riders like De Vlaeminck or Saronni be languishing down in 24th and 34th positions respectively?

The cycling4all listing seems to have a more evenly weighted points system giving a more realistic listing.

 

[terzo rene]

Just like all the sports power rankings these all suck too. I think it would more accurately reflect people's subjective view if it took the three best years out of their careers and ranked based on those rather than an entire career. People remember the high points more than the average to low (but the really low are memorable too).

Regardless of the methodology Eddy will come out on top but after that it gets trickier..

 

[Dwayne Barry]

Just like all the sports power rankings these all suck too. I think it would more accurately reflect people's subjective view if it took the three best years out of their careers and ranked based on those rather than an entire career. People remember the high points more than the average to low (but the really low are memorable too).

Regardless of the methodology Eddy will come out on top but after that it gets trickier..

If you look at the cycling4all one he has something like you suggest although it is over 5 years not 3.

And like always it's Eddy on top, followed by Hinault in 2nd about halfway between Eddy and the front of the best of the rest. Seems to me Hinault gets overlooked so often. If Merckx didn't exist, Hinault would be Merckx. Any type of objective ranking puts him well out of front of any other rider than Merckx. You can't really start argueing until you get to 3rd.