The Top 25 Cyclists of the Modern Era

by The Team Chef on Mar 8, 2009 2:55 PM EDT Comment 21 comments

I had hoped to post this before the season was in full swing, but it just didn’t happen.

For those who haven’t visited my site, The Virtual Musette (non-commercial FWIW), or haven’t stopped by in a while, I have completed a scoring system used to rank the Top 25 cyclists of the Modern Era (1938 - present); think of it as a backwards-looking VDS competition of sorts.

The results were posted about a month ago, and the list has been making the rounds on various cycling forums. Unfortunately, most of these discussions end up devolving into name-calling, character assassination, doping, and Armstrong tangents. Of course, there is nothing wrong with discussing Lance per se, but do the Olsen twins really have to come up when discussing the hierarchy of the greatest cyclists of all time?

Since the PdC gang is about the only group where intelligent conversation can be had without the incessant childish behavior found on so many other fan forums, I am posting the results here.

I’ve provided the results of the Top 50 (which haven’t even been published on my site), but I do have one request – before you have a beef with a particular cyclist’s rank, please review the method for calculating the points (by and large the results of victories in the big races). Here is the link for Scoring, Part 1 (the races), and here is the one for Scoring, Part 2 (special adjustments). The Top 50 list on the flip...

1. Eddy Merckx	410.5
2. Bernard Hinault	232.5
3. Fausto Coppi	219.5
4. Gino Bartali	213.0
5. Jacques Anquetil	184.0
6. Rik Van Looy	152.0
7. Sean Kelly	146.5
8. Roger De Vlaeminck	139.5
9. Francesco Moser	131.5
10. Felice Gimondi	114.0
11. Lance Armstrong	114.0
12. Louison Bobet	109.5
13. Miguel Indurain	98.0
14. Freddy Maertens	97.5
15. Ferdi Kubler	96.0
16. Joop Zoetemelk	91.5
17. Tony Rominger	89.5
18. Laurent Jalabert	88.5
19. Fiorenzo Magni	87.0
20. Giuseppe Saronni	83.0
21. Erik Zabel	81.0
22. Rik Van Steenbergen	73.5
23. Raymond Poulidor	69.0
24. Jan Janssen	65.0
25. Greg Lemond	65.0
26. Mario Cipollini	63.5
27. Luis Ocana	59.5
28. Laurent Fignon	58.5
29. Franco Bitossi	56.0
30. Federico Bahamontes	55.5
31. Paolo Bettini	55.0
32. Charly Gaul	53.5
33. Johan Museeuw	53.0
34. Jan Ullrich	52.0
35. Jan Raas	51.0
36. Lucien Van Impe	50.0
37. Alberic Schotte	49.5
38. Moreno Argentin	48.5
39. Stephen Roche	48.5
40. Hugo Koblet	48.0
41. Claudio Chiapucci	48.0
42. Gianni Bugno	47.5
43. Alex Zulle	46.0
44. Michele Bartoli	44.0
45. Walter Godefroot	42.5
46. Herman Van Springel	41.5
47. Charly Mottet	41.0
48. Alberto Contador	39.5
49. Fred De Bruyne	37.0
50. Tom Boonen	37.0

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No Beef

Just thanks for sharing your work and here’s a little vignette you may enjoy:

When it’s cycling season, and I’m putting my older son (6) to bed, I ask him who will win tomorrow’s race or stage. Last night (Sat) my older son was at a sleep-over so at bedtime I asked my younger son (3)who was going to win Paris-Nice. His answer?

Jacques Anquteil

….no kidding! I read Sex, Lies, and Handlebar tape in Dec or Jan, so I bet he heard me mention the name and was just waiting for the best opportunity to try it out.

by M. Anatole on Mar 9, 2009 12:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice story.

First off , you are welcome.

When my kids (ages 6, 10, and 14) can remember either Merckx, Hinault, Coppi, Bartali, or Anquetil (Lance Armstrong does not count), then I know I will have died and gone to cycling heaven.

by The Team Chef on Mar 9, 2009 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Off topic a little bit

I was thinking about reading Sex, Lies, and Handlebar tape. Is it any good?

by brandon... on Mar 9, 2009 7:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

we had a review here

do a search

CQRanking.com, you complete me.

by Chris... on Mar 9, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't argue with the list, but it is interesting

No one from the last 10 years in the top ten and only one of your 25 is still riding, and he just came back out of retirement!

Has the landscape really changed that much? Is it that much harder to rack up the points? Is it possible to break into the 100 point club today? And what type of rider will do so?

I guess we have an interesting “race” to watch between Boonen and Contador….

by muk on Mar 9, 2009 2:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Are things that much different now?

As mentioned in several posts downstream, there are a number of factors that have contributed to the dearth of present day riders on this list. That said, I just think it’s a bit early for some of these cyclists to have accumulated enough points to move up the ranks.

Most of the guys on this list had careers averaging around 12-15 years. If you consider that it currently takes 66 points to crack the Top 25, a cyclist would need to average roughly 4.5 – 5.5 points a year (including special adjustments) to make the final cut.

Contador (39.5 points), Boonen (37), Valverde (30) and Cunego (23) all should have another 6-9 years to make their mark. At their current win rate, there is a pretty good chance they will all crack the Top 25. If The Accountant and Boonen can stay healthy, they both will have a shot at the100 point club.

I think when we look at this list in 10 years we’ll find that all the various eras, or decades, will be well represented, the present one included.

What has been missing since Hinault is a multiple Grand Tour winner who can also consistently win the big single-day races.

by The Team Chef on Mar 9, 2009 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which makes Eddy's 410 pts all the more mind boggling

Terrific comparison btw, thanks for putting it together. I get chills just looking at that list.

"I didn't look for him and I didn't see him. If you base your race on another rider, most of the time you lose."

Tom Boonen

by Drew... on Mar 10, 2009 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting.. Great work.

I too find it amusing (?) that none of the top ranked riders are active except Armstrong. It seems that the era of specialization has indeed affected cycling. Actually given the amount of specialization practiced by Armstrong, I’m surprised he come in as high as he did. The top 10 definitely shows the strength of the generalist, guys that rode everything and won most of them. That bunch spans a long stretch of time.
I’m intrigued by the way Erik Zabel appears to be affected by a lack of big results. There ought to be something said for the sheer number of days he put into his seasons.
As for the missing years factor, I wonder if that ought to apply to guys that would have raced, but were denied the opportunity do to the world wars. By contrast Armstrong retired at what was arguably the top of his game, only to choose to return later. He wasn’t denied anything, so the “what if” is less a factor than say for the riders of the early to mid 1900’s that couldn’t compete because of the World Wars.
Hats off to you for doing all that number crunching…

by Fred Marx on Mar 9, 2009 3:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

As I understand the missing years factor

Armstrong hasn’t scored any points since returning from retirement, so only his years lost to cancer count for his “missing years.”

I don’t disagree with the scoring methodology in general, though I think that racking up wins in a race is its own reward: I’d keep the combo bonuses but eliminate the single-race record bonuses.

by Softie on Mar 9, 2009 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct.

Armstrong’s adjustment only applies to his “lost” cancer years; he won’t get any bonuses for his retirement.

The race record bonuses didn’t really change things all that much, so I probably could have just eliminated them altogether. The primary beneficiaries were Armstrong and Rominger. Had I removed their Tour and Vuelta records, Lance would have dropped one spot (just below Bobet), and Tony would have dropped two spots (below both Jalabert and Magni).

Also, in response to Fred M’s post, none of the cyclists from the Heroic Era (pre 1938) were included in this list, so that’s why there were no “missing years” adjustments given to guys who lost saddle time due to WWI.

by The Team Chef on Mar 9, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

On losing saddle time due to WWI

Regrettably some guys lost more. 1909 TdF winner François Faber was one of them. He won 19 TdF stages including stages 2-6 during his 1909 campaign.
Killed on the battlefield on 9 May 1915.

by Lopex on Mar 9, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh good point I somehow let those years slip.. DUH.

I can be very dense after work sometimes..

by Fred Marx on Mar 9, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As an experiment

First of all, thank you, this is very interesting.

Secondly, I have a small hunch that it have become more difficult to win races, I have a feeling that the competition is harder today. That is just that, hunches and feeling, and there are obviously things that make it easier today.

But let’s say that it gets on average 1 percent (half a percent, a quarter of a percent…) more difficult to win a race every year, the older results gets more devalued, and take that into account. Eddy Merckx will still be on top, but todays riders will be closer behind.

Bork, bork, bork!

by TheFigurehead on Mar 9, 2009 4:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think that it is harder to win a race today

If anything it was tougher in the past because the competition was so much greater. It’s just a lot harder to spend the season racking up wins week after week when in almost every race the main rivals are different, and at almost any time of the year at least half the peloton is just riding to get themselves fitter for a different race. You can’t spend a season at the same level as everyone else’s peak.

by Monty. on Mar 9, 2009 5:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We can only dream…

Think about it, A Dream Tour de France, with each in his prime who would win?

The TdF Overall
Eddy Merckx
Bernard Hinault
Fausto Coppi
Gino Bartali
Jacques Anquetil
Lance Armstrong

The Polka Dot Jersey
Tony Rominger
Alberto Contador
Lucien Van Impe
Charly Gaul
Federico Bahamontes
Luis Ocana

The Green Jersey
Tom Boonen
Jan Janssen
Erik Zabel
Rik Van Steenbergen
Sean Kelly
Rik Van Looy

A Dream Flanders?
Eddy Merckx
Tom Boonen
Walter Godefroot
Alberic Schotte
Johan Museeuw
Rik Van Steenbergen
Fiorenzo Magni

A Dream Paris-Roubaix?
Eddy Merckx
Tom Boonen
Johan Museeuw
Rik Van Steenbergen
Fausto Coppi
Rik Van Looy
Roger De Vlaeminck

The possibilities are endless! We can only dream. I know I do!

by CCB-VW on Mar 9, 2009 8:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That would be interesting indeed

I’d add Virenque for the Polka dot and Freddy Maertens for the green jersey. Freddy Maertens had an incredible record in the TdF. Participated only 3 times, won the green jersey each time and bagged a total of 15 stage wins in the process. Amazing!

by Lopex on Mar 9, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

kind of amazing

that he only participated 3 times too…do you know what’s behind that?

by plinytheelder on Mar 9, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure I missed more than 1...

I missed Virenque because he wasn’t on the list above, as for Maertens “I should be shot for missing him!!!!”

by CCB-VW on Mar 9, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gotta add Pantani

Get him to focus on the polka dots instead of the GC though…

Oh and I think that I’d rather see Coppi ride something like Flanders instead of Roubaix. Sure he won Roubaix and did not win Flanders, but the thought of watching that fragile, graceful and slender rider torture himself over the cobbles and through the mud sends shivers down my spine (and not the right kind). If we are going to force him over cobbles at least make them climbs…

by muk on Mar 9, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Split at Radio Time perhaps?

I do think todays races are harder to win consistently because you have more people focussing and peaking differently. To me rather than showing the best rider though (these are all good!) this shows that there was some kind of “break” in the sport about 20 years ago. Everyone from then on is lower. When did race radios seriously start to be used? All the training differences, not to forget drugs certainly had an effect, but that would kind of lift all boats wouldn’t it? Radios and tactics would change how a dominant a person could be.

by Markk on Mar 9, 2009 5:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Difference between now and the old days

I expect the sport of cycling to be far more accessible now. With more contenders the spoils are shared more thinly. This leads also to specialisation.

by Lopex on Mar 10, 2009 9:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs