's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Post Tour UCI Rankings....(9 posts)

Post Tour UCI Rankings....MXL02
Aug 6, 2003 10:48 AM
Elite men

1 Paolo Bettini (Ita) Quick.Step-Davitamon 2,191.75 pts
2 Gilberto Simoni (Ita) Team Saeco 2,082.00
3 Erik Zabel (Ger) Team Telekom 1,941.75
4 Davide Rebellin (Ita) Gerolsteiner 1,887.00
5 Iban Mayo Diez (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 1,724.00
6 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Team Telekom 1,701.00
7 Alessandro Petacchi (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 1,682.00
8 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal presented by Berry Floor 1,679.00
9 Dario Frigo (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 1,541.00
10 Tyler Hamilton (USA) Team CSC 1,474.20
11 Robbie Mcewen (Aus) Lotto-Domo 1,364.00
12 Francesco Casagrande (Ita) Lampre 1,286.00
13 Danilo Di Luca (Ita) Team Saeco 1,270.00
14 Aitor Gonzalez Jimenez (Spa) Fassa Bortolo 1,171.00
15 Roberto Heras (Spa) US Postal presented by Berry Floor 1,153.25
16 Baden Cooke (Aus) 1,113.00
17 Mario Cipollini (Ita) Domina Vacanze-Elitron 1,103.20
18 Francisco Mancebo Perez (Spa) 1,059.00
19 Michele Bartoli (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 1,057.50
20 Laurent Brochard (Fra) AG2r Prévoyance 1,048.40

Top riders of 2003

1 Gilberto Simoni (Ita) Team Saeco 1,715.00 pts
2 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Team Telekom 1,613.00
3 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal presented by Berry Floor 1,507.00
4 Iban Mayo Diez (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi 1,414.00
5 Tyler Hamilton (USA) Team CSC 1,358.20
6 Alessandro Petacchi (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 1,235.00
7 Paolo Bettini (Ita) Quick.Step-Davitamon 1,084.75
8 Erik Zabel (Ger) Team Telekom 1,048.75
9 Stefano Garzelli (Ita) Vini Caldirola-SO.DI 957.00
10 Jan Ullrich (Ger) Team Bianchi 940.00

I assume Lance and Tyler are 8 and 10 because they don't race as much as some of the others? How are the rankings determined?
Aug 6, 2003 11:37 AM
These rankings are determined by their results in UCI sanctioned events. Each event carries different weight as well.

If you race alot you do better here...Well and win.
how much do they matter?2300 Edmontonian
Aug 6, 2003 1:08 PM
how well are they recognized considering Lance is so much more popular and is regarded as the #1 rider for winning the tour de france, any other thoughts..
a ton, who is the best maybe.sievers11
Aug 6, 2003 2:29 PM
You are assuming Lance is the most popular. And you are also assuming that Lance is reguarded as the #1 rider. In Subaru Comercials maybe.

He is not the "#1 rider", his is and forever will be know as a great "TDF rider".

The UCI ranking are for overall the best cyclist. Not the best cyclist for 3 weeks in July.
Wow, you sound bitter53T
Aug 6, 2003 4:11 PM
Of course you remember who was #1 for about half of last year, LA.
UCI rankings reward consistentcy, but we all know Lance is BEST!BergMann
Aug 6, 2003 9:21 PM
You've got to be kidding me.

Lance Armstrong is the greatest cyclist of his generation, and anyone denying this has an axe to grind or needs to lay off the base pipe. If racing outside of the month of July is what matters to you, then perhaps you've heard of the following races:

The World Championships, Tour of Switzerland, Fleche Wallone, Classica San Sebastian, Midi Libre, Dauphine Libere, GP Des Nations, GP Eddy Merckx, Circuit de la Sarthe, Route du Sud, Tour of Luxembourg, Rheinland Pfalz Rundfahrt, Tour DuPont, Cascade Classic, First Union Grand Prix, U.S. National Road Race Championship, Thrift Drug Classic, & U.S. National Amateur Championship?!!!

Yeah, uhm, Lance has won at all of those events. Some of them several times.

I know that Lance's palmares will never be what Merckx' were, but wake up and smell the corporate coffee -- cycling has changed _forever_. Have any doubts that the changes are historical? Compare Indurain's palmares to Merckx' (and Antequil & Binda, while you're at it). It is like the rest of the work world: people have had to specialize to succeed. The guys who win the grand Tours will _never again_ be the guys who win the World Cup overall and manage to stay atop the UCI rankings.

The World Cup / UCI contenders are a special breed of rider: they are _one day racers_, which is precisely why "puncheurs" like Bettini, Rebellin, and Van Petegem did _diddly squat_ during the tour. Not enough capacity to recover over multiple days in the mountains, and on flat stages, they were too busy getting beat by the "other" breed of one-day specialists: the sprinters.

As for who is "the best," up until a month ago, Eric Zabel was #1. Anyone who has watched _any_ racing this season knows that Eric Zabel doesn't currently rank higher than 5th best among the sprinters right now, not to mention the whole peloton.

So what do the UCI rankings show? The "best (all around) rider"? Not necessarily -- in some cases it merely shows who was going really good 6-12 months ago and hasn't had a chance to lose those points yet.

The question of who is "the best" at any given time is indeed more difficult in cycling, since it is not run as a "league" like the NFL or NBA.

While the World Championships or the World Cup are coveted prizes, the Tour de France is the closest thing cycling has to a Super Bowl or Championship Series. Any doubts about priorities? Think for a moment why riders like Lance, Simoni, Hamilton, Beloki, Mayo, etc. will _not_ be racing this year at Hamilton, even though there's plenty of climbing out on the course.

Compared to the Tour, it's just not worth their time!
Typical opinionated crap!cyclequip
Aug 7, 2003 12:30 AM
Your list of 'palmares' omits some notable races 'outside of July' - Giro, Vuelta, P-R, RVV and includes some suspect 2-up TT races and nondescript local US races. But to use this list as a bald statement that 'Lance Armstrong is the greatest cyclist of his generation, and anyone denying this has an axe to grind or needs to lay off the base pipe' typifies what many cyclists see as the start of the death-knell of cycling. So only one race matters, and if you win it 5 times this makes you the best. Hooey! Indurain is an Armstrong contemporary and no-one in HIS right mind would blandly concede LA is a better rider than Big Mig. But, please continue with your jingoistic 'one race maketh the man' piddle.
Jingoistic? Ad-hominem invective is no substitute for an argument!BergMann
Aug 10, 2003 9:46 PM
Just because you can use polysyllables in your invectives doesn't mean you've got an argument, nor for that matter, that you've directed it at the right person.

For starters _every_ conversation regarding who is the "greatest" _anything_ is just that: opinionated crap.

Since you are also participating in this rhetorical cesspool (for the fun of it, I might add), let's get down to brass tacks:

My vote for Lance as the greatest rider of his generation has nothing to do with his nationality, thank you very much. I personally regard Indurain as belonging to a generation (or better said, era), before Lance. Although their careers overlapped, they did so in the same way that Lemond & Indurain's, or Merckx's & Hinault's overlapped: one rider was in his journeymanship while the other was in his prime. They were never really rivals when both were at the peak of their powers, and thus there is no commensurate means of comparing them. Miguel Indurain was the greatest rider of the post-Lemond era. Lance is the greatest rider of the period thereafter. If it came down to choosing between the two of them, I would prefer to wait until Lance has retired. If he wins 6, he will easily have my nod. It's simply more difficult to win the TDF than the Vuelta or Giro. 6 wins at the Tour adds up to more than 5 Tours and 2 Giros in my book, but I'm the first to admit that this is merely one man's opinion.

It's not that the Tour is the only race that counts: it's just that it is the biggest race with the best competition, and whoever wins it can genuinely claim he's beaten the best the world has to offer. This is not true of the Giro & Vuelta, since riders opt to sit out these races if they have the chance to ride the Tour.

If cycling continues in its present specialized form, in which you have riders who prepare an entire season just for the sprint competition of a single race like the Tour, you will never have another (clean) GC champion of two grand tours ever again. (E)P(O)antani doesn't count. For a better example of what happens to those who try to win 2 tours in a single season, look at Simoni. If you see this as the "death knell" of cycling, that's your choice.
I, for one, loved watching the Giro this year. Simoni was awesome, but he wasn't racing against Armstrong, Belocki, Ullrich & the rest of the best, so it is possible to deem his victory as less challenging than a Tour victory without dismissing it altogether.

Enough said. Only in retrospect will we see how Armstrong's (or for that matter Big Mig's) legacy withstands the test of time.

In the meantime, perhaps the rest of us can attempt to refrain from erroneous and offensive ideological value-judgments that have no place on a cycling board.
can't wait for Armstrong to retire.... orphilippec
Aug 7, 2003 1:12 AM
for people who have only just followed cycling since 1999 to wise up! :-)

I love Armstrong and have been following him since way back when he was with Eddy B. at Subaru. His victory at the World's was thrilling, his first cool million for winning the thrift drug classic was outstanding and his career since 1999 has been superlative... but, come on folks! There is a lot more to cycling than Armstrong and the TDF (and I say this as someone who has been following the Tour live since before I lost my first tooth!). The road racing season starts in February and doesn't end 'till October and despite Armstrong's absence in 80% of those races, they are still just as thrilling to watch. There have been riders with greater palmares than Armstrong (although their performances may be impossible to duplicate now) and Armstrong has a more impressive palmares than several cycling "greats". Personally, I just don't think it really matters to say who is the greatest ever.

What I would not want to see is that the current focus on Armstrong in the United States (and anglophone world in general) leads to a situation where people who have been brought into the sport by his performances, quickly lose interest after his retirement. Especially if no other US rider steps up to the bat (Hamilton, Landis, Danielson, etc.). I have already seen this happen in 1991 after Lemond's decline when I was living and racing in the States.

All this to say that cycling is a rich and deep sport where there has been, and will always be, much more to it than one rider. After Armstrong goes (hopefully after one/several more Tour victories) the sport will thankfully remain just as riveting. ... And I speak from experience here since, as a French citizen, I have been following the sport just as faithfully for the past 18 years , despite the absence of a French victory in the Tour!

So Armstrong 8th in the UCI standings - big deal! That only reflects his racing calendar and strategic choices. He still had a *great* run in June and July! Bettini, Simoni, Zabel, Vino, etc are ranked higher than Armstrong? So what! Hat's off to these men for having raced so well throughout the year!

Now stepping down off my pedestal...