I was thinking about the Eddy Merckx discussion and I was wondering about who, results-wise, was the second best rider, I was kind of interested, so I was decided to see if I could compare on a results basis, just for my own interest. The problem is, to compare it like this, you need a fixed set of races, which each fall into a certain category for the points scale, so I proceeded to use a scale using the different types of point categories in the table below, the problem is, many of the races currently didn't exist 30 years ago and many races in 1965 didn't exist in 1982. So it is hard to compare between riders of different eras, without putting the big races of their time into category (assuming that the smaller races only count for points based on the win, because it would take years to include all of them).
So far, I have put these races onto the scale, the races have to have (or had) a high status and have been races for a high number of years, also, some races have been given points for a certain time frame (before the World ITT champs were added, Chrono de Nations was a big race, but not now):
GrandTour.1: Tour de France
GrandTour.2: Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a Esapana
Monument: Milan - San Remo, Ronde van Vlaanderen, Paris - Roubaix, Liege Bastonge Liege, Giro di Lombardia
1.HC: Amstel Gold Race, Fleche Wallonie, San Sebastien, Paris - Tours, Milano Torino, Züri-Metzgete, Bordeaux–Paris, Porto–Lisboa, Chrono de Nations (pre 1994), E3 Harelbeke, Gent Wevelegem, Trofeo Baracchi
1.2: Omloop het Neiwsblad
1.1: Giro del Lazio
2.HC: Critercum du Dauphine, Tour de Suisse, Paris - Nice, Tirreno Adriatico, Midi - Libre,
2.2: ?
2.1?
As you can see, firstly I do not have enough races to compare and secondly, many races are not in the correct category and some don't even exist, it's all intended. The position on races in based on there historical prestige, so that a race from 1960 can be compared to a race from 1980.
Most of this, for both the level and the actual inclusion of a race is opinion based and many races that should be there have been missed. If anybody is interested, I was wondering if people could help by posted here suggestions for included races and/or updates or suggestions on the level of races, so that I can edit this post with the changes.
Thanks, trekbmc
Edited by trekbmc on 20-04-2015 09:15
Second best to Merckx, at least palmares wise (so excluding how well Coppi could've done without WWII, can't change that now anyway) is definitely Bernard Hinault. 10 GTs, many classics.
Though I don't have time, either, to compare it using your points system, sorry
Though the big problem with comparing cyclist, I think, is that the result doesn't show how the race was won. Merckx' 69 Tour de France, or Coppi's 5 victories in Lombardia, for example. No offense but Wiggins' TDF is almost nothing compared to Merckx' TDF. Or Coppi's +100 km solo's to win with 8 minutes in Lombardia..
Though times change and it probably isn't fair to compare like this.
Other thing is internationality. In the old days, Italians raced a lot more in their own country (as did Spaniards and actually about all nationalities), so Coppi, for example, won a lot of these Italian races, which have dropped in importance a whole lot these days. But the field is more international now at all races, so once again, hard to compare...
https://www.cyclingranking.com/Ranking...erall.aspx Sounds a lot like what you want to do.
A ranking of all cyclists from 1869 to 2015. Only counts road races, so no track stuff like the Hour record. Does it based of a numerical system which ranks races via reputations/importance/difficulty etc You can read more about it on the site.
Obviously everyone has their own interpretations but it's a pretty great place to start looking at that sort of thing as it does take all races into account.
Answering the question second best results wise, according to this it's Sean Kelly who won ~193 races. 7 TDF Jersey wins, 4 Vuelta Jerseys and a GC and 21 stage wins across the two races. 7 Paris-Nice, 2 Suisse, 3 Basque, 2 Catalunya, 3 Crit Ints (from when that was a big thing), 2 MSR, 2 Roubaix, 2 LBL, 3 Lombardia, GW, Plouay, De Panne... Basically any big race and he'd either won it, podiumed it or taken a stage in it. Even his Tour GC' are solid with 4 Top10's.
Hinault, as Ian said, comes close. He can't match in sheer numbers to Kelly but he won big and he won big more than almost anyone. Just his GT record would put him in contention then his classics ability just adds on top.
I'll also throw Gino Bartali in there. 5 GT's, both pre- and post- war he won which is insane and 9 KoM titles. 29 Stages in GT's is up amongst the best. Then he won every big Italian race at least once, usually two or three times, and back then those were probably the toughest and most competitive races around.
Fausto goes into the discussion as well alongside Bartali, they probably stole enough wins of each other that if either didn't exist Merckx would be under threat.
Then there's names like Moser, de Vlaeminck, Anquetil, Van Looy and more who all took big numbers of wins. Even Mark Cavendish can throw his name into the mix of numbers of wins with something like 150.
Thanks for that, it looks a lot like what I wanted to do, although I expected the names up there, the order was quite unexpected, but it makes sense to have Kelly up there with that many wins.
Going on about TMM's post. Some truth in what you say. Though throwing Cavendish in the mix because he has 150 victories... Not a fan of that. He's an amazing sprinter, but he's definitely not top 10 of greatest all time. In that case, Boonen comes closer to me. But he, too, isn't in the top 10 by far.
Van Looy and De Vlaeminck were amazing classic riders, but, once again, stage races, not so much (though De Vlaeminck did win Tirreno 6 times and Tour de Suisse), so let's say: GT not so much.
Worth noticing: Freddy Maertens. Like Ocana not impressive at all times, but when in form, oh boy! Maertens in his great year winning 13 stages in the Vuelta, that's impressive. also 2 World Titles. But his palmares isn't big enough or his form never lasted long enough to compete for all time top 10.
Edited by Ian Butler on 20-04-2015 10:27
I put Cav's in there because 150 wins in the modern specialization age is goddamn impressive. Not good at anything but sprinting but it's hard to argue against him being one of the Top3 sprinters of all time if not the best (yep i'm bias but so what!)
Though the question of Second Greatest is slightly different than who has the second most results. For example riders like Poulidor, Zootemelk, Maertens, Gaul, Bahamontes, Fignon and more all have realy great results and were great riders in their own ways. Plus there's always the dirty word, Armstrong. Plus the stated Kelly, Hinault, Bartali, Coppi, Anquetil etc etc etc. Much harder to rank once you move beyond Merckx, fankly i wouldn't try because you are comparing so many different time periods and specialities.
As well as what you have said, Bobet, Jimeniz, Thevenet, Stiblinski, Koblet (behind Merckx in 1969, I think the Koblet's 1951 season was one of the best ever), Kubler, Gemineni and Ockers were also very strong. But yeah, it's so hard to compare all the time periods, and interesting thought is to create/look at an all-time DB, but no doubt it would be inaccurate. I guess the main thought is that some riders were so different, some riders were good their whole season, some were the best ever for a couple and then never good again, others were good young and then dropped, I really just depends.
Also, Roger Walkwowiak and Jussi Veikkenan are two of the best riders ever in my opinion.
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
