collapse


LukasCPH

  • World Champion
  • *
  • Country: de
  • Posts: 11512
  • Liked: 7409
    • lukascph.media
  • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
The 'new' World Ranking
« on: January 02, 2016, 14:06 »
Ever so stealthily, the UCI announced the introduction of a new ranking system for 2016 - on Christmas Eve:
Launch of a new UCI World Ranking
Quote
The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) is pleased to announce the launch of a new UCI World Ranking (for men’s professional road cycling, reflecting a similar ranking in place already for women’s professional road cycling).
The UCI World Ranking – individual and nations – will be published in parallel with the UCI WorldTour Ranking (individual, teams and nations).

The new UCI World Ranking will be published once a week, each Monday, from January 11th 2016. It will take into account the results of the 52 previous weeks (a rolling system, similar to that of the ATP in tennis). This means it will only come fully into effect one year after its introduction. Its calculation will not be based on a specific series, as is the case with the UCI WorldTour Ranking, but on the entire UCI International Road Calendar (UCI WorldTour, UCI Continental Circuits, UCI World Championships, National and Continental Championships, Olympic Games and Continental Games).

All riders who mark points in the races concerned will be part of the UCI World Ranking, including riders who are not members of UCI WorldTeams.

The new UCI World Ranking was the subject of a thorough consultation process which took into account the interests and wishes of riders, teams, organisers and National Federations as well as media and fans. In addition, it reflects the most recent discussions of the UCI Road Commission and Professional Cycling Council.

These modifications will not affect the UCI Continental Rankings, which will remain just as important on the continents and will continue to be calculated. On the other hand, these will now be published once a week and, like the UCI World Ranking, will take into account the 52 previous weeks according to a “rolling” system. Also new: riders from UCI WorldTeams will now feature in the UCI Continental Rankings.

If you want to look at the new rules and points scales, delve down into the new UCI regulations. It's all in Part 2 (Road Races), Chapter X (UCI Rankings):
UCI Regulations, Part 2 (Road Races)

What the UCI press release doesn't mention (and for good reasons) is that with this, they're essentially re-adopting the pre-ProTour/WorldTour system with one single World Ranking on a rolling 52-week basis.
CQranking is familiar to every cycling nerd as having continued the UCI's 2004 world ranking, and this new UCI World Ranking is essentially a return to that (only with different points scales, I'll have a look at those in a later post).
  • ReplyReply
  • Cyclingnews Women's WorldTour Correspondent
    2017 0711|CYCLING PR Manager; 2016 Stölting Content Editor
    Views presented are my own. RIP Keith & Sean

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11512
    • Liked: 7409
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #1 on: January 02, 2016, 14:06 »
    Ready yourself for another heap of tables and spreadsheets ... and don't say you weren't warned. :D



    Methodology
    I've put the points scales for 2016 and 2003 (the latest pre-2005 edition of UCI regulations I have in my archive) into a spreadsheet:
    For each race category, I took the points for 1st-5th, 10th, 20th etc.; for stage races, the points awarded for stage placings, GC leads and final positions in secondary classifications have also been included.

    As the number of points awarded has gone up (sometimes significantly), I've decided to use the points awarded to the world champion as a point of reference. In 2003 he received 400 points, in 2016 he'll get 600. Therefore, I've multiplied all 2003 points by 1.5 before comparing them to the 2016 points scales.

    The important column in this comparison is the last one, "Percentage". If the value of a racing achievement (say, 4th in Milano-San Remo, or GC lead in the Tour de Slovénie) is equal in both points scales, this will read "100". If the 2016 value is higher, the number will be above 100, if you received more points in 2003, the number will be below 100. Some achievements aren't awarded any points in 2016, these will have a "0" - others weren't awarded points in 2003, these will be marked by a -.

    Comparing 2016 race categories with those from 2003 isn't straightforward as some categories have been abolished and others introduced; several races have been re-classified. However, overall the following 'conversion table' is a good fit:
    Cat. 2016 Cat. 2003
    Tour GT
    Giro/Vuelta GT
    2.WT1 2.HC
    1.WT1 World Cup
    2.WT2 2.1
    1.WT2 1.HC
    2.HC 2.2
    1.HC 1.1
    2.1 2.3
    1.1 1.3
    2.2 2.5
    1.2 1.5
    2.Ncup 2.5
    1.Ncup 1.5
    2.2U 2.5
    1.2U 1.5
    WC/OG RR WC/OG RR
    WC/OG ITT WC/OG ITT
    WC U23 RR WC U23 RR
    WC U23 ITT WC U23 ITT
    NC-A RR NC2 RR
    NC-A ITT NC2 ITT
    NC-B RR NC4 RR
    NC-B ITT NC4 ITT
    CC/CG RRCC/CG RR
    CC/CG ITT CC/CG ITT
    CC U23 RR CC U23 RR
    CC U23 ITT CC U23 ITT
    Hour Record Hour Record

    Explanation of abbreviations:
    WC = World Championships
    OG = Olympic Games
    NC = National Championships
    CC = Continental Championships
    CG = Continental Games
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 16:51 by LukasCPH »

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11512
    • Liked: 7409
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #2 on: January 02, 2016, 14:07 »
    Grand Tours

    The most important difference between the 2003 and 2016 points scales is that the three GTs aren't equal anymore - the Tour carries more points than the Giro or Vuelta.


    Apart from that, there's another trend: Winners (GC top-5, stage win, points or mountain jersey) get more points, also-rans (10th and further down in GC, placings in stages or secondary classifications) get fewer.

    In 2003, even the 10th rider on any GT stage would score 1 point; now only the top-5 will be rewarded. There's an even bigger discrepancy when looking at the secondary classifications: In 2003, 4th in the points or mountain classification would gain you 20 points, today only the top-3 get points.

    A Tour stage win has been upgraded in value by 14% compared to 2003 while the third place on a stage is worth less than half (48%) of what it was before. If you finish in the top-5 of the Tour, you'll get more than 25% more points than earlier (127-150%), while being somewhere between 20th and 30th gives only 40-43% of what it was worth in 2003.

    In the Giro and Vuelta, the numbers are a bit lower; a stage win here is worth 95% of what it was in 2003. But the top-5 in GC still score comparatively more (101-128%).


    Cat. 2016Cat. 2003Position201620032003 x 1.5Percentage
    TourGT11000500750133
    TourGT2800375562,5142
    TourGT3675300450150
    TourGT4575275412,5139
    TourGT5475250375127
    TourGT10175125187,593
    TourGT204067100,540
    TourGT30304770,543
    TourGT40252740,562
    TourGT50201522,589
    TourGT60101522,544
    TourGT1 stage12070105114
    TourGT2 stage50507567
    TourGT3 stage253552,548
    TourGT4 stage15203050
    TourGT5 stage51522,522
    TourGT10 stage011,50
    TourGTGC lead25203083
    TourGT1 jersey12070105114
    TourGT2 jersey50507567
    TourGT3 jersey253552,548
    TourGT4 jersey020300
    TourGT5 jersey01522,50
    TourGT10 jersey011,50
    Giro/VueltaGT1850500750113
    Giro/VueltaGT2680375562,5121
    Giro/VueltaGT3575300450128
    Giro/VueltaGT4460275412,5112
    Giro/VueltaGT5380250375101
    Giro/VueltaGT10140125187,575
    Giro/VueltaGT204067100,540
    Giro/VueltaGT30244770,534
    Giro/VueltaGT40202740,549
    Giro/VueltaGT50161522,571
    Giro/VueltaGT6081522,536
    Giro/VueltaGT1 stage1007010595
    Giro/VueltaGT2 stage40507553
    Giro/VueltaGT3 stage203552,538
    Giro/VueltaGT4 stage12203040
    Giro/VueltaGT5 stage41522,518
    Giro/VueltaGT10 stage011,50
    Giro/VueltaGTGC lead20203067
    Giro/VueltaGT1 jersey1007010595
    Giro/VueltaGT2 jersey40507553
    Giro/VueltaGT3 jersey203552,538
    Giro/VueltaGT4 jersey020300
    Giro/VueltaGT5 jersey01522,50
    Giro/VueltaGT10 jersey011,50
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 17:23 by LukasCPH »

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11512
    • Liked: 7409
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #3 on: January 02, 2016, 16:47 »
    Other WorldTour races

    A controversial move is the UCI's decision to split the WT races into two categories. This has always been the case - the five Monuments and the WT stage races carried more points than the 'smaller' WT classics -; but now some non-Monuments have been put in the ".WT1" category, while a few WT stage races have been grouped with the smaller classics in the ".WT2" category: Old and prestigious races like the Flèche Wallonne or Vuelta al País Vasco are now 'worth' less than the GP Québec or the Tour Down Under.
    But this isn't the place to discuss the nature of this re-classification.


    The trend seen in the Grand Tours is even more pronounced in the other WT races: With the exception of placing far down in the result, riders will receive comparatively more points at a WT race in 2016 than they would for the same position at the same race 13 years ago.

    As we shall see later, this fits well with the UCI's desire to give WorldTour races a bigger standing relative to non-WorldTour races. Across the board (with very few exceptions), a placing in a WT race is now worth more - sometimes significantly more: Winning the Tour de Suisse gives you 152% of 2003 points, reaching the podium in Paris-Roubaix even 181%!

    It's also interesting to note that while the points awarded for stage wins have increased, those for stage placings have not (on the contrary). And the points awarded for secondary classifications are gone altogether.


    Cat. 2016Cat. 2003Position201620032003 x 1.5Percentage
    2.WT12.HC1500220330152
    2.WT12.HC2400165247,5162
    2.WT12.HC3325132198164
    2.WT12.HC4275121181,5152
    2.WT12.HC5225110165136
    2.WT12.HC10855582,5103
    2.WT12.HC20301522,5133
    2.WT12.HC30201015133
    2.WT12.HC4010101567
    2.WT12.HC5010101567
    2.WT12.HC60300-
    2.WT12.HC1 stage603552,5114
    2.WT12.HC2 stage252537,567
    2.WT12.HC3 stage101522,544
    2.WT12.HC4 stage010150
    2.WT12.HC5 stage057,50
    2.WT12.HCGC lead10101567
    2.WT12.HC1 jersey03552,50
    2.WT12.HC2 jersey02537,50
    2.WT12.HC3 jersey01522,50
    2.WT12.HC4 jersey010150
    2.WT12.HC5 jersey057,50
    1.WT1World Cup1500240360139
    1.WT1World Cup2400150225178
    1.WT1World Cup3325120180181
    1.WT1World Cup4275108162170
    1.WT1World Cup522596144156
    1.WT1World Cup10854872118
    1.WT1World Cup20301725,5118
    1.WT1World Cup302057,5267
    1.WT1World Cup401057,5133
    1.WT1World Cup501057,5133
    1.WT1World Cup60357,540
    2.WT22.11400160240167
    2.WT22.12320120180178
    2.WT22.1326096144181
    2.WT22.1422088132167
    2.WT22.1518080120150
    2.WT22.110684060113
    2.WT22.120241116,5145
    2.WT22.1301657,5213
    2.WT22.140857,5107
    2.WT22.150857,5107
    2.WT22.160200-
    2.WT22.11 stage502537,5133
    2.WT22.12 stage201522,589
    2.WT22.13 stage8101553
    2.WT22.14 stage057,50
    2.WT22.1GC lead881267
    1.WT21.HC1400175262,5152
    1.WT21.HC2320110165194
    1.WT21.HC326090135193
    1.WT21.HC422078117188
    1.WT21.HC518070105171
    1.WT21.HC10683451133
    1.WT21.HC20241015160
    1.WT21.HC301657,5213
    1.WT21.HC40857,5107
    1.WT21.HC50857,5107
    1.WT21.HC60200-
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 17:23 by LukasCPH »

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11512
    • Liked: 7409
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #4 on: January 02, 2016, 16:48 »
    HC and .1 races

    As can be seen from the table below, HC races are upvalued slightly - with the strange exception of winning a 1.HC that is now worth only 95%. Most other top results are in the 100-120% range.
    Again, stage placings are downvalued, as is finishing in the top-20 or top-30. However, the top-40 (or even top-30 in the case of HC stage races) now carry a modest number of points, something they didn't in 2003.

    Interestingly, 2.1 stage races are downvalued across the board, sometimes significantly.
    1.1 one-day races, on the other hand, are upvalued even more significantly - this is a result of both categories now carrying the same amount of points, whereas stage races were valued at almost double of a one-dayer in 2003.


    Cat. 2016Cat. 2003Position201620032003 x 1.5Percentage
    2.HC2.21200120180111
    2.HC2.2215090135111
    2.HC2.2312572108116
    2.HC2.241006699101
    2.HC2.2585609094
    2.HC2.21035304578
    2.HC2.220581242
    2.HC2.230500-
    2.HC2.240300-
    2.HC2.21 stage20203067
    2.HC2.22 stage151015100
    2.HC2.23 stage557,567
    2.HC2.2GC lead56956
    1.HC1.1120014021095
    1.HC1.1215084126119
    1.HC1.1312570105119
    1.HC1.141006394,5106
    1.HC1.15855684101
    1.HC1.110352131,5111
    1.HC1.120557,567
    1.HC1.130557,567
    1.HC1.140300-
    2.12.3112510015083
    2.12.328575112,576
    2.12.3370609078
    2.12.34605582,573
    2.12.3550507567
    2.12.310202537,553
    2.12.320300-
    2.12.31 stage141522,562
    2.12.32 stage500-
    2.12.33 stage300-
    2.12.3GC lead357,540
    1.11.311256090139
    1.11.32853654157
    1.11.33703045156
    1.11.34602740,5148
    1.11.35502436139
    1.11.31020913,5148
    1.11.320300-
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 18:19 by LukasCPH »

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11512
    • Liked: 7409
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #5 on: January 02, 2016, 16:48 »
    .2 & U23 races

    In the lower categories, stage races and one-dayers are brought in sync as well, leading to an apparent upvaluing of 1.2 races. As .2 events have carried the same amount of points ever since 2005, this is visible only when comparing with the pre-2005 points scales, and likely won't register with most riders.

    Nations Cup events weren't part of the individual rankings at all until now. Their inclusion, and with a generous amount of points on offer, is a big boost to the UCI's U23 race series, and even more so if compared to how much the races were 'worth' 13 years ago.

    .2U races, however, though not visible in this comparison with 2003, are downvalued compared to last year when they carried the same amount of points as a 'regular' .2 event.
    While I acknowledge that the competition in a .2 that isn't age-restricted can be stronger than in a U23 race, I don't see the need for .2U events to be ranked below 'normal' .2 races. You can only beat who turns up on the day, after all - and some U23 races have a palmarès that many .2 races would give their left arm for.


    Cat. 2016Cat. 2003Position201620032003 x 1.5Percentage
    2.22.51402537,5107
    2.22.52301928,5105
    2.22.53251522,5111
    2.22.54201319,5103
    2.22.5515121883
    2.22.5103710,529
    2.22.51 stage746117
    2.22.52 stage300-
    2.22.53 stage100-
    2.22.5GC lead12333
    1.21.51401522,5178
    1.21.5230913,5222
    1.21.5325812208
    1.21.5420710,5190
    1.21.551569167
    1.21.510311,5200
    2.Ncup2.51702537,5187
    2.Ncup2.52551928,5193
    2.Ncup2.53401522,5178
    2.Ncup2.54301319,5154
    2.Ncup2.55251218139
    2.Ncup2.5103710,529
    2.Ncup2.51 stage1246200
    2.Ncup2.52 stage800-
    2.Ncup2.53 stage400-
    2.Ncup2.5GC lead12333
    1.Ncup1.51701522,5311
    1.Ncup1.5255913,5407
    1.Ncup1.5340812333
    1.Ncup1.5430710,5286
    1.Ncup1.552569278
    1.Ncup1.510311,5200
    2.2U2.51302537,580
    2.2U2.52251928,588
    2.2U2.53201522,589
    2.2U2.54151319,577
    2.2U2.5510121856
    2.2U2.5101710,510
    2.2U2.51 stage54683
    2.2U2.52 stage100-
    2.2U2.5GC lead12333
    1.2U1.51301522,5133
    1.2U1.5225913,5185
    1.2U1.5320812167
    1.2U1.5415710,5143
    1.2U1.551069111
    1.2U1.510111,567
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 18:35 by LukasCPH »

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11512
    • Liked: 7409
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #6 on: January 02, 2016, 16:48 »
    Worlds & Olympics, Nationals & Continentals, Hour Record

    As I said above, I used the amount of points awarded to the world champion as a point of reference. Therefore, this will logically get exactly 100%. ;)
    Finishing in the top-5 of the Worlds (or Olympics), however, is now worth more than it was in 2003.
    The ITT events have been downvalued; notedly, anyone lower than 20th doesn't get any points at all anymore.

    National championships were put in four categories back in 2003; now, there are only two categories. And they're easy to remember as well - A is for all nations that participated in the previous year's Worlds, B for all other nations.
    This means that the national championships of the top nations like Italy, France or Belgium will be worth less, while those of Eritrea, Turkey or Guatemala increase in value. The national championships of Malaysia, Moldova or Egypt will carry (a lot) more points too.

    The U23 Worlds and the Continental championships weren't part of the UCI rankings in 2003; they have been included in the rankings since 2005. Continental Games (like the Pan-Am Games, All-Africa Games or Asian Games) have been rewarded for a few years, but now they're considered to be on par with the Continental championships, a marked increase in value. It will be interested if the European Games or the Commonwealth Games will also be considered for inclusion.

    Finally, before 2005, the UCI also rewarded the Hour Record, and not too shabbily: Setting a new record would net you the equivalent of winning a World Cup race.
    In the new points system, the Hour Record isn't mentioned at all. It would be nice if the UCI recognised this re-invigorated discipline of cycling in its new ranking, too.


    Cat. 2016Cat. 2003Position201620032003 x 1.5Percentage
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR1600400600100
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR2475240360132
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR3400200300133
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR4325180270120
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR5275160240115
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR101008012083
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR2030223391
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR30201015133
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR4010101567
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR5010101567
    WC/OG RRWC/OG RR603101520
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT135024036097
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT2250150225111
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT3200120180111
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT415010816293
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT51259614487
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT1050487269
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT2051725,520
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT30057,50
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT40057,50
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT50057,50
    WC/OG ITTWC/OG ITT60057,50
    WC U23 RRWC U23 RR120000-
    WC U23 RRWC U23 RR215000-
    WC U23 RRWC U23 RR312500-
    WC U23 RRWC U23 RR410000-
    WC U23 RRWC U23 RR58500-
    WC U23 RRWC U23 RR103500-
    WC U23 RRWC U23 RR20500-
    WC U23 RRWC U23 RR30500-
    WC U23 RRWC U23 RR40300-
    WC U23 ITTWC U23 ITT112500-
    WC U23 ITTWC U23 ITT28500-
    WC U23 ITTWC U23 ITT37000-
    WC U23 ITTWC U23 ITT46000-
    WC U23 ITTWC U23 ITT55000-
    WC U23 ITTWC U23 ITT102000-
    WC U23 ITTWC U23 ITT20300-
    NC-A RRNC2 RR1708012058
    NC-A RRNC2 RR255487276
    NC-A RRNC2 RR340406067
    NC-A RRNC2 RR430365456
    NC-A RRNC2 RR525324852
    NC-A RRNC2 RR103121817
    NC-A RRNC2 RR20057,50
    NC-A ITTNC2 ITT130406050
    NC-A ITTNC2 ITT225243669
    NC-A ITTNC2 ITT320203067
    NC-A ITTNC2 ITT415182756
    NC-A ITTNC2 ITT510162442
    NC-A ITTNC2 ITT1016911
    NC-B RRNC4 RR1301522,5133
    NC-B RRNC4 RR225913,5185
    NC-B RRNC4 RR320812167
    NC-B RRNC4 RR415710,5143
    NC-B RRNC4 RR51069111
    NC-B RRNC4 RR10111,567
    NC-B ITTNC4 ITT115812125
    NC-B ITTNC4 ITT21057,5133
    NC-B ITTNC4 ITT354683
    NC-B ITTNC4 ITT4323100
    NC-B ITTNC4 ITT5111,567
    CC/CG RRCC/CG RR125000-
    CC/CG RRCC/CG RR220000-
    CC/CG RRCC/CG RR315000-
    CC/CG RRCC/CG RR412500-
    CC/CG RRCC/CG RR510000-
    CC/CG RRCC/CG RR104000-
    CC/CG RRCC/CG RR20300-
    CC/CG ITTCC/CG ITT17000-
    CC/CG ITTCC/CG ITT25500-
    CC/CG ITTCC/CG ITT34000-
    CC/CG ITTCC/CG ITT43000-
    CC/CG ITTCC/CG ITT52500-
    CC/CG ITTCC/CG ITT10300-
    CC U23 RRCC U23 RR17000-
    CC U23 RRCC U23 RR25500-
    CC U23 RRCC U23 RR34000-
    CC U23 RRCC U23 RR43000-
    CC U23 RRCC U23 RR52500-
    CC U23 RRCC U23 RR10300-
    CC U23 ITTCC U23 ITT12500-
    CC U23 ITTCC U23 ITT22000-
    CC U23 ITTCC U23 ITT31500-
    CC U23 ITTCC U23 ITT41000-
    CC U23 ITTCC U23 ITT5500-
    Hour RecordHour RecordNew record02403600
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 19:08 by LukasCPH »

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11512
    • Liked: 7409
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #7 on: January 02, 2016, 16:49 »
    Qualification for World Championships & Olympics

    It can be reasonably expected that the introduction of a new unified ranking system will also have an effect on the qualification rules for Worlds and Olympics.

    As it is now, these rules are notoriously hard to understand, leading to a lot of confusion among riders and fans alike.
    A unified ranking where every rider gets points for every result, no matter which race it was achieved in, does away with the main reason for the current qualification system - why continue to use the WorldTour ranking and separate rankings for each continent if you have one ranking that covers everything?
    Another very important issue is that with a rolling ranking, points scored after the mid-August deadline will no longer be worthless for Worlds qualification, as they'll now be part of the ranking for the next year instead of disappearing.



    I'm not crazy enough to re-calculate all 2015 results using the new points scales. Instead, I will take the CQ nations ranking (for the end of 2015) and compare it with the separate rankings the UCI used for allocating Worlds & Olympics qualification quotas.

    For this comparison, I will only consider nations who qualify directly via the various nations rankings, and completely disregard the nations qualifying via riders on the individual rankings.
    This will alter the quotas somewhat from the ones posted the other day in the Olympics qualification thread as the Olympics have a set maximum number of participants - but for the sake of comparing the comprehensibility of qualifications via a unified ranking vs. the current system, it will nevertheless do well.

    Where the quota of a given nation changes when using a unified ranking, I've coloured that quota (green for an increase, orange for a reduction) and bolded it.


    Name Continent CQ points WC 2015 WC new OG 2016 OG new
    *es Spain Europe 11519 9 9 5 5
    *be Belgium Europe 9944 9 9 5 5
    *it Italy Europe 9466 9 9 5 5
    *fr France Europe 8667 9 9 4 5
    *nl Netherlands Europe 7796 9 9 4 5
    *uk Great Britain Europe 7035 9 9 5 4
    *co Colombia America 6613 9 9 5 4
    *au Australia Oceania 5995 9 9 4 4
    *de Germany Europe 5315 9 9 4 4
    *no Norway Europe 5210 9 9 4 4
    *pl Poland Europe 4234 6 6 4 4
    *dk Denmark Europe 3734 6 6 3 4
    *si Slovenia Europe 3544 6 6 4 4
    *cz Czech Republic Europe 3423 3 6 4 4
    *ru Russia Europe 3348 6 6 3 4
    *pt Portugal Europe 3301 3 6 4 3
    *ch Switzerland Europe 3071 0 6 4 3
    *usa United States America 2934 3/6* 6 2 3
    *sk Slovakia Europe 2730 0 6 2 3
    *ir Iran Asia 2132 6 6 3 3
    *by Belarus Europe 2009 3 3 3 3
    *ua Ukraine Europe 1914 6 3 3 3
    *at Austria Europe 1881 6 3 3 3
    *lu Luxembourg Europe 1830 0 3 0 3
    *za South Africa Africa 1822 3 3 2 3
    *ca Canada America 1709 6 3 3 3
    *lt Lithuania Europe 1660 3 3 2 2
    *ee Estonia Europe 1621 3 3 2 2
    *ie Ireland Europe 1606 3 3 2 2
    *nz New Zealand Oceania 1547 3 3 2 2
    *kz Kazakhstan Asia 1357 3 3 2 2
    *hr Croatia Europe 1219 0 3 2 2
    *ma Morocco Africa 1040 6 3 3 2
    *dz Algeria Africa 938 3 3 2 2
    *ar Argentina America 929 6 3 3 2
    *er Eritrea Africa 901 0 3 2 2
    *lv Latvia Europe 816 3 3 2 2
    *cr Costa Rica America 764 0 2
    *tr Turkey Europe 686 3 0 3 2
    *se Sweden Europe 654 2 2
    *jp Japan Asia 630 3 0 2 2
    *ro Romania Europe 543 2 2
    *ve Venezuela America 474 3 0 3 2
    *rw Rwanda Africa 454 0 2
    *br Brazil America 419 3 0 2 2
    *tn Tunisia Africa 384
    *cn China Asia 370
    *bg Bulgaria Europe 354
    *gr Greece Europe 344 2 0
    *kr South Korea Asia 308 3 0 2 0
    *hk Hong Kong Asia 250
    *et Ethiopia Africa 238
    *rs Serbia Europe 225 2 0

    Notes:
    * USA qualified 6 Worlds spots as host nation, would otherwise only have qualified 3 spots


    As the globalisation of cycling is a stated goal of the UCI, here's a table of how the various qualification methods would affect the number of nations qualified per continent:
    Continent WC 2015 WC new OG 2016 OG new
    Africa 3 4 4 5
    America 6 4 6 7
    Asia 4 2 4 3
    Europe 22 25 29 28
    Oceania 2 2 2 2
    Total 37 37 45 45

    As could be expected, the number of European nations qualified for the Worlds increases - but this is, surprisingly, not true for the Olympics, where a greater number of nations qualify.
    To me, that indicates that a number of non-European nations are just outside the top-37 necessary to qualify for the Worlds, but inside the top-45 that make it to the Olympics. And indeed, of the 8 nations in that range, only 3 are from Europe.

    The big loser with a unified ranking Asia, always qualifying fewer nations through a unified ranking than they did via the separate Continental Tours.
    America does lose two qualified nations for the Worlds, but gains one for the Olympics, while Oceania stays stable (of course, this 'continent' consists only of Australia and New Zealand).
    Interestingly, Europe isn't the only winner of a unified ranking, though: Africa increases its number of qualified nations for both the Worlds and the Olympics.


    However, this analysis only covered the number of nations qualified. What about the number of riders?
    Continent WC 2015 WC new OG 2016 OG new
    Africa 12 12 9 11
    America 30-33 21 18 18
    Asia 15 9 9 7
    Europe 132 147 94 94
    Oceania 12 12 6 6
    Total 201-204 201 136 136

    Here, the losses for Asia are more pronounced, going from 15 to 9 riders at the Worlds, and from 9 to 7 at the Olympics. America also loses massively, from 30-33 to only 21 at the Worlds, while the number of American riders at the Olympics stays the same despite one more nation qualifying.
    Africa doesn't increase its numbers at the Worlds as the 12 places are simply distributed to one more nation, but does gain two spots at the Olympics. Oceania, as before, stays stable.
    Europe gains numbers at the Worlds, taking in all the losses from Asia and America, but stays at the same quota for the Olympics.



    To me, all this shows that while the introduction of a unified ranking does favour European over non-European nations - something to be careful about if the goal remains to globalise cycling -, the current system also skews qualification numbers in favour of some continents (Asia and America) and to the disadvantage of others (Africa).

    I acknowledge that I'm a fan of African cycling and would therefore speak more in favour of a change to qualifying via a unified ranking than if I were a huge supporter of Asian cycling ... but most of all, this should be about fairness. There are many .1 and .HC events on the Asian calendar, yet Asian nations (apart from Iran) can't turn that into a points haul that would justify their current number of Worlds qualification spots.

    One has to be careful, though, to disadvantage any one continent by introducing a 'one size fits all' unified ranking, and introducing minimum numbers of qualified nations for each continent is worth considering.
    I would make that 3 each from Africa and Asia, 5 from America and 1 from Oceania. Europe doesn't need a minimum number as they'll qualify plenty nations anyway.

    A different approach could be to do away with the qualification pathways through individual rankings currently used by a number of top-heavy nations (Switzerland, Slovakia or Luxembourg come to mind), and distribute those qualification spots to other nations via the nations ranking. In 2015, 51 nations qualified a total of 228 riders for the Worlds. A very similar number could be achieved by using the following qualification method:
    Placing Riders Total
    1 - 10 9 90
    11 - 20 6 60
    21 - 35 3 45
    36 - 50 2 30
    Total 225

    Applying this method to a unified ranking would give these numbers of nations and riders per continent for the Worlds:
    Continent Nations Riders
    Africa 6 15
    America 7 27
    Asia 5 15
    Europe 30 156
    Oceania 2 12

    Compare that to the actual numbers of nations and riders per continent qualified for Richmond 2015:
    Continent Nations Riders
    Africa 5 14
    America 10 39
    Asia 4 15
    Europe 30 148
    Oceania 2 12

    Only America and Europe have significantly different numbers. If you bear in mind that the USA only qualified 6 riders by virtue of being the host nation, the difference shrinks a bit; it also tells you that the US had a relatively poor year - sometimes in the past, the US had 9 riders on the start line.
    The rest of the difference comes from nations like Canada or Argentina qualifying only 3 riders each instead of 6. Venezuela and Costa Rica also qualify only 2 riders instead of 3.
    The same is true for Morocco in Africa, but here the loss is more than outweighed by Eritrea, Tunisia and Rwanda qualifying directly.



    To conclude, I see the following advantages of calculating the nations qualifying for the Worlds and Olympics through a unified ranking:
    1) It's dead easy to understand. If you're in the top-50 of nations, you're qualified; if not, you're not. Everyone can figure it out by one short look at the rankings - no more complicated calculations.
    2) It's fair - every nation needs the same amount of points to qualify; there is no longer a difference in the number of points you need from continent to continent.

    There are disadvantages, too: A unified qualification could lead to a decrease in the number of Asian (and American) riders at the Worlds and Olympics. However, this shouldn't be overrated: The 2015 rankings are, to a degree, anecdotal. If Argentina, Malaysia, Brazil or Costa Rica perform stronger next year, their continents might well qualify just as many (or more) riders.

    Furthermore, I have to ask how much value the 4th to 6th riders of Canada, Argentina or Morocco actually add to the race. Wouldn't everyone (except of course those individual riders) be better served by giving those spots to nations like Eritrea, Romania, China or Bulgaria?


    All in all, the pros far outweigh the cons for me. Now we only need to get the UCI to apply as much common sense to the Worlds qualfication process as they did to the issue of their rankings. ;)
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 21:24 by LukasCPH »

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11512
    • Liked: 7409
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #8 on: January 02, 2016, 16:49 »
    That's it, I'm all spreadsheeted out.

    Discuss. :)
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: January 02, 2016, 21:25 by LukasCPH »

    Carlo Algatrensig

    • National Champion
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 861
    • Liked: 1042
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #9 on: January 02, 2016, 23:41 »
    Thanks for putting the legwork in on this. It's something that definitely interests me comparing the world rankings.

    I may be wrong but to me it looks like the stage races at GT/WT level have been favoured over one day races compared to the old system but at lower levels of racing one day racing has been given a greater boost in terms of points compared to stage racing.

    I'm wondering if there is anyone who could back fit this point system to see who would have been the world number one for the last few years using this system
  • ReplyReply

  • AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 6567
    • Liked: 4001
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #10 on: January 03, 2016, 05:39 »
    wow - incredible amount of work there - well done   !!!     :cool


    It is interesting.   It is inevitable I think that the UCI will give more points and more preference to the winners of those races who want to be WT ...

    so while the old-faithful cycling fan will not like that GP Quebec earns more points than some traditionally prestigous races - its in the UCI's interest to do this so it was always going to happen.

    It does then give races a reason to deal and negotiate with the UCI - who is technically supposed to be working for the overall good of the sport - rather than each promoter working against each other.

    I do like having 1 ranking system, and I do wish the UCI would make more of the eventual year end 'world no 1'.   Whether they have the mix of points right I dont know. 
  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11512
    • Liked: 7409
      • lukascph.media
    • Awards: Staff of the year 2016Staff of the year 2015Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014National Championships Predictions Game Winner 2014Velorooms Monday Quiz ChampionPoster of the Year 2013
    Re: The 'new' World Ranking
    « Reply #11 on: January 03, 2016, 09:16 »
    I may be wrong but to me it looks like the stage races at GT/WT level have been favoured over one day races compared to the old system but at lower levels of racing one day racing has been given a greater boost in terms of points compared to stage racing.
    You're partially right.

    The races that used to be 2.HC in the old days (Tour de Suisse, Paris-Nice etc.) have received a bigger boost to the point awarded to the overall winner than the Monuments (which were part of the World Cup). That is only logical, since back then the World Cup (of one-day races only) was the 'premium' category, while the WorldTour (of one-day and stage races) is the 'premium' category now.
    This is only true for the winners' points, though - if you look at the rest of the top-5, you'll see that the points for placing in a WT one-day race have increased more than those for a WT stage race.
    Finally, you have to remember that these tables show the long-term trend ... WT events, whether one-day or stage races, have carried the same amount of points for the last decade.

    Regarding the boost to one-day racing at Continental levels, I agree.

    I'm wondering if there is anyone who could back fit this point system to see who would have been the world number one for the last few years using this system
    Yeah, that would be great. But while I'm certainly crazy, I'm not that crazy! :lol
    It would require putting every single UCI race of 2015 into a spreadsheet ... no thanks. While I would find it intriguing to find out myself, I neither have the time to do it manually nor the coding ability to automate the process.
    Look to the number geeks of CQ, PCS or Infostrada for that. ;)

    It is interesting.   It is inevitable I think that the UCI will give more points and more preference to the winners of those races who want to be WT ...

    so while the old-faithful cycling fan will not like that GP Quebec earns more points than some traditionally prestigous races - its in the UCI's interest to do this so it was always going to happen.

    It does then give races a reason to deal and negotiate with the UCI - who is technically supposed to be working for the overall good of the sport - rather than each promoter working against each other.
    Very good point. :cool
    Personally, I'm not fundamentally opposed to giving the Canadian GPs a higher rating than San Sebastián, Hamburg or Plouay - they often are better races than the European autumn classics. Flèche Wallonne is a different matter ... but I think that its 'downgrading' has to do with the race being held on a weekday.
    I would wish that the Canadian GPs would increase the race distance though. ~200 km isn't enough for a top-level classic; add a couple of laps to each race to reach 225-240 km, and it would be perfect.

    I do like having 1 ranking system, and I do wish the UCI would make more of the eventual year end 'world no 1'.   Whether they have the mix of points right I dont know.
    Yes. Back in the day, the final winner of the world ranking was a big deal; and it was always a true star of the sport: UCI Road World Rankings on Wikipedia
    Kelly, Fignon, Bugno, Indurain, Rominger, Jalabert, Bartoli, Casagrande, Zabel, Bettini, Cunego ... That is a list you'll want to add your own name to. :cool

    We'll see who will come out on top in 2016. I predict that simply doing well in WT races won't be enough - it will get you a high placing, but the points haul from a couple of well-selected Continental-level races could take other riders past you. It won't be Froome, Quintana or Purito winning - look instead to Valverde, Sagan or Kristoff.
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    Recent Posts



    Top
    Back to top