collapse

Poll

Which rankings system gives the best reflection of the comparative performances in 2016?

UCI
0 (0%)
CQ
6 (66.7%)
PCS
2 (22.2%)
Can't really choose between them
0 (0%)
No real merit in any of them
1 (11.1%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: February 19, 2017, 20:47


Armchair Cyclist

  • Classics Winner
  • *
  • Country: 00
  • Posts: 2762
  • Liked: 3111
  • Awards: 2019 Spring Classics Prediction Champ2018 Tour de France CQ game winner
Comparing rankings; UCI vs CQ vs PCS
« on: January 22, 2017, 20:31 »
When the UCI stopped giving ranking points for all the races in 2005, CQ picked up the baton and continued, trying to keep the same points as far as possible, with some adaptations as circumstances changed.  PCS have done likewise, but don't publish their scale of what points are given for what races (although it could be compiled by going through race by race), and last year the UCI recommenced their own rankings, with a new point scale.

Which is most meaningful, the true reflection of the best rider, is essentially a matter of opinion as to which races are most valued, but comparison can at least be facilitated.  This list has the 109 riders who appear in at least one of the top 100s for the year to 31 December, with their positions (joint 10th shown as position 10.5) and their score in each algorithm represented as a percentage of the top scorer.

UCI pos'n UCI index CQ pos'n CQ index PCS pos'n PCS index
SAGAN Peter      1      100      1      100      1      100
FROOME Chris      2      70.37      2      77.17      2      69.48
VAN AVERMAET Greg      3      69.14      4      68.91      4      64.64
QUINTANA ROJAS Nairo Alexander      4      65.84      3      72.33      5      61.52
VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro      5      54.04      5      64.41      3      64.75
BARDET Romain      6      47.62      8      50.41      7      48.77
KRISTOFF Alexander      7      45.27      6      59.30      6      57.83
CONTADOR VELASCO Alberto      8      45.14      7      51.35      8      47.40
ULISSI Diego      9      45.06      9      47.60      9      47.34
CHAVES RUBIO Jhoan Esteban      10      40.47      13      39.73      16      37.09
MATTHEWS Michael      11      37.21      18      37.31      24      34.65
IZAGIRRE INSAUSTI Ion      12      36.29      14      39.04      11      39.52
CANCELLARA Fabian      13      35.44      23      34.84      19      36.08
PORTE Richie      14      34.76      25      33.53      21      35.22
COLBRELLI Sonny      15      34.09      17      37.47      18      36.52
NIZZOLO Giacomo      16      33.23      10      45.69      12      38.34
ALAPHILIPPE Julian      17      32.49      24      34.80      20      36.02
COQUARD Bryan      18      32.08      11      40.97      10      39.88
CAVENDISH Mark      19      31.48      16      37.83      14      37.53
BOUHANNI Nacer      20      30.42      21      35.56      23      34.68
NIBALI Vincenzo      21      30.26      19      36.80      22      35.01
PLANCKAERT Baptiste      22      29.95      27      32.48      31      30.22
BOONEN Tom      23      29.28      35      28.76      35      27.49
DUMOULIN Tom      24      28.40      15      38.10      13      37.86
PINOT Thibaut      25      28.09      26      33.38      28      31.62
DEMARE Arnaud      26      28.06      31      29.63      32      30.10
COSTA Rui Alberto Faria      27      27.23      29      31.99      26      33.94
BOASSON HAGEN Edvald      28      27.15      12      40.76      17      36.70
MARTIN Daniel      29      26.68      30      30.03      25      34.09
DUPONT Timothy      30      26.59      37      27.67      39      26.21
GROENEWEGEN Dylan      31      25.95      22      35.08      29.5      31.44
VANMARCKE Sep      32      24.69      55      22.50      52      22.26
KITTEL Marcel      33      24.60      20      36.23      15      37.12
MOLLEMA Bauke      34      24.18      34      28.97      29.5      31.44
RODRIGUEZ OLIVER Joaquim      35      24.07      38      26.73      34      27.88
ZAKARIN Ilnur      36      24.05      40      26.22      33      28.83
GREIPEL André      37      23.68      28      32.39      27      33.14
MAJKA Rafal      38      23.21      33      29.24      36      26.89
HENAO MONTOYA Sergio Luis      39      22.69      36      28.18      38      26.54
GAVIRIA RENDON Fernando      40      22.33      42      25.19      45      24.43
GALLOPIN Tony      41      22.04      39      26.61      46      24.34
DUMOULIN Samuel      42      21.91      45      24.37      43      24.84
BRAMBILLA Gianluca      43      20.98      32      29.51      37      26.72
POELS Wout      44      20.79      43      25.16      44      24.67
URAN URAN Rigoberto      45      20.75      62      20.77      56      21.19
VAKOC Petr      46      20.08      54      22.89      55      21.58
BETTIOL Alberto      47      19.74      88      17.18      95      16.11
FUGLSANG Jakob      48      19.39      48      23.59      41      25.23
LOPEZ MORENO Miguel Angel      49      19.35      53      23.07      63.5      19.70
YATES Simon      50      19.31      72      18.78      67      19.11
JUNGELS Bob      51      19.30      41      26.13      42      25.05
NAESEN Oliver      52      19.07      68      19.44      59      20.56
GASPAROTTO Enrico      53      18.72      94.5      16.66      78      18.04
THOMAS Geraint      54      18.68      46      24.25      40      26.09
YATES Adam      55      18.62      61      20.83      53      21.81
TERPSTRA Niki      56      18.61      52      23.10      47      24.22
GAVAZZI Francesco      57      18.42      51      23.28      65      19.47
STYBAR Zdenek      58      18.33      58      22.26      58      20.95
VISCONTI Giovanni      59      18.26      44      24.74      48      24.13
WELLENS Tim      60      17.65      56      22.35      61      20.33
ARU Fabio      61      17.04      49.5      23.50      49      23.30
BENOOT Tiesj      62      16.72      84      17.78      90      16.49
BARGUIL Warren      63      16.66      76      18.54      76      18.16
TALANSKY Andrew      64      16.23      69      19.38      71      18.90
GERRANS Simon      65      16.18      87      17.27      81      17.59
PANTANO GOMEZ Jarlinson      66      15.97      65      20.38      54      21.66
KWIATKOWSKI Michal      67      15.86      78      18.48      68.5      19.11
GILBERT Philippe      68      15.79      49.5      23.50      60      20.36
ROSA Diego      69      15.49      80      18.14      97      15.90
VALGREN ANDERSEN Michael      70      15.41      99      16.36      91      16.46
DEVENYNS Dries      71      15.28      63      20.56      66      19.14
KELDERMAN Wilco      72      14.90      47      23.98      50      23.09
KANGERT Tanel      73      14.89      59      22.17      57      20.98
KRUIJSWIJK Steven      74      14.87      82      17.96      102      15.01
DEGENKOLB John      75      14.85      97      16.63      83      17.38
TRENTIN Matteo      76      14.83      64      20.47      68.5      19.11
ROELANDTS Jürgen      77      14.72      96      16.63      101      15.10
DENNIS Rohan      78      14.30      57      22.32      51      22.67
SWIFT Ben      79      14.13      77      18.51      75      18.45
DEHAES Kenny      80      14.00      100      16.06      105      14.56
SANCHEZ GONZALEZ Samuel       81      13.80      101      16.00      96      16.08
MORENO FERNANDEZ Daniel      82      13.57      98      16.42      73      18.63
KREUZIGER Roman      83      13.53      83      17.84      77      18.13
ATAPUMA HURTADO Jhon Darwin      84      13.52      60      22.13      63.5      19.70
VAN GARDEREN Tejay      85      13.14      86      17.36      72      18.81
MOSCON Gianni      86      13.14      71      18.81      109      13.79
REICHENBACH Sébastien      87      13.07      89      17.12      70      19.08
EWAN Caleb      88      12.89      93      16.69      74      18.57
LATOUR Pierre      89.5      12.76      67      19.50      84      17.33
MEINTJES Louis      89.5      12.76      94.5      16.66      85      17.24
BAKELANTS Jan      91      12.74      70      19.23      79      17.92
CORT NIELSEN Magnus      92      12.26      91.5      16.78      86      17.09
VICHOT Arthur      93      12.13      75      18.57      110      13.73
BENNETT Sam      94      12.11      85      17.45      93      16.32
CASTROVIEJO NICOLAS Jonathan      95      12.07      91.5      16.78      88.5      16.88
DEBUSSCHERE Jens      96      11.98      106      15.42      111      13.67
ROUX Anthony      97      11.94      132      12.76      160      10.55
ALBASINI Michael      98      11.89      125      13.15      114      13.46
PARDILLA BELLON Sergio      99      11.79      73      18.72      88.5      16.88
FELLINE Fabio      100      11.72      79      18.36      82      17.56
LUTSENKO Alexey      102      11.57      81      17.99      94      16.29
MARTIN Tony      103      11.45      66      19.87      62      20.30
SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon      104      11.42      74      18.69      80      17.83
MCLAY Daniel      109      10.93      104.5      15.63      92      16.37
ROCHE Nicolas      110      10.88      90      16.96      106      14.41
MEERSMAN Gianni      112      10.77      102      15.75      87      17.06
CUMMINGS Stephen      113      10.56      104.5      15.63      99      15.42
HERMANS Ben      129      9.16      103      15.72      100      15.25
POZZOVIVO Domenico      133      8.73      113      14.27      98      15.69

Correlation co-efficients (Spearman): 
UCI to CQ  0.909
UCI to PCS  0.914
CQ to PCS  0.961


Biggest discrepancies:
KELDERMAN Wilco:    47th (23.98%) on CQ and 50th (23.09%) on PCS, but 72nd (14.9%) on UCI
SANCHEZ GIL Luis Leon:   74th (18.69%) on CQ,  104th (11.42%) on UCI
ATAPUMA HURTADO Jhon Darwin:   60th (22.13%) on CQ, 84th (13.52%) on UCI
HERMANS Ben:  100th (15.25) on PCS, 129th (9.16%) on UCI
MARTIN Tony:  62nd (20.3%) on PCS,  103rd (11.45%) on UCI
POZZOVIVO Domenico:   98th (13.69%) on PCS,  133rd (8.73%) on UCI
CANCELLARA Fabian:  13th on UCI,  23rd on CQ
GASPAROTTO Enrico:   53th on UCI,  jt94th on CQ
PORTE Richie:  14th on UCI, 25th on CQ
COQUARD Bryan: 10th on PCS, 18th on UCI
DUMOULIN Tom:  13th on PCS, 24th on UCI
BETTIOL Alberto:   47th on UCI, 95th on PCS
MATTHEWS Michael:  11th on UCI, 24th on PCS
KITTEL Marcel: 15th on PCS, 33rd on UCI
BOASSON HAGEN Edvald:  12th on CQ, 28th on UCI


So is it those that will sway your preference as to which is the more reliable and meaningful measure?
Or is it a more basic question like who was 3rd best in 2016 behind Sagan and Froome: Van Avermaet (UCI), Quintana (CQ) or Valverde (PCS)?  Or which of these would you include in the year's top ten: Chaves (UCI), Nizzolo (CQ) or Coquard (PCS)?


  • ReplyReply

  • LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11884
    • Liked: 7734
      • 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: Comparing rankings; UCI vs CQ vs PCS
    « Reply #1 on: January 22, 2017, 23:35 »
    So is it those that will sway your preference as to which is the more reliable and meaningful measure?
    To me, it's quite simple:
    PCS is a results site, and it's great for that. I don't look at their rankings at all.
    CQ is a ranking site, the best there is. Period

    UCI ... well, they do the official rankings, so in that way they're important.
    And the new World Ranking is better than the strict divide between WorldTour and Continental Tours that they kept up for 11 seasons and that led to a bunch of weird, illogical stuff:
    Riders/nations being shut out of Worlds/Olympics purely due to the continent they were on (as the same amount of points would have qualified them on another continent); smaller, top-heavy nations being unproportionally rewarded/punished for a good/bad season of their top riders (*sk *lu *kz *za *dk *pl *za are some of the examples I can think off); it being impossible to compare WT riders that mostly succeeded in Continental races with PCT riders that were also successful in WT races; I could go on.

    The re-introduction of the World Ranking remedies several of these issues, but the case isn't closed yet. Soon (probably during the 'cross Worlds), the UCI will publish the qualification criteria for this year's Worlds. Until & including 2004, the Worlds qualification was based on the 'old' World Ranking - since 2005, it has been split up into WT/WR and separate continents. Now that the 'new' World Ranking is operational, the only thing that made sense would be to return to a simple, easily-understandable qualification process and use only the World Ranking, not the separate Continental rankings anymore.

    Time will tell. :shh
  • ReplyReply
  • Cyclingnews Women's WorldTour Correspondent
    2017 0711|CYCLING PR Manager; 2016 Stölting Content Editor
    Views presented are my own. RIP Keith & Sean

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 31821
    • Liked: 11387
    • Awards: 2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: Comparing rankings; UCI vs CQ vs PCS
    « Reply #2 on: January 23, 2017, 07:40 »
    I use CQ rankings, but the new/old UCIworld ranking probably will be the future of rankings once they work through a few bugs
  • ReplyReply
  • Of course, if this turns out someday to be the industry standard integrated handlebar-computer-braking solution then I'll eat my kevlar-reinforced aerodynamic hat.

    Larri Nov 12, 2014

    LukasCPH

    • World Champion
    • *
    • Country: de
    • Posts: 11884
    • Liked: 7734
      • 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: Comparing rankings; UCI vs CQ vs PCS
    « Reply #3 on: January 23, 2017, 08:08 »
    I use CQ rankings, but the new/old UCIworld ranking probably will be the future of rankings once they work through a few bugs
    Yeah, it ought to be the future. If the UCI do work through the bugs.
    And that's far from a given, sadly. They're more likely to continue adjusting it piecemeal and with no overarching plan. :fp
  • ReplyReply

  • DJW

    • Road Captain
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 1299
    • Liked: 896
    • Awards: Rio Olympics Prediction Champ
    Re: Comparing rankings; UCI vs CQ vs PCS
    « Reply #4 on: January 23, 2017, 10:26 »
    I generally use CQ rankings because all of the games use it too, but increasingly I've used PCS for riders I know less about.
    That's because there seems to be a lot more info on PCS in terms of race days and all participations, upcoming calendar etc.

    With regards to reliability, it's not surprising that CQ and PCS have the highest correlation as they've always seemed pretty similar, so I'd happily use a combination of both.
  • ReplyReply

  • Joelsim

    • Classics Winner
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 2998
    • Liked: 1824
      • Music To Your Ears
    • Awards: Fanboy of 2016New member of the year 2015
    Re: Comparing rankings; UCI vs CQ vs PCS
    « Reply #5 on: January 23, 2017, 10:49 »
    CQ is better IMO. Riders like Coquard have to race plenty of smaller races simply due to the team he's in. To not include his points from winning many of these seems a bit wrong.
  • ReplyReply

  • Arb

    • Road Captain
    • Country: an
    • Posts: 2370
    • Liked: 572
    Re: Comparing rankings; UCI vs CQ vs PCS
    « Reply #6 on: January 23, 2017, 11:05 »
    None of them really mean much, it's not even possible to have a ranking system determined by the strength of the field because that ignores factors such as race type (which are ultimately subjective).

    That is a good thing about the sport.
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    Recent Posts

    Re: Milano - Sanremo by Echoes
    [August 09, 2020, 12:35]


    Re: 2020 Smaller Race Results and Discussion by t-72
    [August 08, 2020, 22:22]


    Re: 2020 Smaller Race Results and Discussion by Leadbelly
    [August 08, 2020, 21:49]


    Re: Milano - Sanremo by t-72
    [August 08, 2020, 12:08]


    Re: Milano - Sanremo by search
    [August 08, 2020, 11:55]


    Re: Milano - Sanremo by t-72
    [August 08, 2020, 11:32]

    Recent Topics



    Top
    Back to top