UCI rankings

andyp

Does anyone else find the UCI ranking system a bit odd?

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... nking.html

How can Allan Davis be ranked 9th in the World when he's won just 4 races this season (3 stages and the overall of the TDU), yet Cavendish is just two places ahead of him having won 23 races (which includes Milan-San Remo and 9 GT stage wins)? That's a quantum difference in quality.

Cycling Quotient have Cavendish ranked 3rd and Davis 23rd, which seems more like it.

Pokerface

Does the CQ rankings take into effect non-UCI events also?

Kléber

Davis has had a few "quality" second places but then again Cav has bagged MSR and plenty of other excellent races. Davis is just a quiet rider who never wins much but is often there in the finish of the race. But I suspect you know this andyp!

Also, how come Samuel Sanchez makes the top-10, as he's not exactly been prolific this winner?

Eau Rouge

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... k&LangId=1

Thats the "detailed gained points" list, a link on the top right hand corner of the rankings page, showing where each rider picked up their points. Allan Davis, 4th in M-SR, only lost 40 points to Cav there, for example.

andyp

Davis got 122 points for his ride at the TDU, yet Cavendish gets just 100 points for M-SR! :shock:

That's insane, the TDU is nothing more than a warm weather training race.

iainf72

andyp wrote:

Davis got 122 points for his ride at the TDU, yet Cavendish gets just 100 points for M-SR! :shock:

That's insane, the TDU is nothing more than a warm weather training race.

Stop being old fashioned.

The TdU is a PROTOUR race. Therefore as good as it gets.

I bet you stil use toeclips.

The UCI rankings seem meaningless.

Kléber

The UCI's efforts to grant status to the TDU only end up devaluing the UCI rankings, points inflation only undermines the value of the whole series.

afx237vi

Pokerface wrote:

Does the CQ rankings take into effect non-UCI events also?

CQ rankings use all UCI events, right down to *.2 races.

The UCI rankings ignore *.HC and below, meaning weight is given to pre-season training races like the Tour Down Under and no weight whatsoever is given to stuff like Het Volk or the Critérium International.

donrhummy

Personally I think they should change it so there's different categories. They should have a top stage racer, a top classics and a top "individual stages" racer.

mididoctors

Kléber wrote:

The UCI's efforts to grant status to the TDU only end up devaluing the UCI rankings, points inflation only undermines the value of the whole series.

+1

you race has to earn status and number of editions is not a pre-req


see eroica and ToB

RichN95.

Looking at it another way, I think the points for TdU are quite good. Cycling needs to expand it's horizons beyond Europe and this is a start - the two Canadian races next year.

The importance of the points is seen at the World Champs - two of the 'big five' countries - Netherlands and France - haven't got full teams. They'll look at the rankings, look at Davis and think let's go to Oz and get 'easy' points.

Cav will be eyeing up the next two WC routes, but if he wants nine riders he needs to get some points to keep GB in the top ten - Oz, easy pickings for a sprinter. Can't hope for the best for Ben Swift.

History's all well and good. The great races won't be touched. But I'd rather have important races outside Europe than Eneco and Poland.

Basically, if you want big races outside Europe then they have to be meaningful.

Jokull

This bugs me too. The UCI "World Ranking" is essentially the ProTour ranking re-branded. There hasn't been a real UCI world ranking since 2004.

The CQ ranking is run on the same principals as the old UCI ranking, including all UCI races. Last time I looked, France and Holland are still in the top 10 of the CQ ranking, and frankly, it is a better indicator of which countries should be sending 9 riders to the World Championships.