Posts
356
Joined
12/14/2018
Location
Tallahassee, FL
US
Cooper Webb 3x SX champ, some people love him and think he the the OG best in the game. Others say in a stacked outdoor field he might get 10th.
So my question is : How do you judge riders?
Do you think championships define a riders career, race wins, instagram followers or something else?
Poll
F: all of the above.
Championships is the easiest and most common ranking criteria because it’s not subjective, but for me personally, things like wins, individual performances, longevity etc come into it.
Speed and race wins. Sometimes that links up with amount of championships won but not always. I tend to trust championships the least as a metric of what makes a great rider. This is due to the fact that sometimes someone can have championships but bugger all wins, or wins with some serious asterisks next to them.
An example: If someone on here has the temerity to say Cooper Webb (3X SX championships) is a better rider than Stew (2X SX championships) I'll be flabbergasted. Wins tell a better story. Stew - 50 wins in 107 starts. Webb - 30 wins in 145 starts. Further to this, I take into consideration how the races were won. Stew won with raw incredible speed and style, often having to come through the pack. He also didn't need others to be having an off night. If he was on he'd win.
I also look at the competition, Chad, James and Ricky are all in the top 5, but got their wins against each other which is super impressive to me..
I rate riders how can pass other riders higher...
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
I made a spreadsheet years ago ranking riders based on wins and titles. I weighted titles 10x heavier than wins (with SX regional at half value). McGrath has 7 SX titles and 72 SX wins, Carmichael has 10 MX titles and 102 MX wins, so it seemed like a natural ratio.
Speed, consistency & level of competition. Then look at the average of that across both disciplines.
Championships, wins, and consistency. For instance with Webb, he has 3 titles in SX gnarly, and Stew and Reed only have 2, but both riders have more wins, rode against the goat, and won outdoor titles. Outdoor titles get slept on for some reason. Coops outdoor results will always hold him back in the all time discussion.
I go by Championships first, race wins second , and the era/ who did they collect those championships against. I think RC, James, Reed era was definitely the most competitive, especially when you had KW and DV in there.
Ultimately, championships are the best single metric in my opinion. But, I don't like ranking riders based on a single metric. While I think championships open up the debate, race wins and competition end up factoring in as well. For me, James Stewart with one less title, 50 wins, and doing it against RC, Reed, Villopoto, and Dungey ranks higher than Webb.
There is a line though - some will bring up guys like Roczen who have more "impressive" rides and may have won a lot of championships if not for an injury, but that's too far of a reach to say he would've won 3+ titles definitively.
It's a very complicated formula, but all the above go into it. You can't be a great rider without speed, stamina and that special "it" factor that makes you more dangerous than the rest of the field. There's also a need for toughness and the ability to avoid injury or heal quickly/ride through ones you do get. Of course those ingredients will add up to race wins and championships.
Post a reply to: How to you rank riders???