Talk:Cycling monument

Winning 2 monuments in a single year - errors

I believe Louison Bobet won San Remo and Lombardia both in 1951, but he isn't in the "2 monuments in the same year" section. 2601:640:8200:91A0:A521:6AF3:B07F:A133 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:640:8200:91A0:A521:6AF3:B07F:A133: You are correct he has been added. Paulpat99 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling monuments?

The article talks throughout about five races. Should the article be renamed to Cycling monuments? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other prestigious races

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_(cyclisme)#Autres_courses_prestigieuses Is it worth adding a section like the French article about other prestigious races? I.e. the potential of Strade Bianche to be a monument in future. Many sources to back such a section up too. Turini2 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so. Turini2 (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's events

Given that there is no general agreement on whether any women's event is really considered a monument, and especially given that monuments are characterised by their history and length, is there any real validity in listing women's results. There could of course be discussion of the issue, but I really don't believe it can be presented as an established fact that MSR is more of a monument among women's races than is Alfredo Binda.

We wouldn't want to be ignoring women's races, but an encyclopaedia is written according to the facts that pertain, not a belief in what should be. Kevin McE (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that there are plenty of sources (1 2 3 4 5 6 etc) that use the term monument in relation to women's races.

I think the article at present strikes the right balance. It notes that the men's races are older with more history, while including women's races and the history of them. It also notes the potential of other races (for both men and women) to be considered monuments in future.

Also - the actual use of "monument" in any official sense for men's races is relatively new in the grand scheme of things... Turini2 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So can you find a number of articles from different respected sources that all define the same list as an established list of women's monuments? That is what would be necessary, not a handful of unrelated claims about unrelated articles. In fact, can you find one article from a reliable source that states as undoubted fact that any given collection of races are the women's monuments?

There are articles that describe Binda as a monument of the women's calendar, so on what grounds do you believe that we should include those that are in the table and not that? There is an article linked that asks whether there are women's monuments, so on what basis do we beg that question and present a list of them?

These are women's races, the men's equivalents of which are four of what are considered to be the five monuments: that is undoubtedly true. But nowhere (to my knowledge) has it ever been taken as established that there are four women's monuments and these are they.

Can you find a source that says that Kopecky and Vollering are tied at 4 in the historical listing of women's monument winners, or that the Netherlands has 16 women's monuments in total? I'm afraid that is pure WP:Original Research, and that this list is unverified and unverifiable.

You might have the beginnings of a case if the article cited on Deignan's 2021 Paris Roubaix win described that as being the fist time a woman had won three monuments: it doesn't, but the idea that a man breaking the record for number of monument wins would not be mentioned is laughable. Equally with the article on Zabirova's Ronde: it refers to it and MSR both being World Cup events, but not a hint of the M word.

It is a poor reflection on the sport that this is the case, but an encyclopaedia is not about wishful thinking. The prose element of the article deals adequately with the issue, but the table and statistical summations suggest that a clearly defined, widely accepted subset of races in the women's calendar that is known as the monuments exists, and that is not the case. Kevin McE (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to this properly tomorrow. I'd like to note that you state "The prose element of the article deals adequately with the issue" – which is what I thought we were discussing.

The wider point is – what actually is a monument? The actual definition is relatively new for men's races too (as the article details). Does that mean the article should not reference Merckx, Coppi and Girardengo in results tables? No of course not. Turini2 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point has always been about that table of results and the totals derived from it: First sentence said "is there any real validity in listing women's results"

It really doesn't matter that the definition for men's monuments in "relatively new": it is established and widely agreed, and the identify of five races accorded that status is thoroughly verifiable. That is not the case if we try to apply the term to the women's calendar.

Nobody is suggesting that the concept is not retro-applied to the era of Merckx and much earlier, so I' not sure what your comments there are addressing. Kevin McE (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at sources from 2025 (such as previews of the cycling season), I can find several that unambiguously state that there are four women's monuments on the calendar:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/womens-worldtour-the-definitive-guide/ "adding a fourth Monument for the women's peloton to contest."
https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/what-are-the-monuments-the-biggest-one-day-races-in-professional-cycling/ "Of the four Monuments offered in women's cycling"
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-classics-monuments-cobbles preview of the season, lists both men's and women's races under the label "Monument" with no qualification/disclaimer

Obviously women's monuments are less established--there isn't official recognition from the UCI, some sources will list other races as potential monuments, etc.--but I think it's a stretch to say there's "no general agreement" on women's monuments in 2025.

As for the lists of most wins per rider, most wins per nation: I am definitely not an expert on WP:OR, but this seems like the type of easily verifiable calculation (WP:CALC) that exists on basically every sports statistic page? Of course I know that another article doing something doesn't make it acceptable, but it seems particularly widespread: All-time tennis records – Men's singles almost none of these lists cite a specific source with the full list, all the NBA award pages like NBA Most Valuable Player have secondary lists of multiple-time winners, wins per team that are not cited but can be calculated from the list of winners. Also present for AP NFL Most Valuable Player, Cy Young Award. I'm not trying to cherry-pick, these are just popular sports pages, most are featured lists. Verylongandmemorable (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From 2026, the UCI will recognise the four monument races with more UCI ranking points similar to the men. I've made an edit to the article in this regard. Turini2 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]