Golden arrow classification (Flêche d'Or)
In 1968, there was a classification for neo-professionals in the Tour dde France. It was called the Golden Arrow (french: Flêche d'Or). Every stage, the best six neo-professionals (riders below 23 years old or in their first or second year als professional cyclist) scored points: 10 for the best, 6 for the next, 4, 3, 2 and 1 for the sixth. If a stage was split, times from these split stages were combined before points were given out. (source) A long time ago, I did not know this, and was trying to find out what this classification was about. I keep it to show my investigation. The one thing I never figured out by myself was that split stages were combined, the rest was perfect.
Old info
In 1968, the Tour de France featured a Golden Arrow classification (Flêche d'or in French). It was a points-based classification specifically for neo-pros. The classification was won by Belgian Georges Pintens. The Golden Arrow was only used in 1968, although it may have returned under a different name in 1970 as the "Grand Prix des Jeunes." In a sense, it was a precursor to the young rider classification. Little information exists about the points system or the reasons for this classification, hence this attempt to compile the information.
- » Data
- » Participants
- » Points system
- » Classification
Data
The data below is from El Mundo Deportivo, completed with data from "Wielersport".
After stage 5
- Bolley: 22
- Ottenbros: 19
After stage 6
- Ottenbros: 29
- Bolley: 26
- Vianen: 20
- Desvages: 18
- Samyn: 16
After stage 7
- Vianen: 30
- Ottenbros: 30
- Bolley: 26
- Desvages: 24
- Samyn: 16
After stage 8
- Vianen: 36
- Ottenbros: 31
- Desvages: 30
- Bolley: 26
- Samyn: 16
After stage 9
- Vianen: 36
- Desvages: 34
- Ottenbros: 31
- Bolley: 26
- Leman: 18
After stage 10
- Vianen: 42
- Ottenbros: 41
- Desvages: 34
After stage 11
- Ottenbros
After stage 12
- Pintens: 38
- Bolley: 34
- Desvages: 34
- Leman: 24
- Clarey: 19
After stage 13
- Pintens
After stage 14
- Pintens
- Bolley
- Desvages
After stage 15
- Pintens: 58
- Bolley: 42
- Leman: 34
- Guyot: 23
- Clarey: 20
After stage 16
- Pintens: 46 (?)
- Bolley: 42
- Leman: 34
After stage 17
- Pintens: 68
- Bolley: 46
- Leman: 44
- Guyot: 33
- Clarey: 21
After stage 18
- Pintens: 76
- Bolley: 44
- Leman: 44
- Guyot: 29
After stage 19
- Pintens: 80
- Bolley: 44
- Leman: 44
- Gandarias: 37
- Guyot: 31
After stage 20
- Pintens: 86
- Bolley: 54
- Leman: 46
- Gandarias: 38
- Guyot: 31
After stage 22 (end of Tour)
- Pintens: 92
- Bolley: 64
- Leman: 56
- Gandarias: 38
- Guyot: 34
Participants
The classification was for neo-professionals, riders who were in their first or second year as pro. For the participants of the Tour, this were:
- Bernard Guyot Jr.
- Serge Bolley
- Jean-Pierre Ducasse
- Jean-Marie Leblanc
- André Desvages
- Francis Ducreux
- Christian Robini
- Siegfried Adler
- Winfried Gottschalk ?
- Marcel Maes
- Georges Pintens
- Edouard Weckx
- Wilfried David
- Eric Leman
- Andrès Gandarias
- John Clarey
- Derek Harrison
- Hugh Porter
- Mino Denti
- Eddy Beugels
- Evert Dolman
- Harm Ottenbros
- Gerard Vianen
- Josy Johanns ?
- Paul Köchli
- Roland Smaniotto
- José Samyn
- Arthur Metcalfe
Wielersport mentioned that: "Ingesteld voor Tour-debutanten wier profcarrières eerst in 1967 of dit jaar (dus 1968) waren gestart." (made for Tour-debutants whose prof career only started in 1967 or this year), but some of the riders (for example Samyn) who scored points in the Golden Arrow classification also rode in 1967, so the debutant part ws not true. For Gottschalk and Johanns I don't know exactly when they turned pro, but that is irrelevant for the results because they would not have scored points anyway.
Points system
The number of points won by riders seems to increase linearly. This suggests a system based on positions, where the time difference is not important. The maximum number of points hat a rider gets, seems to be 10 points, so I suspect that the highest ranked neo-prof scored 10 points, the second one a bit fewer, and so on.
To find out how the points exactly were given, I wrote down the positions of all riders that I thought were eligible, and determined their ranking in each stage. I then used the least squares method to calculate how many points each location was likely to yield. The result:
| Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Points | 9.78 | 6.20 | 3.98 | 1.81 | 0.90 |
The above results follow from the assumption that only the first five places yield points. Adding sixth place doesn't significantly improve the sum of squares (the measure of how good the approximation is), and in that case, the coefficient for sixth place is negative, so sixth place would not have yielded any points. Surprisingly, removing fifth place from the calculation doesn't change the sum of squares much either, but I'm still including it. The reasoning for this follows below.
Because the given point totals are all integers, it's almost certain that the points given in the stage are also integers. Rounded, this yields the following points:
| Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Points | 10 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
This is the justification for including fifth place: if only the first four places counted, the most likely points for those first four places would all be even numbers, while the results also show odd numbers. Therefore, there must also be an even number; therefore, four numbers are not enough.
Ideally, the least squares method would give the exact answer, in this case the numbers from the last table. But here, that's clearly not the number; the results aren't even integers. Why don't the calculations yield integers? There are a few possible reasons. The first possibility is that I identified every rider participating in the classification. If I omitted a rider who is, the points totals would change. The second possibility is that the interim results are incorrect. This is definitely the case: Guyot, for example, drops in points from the 17th to the 18th stage, so at least one of those interim totals is incorrect. There's also the possibility that the jury awarded penalty points to riders, although I find that unlikely. And the final possibility is that not all stages yielded the same number of points. It appears that Pintens, the highest finisher in the final time trial, will receive 5 points there instead of 10. The stages where there might be a difference are 1a, 1b, 3a, 5a, 5b, and 22b. I don't have enough data to determine this.
Classification
In the table below I have listed the results of the calculation with the coefficients as in the table above.
| Stage | In source | Calculated |
|---|---|---|
| 1a | — | Porter |
| 1b | — | Guyot Porter Samyn |
| 2 | — | Guyot Pintens |
| 3b | — | Samyn |
| 4 | — | Samyn |
| 5a | — | Guyot |
| 5b | Bolley | Bolley |
| 6 | Ottenbros | Ottenbros |
| 7 | Vianen Ottenbros | Vianen Ottenbros |
| 8 | Vianen | Vianen |
| 9 | Vianen | Vianen |
| 10 | Vianen | Vianen |
| 11 | Ottenbros | Ottenbros |
| 12 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 13 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 14 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 15 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 16 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 17 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 18 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 19 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 20 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 21 | Pintens | Pintens |
| 22a | Pintens | Pintens |
| 22b | Pintens | Pintens |
| Of all riders from the list in "Participants", only these thirteen finished the Tour de France of 1968. | ||
| Name | In source | Calculated |
|---|---|---|
| Pintens | 92 | 97 |
| Bolley | 64 | 66 |
| Leman | 56 | 59 |
| Gandarias | 38 | 44 |
| Guyot | 34 | 41 |
| Clarey | — | 26 |
| Ducasse | — | 21 |
| Maes | — | 10 |
| Weckx | — | 10 |
| Beugels | — | 8 |
| Leblanc | — | 7 |
| Dolman | — | 7 |
| Denti | — | 4 |
As can be seen in the final classification, my results don't quite match the published final result. Because I had to round most of the coefficients up, my calculation is too high. I don't expect the final result was incorrectly printed in the newspaper (although I also have a source that showed Pintens with 86 points), so that leaves two possibilities: I'm missing a rider, or fewer points were awarded in some stages. The latter seems to be the case, but I don't have enough information to determine exactly.
