• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Riders to reach 100 pro wins

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Which riders will reach 100 pro wins?


  • Total voters
    143
It's just a coincidence that so many races recently have been dominated by a few different riders to an extent we rarely saw previously?
I think so. MVP, Pogacar, Remco, WVA and Vingegaard are all time greats when we talk about talent. For me there is only one rider who belongs to the 2nd tier and his name is Roglic. The gap is too big for other riders, it really seems we are seeing Merckx riding against farmers all over again.
 
I think so. MVP, Pogacar, Remco, WVA and Vingegaard are all time greats when we talk about talent. For me there is only one rider who belongs to the 2nd tier and his name is Roglic. The gap is too big for other riders, it really seems we are seeing Merckx riding against farmers all over again.
Bar Pogacar, Roglic achieved more in five years than all the other riders , so I guess you have some prejudice glasses you need to take out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blanco and johnymax
Bar Pogacar, Roglic achieved more in five years than all the other riders , so I guess you have some prejudice glasses you need to take out.
Mate, I'm not trying to disrespect Roglic at all. I just gave my opinion, we all can feel free to disagree. When we talk about TALENT, I think Roglic is one small step below those 5 guys and it is normal to have a better palmares when he is way older than Vingegaard, Remco and Pogacar (I just mentioned guys who compete with Roglic in stage races). And I have my doubts Remco will win more GT's in the future.
 
Mate, I'm not trying to disrespect Roglic at all. I just gave my opinion, we all can feel free to disagree. When we talk about TALENT, I think Roglic is one small step below those 5 guys and it is normal to have a better palmares when he is way older than Vingegaard, Remco and Pogacar (I just mentioned guys who compete with Roglic in stage races). And I have my doubts Remco will win more GT's in the future.
If Roglič lacks talent compared to WVA, how come Roglič has won so much more in his 30s than Wout wins in his prime?
 
Oh, just one more thing, @tobydawq: Do you not think that all the long winning solos we've seen recently make it easier for the favourite of a race to win? Or is Van der Poel just better suited to such moves than Cancellara was?

image-asset.jpeg
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
If Roglič lacks talent compared to WVA, how come Roglič has won so much more in his 30s than Wout wins in his prime?
In my opinion, classics (specially cobbled classics) are more unpredictable than GT's or one week stage races so it is more difficult to win. And we can add that WVA has been really unlucky in one or two occasions (not this year, he can only blame himself for that stupid mistake in DDV) due to Covid 19 and his flat tyre in carrefour. Other factor very important to mention is that MVP (WVA's biggest rival) races every important race WVA targets when gt riders can occasionally ride different gt's in one year. For example, if Pogacar and Vingegaard went to the Giro against Roglic last year, someone really believe Roglic would win the Giro? I don't think so. Someone believe Roglic would beat Pogacar if he hadn't crashed in 2021 and 2022 Tours? I don't think so. Even last year, Roglic won a lot of stage races because he doesn't ride against Pogacar and Vingegaard. Vingegaard was his teammate and Pogacar was targetting classics so he racks up some wins.
If MVP didn't ride classics for one win, I'm pretty sure WVA would win Flanders and Roubaix easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
No.

2011 Contador is the only rider who has tried for it when it looked realistic for him to win the Tour in the first place.

Froome waited until he was a lesser rider, Quintana was never a Tour favourite, neither was Contador in 2015 or Dumoulin.

Why would it be easier now?
For the same reason that riders perform at a much higher level now than 5 or 15 years ago.

Better support, nutrition, training, sports science.

When the level was stable, it was more difficult to find an edge. Under a new paradigm where we see remarkable increases in performance year after year, a new front has opened and naturally some have marched farther down that road than others. So differences become bigger. Those with most resources and know-how can improve faster than the rest, and recover better than the rest.
 
For the same reason that riders perform at a much higher level now than 5 or 15 years ago.

Better support, nutrition, training, sports science.

When the level was stable, it was more difficult to find an edge. Under a new paradigm where we see remarkable increases in performance year after year, a new front has opened and naturally some have marched farther down that road than others. So differences become bigger. Those with most resources and know-how can improve faster than the rest, and recover better than the rest.

Okay, fair enough. I still think your equivalency between 'easy' and 'more likely' is strange but that's probably a semantic discussion.
 
To be considered an all time great requires a degree of longevity coupled with an amazing palmares and probably tour de france wins.
Roglic has a degree of longevity and a really good, but not certainly amazing palmares.
Vingegaard is so far a two season wonder at stage races only. Remco is still very much still at the promising stage. MvDP has been winning for a long time off road, but less so on the road until recently and will unlikely win a grand tour which is more or less a prerequisite to be considered an all-time great.
Which leaves Pog who of all them is well on the way, just a few plus seasons more at his current level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnymax
That it requires less effort.
Do you think it requires more effort now, or is it some natural constant?

If you are more dominant and have a greater margin down to the rest, I'd think succeeding requires less effort than if you're barely better than your opponents.

EDIT: Was the double just as hard for Merckx as it'll be for Pogi, or did it require less effort back then? If I understand you right, something about his success in that era needs to be adjusted for, but it's something that hasn't changed recently since no adjustments are needed between now and a decade ago.
 
Last edited:
If that is what you mean by adjusting Merckx's success, be free to do so. It's not an argument that I have advanced.

To me it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Those more successful than Pogi should be adjusted for, but Pogi shouldn't. He has it as difficult to succeed as anyone has ever had.
 
@Netserk was attempting to disclose that UCI wins are an incomplete measure of rider's quality or potential. Wins are always relative to the field of rivals you face.

Had Froome never been cured of bilharzia, he would never start his pro career at Sky. Quintana would have won perhaps two Tours. The same argument can be made regarding Jan Ulrich.

So the fact is that even when an impressive rider appears, another rider being in the scene can mask the depth of the first perfomances as translated by wins. Whilst having no rivals translates into more wins, it does not mean that some rider is bigger or as big than others just for having the same trophy.
 
@Netserk was attempting to disclose that UCI wins are an incomplete measure of rider's quality or potential. Wins are always relative to the field of rivals you face.

Had Froome never been cured of bilharzia, he would never start his pro career at Sky. Quintana would have won perhaps two Tours. The same argument can be made regarding Jan Ulrich.

So the fact is that even when an impressive rider appears, another rider being in the scene can mask the depth of the first perfomances as translated by wins. Whilst having no rivals translates into more wins, it does not mean that some rider is bigger or as big than others just for having the same trophy.
Isn't that the reason why * exists? 😇