• 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 15 - 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
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.
So you're basically saying that Van Aert is an all-time great because he would won so many monuments if only he was little luckier and if Van Der Poel never existed.
Remco is also an all-time great cause you think he will win many Grand Tours in the future.
And Roglic is not an all-time great because he's much older then others, although he began his racing career only 2 or 3 years before them.

Or did I get it wrong?
 
Why?

At a time where bribery and corruption were running rampant and team hierarchies were unbreakable it seems to have been a bit easier to amass big wins...
It only seems.
When Girardengo raced, it seems to be much easier. Binda, the same.
But it wasn't easier to Leducq and Magne in France, or to Thys and Ronsse in Belgium, although they rode in the same time.
The truth is, it's never easy.
If you're going to win a lot more than others, then you need to be head and shoulders above all competition, and that is never easy. Not now, not then...
And it certaily wasn't easier to Fausto Coppi to beat Bartali and Magni at the Giro, Kubler, Koblet and Bobet at the Tour, Van Steenbergen at Roubaix, whole Belgium and France teams at the Worlds, then for Pogacar to beat his nowadays rivals.
 
Take MSR as the most obvious example. Merckx won it seven times! In the last 16 years, no rider has won it twice.

It is a race that has become impossible to dominate and it accounts for more than a fifth of his major wins haul and more than a third of his monument wins.
 
It only seems.
When Girardengo raced, it seems to be much easier. Binda, the same.
But it wasn't easier to Leducq and Magne in France, or to Thys and Ronsse in Belgium, although they rode in the same time.
The truth is, it's never easy.
If you're going to win a lot more than others, then you need to be head and shoulders above all competition, and that is never easy. Not now, not then...
And it certaily wasn't easier to Fausto Coppi to beat Bartali and Magni at the Giro, Kubler, Koblet and Bobet at the Tour, Van Steenbergen at Roubaix, whole Belgium and France teams at the Worlds, then for Pogacar to beat his nowadays rivals.
In your whole list of riders from those eras, there's a grand total of four nationalities, completely incomparable to the range of nationalities seen in the top riders of even the past decade alone. Surely the fact that the sport has become much more international has led to more people pursuing a career in the sport, thereby growing the talent pool and leading to deeper fields? There is very little genuine pack fodder in the big races these days, that definitely hasn't always been the case.
 
Yes it was.
Oh, I'm sorry, were you racing then? There will always be great competition in every era. Pogacar has guys like Vingegaard and Evenepoel. And like @Blanco said Merckx had Gimondi, Zoetemelk, Ocana and Thevenet.
Coppi had Kubler, Koblet and Bartali.
It only seems.
When Girardengo raced, it seems to be much easier. Binda, the same.
But it wasn't easier to Leducq and Magne in France, or to Thys and Ronsse in Belgium, although they rode in the same time.
The truth is, it's never easy.
If you're going to win a lot more than others, then you need to be head and shoulders above all competition, and that is never easy. Not now, not then...
And it certaily wasn't easier to Fausto Coppi to beat Bartali and Magni at the Giro, Kubler, Koblet and Bobet at the Tour, Van Steenbergen at Roubaix, whole Belgium and France teams at the Worlds, then for Pogacar to beat his nowadays rivals.
This is one of the most sane contributions I have seen to the GOAT debate

Take MSR as the most obvious example. Merckx won it seven times! In the last 16 years, no rider has won it twice.

It is a race that has become impossible to dominate and it accounts for more than a fifth of his major wins haul and more than a third of his monument wins.
If MVDP wasn't on a team with Philipsen he would've been very close to a second consecutive win.
I could counter your point with: "In the last thirty years one rider won it 4 times and another won it 3 times. Three other riders podiumed it more than 3 times."
Hell, if it wasn't for Tchmil Zabel would've won 5 consecutive times...
Very convenient of you to just limit your point to the last sixteen years, in business we would call this data ommission and it would immediately void your point.
 
In your whole list of riders from those eras, there's a grand total of four nationalities, completely incomparable to the range of nationalities seen in the top riders of even the past decade alone. Surely the fact that the sport has become much more international has led to more people pursuing a career in the sport, thereby growing the talent pool and leading to deeper fields? There is very little genuine pack fodder in the big races these days, that definitely hasn't always been the case.
Ah yes, globalisation as an excuse to diminish the performances of athletes in the past.
Who cares about all those World Cup victories by Brazil! A bunch of nations in Africa and Asia weren't yet organised!
Jordan can't be the GOAT of Basketball! He played against six recently established Mickey Mouse teams! (Something often used by Bronsexuals). And I'm sure that in 20 years some will claim Leborn can't be the GOAT since guys like Wembayama will have played in an NBA with even more teams.
It gets old, the excuses people try and make to diminish sporting feats in the past.

Take things like pole-vaulting. Who is the GOAT? The guy who has the world record? Duplantis than? Or is it Sergei Bubka, the man who broke the world record 35 times?
Is Bob Beamon the goat of the long jump with his incredible kangaroo-jump? Or is it whoever hold the record now?

If you want to use that as an excuse fine.
But you will have to accept that those guys have an period-excuse aswell.
They didn't have access to modern medicine, modern understanding of basic stuff like hydration, adrenaline. They didn't have money for fancy trips to places like the Teide. They didn't know have a clue about what to do with their food, Merckx and Coppi won five tours on steaks and green beans.
 
It's this kind of logic cranked up to eleven:

sam-bankman-fried-on-why-shakespeare-isnt-a-good-writer-v0-c3xpvuu3rssb1.jpg
 
It's this kind of logic cranked up to eleven:

sam-bankman-fried-on-why-shakespeare-isnt-a-good-writer-v0-c3xpvuu3rssb1.jpg
It's harder to make an invention with the radical impact of the wheel or writing after the wheel and writing have already been invented.

Ergo, the biggest talents likely appear in the early or puberty phase of an invention, sport or art.

There will never be people like Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Picasso, Gauguin, Rembrandt, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Camões even though more people are acquainted and have access too painting and writing techniques.

I dare to say that Pogacar is unfairly compared to Merckx because his achievements are much more difficult to accomplish today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tobydawq
It's harder to make an invention with the radical impact of the wheel or writing after the wheel and writing have already been invented.

Ergo, the biggest talents likely appear in the early or puberty phase of an invention, sport or art.

There will never be people like Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Picasso, Gauguin, Rembrandt, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Camões even though more people are acquainted and have access too painting and writing techniques.

I dare to say that Pogacar is unfairly compared to Merckx because his achievements are much more difficult to accomplish today.
There will be and there are. Think of guys like Tolkien, JK Rowling or Isaac Asamov in the fantasy genre.
There are artists like Pullman, Mantel and Mitchell (who nobody knows, becuase who the *** still reads) but some 21st century artists will be named in one breath with guys who you mentioned in your post in the 25th century.
Oh and... Everybody knows 20th century painters like Dali, Picasso or Mondriaan, Philosophers like Vermeersch or Tippolet.
 
There will be and there are. Think of guys like Tolkien, JK Rowling or Isaac Asamov in the fantasy genre.
You're just proving my point, fantasy genre is a recent genre.
There are artists like Pullman, Mantel and Mitchell (who nobody knows, becuase who the *** still reads) but some 21st century artists will be named in one breath with guys who you mentioned in your post in the 25th century.
I didn't think it was necessary to go deeper by recalling every artist, but what I meant was that in arts innovation is much, much harder that in science and technology because you have to take in account what has already been done and do it better.
Also, it's not the fact that some art historian in 25th century names guys in 21th century that in fact their work is comparable to artists from previous centuries.
It's impossible to have an idea of the whole nowadays because it's just too complex and too time demanding. No human can do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GenericBoonenFan
Take MSR as the most obvious example. Merckx won it seven times! In the last 16 years, no rider has won it twice.

It is a race that has become impossible to dominate and it accounts for more than a fifth of his major wins haul and more than a third of his monument wins.
And Merckx won it in a number of ways. In a reduced bunch sprint, by attacking in the descent, by attacking on the poggio, by attacking from a very long way out, … Point being he is seen as the best ever for a reason.

Also Zabel won it 4 times and was 2nd 2 times. De Vlaeminck won it 3 times and was 2nd 3 times. So it makes sense that if you are the best ever you can win it 7 times. It’s just Pogacar who isn’t able to, yet. I think it also has to do with team tactics btw.
 
If MVDP wasn't on a team with Philipsen he would've been very close to a second consecutive win.
I could counter your point with: "In the last thirty years one rider won it 4 times and another won it 3 times. Three other riders podiumed it more than 3 times."
Hell, if it wasn't for Tchmil Zabel would've won 5 consecutive times...
Very convenient of you to just limit your point to the last sixteen years, in business we would call this data ommission and it would immediately void your point.
Oh, come on, we're not living in the Zabel era anymore...

And the Van der Poel point very much backs up my point about very strict hierarchical structures of the past where such a thing simply wouldn't have happened.
 
If you want to use that as an excuse fine.
But you will have to accept that those guys have an period-excuse aswell.
They didn't have access to modern medicine, modern understanding of basic stuff like hydration, adrenaline. They didn't have money for fancy trips to places like the Teide. They didn't know have a clue about what to do with their food, Merckx and Coppi won five tours on steaks and green beans.
Neither did their peers which completely voids this argument of relevance.
 
And Merckx won it in a number of ways. In a reduced bunch sprint, by attacking in the descent, by attacking on the poggio, by attacking from a very long way out, … Point being he is seen as the best ever for a reason.

Also Zabel won it 4 times and was 2nd 2 times. De Vlaeminck won it 3 times and was 2nd 3 times. So it makes sense that if you are the best ever you can win it 7 times. It’s just Pogacar who isn’t able to, yet. I think it also has to do with team tactics btw.

If Merckx was riding today and was as good as could be expected from modern training methods and so on, he simply would not win that race seven times.
 
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.
So Carlos Sastre, Aitor Gonzalez and Sepp Kuss are potentially all time greats and Fabio Cancellara isn't? Sorry but that's nonsense. MvdP can definitely be considered an all time great without winning a GC.