Riders to reach 100 pro wins

[GenericBoonenFan]

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.

Two words: Rick Zabel

Okay, and now I'll drop it

 

[tobydawq]

Two words: Rick Zabel

Okay, and now I'll drop it

Rick?

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Rick?

Sorry brainfart

 

[QueenStagiaire]

I think Zabel winning MSR is quite the interesting interpretation of „today“. Also I fail to see how Merckx could have won those MSRs Zabel won without making them way more chaotic and losing that way.

 

[Monte Serra]

Just noticed that Boasson Hagen is riding for Decathlon-AG2R this year. That means that he can start winning again any day now. Only 19 left till the century.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Just noticed that Boasson Hagen is riding for Decathlon-AG2R this year. That means that he can start winning again any day now. Only 19 left till the century.

Could pull ahead of Roglic with a win.

 

[Blanco]

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 was a way different race back then. Bunch sprint was impossible back then, it was a race for endurance beasts, who can fly up the Poggio, can descend excellent and packs a deadly sprint. And who fills this list better than Merckx.
There were no super strong teams who could control the race till Poggio, the race explode much earler back then, and on the Poggio it was usually mano a mano, and the strongest ones rose to the top. And the srongest they were: Giradengo, Bartali, Coppi, Poblet, Merckx, De Vlaeminck, Kelly, Fignon...
Hell, if Pogacar rode back then, I bet he would've certainly won at least one.
Than from the mid 1990's bunch sprints came...
You see Merckx 7 wins as obvious example of an "easier wins" back then than now, but I, on the contrary, see it as one of the most obvious testaments of his strength and greatness.
And as someone posted above, if Van Der Poel keeps his form for a couple of more years, I think we will get that multiple winner.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

You can see how the premodern era of giants with legendary palmares works very easily right now by looking at the women’s sport. Teams, tactics and training are less professionalised because there’s less money in the sport. The participant base is smaller, so the talent pool is less deep. Consequently the top few riders are much better than the rest and win almost everything significant.

It’s not an entirely uniform process. There are some countervailing tendencies. It’s probably easier to win a million Tour de Frances in the professionalised era than it was in the more chaotic past, because professionalisation means that there’s a huge carefully managed specialist effort aimed at winning the guy who has the slight physical edge the Tour.

 

[tobydawq]

It was a way different race back then. Bunch sprint was impossible back then, it was a race for endurance beasts, who can fly up the Poggio, can descend excellent and packs a deadly sprint. And who fills this list better than Merckx.
There were no super strong teams who could control the race till Poggio, the race explode much earler back then, and on the Poggio it was usually mano a mano, and the strongest ones rose to the top. And the srongest they were: Giradengo, Bartali, Coppi, Poblet, Merckx, De Vlaeminck, Kelly, Fignon...
Hell, if Pogacar rode back then, I bet he would've certainly won at least one.
Than from the mid 1990's bunch sprints came...
You see Merckx 7 wins as obvious example of an "easier wins" back then than now, but I, on the contrary, see it as one of the most obvious testaments of his strength and greatness.
And as someone posted above, if Van Der Poel keeps his form for a couple of more years, I think we will get that multiple winner.

You're basically proving my point.

'Easy' is here used like Netserk did as 'more probable'.

 

[Wyndbrook]

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.

Please quote my entire sentence, not just selecting what suits you.

 

[Blanco]

You're basically proving my point.

'Easy' is here used like Netserk did as 'more probable'.

No.
Your point is that it was much easier to build up legendary palmares back then.
I say no. It was as hard as now.
Merckx needed to beat some hell of a strong riders, I would argue maybe even stronger than today, but we don't know that fully, only time can tell that.

 

[Volderke]

Merckx rode a lot of 6-days in winter, so he was in good shape for Milan-San Remo.
Not much opportunities flying to Spain where you hardly had any good road and plane connections, in the 1960s. People often forget that while races seemed less competitive / easier / slower back in the old days, they were ridden with less performant bikes, clothes, nutrition, training methods...
Merckx won sprints not because he was a natural born sprinter, but because he was the best after a hard race. Milan-San Remo was a hard race on steel bikes with uncomforable saddles and clothes, 36-spoke wheels and 19mm tubulars.

Maybe a more relevant question would be how well Zabel would have ridden in Merkx' era, than the other way around?
At least Zabel's fastest San Remo win was slower than any of 3 first victories of Merckx in the 1960s.

 

[tobydawq]

No.
Your point is that it was much easier to build up legendary palmares back then.
I say no. It was as hard as now.
Merckx needed to beat some hell of a strong riders, I would argue maybe even stronger than today, but we don't know that fully, only time can tell that.

Obviously they were not stronger than today if you measure by actual physiological parameters. But yeah, journalists of the time were probably better at bigging them up so if that's the measure, then it's hard to argue against.

 

[Elos Anjos]

No.
Your point is that it was much easier to build up legendary palmares back then.
I say no. It was as hard as now.
Merckx needed to beat some hell of a strong riders, I would argue maybe even stronger than today, but we don't know that fully, only time can tell that.

Of course every winner beats strong riders.
It's not very plausible to state that with more strict rules, assessments and scientific approaches today riders were stronger back then. The opposite is true.

And that turns Pogacar-Merckx comparisons very flawed but at the same time they make it Pogacar's achievements even more admirable.

 

[Elos Anjos]

You can see how the premodern era of giants with legendary palmares works very easily right now by looking at the women’s sport. Teams, tactics and training are less professionalised because there’s less money in the sport. The participant base is smaller, so the talent pool is less deep. Consequently the top few riders are much better than the rest and win almost everything significant.

It’s not an entirely uniform process. There are some countervailing tendencies. It’s probably easier to win a million Tour de Frances in the professionalised era than it was in the more chaotic past, because professionalisation means that there’s a huge carefully managed specialist effort aimed at winning the guy who has the slight physical edge the Tour.

Very good example bringing Women Procycling to the discussion. I agree completely. That was basically my point.

 

[Netserk]

Obviously they were not stronger than today if you measure by actual physiological parameters. But yeah, journalists of the time were probably better at bigging them up so if that's the measure, then it's hard to argue against.

Would you say that Indurain was the strongest rider of all time?

 

[Blanco]

Obviously they were not stronger than today if you measure by actual physiological parameters. But yeah, journalists of the time were probably better at bigging them up so if that's the measure, then it's hard to argue against.

Not stronger physiologically of course, but stronger achievement-wise, taking into account that particular period of time.

 

[CyclistAbi]

So Rogla or Pogi, who will reach 100 first?

P.S. Not related to age.

 

[SHAD0W93]

So Rogla or Pogi, who will reach 100 first?

P.S. Not related to age.

Pogacar, if Roglic doesn’t win 4-6 times at CdD or Tour he could have trouble reaching it.

 

[AmRacer]

Pogacar, if Roglic doesn’t win 4-6 times at CdD or Tour he could have trouble reaching it.

Rogla can reach 100 if he wants, all he has to do is to ride minor 1 week races. Tour of Norway for example.

 

[ingsve]

What counts as pro wins in this? Does x.2 races count and does winning points or mountain jersies etc count?

 

[Netserk]

What counts as pro wins in this? Does x.2 races count and does winning points or mountain jersies etc count?

No and no. Nor TTTs.

All NCs count, but not U23 races.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Following some of the logic in this thread Victor Campenaerts or Jens Voigt were at one point in time the best rider(s) in the world because they held the hour record

 

[tobydawq]

Twisting some of the logic in this thread ad nauseam Victor Campenaerts or Jens Voigt were at one point in time the best rider(s) in the world because they held the hour record

Fixed.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Fixed.

Your post is more fixed than the outcome of the Saitana Criterium