• 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 6 - 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
Difficult poll. I think Roglic could do it but he is 33 already. If he can be another Valverde he can do it. But that is a big "if". The other point in favor of Roglic is he came to the sport late. So he might last longer? But again, Valverde is an outllier who was super good from a very young age to a very old age. I think a rider with that longevity only comes along once in a generation?

Realistically I voted for Pogacar and Remco. Both still young. But again with physical progression nothing is certain. Some athletes peak and then decline at an earlier age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
I voted Démare, Pogačar and Evenepoel last year but now believe Roglič will likely doing it too, though I keep thinking Démare will be the first one reaching the 100 mark.

Remco will be the last one reaching 100 wins as he has 'only' 50 and Pogačar should be the one getting more career wins, if he keeps his staggering pace, I can see him reaching 150.

As for current riders that are not on the list, I think only Kooij will get to 100 though De Lie, Philipsen and Vingegård also have a decent chance.
 
Last edited:
We'll stop when he posts an image here.
9e67ce9cc0aeb392ae757f576ee797e5.jpg

importedImage272650_header
2837.jpg
 
I voted Démare, Pogačar and Evenepoel last year but now believe Roglič will likely doing it too, though I keep thinking Démare will be the first one reaching the 100 mark.

Remco will be the last one reaching 100 wins as he has 'only' 50 and Pogačar should be the one getting more career wins, if he keeps his staggering pace, I can see him reaching 150.

As for current riders that are not on the list, I think only Kooij will get to 100 though De Lie, Philipsen and Vingegård also have a decent chance.
I would be very surprised if De Lie managed it as he is far more of a Sagan type who can compete in bunch sprints but rarely win in elite company and he won’t be farming the 1.1s any more. Great prospect who could snag some prestigious wins in his career.

Roglic is the favourite to be 1st to 100 but if his finishing kick starts to weaken his win tally could drop off a cliff.

Pogacar and Remco both appear as certain as it gets barring serious injury/illness to get there with Pogi first in line on both overall total and current pace.
 
Because I feel single day riders and sprinters are discredited this way. You already have the same amount of chances of winning a stage during a stage race for mountains and TT, as a sprinter for a flat stage, and now you also get an extra point if you win the whole thing.
I don't think fairness really matters here.

In the end the sport is about winning one-day races and winning GC's.

By winning a GC you won a contest as the sport defines it and unlike a sport like football said contest is not made up out of the sum of other contests (e.g. winning matches = winning competition) but is a separate category entirely.
It's not something that gets added on top of things to just ensure that 'the rich get richer'.

Cycling is odd in this regard because almost the same distinction can be made between TT and RR. Very different disciplines yet both count as a win.

However, I generally do not accept subclassifications as wins which I know some people to do. Reasons being that these can be basically made up, it is hard to make the distinction between what should and should not be counted unless you want to count literally every rule-based subclassification and it is not what the sport is about.
After all any race organiser can come up with some dumb Hammer Series like system to base a subclassification on.

Perhaps it could be argued that SOME subclassifications such as points classifications are accepted enough to be counted as wins too. I have no doubt that someone can point to the distant past where points classifications were perhaps orginially used instead of time in some races. I think this one has the most merit out of all subclassifications.

I am also torn on TTTs but do think they should be counted.
 
Because I feel single day riders and sprinters are discredited this way. You already have the same amount of chances of winning a stage during a stage race for mountains and TT, as a sprinter for a flat stage, and now you also get an extra point if you win the whole thing.

Having a good sprint has always been a big advantage in this sport, and it would also be weird if winning the Tour de France wouldn't count, but finishing first in Omloop Het Hoelahoep or another random race would.