Riders to reach 100 pro wins

[Cookster15]

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.

 

[KZD]

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.

 

[tobydawq]

We'll stop when he posts an image here.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

I think it's too late for Cancellara to reach 100 wins.
He couldn't even win his own Gran Fondo race the other day.

 

[Netserk]

Uh! I'm impressed, toby!

Can you also upload an image? (like a photo of a piece of paper that says "tobydawg is da champ")

 

[tobydawq]

Uh! I'm impressed, toby!

Can you also upload an image? (like a photo of a piece of paper that says "tobydawg is da champ")

Wouldn't that require some sort of image hosting website like Imgur? If that's the case, no.

 

[Netserk]

Maybe you'll get there in 10 years!

But you've still passed this exam.

 

[hayneplane]

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.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Kristoff missed a big chance to get closer to 100s in CRO.

 

[Bolder]

One more for Demare...

 

[rallybanana]

I think one of the Slovenes will be first to cross the 100.

At this year's rate (Pog 16 wins, Rog 15 wins) they should draw level around the year 2040.

 

[CyclistAbi]

At this year's rate (Pog 16 wins, Rog 15 wins) ...

Will be really close in between Rogla and Pogi this season. Was wondering at the beginning of the season, on how such stats will look like. And i like what i see.

 

[danielovichdk2]

Roglic will never reach 100 wins. He will get to around 80 if he is really lucky.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Roglic will never reach 100 wins. He will get to around 80 if he is really lucky.

Who’s going to tell him?

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Roglic will never reach 100 wins. He will get to around 80 if he is really lucky.

I guess he was really lucky then, considering he's already at 80 now.

 

[danielovichdk2]

I guess he was really lucky then, considering he's already at 80 now.

I guess I missed the memo. My bad

 

[Berniece]

I always found it weird that GC's are counted too, I would think only TT's, stages and 1 day races would count.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

I always found it weird that GC's are counted too, I would think only TT's, stages and 1 day races would count.

????????

 

[Berniece]

????????

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.

 

[Panda Claws]

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.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

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.

 

[Netserk]

If anything, the mistake is counting the stage wins. Races won are either the overall of a stage race or a one-day race.

 

[del1962]

Winning a stage at TDF is much more prestigious than winning a 1.1 race though

 

[Netserk]

Winning a stage at TDF is much more prestigious than winning a 1.1 race though

Winning the green jersey or a TTT at the Tour is also more prestigious than that. Likewise is getting 2nd in GC. Still, none of those count for these lists.

 

[Berniece]

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.

Then why not winning green jersey or mountain jersey? Where do we draw the line. Only counting winning a single race makes more sense to me.