Jason_Mercier wrote:Throughout history on cycling we've always had many representatives of this kind of cyclist. A historic cyclist. Most of them legends or brave riders with an great winning mentality and an admirable capacity for suffering. Suffice with go backwards in time and remenber past decades. Mythical climbers like Binda, Coppi, Gaul or Bahamontes. Poulidor, Van Impe, Battaglin, Ocaña or Fuente in the 70's, Millar, Delgado, Parra, Hampsten or Herrera in the 80's and more recently Leblanc, Pantani or Chiapucci in the 90's. After one of the worsts decades of the history of this sport in what refers of pure climbers nowadays we have big hopes in young guys like Thibaut Pinot, Nairo Quintana and the colombians, Joseph Dombrowski... IMO the future of this race mostly depends of them. Now i want to formulate the question i wanted to make since the beginning of this thread:D Who are the top ten pure climbers today? I want to clarify that for me a classic rider like Valverde, Nibali or Chris Froome arent pure climbers. Here's my list: 1) Alberto Contador 2) Andy Schleck 3) J. Rod 4) Thibaut Pinot 5) Jürgen Van Den Broeck 6) Pierre Rolland 7) Nairo Quintana 8) Robert Gesink 9) José Rujano 10) Domenico Pozzovivo. And another questions. Which generation of climbers of the last 50 years was better? Maybe the 70s? Will we overcome the current crisis of pure climbers thanks for the new hopes?
If you define "pure climber" as someone who can´t sprint, can´t TT, can´t win a race like Roubaix, then I´d change most names you named. Quintana, Rujano and Pozzovivo can stay.
To add just a few:
All GC guys have to be good in climbing and TT, and in the important stage races, if they recover properly and keep their HCTs up, good climbers suddenly also show good TTs, remember 55-Kilo-Pantani.