Making a Worlds / LBL comparison
* Worlds course slightly longer.
* Discounting that lone hill on the run-in to the circuit, there are 10 (+10) hills in the last 166 km, 16.6km apart. Liege has 10 hills in the last 100km. But the LBL course is never flat, not even on the first part, while the Worlds course has a flat 100km intro.
* The position of the 2nd worlds hill, makes the truly flat part only 5km per lap. This little lump makes the fiesole and lbl courses more similar, than a course with only the big hill present. All in all, hill density is pretty similar but the stretch with marked climbs starts earlier at the worlds.
* The worlds main hill looks like Col du Rosier with the hill profile reversed. The second hill is a 600m 8% springboard.
In general, the fiesole course favours an aerobic climber (nibali, valverde, rodriguez, colombians) slightly more than a punchy unaerobic classics rider (gilbert, cancellara), compared to LBL. The course length makes it a brutally tough race in terms of endurance. Its truly for riders who can handle the monument type of race.
In genral, I think that the endurance part (classics pedigree) plays a bigger role than general 4km climb ability or whatever.
Cancellara, Gilbert, Valverde, Rodriguez, Gerrans have all won in the toughest races. Nibali, Dan Martin, Gasparotto, Iglinsky has been up there in LBL. The colombians betancour, uran, quintana are ideally suited to these kinds of climbs.
Hard call. However, the general rule says: Look for the worlds winner within the vuelta field. If thats the case, then its between:
Valverde, Nibali, Rodriguez, Gilbert, Cancellara, Moreno if he holds form.