Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread

Page 1054 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2014
2,133
0
0
Re: Re:

nightingale2016 said:
BlurryVII said:
LaFlorecita said:
IndianCyclist said:
Froome if fit is the real test. Normally Contador would be dropping Landa. This is not good for the TDF. Probably the effect of the TT Lets see after the rest day
See this is why I want Alberto to go all out and crush everyone on at least one stage. People will keep saying "oh but he couldn't even drop Landa bla bla so he wasn't strong at all" etc. C'mon Alberto, don't let me down. Full genius, just once.
I feel ya :eek:

Some people in this forum just draw out of proportion conclusions based on what they see in the present moment without looking at bigger picture. It's ridiculous.
The other guys are so much biased in 'bigger picture' gains favour that simply don't want to see close rivals. Either AC wins or he's not in top shape. Cycling world is entirely unival. That's the viewpoint you look at that with. That's just the other side of ridicule.
Why are you always posting the same thing?

That's how it is, because AC is the best stage racer whether you like it or not. When I post something, I always take into account his rivals' form.

But regardless, the only times AC lost in a GT, he was in bad shape (Tour 11' - 13') . That's not a viewpoint, that's a fact. Whenever he's in decent form, not even peaking, he always wins. You deal with that?
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
That's not a fact, that's you being dogmatic. If you believe that that top form Contador cannot be beaten, then whenever he is beaten, you infer that he cannot have been in top form, thus the belief is immune to falsification. That's a dogma, and not very rational.

Sadly, being this dogmatic is not even necessary to think Contador's peak is extremely high, but when you cannot deal with just a little bit uncertainty, I guess going full dogma is inevitable.
 
Feb 21, 2014
2,133
0
0
Re:

SeriousSam said:
That's not a fact, that's you being dogmatic. If you believe that that top form Contador cannot be beaten, then whenever he is beaten, you infer that he cannot have been in top form, thus the belief is immune to falsification. That's a dogma, and not very rational.

Sadly, being this dogmatic is not even necessary to think Contador's peak is extremely high, but when you cannot deal with just a little bit uncertainty, I guess going full dogma is inevitable.
Did I just say that? I stated a fact, right? What are the GT's he lost the last few years? Tour 11' and Tour 13'.

So are you gonna *** argue he was not in crap shape due to multiple reasons in those GT?

Right, so from that point, he won all the other GTs he took part in when he was everytime at least in decent form expect for the Giro 08'. Conclusion? No one has proven yet to be able to beat him when he brings his A game. As simple as that.
 
Re: Re:

BlurryVII said:
SeriousSam said:
That's not a fact, that's you being dogmatic. If you believe that that top form Contador cannot be beaten, then whenever he is beaten, you infer that he cannot have been in top form, thus the belief is immune to falsification. That's a dogma, and not very rational.

Sadly, being this dogmatic is not even necessary to think Contador's peak is extremely high, but when you cannot deal with just a little bit uncertainty, I guess going full dogma is inevitable.
Did I just say that? I stated a fact, right? What are the GT's he lost the last few years? Tour 11' and Tour 13'.

So are you gonna **** argue he was not in crap shape due to multiple reasons in those GT?

Right, so from that point, he won all the other GTs he took part in when he was everytime at least in decent form expect for the Giro 08'. Conclusion? No one has proven yet to be able to beat him when he brings his A game. As simple as that.
Except Chicken.
 
Re:

mufana said:
It surprises me how many people underestimate Contador. Or how many people overestimate Froome. Froome won what? 1 Tour in a year where Contador clearly was not at his best. And he still placed 4th in that tour. So why is a fit Froome a real test for Contador? isn't it the other way round. A fit Contador is a real test for Froome?
Because Contador is the benchmark. You test against the benchmark not the reverse way. Contador himself rates Froome as his nearest competitor
 
Feb 21, 2014
2,133
0
0
Re: Re:

cellardoor said:
BlurryVII said:
SeriousSam said:
That's not a fact, that's you being dogmatic. If you believe that that top form Contador cannot be beaten, then whenever he is beaten, you infer that he cannot have been in top form, thus the belief is immune to falsification. That's a dogma, and not very rational.

Sadly, being this dogmatic is not even necessary to think Contador's peak is extremely high, but when you cannot deal with just a little bit uncertainty, I guess going full dogma is inevitable.
Did I just say that? I stated a fact, right? What are the GT's he lost the last few years? Tour 11' and Tour 13'.

So are you gonna **** argue he was not in crap shape due to multiple reasons in those GT?

Right, so from that point, he won all the other GTs he took part in when he was everytime at least in decent form expect for the Giro 08'. Conclusion? No one has proven yet to be able to beat him when he brings his A game. As simple as that.
Except Chicken.
I agree, that's a valid point for Col d'Aubisque. Then again, AC was still unexperienced, and did so many harmless attacks that day, he emptied himself for nothing while Rasmu was pacing behind.

Probably would've been another story if chicken didn't get that big lead with his breakaway to Tignes though.
 
Re:

Velolover2 said:
Just watched the final. To be fair, Contador looked like a man who wasn't even trying. He was just toying with them like he was on a warm-up race. But maybe that is the case. :D
I hope so...but like others have mentioned, there is that nagging doubt in the air as to whether he still has the ability to drop everyone and just ride off into the sunset like he could in 2011 and before. His GT wins in recent years have come about through race smarts and chipping away at his rivals. Personally, to feel really confident that the double is on, I'd like to see a big attack and a stage win.
 
Re:

Velolover2 said:
Just watched the final. To be fair, Contador looked like a man who wasn't even trying. He was just toying with them like he was on a warm-up race. But maybe that is the case. :D
Agrre. I rewatched the last 5 K a couple of times, and he clearly doesn't dig deep. I'm thinking maybe he realized he couldn't drop Landa easily, and maybe even not at all. I mean, come on, Trofimov beat him. There is no chance he would have if Contador had gone all out.
 
Jul 19, 2010
5,361
0
0
well, I dont' know about all of you. I watched that Landa was clearly stronger than Aru and he matched contador stride for stride (I didn't see that Contador was toying either, to be quite honest). I think, today, if Contador wanted to drop Landa, he has to dig a little deep to get ride of Landa. But why on earth he would do that right now? His closest rival is Aru. And there's plenty of hard stages that might favor him in week 3 if he wants to win a stage (with harder gradient and week 3 where recovery plays a crucial role). Week 3 is going to be a real test for Landa if he is really that strong. Landa definitely was stronger today, if not the strongest. Aru not so much. Whether it's tactic (trying to avoid getting double jab from Astana) or the gradient wasn't tough enough or the state of everyone's form after the ITT, Landa surely appeared at the moment the only one who could match Contador. That's what I saw today.

Does Contador want to win the stage even today? yes of course, if the opportunity presents itself. Today is a little complicated, with a strong Landa, and even though Aru wasn't that strong today, but you can't discount him. At the end of the day, Contador padded his lead on Aru. All in all, is still a good day for Contador considering that he is against the rest of Astana team (not just Aru). Can contador drop Landa next time? yes, possibly. Week 3 is a brutal week, and that's when Contador is at his best. We'll see how Landa recovery looks like, and see if this time he can match contador pedal for pedal. Then I would cast my judgement whether Landa is the strongest climber in this race.
 
Aug 26, 2014
2,148
0
0
Jelantik said:
well, I dont' know about all of you. I watched that Landa was clearly stronger than Aru and he matched contador stride for stride. I think, today, if Contador wanted to drop Landa, he has to dig a little deep to get ride of Landa. But why on earth he would do that right now? His closest rival is Aru. And there's plenty of hard stages that might favor him in week 3 (with harder gradient and week 3 where recovery plays a crucial role). Week 3 is going to be a real test for Landa if he is really that strong. Landa definitely was stronger today, if not the strongest. Aru not so much. Whether it's tactic (trying to avoid getting double jab from Astana) or the gradient wasn't tough enough or the state of everyone's form after the ITT, Landa surely appeared at the moment the only one who could match Contador. That's what I saw today.

Does Contador want to win the stage even today? yes of course, if the opportunity presents itself. Today is a little complicated, with a strong Landa, and even though Aru wasn't that strong today, but you can't discount him. At the end of the day, Contador padded his lead on Aru. All in all, is still a good day for Contador considering that he is against the rest of Astana team (not just Aru). Can contador drop Landa next time? yes, possibly. Week 3 is a brutal week, and that's when Contador is at his best. We'll see how Landa recovery looks like, and see if this time he can match contador pedal for pedal. Then I would cast my judgement whether Landa is the strongest climber in this race.
I agree with a lot of this. I think Contador knows he had the beating of Aru; less certain of Landa, and didn't see the real benefit of doing more than he did GC-wise. He's had a tough couple of days. No need to push it for a couple of seconds.

Do wonder what they spoke about, and what ARu radio'd in for…maybe nothing, but it certainly looked open to interpretation, at least.
 
Electress said:
I agree with a lot of this. I think Contador knows he had the beating of Aru; less certain of Landa, and didn't see the real benefit of doing more than he did GC-wise. He's had a tough couple of days. No need to push it for a couple of seconds.

Do wonder what they spoke about, and what ARu radio'd in for…maybe nothing, but it certainly looked open to interpretation, at least.
Martinelli told Danish TV2 that Aru had given Landa the green light to go. So that might be it.
 
Jul 14, 2014
197
0
0
Jelantik said:
well, I dont' know about all of you. I watched that Landa was clearly stronger than Aru and he matched contador stride for stride (I didn't see that Contador was toying either, to be quite honest). I think, today, if Contador wanted to drop Landa, he has to dig a little deep to get ride of Landa. But why on earth he would do that right now? His closest rival is Aru. And there's plenty of hard stages that might favor him in week 3 if he wants to win a stage (with harder gradient and week 3 where recovery plays a crucial role). Week 3 is going to be a real test for Landa if he is really that strong. Landa definitely was stronger today, if not the strongest. Aru not so much. Whether it's tactic (trying to avoid getting double jab from Astana) or the gradient wasn't tough enough or the state of everyone's form after the ITT, Landa surely appeared at the moment the only one who could match Contador. That's what I saw today.

Does Contador want to win the stage even today? yes of course, if the opportunity presents itself. Today is a little complicated, with a strong Landa, and even though Aru wasn't that strong today, but you can't discount him. At the end of the day, Contador padded his lead on Aru. All in all, is still a good day for Contador considering that he is against the rest of Astana team (not just Aru). Can contador drop Landa next time? yes, possibly. Week 3 is a brutal week, and that's when Contador is at his best. We'll see how Landa recovery looks like, and see if this time he can match contador pedal for pedal. Then I would cast my judgement whether Landa is the strongest climber in this race.
Contador and Aru were chatting before Landa went, im not sure if a deal was made to let him win the stage or not. It would be interesting to know exactly wat was said. Contador could have followed him but didnt. Landa will be unhitched on gradients north of 9%. Contador will provide an epic solo and I imagine can gain 1:30+ at some point in the mountains.
 
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
ILovecycling said:
Alcanelo said:
Did someone just say Contador is not a pure climber? Leave the building please, he's one of the most natural climbers we have seen...it's just that he is so polished all over that people neglect that his climbing is his main strength...Quintana a more pure climber? You're only suggesting that because Quintana is rather average everywhere else. Contador is in the top 5 climbers of all time. In fact I'd only rank Pantani and Impe above him for certain.
No, he is not.He is the best stage racer of last 2 decades.One of the best GT riders of all time, but no he is not a pure climber.

btw http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pure
So "pure" climbers are those riders that are not quite as good at climbing as the best GT climbers like Armstrong and Contador, and worse at everything else?

BlurryVII said:
perico said:
I've watched the sport for 35 years and whether or not he is a pure climber or not is irrelevant. He's one of the three best climbers I've seen, maybe even the best.
Agreed. Whether he's considered a pure climber or not is irrelevant, as long as he can climb faster than the pure climbers :rolleyes:
Exactly. The reality is that Quintana will never be as good a climber as Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong at Quintana's age gave no hints that he would be a great climber. How can you say with any certainty that Quintana won't be his equal at some point?
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
SeriousSam said:
ILovecycling said:
Alcanelo said:
Did someone just say Contador is not a pure climber? Leave the building please, he's one of the most natural climbers we have seen...it's just that he is so polished all over that people neglect that his climbing is his main strength...Quintana a more pure climber? You're only suggesting that because Quintana is rather average everywhere else. Contador is in the top 5 climbers of all time. In fact I'd only rank Pantani and Impe above him for certain.
No, he is not.He is the best stage racer of last 2 decades.One of the best GT riders of all time, but no he is not a pure climber.

btw http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pure
So "pure" climbers are those riders that are not quite as good at climbing as the best GT climbers like Armstrong and Contador, and worse at everything else?

BlurryVII said:
perico said:
I've watched the sport for 35 years and whether or not he is a pure climber or not is irrelevant. He's one of the three best climbers I've seen, maybe even the best.
Agreed. Whether he's considered a pure climber or not is irrelevant, as long as he can climb faster than the pure climbers :rolleyes:
Exactly. The reality is that Quintana will never be as good a climber as Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong at Quintana's age gave no hints that he would be a great climber. How can you say with any certainty that Quintana won't be his equal at some point?
Armstrong transformed into being a climber, Quintana already is a climber. Being a "pure" climber doesn't mean you're the best climber, as has been established.
 
Jun 28, 2011
1,394
0
0
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
SeriousSam said:
ILovecycling said:
Alcanelo said:
Did someone just say Contador is not a pure climber? Leave the building please, he's one of the most natural climbers we have seen...it's just that he is so polished all over that people neglect that his climbing is his main strength...Quintana a more pure climber? You're only suggesting that because Quintana is rather average everywhere else. Contador is in the top 5 climbers of all time. In fact I'd only rank Pantani and Impe above him for certain.
No, he is not.He is the best stage racer of last 2 decades.One of the best GT riders of all time, but no he is not a pure climber.

btw http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pure
So "pure" climbers are those riders that are not quite as good at climbing as the best GT climbers like Armstrong and Contador, and worse at everything else?

BlurryVII said:
perico said:
I've watched the sport for 35 years and whether or not he is a pure climber or not is irrelevant. He's one of the three best climbers I've seen, maybe even the best.
Agreed. Whether he's considered a pure climber or not is irrelevant, as long as he can climb faster than the pure climbers :rolleyes:
Exactly. The reality is that Quintana will never be as good a climber as Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong at Quintana's age gave no hints that he would be a great climber. How can you say with any certainty that Quintana won't be his equal at some point?
I suspect you already know the answer to that question.
 
Re: Re:

fantomas said:
Angliru said:
SeriousSam said:
ILovecycling said:
Alcanelo said:
Did someone just say Contador is not a pure climber? Leave the building please, he's one of the most natural climbers we have seen...it's just that he is so polished all over that people neglect that his climbing is his main strength...Quintana a more pure climber? You're only suggesting that because Quintana is rather average everywhere else. Contador is in the top 5 climbers of all time. In fact I'd only rank Pantani and Impe above him for certain.
No, he is not.He is the best stage racer of last 2 decades.One of the best GT riders of all time, but no he is not a pure climber.

btw http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pure
So "pure" climbers are those riders that are not quite as good at climbing as the best GT climbers like Armstrong and Contador, and worse at everything else?

BlurryVII said:
perico said:
I've watched the sport for 35 years and whether or not he is a pure climber or not is irrelevant. He's one of the three best climbers I've seen, maybe even the best.
Agreed. Whether he's considered a pure climber or not is irrelevant, as long as he can climb faster than the pure climbers :rolleyes:
Exactly. The reality is that Quintana will never be as good a climber as Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong at Quintana's age gave no hints that he would be a great climber. How can you say with any certainty that Quintana won't be his equal at some point?
Armstrong transformed into being a climber, Quintana already is a climber. Being a "pure" climber doesn't mean you're the best climber, as has been established.
I don't see what that has to do with my direct response to the statement that Quintana would never be as good a climber as Armstrong.
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
[quote="fantomas"
Armstrong transformed into being a climber, Quintana already is a climber. Being a "pure" climber doesn't mean you're the best climber, as has been established.
I don't see what that has to do with my direct response to the statement that Quintana would never be as good a climber as Armstrong.[/quote]

Armstrong as a climber was unchartered territory. Quintana? Not so much.
 
Re: Re:

sultanofhyd said:
Angliru said:
SeriousSam said:
ILovecycling said:
Alcanelo said:
Did someone just say Contador is not a pure climber? Leave the building please, he's one of the most natural climbers we have seen...it's just that he is so polished all over that people neglect that his climbing is his main strength...Quintana a more pure climber? You're only suggesting that because Quintana is rather average everywhere else. Contador is in the top 5 climbers of all time. In fact I'd only rank Pantani and Impe above him for certain.
No, he is not.He is the best stage racer of last 2 decades.One of the best GT riders of all time, but no he is not a pure climber.

btw http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/pure
So "pure" climbers are those riders that are not quite as good at climbing as the best GT climbers like Armstrong and Contador, and worse at everything else?

BlurryVII said:
perico said:
I've watched the sport for 35 years and whether or not he is a pure climber or not is irrelevant. He's one of the three best climbers I've seen, maybe even the best.
Agreed. Whether he's considered a pure climber or not is irrelevant, as long as he can climb faster than the pure climbers :rolleyes:
Exactly. The reality is that Quintana will never be as good a climber as Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong at Quintana's age gave no hints that he would be a great climber. How can you say with any certainty that Quintana won't be his equal at some point?
I suspect you already know the answer to that question.
That would explain me asking the question in the first place. No I don't know the answer. Maybe I'm slow in detecting the obvious if that's in fact what it is.
 
Re: Re:

fantomas said:
Angliru said:
[quote="fantomas"
Armstrong transformed into being a climber, Quintana already is a climber. Being a "pure" climber doesn't mean you're the best climber, as has been established.
I don't see what that has to do with my direct response to the statement that Quintana would never be as good a climber as Armstrong.
Armstrong as a climber was unchartered territory. Quintana? Not so much.[/quote]

Oh, nevermind, I misread your post.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
Exactly. The reality is that Quintana will never be as good a climber as Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong at Quintana's age gave no hints that he would be a great climber. How can you say with any certainty that Quintana won't be his equal at some point?
I'm of course not completely certain. But it's very unlikely, because Armstrong reached great heights as a climber, in absolute terms (posting extremely good times up Alpe and other climbs) and in relative terms (consistently dominated the summit finishes for many years). The fact that he gave no hints he would be great at a young age is irrelevant, because we're not trying to predict anything, it's all in the past and we know what happened.

Quintana has established himself as one of the top 4 climbers and there is room for improvement. It's nonetheless very unlikely he'll match Armstrong, as it is for any climber regardless of how promising he looks.
 
Armstrong's known love history with all sorts of doping leads me to think that his climbing ability may somewhat be overestimated by a quite possible good response to doping. Better than most of the entire field.


By the way, Froome never demonstrated at a young age that he'd be a good climber. However, nowadays he's one of the best.

Quintana is a good climber. Though a diesel climber. He lacks the explosiveness of guys like Rodriguez or even Betancur. Not to even mention Contador.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY