airstream said:
I agree. But exploding the race is a new variant, but not guarantee of success. Exploding implies a huge work, bigger efforts compared to cycling Wiggins professes. No one is able to explode everything solely. Anyone needs allies for different teams. I would give probably 90% to Contador and 10% to Wiggins but IMO if Wiggins will be the second climber in the race, which is possible, Contador will lose. Because since only Pantani in the 1998 Tour could gain on the climbs alone a lot. It's diabolically hard. Wiggins is not junior and he won't panic. He will defend overly rationally.
Wiggins was nothing short of impressive last year, however, it remains to be seen how he handles being put under real pressure in the mountains, and difficult ascents at that. It might be that he can diesel his way to limiting losses and damage control, enough to then take full advantage of expressing his potential in the TTs to win. Yet Contador has a class that permits him the luxury of repeated blistering attacks, which can unravel a rival like Wiggins if not absolutely on top of his game. The smart thing for the later to do would be to consider each climb as a time trial and not worry about the accelerations of his rivals, let them either take some time out of him or fizzle out. Naturally this was his strategy last year, and it worked to a charm. Though it was never against a super Contador, or Shleck for that matter, which leaves some margin of doubt as to whether it would still be a recipe for success in such cases. In other words, is the difference in climbing ability between themselves such that, on a significantly harder climbing course, the Briton’s ability at fortuitous damage control is marginally greater to overcome his rivals’ superiority in accelerated uphill stamina? This to me seems key, because while Alberto has a phenomenal capacity to blast ahead on climbs, he seems less capable of sustaining those efforts (unlike Pantani, by the way, who if somewhat less explosive than the Spaniard, was all the more continuous).
Sorry, perhaps, this word has a bit different meanings in our languages. I meant decoration like an element of a theater scene, a thing which doesn't influence much on what happens. Again, a race with a tougher course ≠ a tougher race. A tougher race is a race when one hit maximally tight competition and has to show 100% of what he can do in the sport. For the years I follow I haven't seen riders who succeed in the Tour, but couldn't do Giro. If one passes over 6-7% average grade climbs, he will be able to do that at 8-9% too.
Ok, a Wiggins of the same form in last year’s Tour at the 2011 Giro against a Contador in the same form that year, given the differences in parcours, has no shot at winning. This is what I meant by the type of course, all things else being equal, plays a hand in the outcome of the event, because it can play favorably to one rider's strengths, while penalizing another's weaknesses. (And vice versa of course).
Tour was always a thing of special sort and for this reason it is the most difficult race to win. Breathe gets harder in the Tour literally and figuratively. It doesn't have monstrous dolomite stages and Mortirolo and the ascents are ridden in a hurricane tempo. Wiggins won the Tour beautifully and deservedly. Why Contador's presence neutralizes his Giro chances is a riddle for me.
I would agree that Wiggins won the last Tour deservedly; beautifully, however, given Froome out-classing him in the mountains (which weren't very hard as far as mountains at the Tour go) is a matter which is entirely up for debate. That's because I didn't find the parcours very appealing, or particularly worthy of the Tour. At any rate the Tour has always been the most difficult race to win because all the best riders in each discipline are there to leave a mark, even if it means just making the top twenty, which naturally intensifies the competition throughout, while stretching the resources of the overall contenders to their maximum capacity. Yet significant modifications to the overall terrain, notwithstanding all the rest, can determine the outcome, simply because not every contender is equipped with the same resources to burn.
I don't see specialists of high gradient among their probable rivals, but Contador.
And that's why he's the guy to beat.