rhubroma said:
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.
In my view, you take it easy too much. Wiggins is not just a diesel. Wiggins of 2012 is not Levi Leipheimer, early Evans. It is the strongest diesel of GT contenders. It is a type of climber we've never seen before maybe. Does elite climber have to be explosive to be a superclimber? Again, explosiveness is additional options, but it is not the result. Tactics of steady pursuit can reach brilliant results too. Discussing with you, we kind of hit invicible wall. You deify attacking style whereas it is just an instrument. Do you seriously think Contador would gain on Wiggins 3-4 minutes on the 2012 Giro climbs?
There was no gulf between climber Contador and climber Wiggins in 2009 yet. Оver the years years this gap has obviously reduced.
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.
No climber is able to commit these blistering attacks 4-5 times in a GT, gaining much times in all of them. While on form, Wiggins can hold say 2 minutes obtained in TTs.
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.
Do you admit variants that this not spectacular parade-like hated by many people cycling can not allow to be Contador and Schleck 'super'? I just believe numbers more than names and palmares. Based on the numbers, Sky were very strong in the Tour.
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?
I don't understand why you throw away the fact that superclimber is always able to defend himself in a steady tempo. Accelerations never last really long. It lasts 200-300 meters and then a time trial in a road race starts virtually. Yes, naturally, inherit climber can fire again and again, but this manner is fraught with its disadvantages too, because a climber can not rider steadily.
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).
I didn't mean routes that contradistinguish so much. Parcours is relevant and Wiggins wouldn't have won the Giro 2011 Giro. But say I don't see principal differences in parcours of Tours since 2003 up to the present times. My parcours thesis related to comparison between the 2012 Tour and the 2013 Giro. The Giro parcours lowers Wiggins chances, but don't neutralizes them.
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.
How much stronger was Froome if he could have raced for himself is for debate too. There was no shame to be beaten by Froome at all. He is not an accidental man. He is new superstar, a climber of Schleck's and Contador's calibre.