Best Climber (1990's)

[xmoonx]

A tributary vote for "el Chaba" from me. But this is the way i see it.

1-Pantani
2-Virenque
3-Jimenez

 

[galaxy1]

i loved pantani, but i think ullrich deserves a mention for dominating most mountain stages of TdFs '96, '97 and '98.

 

[Moncoutie]

Pantani. Who else.

 

[Scatto]

Escartin

Escartin, from when I started watching cycling. He also made the podium in 1999 despite horrible TT's. Pantani disappointed me in some stages when he wasn't in peak form. I remember him struggling to get over a bridge ...

 

[indurain666]

Pantani, obviously. But only in 1998-1999. .

WHAT? your ignorance is outrageous... he clocked about 36 mins climbing Alpe d'Huez (Wikipedia's time is wrong) in 95 and 97. He dropped Indurain in 94...dude..come on..

No poll needed here, he was the best climber, ever.

Of course the D word will always come up when talking about him, but at this point if you have some knowledge of the sport and a > 70 IQ you could realize that all other guys were juicing too.

 

[hrotha]

WHAT? your ignorance is outrageous... he clocked about 36 mins climbing Alpe d'Huez (Wikipedia's time is wrong) in 95 and 97. He dropped Indurain in 94...dude..come on..

No poll needed here, he was the best climber, ever.

Of course the D word will always come up when talking about him, but at this point if you have some knowledge of the sport and a > 70 IQ you could realize that all other guys were juicing too.

Well, first you might want to read the rest of my post, where I said he was still the best climber all things considered, just not by much. In 1997 he was outclimbed by Ullrich, and Virenque was roughly at the same level. In 1995 he was inconsistent and lost lots of time in several stages, so Indurain didn't have to bother with him anyway. Regardless, Indurain's climb to La Plagne was better than anything Pantani did in that Tour.

Even in 1998, Ullrich and Tonkov weren't far from him. It only got totally ridiculous in 1999.

 

[indurain666]

Well, first you might want to read the rest of my post, where I said he was still the best climber all things considered, just not by much. In 1997 he was outclimbed by Ullrich, and Virenque was roughly at the same level. In 1995 he was inconsistent and lost lots of time in several stages, so Indurain didn't have to bother with him anyway. Regardless, Indurain's climb to La Plagne was better than anything Pantani did in that Tour.

Even in 1998, Ullrich and Tonkov weren't far from him. It only got totally ridiculous in 1999.

In 97 when he was "on" in Alpe or Joux Plane he destroyed both Virenque and Ulrich. Although I have to admit he had horrible performances in Courchevel and Arcalis.

Same thing in 98, Tonkov was close up Alpe di Pampeago but was destroyed climbing Montecampione. Ulrich, he matched him up Madelaine (or Pantani didn't want to go with the 40 k downhill from the top) but just couldn't control him when climbing Galibier, Peyresourde or Plateau de Beille. He was consistently better than Ulrich or Julich that year, hands down.

When Pantani was on, it was impossible to follow him.

I agree with you, Indurain is one of the most underrated climbers of the 90s cause as far as I am concerned whenever he decided to go only a few pure climbers could follow him.

Virenque is overrated IMO, he had good endurance throughout the long mountain stages and was very consistent but he could never match the top guys in any given year.

Heck I miss the 90s.

 

[ak-zaaf]

Ugromov, Rominger, Berzin?

If it's at peak level...

 

[luckyboy]

Heck I miss the 90s.

Really? What about all the dop... oh