Best climbers in history?

[jordan5000]

That's irrelevant, fact is it still took Contador to respond, if he was at the back of the group that still doesn't mean much, being at the back of 5 riders means you would be about 4 bike lengths, prob 6-8m, behind the first rider which certainly isn't a 4 second gap. Get rid of your hard ons for Contador, he wasn't that great in 2010 and took advantage of Schleck's bad luck to win.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Ok fine, from now on Rasmussen will not be considered. As for Fuentes being better than Merckx, Merckx beat him by 15 minutes+ in his victories, not all of that from time trials and won 8 stages in one tour, 34 in general and most were mountain stages so I don't think Fuente is better.

I didn't say Fuente was better than Merckx. I said he was better than Merckx in a particular race to which I was referring. That race is the 1974 Giro, when Fuente lost ten minutes into Sanremo on stage 14 yet still finished just 3'22" off Merckx, winning 5 stages - all lumpy, mostly high mountain - in the process.

Being better than Merckx is an impressive feat, although Fuente wasn't as consistent as Merckx, had too many other weaknesses and his heyday was short. However, if Merckx deserves to be in the list, then the guys that outclimbed him sometimes definitely merit consideration. You said that they did not, and therefore you are wrong.

There were also plenty of mountain stages when Merckx beat Fuente. You just cannot take account only these stages where Fuente was best, but you have to look overall picture. In 1972 Giro, for instance, Fuente got Rosa after TTT, but lost it to Merckx in mountains. Funete was occasionaly stronger than Merckx, but Fuente quite often was not marked so tightly than Merckx and quite often Funete was also pretty weak in mountains. Merckx had longer seasons, he raced more races, he had different objectives, when Fuente(and this applies to Ocana too) were more selective and concentrated on few races.

The "pure climbers" often are quite inconsistent - Antón and Rodríguez in the current péloton, for example. Fuente was consistent enough to win two GTs and 5 KOM jerseys, and this when racing the Vuelta and Giro back to back in the days when the Vuelta was in April. Merckx was a better rider, and often a better climber too. But Fuente was a guy who he truly feared in the mountains. That alone is enough to merit his consideration in a topic about the best CLIMBERS of all time.

The whole thing about GCs and Merckx' other races is valid, but runs counter to the OP's original criteria. Under the original criteria, it is lunacy to state that Van Impe, Fuente, Herrera and Ocaña "don't merit consideration". You may ultimately reject the argument, but to say that they "don't merit consideration" is simply ridiculous.

Hence why I was in favour of 9 options plus a tenth, "other: please specify" category, because there are clearly more than 10 riders in the history of the sport whose achievements in the high mountains "merit consideration" in discussion of who the best climber is. I don't necessarily think that José Manuel Fuente is the best climber of all time. But I do think he is in the top 10.

 

[jordan5000]

I didn't say Fuente was better than Merckx. I said he was better than Merckx in a particular race to which I was referring. That race is the 1974 Giro, when Fuente lost ten minutes into Sanremo on stage 14 yet still finished just 3'22" off Merckx, winning 5 stages - all lumpy, mostly high mountain - in the process.

Being better than Merckx is an impressive feat, although Fuente wasn't as consistent as Merckx, had too many other weaknesses and his heyday was short. However, if Merckx deserves to be in the list, then the guys that outclimbed him sometimes definitely merit consideration. You said that they did not, and therefore you are wrong.

The "pure climbers" often are quite inconsistent - Antón and Rodríguez in the current péloton, for example. Fuente was consistent enough to win two GTs and 5 KOM jerseys, and this when racing the Vuelta and Giro back to back in the days when the Vuelta was in April. Merckx was a better rider, and often a better climber too. But Fuente was a guy who he truly feared in the mountains. That alone is enough to merit his consideration in a topic about the best CLIMBERS of all time.

The whole thing about GCs and Merckx' other races is valid, but runs counter to the OP's original criteria. Under the original criteria, it is lunacy to state that Van Impe, Fuente, Herrera and Ocaña "don't merit consideration". You may ultimately reject the argument, but to say that they "don't merit consideration" is simply ridiculous.

Hence why I was in favour of 9 options plus a tenth, "other: please specify" category, because there are clearly more than 10 riders in the history of the sport whose achievements in the high mountains "merit consideration" in discussion of who the best climber is. I don't necessarily think that José Manuel Fuente is the best climber of all time. But I do think he is in the top 10.

If I could re-do the poll that's probably the option I would have gone with.

 

[LaFlorecita]

That's irrelevant, fact is it still took Contador to respond, if he was at the back of the group that still doesn't mean much, being at the back of 5 riders means you would be about 4 bike lengths, prob 6-8m, behind the first rider which certainly isn't a 4 second gap. Get rid of your hard ons for Contador, he wasn't that great in 2010 and took advantage of Schleck's bad luck to win.

And Schleck didn't take advantage of Contador's bad luck? When his brother Fränkie crashed in front of Contador, and Contador lost 80 seconds? Yes, he wasn't great in 2010, but that only makes your statement look worse. How's Schleck ever going to beat an in form Contador if he couldn't beat a out-of-form Contador? He even had 2 opportunities. Last year and this year.

And no, I'm not going to get rid of my "hard ons" for Contador just because you say it.

 

[jordan5000]

That's completely different and you know it for a few reasons: A) Schleck wasn't the one driving the peloton forward, the peloton was going at high speeds to try and chase down a breakaway and go for the stage win, not to create big gaps to the others in the race.

B) There is a different set of rules when talking about the maillot jaune, you earn respect when you wear it and should be treated with respect. You don't attack the yellow jersey when it is in trouble, you ride at the same pace you were before and seen if the MJ can catch up to you, you certainly don't speed away as fast as you can, I lost all respect for ****ador when he did that.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

That's completely different and you know it for a few reasons: A) Schleck wasn't the one driving the peloton forward, the peloton was going at high speeds to try and chase down a breakaway and go for the stage win, not to create big gaps to the others in the race.

B) There is a different set of rules when talking about the maillot jaune, you earn respect when you wear it and should be treated with respect. You don't attack the yellow jersey when it is in trouble, you ride at the same pace you were before and seen if the MJ can catch up to you, you certainly don't speed away as fast as you can, I lost all respect for ****ador when he did that.

And as such, the winner of the first stage wins the Tour

 

[LaFlorecita]

I lost all respect for ****ador when he did that.

=Clarification of your posts.

Did you ever have respect for him??

 

[jencredible]

Schleck is Poulidor, but whinier. That said he's an above average climber (not an all-time great in my mind) and Contador has had trouble putting him away in the mountains on a couple of occasions...not exactly the sign of the ultimate climber. If he was truly the dominant climber, why not stop and wait for Andy to get his chain fixed and then destroy him with one of those trademark explosive accelerations. I just can't put him in the same class as Pantani or the earlier greats. That said, I think he's pretty clearly the best climber now, but I've yet to see evidence that he's well beyond Schleck.
Contador>Schleck>Purito>Scarponi, Anton, Rujano>Cadel, Samu, Nibali, Menchov, etc..

 

[Duartista]

Let's not get into an interminable debate about the chain episode.

Schleck is an interesting rider in terms of his qualities (if not his attitude). He does better on long 200km plus stages with multiple climbs than more explosive stages, and as such is perhaps more akin to some of the climbers from the past we've been discussing than Contador is. It would be fascinating to see the two go head-to-head, in top form, on a marathon stage like Gardeccia.

 

[Parrulo]

And as such, the winner of the first stage wins the Tour

lol it just shows he is just another one of those new guys who didn't even knew cycling existed before armstrong. if they had the chance guys like merckx and hinault would kill you on the road.

 

[jencredible]

I just did a quick and dirty look at Contador v Schleck in the Grand Tours (head to head, so really we're only looking at three episodes of France) When you eliminate the team time trial (I couldn't quickly find their times in all of the ITTs and non-mountain stages, so this is admittedly quite rough), Contador has been 2:15 better than Schleck over three tours (granted there are myriad other variables to consider but I'm okay with this gross oversimplification for the moment). Given the fact that Contador could take that kind of time out of Schleck on a single time trial (or at least two time trials) and his descending is superior, isn't it reasonable to hypothesize that head to head there isn't much between them as climbers? I'm not proving anything, I know, but I don't think it's out of the question to compare the two on more equal terms.

 

[Angliru]

That's completely different and you know it for a few reasons: A) Schleck wasn't the one driving the peloton forward, the peloton was going at high speeds to try and chase down a breakaway and go for the stage win, not to create big gaps to the others in the race.

B) There is a different set of rules when talking about the maillot jaune, you earn respect when you wear it and should be treated with respect. You don't attack the yellow jersey when it is in trouble, you ride at the same pace you were before and seen if the MJ can catch up to you, you certainly don't speed away as fast as you can, I lost all respect for ****ador when he did that.

You can't seriously believe that the Schleck group's intention wasn't to put as much time as possible into their opponents, especially Contador & Armstrong.
It was very much anticipated that Contador would likely lose time on that cobbled stage.

 

[Parrulo]

I just did a quick and dirty look at Contador v Schleck in the Grand Tours (head to head, so really we're only looking at three episodes of France) When you eliminate the team time trial (I couldn't quickly find their times in all of the ITTs and non-mountain stages, so this is admittedly quite rough), Contador has been 2:15 better than Schleck over three tours (granted there are myriad other variables to consider but I'm okay with this gross oversimplification for the moment). Given the fact that Contador could take that kind of time out of Schleck on a single time trial (or at least two time trials) and his descending is superior, isn't it reasonable to hypothesize that head to head there isn't much between them as climbers? I'm not proving anything, I know, but I don't think it's out of the question to compare the two on more equal terms.

please show me this kind of performance from schleck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szLGtG_yQzo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afFI4alhJQc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibVr481vCIk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eYOAp0lrOE

+ many others.

 

[jencredible]

Valverde 2012?

Any idea who'll give him a contract? Or what his program may look like?

 

[roundabout]

The poll results make me sad. Long live the ignorance.

 

[Angliru]

That's completely different and you know it for a few reasons: A) Schleck wasn't the one driving the peloton forward, the peloton was going at high speeds to try and chase down a breakaway and go for the stage win, not to create big gaps to the others in the race.

B) There is a different set of rules when talking about the maillot jaune, you earn respect when you wear it and should be treated with respect. You don't attack the yellow jersey when it is in trouble, you ride at the same pace you were before and seen if the MJ can catch up to you, you certainly don't speed away as fast as you can, I lost all respect for ****ador when he did that.

Andy is the third best climber I've ever seen behind Contador and Armstrong, granted I've only been watching from about 2005 or so.

No offense but your admission of only watching the sport since 2005 is not surprising at all. Have you taken the time read up on or view footage of any
of the riders that you deemed unworthy of consideration?

 

[uphillstruggle]

He was far back. As ElPistolero said, Vino closed the gap. VINO. This is exactly what I've been telling my parents and brother and boyfriend. Why were so many people angry over that? Even Vino could keep up with Andy. Your attack can't be that good if Vino can close the gap to you.

Andy attacked when the gradient was quite low. This if anywhere is where he can gap Contador. See top of Morzine stage and the top of Plateau de Beille. Easy gradient. Vino is also good on this kind of gradient. But yeah in the end Contador would have pulled him back eventually.

In the last three tours, the time from Schleck to Contador is roughly:

2009: Contador+1.03
2010 Contador+39
2011 Schleck 3.05

 

[Dancing On The Pedals]

Schleck is Poulidor, but whinier. That said he's an above average climber (not an all-time great in my mind) and Contador has had trouble putting him away in the mountains on a couple of occasions...not exactly the sign of the ultimate climber. If he was truly the dominant climber, why not stop and wait for Andy to get his chain fixed and then destroy him with one of those trademark explosive accelerations. I just can't put him in the same class as Pantani or the earlier greats. That said, I think he's pretty clearly the best climber now, but I've yet to see evidence that he's well beyond Schleck.
Contador>Schleck>Purito>Scarponi, Anton, Rujano>Cadel, Samu, Nibali, Menchov, etc..

Schleck is an interesting rider in terms of his qualities (if not his attitude). He does better on long 200km plus stages with multiple climbs than more explosive stages, and as such is perhaps more akin to some of the climbers from the past we've been discussing than Contador is. It would be fascinating to see the two go head-to-head, in top form, on a marathon stage like Gardeccia.

I think it's fair to say that for the last 2 years, Contador has not been in top form at the Tour, partly explaining why he and Schleck have been fairly evenly matched. This shouldn't diminish Contador's ability however - in the 1971 Tour Merckx was very much second best to Ocana before he crashed. I'd also point out that Contador is an 'all-round' climber - he can do multi-mountain stages or short steep stuff like Mende or Huy, something that Schleck, his nearest rival atm, cannot do (more knowledgeable forum posters can comment on riders from the past being able to do this - only watched cycling for the last 3-4 years).

However, to say Schleck is rubbish - even though I'm not a fan of his at all, he's clearly one of the best climbers in the modern peloton. It would be great to see him ride head-to-head vs Contador outside of July, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. That said though, if Contador rides the Tour next year in this year's Giro form, Schleck will get blown away.

 

[Angliru]

Actually the post does make sense, Andy is basically standing still for 4 seconds before Contador passes him, my point is Contador didn't jump straight onto his wheel, he was struggling a bit.

Why would Contador jump on Andy's wheel when Andy was still slowly rolling when goes by him? The fact that Vino easily had reeled in Andy's blistering attack should tell you that the likelihood of it's success was quite slim.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The best climbing performances in the last 5 years have been by a doped up Emanuele Sella in the '08 Giro.

After that it's Contador in the '11 race and José Rujano winning the Vuelta a Colombia almost on his own in '09.

 

[icefire]

No offense but your admission of only watching the sport since 2005 is not surprising at all. Have you taken the time read up on or view footage of any
of the riders that you deemed unworthy of consideration?

I'm wondering what he will think when he learns about riders in the past who used to attack in the feed areas

 

[Walkman]

The poll results make me sad. Long live the ignorance.

I second that!

 

[El Pistolero]

The best climbing performances in the last 5 years have been by a doped up Emanuele Sella in the '08 Giro.

After that it's Contador in the '11 race and José Rujano winning the Vuelta a Colombia almost on his own in '09.

Meh, if you see how much Contador outclassed Rujano, it's hard to take the Vuelta a Colombia seriously. I'm more impressed by Rujano's Giro performances than with his performances in South America.

 

[El Pistolero]

And as such, the winner of the first stage wins the Tour

We Belgians wouldn't mind that

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Meh, if you see how much Contador outclassed Rujano, it's hard to take the Vuelta a Colombia seriously. I'm more impressed by Rujano's Giro performances than with his performances in South America.

It was more to do with how most of his team abandoned at some point and he was racing almost on his own by the rest of the race and still winning the mountain stages by distances. That kind of thing is pretty hard to do at any race, let alone one like the Vuelta a Colombia. We certainly don't see that happen at any really difficult stage race in Europe.