Best climbers in history?

[Maxiton]

Pantani was always the real threat to Armstrong, not Ulrich. Too bad (and not coincidentally?) Pantani's career had the kibosh put on it.

EDIT: I suspect that if Contador were racing then he'd have beaten them all, though I agree you can't fairly compare Armstrong era riders with those of today.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Contador > Armstrong > Pantani.

Contador beat Lance by a mile and a half, and Lance beat Pantani any time he wanted to.

Lance vs. Pantani: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0

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

No BS, just the truth.

I would say the complete reverse. In his prime, Armstrong blew his competition away to a much larger extent than Contador has. Pantani is a superior climber to both. LA was no way near his prime in 2009 against Contador. People need to put their hate aside sometimes and just look at the facts.

You Contador fanboys are so protective.

 

[Thorn Cycling]

pantani in my opinion.

 

[Maxiton]

You Contador fanboys are so protective.

 

[auscyclefan94]

BUt see everyone continually taunts me about being a fanboy and I am open about it and acknowledge it. I have the right to say that about other people who are fanboys and defensive.

 

[Maxiton]

BUt see everyone continually taunts me about being a fanboy and I am open about it and acknowledge it. I have the right to say that about other people who are fanboys and defensive.

Of course you do. You must also acknowledge, however, that in the Tour of Fanboys on this forum you are tête de la course.

 

[Maxiton]

Of course you do. You must also acknowledge, however, that in the Tour of Fanboys on this forum you are tête de la course.

But I know we're off topic, so I'll bring it back around by showing what a fanboy I am: While obviously not a pure climber, or even, like Merckx, one of the best climbers in history, Cadel Evans demonstrated this past Tour that he is underrated in the mountains. Next year he will do it again.

 

[greenedge]

Antón dropped Contador in 2010. When has Evans done that?

Antón is a pure climber in every sense of the word - he can drop pretty much everybody in the climbs when he's on form, but his TT and descending are both poor, and his form is evanescent, and consistency lacking. Evans is not a pure climber, this can be seen from his awkward technique and tendency to go too deep into the red chasing the pure climbers, and blow up and lose time. However, Evans is more consistent, more all-round, better at TTing, descending and a stronger, less fragile rider, and this is why he's a much better GC candidate than Antón.

However, an absolutely on fire, on form Antón would likely drop Evans. But Antón would also probably collapse and lose several unnecessary minutes on another day.

Or, for a more direct comparison:
Igor Antón's time on Monte Zoncolán (2011): 40'50".
Cadel Evans' time on Monte Zoncolán (2010): 42'04".

Who's the better climber? Antón. Who's the better rider, better all-rounder, bigger GC threat? Evans.

I'd consider Evans the bigger classics threat than Rodríguez, but the steeper the finish the more Rodríguez becomes a factor. On something like Huy they can be pretty much equal threats, but Evans has more experience there (a vital factor - remember Evans wiping the floor with everyone in '08 only to fade and let Kirchen take the win, a mistake he learnt from in 2010) which makes the difference. For too long Rodríguez was treated as a Plan B thanks to having Valverde as a teammate.

Hopefully JROD can go better next year in steep classics. In F-W last year it seemed as if Anton was on top form ( in fact i would go as far as to suggest he even worked for Contador ) but Evans beat him. By the time the race reached Zoncolan in 10 Evans had a cold and still finished 2nd. Yes Anton is inconsistent i agree with you. That thread earlier in the year ( about who is the best climber after Andy and Contador ) i voted for Anton. He was inconsistent though. And at the Vuelta he failed when he should have been prepared for that.

I also did say i considered Anton on par with Evans.

 

[jordan5000]

Just my 2 cents here, Armstrong was the best, he proved that in mountain TTs and with crippling attacks, nobody dominated the tour for as long as he did. You can say riders like Pantani have won the giro-tour double, do you really think Armstrong couldn't have done that, considering he won all his tours by 6 minutes? Armstrong dominated the tour in a way that only Merckx did before him, and nobody has since. He's the only person who can say he was undefeated in the tour for 7 years, only person who can say so for more than 5 years. Contador didn't dominate any tour, even in 2009 he won by only about 3 minutes and when you consider that Schleck is a poor time trialist that diminshes the value of the margin. Consider the fact that Armstrong beat Ullrich, who was a great time trialist and climber by 6 minutes+ in multiple tours. Lance also won 3 straight stages in the mountains, who was the last guy to do that? Who was the last guy to win 4 stages in the mountains in a tour, and in only 6 or 7 mountain stages? Say what you want but Lance was the best, he destroyed the best in his time and it was more impressive because rather than riding someone's wheel all day and not attacking (yes, I'm looking at you Alberto) he attacked in yellow to gain a greater margin of victory, Armstrong wasn't content with victory, he wanted to dominate and he did, and that's why he's the best climber ever.

 

[Dancing On The Pedals]

If this was a thread about the best climber in the Tour, then sure Armstrong would probably be very near the top. But cycling races which involve climbing happen all year around, not just in July. Contador's Giro performance this year, on an incredibly mountainous parcours, was brutal, and he won by 6 minutes Just because it wasn't the tour doesn't devalue that.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Hopefully JROD can go better next year in steep classics. In F-W last year it seemed as if Anton was on top form ( in fact i would go as far as to suggest he even worked for Contador ) but Evans beat him. By the time the race reached Zoncolan in 10 Evans had a cold and still finished 2nd. Yes Anton is inconsistent i agree with you. That thread earlier in the year ( about who is the best climber after Andy and Contador ) i voted for Anton. He was inconsistent though. And at the Vuelta he failed when he should have been prepared for that.

I also did say i considered Anton on par with Evans.

As a climber across a stage race I definetly give it to Evans though if you had 1 off climbing races I think anton may slightly be better. This is no disrespect to Cadel because Anton on his day can climb with anyone (including Contador imo)!

Of course you do. You must also acknowledge, however, that in the Tour of Fanboys on this forum you are tête de la course.

That's the way it should be and will always be!

Just my 2 cents here, Armstrong was the best, he proved that in mountain TTs and with crippling attacks, nobody dominated the tour for as long as he did. You can say riders like Pantani have won the giro-tour double, do you really think Armstrong couldn't have done that, considering he won all his tours by 6 minutes? Armstrong dominated the tour in a way that only Merckx did before him, and nobody has since. He's the only person who can say he was undefeated in the tour for 7 years, only person who can say so for more than 5 years. Contador didn't dominate any tour, even in 2009 he won by only about 3 minutes and when you consider that Schleck is a poor time trialist that diminshes the value of the margin. Consider the fact that Armstrong beat Ullrich, who was a great time trialist and climber by 6 minutes+ in multiple tours. Lance also won 3 straight stages in the mountains, who was the last guy to do that? Who was the last guy to win 4 stages in the mountains in a tour, and in only 6 or 7 mountain stages? Say what you want but Lance was the best, he destroyed the best in his time and it was more impressive because rather than riding someone's wheel all day and not attacking (yes, I'm looking at you Alberto) he attacked in yellow to gain a greater margin of victory, Armstrong wasn't content with victory, he wanted to dominate and he did, and that's why he's the best climber ever.

I mostlly agree with you except I still don't agree that Armsrtrong was the best climber.

 

[jordan5000]

As a climber across a stage race I definetly give it to Evans though if you had 1 off climbing races I think anton may slightly be better. This is no disrespect to Cadel because Anton on his day can climb with anyone (including Contador imo)!
That's the way it should be and will always be!


I mostlly agree with you except I still don't agree that Armsrtrong was the best climber.

I think Merckx may have been better to be honest, but I'm not sure. To all those on the Contador bandwagon: hop off, that trains not going anywhere, he's done. There I said it, he showed this year that he wasn't invincible, showed he could be cracked (and easily I might add). To be honest to be on Armstrong's level he needs to: win a giro or two with legitimate competition (please don't say Nibali is, please) or dominate a tour (win by 5 minutes + and multiple stages). There are only a few people who can say they dominated a tour (or GTs) for a long time (5+ years) and they are: Coppi, Merckx, Indurain and Armstrong, that's the reason I'd consider those 3 to be among the top 4 climbers ever (excluding Indurain).

 

[Magnus]

Contador > Armstrong > Pantani.

Contador beat Lance by a mile and a half, and Lance beat Pantani any time he wanted to.

If you look at birth year then certainly

Contador > Armstrong > Pantani

Sure, Armstrong beat Pantani with 5 min in Hautacam in 2000.
Pantani beat Armstrong with 28 min in Guzet Neige in 1995

 

[LaFlorecita]

To all those on the Contador bandwagon: hop off, that trains not going anywhere, he's done. There I said it, he showed this year that he wasn't invincible, showed he could be cracked (and easily I might add). To be honest to be on Armstrong's level he needs to: win a giro or two with legitimate competition (please don't say Nibali is, please) or dominate a tour (win by 5 minutes + and multiple stages). There are only a few people who can say they dominated a tour (or GTs) for a long time (5+ years) and they are: Coppi, Merckx, Indurain and Armstrong, that's the reason I'd consider those 3 to be among the top 4 climbers ever (excluding Indurain).

WTF are you talking about?!
1. I will never -and I said this before to you- hop off the "Contador bandwagon", or get rid "of my "hard ons" for him, because you tell me so.

2.This year he could be cracked, yes. But he rode and won a very hard Giro by 6 minutes. He had a lot of bad luck, and if he hadn't lost 1.20 on the first stage, he would have been on the podium. He crashed a lot, had a painful knee, and yet he still finished 5th, and ended the Tour with a show on stage 19 and 3rd place on stage 20.

3. You're an obvious Armstrong(/Schleck) fanboy and Contador hater.

Congratulations, you're going to be the third person on my ignore list.

EDIT: View Post Today, 09:01
Remove user from ignore listjordan5000
This message is hidden because jordan5000 is on your ignore list.

Bless the ignore list.

 

[El Pistolero]

I think Merckx may have been better to be honest, but I'm not sure. To all those on the Contador bandwagon: hop off, that trains not going anywhere, he's done. There I said it, he showed this year that he wasn't invincible, showed he could be cracked (and easily I might add). To be honest to be on Armstrong's level he needs to: win a giro or two with legitimate competition (please don't say Nibali is, please) or dominate a tour (win by 5 minutes + and multiple stages). There are only a few people who can say they dominated a tour (or GTs) for a long time (5+ years) and they are: Coppi, Merckx, Indurain and Armstrong, that's the reason I'd consider those 3 to be among the top 4 climbers ever (excluding Indurain).

He's done? Did you look at the Giro? That is climbing not seen since Marco Pantani(especially stage 15).

 

[Rouetheday]

I went back to jordan5000's first post on this thread and found that one of the criteria he listed for determining best climber was "an attack going from 100 km out and crossing two HC climbs is more impressive than attacking with 10 km left on the final climb". I dare say most of us would agree with that.

So, naturally, it would follow that his pick for best climber would be.... Lance Armstrong

 

[Forunculo]

I think Merckx may have been better to be honest, but I'm not sure. To all those on the Contador bandwagon: hop off, that trains not going anywhere, he's done. There I said it, he showed this year that he wasn't invincible, showed he could be cracked (and easily I might add). To be honest to be on Armstrong's level he needs to: win a giro or two with legitimate competition (please don't say Nibali is, please) or dominate a tour (win by 5 minutes + and multiple stages). There are only a few people who can say they dominated a tour (or GTs) for a long time (5+ years) and they are: Coppi, Merckx, Indurain and Armstrong, that's the reason I'd consider those 3 to be among the top 4 climbers ever (excluding Indurain).

Are you real?

what's the point of Lance' level?

His blue train at start of last climb? His superdomestique like Heras? What were his rivals? Basso, Beloki, Fat Ulrich, Kloden and Vino GC contenders? Basso, the younger, is not a top contender today and he is at his peak.

The field today is most powerfull by far, and many riders can change the pace quick.


I never see Armstrong outside of July.

And forget it, Verbier 2009 is the fastest climb in history's Tour. Science not opinion. And we saw an interesting show in etna stage in a bald windy mountain.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think Merckx may have been better to be honest, but I'm not sure. To all those on the Contador bandwagon: hop off, that trains not going anywhere, he's done. There I said it, he showed this year that he wasn't invincible, showed he could be cracked (and easily I might add). To be honest to be on Armstrong's level he needs to: win a giro or two with legitimate competition (please don't say Nibali is, please) or dominate a tour (win by 5 minutes + and multiple stages). There are only a few people who can say they dominated a tour (or GTs) for a long time (5+ years) and they are: Coppi, Merckx, Indurain and Armstrong, that's the reason I'd consider those 3 to be among the top 4 climbers ever (excluding Indurain).

Coppi didn't dominate the Tour for a long time, because he had to deal with Bartali, Kubler and Koblet.

Jacques Anquetil, however? He did dominate the Tour. How about Bernard Hinault too?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

As a climber across a stage race I definetly give it to Evans though if you had 1 off climbing races I think anton may slightly be better. This is no disrespect to Cadel because Anton on his day can climb with anyone (including Contador imo)!
That's the way it should be and will always be!

This is more or less my point, I feel. Antón is a true pure climber. An on-form Antón could more often than not beat an on-form Evans on a selected hillclimb. On his absolute best form Antón can drop anybody, and that includes Contador as long as Contador isn't truly peaking (as we've seen). I can't say the same of Evans, and never have been able to. But with being a true pure climber in the old fashioned sense comes with other flaws - and some of these flaws include consistency and TTing. Evans is not a pure climber, you can see that climbing does not come naturally to him. But because he is not a pure climber but can still climb very well indeed, Cadel Evans simply must be considered the better rider across a stage race, because he is more likely to be consistent, and of course when it comes to power stages such as ITTs and off-road or windy ones, he holds all the cards over a featherweight climber. Which means the pressure is on them when the road goes uphill, and they need to take more risks to take that time back, which also increases the likelihood of them blowing up and having a bad day.

 

[sultanofhyd]

jordan5000, THERE ARE CLIMBS AND RACES OUTSIDE FRANCE, TOO.

 

[ultimobici]

I think Merckx may have been better to be honest, but I'm not sure.

You're not sure???

Armstrong never ventured off the front on his own early on in a stage, ever. He had USPS deliver him to the final climb having shelled out his rivals or at least softened them up.

Merckx by contrast attacked on numerous occasions and took big time over multiple passes. Alone.

1969
Stage 6 - Attacks from the bottom of the Ballon d'Alsace & takes 2 minutes out of his rivals
Stage 17 - Attacks from 140km out and solos in over 8 minutes up having crossed 4 cols.
He finished in Paris with the Overall, Points & Mountains Classifications. No one had done this before or has since.

1970
Wins Overall & Mountains Classification. Comes second in Points with 8 stage victories, three of which were mountain stages.

1971
Wins Overall & Points again. Can only manage third in Mountains behind Van Impe. Wins a Mountain Stage among his four stages.

1972
Wins Overall, Points & Combination. Again has to cede to Van Impe in the Mountains Classification. Loses by a slight 18 points. Of his 6 stage victories a mere three are Mountain Stages.

These performances were after a full Classics programme and the Giro. In 70 & 72 he had won the Giro to boot.

Armstrong may have the record for most wins in France but, impressive as that is, it is a mere statistic. Merckx eclipses him in all areas, climbing, sprinting, winning.

History started long before Armstrong was on the scene.

 

[The Hitch]

Contador didn't dominate any tour, even in 2009 he won by only about 3 minutes and when you consider that Schleck is a poor time trialist that diminshes the value of the margin. Consider the fact that Armstrong beat Ullrich, who was a great time trialist and climber by 6 minutes+ in multiple tours.

First of all i would like to point out that you have made a number of stupid comments and when they are rebuted, you just ignore it and move on to a new line of attack.

Which devalues your argument overall as it looks like you are just searching for something that finaly works.

Contador does not dominate Tours because he eases off once he thinks he can win.

For starters he still at a young age and has only contested 3 TDFs anyway.

He was only 24 in 2007. To win it at that age is like winning a tour at 30 years old by 6 minutes.

In 2009 he did dominate the Tour. He stamped his authority on a hill top, won it on the first mtf, and spent the other 2 actual mountain stages defending, with relative ease. He didnt need to crush everyone, he had the race in the bag.

In 2010 he was weaker yes. Kind of like 2003 for Armstrong. He didnt show too much climbing ability other than the fact that despite his weakness and Schlecks gain in strength, he was still the best climber in the race.

Unlike Armstrong, however, in all these cases Contador had spent a season crushing everyone in other races. You say Armstrong was capapble of that too.

Then why didnt he do it then?

Its because its actually very hard, if all you want to do is peak for the Tour, to destroy others while they are on peak in other races. But Contador does this.

Lance also won 3 straight stages in the mountains, who was the last guy to do that? Who was the last guy to win 4 stages in the mountains in a tour, and in only 6 or 7 mountain stages? Say what you want but Lance was the best, he destroyed the best in his time and it was more impressive because rather than riding someone's wheel all day and not attacking (yes, I'm looking at you Alberto) he attacked in yellow to gain a greater margin of victory, Armstrong wasn't content with victory, he wanted to dominate and he did, and that's why he's the best climber ever

So Lance won 3 mountain stages ergo thats special, ergo hes the best.

When Pantani did Giro Tour double that wasnt special. When Contador won all 3 grand tours that wasnt special. When Mercx won 11 Grand Tours that wasnt special?


Yes Lance won 7 Tours. That makes him the best climber of that era and one of the best ever.

But other people have also achieved amazing feats in cycling.

You would be wise not to ignore them.

 

[El Pistolero]

Contador won on the Etna. Contador gifted Grossglockner to Rujano. Contador gifted Zoncolan to Igor Anton. Contador was first of the favorites at Gardeccia, but the break survived and Nieve won. Contador won the mountain time trial on Nevegal. Contador gifted a mountain stage to Tiralongo. Contador did nothing anymore on the last mountain stage in the Giro because he didn't need to anymore.

Statistics only say so much.

In fact, Armstrong couldn't drop Basso anymore in his later Tours and only gained time on him in the time trials. Contador can easily drop Basso in whatever shape he's in. Though this year's Tour is no good example because of Bassos's crash at Monte Etna.

 

[The Hitch]

I think Merckx may have been better to be honest, but I'm not sure. To all those on the Contador bandwagon: hop off, that trains not going anywhere, he's done. There I said it, he showed this year that he wasn't invincible, showed he could be cracked (and easily I might add). To be honest to be on Armstrong's level he needs to: win a giro or two with legitimate competition (please don't say Nibali is, please) or dominate a tour (win by 5 minutes + and multiple stages). There are only a few people who can say they dominated a tour (or GTs) for a long time (5+ years) and they are: Coppi, Merckx, Indurain and Armstrong, that's the reason I'd consider those 3 to be among the top 4 climbers ever (excluding Indurain).

This is the dumbest post ive ever seen.

Your lack of knowledge about this sport is sad.

Contador is done? He came 5th despite injuries and time penalties after a Giro from which not a single other rider has yet to recover from.

Your post is reason enough for Contadors name to be cleared so that he can teach your type (if more than 1 person with such ignorance does actually exist) a little bit about cycling.

As for the bit about Contadors competition being weak, well thats not worth wasting time on.

Contadors competition was strong. You have demonstrated quite clearly that you know nothing about cycling so you cant really argue this, though yes you may attempt to mumble something.


Scarponi and Rujano have never ridden the Tour so you have never heard of them but they awesome climbers, who could challenge heads of state in the Tour easy.

Nibali is a superior rider to the young buck who managed an impressive 7th in the Tour last time you saw him.

It was a race which totaly cracked Dennis Menchov who you may remember taking a podium in 2010 and who has posted amazing results outside the TDF as well.

And the point was that despite such a great lineup, Contador put minutes into them without leaving 1st gear, and handing stages away like candy.

 

[toolittle]

Lucien Van Impe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucien_Van_Impe

Merckx was a Beast on The Climbs To considering he was Not a Small Guy and could Drop Most on any given day if the need was there...

Pantani.. Say no More.. Attacking second Nature..

Ricco 2008 is the best climber.


Should we take out those guys with doping history