Best climbers in history?

[jens_attacks]

Should we take out those guys with doping history

make your own thread in the clinic then

 

[El Pistolero]

Ricco 2008 is the best climber.


Should we take out those guys with doping history

Sella was better than Ricco.

 

[jencredible]

Trying to be objective (I hate Lance and I merely dislike Contador)..

Lance v AC - any comparison will be imperfect, of course. I suspect from what I've seen that Lance was the better time-trialist while Contador is likely the superior climber. They both probably doped, but probably at a level comparable to the rest of the peloton. Lance benefited from stronger teams, of that there's little doubt. Jordan cites 7 consecutive Tours but is that really any more impressive than 6 GTs in 5 years? Also people knock Lance for only targeting the tour but you don't exactly see AC winning a bunch of Classics or the Worlds. Lance won the Dauphine, the Tour de Suisse during his stretch of dominance, not exactly insignificant races (granted that follows a bit more naturally from his program trying to peak for the tour). The only time that AC wasn't targeting the Tour were '08 when he won the Giro and the Vuelta, which I suspect Lance in his prime could have done even with Heras and Simoni peaking, and this year in which he dominated the Giro but finished 5th in the Tour, again which I think would be fairly consistent with a Lance attempt at the double. It's really difficult in my mind to compare Ullrich, Beloki, early Vino, early Basso to Schleck, Evans, Purito, Nibali, etc...because a lot of those primes don't overlap. Overall I'd say Lance's palmares are more impressive when you factor his world's and earlier classics but AC has quite a bit of time left in which to work. Both have been dominant, both have had surprisingly difficult campaigns ('03 and '10). There are so many fanboys in both camps that we frequently get disingenuous arguments. I suspect because AC doesn't have USPS working for him he's probably more talented as a stage racer but to deny that it's a bit too close to call is ridiculous in my mind.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sella was better than Ricco.

Definitely. Sella was amazing.

Manghen + Pampeago solo:

Pordoi, San Pellegrino and Tommaso Agordino in a lead group, Giau and Falzarego in a group of 3, Fedaia solo:

6 seconds shy of tripling up on Kronplatz:

Gavia and Mortirolo with the heads of state, Aprica solo:

 

[jens_attacks]

the war between ricco and sella.it seems like it was yesterday...

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

riccardo was pure orgasm for the journalists and he still is,on the day of the angliru this year,he said he was watching an amateur race at tv lol.he is indeed very face punchable but one of the biggest climbing talents of the last decade no doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qYNd5fIVw4&feature=related

 

[rzombie1988]

Ricco 2008 is the best climber.


Should we take out those guys with doping history

If we take out the guys with a doping history then the list would be blank.

 

[El Pistolero]

the war between ricco and sella.it seems like it was yesterday...

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

riccardo was pure orgasm for the journalists and he still is,on the day of the angliru this year,he said he was watching an amateur race at tv lol.he is indeed very face punchable but one of the biggest climbing talents of the last decade no doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qYNd5fIVw4&feature=related

Ricco is an obsessed freak. He even named his kid Alberto lol(after Contador).

 

[LaFlorecita]

Ricco is an obsessed freak. He even named his kid Alberto lol(after Contador).

Whut??!!??

 

[El Pistolero]

Whut??!!??

Yeah, the picture of your avatar was taken when someone told Contador the news

 

[LaFlorecita]

Yeah, the picture of your avatar was taken when someone told Contador the news

So you were joking?

 

[El Pistolero]

So you were joking?

No, it's true. The picture thing was a joke, but I can only imagine how his face really looked when someone told it to him.

http://www.570news.com/sports/artic...s-positive-for-cera-following-cyclecross-race

 

[LaFlorecita]

No, it's true. The picture thing was a joke, but I can only imagine how his face really looked when someone told it to him.

http://www.570news.com/sports/artic...s-positive-for-cera-following-cyclecross-race

But how do you know he's named after Contador. I mean, Alberto is quite a common name in Southern Europe.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

the war between ricco and sella.it seems like it was yesterday...

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

riccardo was pure orgasm for the journalists and he still is,on the day of the angliru this year,he said he was watching an amateur race at tv lol.he is indeed very face punchable but one of the biggest climbing talents of the last decade no doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qYNd5fIVw4&feature=related

Ha, Riccò whining about Sella pacing Contador and the quotes about how anybody who watched the Giro would know that he, not Contador, deserved to win, comedy gold.

Sella was pure awesome in that race. If I were going to cheat, that's the way I'd want to do it. Taking nearly every available mountain point and winning mountain stage upon mountain stage solo. Then p*ssing Riccò off would just be the coup de gras. So unbelievably blatant.

 

[paperbackwriter]

But how do you know he's named after Contador. I mean, Alberto is quite a common name in Southern Europe.

Ricco is quoted saying so here
Though we're talking about Ricco so I'm not sure how serious he was.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Ricco is quoted saying so here
Though we're talking about Ricco so I'm not sure how serious he was.

Lol at "gran amigo". I think, or better, hope he was joking.

 

[lukinox]

I didn't read all the posts but I'm sure noone mentioned Gibo Simoni! He has never done great things at the tour (maybe a couple of stage wins) but he won 2 Giros and he won Zoncolan and Angliru stages the two steepest climbs in europe.

 

[AngusW]

Ricco is quoted saying so here
Though we're talking about Ricco so I'm not sure how serious he was.

There is a precedent, I suppose. Roger de Vlaeminck named his son Eddy after one of his most bitter rivals. BTW, Merckx said that he couldn't understand why De Vlaeminck had done that.

 

[AngusW]

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.

Maybe Armstrong could have done the Giro-Tour double in his prime. The fact is, Pantani did the double and Armstrong didn't.

Armstrong won the 2003 Tour by 61 seconds over Jan Ullrich.

Actually, Bernard Hinault dominated the Tour for some years since Merckx's era and he won other GTs during that time too. Still the only rider to win all GTs more than once.

Gino Bartali won 3 straight stages in the mountains in 1948. He also won two in the Pyrenees in the same Tour, giving him 5 mountain stages out of 7 in that year's Tour.

Fausto Coppi also won 4 mountain stages in the 1952 Tour, although there were 9 mountain stages in that Tour.

Merckx vs Armstrong total mountain stage wins:

Merckx: 13 from 7 Tours (5 overall wins)
Armstrong: 11 from 13 Tours (7 overalls wins)

 

[ultimobici]

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.

He rode the shortest season possible, only focussing on the Tour and never rode the Giro at all until they paid him to turn up! And even then he had the gall to whine about the course.

As for attacking, not really a valid argument as he had USPS ride to make any attacks impossible to make stick. Then he finished things off on the final slopes. Hardly in the same vein as Merckx, Coppi or Pantani, was it?

Armstrong's attacks were all last climb assaults, as opposed to Pantani's attack in 98 where he took 8 minutes out of Ulirich or Merckx's assault on the field in 69 or Coppi's 1949 epic to Pinerolo. Those are the exploits of true climbing campione.

Armstrong's Tour focus was akin to Man Utd eschewing the Premiership and just playing the FA Cup Final. Even Lemond who was famous for his Tour focus rode the Classics & Giro.

 

[jordan5000]

He rode the shortest season possible, only focussing on the Tour and never rode the Giro at all until they paid him to turn up! And even then he had the gall to whine about the course.

As for attacking, not really a valid argument as he had USPS ride to make any attacks impossible to make stick. Then he finished things off on the final slopes. Hardly in the same vein as Merckx, Coppi or Pantani, was it?

Armstrong's attacks were all last climb assaults, as opposed to Pantani's attack in 98 where he took 8 minutes out of Ulirich or Merckx's assault on the field in 69 or Coppi's 1949 epic to Pinerolo. Those are the exploits of true climbing campione.

Armstrong's Tour focus was akin to Man Utd eschewing the Premiership and just playing the FA Cup Final. Even Lemond who was famous for his Tour focus rode the Classics & Giro.

You make a valid point but Armstrong's period of dominance was quite long compared to Pantani's, which if you take away 98 really isn't much at all. I know, I know you can't take away one season but my point is that if you take away the best season for each then Armstrong is far ahead due to a longer period of excellence. As for his team, I can't really penalize him for something he doesn't control, you take the best team available when you can and the fact is that if someone wanted to they could have attacked Armstrong which likely would have shed some of his support riders and then went one on one with Armstrong to prove who is best. As for your point about longer, multi-col attacks I agree but I'd still value 2-3 final climb attacks as the same as a multi-col attack unless the latter was something truly spectacular.

 

[hfer07]

Ok so now is very clear why this thread is irrelevant, since the author has proved undoubtedly to be LA fanboy-therefore his knowledge of cycling history only goes back from 99 to 05 and his narrow minded opinion is locked into his idol regardless of many facts explained here by many folks with abroad understanding & knowledge of the sport....

please stop feeding the troll- the topic is so derailed by what the author thinks his list must be & not by what the public is entitle to opine...

 

[crapna]

Landis or Ricco

 

[42x16ss]

You make a valid point but Armstrong's period of dominance was quite long compared to Pantani's, which if you take away 98 really isn't much at all. I know, I know you can't take away one season but my point is that if you take away the best season for each then Armstrong is far ahead due to a longer period of excellence. As for his team, I can't really penalize him for something he doesn't control, you take the best team available when you can and the fact is that if someone wanted to they could have attacked Armstrong which likely would have shed some of his support riders and then went one on one with Armstrong to prove who is best. As for your point about longer, multi-col attacks I agree but I'd still value 2-3 final climb attacks as the same as a multi-col attack unless the latter was something truly spectacular.

Am I the only one who keeps thinking of the same three letters every time I read one of this guy's posts???

 

[Maxiton]

Am I the only one who keeps thinking of the same three letters every time I read one of this guy's posts???

You're thinking of BPC (Ban Pro Cycling)? Nah. In this case it's just UFB (Uninformed and unschooled Fan who is probably a Boy). In any case, that's what the

is for.

 

[Maxiton]

You make a valid point but Armstrong's period of dominance was quite long compared to Pantani's, which if you take away 98 really isn't much at all. I know, I know you can't take away one season but my point is that if you take away the best season for each then Armstrong is far ahead due to a longer period of excellence. As for his team, I can't really penalize him for something he doesn't control, you take the best team available when you can and the fact is that if someone wanted to they could have attacked Armstrong which likely would have shed some of his support riders and then went one on one with Armstrong to prove who is best. As for your point about longer, multi-col attacks I agree but I'd still value 2-3 final climb attacks as the same as a multi-col attack unless the latter was something truly spectacular.

.............................................................................