Best climbers in history?

[El Pistolero]

Bartali/Coppi/Bahamontes/Van Impe

Contador or Pantani don't compare

Pantani definitely does.

 

[jordan5000]

What about a multi-mountain attack that gains 8 minutes, such as this: http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1947_1977/tdf1969_17.php or this: http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/05/road/50-years-later-remembering-charly-gauls-great-ride_9906?

And Armstrong was cracked twice in his TDF prime.

Ok my mistake, and yes that is very impressive, look back in the thread and you'll see I try to sell Merckx as one of the best climbers ever but nobody was buying it, he was part of the reason for including the multi-mountain criteria.

"Bartali/Coppi/Bahamontes/Van Impe

Contador or Pantani don't compare" Contador and Pantani are better than all the riders there, the only one who probably deserves to be on there level is Coppi out of that group.

 

[Duartista]

Ok my mistake, and yes that is very impressive, look back in the thread and you'll see I try to sell Merckx as one of the best climbers ever but nobody was buying it, he was part of the reason for including the multi-mountain criteria.

"Bartali/Coppi/Bahamontes/Van Impe

Contador or Pantani don't compare" Contador and Pantani are better than all the riders there, the only one who probably deserves to be on there level is Coppi out of that group.

Bartali was an amazing climber - in the 1948 Tour he won 3 consecutive mountain stages, gaining around 14 minutes over the field. He was already 34, having lost many of his best years to the war. Coppi was a much better time trialist, but as climbers there was little between them.

 

[ultimobici]

Ok my mistake, and yes that is very impressive, look back in the thread and you'll see I try to sell Merckx as one of the best climbers ever but nobody was buying it, he was part of the reason for including the multi-mountain criteria.

"Bartali/Coppi/Bahamontes/Van Impe

Contador or Pantani don't compare" Contador and Pantani are better than all the riders there, the only one who probably deserves to be on there level is Coppi out of that group.

You're joking aren't you?

Bahamontes won 6 Mountains titles in an age when many passes were either cobbled or unsurfaced.

Bartali & Coppi's careers straddled WW2 and their palmares were built in the mountains. Bartali, as well as winning the Tour & Giro overall, won the KOM in the Tour twice and the Giro seven times. if that isn't the sign of a great climber, I don't know what is.

Van Impe won his last KOM in 83 at the age of 36 with a margin of over 70 points over the second placed rider.

This idea that because Armstrong won on the last climb he must be the best is out of odds with your original criteria.

My criteria is: time gains they achieved when attacking, distance of attacks (ie an attack going from 100km out and crossing two HC climbs is more impressive than attacking with 10km left on the final climb)

In the vast majority of his stage victories in the mountains Armstrong was shielded until the last few kilometres. Not once did he set off on his own from 20km out let alone 100km.

In his repertoire there isn't a single Gaul/Pantani/Merckx style attack or attempt at an attack. His MO is the same sterile one every time.

No panache, which is what climbers are all about.

 

[jordan5000]

You're joking aren't you?

Bahamontes won 6 Mountains titles in an age when many passes were either cobbled or unsurfaced.

Bartali & Coppi's careers straddled WW2 and their palmares were built in the mountains. Bartali, as well as winning the Tour & Giro overall, won the KOM in the Tour twice and the Giro seven times. if that isn't the sign of a great climber, I don't know what is.

Van Impe won his last KOM in 83 at the age of 36 with a margin of over 70 points over the second placed rider.

This idea that because Armstrong won on the last climb he must be the best is out of odds with your original criteria.



In the vast majority of his stage victories in the mountains Armstrong was shielded until the last few kilometres. Not once did he set off on his own from 20km out let alone 100km.

In his repertoire there isn't a single Gaul/Pantani/Merckx style attack or attempt at an attack. His MO is the same sterile one every time.

No panache, which is what climbers are all about.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: KOM jerseys aren't that meaningful to me. A great climber will win stages and consistently place well in GTs (but not too well as their time trialing skills may be insufficient). A rider going for the KOM in my mind isn't truly racing, they are racing until there are no points left and then giving up and they are getting in breaks with no pure intention of winning, but rather just to achieve an objective (gaining points). Sure they are good climbers, but there is a reason why Armstrong could always blow past Virenque, why Schleck and Evans could out race Sanchez and why Armstrong, Contador and Schleck could pass Pellizotti without going full out (and a drug aided Pellizotti too). The fact is that riders who win the KOM aren't usually the best climbers, they are simply opportunists who suffer in long breaks to score big points.

As for the Armstrong comment, cycling doesn't have to be pretty, it just needs to be effective. Put Armstrong against any rider from his day and he beats them all up the mountains.

 

[gregrowlerson]

In the vast majority of his stage victories in the mountains Armstrong was shielded until the last few kilometres. Not once did he set off on his own from 20km out let alone 100km.

What does this have to do with how good a climber Lance was?

The only riders in recent times who set off on really long range attacks are those who are KOM riders (aren't good enough to focus on GC) or are in a desperate situation (Pantani '00, Landis '06, Schleck, Contador this year). Was Tadese a better 10,000 metres runner than Gebrselassie or Bekele because he went on long range attacks? No, of course not. He wasn't quite as talented (also didn't have the sprint finish) and therefore HAD to.

If you can always win doing the same thing then why not do so? Riders aren't riding to win fans.

 

[jordan5000]

What does this have to do with how good a climber Lance was?

The only riders in recent times who set off on really long range attacks are those who are KOM riders (aren't good enough to focus on GC) or are in a desperate situation (Pantani '00, Landis '06, Schleck, Contador this year). Was Tadese a better 10,000 metres runner than Gebrselassie or Bekele because he went on long range attacks? No, of course not. He wasn't quite as talented (also didn't have the sprint finish) and therefore HAD to.

If you can always win doing the same thing then why not do so? Riders aren't riding to win fans.

Thank you, I'm glad somebody could see the flaw in his argument.

 

[jordan5000]

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.






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.

Sorry for not responding earlier, I didn't see it. I'll admit some of my comments have been dumb, but I've still been trying to defend the same point the entire time, and yes I made mistakes and I acknowledge that. I recognize Pantani's giro-tour double however that was one year, he didn't dominate over an extended period of time, yes he was a great climber but he didn't dominate for as long as Lance did. As for your argument about Contador, if Contador was dominating then why didn't he go for more stage wins in 2009 like Armstrong did in his tours even though he had already secured his victories? Lance also won many other events besides the tour in his earlier days, but when you realize you can make millions of dollars riding and winning the tour, why would you focus on other events? I think it should be noted that Lance was 11th in the Giro at 38, one has to wonder what he could have done in his prime had he even given a tiny bit of preparation towards it.

 

[ultimobici]

Thank you, I'm glad somebody could see the flaw in his argument.

You asked who was the best climber in history, mention Coppi & Merckx & then promptly elevate Armstrong because he won 7 Tours.

Bartali, Coppi, Merckx & Bahamontes all won multiple times in the mountains in the Tour, Giro & Vuelta.

In the interests of balance you have to weigh up the differences between their eras. Armstrong focussed exclusively on the Tour from 1999 onwards, rode tactically in the mountains & won not a single KOM title. Coppi, Merckx, Gaul etc rode a much more extensive calendar, won KOM titles left right & centre and multiple varied GT Overalls. Neither scenario has a trump card. Quantity (7 wins) can eclipse neither Bartali (2 Tour Overalls & KOM's + 3 Giri & 7 KOM's) nor Coppi (2 Tours & KOMs & 5 Giri & 3 KOMs) nor Merckx (5 Tours & 2 KOMs + 5 Giri & 2 KOMs). It was observed that Coppi, once he attacked, was never seen again until the finish. Gaul's Ventoux record, set in 1958, stood for more than 40 years before Vaughters beat it in 1999.

So Armstrong's record is impressive and puts him up in the top echelon but his single minded focus on one race & the tactics chosen to win that event undermine his claim to the top steps. Merckx, Coppi, Bartali, Van Impe & Gaul all have to be above him, IMO. And that is what it is, an opinion.

 

[sultanofhyd]

Sorry for not responding earlier, I didn't see it. I'll admit some of my comments have been dumb, but I've still been trying to defend the same point the entire time, and yes I made mistakes and I acknowledge that. I recognize Pantani's giro-tour double however that was one year, he didn't dominate over an extended period of time, yes he was a great climber but he didn't dominate for as long as Lance did. As for your argument about Contador, if Contador was dominating then why didn't he go for more stage wins in 2009 like Armstrong did in his tours even though he had already secured his victories? Lance also won many other events besides the tour in his earlier days, but when you realize you can make millions of dollars riding and winning the tour, why would you focus on other events? I think it should be noted that Lance was 11th in the Giro at 38, one has to wonder what he could have done in his prime had he even given a tiny bit of preparation towards it.

Contador does not like going for stage wins when he doesn't need time. Do you really think he was not strong enough to beat the Schleck double team on that stage (I don't remember which) and beat Garate on Mont Ventoux if he wanted? He did not get dropped, and he dropped everyone when he wanted to, and that is domination.

And by the way, Contador won the 2008 Giro without any preparation.

Multi million dollars? Ok..

 

[McLovin]

And by the way, Contador won the 2008 Giro without any preparation.

I think he was pregnat in first trimester, actually.
again again and again. I said it few pages ago, he just won two one week races before the Giro.

 

[AngusW]

~edited by mod~

Anyways, Armstrong was practically unbeatable during his 1999-2005 years, Ullrich didn't wear yellow once in that time period, which is truly remarkable. I also don't remember a tour when Armstrong didn't win 2 stages and at least 1 in the mountains (please correct me if I'm wrong). As previously stated, Lance was only cracked once in his prime, Contador has cracked at least once in his prime (this year). Armstrong was so strong that he could go to the front, attack, and dare the rider behind to hold his back wheel (example: Alpe D'huez 2001) and he had a similar situation to Schleck in 2010 when he was hit by a spectator in 2003 on Luz-Ardennes and then had problems with his pedals and still won the stage. Ullrich also never won a mountain stage from 1999-2005, and neither did Joseba Beloki. Quite simply Armstrong destroyed the field at the tour, yes he does lose points for not doing the Giro, and a tiny bit for not doing the Vuelta, but he dominated the world's toughest race like nobody else did, and that gets him first for me.

Also I don't care how brave an attack is if it doesn't yield results, as I said before I value a final mountain attack that gains 4 minutes over a multi-mountain one that gains 2 minutes, effectiveness is key and the most important factor in evaluating an attack.

1993 1 stage win (no mountain stages)
1994 0 stage wins
1995 1 stage win (no mountain stages)
1996 0 stage wins

2000 1 stage win (no mountain stages)
2003 1 stage win (1 mountain stage)
2005 1 stage win (no mountain stages)

2009 0 stage wins
2010 0 stage wins

 

[sublimit]

John Lee Augustyn.

 

[jordan5000]

1993 1 stage win (no mountain stages)
1994 0 stage wins
1995 1 stage win (no mountain stages)
1996 0 stage wins

2000 1 stage win (no mountain stages)
2003 1 stage win (1 mountain stage)
2005 1 stage win (no mountain stages)

2009 0 stage wins
2010 0 stage wins

My mistake, he still was 4 for 7 in that department then (I'm only including is prime). Still not too shabby.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Pantani is the king of the mountains, Contador in top shape is close (so is Armstrong) but Pantani is the king

 

[Cobblestoned]

My mistake, he still was 4 for 7 in that department then (I'm only including is prime). Still not too shabby.

And even gave away many stagewins.

I remember:
- Pantani
- Basso
- Valverde


3,2,1...till the haters march in to tell us that Lance was clearly beaten by all of them on those stages and clearly lost them without the slightest intention to gift them to anyone.
To round it up by stating that any stage ever won by Armstrong was a gift by his opponents.

 

[El Pistolero]

And even gave away many stagewins.

I remember:
- Pantani
- Basso
- Valverde


3,2,1...till the haters march in to tell us that Lance was clearly beaten by all of them on those stages and clearly lost them without the slightest intention to gift them to anyone.
To round it up by stating that any stage ever won by Armstrong was a gift by his opponents.

Lol, no way was Valverde a gift.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Lol, no way was Valverde a gift.

Go away. You are not a hater.

 

[jordan5000]

And even gave away many stagewins.

I remember:
- Pantani
- Basso
- Valverde


3,2,1...till the haters march in to tell us that Lance was clearly beaten by all of them on those stages and clearly lost them without the slightest intention to gift them to anyone.
To round it up by stating that any stage ever won by Armstrong was a gift by his opponents.

Lol I have to agree, it seems as though I'm being ganged up on due to the strong hatred of Lance here, oh well can't have haters if you're not one of the best.

 

[Duartista]

Come on, this has been an interesting thread for the most part. Don't ruin it. Nobody has accused you of 'hating' Bartali, Bahamontes, Van Impe etc.

 

[jordan5000]

Come on, this has been an interesting thread for the most part. Don't ruin it. Nobody has accused you of 'hating' Bartali, Bahamontes, Van Impe etc.

Fair enough, but I've never criticized someone for their personal opinion.

 

[jordan5000]

You asked who was the best climber in history, mention Coppi & Merckx & then promptly elevate Armstrong because he won 7 Tours.

Bartali, Coppi, Merckx & Bahamontes all won multiple times in the mountains in the Tour, Giro & Vuelta.

In the interests of balance you have to weigh up the differences between their eras. Armstrong focussed exclusively on the Tour from 1999 onwards, rode tactically in the mountains & won not a single KOM title. Coppi, Merckx, Gaul etc rode a much more extensive calendar, won KOM titles left right & centre and multiple varied GT Overalls. Neither scenario has a trump card. Quantity (7 wins) can eclipse neither Bartali (2 Tour Overalls & KOM's + 3 Giri & 7 KOM's) nor Coppi (2 Tours & KOMs & 5 Giri & 3 KOMs) nor Merckx (5 Tours & 2 KOMs + 5 Giri & 2 KOMs). It was observed that Coppi, once he attacked, was never seen again until the finish. Gaul's Ventoux record, set in 1958, stood for more than 40 years before Vaughters beat it in 1999.

So Armstrong's record is impressive and puts him up in the top echelon but his single minded focus on one race & the tactics chosen to win that event undermine his claim to the top steps. Merckx, Coppi, Bartali, Van Impe & Gaul all have to be above him, IMO. And that is what it is, an opinion.

You have a very good point, look back in thread however and you will see that I first brought up Merckx before I mentioned Armstrong, that idea was shot down quick. In my mind there is no doubt that all the riders you listed were incredibly great climbers and probably the best of their era (with the exception of Coppi/Bartali who shared an era). I also believe that had Coppi not lost about 5 years due to the war that he would have won 3 or 4 more Giro's, putting him at 8 or 9, and that would also put him close to Merckx's GT record. Also because people have been calling me a fanboy I'd like to point out that while Lance is my favourite rider (or was) I don't put him number 1 either all-time or amongst climbers. My list goes:
1. Merckx
2. Armstrong
3. Contador
4. Coppi
5. Pantani

 

[Old School]

Up up and away!

Pantani and Alberto.

 

[Old School]

Forgot to mention Fabio Parra and Lucho Herrera.

 

[McLovin]

how about 04 Santi Perez? was like a thunder on the climbs. tt also.