Best climbers in history?

[Master50]

Rasmussen was a two-time winner of the king of the mountains, probably would have been a third time champion in 2007 and possibly a tour champion had he not been screwed over by the UCI. For a chicken he sure is fierce and was better than Contador in 2007 IMHO.

I did not say Rasmussen was not a good climber but the climbers jersey competition was overhauled this year because too many non climbers were accumulating a lot of points in the climbers competition. It has been heavily criticized over the last few years for its ranking system.
As for who screwed him in the tour? His team fired him for being a liar. I'd suggest his problems were his own creation.

 

[Maxiton]

Lucien Van Impe, as others have said, does deserve to be listed in the poll. Six Tour KOM wins between 1971 and 1983 equalled Bahamontes' record and was spread over a longer period (Bahamontes Tour KOM wins were stretched over 10 years, 1954 - 1964).

Luis Ocana deserves a mention for a day-long break in 1971 which destroyed Merckx and should have won Ocana the Tour that year.

For sheer bravado, Merckx's long breakway in the Pyrenees in 1969 (when he was already 8 mins ahead on GC) is one of the greatest mountain rides ever. I believe he did a similar break in the 1970 Tour when in the yellow jersey, which netted him a second KOM title.

Joop Zootemelk, despite no KOM jerseys, won 3 MTFs in the 1976 Tour ahead of Van Impe.

Lance Armstrong's record in Tour MTFs is second to none during his winning streak. Wins at Sestrierre, Alpe d'Huez, Plat d'Adet, La Mongie, Plateau de Beille (x 2), Luz Ardiden, Villard de Lans plus the only two mountain time trials during that time at Chamrousse and Alpe d'Huez. Not to mention second places at Hautacam, La Mongie, Mont Ventoux and Courcheval. On top form in the mountains (ie 2000 & 2001) his explosiveness took huge amounts of time out of his GC opponents during the final climb.

Also, Richard Virenque with 7 Tour KOM titles should perhaps have been included in the poll?

And maybe Emmanuele Sella with his 3 (?) mountain stage wins in the 2008 Giro?

I didn't forget, they just aren't worthy of consideration.

Fuente was a FOUR-time winner of the King of the Mountains at the Giro and a two-time Vuelta winner and one-time King of the Mountains. He won two mountain stages of the Tour and podiumed it overall. He amassed 8 Giro stages, 2 Tour stages, and 3 Vuelta stages, each and every one in mountain stages. Many of which where he would disappear on the third or fourth mountain from home and never be seen again.

He amassed all this in a heyday which lasted only four years due to health problems, against a field including Merckx, Gimondi, van Impe, Ocaña and Agostinho, and despite not being able to descend or time trial to save his life.

If winning two polka dot jerseys is enough to include Michael Rasmussen, then it is a pure travesty not to include Fuente.

Oh, yeah, the omission of most of the above named could be down to opinion rather than ignorance, I suppose, but to exclude Fuente is definitely a mistake, one made all the more galling by trying to claim he was left off on purpose. On any credible list of best climbers, Fuente has to appear. Otherwise it's just BS. Also probably Van Impe and Virenque.

 

[jordan5000]

Oh, yeah, the omission of most of the above named could be down to opinion rather than ignorance, I suppose, but to exclude Fuente is definitely a mistake, one made all the more galling by trying to claim he was left off on purpose. On any credible list of best climbers, Fuente has to appear. Otherwise it's just BS. Also probably Van Impe and Virenque.

Whether or not he appears in the poll is irrelevant, the poll is to get opinions on the best climber ever, and I don't think anybody would make a serious claim on his behalf (the obvious choices would be Contador and Pantani).

 

[Duartista]

I'm slightly puzzled by the dominance of Contador and Pantani in the poll. If you go for 'pure' climbers Bahamontes, Herrera, Gaul, Fuente seem better choices for their epic breakaways and KOM wins whilst if you go for all round powerhouses, Coppi, Merckx, and Armstrong did more damage, more often.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Whether or not he appears in the poll is irrelevant, the poll is to get opinions on the best climber ever, and I don't think anybody would make a serious claim on his behalf (the obvious choices would be Contador and Pantani).

I am making a serious claim on his behalf, right at this very moment.

If he'd remembered to eat on an only mildly difficult short stage into Sanremo, the guy would have beaten Merckx in the Giro despite not being able to descend or time trial.

Merckx!

And of course whether or not he appears in the poll is relevant. You could have offered 9 options and an "other (please name)" option, if as you say it's about opinions. Van Impe, Ocaña, Herrera and Fuente all deserve to be there ahead of Rasmussen at least. They merit a mention, they are worthy.

 

[Angliru]

Oh, yeah, the omission of most of the above named could be down to opinion rather than ignorance, I suppose, but to exclude Fuente is definitely a mistake, one made all the more galling by trying to claim he was left off on purpose. On any credible list of best climbers, Fuente has to appear. Otherwise it's just BS. Also probably Van Impe and Virenque.

What I remember most about Virenque is not his 7 KoM jerseys but his inability to climb with the best for most of his career. He realized that he had no chance whatsoever of ever winning the Tour and resigned himself to making the KoM jersey his goal and in so doing made the classification itself much less important and interesting for me. Virenque getting dropped was a regular event everytime the road turned upward. Saying he deserves consideration as one of the top climbers is an insult to those that were actually in the battles in mountains among the elite climbers, of which Virenque definitely was not one.

 

[Duartista]

What I remember most about Virenque is not his 7 KoM jerseys but his inability to climb with the best for most of his career. He realized that he had no chance whatsoever of ever winning the Tour and resigned himself to making the KoM jersey his goal and in so doing made the classification itself much less important and interesting for me. Virenque getting dropped was a regular event everytime the road turned upward. Saying he deserves consideration as one of the top climbers is an insult to those that were actually in the battles in mountains among the elite climbers, of which Virenque definitely was not one.

To be fair Virenque did podium the Tour twice, and put in plenty of impressive performances in the mountains. He was an elite climber '95-2000, although certainly not one of the all time greats.

 

[jens_attacks]

let's not forget virenque in his best days dropped ullrich...he was a very good climber,not the top of the top but still.

 

[jordan5000]

I am making a serious claim on his behalf, right at this very moment.

If he'd remembered to eat on an only mildly difficult short stage into Sanremo, the guy would have beaten Merckx in the Giro despite not being able to descend or time trial.

Merckx!

And of course whether or not he appears in the poll is relevant. You could have offered 9 options and an "other (please name)" option, if as you say it's about opinions. Van Impe, Ocaña, Herrera and Fuente all deserve to be there ahead of Rasmussen at least. They merit a mention, they are worthy.

That's wonderful, but the fact is he didn't beat him in the Giro, not eating is such a silly mistake, it's not like a crash that you can't control it's something every rider should know to do and if they don't it's their own fault. As for Ocana, Van Impe, Herrera and Fuente they are all great riders and they are being discussed here, I'm open to debate them but I really don't see the point. For me Merckx, Coppi, Contador and Pantani are in the top tier and the other guys are a big step below.

 

[paperbackwriter]

That's wonderful, but the fact is he didn't beat him in the Giro, not eating is such a silly mistake, it's not like a crash that you can't control it's something every rider should know to do and if they don't it's their own fault. As for Ocana, Van Impe, Herrera and Fuente they are all great riders and they are being discussed here, I'm open to debate them but I really don't see the point. For me Merckx, Coppi, Contador and Pantani are in the top tier and the other guys are a big step below.

Of course it was his fault but how does it change the fact that in that Giro he was a better climber than Merckx? How he lost has nothing to do with his climbing talent.

 

[Maxiton]

What I remember most about Virenque is not his 7 KoM jerseys but his inability to climb with the best for most of his career. He realized that he had no chance whatsoever of ever winning the Tour and resigned himself to making the KoM jersey his goal and in so doing made the classification itself much less important and interesting for me. Virenque getting dropped was a regular event everytime the road turned upward. Saying he deserves consideration as one of the top climbers is an insult to those that were actually in the battles in mountains among the elite climbers, of which Virenque definitely was not one.

You probably know more about it than I. I guess I was just thinking that seven KoM jerseys at the Tour, plus seven stage wins, should qualify him to be included on a list of best climbers . . . .

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

marco pantani no doubt. just look back at his races especially in 1998 and 1999. 2nd best would be xaba jimenez and then rujano and contador.

 

[MartinGT]

Panta for me all day long. Legend.

I love watching Bertie climb though, he looks so relaxed and a ease in the mountains.

 

[Angliru]

To be fair Virenque did podium the Tour twice, and put in plenty of impressive performances in the mountains. He was an elite climber '95-2000, although certainly not one of the all time greats.

It appears that my dislike for Tricky Ricky has clouded my memory or maybe
his peak climbing years were during the period where I wasn't riding as much nor following the sport the way I do/am now. I stand corrected.

 

[Angliru]

That's wonderful, but the fact is he didn't beat him in the Giro, not eating is such a silly mistake, it's not like a crash that you can't control it's something every rider should know to do and if they don't it's their own fault. As for Ocana, Van Impe, Herrera and Fuente they are all great riders and they are being discussed here, I'm open to debate them but I really don't see the point. For me Merckx, Coppi, Contador and Pantani are in the top tier and the other guys are a big step below.

In other words you aren't open to debate after all.

 

[Duartista]

It appears that my dislike for Tricky Ricky has clouded my memory or maybe
his peak climbing years were during the period where I wasn't riding as much nor following the sport the way I do/am now. I stand corrected.

Here's some footage of him (post-Festina) dropping Ullrich and Armstrong on the Joux-Plane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfLQVNavI8Q

Also notable for the amazing climb and awful descent by Heras. It was a great stage. It was the stage where Pantani attacked from way out and Armstrong panicked.

 

[uphillstruggle]

I'm slightly puzzled by the dominance of Contador and Pantani in the poll. If you go for 'pure' climbers Bahamontes, Herrera, Gaul, Fuente seem better choices for their epic breakaways and KOM wins whilst if you go for all round powerhouses, Coppi, Merckx, and Armstrong did more damage, more often.

Basically because they're the 'great' climbers that most posters on this forum remember and have actually watched climbing (this includes me by the way). I bet if you got a demographic of 80 year old cycling fans the results wolud be less lopsided. I voted Pantani because I enjoyed watching him the most

 

[Angliru]

Here's some footage of him (post-Festina) dropping Ullrich and Armstrong on the Joux-Plane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfLQVNavI8Q

Also notable for the amazing climb and awful descent by Heras. It was a great stage. It was the stage where Pantani attacked from way out and Armstrong panicked.

Thanks for the link! Is this the same infamous stage that Lance radio'd back to Johann to contact Ferrari to do a "threat assessment" on Pantani's chances of making it to the finish solo?

 

[Angliru]

You probably know more about it than I. I guess I was just thinking that seven KoM jerseys at the Tour, plus seven stage wins, should qualify him to be included on a list of best climbers . . . .

I think he was a rider that could finish consistently in the top 10 of the Tour but not climb with the elite riders. For me he was a rider that, in a way, decided that there was more glory to win stages and pursue the KoM classification than to battle to stay in the top 10 of the gc (later in his career). None of the other riders that may have been chasing KoM points could climb with him and the fact that he lost time purposely to give him free reign to pursue KoM points meant that he wasn't a threat to those chasing high gc placements. In a way it was a smart move that brought him much notoriety in France and gave the French someone to root for with virtually no riders able to contend for the overall.

Nevertheless, I don't like him.

 

[AngusW]

Thanks for the link! Is this the same infamous stage that Lance radio'd back to Johann to contact Ferrari to do a "threat assessment" on Pantani's chances of making it to the finish solo?

IIRC, it was that same stage.

 

[Duartista]

IIRC, it was that same stage.

Yep, it was the same stage. What that clip doesn't show is the infernal rhythm imposed by Heras on the Joux-Plane - at the point the clip begins, he had already ridden everyone off his wheel. I remember being so disappointed when he signed for US Postal at the end of the year.

 

[ferryman]

You don't see attacks like this anymore. My climbing legend and the reason I follow this flawed sport The great Robert Millar (watch the 1st minute even if you are not a Millar fan or if you don't even know him)

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

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That's wonderful, but the fact is he didn't beat him in the Giro, not eating is such a silly mistake, it's not like a crash that you can't control it's something every rider should know to do and if they don't it's their own fault. As for Ocana, Van Impe, Herrera and Fuente they are all great riders and they are being discussed here, I'm open to debate them but I really don't see the point. For me Merckx, Coppi, Contador and Pantani are in the top tier and the other guys are a big step below.

So in other words, you're after the best GT riders, not the best climbers, because you're prepared to exclude Fuente from consideration based on something that lost him the GT but had nothing whatsoever to do with his climbing skills, which were superior at that point to Merckx's. The GTs have not always just been climbing+TTing, and Fuente couldn't TT. Who was the best climber at the 2011 Tour? Was it really Cadel Evans? Or was it Andy Schleck? Schleck lost that Tour because of some poor descending and a weak TT. It doesn't mean Andy Schleck isn't a great climber. You know that great Galibier win he got, and we were talking about for ages and lauding as a great stage? Fuente did that 13 times. In four years. If he'd not had such health issues and had been able to ride for longer, we wouldn't need to have this debate, because he would be in with no questions asked.

I'm not necessarily saying that the likes of Fuente or van Impe need to be above the four you mentioned. But they should definitely be an option ahead of the likes of Heras and Rasmussen.

 

[Le breton]

Here's some footage of him (post-Festina) dropping Ullrich and Armstrong on the Joux-Plane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfLQVNavI8Q

Also notable for the amazing climb and awful descent by Heras. It was a great stage. It was the stage where Pantani attacked from way out and Armstrong panicked.

Thanks for the link. I was there at about 1:36, but couldn't see myself on that footage. I chose that spot because you have a good view below, plus it's the steepest section: about 13% incline over 100 or 200m.

Although the road downhill had been resurfaced right before, it's always remains a tricky descent, which Virenque knew very well. Near the bottom you have curves in quick succession with little visibility as there are houses on the sides of the road.

(Delgado broke his arm going down Joux Plane in the mid 80's).

 

[jordan5000]

So in other words, you're after the best GT riders, not the best climbers, because you're prepared to exclude Fuente from consideration based on something that lost him the GT but had nothing whatsoever to do with his climbing skills, which were superior at that point to Merckx's. The GTs have not always just been climbing+TTing, and Fuente couldn't TT. Who was the best climber at the 2011 Tour? Was it really Cadel Evans? Or was it Andy Schleck? Schleck lost that Tour because of some poor descending and a weak TT. It doesn't mean Andy Schleck isn't a great climber. You know that great Galibier win he got, and we were talking about for ages and lauding as a great stage? Fuente did that 13 times. In four years. If he'd not had such health issues and had been able to ride for longer, we wouldn't need to have this debate, because he would be in with no questions asked.

I'm not necessarily saying that the likes of Fuente or van Impe need to be above the four you mentioned. But they should definitely be an option ahead of the likes of Heras and Rasmussen.

Yes, you have a good point but Fuente never dominated to the point where he got huge gaps and that is one reason why he didn't win. Riders such as Coppi and Pantani won both the Giro and tour due to their performances in the mountains alone and Armstrong would have won every tour even if he did not gain any time in the time trials on his rivals. The best climber should win a GT and can with great climbing especially on mountain finishes (such as Sastre in 2008). Fuente was good but he went for stage wins and not time, when Pantani, Contador, Armstrong and Merckx attacked they'd always open up huge gaps to set the foundation for victory in Paris, Fuente was good at winning stages but didn't devastate his opponents when he did and that's where I think the difference lays.