Best climbers in history?

[AngusW]

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.

First, thanks for starting this thread. It's interesting to find out everyone's opinions on exactly what defines a climber and good to hear why they favour certain climbers.

I do note a couple of points in your arguments against Fuente:

1. You've said that the best climber should win a GT. Fuente did that twice in the Vuelta in the early '70s.

2. Rasmussen has not yet won a GT but despite that you've included him in the poll.

You also seem to have changed your mind about who the top climbers of the sport are.

Initially you say:

My list would be: Gaul, Merckx, Coppi, Bartali, Armstrong in no particular order.

Later you say:

...the obvious choices would be Contador and Pantani

Then you say:

For me Merckx, Coppi, Contador and Pantani are in the top tier and the other guys are a big step below.

Nothing wrong with changing your mind. It means you may yet consider Fuente worthy of being among the best climbers in history.

BTW, here is your original criteria for consideration as best climber in history:

First let me clarify: a rider does not have to be a pure climber to make this list. 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), stage victories in the mountains and for early years maybe the KOM, but it has lost significance over the years.

Fuente certainly meets most of those criteria. I don't know the specifics of Fuente's Vuelta wins (whether they were the result of an attack from 100km out, etc) so if anyone can enlighten us on that please go ahead.

 

[jordan5000]

First, thanks for starting this thread. It's interesting to find out everyone's opinions on exactly what defines a climber and good to hear why they favour certain climbers.

I do note a couple of points in your arguments against Fuente:

1. You've said that the best climber should win a GT. Fuente did that twice in the Vuelta in the early '70s.

2. Rasmussen has not yet won a GT but despite that you've included him in the poll.

You also seem to have changed your mind about who the top climbers of the sport are.

Initially you say:



Later you say:



Then you say:



Nothing wrong with changing your mind. It means you may yet consider Fuente worthy of being among the best climbers in history.

BTW, here is your original criteria for consideration as best climber in history:



Fuente certainly meets most of those criteria. I don't know the specifics of Fuente's Vuelta wins (whether they were the result of an attack from 100km out, etc) so if anyone can enlighten us on that please go ahead.

First of all I said a climber should win a GT, yes and I realize Rasmussen did not, but he would have had his contract not been terminated mid tour, the vuelta wins for Fuente are good too, but I don't value the Vuelta nearly as high as the Giro or Tour, to do so would be insane. I acknowledge I have changed my mind due to a bit more research but my first list was just off gut feeling rather than actual info and facts.

On a side note, I've been debating for a while if I should include Andy Schleck in this discussion, he's been a better climber than Contador in the last two tours and the best climber in general for those two tours, already has 3 2nd place finishes in the tour and a few stage wins (+3 white jerseys), when he wins a GT I think he'll certainly get more discussion but for now I think he's a great climber but not a legendary climber.

 

[Spaniard]

First of all I said a climber should win a GT, yes and I realize Rasmussen did not, but he would have had his contract not been terminated mid tour, the vuelta wins for Fuente are good too, but I don't value the Vuelta nearly as high as the Giro or Tour, to do so would be insane. I acknowledge I have changed my mind due to a bit more research but my first list was just off gut feeling rather than actual info and facts.

On a side note, I've been debating for a while if I should include Andy Schleck in this discussion, he's been a better climber than Contador in the last two tours and the best climber in general for those two tours, already has 3 2nd place finishes in the tour and a few stage wins (+3 white jerseys), when he wins a GT I think he'll certainly get more discussion but for now I think he's a great climber but not a legendary climber.

What?, in this TDF maybe (although Contador outclimbed Andy a couple of times) because he was tired and injured, but in the 2010 TDF Andy was a better climber than Contador?¡ Did we see the same Tour?

 

[ultimobici]

First of all I said a climber should win a GT, yes and I realize Rasmussen did not, but he would have had his contract not been terminated mid tour, the vuelta wins for Fuente are good too, but I don't value the Vuelta nearly as high as the Giro or Tour, to do so would be insane. I acknowledge I have changed my mind due to a bit more research but my first list was just off gut feeling rather than actual info and facts.

On a side note, I've been debating for a while if I should include Andy Schleck in this discussion, he's been a better climber than Contador in the last two tours and the best climber in general for those two tours, already has 3 2nd place finishes in the tour and a few stage wins (+3 white jerseys), when he wins a GT I think he'll certainly get more discussion but for now I think he's a great climber but not a legendary climber.

Rasmussen would have been booted out of the Tour had Rabobank not fired him.

But when you look at most of the names mentioned so far, they all have on thing in common. They have demonstrated their talent in many races over many seasons. Rasmussen was visible for a couple or seasons or so in the Tour and only the Tour, Schleck similarly has only shone in the Tour. As such one cannot include them in the tope echelon of climbers with Pantani, Van Impe, Fuente etc. By the same token Virenque is a bit of a one trick pony having only targeted the KOM in the Tour and won it mainly by virtue of hoovering up points on the minor climbs and not the main stages of the Tour.

Plus, Festina aside, he was crass enough to eclipse Bahamontes & Van Impe using such tactics!

 

[Von Mises]

Well, it is very simple.

The best climbers in the history are:

1) Merckx
2-3) Coppi, Contador
4-6) Armstrong, Pantani, Bahamontes

First three proved over years over all sorts of climbs that they were best. It does not mean that there have not been occasionaly better climbers than them, but emphasis is on: many years, different climbs, different races, different GT-s, many-many-many times.

Armstrong was dominant, but limited to Tour only. Pantani was too up and down, and really dominant only for couple of years. Bahamontes won lot of KOM´s, but he was real GC threat for only few occasions.

 

[El Pistolero]

People are forgetting Lucien van Impe too much. 6 KoMs in the Tour, 2 KoM in the Giro, 1 Tour win, 9 mountain stage wins in the Tour, 1 mountain stage win in the Giro and a mountain stage win in the Vuelta. His KoM wins span over a period of 12 years. He has 4 podium spots at the Tour(not including his win). And he would have won a second Tour the year after if he didn't forget to eat on the last mountain stage and got ran over by a car!

 

[Siriuscat]

For the years I've been watching cycling (early 80's) id' go for Contador, Lucho herrera, Lucien van Impe and Robert Miller as the best of them. Before that, Bahamontes, Charly Gaul, Merckx and Coppi.

I'd also easily pick Contador as the best of the lot, on form he's unbeatable.

Why is Armstrong included???

 

[Angliru]

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.

You too? I was so upset when that happened and I was really disappointed in Heras for doing so. Obviously the money was talking but for him to have done so meant that he was completely conceding defeat and giving up any Tour hopes altogether. I likened it to him selling his soul to the devil! A bit drastic but that was my first reaction.

 

[Angliru]

First of all I said a climber should win a GT, yes and I realize Rasmussen did not, but he would have had his contract not been terminated mid tour, the vuelta wins for Fuente are good too, but I don't value the Vuelta nearly as high as the Giro or Tour, to do so would be insane. I acknowledge I have changed my mind due to a bit more research but my first list was just off gut feeling rather than actual info and facts.

On a side note, I've been debating for a while if I should include Andy Schleck in this discussion, he's been a better climber than Contador in the last two tours and the best climber in general for those two tours, already has 3 2nd place finishes in the tour and a few stage wins (+3 white jerseys), when he wins a GT I think he'll certainly get more discussion but for now I think he's a great climber but not a legendary climber.

This year's Tour, yes, but 2010 that is debatable with only the stage with his initial stage win over Sanchez as supporting evidence of that opinion. A strong counter argument could be made in making it even with the stage where Vino was in a solo break, Purito went off in pursuit, prompting Contador to react, actions that AS could not respond to. I can't think of any other moments in the 2010 Tour in the mountains where there was clear superiority by one over the other.

 

[Angliru]

Rasmussen would have been booted out of the Tour had Rabobank not fired him.

But when you look at most of the names mentioned so far, they all have on thing in common. They have demonstrated their talent in many races over many seasons. Rasmussen was visible for a couple or seasons or so in the Tour and only the Tour, Schleck similarly has only shone in the Tour. As such one cannot include them in the tope echelon of climbers with Pantani, Van Impe, Fuente etc. By the same token Virenque is a bit of a one trick pony having only targeted the KOM in the Tour and won it mainly by virtue of hoovering up points on the minor climbs and not the main stages of the Tour.

Plus, Festina aside, he was crass enough to eclipse Bahamontes & Van Impe using such tactics!

Yet another reason for my extreme dislike for Virenque. The great Bahamontes is one who thought quite little of Virenque in comparison with a rider that he greatly admired and respected in Van Impe.

 

[Duartista]

The best climber should win a GT and can with great climbing especially on mountain finishes (such as Sastre in 2008).

The problem is that this does not take into account changes in parcours. A modern GT is much easier for a climber to win than has been the case for much of pro cycling's history (esp. as regards the TDF) because of the reduction in time trialing distance and cobbled stages (latter only applies to TDF). Furthermore, mountain top finishes were much rarer in the past. A rider like Sastre or Schleck would have had virtually no chance on a classic TDF route.

Also, I really think Contador is being overrated. He has only really shown crushing dominance in the mountains in this year's Giro (plus Verbier). Not enough to compare him to Merckx or Coppi.

 

[hfer07]

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

let me get this straight: The entire Cycling community World wide has "undoubtedly" crowned "Luis Herrera" as the "best climber of the 80's" and you say he isn't worthy of Consideration?????
that's simply ridiculous!!!





based on your approach of the topic - this thread should have been called "THE BEST GC CLIMBER" instead

 

[jencredible]

The problem is that this does not take into account changes in parcours. A modern GT is much easier for a climber to win than has been the case for much of pro cycling's history (esp. as regards the TDF) because of the reduction in time trialing distance and cobbled stages (latter only applies to TDF). Furthermore, mountain top finishes were much rarer in the past. A rider like Sastre or Schleck would have had virtually no chance on a classic TDF route.

Also, I really think Contador is being overrated. He has only really shown crushing dominance in the mountains in this year's Giro (plus Verbier). Not enough to compare him to Merckx or Coppi.

I really don't understand all of the unequivocal statements as to his greatness. Sure he was dominant in the Giro this year but what was his competition. Guys like Purito and Scarponi are a step below due to their inconsistency. His wins in 08 were against time-trialists like Leipheimer and Bruzeghin. He battled Schleck (a great climber sure, but an all-time great) in '10-'11 to a draw, if that. My memories of '07 aren't all that clear but I don't remember him being dominant in the mountains. He was trailing the chicken and his primary competition at the end were Cadel, Leipheimer, far from pure climbers. I just don't see the evidence. There's nothing like Coppi or Mercx, or even Chiappucci in '92, Pantani and that fails to mention guys like Bahamontes who could win GCs solely on their climbing ability against excellent competition. Fuente, Van Impe and Herrera deserve to be at least in the conversation with Contador and the Chicken

 

[Libertine Seguros]

First of all I said a climber should win a GT, yes and I realize Rasmussen did not, but he would have had his contract not been terminated mid tour, the vuelta wins for Fuente are good too, but I don't value the Vuelta nearly as high as the Giro or Tour, to do so would be insane. I acknowledge I have changed my mind due to a bit more research but my first list was just off gut feeling rather than actual info and facts.

So research has changed your mind on the top names, but you were still willing to consider the likes of van Impe, Fuente and Herrera not worthy of consideration? Surely a bit of research into their careers would have resulted in considering them? It seems like you've selected a partly obvious, partly arbitrary top 10 and limited to that. Certain names that are outside of that top 10 really, really do merit consideration. As I said before, I would have preferred 9 options and an "other (please specify)" in the poll - that way people can bring up people like those mentioned, as clearly there are more than 10 riders who fulfil the great climber categories. And in your list of criteria, Michael Rasmussen (who is included) fails some of them, while Lucien van Impe and José Manuel Fuente quite clearly pass at least most - and this whilst racing against a much tougher field than the one Rasmussen faced.

Merckx is in the poll. Fuente outclimbed him. Merckx feared him in the mountains. Fuente simply wasn't good enough against the clock or in the flats to deal with the Cannibal. He won a number of stages by going three or four climbs from the finish and not being seen again. But if you think he was just going for the stages in the 1974 Giro you really need to check again. He was minutes down on Merckx, and took most of them back, but ultimately several days of multiple mountain raids on your own catches up with you. Yet Merckx is in the poll (and rightfully so) but the guy who outclimbed him is not worthy of consideration for a discussion of climbers?

It seems that what you are after has changed. You set some criteria at the start, but now those criteria have changed and seem more GT-rider oriented, rather than pure climber oriented. For better or for worse, the racing has changed, and the parcours have changed with them. I will hold you to be true to your word and accept that you may have felt yourself unclear at first, or realised that the debate was heading into a direction you felt it shouldn't, in terms of people interpreting your criteria in a way you didn't intend, therefore the criteria needed tweaking in order for people to see debate in the way you had intended.

But it looks an awful lot like you've set some criteria, missed some names that many feel really should be mentioned, and are now backtracking and changing your criteria in order to justify those omissions.

 

[Angliru]

I really don't understand all of the unequivocal statements as to his greatness. Sure he was dominant in the Giro this year but what was his competition. Guys like Purito and Scarponi are a step below due to their inconsistency. His wins in 08 were against time-trialists like Leipheimer and Bruzeghin. He battled Schleck (a great climber sure, but an all-time great) in '10-'11 to a draw, if that. My memories of '07 aren't all that clear but I don't remember him being dominant in the mountains. He was trailing the chicken and his primary competition at the end were Cadel, Leipheimer, far from pure climbers. I just don't see the evidence. There's nothing like Coppi or Mercx, or even Chiappucci in '92, Pantani and that fails to mention guys like Bahamontes who could win GCs solely on their climbing ability against excellent competition. Fuente, Van Impe and Herrera deserve to be at least in the conversation with Contador and the Chicken

How is the Chicken in the conversation at all?

Contador's steady consistency in winning in the grand tours, all the grand tours, is a testament to the depth of his talent. Each grand tour has a certain personality that defines it, a certain character that distinguishes it from it's brethren.

In 2009, Contador's victory could be described as a dominant one and one that his hands were tied by the divided nature of his team, strongly leaning towards a stategy of catering to the needs of one particular rider. Still in this environment Contador ended the race with a 5 minute cushion over his nearest competitor, this while his attacking proclivities were constantly being stifled by his own ds and team. Surely he could have gained even more time had he been given the freedom to do so. He certainly was head and shoulders above his competition.

His Giro victory was one likened to a man among boys. Name a rider in the current peloton that could have given Contador an interesting race considering the form he displayed.

Also when we start comparing rider's feats during their careers especially the present versus decades ago, we have to keep in mind the difference in mentality of the grand tour contenders, their teams and how they actually raced tactically. Epic attacks by the contenders is virtually unheard of in today's peloton so to expect a rider to equal the remarkable victory margins of much earlier eras really isn't fair to the current generation of grand tour champions. With the exception of this year's Tour, contenders don't take the kind of risks in terms of long epic attacks that would gain them the extraordinary amount of minutes on their opponents that riders of earlier eras did.

 

[The Hitch]

I really don't understand all of the unequivocal statements as to his greatness. Sure he was dominant in the Giro this year but what was his competition. Guys like Purito and Scarponi are a step below due to their inconsistency. His wins in 08 were against time-trialists like Leipheimer and Bruzeghin. He battled Schleck (a great climber sure, but an all-time great) in '10-'11 to a draw, if that. My memories of '07 aren't all that clear but I don't remember him being dominant in the mountains. He was trailing the chicken and his primary competition at the end were Cadel, Leipheimer, far from pure climbers. I just don't see the evidence. There's nothing like Coppi or Mercx, or even Chiappucci in '92, Pantani and that fails to mention guys like Bahamontes who could win GCs solely on their climbing ability against excellent competition. Fuente, Van Impe and Herrera deserve to be at least in the conversation with Contador and the Chicken

In Giro 08 he beat Ricco. In Vuelta 08 Sastre and Valverde.

In this years Giro his competition included Nibali, Scarponi, Rodriguez, Rujano and an off form Menchov. Nibali and Scarponi proved last year that they could put up quite a good fight against the likes of Evans and Basso but Contador, while putting in slightly less effort then he does on training rides, cracked them all so hard every single one is yet to recover.

Anton killed himself so hard to get 30 seconds on Zoncolan (that Contador was always capable of taking back), that he lost 30 minutes the next day, while Contador rode to the 4th of his 7 mtf podiums (out of 8 mtfs in the race).

Evans lost 1 minute 30 to Nibali Scarponi and Basso beat them by 2 last year. These are, surely you would not dispute, among the best climbers of the last 10 years. Contador on the other hand won by 5 minutes while contributing to more victories for other riders than Mark Renshaw in a season. He could have won by 10.

 

[jencredible]

in '08 he only beat Leipheimer by less than a minute. Sastre and Valverde were relatively weak that tour. A minute and half on Ricco is impressive but hardly dominant. He has destroyed the field twice...'09 against a geriatric Lance (granted his team was essentially working against him) and Schleck in his first tour de france...and in '11 against a field that excluded his primary rivals (notably A. Schleck) destroying Scarponi, Purito and Anton are impressive but I'm not sure that Schleck couldn't do the same over three weeks. Citing Nibali and Menchov doesn't do a lot for me, as they've always been competent climbers that can suck a wheel but aren't really going to punish anyone save on a descent or a TT.

 

[luckyboy]

If Contador was on top form in the 2010 Tour I think he would've left Andy behind. He's definitely the best climber since Pantani anyway.

 

[The Hitch]

in '08 he only beat Leipheimer by less than a minute. Sastre and Valverde were relatively weak that tour. A minute and half on Ricco is impressive but hardly dominant. He has destroyed the field twice...'09 against a geriatric Lance (granted his team was essentially working against him) and Schleck in his first tour de france...and in '11 against a field that excluded his primary rivals (notably A. Schleck) destroying Scarponi, Purito and Anton are impressive but I'm not sure that Schleck couldn't do the same over three weeks. Citing Nibali and Menchov doesn't do a lot for me, as they've always been competent climbers that can suck a wheel but aren't really going to punish anyone save on a descent or a TT.

Evans beat Schleck this year.

Last year Nibali and Scarponi beat Evans.

Contador crushed Nibali and Scarponi.

So I dont see how Schleck could do to Scarponi and Nibali what Contador did.

 

[El Pistolero]

in '08 he only beat Leipheimer by less than a minute. Sastre and Valverde were relatively weak that tour. A minute and half on Ricco is impressive but hardly dominant. He has destroyed the field twice...'09 against a geriatric Lance (granted his team was essentially working against him) and Schleck in his first tour de france...and in '11 against a field that excluded his primary rivals (notably A. Schleck) destroying Scarponi, Purito and Anton are impressive but I'm not sure that Schleck couldn't do the same over three weeks. Citing Nibali and Menchov doesn't do a lot for me, as they've always been competent climbers that can suck a wheel but aren't really going to punish anyone save on a descent or a TT.

1) Contador did not prepare for the Giro in 2008. He didn't know against who he was riding and what mountains were coming.
2) Most of his competition was Cera enhanced. While Contador is probably not clean, I doubt he ever took Cera.
3) He crashed in that Giro and he had a little crack in his elbow like Cuddles in the Tour last year.
4) Did you see the route of the 2008 Vuelta? Hardly surprising that a time trial specialist who can climb got second. There were hardly any serious mountain stages in it to get serious time gaps. Time gaps have rarely been big at the Vuelta. It's usually won with very small time gaps. It's because the route doesn't allow for serious time gaps. Leipheimer was also on his team and Contador never saw him as a threat, so he didn't need to gain up more time on him. He had one bad day at that Vuelta, and that was the climbing time trial. And guess what? He came second in it. Leipheimer won it Bad climber huh?

 

[jordan5000]

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. Also Schleck was the better climber than Contador in the tour 2010, no doubt. If he wasn't how did he lose by 39 seconds to Contador despite the fact he lost 39 seconds of time due to his chain incident? Take out the time trials too and Andy wins the tour. As for the exclusion of some names, there's a reason why there's a discussion here and that is to discuss and debate anyone who we can consider a great climber regardless of whether or not they're in the poll.

 

[El Pistolero]

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. Also Schleck was the better climber than Contador in the tour 2010, no doubt. If he wasn't how did he lose by 39 seconds to Contador despite the fact he lost 39 seconds of time due to his chain incident? Take out the time trials too and Andy wins the tour. As for the exclusion of some names, there's a reason why there's a discussion here and that is to discuss and debate anyone who we can consider a great climber regardless of whether or not they're in the poll.

Contador lost one minute and 22 seconds on the cobbled stage in the Tour of 2010. Otherwise Schleck would have never been in yellow and never in contention for the win. Contador was stuck behind Frank's crash and broke his rear spook at the end causing him to lose an additional 10 seconds to the group he was with. Schleck gained exactly 0 seconds on Contador in the mountains.

Andy never won the Tour and never will.

 

[The Hitch]

If he wasn't how did he lose by 39 seconds to Contador despite the fact he lost 39 seconds of time due to his chain incident? Take out the time trials too and Andy wins the tour.

Cobbled stage where Frank Schleck crash held up Contador, just like the chain held up Schleck.

In the other mountain stages, Schleck got 10 on Morzine, Contador 10 on Mende (15 actually but he lost 5 on descent + finish with Purito, while Schleck was in a group of 5 or 6), and they finished together everywhere else.

So if you take out the time trials and hold up incidents, they finish even.


Unless like Andy you believe that only the times where Schleck gets screwed are worthy of outrage and times when you screw your opponents are all in the game.

Thats baring in mind Schleck spent the entire mountain stages needing to drop Contador.

 

[Big Doopie]

luis ocana.

but really putting pantani, armstrong, contador, heras and rasmussen, or basically anyone post-1990 on this list is ridiculous and pointless and begs the question -- how would you ever really know?

 

[liftman]

Why is Armstrong included???

Because the topic is best climber, not favorite climber. Love him, hate him or indifferent you have to admit he was a/the top climber of his time.