• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Better TT : Ullrich vs. Contador ?

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
rhubroma said:
Still what's striking to me is that most of the pure talents were very good even in their first Tour years. From Merxce, to Hinault, to Fignon, to Lemond, to Pantani in the mountains, to even Ullrich.

It does seem odd that as evidently talented as AC has shown himself to be since his first Tour, that he was so far out of contention in that race. Of course, the same could be said of Indurain and Armstrong, but with the record of grand tour wins AC has put up since his first years, you would have thought - I'm not saying podiumed in his first Tour - but done something a little bit more consistent with his abilities today.
He had already been pretty consistent with his abilities today during the whole season before the Tour, and as such he wasn't supposed to do much there, just get to know the race and be a domestique for Heras (who turned out not needing any domestiquing).

Anyway, in the 80s it was easier to get to the top because you relied on your raw talent alone, so barring injuries or botched training programs the real talents shone. In the 90s and 00s you had another disadvantage as a young rider: the guys ahead of you had been using you-know-what in training for ages.

Still, Pantani was almost 2 years older than Contador in his first Tour and had already rode two Giros, while for Contador the 2005 Tour was his GT debut. I don't think Ullrich was a typical case at all.

If you compare Contador to his current rivals, Andy Schleck is probably the only one who qualifies as "great GC rider almost immediately". Things go slower nowadays.
 
Merckx said:
Ullrich also weighed about 11kg more than Contador. Using the numbers you provided, Contador's Watts/Kg is higher than Ullrich's. How do you figure that Ullrich would beat him by 2-3 mins every climb?

Or are you just a Contador hater?
No, just compare the climb times of Ullrich in 96/97 and Contador in his best years.

Contador comes nowhere near and loses 2/3 minutes on Ullrichs best times. :rolleyes:

And why do people always assume you are either a hater or a fanboy when you defend/criticise or chose sides in these debates? I'm neutral on Contador... Have you ever heard of that, or is your world strictly black or white?
Narrowminded person you are
 
May 13, 2009
692
1
0
Visit site
Bavarianrider said:
Actually Jan is the third fastest time in Alpe D'Huez just behind Pantani and only 1 second behind Lance in 2004.
It was in 1999 when they started to measure times from the 13.9km mark.
Before that they measured from ca 14.5km. Even earlier in the early 90s/80s they started to clock the time even earlier. Tha's wha you get this very long times for Hinault and Lemond by the way. The lists like the one in Wikipedia are not accurate as the times are not clocked for the same distance. Actually Wikipedia mentions this

Actually Pantani rode a 36:50 from the 13.9km mark in 1997. (You can chek it if you still got it on tape. 13.9 is just at the corner). Therefore Jan did a 37:37


Exactly, wiki article was written by an obvious Lance fanboy. Jan's performance in 97 was amazing considering he "sat" for a bit, Lance's performance was good too but it was a short time trial effort.

Back to topic, Ulrich in 97's form would beat Contador in 09's form. Imo
 
sadfitty said:
Power and weight aside:
Ullrich climbed Andorra in 22:25.
Contador used 25:15.
Yes, Contador only attacked with less than 2 km to go, and Ullrich went flat out for a long time. But, keep in mind, Ullrich's winning time on that stage was 7 hours 45 minutes. The 2009 stage was only 6 hours 15 minutes for Contador.

This point has little substance for two reasons. One is that in '09 the riders faced a significant headwind on the way to Andorra. This is why there were few attacks until late, and why there were not many time gaps between significant GC riders. The climb to Arcallis is a very good one, and not as easy on the riders as that particular stage made out. Ullrich of course proved how decisive a climb it could be in '97. Because it was made kind of irrelevent in '09 I'd like to see it bought back again soon. How about a 30 km ITT finishing at the top? :D

The second reason why the times of '97 and '09 are difficult to compare is because that in the '90's there were no restrictions on the benefits that riders could gain (clinic related). So it is hard to know who would win a TT to Andorra out of JU and AC if they were on the same 'program.'

But I like this thread regardless.
 
hrotha said:
He had already been pretty consistent with his abilities today during the whole season before the Tour, and as such he wasn't supposed to do much there, just get to know the race and be a domestique for Heras (who turned out not needing any domestiquing).

Anyway, in the 80s it was easier to get to the top because you relied on your raw talent alone, so barring injuries or botched training programs the real talents shone. In the 90s and 00s you had another disadvantage as a young rider: the guys ahead of you had been using you-know-what in training for ages.

Still, Pantani was almost 2 years older than Contador in his first Tour and had already rode two Giros, while for Contador the 2005 Tour was his GT debut. I don't think Ullrich was a typical case at all.

If you compare Contador to his current rivals, Andy Schleck is probably the only one who qualifies as "great GC rider almost immediately". Things go slower nowadays.

I hear you, but it still seems at least odd. I didn't mention Schleck because he hasn't won yet, but that's another case. Whereas Ullrich wasn't "normal" and yet he went on to win only once.

Like I said, and considering what you said about the generational differences between the 80's and today, I'm not saying he should have podiumed, but being so far out of contention one would not have expected him to be this dominant today based on that intitial showing.

Thus his was a true explosion on the scene at his next Tour. People were talking about him for sure at the time, but 2005 wasn't much of an indication of things to come. It was like he suddenly sprang into about 5 gears higher.
 

TRENDING THREADS