The Hitch said:
Your post was so good until this bit. Andy was clearly the best climber of the Tour.
We hear a lot of extremely pro Evans comments here, but if even THIS is under dispute then I think my mind is just going to pop.
I can totally se your argument for saying Andy was the best climber, I actually debated myself whether I should say Evans or Andy. I choosed Cadel and I might be biased in this question but in any case I woudn't say either one of them were much better than the other.
Cadel beated Andy in stage 4 (not counting stage 1 since Andy crashed) and they were even at Super Besse and in the Pyrenees. Then Cadel outclimbed Andy on stage 16 when he, AC and Sammy gapped the other leaders.
On stage 18 Andy did a monumental attack in wich he proved true panache. However, Cadel did too! Though I'd give Andy the edge here. What he did was magnificant but I still beleive that Cadel had as much power as Andy that day. Had the stage been 3 kilometers longer, who knows what would have happend?!
Stage 19, they were even so I'd say it's pretty close overall. But that's just my two cents.
As for the extreamly pro Evans comments, do I really do that?
The Hitch said:
As for the other bits, I think you are right, but 1 or 2 little things i saw differently.
And Contador was the best climber on stage 16. He was the one who launched 3 attacks, cracked everyone but Cadel and Samu, and was about to crack Samu when he decided that there was only a few m to the top and it was better to have Sanchez with him for the descent.
He was also the best climber on 19. Come on.
Of course he was the best climber. He didn't outclimb the other thoght. The way I see it, outclimbing your oponents menas actually beating them, not just attacking and be top three. Wich is what he did acomplish. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that he was the best climber on stage 19 but what good does that do you if you doesn't come out on top? As for stage 16 I'd say he and Evans was pretty even. Sure AC did all the attacking but when he had created the group with Sammy and Evans, Cadel did go to the front and did some pacemaking. You don't dod that if you are toast, as Sammy seemed (closed) to be.
The Hitch said:
The way you put it - he came 3rd, doesnt tell anywhere near the full story and you know it. He had a faster time up Alpe d huez than Rolland for 1, Rolland won because of the headstart allowed to him on the flat before the climb.
Because he said, and I quote "outclimbed everyone and their mother on most other occasions" wich per definition (at least according to me) should mean that he attacked and beated his opponents. Not that he attacked but failed to win because he let the others go away. Was he better than Rolland and Sammy that day? Yes! Was he the best climber of everyone that day? Yes definatly, but he still didn't outclimb neither Rolland or Sanchez.
The Hitch said:
And Contador had attacked 100k out and spent most of the day on his own pushing it into the wind, while entire teams behind him fought for hours to bring him back.
Had he not done that, he most certain would have won the stage, but then he would have had to give up any hopes for a win or a place on the podium.
The Hitch said:
The only person with a comparable experience - Voeckler ended up losing 3 minutes.
Yes. But he did not rode smart and I feel sorry for him. It would have been nice to see him on the podium.
The Hitch said:
So there were 2 stages were Contador was the best climber.
I'd say he was clearly the best on stage 19 and pretty even with Evans on stage 16. That said, without AC:s attacks Evans would have made no gain on the other contenders. So this becomes an pretty hard question. I think Evans would have dropped Contador if the climb would have continued 5-7 more kilometers but without AC attacking, there wouldn't be any gap between the top rider so it all comes down to what you thinks is most important. But yeah, the way the stage was raced AC was probably the best on the ascent.