Question Climber types?

[hayneplane]

There is some interesting discussion in the Romandie race thread which I think merits a separate thread to expand on the discussion.

The main mount of contention seems to be how to define a climber.

For me they can broadly be put in 3 categories:

1. Pure climber - elite or near elite top level climbing abilities but often with great inconsistency and lacking the other skills and attributes to get better than top 5 in a Grabd Tour.

Current/recent examples - Michael Storer, Miguel Angel Lopez, Wout Poels, Michael Woods

2. Natural climber - GC types whose prime attribute and way of winning is smashing everyone with brutal acceleration uphill in the high mountains but still have the all round chops to win Grand Tours or at least podium them.

Current/recent examples - Pogacar, Vingegaard, Contador, A Schleck, Froome, Landa, Quintana

3. Power climbers - Riders who climb well enough to win/podium Grand Tours but who do so mainly through high power output and ability to hold a strong tempo rather than match the stop start cat and mouse attacks.

Current/recent examples - Remco, Ullrich, Basso, Wiggins

Hardest to categorise was Roglic and Nibali.

 

[YavorD]

I would put MAL and Landa in the same category.
I think both of them have the same number of GT podiums and definitely his accelerations were as amazing as Landa's.

 

[pelotonIQ]

I'd put Roglic in the 2nd category.

 

[Red Rick]

Mostly these seem like arbitrary definitions capturing a vibe more than a well defined meaning.

 

[hayneplane]

Mostly these seem like arbitrary definitions capturing a vibe more than a well defined meaning.

Of course. It’s a subject that is entirely subjective so there are only opinions and not definitive answers.

 

[Davesta]

I struggle with the ‘pure climber’ label, as it so often doesn’t seem to mean ‘exceptionally good at climbing’ but rather ‘bad at other stuff’.

 

[Wyndbrook]

I struggle with the ‘pure climber’ label, as it so often doesn’t seem to mean ‘exceptionally good at climbing’ but rather ‘bad at other stuff’.

You are right, historically a pure climber was always exceptional in the hills, lacking and often poor elsewhere.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I also struggle with the 'natural climber' definition, largely for subjective and partially aesthetic purposes. There is no way that we can't count, say, Fernando Escartín or Juan Mauricio Soler as anything but pure climbers, but they did not look like natural climbers in terms of their style on the bike, whereas somebody like Nairo Quintana or Alberto Contador always looked extremely comfortable on the bike. I guess you can say that somebody with the skillset of Escartín or Soler belonging in the 'pure climber' definition means you can get around that, but people like Chris Froome or Paco Mancebo were climbing with aesthetically terrible techniques, but to great effect.

I guess I just struggle with the suggestion that Froome and Quintana belong under the same heading when they looked so different on the bike, with such different physiques. I think it's that I associate the term 'natural' with something akin to a 'they were born to do this' kind of thing, whereas I've always said that although it's purely subjective and means nothing to the actual power put down and actual results, one of the things that has always made me struggle with Chris Froome is that even taking out his transformation in 2011 and everything like that, I just really couldn't look at somebody pedalling in his patented awkward style, elbows akimbo and jerking around from side to side and say "yes, that looks like the way the greatest cyclist in the world would ride".

The other thing of course is that 'natural' is often used as an antonym to 'artificial' and this is pro cycling we're talking about, so somebody could read this as meaning an implication that the 'natural' climbers are paniagua, and of course several of the riders mentioned are clear clinic material.

Obviously one of the things you mention is the difficulty in categorising certain riders, and part of it I think is that you are looking at only one parameter in terms of climbing style, which seems to be based on overall skillset or outcome as a GC type, but there are others as well. I've mentioned the aesthetic side, but that's highly subjective and doesn't impact overall outcomes other than perhaps audience perception. I think another crucial one is explosivity, because you would have a continuum from the pure diesel climber through to a pure lightweight puncheur at the opposite end. The idea based on the above would be that TT-type GC guys would largely be more at the diesel end, while the climbing-and-nothing-but-climbing guys would be at the explosive end because of accelerations more fitting the heading you've given 'natural climber'. But somebody like, say, Carlos Sastre was somewhere among the 'pure climbers' by your definition, yet without real explosivity and attacking credentials (as opposed to his brother in law, who's about the dictionary definition of the pure climber), whereas somebody like Roglič from his overall skillset you would expect to belong in the power climber category, yet he has elite explosivity and acceleration. Mas is also hard to categorise because he doesn't really look comfortable shifting through the gears and he doesn't seem to have the elite performance in the mountains that make a natural climber - and yet he has a very strong set of results in puncheur races that would seem to place a greater emphasis on explosivity.

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Mostly these seem like arbitrary definitions capturing a vibe more than a well defined meaning.

The question is if we need well defined meaning, or just well chosen examples from the Peloton and history of cycling. For example there are usages of the term we can clarify without having to clarify exact meanings. The clearest of the use cases to me seems to be pure climber, as I think the term is used for riders who only excel on mountains and have trouble on the flat or even on hills.
Natural climber to me seems to be used more in a combination of performance observation and body type. I think examples for natural climbers (that is riders that get designated as such in conversation, comments, articles etc.) are usually rather light riders who have a good 'natural' climbing weight. Natural as in don't need much of an effort to reach the necessary weight.
So following this lead I'd say Pogacar is a natural climber, while Remco is not classified as such even though his small frame makes him pretty light (Remco is rather close to Hinault in height and weight btw.).
These are of course no scientific definitions, or anything close to it, but they needn't be because we use these terms to characterize riders for race hermeneutic reasons. That is we want to be able to read the race and the racers to tell us a coherent narrative about the races and racers that grants us orientation.
So if I hear Landa is a pure climber I know I can infer he doesn't do much on the flat and he's probably not very capable in TTs, so my expectation should be that he needs some rouleur(s) to get him through the long valley waiting after this HC climb he just passed in first place. So the classification helps me gain orientation about the tactical situation and the reasons why the race is raced how it is (readebility of the race).
Also the definitions don't have to be so clear cut so that they all have totally different extensions. Natural and pure climbers (in the way I loosely suggest in this post) can be said of the same rider often, while pure climber and rouleur can not be said of the same rider. These differences make out what the use cases for the terms are, rather than exact definitions. For my orientation to be helped, I need the right contrast, not the right individuation of an atomized example that can apply always and ever ingoring wider contexts and contrasts. Natural climber and rouleur in the correct context might be said of one rider, while in another context, illustrating a different difference, it would serve no proper service. Like when I say Pogacar is a natural climber and a good rouleur to discribe how he is an allrounder, in that context it makes perfect sense. If I say "Pogacar is a natural climber, Ganna is a rouleur" before the Cipressa I do that to illustrate a contrast between those to riders that orientates me in what kind of differences in racing I can expect from them and what abilities they should more or less have.

 

[Peyroteo94]

Being a natural climber is a rider able to perform in the mountains naturally, without a lot of training. For example Remco, he can't perform well in the mountains without having a huge block of training focused on climbing (long climbs).
On the other hand, Remco doesn't need a lot to be competitive in TTs or hilly classics. He is naturally good on them. He doesn't need time to be good at those type of efforts or terrains.

 

[pablohidalgo7]

It's all very subjective, but for me it's a mix of body type, climbing style, and ability to achieve climbing shape.
In that sense, Remco seems the easiest to classify as a power climber, like Dumo-Ulrich-Wiggo-Thomas, despite his size, and the fact that in other areas of cycling he indeed does have sprinting and acceleration, but nomally in high mounatins he is more of a diesel who need a lot of time to prepare his shape and climbing weight.

Vingegaard is a kind of pure/ntural climber, but versatile and with an almost alien level, like the best Contador (2009).

Pogacar and Roglic are pure hybrids, very difficult to classify. Tadej because he can do everything well at alien levels and is also very versatile both physically and in his climbing style and skillset, like a 9.9 in every area... while Roglic because he is unclassifiable. As if he were some kind of robot, he seems to be able to imitate skills already seen in other cyclists and make them his own, whether it be climbing seated in a time trial style or standing for minutes (Bergen 2017 for example), learning to be Valverde at the end of mountain top finishes or incorporating long attacks when necessary. I think it's all motivated by coming to cycling without having any idea about anything, he is always learning or adpating to his rivals.

Furthermore, both Slovenians can reach great climbing form very quickly even with preparations that involve injuries, perhaps with Pogacar failing somewhat in his recovery for 3 weeks (against a healthy and crazy good Vingegaard) and Roglic suffering somewhat more than he would with good preparation on stages with more than 5000 meters of elevation gain and 200km and high kilojule expenditure, since it is not his best natural ability.

Other hybrids I've seen would be Armstrong and Froome, but I find them even more difficult to believe or understand than all the others above

 

[Peyroteo94]

I don't know where this myth of Pogacar having troubles in the 3rd week comes from. His Tour 2023 was a result of suboptimal preparation. Is Vingegaard having problems with his recovery since he was dead last year in the Tour when we were in the last week?

 

[Red Rick]

The question is if we need well defined meaning, or just well chosen examples from the Peloton and history of cycling. For example there are usages of the term we can clarify without having to clarify exact meanings. The clearest of the use cases to me seems to be pure climber, as I think the term is used for riders who only excel on mountains and have trouble on the flat or even on hills.
Natural climber to me seems to be used more in a combination of performance observation and body type. I think examples for natural climbers (that is riders that get designated as such in conversation, comments, articles etc.) are usually rather light riders who have a good 'natural' climbing weight. Natural as in don't need much of an effort to reach the necessary weight.
So following this lead I'd say Pogacar is a natural climber, while Remco is not classified as such even though his small frame makes him pretty light (Remco is rather close to Hinault in height and weight btw.).
These are of course no scientific definitions, or anything close to it, but they needn't be because we use these terms to characterize riders for race hermeneutic reasons. That is we want to be able to read the race and the racers to tell us a coherent narrative about the races and racers that grants us orientation.
So if I hear Landa is a pure climber I know I can infer he doesn't do much on the flat and he's probably not very capable in TTs, so my expectation should be that he needs some rouleur(s) to get him through the long valley waiting after this HC climb he just passed in first place. So the classification helps me gain orientation about the tactical situation and the reasons why the race is raced how it is (readebility of the race).
Also the definitions don't have to be so clear cut so that they all have totally different extensions. Natural and pure climbers (in the way I loosely suggest in this post) can be said of the same rider often, while pure climber and rouleur can not be said of the same rider. These differences make out what the use cases for the terms are, rather than exact definitions. For my orientation to be helped, I need the right contrast, not the right individuation of an atomized example that can apply always and ever ingoring wider contexts and contrasts. Natural climber and rouleur in the correct context might be said of one rider, while in another context, illustrating a different difference, it would serve no proper service. Like when I say Pogacar is a natural climber and a good rouleur to discribe how he is an allrounder, in that context it makes perfect sense. If I say "Pogacar is a natural climber, Ganna is a rouleur" before the Cipressa I do that to illustrate a contrast between those to riders that orientates me in what kind of differences in racing I can expect from them and what abilities they should more or less have.

Yeah i think it's better to break it down in like 3 or 5 traits rather than a few fairly poorly defined definitions.

To me the terms of "pure climber" and "natural climber" express a little bit of nostalgia to days when I didn't even watch cycling when long multi mountain raids were almost the norm for the pure climbers because they got dropped in flat stages and lost minutes there every time.

Most climbers are natural climbers in that it's their primary trait and when all else fails it's still their best trait. Evenepoel currently is basically the only exception is that he is a TTer first, rouleur second and climber third. If you widen the scope maybe the trait you look for is if they get significantly worse if it's a steep climb for long, in which case I'd say Ganna is a great non natural climber in that he drops some amazing climbing efforts in the 4-6% range but gets categorically worse as it gets steeper. And Roglic for example, while being an amazing ITTer, still fits the natural climber element to me because he mostly tends to do better the steeper it gets.

Pure climber to me just means "is bad at everything else" which is a self limiting definition because if climbers really get good enough they automatically get good at many other things as well because the engine just gets so big.

Final trait I'd look for is fatigue resistant climbers versus unipuerto climbers who can do a single climb super fast. Nibali for me was the epitome of a fatigue resistance climber, who's fresh 20 minute W/kg weren't the craziest but he'd get better the harder the stage got.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Final trait I'd look for is fatigue resistant climbers versus unipuerto climbers who can do a single climb super fast. Nibali for me was the epitome of a fatigue resistance climber, who's fresh 20 minute W/kg weren't the craziest but he'd get better the harder the stage got.

Running on a scale from Mikel "only wins races with a minimum of three cat.1s and preferably over 200km" Nieve to Iván "more reliant on a hockey stick than Wayne Gretzky" Sosa.

 

[jmdirt]

'they were born to do this'

Isn't that innate?

 

[BrittanyBell]

The question is if we need well defined meaning, or just well chosen examples from the Peloton and history of cycling. For example there are usages of the term we can clarify without having to clarify exact meanings. The clearest of the use cases to me seems to be pure climber, as I think the term is used for riders who only excel on mountains and have trouble on the flat or even on hills.
Natural climber to me seems to be used more in a combination of performance observation and body type. I think examples for natural climbers (that is riders that get designated as such in conversation, comments, articles etc.) are usually rather light riders who have a good 'natural' climbing weight. Natural as in don't need much of an effort to reach the necessary weight.
So following this lead I'd say Pogacar is a natural climber, while Remco is not classified as such even though his small frame makes him pretty light (Remco is rather close to Hinault in height and weight btw.).
These are of course no scientific definitions, or anything close to it, but they needn't be because we use these terms to characterize riders for race hermeneutic reasons. That is we want to be able to read the race and the racers to tell us a coherent narrative about the races and racers that grants us orientation.
So if I hear Landa is a pure climber I know I can infer he doesn't do much on the flat and he's probably not very capable in TTs, so my expectation should be that he needs some rouleur(s) to get him through the long valley waiting after this HC climb he just passed in first place. So the classification helps me gain orientation about the tactical situation and the reasons why the race is raced how it is (readebility of the race).
Also the definitions don't have to be so clear cut so that they all have totally different extensions. Natural and pure climbers (in the way I loosely suggest in this post) can be said of the same rider often, while pure climber and rouleur can not be said of the same rider. These differences make out what the use cases for the terms are, rather than exact definitions. For my orientation to be helped, I need the right contrast, not the right individuation of an atomized example that can apply always and ever ingoring wider contexts and contrasts. Natural climber and rouleur in the correct context might be said of one rider, while in another context, illustrating a different difference, it would serve no proper service. Like when I say Pogacar is a natural climber and a good rouleur to discribe how he is an allrounder, in that context it makes perfect sense. If I say "Pogacar is a natural climber, Ganna is a rouleur" before the Cipressa I do that to illustrate a contrast between those to riders that orientates me in what kind of differences in racing I can expect from them and what abilities they should more or less have.

I agree with you.