11 riders are left now and only 2 of them are currently still active. So the notion that todays general climbing level is higher than in the mid 90s is debunked by my ranking at least. For that, we would have to see another uptick in level this or the coming years.
Here is Tier 3 'Epochal Power'. I will also start to rank riders, as I am reasonably sure that I have not missed/omitted anyone this high up.
Tier 3 (90-95)
5 | Bjarne Riis | 94.5 | PB: 104 (-4): 6.96 W/kg for 34:41 on Hautacam (Tour 1996)
6 | Jan Ullrich | 93.9 | PB: 105 (+15): 6.75 W/kg for 24:52 on Andorra Arcalis (Tour 1997)
7 | Alex Zülle | 92.9 | PB: 99 (-6): 6.85 W/kg for 36:33 on Piancavallo (Giro 1998)
8 | Lance Armstrong | 90.8 | PB: 98 (+5): 6.53 W/kg for 38:03 on Alpe d'Huez (Tour 2001)
9 | Richard Virenque | 90.6 | PB: 94 (-4): 6.69 W/kg for 35:30 on Hautacam (Tour 1996)
10 | Piotr Ugrumov | 90.4 | PB: 97 (+6): 6.62 W/kg for 30:57 on Avoriaz ITT (Tour 1994)
11 | Pavel Tonkov | 90.0 | PB: 99 (-6): 6.85 W/kg for 36:33 on Piancavallo (Giro 1998)
Notes:
1)Tonkov and Zülle both hit their PB on Piancavallo, but it is not an outlier as some of their other performances are almost as good. Many think of Zülle as a climber prone to collapses. This is partly true, but he still won the Vuelta twice and was 2nd in the Tour twice. Especially his 1995 Tour de France was of a great level.
2) Ugrumov never won much, but his 1994 Tour is reminiscent of Santi Perez in the 2004 Vuelta. he got stronger everyday, and had the race lasted 2 days longer he might have won.
3) Virenque often gets a bad rep, but it is not by accident that he won the KOM jersey of the Tour 7 times. He has multiple performances above 90 distributed over several years.
4)Riis was not a one hit wonder and also did not improve from 0 to 100 in one year. He was already good in 93 and 94. Then he was a monster in 95 + 96 and still good in 97.
5)Many people who first get into cycling and only know one name think Armstrong must have been the strongest rider of all time. Then when you get into climbing times and w/kg - anlayses, you may start to think that he was not even that good.
'Ullrich was much more talented and Armstrong was just lucky that Ullrich was lazy, otherwise he would have crushed Armstrong' ...
But consider that Armstrong is the only rider from the 2000s to make the Top 10 and he is not even far behind Ullrich in the ranking. If you then look at more intangibles like consistency, ability to change pace (attack) and tactics, I think Armstrong simply was the better climber/rider. And he was just as big of a talent himself, for sure.