Comprehensive Climbers Ranking

[Peyresourde]

I just checked it again and my times were mostly accurate. But I had Fabio Parra wrong, who was second fastest on the climb with 58:57, even three seconds faster than Lucho Herrera.

The difference in level between 1986 and 1987 is really crazy.

After checking some other performances again, Herreras climbing time in 1984 to La Ruchere was faster then Fignon, but he started seriously slow the first few kilometers.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I like it on how Rogla always seems to end up in there, historically speaking.

 

[Squire]

-Lipowitz had a very solid level in the Dauphine and Tour, generally in the mid 80 range. Slightly weaker than 2024 Evenepoel, but very competitive and he might still have a decent room for improvement.

Does that mean between 80 and 81 or between 80 and 90? Because if it's the former, he's way behind your average for Almeida and more like Enric Mas or Sepp Kuss. But I guess with such few data points he wouldn't be consistently between 80 and 81, so I guess it's probably the latter.

 

[Red Rick]

Does that mean between 80 and 81 or between 80 and 90? Because if it's the former, he's way behind your average for Almeida and more like Enric Mas or Sepp Kuss. But I guess with such few data points he wouldn't be consistently between 80 and 81, so I guess it's probably the latter.

Never even seen the former interpretation of "mid x number"

 

[Brumdog66]

Hi just wondering if you have in your database?
Contador Motirolo 2015
Juan Mauricio Soler best performance?
Landa Cortals d’encamp 2015

Thanks

 

[VayaVayaVaya]

Hi just wondering if you have in your database?
Contador Motirolo 2015
Juan Mauricio Soler best performance?
Landa Cortals d’encamp 2015

Thanks

On a similar note, it'd be great to see your take on who was likeliest to win that 2014 Tour based on what we saw in the Tour from Nibali and in the Vuelta from Froome and Contador, as well as whether the 2014 Contador really should have been able to beat Froome in 2015, 2016 if not for crashes, ill-fated doubles, etc.

 

[Red Rick]

On a similar note, it'd be great to see your take on who was likeliest to win that 2014 Tour based on what we saw in the Tour from Nibali and in the Vuelta from Froome and Contador, as well as whether the 2014 Contador really should have been able to beat Froome in 2015, 2016 if not for crashes, ill-fated doubles, etc.

The calculations still just don't really compare well from one GT to the next. There's generally just too many missing variables.

For example, W2W has PSM as the best performance (by far) of 2015. The 2nd best, is shared by 9 guys on Plateau de Beille.

 

[Peyresourde]

Does that mean between 80 and 81 or between 80 and 90? Because if it's the former, he's way behind your average for Almeida and more like Enric Mas or Sepp Kuss. But I guess with such few data points he wouldn't be consistently between 80 and 81, so I guess it's probably the latter.

I meant beetween 80 and 90.
His best performances were Ventoux (90), Valmeinier (86), Superbagneres (85) and then several around 80. On the typical Tour de France -type climb I would take hime way above Kuss and Mas, probably almost equal to Almeida (as of last year). He is relatively worse on explosive and steep stuff (quite heavy).

Hi just wondering if you have in your database?
Contador Motirolo 2015
Juan Mauricio Soler best performance?
Landa Cortals d’encamp 2015

Thanks

Alberto Contador | 74 (+3): 5.85 W/kg for 45:14 on Mortirolo (Giro 2015)
Contadors time on the Mortirolo was nothing special, but it looked impressive.

Fabio Aru | 69 (+11): 5.88 W/kg for 27:25 on Cortals d'Encamp (Vuelta 2015)
This was a very hard stage which lowered the watts. Landa was 5.75 W/kg for 28:05. His adjustment would be a bit higher since he was in the break, so a similar Index to Aru.

Juan Mauricio Soler | 78 (+11): 5.71 W/kg for 48:05 on Galibier (Tour 2007)
Juan Mauricio Soler | 78 (-2): 6.09 W/kg for 44:45 on Plateau de Beille (Tour 2007)

Juan Mauricio Soler was really consistent in the 2007 Tour - only to be never heard from again.

On a similar note, it'd be great to see your take on who was likeliest to win that 2014 Tour based on what we saw in the Tour from Nibali and in the Vuelta from Froome and Contador, as well as whether the 2014 Contador really should have been able to beat Froome in 2015, 2016 if not for crashes, ill-fated doubles, etc.

2014 was the year where Contador had his best form, but Froome probably as well. They were almost equal most days in the Vuelta.
If you raced the 2014 Tour 100 times with all 3 starting healthy and in peak shape, then I would still give Froome the most wins (maybe 40-45). If you take the situation after 1 week with Nibali in the lead and insert a healthy Froome and Contador, I would favor Nibali to win. he was almost at the same level as them that year.

In the 2015 Giro Contador was not as strong as 2014. Because of his team and his consistency I would always see Froome as the favourite those years.

 

[Brumdog66]

I meant beetween 80 and 90.
His best performances were Ventoux (90), Valmeinier (86), Superbagneres (85) and then several around 80. On the typical Tour de France -type climb I would take hime way above Kuss and Mas, probably almost equal to Almeida (as of last year). He is relatively worse on explosive and steep stuff (quite heavy).


Alberto Contador | 74 (+3): 5.85 W/kg for 45:14 on Mortirolo (Giro 2015)
Contadors time on the Mortirolo was nothing special, but it looked impressive.

Fabio Aru | 69 (+11): 5.88 W/kg for 27:25 on Cortals d'Encamp (Vuelta 2015)
This was a very hard stage which lowered the watts. Landa was 5.75 W/kg for 28:05. His adjustment would be a bit higher since he was in the break, so a similar Index to Aru.

Juan Mauricio Soler | 78 (+11): 5.71 W/kg for 48:05 on Galibier (Tour 2007)
Juan Mauricio Soler | 78 (-2): 6.09 W/kg for 44:45 on Plateau de Beille (Tour 2007)

Juan Mauricio Soler was really consistent in the 2007 Tour - only to be never heard from again.



2014 was the year where Contador had his best form, but Froome probably as well. They were almost equal most days in the Vuelta.
If you raced the 2014 Tour 100 times with all 3 starting healthy and in peak shape, then I would still give Froome the most wins (maybe 40-45). If you take the situation after 1 week with Nibali in the lead and insert a healthy Froome and Contador, I would favor Nibali to win. he was almost at the same level as them that year.

In the 2015 Giro Contador was not as strong as 2014. Because of his team and his consistency I would always see Froome as the favourite those years.

Thanks very much, Soler had a couple of down years before hitting form again in the Tour de Suisse, winning a stage and sitting second in the GC when he crashed out with a head injury that ended his career. Who knows how high he could have flown

 

[Pantani_lives]

A lot of interesting observations, but I don’t agree with the conclusion that 1987 would be the beginning of modern cycling. In 1986 the Tour was decided by long-range attacks in the mountains by Hinault and LeMond, so you won’t find one climb where they set a record, but they were very strong in attacks over multiple climbs.

Jean-François Bernard was annointed by Hinault as his potential successor, but he lacked consistency. In 1987 he did an impressive MTT on the Mont Ventoux, but he collapsed in the Alps, losing four minutes in one stage. The 1987 Tour had a relatively weak field, because Hinault had retired, LeMond had his hunting accident, and Fignon was coming back from injuries.

The beginning of modern cycling must be in the early nineties, when the generation LeMond-Fignon suddenly couldn’t follow anymore, and Delgado and Bernard became super domestiques to the new ruler Indurain.

 

[Peyresourde]

A lot of interesting observations, but I don’t agree with the conclusion that 1987 would be the beginning of modern cycling. In 1986 the Tour was decided by long-range attacks in the mountains by Hinault and LeMond, so you won’t find one climb where they set a record, but they were very strong in attacks over multiple climbs.

Jean-François Bernard was annointed by Hinault as his potential successor, but he lacked consistency. In 1987 he did an impressive MTT on the Mont Ventoux, but he collapsed in the Alps, losing four minutes in one stage. The 1987 Tour had a relatively weak field, because Hinault had retired, LeMond had his hunting accident, and Fignon was coming back from injuries.

The beginning of modern cycling must be in the early nineties, when the generation LeMond-Fignon suddenly couldn’t follow anymore, and Delgado and Bernard became super domestiques to the new ruler Indurain.

Well, I said it was the first year that could be mentioned as the beginning, because of the high performances and tech innovations like carbon bikes. I think it is pretty much agreed on that the real beginning is in the early 90s with Indurain.

It is interesting that the 1987 Tour seems week if you look at the names but it was actually very strong. Yes, there were long range attacks in 1986, but the I would still say the overall field and peak climbing level was lower. Delgado had a short peak only from 1987-1989. Roche was actually very talented with great performances even in 1993 in the Pyrenees (he was just injured all the time?) and Herrera was the best climber of the 80s.



Todays performance (subject to further review*):
Antonio Tiberi | 85 (-3): 6.73 W/kg for 24:01 on Jebel Mobrah (UAE 2026)

*After review: Career best performance for Tiberi, Del Toro is in line with his previous peak level on longer climbs with 81. This is a new climb, so this serves as a perfect example that the segment details are probably the biggest source of error in watt calculations. Everyone calculating watts has a different segment for this climb.

 

[pupupi]

I found this to be one of the most fascinating posts I’ve ever seen

 

[Peyresourde]

We now enter the 90s. 'Unfortunately', performances in this decade were so good that I have already spoiled most of them in my previous lists. Specifically, I would set the timeperiod of this era from 1991 - June 1999 (until the end of the Giro).

1991 | Gianni Bugno | 79 (-1): 6.16 W/kg for 40:27 on Alpe d'Huez
1992 | Moreno Argentin | 85 (0): 7.71 W/kg for 6:07 on Poggio
1993 | Tony Rominger | 89 (+6): 6.45 W/kg for 29:35 on Pla d'Adet
1994 | Marco Pantani | 106 (+3): 6.79 W/kg for 37:15 on Alpe d'Huez
1995 | Marco Pantani | 109 (+2): 6.90 W/kg for 36:50 on Alpe d'Huez
1996 | Bjarne Riis | 104 (-4): 6.96 W/kg for 34:41 on Hautacam
1997 | Marco Pantani | 106 (+1): 6.85 W/kg for 36:55 on Alpe d'Huez
1998 | Marco Pantani |105 (+3): 6.56 W/kg for 49:44 on Montecampione
1999 | Marco Pantani | 99 (+2): 6.92 W/kg for 24:51 on Madonna di Campiglio

Notes:
1) In 1991 an 1992 there were only 2-3 mountain stages each Tour and they were often raced either hard from very far out (Val Louron 91, Sestriere 92) or not full gas (Alpe d'Huez), so the exact climbing level in those Tours is hard to determine.
2) 1992 MSR is a great rewatch if you have the time. Argentin was seriously strong on the Poggio. Still, he somehow managed not to win the race.
3) If the supposed explosion in performance level in 91 and 92 was hard to pinpoint in my numbers, it clearly showed in the Pyrenees in 1993 with multiple 80+ performances in road stages.

4) In 1999, Pantani was defintely in the process of transforming from the perennial underdog into a GT-dominator. Maybe his popularity would have taken a hit even without any scandals similar to some more recent riders. His last performance before being disqualified was also his last great performance, afterwards he never returned to his old level.

 

[kingjr]

We now enter the 90s. 'Unfortunately', performances in this decade were so good that I have already spoiled most of them in my previous lists. Specifically, I would set the timeperiod of this era from 1991 - June 1999 (until the end of the Giro).

1991 | Gianni Bugno | 79 (-1): 6.16 W/kg for 40:27 on Alpe d'Huez
1992 | Moreno Argentin | 85 (0): 7.71 W/kg for 6:07 on Poggio
1993 | Tony Rominger | 89 (+6): 6.45 W/kg for 29:35 on Pla d'Adet
1994 | Marco Pantani | 106 (+3): 6.79 W/kg for 37:15 on Alpe d'Huez
1995 | Marco Pantani | 109 (+2): 6.90 W/kg for 36:50 on Alpe d'Huez
1996 | Bjarne Riis | 104 (-4): 6.96 W/kg for 34:41 on Hautacam
1997 | Marco Pantani | 106 (+1): 6.85 W/kg for 36:55 on Alpe d'Huez
1998 | Marco Pantani |105 (+3): 6.56 W/kg for 49:44 on Montecampione
1999 | Marco Pantani | 99 (+2): 6.92 W/kg for 24:51 on Madonna di Campiglio

Notes:
1) In 1991 an 1992 there were only 2-3 mountain stages each Tour and they were often raced either hard from very far out (Val Louron 91, Sestriere 92) or not full gas (Alpe d'Huez), so the exact climbing level in those Tours is hard to determine.
2) 1992 MSR is a great rewatch if you have the time. Argentin was seriously strong on the Poggio. Still, he somehow managed not to win the race.
3) If the supposed explosion in performance level in 91 and 92 was hard to pinpoint in my numbers, it clearly showed in the Pyrenees in 1993 with multiple 80+ performances in road stages.

4) In 1999, Pantani was defintely in the process of transforming from the perennial underdog into a GT-dominator. Maybe his popularity would have taken a hit even without any scandals similar to some more recent riders. His last performance before being disqualified was also his last great performance, afterwards he never returned to his old level.

Is the 1999 Madonna di Campiglio performance adjusted for the fact that he rode directly behind a group of about half a dozen motorbikes for a good deal of the climb?

 

[Peyresourde]

It is a shallower climb and as you say there was some motodraft, so the uncertainty in the estimation is higher. This was often the case in the 90s, especially also in MSR on the Cipressa and Poggio. In these cases I just estimate the watts with a higher draft % than I normally would. The exact effects of the motos are impossible to determine accurately.

 

[Panda Claws]

Threads like this are one of the reasons why I continue to prefer forums over sites like Reddit.
Love to see the original deep dive and people getting to mull over, and discuss it for weeks.
Great contribution!

 

[Brumdog66]

How does tiberi compare to the average uae tour level?

 

[Peyresourde]

85 is tied for second best in UAE Tour history with Evenepoel/Yates on Jebel Hafeet in 2023. The best was Pogacar last year on Hafeet with 88.
No other performance comes even close to Tiberi this year.

 

[Peyresourde]

The 2000s could also be called the 'Armstrong-Era' + aftermath. For me, it spans all the way from the Tour de France 1999 until the 2010 Tour. The peak climbing level was lower than the 90s, but higher than the 2010s, while I would say that the level of 10th best rider was similar to the 2010s. This decade was characterized by large swings in form and some one-hit wonders, with only some exceptional riders showing consistent performance over multiple years.

2000| Lance Armstrong | 94 (+3): 6.51 W/kg for 36:20 on Hautacam
2001| Lance Armstrong | 98 (+5): 6.53 W/kg for 38:03 on Alpe d'Huez
2002 | Roberto Heras | 81 (+5): 6.49 W/kg for 21:47 on Pandera
2003 | Iban Mayo | 87 (+4): 6.25 W/kg for 39:08 on Alpe d'Huez
2004 | Santiago Perez | 101 (+5): 7.20 W/kg for 16:25 on Navacerrada
2005 | Lance Armstrong | 92 (0): 6.31 W/kg for 50:25 on Courchevel
2006 | Ivan Basso | 97 (-5): 6.62 W/kg for 46:16 on Bondone
2007 | Michael Rasmussen | 83 (-2): 6.21 W/kg for 44:08 on Plateau de Beille
2008 | Alberto Contador | 86 (+2): 6.22 W/kg for 42:21 on Angliru
2009 | Alberto Contador | 98 (+1): 7.07 W/kg for 20:40 on Verbier
2010 | Andy Schleck | 91 (+3): 6.20 W/kg for 50:05 on Tourmalet West

I will also change out some of the honourable mentions on page 1 as most of them have already appeared in other lists by now.

Notes:
1) Armstrong was perhaps at his peak level in 2000 and 2001, though he bonked a bit in the Alps in 2000. So I would call the 2001 Tour his strongest.
2) In 2002 and 2003, the peak level was surprisingly low. Armstrong did not have any exceptional performances in these Tours (though it was quite hot in both). Heras was very consistent in the 2002 Vuelta with Indices of 81, 81 and 80. But he still did not win the race.
3) In contrast, 2004 had many high level performances with Santi Perez scoring the only 100+ of the decade.

4) Basso showed peak-Armstrong level climbing form in the 2006 Giro (although his descending and time trialing was still worse, so he might have not won in a hypothetical duel with Armstrong in the 2006 Tour).
5) From 2007 on, Contador was the best climber overall, though he did not put out high watts stage after stage like riders in the 90s or nowadays. He also won some races without standout performances (Giro 2008).

 

[Netserk]

some of the adjustments seem a bit counter intuitive, but i guess it may be down to where the segment starts and the part immediately before that ?

 

[Peyresourde]

some of the adjustments seem a bit counter intuitive, but i guess it may be down to where the segment starts and the part immediately before that ?

That is part of it, but you would have to tell me the specific climb you are referring to if you want details (also consider the altitude of the climbs).

 

[Netserk]

navacerrada and verbier first and foremost

 

[Peyresourde]

Navacerrada (+5): It is +4 just for altitude (Start at 1300m). The other adjustments are all 0 expect for +1 because it does not have a clear starting point/false flat uphill approach.

Verbier (+1): It is still 200k, 3000m climbing and an uphill drag before the final . It has a clear start and is quite regular. (Overall 0). It then gets +1 for altitude.

I try to adjust for how hard the actual racing was before the final (how big is the peloton on the bottom of final climb? Where there high performances on prior climbs? But I did not study every stage in excruciating detail, meaning I might have misjudged some stages). So my main method for stage difficulty adjustment is still to look at elevation gain and distance before the climb.

A lot of these adjustments can be on the cusp (I only use integers for the adjustments) and so certain climbs can can be 'advantaged' in my system (I am not necessarily saying that these 2 are).

 

[Netserk]

btw, which altitude gain do you have for verbier ? ive seen people refer to different sources, but based on swisstopo, i get it to 637 m (831 -> 1468).