Indurain Compared to Contador

[jilbiker]

I don't like comparing sportsmen from different generations because i believe that each generation has its own environment issues to deal with. But I have just watched DVDs on Miguel Indurain's 5 TDF and I found it quite a drab. Miguel was a tactical genius and did what was required to win, no thrills, no bells, no special exciting moments. Of course as a time trialist he had few or zero peers and he just built on that. No one really pushed him in the mountains, Pantani caused him a few scares but that was in TDF 4&5 when Pantani too was only just beginning to gain ground. Pantani was the closet that we have to compare to Alberto as they have similar styles in the mountains although Alberto has more punch when in full gear. Based on what I saw about Pantani vs Miguel plus the fact that Alberto is also tactically strong, I would say that Alberto is better than Miguel. Way better also because at least the fans come away feeling he gave it his best. With Miguel you came away feeling "Am I missing something?"

It is a tough call, because perhaps if he had someone that pushed him hard, we would have seen much more of the talent. And then again perhaps that was really Miguel's story, that we saw all that could be seen.

Interesting to read people's opinions.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I don't like comparing sportsmen from different generations because i believe that each generation has its own environment issues to deal with. But I have just watched DVDs on Miguel Indurain's 5 TDF and I found it quite a drab. Miguel was a tactical genius and did what was required to win, no thrills, no bells, no special exciting moments. Of course as a time trialist he had few or zero peers and he just built on that. No one really pushed him in the mountains, Pantani caused him a few scares but that was in TDF 4&5 when Pantani too was only just beginning to gain ground. Pantani was the closet that we have to compare to Alberto as they have similar styles in the mountains although Alberto has more punch when in full gear. Based on what I saw about Pantani vs Miguel plus the fact that Alberto is also tactically strong, I would say that Alberto is better than Miguel. Way better also because at least the fans come away feeling he gave it his best. With Miguel you came away feeling "Am I missing something?"

Reading this and knowing Miguel was superior in the ITT could make one think he simply won the Tours by doing great ITTs but was just okay in the mountains. I don't agree. Take for example the 1991 Tour (http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1991.html). The ITT was on stage 8, which was won by Miguel. But the GC leader after the stage 8 ITT was LeMond with a lead of 2'17 over Miguel, who was 4th overall at that point. Miguel did not take the GC lead until stage 13 (climbs included the Pourtalet, Aubisque, Tourmalet, Aspin, Val Louron). The stage 13 winner was Chiapucci, who was way down on the GC standing, and Miguel finished the stage 1 second behind Chiapucci. At that point the next closest to Miguel on GC was 3 minutes back. That was an incredible tactical move by Mig to stay with Chiappuci without having to attack him, but also shows he had the stuff in the mountains too. He definately had a different style in the mountains than Pantani or Alberto, and was more of a grinder, but he was so powerful he was tough to reckon with. Then after stage 13 with a 3 minute lead on GC over the next closest GC contender meant he just had to race tactically and not go out and try anything on his own... including stage 17 to Alpe d'Huez, where he finished 1 second behind stage winner Bugno. But IMO by then he showed he was tough in the mountains too. It is perhaps more fun to watch someone like Pantani or Alberto race, but to say AC is WAY better than Mig is a tough call to make. I would just call them both great and just leave it at that, as it's too hard to compare between the generations when they never raced against each other.

Other than that, I'm sure Miguel did his share of suffering and gave it his best. One thing about Miguel is when you saw him grimacing on climbs, he always had the same face and you never knew if he was struggling, grinning, or laughing at the others.

 

[Forunculo]

Alberto is a pure talent, better than Miguel in my opinion. But you can not compare, Contador is only 28 and we see next years to have a full opinion at the end of his career, but I think in the hard moments Indurian defend his lead better than Contador.

Probably Alberto is victim of his skill in mountain, nobody will help him. You see Cadel in Galibier was waiting for Contador to push and almost lose the Tour in spite of Alberto was finished that day. Indurain was not unstoppable and always can made some alliances.

Unfair for the context but Indurian focus for Tour goal was better. Yeah Alberto can't defend TDF 08 for Vinos epo case and this year for the problem of CAS. But in 2010 Alberto wasn't fresh he alleged Martineli caos in trainings camps being himself the one who summon the rest of the rider and the key to later sign for Riis.

But at the end Alberto is beyond the limit in mountains as you can see in the harder Giro of last decades, and superb in TT. He is only 28 and I see him at champion level to 33-34 at least. He can surpass Armstrong 7 TDF and I bet 100% the 11 Grand Tours of Merckx. He has 6 at the moment, if the Vuelta build up parcours for him, (prologues, climb TT) the next two years we see a couple of doubles. And with 31 he fight for match 11 GT of Eddie. Vuelta is desesperate for welcome Alberto in spanish road.

And when he will be in his pinacle will try a triple.

 

[Mich78BEL]

Lol, Contador can't do the triple, and probably will never succeed in doing a Giro-Tour double or a Tour-Vuelta (maybe if everything goes his way and the parcours in both races suits him 100 %). This is the 2e year in a row that he calls the season quits after the Tour. The guys is overrated and is verry rarely properly challenged probably because this GT-generation is rather weak.
Plus he's 29 at the end of the year and i think he probably peaked already, he might still be in his prime for a couple of years but GC-riders who are winning early generally don't last overly long (Indurain, Merckx and Hinault all quit when they wore around 32). If he doesn't get suspended and loses last years Tours he will probably win a couple more GT but i highly doubt he break either Armstrong or Merckx Tour/GT records. To me Indurain was more dominant even though Contador might win more Grand Tours.

 

[Carols]

They were/are the Dominant GT cyclist of their era and both are Grand Champions of the sport who have written their names in the lore of cycling history forever.

Alberto is much more exciting to watch, as was Pantani, but that takes nothing away from Miguel's excellence. Maybe Alberto will exceed Miguel in GT wins but that takes nothing away from Miguel's legacy.

In summation they are both Great and I have enjoyed watched both of them!

 

[Kellys Big Sprocket]

Its an interesting comparison between two Spanish greats but in my opionion without trying to justify it, Indurain was in a completely different league of his own. His victories where not "drab".

 

[mastersracer]

Contador is a much less dominant Tour winner than Indurain was. At the Tour at least, Contador is not a dominant climber. He has really only one climb of memory at the Tour - Verbier, where he put 43 seconds on main contenders. That's also the only Tour victory that he won by the sort of margins Indurain won (after 91 Indurain won all Tours by at least 4 minutes). Contador's other Tour wins were by slim margins - 23 seconds over Evans in 07 and 39 seconds over Schleck last year.

 

[Carols]

Contador is a much less dominant Tour winner than Indurain was. At the Tour at least, Contador is not a dominant climber. He has really only one climb of memory at the Tour - Verbier, where he put 43 seconds on main contenders. That's also the only Tour victory that he won by the sort of margins Indurain won (after 91 Indurain won all Tours by at least 4 minutes). Contador's other Tour wins were by slim margins - 23 seconds over Evans in 07 and 39 seconds over Schleck last year.

Makes the racing much more interesting though

His 2011 Giro was a dominant as it gets....

 

[HACKLERA68]

Shouldn't they be discussed in the clinic?

 

[mastersracer]

Makes the racing much more interesting though

His 2011 Giro was a dominant as it gets....

but against a weaker field than the Tour...

 

[Descender]

Contador is a climber who can time-trial. Indurain was a time-trialist who could climb. Their racing styles are a reflection of this.

 

[Kellys Big Sprocket]

Contador is a climber who can time-trial. Indurain was a time-trialist who could climb. Their racing styles are a reflection of this.

Nicely worded. He was a great time trialist rather than a born winner. I recall his time trial exploits in the 92 Giro and Tour de France which blew away his main rivals. Who recalls that Luxembourg TT in Le Tour of 92 ??? I recall Fignon describing Big Mig not as a bike rider but as plane that day !!!

Unlike Contador, Indurain was "the man" to beat and with every victory I always felt that it enhanced the aura that hung around him - impregnable, invincible, unstoppable. Some one mentioned earlier in the thread about the age of Contador. I think Indurain was a "late developer" as his first TDF win was at 27 !!!

Big Mig rode at a time when cycling and Le Tour became far more demanding, mentally as well as physically. This is smipluy measured by the fact that no rider ever managed to finish second behind the lad more than once - Chiappucci and Bugno swapped podium places behind Indurain in 1991 and 1992, but thats as far as it went. In his last three Tour wins no one came near making it on to the podium behind Inudrain two years running.

These basic facts speak for them selves.

 

[Parrulo]

this should be soooo moved to the clinic. its impossible to compared this 2 without clinic related stuff

 

[El Pistolero]

Nicely worded. He was a great time trialist rather than a born winner. I recall his time trial exploits in the 92 Giro and Tour de France which blew away his main rivals. Who recalls that Luxembourg TT in Le Tour of 92 ??? I recall Fignon describing Big Mig not as a bike rider but as plane that day !!!

Unlike Contador, Indurain was "the man" to beat and with every victory I always felt that it enhanced the aura that hung around him - impregnable, invincible, unstoppable. Some one mentioned earlier in the thread about the age of Contador. I think Indurain was a "late developer" as his first TDF win was at 27 !!!

Big Mig rode at a time when cycling and Le Tour became far more demanding, mentally as well as physically. This is smipluy measured by the fact that no rider ever managed to finish second behind the lad more than once - Chiappucci and Bugno swapped podium places behind Indurain in 1991 and 1992, but thats as far as it went. In his last three Tour wins no one came near making it on to the podium behind Inudrain two years running.

These basic facts speak for them selves.

I think something else.

There's really nothing magical about Indurain as you describe him. Most people who were not Spanish found him incredibly boring and his Tour era was probably the weakest ever and there was almost never any reason to actually watch the Tour during those 5 years. 10 times worse as the Armstrong era.

The reason why Big Mig won which such big time gaps is because the Tour had a lot of time trials back then. If they had the same amount of time trials these days Contador would probably win by 8 minutes or more.

 

[Mshengu]

Contador is definitely the best cyclist yet. I think over the next few years we will see him taking his rightful position( LEADER ) in the classics and will def surpass Merckx in grand tour wins. To say there is no one to challenge him is false since there is a lot of cycling talent right now and it increases year by year. Moreover the field in the Giro was not weak at all, Michelle Scarponi for instance performed remarkably since the beginning of the season.

To say more would require me to make "clinical" references

 

[hrotha]

I think something else.

There's really nothing magical about Indurain as you describe him. Most people who were not Spanish found him incredibly boring and his Tour era was probably the weakest ever and there was almost never any reason to actually watch the Tour during those 5 years. 10 times worse as the Armstrong era.

The reason why Big Mig won which such big time gaps is because the Tour had a lot of time trials back then. If they had the same amount of time trials these days Contador would probably win by 8 minutes or more.

Hyperbole much? You know people attacked back then, right? Like, from really far away? Chiappucci? You know, the works? And Banesto wasn't the blue train, so they couldn't block the race nearly as effectively. The Armstrong years were way more boring (except for 2003), but not because of Armstrong himself but because of the way cycling was evolving.

 

[Mich78BEL]

Contador is definitely the best cyclist yet.

3 of his 6 GT wins are with less then a minute
2 of his 6 GT wins are without a stage wins

off all the cyclist who have won 5 GT's or more he has done so in the least dominant/impressive way

to me he's overrated and i still don't have him ranked in the top 25 all time

 

[El Pistolero]

3 of his 6 GT wins are with less then a minute
2 of his 6 GT wins are without a stage wins

off all the cyclist who have won 5 GT's or more he has done so in the least dominant/impressive way

to me he's overrated and i still don't have him ranked in the top 25 all time

1. Nobody remembers the time a gt is won. Except the Tour of 1989... Because it was won with 8 seconds... Instant legend.

2. Contador is 28 years old, Indurain and Armstrong won their first Tour at age 27

3. Contador won all 3 GTs, a feat never achieved by either Indurain or Armstrong

4. Indurain never won his Giros with great time differences

5. Indurain didn't win a lot of stages during his Tour years

6. Contador gifts away a lot of stages, so looking at stage wins is useless.

7. Contador's first Giro win was with a cracked elbow and without any prep Yet he still won with 2 minutes against a Cera field

8. It's better to win a Tour with only 23 seconds at age 24 than it is to drop out in a Tour(Indurain, Armstrong)

9. Contador has the weakest team ever compared to other Greats

10. Different freaking era. Indurain would have won 0 GTs in this current era without time trials and lot's and lot's of climbing(no way Indurain would have ever won this year's Giro against Contador)

 

[FEELMYTHIGHS]

This is an interesting topic, but it won't make any sense until Contador's career is as over (completed) as Indurain's.

Personally, I found Indurain's performances awe-inspiring.
I don't understand why so many people denigrate the fact that he based his victories on gains made in time trials. It's not like he was useless in the mountains - he's got a few stage victories, and many close finishes. The way he used to ride in defence of his lead was something to behold.

OK, it might not make for an exciting race to watch, but that's not what these guys get paid to do.

Besides, in the absence of any modern-era stage races being contested man vs man every day, what's so great about saving your effort for the mountain stages? Apart from the fact that it looks better on TV?
How is being a good climber (when most rivals can't suck your wheel) any better than being a good time triallist (when wheel-sucking isn't allowed)?

 

[mastersracer]

The 91 Tour had a 73km ITT! Of course that's where any GC contender that was a decent time trialist would focus on. Indurain was also a hell of a good climber. His 90 victory on Luz Ardiden showed that. http://youtu.be/702mu0o3xXY

 

[Anonymous]

Always difficult to compare, but for me it is Contador, by a considerable distance.

Indurain was a monster, theres no doubt, two giro/tour doubles (although roche also managed that which raises the question of how hard was the giro), but for me Contador is the more complete rider.

Its when you venture outside of the grand tours that Contador takes the edge, Castilly y Leon, Catalunya, Algarve, etc.

Indurains failure to ever win the Vuelta knocks him off a few points as well.

 

[hrotha]

Always difficult to compare, but for me it is Contador, by a considerable distance.

Indurain was a monster, theres no doubt, two giro/tour doubles (although roche also managed that which raises the question of how hard was the giro), but for me Contador is the more complete rider.

Its when you venture outside of the grand tours that Contador takes the edge, Castilly y Leon, Catalunya, Algarve, etc.

Indurains failure to ever win the Vuelta knocks him off a few points as well.

Indurain won tons of one-week stage races too. A couple of Dauphinés, Midi Libre, Catalunya, Asturias, Paris-Nice, Criterium International, the whole enchillada. Right now, I'd say Indurain is still ahead thanks to his two Giro-Tour doubles, his Olympic gold, his ITT WC, and his three medals in the WC RR, IIRC. Of course, Contador has more than enough time to surpass him, but right now I'd say Indurain still comes on top.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Contador is a climber who can time-trial. Indurain was a time-trialist who could climb. Their racing styles are a reflection of this.

Yes, well said. Either way I love what they both did/do on the bike.

 

[Kellys Big Sprocket]

I think something else.

There's really nothing magical about Indurain as you describe him. Most people who were not Spanish found him incredibly boring and his Tour era was probably the weakest ever and there was almost never any reason to actually watch the Tour during those 5 years. 10 times worse as the Armstrong era.

The reason why Big Mig won which such big time gaps is because the Tour had a lot of time trials back then. If they had the same amount of time trials these days Contador would probably win by 8 minutes or more.

From a historical perspective a very valid point but after 1991 the cycling equation for Mr Jose Public went as follows:

cycling = Indurain=Banesto=July=the Tour

He was the master of the worlds hardest endurance event and was a pleasure to follow.

It could be argued that Indurain should have won six Tours - in the 1990 Tour he would have certainly have been in contention had his team duties not caused him to wait time and time again for Delgado. He clearly appeared to be the strongest rider from memory.

 

[Siriuscat]

As said difficult comparison.

Once Contador's career is over, I think we'll be able to compare them better. My own view is that Berto's place in history will be as the best stage race rider we've ever had, just look at his palmares at 28 years old:
3 TDF
2 Giro
1 Vuelta
2 Paris Nice
2 pais Vasco
1 Volta Catalunya
3 Castilla Lyon
2 Volta a Algarve
1 Tour of Murcia

The Giro this year was the most dominant performance we've seen in years against riders who specifically had this as their SOLE target for the season, Berto always had an eye on Le Tour.

Against that Big Mig "only" managed 5 tdf's and 2 Giro's

While he has the Olympic and World TT titles I find it difficult to count them in this context because this is where the two eras conflict and times have changed massivley. Olympic and World RR/TT championships have become so specialist that the number of potential winners is now so low it's too easy to predict a winner.