Purito was 3rd on Anglirú and won the Vuelta GPM in 2005. He's a climber, but he's better suited to the short walls. The steeper it gets, the better for Purito.
Anyway, the main difference between Hesjedal's triumph and Wiggins' is the manner of the victory.
Hesjedal won the race a way that many of us can plausibly believe a clean rider could win the race (regardless of whether competing against clean or dirty riders) - by keeping his powder dry, by making attacks to gain small increments of time when he feels good, by maximising the area where he holds the cards (the ITT, for example). And no doubt he had some help from the competition; Scarponi admitted that they didn't put enough pressure on him when he was having a bad day. Because Hesjedal did have bad days, but a combination of good teamwork, grit and determination and a lack of willingness (or ability) to capitalise on it on the part of the other contenders meant that he was able to limit his losses (sometimes to nothing at all). Hesjedal - and Garmin - raced in a way that is not totally irreconcilable with how we feel (and it is important to note that this is about feeling and opinion) a clean performance in a GT could, or should, look. Hesjedal won by a handful of seconds over a guy he took the jersey off on the final day.
Wiggins, by contrast, has not had a bad day since Anglirú last September. Sky defended the maillot jaune for two weeks without any trouble despite losing one engine in week 1 and having two guys who were barely contributing (Eisel and Cavendish) on that front. They raced according to the template of Banesto and US Postal Service, which is totally irreconcilable with how we feel a clean performance in a GT could, or should, look. Hesjedal won by taking advantage of opportunities; but Wiggins would probably have obliterated the field regardless of who was in it. His superiority over the field was such that it was laughable, as the GC gaps were the biggest in years.
They were very, very different manners of victory.