• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Pantani 99 vs Armstrong 99

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Juice said:
I don't get this " 1 minute at every mountain finish". Would have been minutes every stage.

He was outclimbing the guys at the 99 giro by 1 minute at every MTF, why are you so convinced he could've put even more into a fresh Armstrong ?

Assuming Pantani would time trial at a similar level to the 98 TDF he needs 7-8 minutes over Armstrong in the mountains (not including any time lost on flat stages). That's a lot of time over 3 mountain stages ...
 
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
Visit site
Lance was a last mountain attacker. He wanted a steady pace by his team and then they would jack it up in the last mountain and launch Lance. When he was on his game yes he looked very impressive. But this is not going to happen with a Pantani in the race (2000 Pantani is just a shadow of his 99 version or even years before that).

I see only one man being able to touch a Pantani in his 99 Giro shape and that is a fully prepared and ready Ullrich. Ullrich was such a diesel that he might have been able to control far away attacks from Pantani. He wouldn't have been able to immediately respond to the attacks but maybe he could have kept Pantani under control. Maybe.
 
How I wish it was true. Like someone said, sometimes i miss the EPO- years...
Watched The accidental death of a cyclist yesterday and the pictures are very vivid to me.
I don't know who would have won. I mean, Pantani was a crazy climber, Armstrong was just crazy.

But, I don´t miss the EPO- years. If it weren't for them this battle would have perhaps been on.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,136
4
0
Visit site
Dr. Juice said:
Get your facts right. Not you, the one who mentioned 52-61 % in 99. BS. He had 59,x % hematocrite after his accident at Milano-Torino 1995 at the hospital.
99 they were all under 50 %. Probably 50-52 sometimes in the race and after a couple of aspirines back at 48-49. Don't understand why foxxybrown says he was jacked up almost to death. 50 % rule.

I don't get this " 1 minute at every mountain finish". Would have been minutes every stage. Suicidial attack? To compare an ill 80-85% Pantani in 2000 with the one in 99...
Never ever could Lance relie on his teammates to bring him back. If Pantani attacked on the penultimate climb or even before, he would have had to respond himself. 1 vs 1. Far inferior in climbing, he would have blown up while trying to stay on the wheel. Not cracking in 7 years because he never had such an opponent.

They did the Alpe d'Huez in around 41 minutes. Let's assume the leadout was slow. Faster pace initially brings it down by 1 minute. Lance doesn't let Guerini win but instead attacks and wins by 1 minute.
Does 39 minutes ( which is reasonable - his best time in a RR was 38:01 in his best form ever -->2001 ).
Pantani, who went under 37 minutes in 1995 and 1997, would have set a new record. Just attack on the foot of the climb like in 1997 and go crazy. 36:30 BAM!
The other stages, attacks from 60-70 km out. Solo rides 1 vs 1 with Lance. Somewhere LA would have cracked. Even without cracking 3 minutes every stage when alone vs Pantani for 70 km.

also good point on lance his VERY weak team in 99. they coulde've never controlled pantani. not even telekom could in 98
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,136
4
0
Visit site
deValtos said:
He was outclimbing the guys at the 99 giro by 1 minute at every MTF, why are you so convinced he could've put even more into a fresh Armstrong ?

Assuming Pantani would time trial at a similar level to the 98 TDF he needs 7-8 minutes over Armstrong in the mountains (not including any time lost on flat stages). That's a lot of time over 3 mountain stages ...

because he only attacked at the final mountain because he didn't NEED to attack.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Juice said:
Get your facts right. Not you, the one who mentioned 52-61 % in 99.

Cool down. I have mine straight. Never said Pantani had 52-61 in 99, but career-wise when caught. Did he manage to bring it under 50? Yes now and then, and then not (late Giro 99, inner Carerra tests, while laying in hospital after his Torino accident).

Was he ever above 61? Most certainly. There is around 5 papers showing his HcT. So if it fluctuates by almost 10% in competition, on this small sample size, it´s very likely it got up to 64 or more sometimes, before he diluted it down to pass the "health-checks". As we all know it didn´t always work out for him.

That´s the overall problem with people that defend their doper. They try to twist reality until it fits their POV.

I OTOH am pretty emotionless in this debate. Don´t care about LA nor Pantani. Just compare the facts we have and discuss the matter a bit.

Dr. Juice said:
Don't understand why foxxybrown says he was jacked up almost to death.

Where did I say this?

Dr. Juice said:
I don't get this " 1 minute at every mountain finish". Would have been minutes every stage.

No it wouldn´t. As you certainly know, riders riding alone, while others in slipstream, use more energy.
What I said is that Pantani´s best climb time (at Alpe) was circa 1 minute faster than LAs (Pantani had his best three times between 36.40-37.15; LA 37.36 & 38.03). No more, no less.
On the Ventoux OTOH Pantani "owns" ;) LA only by some seconds (57.34 vs 57.52 & 57.49 for LA)...
Don´t do cherry picking to satisfy that nonsense that Pantani would have put minutes into LA on every one of the 4 mountain stages in 1999. That´s absurd and you know it.

Dr. Juice said:
Suicidial attack? To compare an ill 80-85% Pantani in 2000 with the one in 99...

Never did compare that.

Dr. Juice said:
Never ever could Lance relie on his teammates to bring him back. If Pantani attacked on the penultimate climb or even before, he would have had to respond himself. 1 vs 1. Far inferior in climbing, he would have blown up while trying to stay on the wheel. Not cracking in 7 years because he never had such an opponent.

You base that on what? Because he prevailed with that style vs the Salvodellis of the world, it auto works against a full prepared by Ferrari Armstrong?
Yikes, it even worked only once vs Ullrich. In 1998 when his opponent had the infamous Hunger-Ast in terrible weather (BTW; something LA liked, but Ullrich not). Before that incident, Ullrich owned that TdF & and an in-form Pantani, leading him by 3.01 before the hunger stage.
Where was Pantanis super solos vs Ullrich (the one who always lost around 6 mins to LA, except 2003)? Aubisque-Tourmalet-DÀspin-Peyresoude-Stage. A hammer stage. How much did he put into Ullrich? A meh 23 seconds...

And finally, if Pantani was that great allrounder, why o why didn´t he own the TdF before LA came up in 1999?

All I saw and remember is that LA attacked at the base of the (last) climbs on the very first TdF high mountain stage (year in year out), riding alone into the sunset, and still putting minutes into his opponents. After that he was sitting on the lead, and now & then putting on another bizarre show and/or destroying the best ITTlers in the world. Again; at the TdF, not the Salvodelli-Gotti-and-what-else Giros...
Pantani in 1999 vs LA: No tiny chance to beat him. Never ever. Maybe one desperate solo ride would have prevailed, only to pay for it the next day.

Dr. Juice said:
The other stages, attacks from 60-70 km out. Solo rides 1 vs 1 with Lance. Somewhere LA would have cracked. Even without cracking 3 minutes every stage when alone vs Pantani for 70 km.

Maybe in your daily PCM game, but not in the real world. Pantani would have not been able to solo ride every mountain stage, let alone putting 3 minutes into LA at each one of them. Just grotesque assumptions by you.
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Visit site
Ryo Hazuki said:
because he only attacked at the final mountain because he didn't NEED to attack. ugh my god why can't people understand some basic f'n logic. use your brain some time.

Right ... because that's how cycling works. :rolleyes:

I can only find one time in his entire career where he's attacked before the last mountain (or even at the last mountain) and dropped everyone for 2 minutes or more. (1994 giro stage 15 if you're interested ... you could also make a case for 1998 @ les deux alpes but Escartin had only just attacked before Patani went up the road)

But according to you guys he'd be doing this every day at the 99 Tour ... oh and now it's apparently basic f'n logic ?
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
deValtos said:
But according to you guys he'd be doing this every day at the 99 Tour ... oh and now it's apparently basic f'n logic ?

Truly unbelievable. I know. It´s beyond me how people could make up such BS after following cycling for years and then using no logic at all, but attacking others to use their "****ing brains"... Well, we did.
Great posts BTW. 1+ :)
 
Jun 9, 2014
58
0
0
Visit site
no that's facts. zulle lost all his time there that he was behind on final gc and even more I think

Wrong as proven above.... And besides LA never had to take more time because Zule alreday lost that time so your assesment is pure specualation and fantasy. Its possible that Zulle didnt ride on the same gasoline and was the greater GT talent but that s another story.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Visit site
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
And finally, if Pantani was that great allrounder, why o why didn´t he own the TdF before LA came up in 1999?

I'm not taking sides here, but Pantani missed all of 1996 due to a previous major accident and was sub-par in 1997 as he came back to form. Without the accident (and another less serious one in the '97 Giro), he may well have won the Tour in 1996 and 1997, on top of which his '98 victory would have made three in a row.

All speculation, granted, but one can't overlook the time missed and the time taken to recover from the accidents.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
I'm not taking sides here, but Pantani missed all of 1996 due to a previous major accident and was sub-par in 1997 as he came back to form. Without the accident (and another less serious one in the '97 Giro), he may well have won the Tour in 1996 and 1997, on top of which his '98 victory would have made three in a row.

All speculation, granted, but one can't overlook the time missed and the time taken to recover from the accidents.

He was climbing records in the '97 Tour, right?
Still finished almost 15 minutes behind Ullrich
I highly doubt Pantani could've been THAT much better without accidents
 
deValtos said:
Right ... because that's how cycling works. :rolleyes:

I can only find one time in his entire career where he's attacked before the last mountain (or even at the last mountain) and dropped everyone for 2 minutes or more. (1994 giro stage 15 if you're interested ... you could also make a case for 1998 @ les deux alpes but Escartin had only just attacked before Patani went up the road)

There was also the stage to Guzet Neige in 1995 where he attacked with 40 km to go and gained 2.31 to the rest. And for me also the stage to Luz Ardiden in 1994 counts where he attacked with 50 km to go and gained 3.08 to the rest but did not catch Virenque who was in the "early" break. Taking into account that he was usually going for stage wins and therefore did not need great winning margins i think 4 big long range attacks with great winning margins is quite good.
 
Nov 29, 2010
2,326
0
0
Visit site
Cannavaro said:
There was also the stage to Guzet Neige in 1995 where he attacked with 40 km to go and gained 2.31 to the rest. And for me also the stage to Luz Ardiden in 1994 counts where he attacked with 50 km to go and gained 3.08 to the rest but did not catch Virenque who was in the "early" break. Taking into account that he was usually going for stage wins and therefore did not need great winning margins i think 4 big long range attacks with great winning margins is quite good.

My mistake then. Not so easy to find stats on the 94/95 tours.

Edit: though I will say I don't know how seriously Indurain and co tooks the attacks when Pantani was so far down in the GC.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
3
0
Visit site
Ok you guys have me convinced. Trying to beat the relentless Armstrong juggernaut would have been futile.

In fact, it's hard to imagine anyone beating Armstrong at his best.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Visit site
Gung Ho Gun said:
He was climbing records in the '97 Tour, right?
Still finished almost 15 minutes behind Ullrich
I highly doubt Pantani could've been THAT much better without accidents

It is certainly all subject to a lot of guesswork.

In '97, didn't Pantani alternate easy days with hard days, focusing on certain stages rather than minimising total losses?

It's all so long ago so it's hard to remember the detail and circumstances. Beating the '97 version of Ullrich would have taxed anyone, I suspect.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Wallace and Gromit said:
It's all so long ago so it's hard to remember the detail and circumstances. Beating the '97 version of Ullrich would have taxed anyone, I suspect.

I remember 1997 pretty well. It brought me back to cycling. Nobody, really nobody mentioned Pantani as a threat to Ullrich. It was only about if Telekom would let Ullrich turn loose, or try to repeat with Rijs. Pantani was seen as climber going for stages. That´s it. 1998... it was only about how much Ullrich would put into everybody in that edition. 1999 it was about who shall there win without Ullrich. Nobody, literally nobody talked about Pantani, the stage hunter, as a CG-TdF-1999 contender. Why? Because Pantani said non TdF. I don´t go there (in hindsight he was feared to death to be caught). So what if he would have gone to France still? On panigua. Finishing 106th or something, blaming it on whatever.

Links that Pantani was cancelling the TdF:
http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/anderes-ausland-pantani-sagt-die-tour-ab-a-22281.html

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/radsport-ullrich-schreibt-pantani-noch-nicht-ab-a-23972.html
 
Jun 5, 2014
883
0
0
Visit site
@ Foxxy Brown

We have too much difference in our views about the respective strenght of Armstrong and Pantani.

I don't mind if someone says Armstrong would've won. But "scared to death" and "stage hunter" I just can not agree.
If there is somebody with a more moderate view on this subject, maybe we can talk about what would have played in LA favor or viceversa.
I'm not saying Pantani would have won with 100% security. Just stating that Pantani was the far better climber and was reaching his peak in 98/99 (28-29 years of age). How the race would have unfolded...that's everyone's guess.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
It is certainly all subject to a lot of guesswork.

In '97, didn't Pantani alternate easy days with hard days, focusing on certain stages rather than minimising total losses?

It's all so long ago so it's hard to remember the detail and circumstances. Beating the '97 version of Ullrich would have taxed anyone, I suspect.

While he did lose a lot of time in the crashes in the first week, I can not recall any stage where it was obvious that Pantani took it easier. There were however stages where Ullrich was plainly better like Arcalis and Courchevel.

And by the way, since you admit that you don't remember the details, maybe the discussion would be better served by leaving out the guesswork about things that you obviously know little about.

Maybe you can look up some highlights on youtube or something first before guessing.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,529
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Juice said:
@ Foxxy Brown

We have too much difference in our views about the respective strenght of Armstrong and Pantani.

I don't mind if someone says Armstrong would've won. But "scared to death" and "stage hunter" I just can not agree.
If there is somebody with a more moderate view on this subject, maybe we can talk about what would have played in LA favor or viceversa.
I'm not saying Pantani would have won with 100% security. Just stating that Pantani was the far better climber and was reaching his peak in 98/99 (28-29 years of age). How the race would have unfolded...that's everyone's guess.

I´ve got no problem with you...
I only state that I am 100% sure Pantani would have had no chance against a fully-prepared-by-Ferrari-Armstrong (which he was as we all know, from 1999 onwards).
I explained that Pantani would have lost a good amount of time in TTs (and gave the benefit of doubt to him, only calculating 4 mins he´d lose against him. Others gave reasonable assumptions of up to 9 mins). Further there is no way that Pantani would have gained those minutes back in 4 mountain stages. But I gave him the benefit of doubt again, that he´d gain a minute here or there, on a LA who never ever cracked in his 7 TdF "wins" (instead he rode himself away from world class climbers, year-in-year-out). But Pantani would not have been able to gain a minute on all 4 stages (see times comparisons between LA and Pantani on Ventoux, and Alpe. See further Pantani vs Ullrich, a far "worse" climber than LA. And still Pantani was unable to put much time into him (except for the hunger stage). See the monster stage I mentioned where Pantani gained only 23 seconds. A stage "made for" Pantani). Leave alone that Pantani would have prevailed with 4 solo attacks gaining 3 mins in each. That´s absurd, and you know it.
But here is the stunner I just realized tonight: Pantani said multiple times he would not ride the TdF 1999 (see my latest links). Not even if his sponsors forced him to do. But give him the benefit of doubt again: He certainly peaked for the Giro, since he was feared of french police (see links again). So if he´d had changed his mind in the last second, he´d arrived emty at the TdF. On panigua. He´d have been a (almost) no show. Doing some TV attacks, and then go home finishing somewhere around 80th-120th.
And finally even more benefit of doubt for him: Lets forget about all the points I brought up. To beat a full charged LA, he´d have had to risk his life, going all-in at 60-70% Hct (diluting it to just under 50% for the pre tour "health checks") to have a chance for 4 solo attacks gaining back all the minutes he´d have lost in the TTs. Is that likely? OFC not!
 

TRENDING THREADS