The time of the new "pure Climber" resurgence

[hfer07]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/herrera-thinks-time-is-right-for-the-resurgence-of-the-pure-climber

The reason I'm posting this thread is because as soon as I read the article, it kept me thinking about the lack of interest from the current generation to make exciting and excel in this category. My Compatriot Lucho Herrera gave the Polka dot jersey a new meaning back in the 80's, & his legendary battles against Bernard Hinault, Greg Lemond, Robert Millar & Perico Delgado-even his own team mate Fabio Parra- are to be remembered with grandeur-not only for the spectacle, but his attitude towards the PDJ also meant to him to get mixed in the fight for the GC.
The Last "pure Climber" that I would consider entitled to this category is Ciappucci-I always have issues considering Virenque a "truly climber" even if his record says otherwise
Pure Climbers like Pantani & Contador have taken that skill to the next level of the game to make it part of their weaponry for the GC.

are there any "pure climbers" in the current peloton to claim once more the excitement & honor to wear with pride the Polka dot jersey?
Please opine

PS: Michael Rasmussen is indeed a deserved member of this category

 

[Tuarts]

"Calculated climber" is the new black.

 

[Fetisoff]

IMHO, the only way to get the new "pure Climber" resurgence is to go back to having 100+ km of Time Trials in the grand tours.

As it stands right now, the riders who would have absolutely no shot at the GC in the 80s/90s (J-Rods, Antons etc) hoping to limit their losses in the only Time Trial there is in the race to a reasonable 3-5 minutes or whatever, which they can try to make up in small chunks with time bonuses and small leads at the end of stages.

 

[Squire]

I would definitely put Michael Rasmussen in the "pure climber" category. Up to (and possibly including) 2007, his primary goal was the polkadot jersey, and he did some epic rides on his way to winning it.

 

[Michielveedeebee]

Rasmussen was one imo, always great as soon as the road went uphill, also was up there in GC, but was terrible on a TT bike

 

[hfer07]

I would definitely put Michael Rasmussen in the "pure climber" category. Up to (and possibly including) 2007, his primary goal was the polkadot jersey, and he did some epic rides on his way to winning it.

forgot about him-apologies

 

[roundabout]

I suppose any rider who can finish top-5 in selected mountain stages but isn't consistent enough on the climbs and incapable of finishing top-30 in time trials would be a "pure" climber.

 

[Altitude]

Jiménez, Rasmussen for sure. Piepoli was as pure a climber as one could be, as was Ricco. Today you have Rujano but not many others.

 

[thehog]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/herrera-thinks-time-is-right-for-the-resurgence-of-the-pure-climber

The reason I'm posting this thread is because as soon as I read the article, it kept me thinking about the lack of interest from the current generation to make exciting and excel in this category. My Compatriot Lucho Herrera gave the Polka dot jersey a new meaning back in the 80's, & his legendary battles against Bernard Hinault, Greg Lemond, Robert Millar & Perico Delgado-even his own team mate Fabio Parra- are to be remembered with grandeur-not only for the spectacle, but his attitude towards the PDJ also meant to him to get mixed in the fight for the GC.
The Last "pure Climber" that I would consider entitled to this category is Ciappucci-I always have issues considering Virenque a "truly climber" even if his record says otherwise
Pure Climbers like Pantani & Contador have taken that skill to the next level of the game to make it part of their weaponry for the GC.

are there any "pure climbers" in the current peloton to claim once more the excitement & honor to wear with pride the Polka dot jersey?
Please opine

The field got "flattened" in the 90's. The pure climber has always existed. You just had larger guys being able to climb and then mash the pure climbers in the time trials.

Think you'll see a lot more of the climber which is great... makes the races much more exciting as each rider has to play to their strength.

 

[The Hitch]

Jiménez, Rasmussen for sure. Piepoli was as pure a climber as one could be, as was Ricco. Today you have Rujano but not many others.

Joaquim Rodriguez, Igor Anton, Juan Jose Cobo, Michelle Scarponi, Frank Schleck, Eze Mosquera Franco Pellizoti, Rigo Uran etc.

I would include Ivan Basso and Robert Gesink and Andy Schleck too.

 

[Dancing On The Pedals]

Dan Martin.

 

[Froome19]

Joaquim Rodriguez, Igor Anton, Juan Jose Cobo, Michelle Scarponi, Eze Mosquera Franco Pellizoti, Rigo Uran etc.

I would include Ivan Basso and Robert Gesink and Andy Schleck too.

Wouldn't call scarponi a pure climber as that would then include all other non tt gc contenders and anyway scarponi does have a decent tt and is always consistent never truly erratic and has decent overall skills not only in regards to climbing (he was up there in msr you can't then claim he's a pure climber)

 

[Altitude]

Joaquim Rodriguez, Igor Anton, Juan Jose Cobo, Michelle Scarponi, Eze Mosquera Franco Pellizoti, Rigo Uran etc.

I would include Ivan Basso and Robert Gesink and Andy Schleck too.

Depends on your definition of pure climber. Anton and Mosquera yes. I consider Rodriguez more of a puncheur. Scarponi is more of an all rounder, same with Cobo. To me pure climber means you really don't do anything particularly well except climb mountains (which I suppose could rule out Ricco with his sprint).

 

[Sylvester]

Roberto Laiseka and Fernando Escartin (two of my all time favorite riders) deserve to be mentioned here. Simoni too, to a lesser extent. Nowadays we have Rujano, Martin and Anton, and that's pretty much it (in the big races, at least).

 

[nightfend]

Problem is, you have guys like Levi, Contador, and Evans that can climb AND time trial. I don't see how a pure climber has any chance against someone that is well rounded.

Andy S is not exactly "small" but I'd probably consider him a pure climber, not being able to time trial has been his weak spot. I definitely don't see a resurgence of the pure climber. But, you might see more guys from South America/Latin America do well in Europe. But the successful ones will figure out the time trial.

 

[the3verB]

Problem is, you have guys like Levi, Contador, and Evans that can climb AND time trial. I don't see how a pure climber has any chance against someone that is well rounded.

You must be the best climber by a huge huge margin, like Pantani in 1998-99 or Rasmussen in 2007.

Maybe also Sastre in 2008 but i think the decivise factor of his victory was Evans injury.

Then, only Pantani or Rasmussen

 

[jens_attacks]

probably the fastest climber after marco.

i don't see a "resurgence" overall. there were always strong climber and there ever will be.but indeed the south americans especially they have an out of this world generation right now.

 

[Forunculo]

The "pure climber" is obsolete.

From 1991 only one "pure climber" won the Tour, Pantani.

People like Indurain, Armstrong, Contador, Evans and Ullrich were/are all-rounder.

And in the case of Contador is better climber than these "pure climbers". His only weakness is his team but it's not his fault... or yes?

 

[The Hitch]

People like Indurain, Armstrong, Contador, Evans and Ullrich were/are all-rounder.

Carlos Sastre?

 

[will10]

The "pure climber" is obsolete.

From 1991 only one "pure climber" won the Tour, Pantani.

People like Indurain, Armstrong, Contador, Evans and Ullrich were/are all-rounder.

And in the case of Contador is better climber than these "pure climbers". His only weakness is his team but it's not his fault... or yes?

If Jose Rujano, Purito Rodriguez and Igor Anton aren't pure climbers then I must know nothing.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Joaquim Rodriguez, Igor Anton, Juan Jose Cobo, Michele Scarponi, Frank Schleck, Eze Mosquera Franco Pellizoti, Rigo Uran etc.

I would include Ivan Basso and Robert Gesink and Andy Schleck too.

.correction.

 

[roundabout]

A rider who finished second in all 3 Ardennes classics is a bit more than a pure climber.

The people that I see as pure climbers like Piepoli (excellent choice btw, especially the SD version), Perez Cuapio, Rasmussen would have struggled to do well in those races even if they aimed for it.

 

[Duartista]

I think some people are missing the point of the opening post. A resurgence of 'pure' climbers would involve guys fighting it out for the KOM and mountain stages. 'Pure' climbers of the past were rarely in contention to win the Tour, at least post-Gaul/Bahamontes.

The Hitch - Uran is not a pure climber by any means. He is better in hilly one day races than the high mountains.

 

[the3verB]

Carlos Sastre?

In fact Sastre is a kind of diesel climber who has much cadence. That particularity makes him relatively good in tt. 9th in the final tt of the 2005 Tour, top 10 in the prologue of the Tour 2003 or 2004, and he realised many top15-20 in Tour itts, and was rarely out the top 40 in chrono (unlike Pantani or Rasmussen). He has even make top5 in Vuelta itts.

Pereiro was also a very good all rounder (Landis too was a all rounder beast, if you think its the standing on the Champs which counts!)

The real exception is Pantani (and Rasmussen had the possibility to be the second)

 

[the3verB]

If Jose Rujano, Purito Rodriguez and Igor Anton aren't pure climbers then I must know nothing.

The problem is they are not GC contenders