I know obviously that the climber climbs better and the All-runder is better at TT, but what causes the difference? Weight is one factor and that can explain why Cancellara is a great TT, but bad in real mountains, but what about people like Cadel Evans vs. Andy Schleck? CE is clearly better in TT, but they weight roughly the same. Leipheimer is another example of an all-rounder who weight little enough to pass for a climber. So does anyone know what the difference is? Is it physiological, technique, both or something different?
-
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
What's the difference between a Climber and an All-rounder
- Thread starter Cerberus
- Start date
Is evans an all rounder? I would maybe put someone like Valverde as an all-rounder as he can sprint and climb. Or what about a guy like Jose Ivan Gutierrez who is a tt who can climb. There can be many types of all rounders
According to Wiki
all-rounder
A racing cyclist who excels in both climbing and time trialing, and may also be a decent sprinter. In stage races, an all-rounder seeks a top-10 place in the General Classification. Eddy Merckx, Miguel Indurain and Lance Armstrong were notable all-rounders; Ivan Basso, Alejandro Valverde, Cadel Evans, Danilo Di Luca, and Alberto Contador are more contemporary examples. All-rounders are usually Team Leaders in both stage races and classics cycle races.
there you have it
all-rounder
A racing cyclist who excels in both climbing and time trialing, and may also be a decent sprinter. In stage races, an all-rounder seeks a top-10 place in the General Classification. Eddy Merckx, Miguel Indurain and Lance Armstrong were notable all-rounders; Ivan Basso, Alejandro Valverde, Cadel Evans, Danilo Di Luca, and Alberto Contador are more contemporary examples. All-rounders are usually Team Leaders in both stage races and classics cycle races.
there you have it
quadsRme said:
What I meant by all rounder was someone who can both Time Trial and climb. Sprinting ability is nice to, but I understand why some poeple sprint better than others. I'm not sure I understand why some poeple TT better than others of the same weight, but climb less well.
i think the mental focus has a lot to do with it. people just deal
with gravity in a different way. some think, no problem. others just
"feel the weight".physically, they may look very similar.
with gravity in a different way. some think, no problem. others just
"feel the weight".physically, they may look very similar.
If evans isn't an allrounder what would you call him? Top ten as far as climbing goes any race you put him in a the same in a TT? sure he may place a shade higher in a TT, but definitely allrounder.
TT's vs climbers...better aero shape on the bike for someone of the same weight, and can also sustain high efforts on their own without using others for motivation. Classic example Basso and Armstrong up alpe de huez ITT, armstrong caught basso and then hardly pulled away. The pure climbers tend to be able to alter their effort to force the break and then stay away while everyone else looks for someone else to do the work.
TT's vs climbers...better aero shape on the bike for someone of the same weight, and can also sustain high efforts on their own without using others for motivation. Classic example Basso and Armstrong up alpe de huez ITT, armstrong caught basso and then hardly pulled away. The pure climbers tend to be able to alter their effort to force the break and then stay away while everyone else looks for someone else to do the work.
IMO, probably 99% of grand tour contenders are classified as "all-rounders". They can all climb in the top 10-15 and can all TT in the top 25. So, the term's "climber" and "TT specialist" really refers to, "an all-rounder that prefers climbing" or "an all-rounder that prefers TT's" respectively. The individual preference, i think, has a lot to do with mentality. Some can ride on there own easily, others need riders around them to challenge them. The basso example is perfect (and I think andy schleck is the same type, likes trying to crack others, but when on his own, feels the burn).
I think the term "climber" is often incorrect, as it implies that these people climb better than most in the peleton. In that sense, everyone who finishes in the top 10 GC of a grand tour, is a climber.
I think the term "climber" is often incorrect, as it implies that these people climb better than most in the peleton. In that sense, everyone who finishes in the top 10 GC of a grand tour, is a climber.
Just a thought. Could it be that for any rider in the good power/weight range in principle it is possible to both climb well and TT well. But, in addition to the raw physical capacity (power and power/weight) the rider needs to be able to achieve the maximum performance his physical capacity theoretically would allow.
For TT, even if in principle the body is capable of it, one has to be able mentally to do it, and one needs to find the aerodynamics, the pacing, cornering etc.
For climbing, one needs to be able to follow accellerations (or deal with the immense mental churn of yo-yoing own tempo) etc.
So, top GC contenders are riders who have managed to get close to what their physical capacity allows both in TT and climbing. (of course they may still be able to improve the overal physical capacity).
In that case, the terms climber and TTer would mroe refer to riders who have managed to achieve their theoretical limit in one diciplin but not the other.
An all-rounder would then either be one who has managed to approach their limit in both diciplines (i.e. a GC contender). Or could refer to someone who has half-managed approaching their limit in both diciplines.
For TT, even if in principle the body is capable of it, one has to be able mentally to do it, and one needs to find the aerodynamics, the pacing, cornering etc.
For climbing, one needs to be able to follow accellerations (or deal with the immense mental churn of yo-yoing own tempo) etc.
So, top GC contenders are riders who have managed to get close to what their physical capacity allows both in TT and climbing. (of course they may still be able to improve the overal physical capacity).
In that case, the terms climber and TTer would mroe refer to riders who have managed to achieve their theoretical limit in one diciplin but not the other.
An all-rounder would then either be one who has managed to approach their limit in both diciplines (i.e. a GC contender). Or could refer to someone who has half-managed approaching their limit in both diciplines.
In the modern era, "all-rounder," I would say refers simply to a grand tour contender, who is a specialist at that: Indurain, Rominger, Armstrong, Ullrich, Basso, Contador, Evans, Leipheimer, etc fit such a bill.
Valverde has been a classics specialist, without ToF and Roubaix of course, who had shown promiss in the grand tours as well up to winning the Vuelta, though I think against the very best all-rounders he can't win the Tour. A similar past rider was Kelly and, even more so, Jalebert. Boonen is a pure classics specialst for the Flemish races, except LBL, and for Roubaix and he is almost as fast as a pure sprinter in the grand tours but not quite. Rebellin and il Grillo, Paolo Bettini, were naturally also classics specialists, as was Bartoli.
Being fast is good for the classics, though not important for the grand tour contenders, though a fast classics rider (Bettini, Valverde) is not to be confused with a pure sprinter alla Cipollini, Petacchi, Cavendish, etc.
A pure climber is easy to identify: he usually drops the rest going uphill on his good days, is quite small and has an attacking style. Charlie Gaul, Ocana, Lucien Van Imp, Delgado, Hampsten, Conti, Virenque, Gotti, Heras, Piepoli, Simoni, Pantani are examples. That some have also won the grand tours, is simply an indication of there overall class as well, though not as marked as the champion "all-rounders," because they have limited time trialing capacity.
The true "all-rounders" can usually climb with the best pure climbers in top form (Merxce, Hinault, Lemond, Indurain, Rominger, Armstrong) or at least limit their losses, while they can out timetrial most, if not all.
Two riders who seem to have had or have the qualities of both a pure climber and an all-rounder for me are: Fausto Coppi and now Alberto Contador. There were also moments during his seven Tour streak when LA was so above the rest of the field (or perhaps the field was missing a great pure climber at the time - for example Pantani alla 98) that he seemed to fit the bill as well. He just was to muscular to fit what has been traditionally associated with the climber status.
Valverde has been a classics specialist, without ToF and Roubaix of course, who had shown promiss in the grand tours as well up to winning the Vuelta, though I think against the very best all-rounders he can't win the Tour. A similar past rider was Kelly and, even more so, Jalebert. Boonen is a pure classics specialst for the Flemish races, except LBL, and for Roubaix and he is almost as fast as a pure sprinter in the grand tours but not quite. Rebellin and il Grillo, Paolo Bettini, were naturally also classics specialists, as was Bartoli.
Being fast is good for the classics, though not important for the grand tour contenders, though a fast classics rider (Bettini, Valverde) is not to be confused with a pure sprinter alla Cipollini, Petacchi, Cavendish, etc.
A pure climber is easy to identify: he usually drops the rest going uphill on his good days, is quite small and has an attacking style. Charlie Gaul, Ocana, Lucien Van Imp, Delgado, Hampsten, Conti, Virenque, Gotti, Heras, Piepoli, Simoni, Pantani are examples. That some have also won the grand tours, is simply an indication of there overall class as well, though not as marked as the champion "all-rounders," because they have limited time trialing capacity.
The true "all-rounders" can usually climb with the best pure climbers in top form (Merxce, Hinault, Lemond, Indurain, Rominger, Armstrong) or at least limit their losses, while they can out timetrial most, if not all.
Two riders who seem to have had or have the qualities of both a pure climber and an all-rounder for me are: Fausto Coppi and now Alberto Contador. There were also moments during his seven Tour streak when LA was so above the rest of the field (or perhaps the field was missing a great pure climber at the time - for example Pantani alla 98) that he seemed to fit the bill as well. He just was to muscular to fit what has been traditionally associated with the climber status.
True.
In climbs, most of the power is used to fight gravity that brings the rider down, and this gravity force is commensurate with the rider's weight. It means that you need to achieve the highest power output possible with the lowest weight. It's the power/weight ratio.
On a flat road, however, all the power is used to fight air resistance, and the force that air applys on the rider doesn't depend on his weight (but does depend on the front surface of the rider and his bike, hence aero matters very much). So on a flat road, only pure power matters, not power/weight ratio.
I think one of the characteristics of being a climber is having trouble on the flats. Probably not necessarily true, but usually it seems that a lot of "climbers" get caught out the first week of the tour.
It seems that by definition a climber is someone who climbs very well but loses 3 sec/km in a flat ITT with respect to the specialists. Anyone else who does well at GC is an all-rounder.
Then, you watch stages such as Alpe d'Huez 1986, 1990 and 1991, Luz Ardiden 1990, Serre Chevalier and Isola-2000 1993, La Plagne 1995 and everyone says that Hinault, Lemmond, Indurain, Bugno, Rominger or Zulle were not climbers. Then, where were the climbers those days?
Then, you watch stages such as Alpe d'Huez 1986, 1990 and 1991, Luz Ardiden 1990, Serre Chevalier and Isola-2000 1993, La Plagne 1995 and everyone says that Hinault, Lemmond, Indurain, Bugno, Rominger or Zulle were not climbers. Then, where were the climbers those days?
Both terms if not now will soon be archaic, even in the modern era the distinction became moot, when sponsorship supplanted the trade and national teams in stage racing, top dog became undebate-ably all that counts....
"all-rounder" = G.C. contender
"climber" = (often) faceless soon-to-be-forgotten stage winner
"all-rounder" = G.C. contender
"climber" = (often) faceless soon-to-be-forgotten stage winner
IMHO, a climber is a GC contender if the course is planned with lots of climbs - which makes them an "all-rounder" for that event.
Or you are an all-rounder if the GT suddenly decides to reinstate the TTT, include certain climbs, etc - but only if you're the certain someone.
Or you are an all-rounder if the GT suddenly decides to reinstate the TTT, include certain climbs, etc - but only if you're the certain someone.
Position matters too
Climbing and TT have vastly different positions, and therefore different muscle usage (in this case I am not even thinking about the aerodynamics).
Also, TT's are usually 15-75 minutes in length, climbs are 30-60 minutes each (roughly), and there is rarely just one!
Climbing and TT have vastly different positions, and therefore different muscle usage (in this case I am not even thinking about the aerodynamics).
Also, TT's are usually 15-75 minutes in length, climbs are 30-60 minutes each (roughly), and there is rarely just one!
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 276
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram