• 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!

Teams & Riders Who are The Top 10 Climbers of All Time

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
No Contador?
Netserk is either ranking riders purely on climbing times without any context, and/or it's some clever/funny attempt at putting Vingegaard in the company of some people with very high hematocrit.

Contador obviously belongs in a list of top 10 climbers of all time by most metrics. What to do about the old greats like Coppi, Gaul, Bahamontes etc. depends very much on what is meant by 'top 10 climbers'. It's a definition very open to interpretation, so you can make a case for a lot of different lists I guess.
 
It's just not the same sport that it used to be. First they ruined it with derailers, then they invented color photography, then they banned cocaine (merely an aphrodisiac for passionate cycling fans), and then a stiff tailwind started blowing riders up the alpes some time around the early 90s.

Personally I think the above lists are a little heavy on the swarthy men with vowel-heavy names, which suggests to me a certain romanticism has influenced their selection. As long as that's a valid selection criterion, I would offer up Lemond, who was not only a great cyclist on any terrain, but a goofball outsider underdog tragic hero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan and Andre
I would also think that only solo finish counts, and TT don't. To get a proper view of his climbing capabilities compared to other generations. But I don't agree that it has to be a mountain finish, it can easily be a mountain stage in general, even more so if you have to finish solo.

The question then becomes "Is Rafał Majka a top 10 climber of all time?"
 
You are just wrong. He won the mountains jersey multiple times. Dominated an era completely. Greatest cyclist of all time and is among the 10 best climbers for sure.

Your list was just bad, accept it.
If you argue that Indurain should not be on the list because he is not a pure climber, then Merckx should neither if we want to stay consistent. In general, i don't think being good at other speciality should keep someone from beeing on the list, as arguably 80% of the names mentioned were at least above average TTer (some of them like Coppi or Hinault even the best of their generation).
Also, when making such a list it should be considered how cycling has changed in the years. Nowadays, with shorter stage, better equipment and team control on races, pure performance (i.e. pure W/kg over a given period of time) is much more relevant than in the 60-70-80s when stages were generally longer and attacks were already flyiing 70+ km from the finish. I think the likes of Merckx or Coppi would struggle more nowadays, as endurance and long range attacks were such a big part of their repertoir, while others like Fuente, who was always really good in the shorter unipuerto stages at the begenning of the Giro in the early '70 would fit very nicely.
Anyway, just for fun, my rank for post WW2 would be something like:

Pantani
Gaul
Bartali
Merckx
Coppi
Ocana
Bahamontes
Fignon
Vingegaard
Fuente

H.M. , Lucio Herrera, Indurain, Ullrich, Van Impe, TP, Gibo Simoni, Imerio Massignan, Andy Schleck, Piotr Ugrumov Bernard Hinault, Nairo Quintana, El Chava Jimenez and Roberto Heras



Fuente
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
If you argue that Indurain should not be on the list because he is not a pure climber, then Merckx should neither if we want to stay consistent. In general, i don't think being good at other speciality should keep someone from beeing on the list, as arguably 80% of the names mentioned were at least above average TTer (some of them like Coppi or Hinault even the best of their generation).
Also, when making such a list it should be considered how cycling has changed in the years. Nowadays, with shorter stage, better equipment and team control on races, pure performance (i.e. pure W/kg over a given period of time) is much more relevant than in the 60-70-80s when stages were generally longer and attacks were already flyiing 70+ km from the finish. I think the likes of Merckx or Coppi would struggle more nowadays, as endurance and long range attacks were such a big part of their repertoir, while others like Fuente, who was always really good in the shorter unipuerto stages at the begenning of the Giro in the early '70 would fit very nicely.
Anyway, just for fun, my rank for post WW2 would be something like:

Pantani
Gaul
Bartali
Merckx
Coppi
Ocana
Bahamontes
Fignon
Vingegaard
Fuente
Indeed, Carapaz would have been an all time great if his career came 50+ years earlier.