Velo News Top 10 Climber list

[enr1co]

Agree with most of this opinion listing with a couple exceptions...:rolleyes:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/01/lists/the-top-10-climbers-of-all-time_309670

If any value from this article, the black and white pics posted are too cool. Love the moto guys doing the original photo bombing!

http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/files/2013/11/Gaul1.jpg


http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/files/2013/11/Bahamontes1.jpg


http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/files/2013/11/Coppi1-659x440.jpg



Not b/w but just because...:)
http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/files/2014/01/Hampsten.CV_-660x495.jpg

[ik2280]

Curious to read this. Do you have another link? Strangely enough, that one didn't work for me.

Thanks!

[godfrey1112000]

With the lucky strike going up the mountain


http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=pictures+of+cyclist+smoking&fr=ipad

[enr1co]

Curious to read this. Do you have another link? Strangely enough, that one didn't work for me.

Thanks!


Interesting...It was on Velo News site under the new stories this AM? Posted it after reading the Horner store but looks like they killed the link. Google even has the residual search content:

"VeloList: The top 10 climbers of all time - VeloNews.comvelonews.competitor.com/2014/01/.../the-top-10-climbers-of-all-time_3096...
In fact, Van Impe did much the opposite, taking six top-five results in addition to that lone grand tour victory. His season, even his life, revolved around climbing ...


Here's the ranking I recall them listing:

1. Lucien Van Impe
2. Frederico Bahamontes
3. Charly Gaul
4. Lucho Herrera
5. Contador?
6.Marco Pantani
7.Andy Hampsten
8.Lance Armstrong
9.Ottavio Bottechia
10. Fausto Coppi


They were likely getting so much hate mail on the absurdity of LA being classified amongst pure climbers that they took it down ;)

[Md3000]

Contador above Pantani? Hmm
What about Herrera!

[enr1co]

Contador above Pantani? Hmm
What about Herrera!

Thanks- Ah yes, forgot to list Herrera who was slotted in before Pantani. Contador may have followed Pantani.

[jtakeda]

I was number 11. Didn't make he cut by juuuussst a bit. Darn. ;)

[Hindmost]

They were likely getting so much hate mail on the absurdity of LA being classified amongst pure climbers that they took it down ;)

As much as I would like to stand back and review the history of cycling and admire the character and romance of the riders from various periods, it is very difficult to overlay riders from the oxygen vector doping era with the others and feel we have selected the best performers.

[tiretrax]

As much as I would like to stand back and review the history of cycling and admire the character and romance of the riders from various periods, it is very difficult to overlay riders from the oxygen vector doping era with the others and feel we have selected the best performers.

+ infinity. I don't think Contador deserves to be there, especially above Hampsten or Bottechia. Coppi #10?

[rain dogs]

+ infinity. I don't think Contador deserves to be there, especially above Hampsten or Bottechia.

Well, this is the problem with silly lists. Especially vague ones like this: "best climber"? based on what?

KOM's? wins? panache? speed? reputation?

Then there is a doping question. Surely if Pantani and Armstrong are on the list, then Contador should be. If not, then none.

And there are a dozen names you can swap for sure. I'd put Ocaña ahead of a few of those guys. Sastre? Simoni? of the more recent riders.

Maybe one of the only ones that seems impossible to argue is Bahamontes.

[Elefantino]

Van Impe is generally regarded as the best pure climber.

Coppi* is generally regarded as the best climber of the Grand Tour winners.

Virenque is generally regarded as the best climber of the doping era.

YMMV.

*-Here is Coppi on the way to the win the inaugural l'Alpe d'Huez stage in 1952. The road was dirt. He was on a 25- or 26-pound bike.

He did it in 45 minutes.

http://www.probikekit.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/coppi0233.jpg

[rain dogs]

Van Impe is generally regarded as the best pure climber.Coppi* is generally regarded as the best climber of the Grand Tour winners. Virenque is generally regarded as the best climber of the doping era.


This is what I'm saying. Virenque wasn't an elite, true climber... he was a KOM hunter, which is very different, during an era when the KOM competition was a little... let's call it 'missing the mark.' Roberto Heras would each Virenque for lunch, doped or clean, but they could both be on different climber "lists".

Sure, Van Impe and Bahamontes seem no brainers, but the others on the list are taken with conflicting criteria. I guess that's my point. Best climber is a silly question and an argument waiting to happen... I'm not surprised the article didn't last long.

[1centaur]

Difficult enough to define "best" without the doping, and with it, impossible. Ex-doping one might devise all sorts of unromantic criteria ("Best 3-year average VAM in grand tours;" "Average watts at an average gradient of >7% for >15 minutes, on average for two seasons," etc., etc). Which cuts the heart out of the "attack with panache when it counted" type rationales likely to drive forum debates. Have to exclude riders with one great race or one great year. To be a great climber you have to be stronger than the rest when it's most difficult to be for at least several years, I think. Contador was jaw droppingly better than the rest of the top 10 at his "best" over several years, but did not make that many 20 minutes solo escapes. Basso was superhuman when he won the Giro. Armstrong pulled away from people and exploded away from people year after year after year, unless the slope was stunt-like (Zoncolan), including with the Ventoux give away to Pantani. We don't have power meter data back through history, so we're left with impressions of relative speed and ease where those who were relative are very variable and unmeasured.

So this list falls into the "fill column inches" category and could never be satisfying even to most who read it.

[Md3000]

I think people like Armstrong and contador are more calculating climbers and all rounders, while if you're looking for specialist who wanted to do great things on great mountains, you're talking pantani, Herrera, Millar, hampsten, rincon, Theunisse (I'm Dutch). But that's just the people I loved to watch.

[Shortsocks]

Contador above Pantani? Hmm

I agree. Mmmm.

[pbarry]

I think people like Armstrong and contador are more calculating climbers and all rounders, while if you're looking for specialist who wanted to do great things on great mountains, you're talking pantani, Herrera, Millar, hampsten, rincon, Theunisse (I'm Dutch). But that's just the people I loved to watch.

Definitely.

VN needs to rework the vanished piece. Top 20 would be more comprehensive, with footnotes for failed drug tests during a stellar Grand Tour, everyone-did-it decades, etc. Interesting that EM didn't make the list.

[jlwdm]

I think people like Armstrong and contador are more calculating climbers and all rounders, while if you're looking for specialist who wanted to do great things on great mountains, you're talking pantani, Herrera, Millar, hampsten, rincon, Theunisse (I'm Dutch). But that's just the people I loved to watch.

But most of these riders were not great climbers who climbed well every day. And most of them were not big tour contenders on a regular basis.



Jeff

[Wilkinson4]

There used to be a neat KOM website years ago but for the life of me I can't find or remember it. Anybody? Richard Virenque? A good climber but opportunist. Heras… Robert Millar was a very good climber too. Pure climbers attack at the base… They don't need setup men or a team to blow it apart, they'll attack the peleton and they don't sit up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8p-wDm5Wbc

mIKE

[Wilkinson4]

When you can train on Letras!

http://www.cyclinginquisition.com/2012/06/colombian-climbs-alto-de-letras-52.html

mIKE

[pbarry]

But most of these riders were not great climbers who climbed well every day. And most of them were not big tour contenders on a regular basis.



Jeff

Look up Andy's placings in Le Tour. Best overall U.S. rider with the most finishes, except 4 LA. :cool:

[MattTuck]

So, here's a deeper philosophical question.

Should the top 10 climbers simply be the cyclists with the highest sustainable power/weight ratios?

When it comes down to it, is there anything else? Are we fools to believe that there is a psychological aspect to being a great climber? Is it 100% physiology?

[don compton]

Interesting...It was on Velo News site under the new stories this AM? Posted it after reading the Horner store but looks like they killed the link. Google even has the residual search content:

"VeloList: The top 10 climbers of all time - VeloNews.comvelonews.competitor.com/2014/01/.../the-top-10-climbers-of-all-time_3096...
In fact, Van Impe did much the opposite, taking six top-five results in addition to that lone grand tour victory. His season, even his life, revolved around climbing ...


Here's the ranking I recall them listing:

1. Lucien Van Impe
2. Frederico Bahamontes
3. Charly Gaul
4. Lucho Herrera
5. Contador?
6.Marco Pantani
7.Andy Hampsten
8.Lance Armstrong
9.Ottavio Bottechia
10. Fausto Coppi


They were likely getting so much hate mail on the absurdity of LA being classified amongst pure climbers that they took it down ;)
Sorry, I don't buy it.

[pbarry]

So, here's a deeper philosophical question.

Should the top 10 climbers simply be the cyclists with the highest sustainable power/weight ratios? Van Impe wins.

When it comes down to it, is there anything else? Are we fools to believe that there is a psychological aspect to being a great climber? Is it 100% physiology?

Yes, no, [in order]. There are several factors involved. Psychology trumps all. Merckx and Coppi win on this one.

[Md3000]

But most of these riders were not great climbers who climbed well every day. And most of them were not big tour contenders on a regular basis.



Jeff

Yes that's what I was saying. I don't think a top climber needs to climb well every day at all. There were guys who were 30mins behind in GC but then if they take Alpe d'Huez in heroic fashion, I'm a happy man. Riders that win the tours are good all rounders, who can ride hard but fairly defensive in the mountains and good in TT, and who have a good team. Tour winners aren't necessarily the best in every discipline and tours are not the only races that matter