Best Climber

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Kathrin
Who is currently the best climber?
And who is the best climber ever?

See http://sport.iafrica.com/cycling/tourdefrance/news/257487.htm

This website discusses Richard Virenque's record tying 6th polka dot jersey win in the Tour de France this year. He ties with Belgian Lucien Van Impe and Spain's Federico Bahamontes who also had career totals of 6 polka dot jerseys in the tour. Consider also that Virenque is still riding and won by a huge margin this year: 324 to 187 pts. He may win again. He also admitted to drug use in 1999, maybe for the prior year, but now has redeemed himself. He still has the magic without the drugs.

But then again, if a rider has a good chance at the GC, like an Eddy Merckx or a Lance Armstrong, they don't focus their attention on the polka dot jersey. This doesn't mean they would be shoe ins if they did; it just means they might not be considered as best climbers even though they might be if they focused their energy on only the poka dot jersey. Marco Pantani was a great climber, but has not done well since the doping scandal and increased testing afterwards, not that I know one way or the other whether he might have done them the year he won the TdF and the Tour of Italy back to back.

What about Roberto Heras?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Kathrin
What about Roberto Heras?

He's a great climber but not like Virenque. The thing about Virenque, unlike Heras, is that he is a "pure" climber. In other words, that is his specialty. Heras is more of a GC rider. In other words, among GC riders, Heras is a huge threat in the mountains. Virenque is not a GC rider. However, he is dominant in the mountains. You just won't see him on the podium for GC because he doesn't time trial very well. Heras loses a whole lot less in the time trial than Virenque.

On the other hand, when it is known that a pure hill climber like Virenque is on the attack in the mountains, the GC riders don't generally mount much of a chase group unless he seems poised to attain an insurmountable lead in GC. This is generally not going to be the case because the grand tours usually start on the flats before they get in the mountains, and have had at least one long time trial to put Virenque back in the overall standings.

Because of the knowledge of the other GC riders, like Lance Armstrong and Jan Ullrich, about who the the pure climbers are, the pure climbers usually ride against pure climbers for the polka dot jersey. They don't have to contend with GC riders who don't want to lose the war by winning a battle in the mountains for the polka dot jersey they don't care as much about.

With this in mind, you should look back on the TdF results to find Eddie Merckx having won both the GC and the polka dot jersey in one year. That is quite an accomplishment, the likes of which Virenque will never do. So maybe the question ought to be: "What about Eddie Merckx?"

The problem with comparing GC riders with pure climbers is that GC riders choose not to make their goal the polka dot jersey. But I still think Virenque would win.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gntlmn
He's a great climber but not like Virenque. The thing about Virenque, unlike Heras, is that he is a "pure" climber.


I think Heras is a lot more of a pure climber than a GC guy... He as learned to time trial enough to get by... I think it is great to see the climber's winning the big tours.. Like Simoni winning the Giro as well... another great climber at this time...


I think Virenque is a great climber as well, one of the best.. BUT he wins the jersery's by going on long breaks and winning the points... He saves himself for a few select Mt. days for long breakaways and the other days he sprints on the early climbs for points and then trys to hang on as long as possible..

If riders like Heras or Simoni just went for the climbers jersery it would be no contest for anyone else.. IMO

I respect Virenque alot for finally admitting drug use and racing at the top level again.. I was very happy to see him win the polka dot jersery this year.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pedalrun

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
If riders like Heras or Simoni just went for the climbers jersery it would be no contest for anyone else.. IMO

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn

So what will happen with having the new rules for the polka dot jersey in the 2004 Tour de France?
I think if Roberto Heras will be able to ride at a level as in the Pyrenees stages of the 2002 Tour de France he might very well be a stong contender for the jersey.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Kathrin
So what will happen with having the new rules for the polka dot jersey in the 2004 Tour de France?

Exactly what new rules are you referring to? Perhaps you might list the changes here and explain why you think that would change the outcome.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
Exactly what new rules are you referring to? Perhaps you might list the changes here and explain why you think that would change the outcome.

Butting in...

I read somewhere that the new rules will change the points weighting so that the stage winner will gain more points on the last climb. This will reduce the importance of the intermediate climbs so that guys like Virenque are less likely to win the mountain jersey based on the effort of one important stage, this year it was stage 7 - Lyon to Avoriaz and stage 14 - St. Girons-Loudonveille which gave him a huge lead. Otherwise we didn't see much of him. Jalabert used the same tactic to win the jersey when Virinque was on his enforced holiday and nobody would say he was a great climber (a great allrounder yes and one of my cycling heros). Lets not forget that Virenque finished 16th at 25 minutes in 2003.

There are a lot of great climbers right now, Simoni, Mayo, Heras, Armstrong, Ullrich...
In the past LeMond, Zuelle (when he wasn't doing face plants), Rominger, Indurain (I remember a stage where he and 3-4 other top climbers were way off the front - including Chiappucci and Rominger - and they were attacking him one after the other and he chased down every single attack personally), Pantani, Hinault...

Its difficult to say who was best and what that means because on a good day Mayo is probably fastest up the mountain but can he do it more than one day in a row? Whereas it seems to me that a guy like Armstrong can climb well day after day after day... though he struggled in 2003.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by wadoflove
Butting in...

I read somewhere that the new rules will change the points weighting so that the stage winner will gain more points on the last climb. This will reduce the importance of the intermediate climbs so that guys like Virenque are less likely to win the mountain jersey based on the effort of one important stage, this year it was stage 7 - Lyon to Avoriaz and stage 14 - St. Girons-Loudonveille which gave him a huge lead. Otherwise we didn't see much of him. Jalabert used the same tactic to win the jersey when Virinque was on his enforced holiday and nobody would say he was a great climber (a great allrounder yes and one of my cycling heros). Lets not forget that Virenque finished 16th at 25 minutes in 2003.

This seems to be a rumor. If you look at this website which is an official 2004 TdF website,http://www.letour.fr/2004/presentationus/parcours.html you will see absolutely no mention of such a dramatic change. Don't you think they would mention this? Consider that the King of the Mountains has been a prize since 1933, 70 years. It has a grand tradition of its own. I seriously doubt that they will decide the King of the Mountains by weighting more heavily one of the final stages to the exclusion of all of the rest. Consider the climb ratings (cat 3, cat 2, cat 1, hors), also decided yearly since 1933. The climb ratings are affected by the placing of a climb within the stage, not by where the stage is in relation to the other stages. In effect, what you are saying is going to happen will negate the efforts of all of these years of painstaking work to rate these climbs and change it to a system which really doesn't seem to make sense at all. In conclusion, it's hard to believe that the changes you claim are really being made. It's just an internet rumor.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
This seems to be a rumor. If you look at this website which is an official 2004 TdF website,http://www.letour.fr/2004/presentationus/parcours.html you will see absolutely no mention of such a dramatic change. Don't you think they would mention this? Consider that the King of the Mountains has been a prize since 1933, 70 years. It has a grand tradition of its own. I seriously doubt that they will decide the King of the Mountains by weighting more heavily one of the final stages to the exclusion of all of the rest. Consider the climb ratings (cat 3, cat 2, cat 1, hors), also decided yearly since 1933. The climb ratings are affected by the placing of a climb within the stage, not by where the stage is in relation to the other stages. In effect, what you are saying is going to happen will negate the efforts of all of these years of painstaking work to rate these climbs and change it to a system which really doesn't seem to make sense at all. In conclusion, it's hard to believe that the changes you claim are really being made. It's just an internet rumor.

I found a reference to this on http://www.cycling4all.com/r04rvf00.htm#changes :

some changes in the rules

1. In the Team Time Trial, teams can only lose a maximum of 2.30 min. to the winning team,
no matter what their actual time is.
2. In the Mountains ranking, the final climbs of each stage (if they are cat. 2 or higher) are worth
double their usual points.

Also on
http://www.ananova.com/sport/story/sm_831697.html?menu=sport.cycling:

"Also, mountain stages will be modified with riders competing for the polka-dot King of the Mountains jersey earning double points on the final climb of a stage"
"This will benefit the favourites and those who scrap until the end," Leblanc said.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Kathrin
Who is currently the best climber?
And who is the best climber ever?

In my opinion there is not much to choose between Armstrong, Simoni and Heras. Given this year's TDF performance its seems as if Armstrong's power is waning on the climbs. I expect Heras to be no 1 in 2004.

As for the best climber ever? Again a close call between Marco Pantani and Jose Manuel Fuente with Pantani just getting the verdict.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by philoakley

As for the best climber ever? Again a close call between Marco Pantani and Jose Manuel Fuente with Pantani just getting the verdict.

Jose Manuel Fuente was among the greatest climbers of all time, but he succumbed too many times to the likes of Eddy Merckx to get my vote. Eddy was a better climber. But a grander mountain champion than either of them is Federico Bahamontes, "The Eagle of Toledo", whose list of hill climbing wins is far longer than either of theirs.

The only ones in the same camp as The Eagle are Richard Virenque and Lucien Van Impe.

It's easy to see this by taking a look in the King of the Mountains Hall of Fame at the following website:

http://www.torelli.com/kom/hall/gallery.htm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pedalrun

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
He's a great climber but not like Virenque. The thing about Virenque, unlike Heras, is that he is a "pure" climber.

I think Heras is a lot more of a pure climber than a GC guy... He as learned to time trial enough to get by...

The points on Merckx, Bahomontes and Van Impe are very well made but I disagree with the status of Virenque. Although his 6 KOM victories in the Tour de France make him look like an impressive climber, I do not view him as a pure climber. Virenque lacks the suppleness of the great pure climbers as his style relies more on power and long periods of climbing out of the saddle. Additionally, he has rarely (if ever) been able to outclimb the great riders of his era in a head-to-head encounter. Virenque has not been able to match Armstrong, Pantani and even Indurain (Hautacam 1994) in a real show of strength in the mountains. Virenque's KOM victories largely reflect the reduced status of the competition in recent years as the best climbers have concentrated on overall victory or stage wins rather than the points on the mountain tops.

That said, Virenque's 6 KOM's deserve acknowledgement even if they fail (in my opinion) to rank him amongst the great climbers of all time.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn

Do you still think Heras is more of a pure climber than a GC guy? Consider that his cooperative arrangement with Armstrong puts him into a support role for the TdF, but this gives him free rein on a fantastic team for the Vuelta. This may not get nearly the coverage worldwide as the Tour, but for Heras, a grand tour win in his home country is sweet indeed. He's a GC guy.

But just look how he lost the Vuelta in 2002 in the TT. No top GC would have lost that much time. I still think he is a pure climber, and one of the best, and always struggles in the TTs. This year he did pretty well, I admit, but it is not his field of excellence. And I guess what defines GC guys is excellent climbing plus excellent TT riding.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Kathrin
But just look how he lost the Vuelta in 2002 in the TT. No top GC would have lost that much time. I still think he is a pure climber, and one of the best, and always struggles in the TTs. This year he did pretty well, I admit, but it is not his field of excellence. And I guess what defines GC guys is excellent climbing plus excellent TT riding.

That's kind of funny because I thought that the GC winner was the guy at the end of the race with the best overall time, regardless of how the times combined. He doesn't have to be the best at anything, although it would help if he were the best at everything. That rarely happens.

I have compiled the list of Heras' accomplishments in the Vuelta to show you that Heras is indeed a good climber, but he is a better GC rider than he is a climber. I think the distortion comes from the media focus on the GC riders when they have a great climb.

Vuelta A Espana

Year
2003 GC placing #1
New average speed record of 42,546 km/hr
Mountains Ranking #6

2002 GC placing #2 +2:14
Mountains Ranking #2

2001 GC placing #4 +3:56
Mountains Ranking #7

2000 GC placing #1
Mountains Ranking #2

1999 GC placing #3 +5:57
Mountains Ranking #3

1998 GC placing #6 +2:58
Mountains Ranking #4

1997 GC placing #5 +8:04
Mountains Ranking #10

Notice that it was only in 1998 that he did better in the Mountains Rankings than he did on GC. He may even have the best overall GC record of anyone having ridden the Vuelta considering all years, except that Rominger has won it 3 times against Heras' 2. Heras isn't done yet, though. Aside from his 2 wins, he has 5 finishes in the top 6. His combined 7 finishes in the top 6 is probably unsurpassed by any GC rider ever in the Vuelta. He also has, as of this year 2003, the top average GC speed record of any rider to have ever ridden the Vuelta.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by philoakley
The points on Merckx, Bahomontes and Van Impe are very well made but I disagree with the status of Virenque. Although his 6 KOM victories in the Tour de France make him look like an impressive climber, I do not view him as a pure climber. Virenque lacks the suppleness of the great pure climbers as his style relies more on power and long periods of climbing out of the saddle. Additionally, he has rarely (if ever) been able to outclimb the great riders of his era in a head-to-head encounter. Virenque has not been able to match Armstrong, Pantani and even Indurain (Hautacam 1994) in a real show of strength in the mountains. Virenque's KOM victories largely reflect the reduced status of the competition in recent years as the best climbers have concentrated on overall victory or stage wins rather than the points on the mountain tops.

That said, Virenque's 6 KOM's deserve acknowledgement even if they fail (in my opinion) to rank him amongst the great climbers of all time.

I agree with you about Virenque. He has only won a few stages where he was actually climbing on his own and only then when he attacked early in the stage and built up a sizable lead when everyone else was taking it easier. Notably this year in the Tour probably because he had something to prove for his first "drug free" Tour. He always seemed reluctant to actually go it alone in the past. He would attack and if no one went with him sit up and wait for the group to come back to him. He is a classic wheelsucker in that regard. In his early KOM career he sat on wheels and then sprinted for every mountain point earning himself more than a few critics in the peloton and the press (though not in France). He is also a showboat. Riding with his tongue hanging out and pain on his face to gain the sympathy of the French crowd. In short he has the ability but not the courage to be a great climber.

Almost everyone here is citing recent riders for the 'all time' category.

Bahamontes and Van Impe have been mentioned; Van Impe apparently refused to try for 7 KoM because he then would have had more than Baha', his hero.

Also must be mentioned are Charly Gaul (Giro and TdF winner), Gino Bartali, and of course the Campionissimo Fausto Coppi.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
Heras is indeed a good climber, but he is a better GC rider than he is a climber. I think the distortion comes from the media focus on the GC riders when they have a great climb.

With Heras having left USPS to become the new leader of the Liberty Segurnos team, I guess we will see in next year's Tour de France what he really is, a GC guy or a climber.

You provide really interesting data, I think, though, that he only does so well in the GC of the Vuelta because the top GC riders usually don't start there. But we will see.