rank these climbers.

nonameboy said:

rank these climbers from best to worst:

Marco Pantani
Richard Virenque
Fernando Escartin
Luc Leblanc
Roberto Heras
Jose Maria Jimenez
Gilberto Simoni
Leonardo Piepoli
Mikael Rasmussen
Francesco Casagrande
Claudio Chiapucci
Ivan Gotti

Oh man. There will be debate about this. I think Pantani is the man. Jimenez when he was on form was awesome. Virenque may be the worst on the list.

What about those eponymous Columbian climbers from the Giro?

Frigo's Luggage said:

What about those eponymous Columbian climbers from the Giro?

the reason i didnt put some of them cause they do well one year and then we never hear from them again.but i tought about putting Botero in there.

I'd put Chiapucci last simply cause he was probably on more drugs from Ferrari/Conconi than the others combined. He just bugs me for some reason.

kennf said:

I'd put Chiapucci last simply cause he was probably on more drugs from Ferrari/Conconi than the others combined. He just bugs me for some reason.

Where are Van Impe and Bahamontes? Van Impe would be top of my list with Charly Gaul

Coppi? Robert Millar? Definitely add those two. And I think I agree with micron, Charly Gaul for the best climber ever.

For me, Bahamontes and Pantani rank as the greatest pure climbers ever.
Followed closely by Gaul, then Van Impe.

Fausto Coppi should be on that list and Eddy Merckx (no mean climber).

Bartali should clearly be on that list.

What about Lance? Didn't he gift Ventoux to Pantani? How can Pantani be there but not the man who destroyed him?

micron said:

Where are Van Impe and Bahamontes? Van Impe would be top of my list with Charly Gaul

im only talking about guys ive seen.ive heard of those guys but didnt saw them cycle and didnt follow theyre careers like the ones i mentioned.

fscyclist said:

What about Lance? Didn't he gift Ventoux to Pantani? How can Pantani be there but not the man who destroyed him?

Lance is more than a climber.im talking about pure climbers.

nonameboy said:

Lance is more than a climber.im talking about pure climbers.

Lance is not a climber that is the conclusion of the first part of his carer...
He became a "climber" a la Riis or Jalabert

poulidor said:

Lance is not a climber that is the conclusion of the first part of his carer...
He became a "climber" a la Riis or Jalabert

Otherwise you would need Hinault, Lemond, Fignon, etc. on the list.

Marco Pantani
Gilberto Simoni
Roberto Heras
Leonardo Piepoli
Mikael Rasmussen
Jose Maria Jimenez
Richard Virenque
Claudio Chiapucci
Fernando Escartin
Ivan Gotti
Luc Leblanc
Francesco Casagrande

Gino Bartali for me.

Bro Deal said:

Marco Pantani
Gilberto Simoni
Roberto Heras
Leonardo Piepoli
Mikael Rasmussen
Jose Maria Jimenez
Richard Virenque
Claudio Chiapucci
Fernando Escartin
Ivan Gotti
Luc Leblanc
Francesco Casagrande

I'd have Jimenez higher. He was a typical climber - hot and cold, but unstoppable when he was hot. I'd also have Gotti higher. A couple of Giros in the bag is a huge accomplishment, doped to the gills or not.

fscyclist said:

What about Lance? Didn't he gift Ventoux to Pantani? How can Pantani be there but not the man who destroyed him?

That was Lance in his prime and four years past Pantani's prime. Still, Pantani set the Ventoux record that day when he was only on his "B" game.

classic1 said:

I'd have Jimenez higher. He was a typical climber - hot and cold, but unstoppable when he was hot. I'd also have Gotti higher. A couple of Giros in the bag is a huge accomplishment, doped to the gills or not.

Gotti was a superb climber (doped or not).
Tonkov too could clim but was more laboured and did not seem to be as natural as Gotti (at climbing that is).

Jimenez.
I agree, blew very hot and very cold - on his day he was in Pantani's class.
I've an eerie stage on tape from 1998 - Jimenez and Pantani climbing Deux Alp, putting minutes in to a badly blowing Jan Ullrich.

Almost dark on that days racing, to re-view the stage footage of Jimenez and Pantani climbing away is bittersweet : to think they now both dead.

Frigo's Luggage said:

That was Lance in his prime and four years past Pantani's prime. Still, Pantani set the Ventoux record that day when he was only on his "B" game.

By prime, you mean when Pantani's crit was over 65%, and "B" game means crit of 55%?

Point is many GT champs are among the best climbers, that's why they win. Instead, people have a tendency to inflate lesser riders incapable of winning a GT and instead win a couple stages...which they never would win if they were actually in contention for the GT.

Any list of top climbers needs to include Armstrong, Indurain, Merckx, Hinault, and possibly Lemond to name a few. Oh, I forgot to include Hincapie with that win at Pla d'Adet.

One more thing....all my posts aren't meant to be taken seriously, but this one is, I think.

fscyclist said:

By prime, you mean when Pantani's crit was over 65%, and "B" game means crit of 55%?

Point is many GT champs are among the best climbers, that's why they win. Instead, people have a tendency to inflate lesser riders incapable of winning a GT and instead win a couple stages...which they never would win if they were actually in contention for the GT.

Any list of top climbers needs to include Armstrong, Indurain, Merckx, Hinault, and possibly Lemond to name a few. Oh, I forgot to include Hincapie with that win at Pla d'Adet.

One more thing....all my posts aren't meant to be taken seriously, but this one is, I think.

I think you make a good point. A GC contender has to be a good climber and spread himself out over the entire race, not just focus on a couple of climbing stages.

There are good climbers though that sucked enough at TT's that a GC was out of the question. I say this with due respect for the fact that I have little archival experience of watching any of these guys.