Who's the greatest climber? Pantani, Riis or Rasmussen?

Sir Edmund Hillary

Lucien Van Impe

Richard Virenque

Federico Bahamontes

Charly Gaul

Riis and Rasmussen would not make the first 30 in my opinion.

Difficult to say because there are few standard criteria by which to compare them. Maybe a good benchmark like Alpe d'Huez:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27Huez#Ascent_times

Pantani seems to be the best. Armstrong second.

But Alpe d'Huez isn't featured in TdF every year.

Of course, they're all a bunch a druggies anyway. So I guess the one who doped the most, climbed the best.

Of the three in the title, Pantani is likely the least transformed by doping. Rasmussen was, for sure, a super hero when he was doping. Riis rose out of "average" international elite, to grand tour winner thanks to EPO. Riis' hall of shame moments are on youtube.

Federico Bahamontes

Alfredo Binda

Luis Ocaña (Few in Merckx's shadow)

Eddy Merckx

Gino Bartali

Fausto Coppi, Il Campionissimo

Il Campionissimo at the top of my list. Bahamontes near the top.

Contador, Coppi, Armstrong

i chose D2 wrote:

Contador, Coppi, Armstrong

Armstrong couldn't climb without copious drugs and help from USA Cycling and the UCI so he never tested positive. The guy was exactly like Rasmussen, a super hero on drugs, "average" international elite otherwise.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

i chose D2 wrote:

Contador, Coppi, Armstrong

Armstrong couldn't climb without copious drugs and help from USA Cycling and the UCI so he never tested positive. The guy was exactly like Rasmussen, a super hero on drugs, "average" international elite otherwise.

So why did the EPO help Armstrong more than Pantani?

EZ, pantani had naturally high hemocrit

Rooks

Del Gado

Parra

Roche

Lemond

Hinault

Adam Ondra

Luis Herrera

Gaul.

Look at the true climbers who have won the tour:

Pantani, Sastre and Schleck have done it in my time, but Sastre was the best of a bad bunch and Schleck didn't really win it (Riis wasn't a pure climber)

Stephen Roche and Van Impe would also fall into that category, but are a bit before my time.

If you include all-rounders, then Armstrong is the best ever Tour de France rider. Yes he is a cheat, but for 7 years he only got really dropped once in the mountains that I can remember (on the Joux Plane in 2000).

Having a read, I might have underestimated Roche, looks like he was an all-rounder too.

I always just see that scene of him coming through the snow at the top of La Plagne and assumed he was a true climber.

Not sure why you consider Riis a great climber. His Tde F success was mostly due to his time trailing. The year he won he was quite fortunate to have a monster stage over the Galibier shortened to less than 30 miles due to snow. On that stage he basically time trailed away from Miguel Indurain and built a big enough lead that kept him ahead all the way to Paris. Never had much success in the Giro or Vuelta. Won the Amstel race over rolling Dutch countryside. Bungno or Chiapucci would be likely comparisons.

Advisor wrote:

(Riis wasn't a pure climber)

Then you haven't watched a few of his hall of shame moments.

Here it is with Phil and Paul. Don't watch this at work. You'll laugh out loud.

Stephen Roche and Van Impe would also fall into that category, but are a bit before my time.

Advisor wrote:

If you include all-rounders, then Armstrong is the best ever Tour de France rider. Yes he is a cheat, but for 7 years he only got really dropped once in the mountains that I can remember (on the Joux Plane in 2000).

Without PED's he was nowhere to be seen, quite like Rasmussen.

The short list prior to major blood doping:

Lemond (third as assistant)

Fignon (won his first grand tour)

Merckx.

Van Hooydonck would have surpassed Merckx, but EPO ended that.

You can go back further for a number of really outstanding all-around cyclists.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Armstrong couldn't climb without copious drugs and help from USA Cycling and the UCI so he never tested positive. The guy was exactly like Rasmussen, a super hero on drugs, "average" international elite otherwise...

Without PED's he was nowhere to be seen, quite like Rasmussen.

I agree almost 100 % that without PED's he was "nowhere to be seen", but with the plot twist that he couldn't have been "nowhere" as a clean against dopers. You seem to have somewhat anti-Lance attitude whenever his name pops up in a discussion. Could you be kind and specify where and how exactly he gained advantage to other 50-90 % EPO users in Peloton. I've seen this claimed by people such as David Walsh and others without a shred of evidence. I've gone through a lot (but not by means all) of the USADA-material and still haven't found an answer to this question.

On the contrary to what has been claimed here, Pantani had naturally normal hematocrit reading, out of competitive season value somewhere between 42 and 45 % and occasionally as low as 40.7 % (Rendell's Pantani-biography).

So what do you think EPO actually does?

Why doesn't the human body just produce more red blood cells if it's such an advantage?

If EPO increases oxygen uptake, it must increase glycogen uptake too? So why don't they hit the wall?

Why don't they over heat?

Why doesn't that disturb homeostasis?

Awkward questions none of you can answer without talking pseudoscience.

The best hematocrit, is the natural one. That is real science, real physiology.

When was Lance nowhere to be seen? When he had cancer, or before that when he won the world championship as a 21 year old?