# Climbers vs. Sprinters



## chriscookz (Jul 2, 2012)

I'm new to watching pro cycling. This is the first TdF I've followed at all, but I find it very interesting. I've noticed that there are essentially 2 distinct types of riders, climbers and sprinters. 

I'm going to assume that the reason great sprinters aren't typically great climbers is the same reason a great wide receiver is not a great offensive lineman, they have different body types. But the activity a climber and sprinter are doing is essentially the same, pedaling a bike, whereas a lineman blocks people, and a wide receiver sprints and catches a ball. So have there ever been great sprinters who are also great climbers?

Also, the TdF seems very much a climbers race. Why bother building a team with sprinters if the majority of stages are won by people who climb well? Is the race usually won by a climber? Are there stage races like this geared towards sprinters? The sprinting stages were far more entertaining to me, much like a formula 1 race is far more entertaining than a race between 35hp mopeds... speed.

Sorry if these questions have obvious answers to those more educated on the sport!


----------



## gusmahler (Apr 7, 2012)

chriscookz said:


> I'm going to assume that the reason great sprinters aren't typically great climbers is the same reason a great wide receiver is not a great offensive lineman, they have different body types.


Sprinters have more muscle, which makes them heavier. Check out a "monster" like Griepl (actually a normal sized guy), compared to a climber like the Schleck brothers. They are much skinnier, easier to propel up a mountain.


chriscookz said:


> Also, the TdF seems very much a climbers race. Why bother building a team with sprinters if the majority of stages are won by people who climb well? Is the race usually won by a climber? Are there stage races like this geared towards sprinters?


Actually, I wouldn't say most stages are won by climbers. About half the stages are won by sprinters, the rest by climbers. As for why you build a team of sprinters--it's to win flat stages. As I said, about half the stages are sprints. Teams that win sprints get a lot of time on camera, thus making their sponsors happy.


----------



## Urb (Jul 19, 2010)

Seems to me that there are 3 classes as classified by most gt's. General, sprinters, and climbers.


----------



## WAZCO (Sep 16, 2004)

chriscookz said:


> I'm new to watching pro cycling. This is the first TdF I've followed at all, but I find it very interesting. I've noticed that there are essentially 2 distinct types of riders, climbers and sprinters.
> 
> I'm going to assume that the reason great sprinters aren't typically great climbers is the same reason a great wide receiver is not a great offensive lineman, they have different body types. But the activity a climber and sprinter are doing is essentially the same, pedaling a bike, whereas a lineman blocks people, and a wide receiver sprints and catches a ball. So have there ever been great sprinters who are also great climbers?
> 
> ...


lineman and wide reciever don't do the same amount of work and probably wouldn't use this as an analysis. The closes comparison maybe sprinters and 400m runners. Sprinters are massive but can run 400m, howerver, they would get drop very early in the race. 
"So have there ever been great sprinters who are also great climbers?" =Eddy Merckx, why he's the greatest!!


----------



## chriscookz (Jul 2, 2012)

WAZCO said:


> lineman and wide reciever don't do the same amount of work and probably wouldn't use this as an analysis.


That's exactly why I would use them as an example. They both play football but are in extremely different areas of the game. That's why I was asking why there seems to be great difference between sprinters and climbers when they do the same thing (pedal a bike), but I answered my own question.



WAZCO said:


> Eddy Merckx, why he's the greatest!!


Thanks! I'll have to read up on him.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

There are actually several types of riders: sprinters, climbers, rouleurs, ITT specialists, all around (GC specialists). 

There are lots of different types of stages in the Tour, some of which are won by sprinters (flat stages) and some by climbers (mountain stages). Some riders excel in breaking away from the peloton and winning on medium mountain stages. Notice that the two riders in this race who have won three stages each are sprinters so most stages aren't won by people who climb well. 

There are usually 9 riders on a team and they all have different purposes depending on the team's objective. Not all teams are trying to win the Tour de France; some of them are just trying to win as many stages as possible. Such teams might be built around a sprinter and some rouleurs (like HTC/Columbia in the past few years). Other teams (like Sky right now) are built completely around trying to get their GC captain to win. The best sprinter in the world is on their team but he is working as a domestique for their captain because he has such a good chance of winning this year (a domestique is a rider who's job is to work for the leader by fetching water bottles for them, spending time in the wind in front of them, and sacrificing themselves to give their captain their own gear if they need to). 

To answer your other question, there are stage races that are typically won by sprinters. The Tour Down Under (Tour of Australia) and the Tour of Qatar are good examples. These races have been won by guys like Andre Greipel and Tom Boonen.


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

As a general rule, sprinters need to put out way more high end power while climbers need to put out a lot of watts per kilogram of weight. A sprinter can put out way more wattage for a very short amount of time while a climber can maintain a high watts/kg for much longer than a sprinter.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

chriscookz said:


> So have there ever been great sprinters who are also great climbers?


Depends on your definition of "great" but names like Jalabert and Valverde come to mind. Ok, Valverde's a doper, but he was able to climb and sprint well.




chriscookz said:


> Why bother building a team with sprinters if the majority of stages are won by people who climb well? Is the race usually won by a climber?


Money. A TdF winner is very expensive to hire, as are the team of support riders needed.  Sprinters are relatively cheap and plentiful. 

The race is usually won by a strong time trialist who can climb ok. Ala, a "rouler"



chriscookz said:


> Are there stage races like this geared towards sprinters?


Yes, the Tours of Qatar, Belgium, Three Days of De Panne come to mind.


----------



## mangotreat0808 (Sep 4, 2006)

I see 22-year-old Peter Sagan developing into a complete package sprinter/climber. He's always in the top 5 in a bunch sprint on a flat finish, and he's able to hang with seasoned climbers like Casar, Sanchez on the 18% sections like that in stage14 climb of Mur de Péguère. 

It would be interesting if he could develop into a long-range mountain climber - if he does, together with honing his tt skills, he could well become the future of cycling.


----------

