I realise that this is a question about pro riders, and acknowledge that this is potentially in the wrong forum, I apologise if that is the case.
Anyway, the question:
Listening to the commentators during the tour at the moment, they keep talking about Cavendish being a "pure sprinter" and saying that he's basically rooted on any incline, whereas Hushovd is slightly less of a "pure" sprinter, but can hold his own in the mountains AND in the sprints.
I was fine with that, until I happened upon their physical measurements. Thor is 183cm tall and 81kg, whereas Cavendish is a meager 175cm and 69kg, significantly smaller than Thor. Given the rule of thumb (which I am aware does have it's exceptions) shouldn't Cavendish be at least an ok climber? Is it just a result of laziness that he isn't a better climber?
I should note that this is simply my observations from what the commentators have said, so please Cav-fans don't jump on me. But anyone have any ideas as to what's the deal here?
Anyway, the question:
Listening to the commentators during the tour at the moment, they keep talking about Cavendish being a "pure sprinter" and saying that he's basically rooted on any incline, whereas Hushovd is slightly less of a "pure" sprinter, but can hold his own in the mountains AND in the sprints.
I was fine with that, until I happened upon their physical measurements. Thor is 183cm tall and 81kg, whereas Cavendish is a meager 175cm and 69kg, significantly smaller than Thor. Given the rule of thumb (which I am aware does have it's exceptions) shouldn't Cavendish be at least an ok climber? Is it just a result of laziness that he isn't a better climber?
I should note that this is simply my observations from what the commentators have said, so please Cav-fans don't jump on me. But anyone have any ideas as to what's the deal here?