# The honest difference between all of us and a pro cyclist...



## filly (Feb 6, 2003)

OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*2 more things*



filly said:


> OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.


1) Genetics.Some folks are pre disposed to riding harder longer. V02 max etc

2)Unending access to performance enhancing drugs


Thats about it really


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

filly said:


> OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.


Don't think so. Many of the pros are very genetically gifted. Being small helps for climbing. Very rare that a big or tall dude will ever be a great climber. SOmeone like Indurain might be an exception. If you have a large preponderance of fast-twitch muscle fibers you are never gonna have great endurance and if you have mostly slow twitch you aren't gonna outsprint Cipollini. Sure you can probably become a pro, but I seriously doubt that the only thing standing between most people and a good pro career is time and training.


----------



## RedMenace (Jan 28, 2004)

*Maybe A pro but not an elite pro.*



Bocephus Jones said:


> Don't think so. Many of the pros are very genetically gifted. Being small helps for climbing. Very rare that a big or tall dude will ever be a great climber. SOmeone like Indurain might be an exception. If you have a large preponderance of fast-twitch muscle fibers you are never gonna have great endurance and if you have mostly slow twitch you aren't gonna outsprint Cipollini. Sure you can probably become a pro, but I seriously doubt that the only thing standing between most people and a good pro career is time and training.


Elite pros have gifts you and I are not and will never be privy to, no matter how many hours we train. There are plenty of pros out there training the hours you mention who will never in a million years compete with the elites.


----------



## cyclebiker (Aug 4, 2002)

*Then I guess...*



filly said:


> OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.


If you put in the time anyone can throw a 98mph fastball!!


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*age???*

The years for peak performance are limited in number. Now that I'm 51 it's quite apparent that no amount of extra time will make me much faster. Too much riding can have the opposite effect. My climbing ability peaked out nearly a month ago and lately, the more I ride the slower I get. I've got to change my training to include more rest time.


----------



## djg (Nov 27, 2001)

*And yet Europe is full of*

Espoirs, youth teams, amateur teams, etc., etc., who fail to make the grade.

Like many, many deservedly unknown American riders I topped out at Cat 3. Did I train to my potential? No. Like thousands of others, I could have gotten better--could have done better--had I devoted more time to the sport, had I been more focused, had I received better coaching, etc., etc. And like so many of the teaming masses: I'm pretty darn sure I lacked the talent for a pro career.

I grew up playing competitive tennis. Depending on your standards I was somewhere between really good and lousy. I was an ok, regional-caliber player. Travelled to tourneys in which I'd typically go a few rounds. Received some rankings. Starred on a winning high school team. Played one year of Div. 1 tennis (that is, I was on the team--I didn't play any varsity matches as a freshman and by sophmore year it was over). Now tennis involves a completely different athletic skill set than does cycling. And I reckon that dogged hard work can take you further in cycling than in tennis. But there's a couple of things that were clear to me in tennis that, I think, apply pretty directly to cycling: (1) World-wide, LOTS of folks exhibit some sort of a knack for the sport that sets them apart somewhat and LOTS of those folks invest a fair bit of time and effort into the sport, and (2) World-wide, there are lots and lots of gradations of athletic talent--many, many layers of ability between good and better and best. 

I saw John McEnroe at the New York State hardcourt championships when I was 13 and he was a couple of years older than that and I knew in an instant--an instant--that I'd never move like that. I was a good athlete. I just wasn't that kind of a good athlete. Cycling? I could have been better than I was. But I think I'm being entirely fair to myself when I say that dedication and hard work wouldn't have closed half the gap between me and Lance (or me and Landis, or me and Rubiera, etc.).

But, you know: if you want to give it a shot, good luck to ya.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

filly said:


> OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.


Um, no.


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

*Genetics, absolutely, but time IS important.*



filly said:


> ... I honestly think the difference is time. ... One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week.


Everyone else has covered the genetic, natural-ability angle, points with which I fully agree, but I will _somewhat_ agree with you by saying that even the genetically gifted probably aren't going to go very far unless they have the time it will take to develop their inborn talents. A top-shelf coach is pretty much a gotta-have necessity, too.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

*more than just one factor*

Would I get faster riding 40 hours a week. Sure. Would riding 40 hours a week for a few years move me up to the pro peloton. No Chance.

The Div 1 guys in Europe are mutants. Most have a bag of genetic gifts (huge VO2max, low lactic acid production, larger than average heart/lungs, and either naturally or artificially high hemocrit levels) that most of us do not possess. Your best bet to get invite to the dance is to pick your parents wisely.

So now you've chosen your parents wisely, and have all the gifts. Do you have the drive, desire and work ethic to make it? History is rife with amazing athletes that pissed it all away because they were slackers (Jan is verging on being an example of this)

The number of athletes that ride in Div I events is microscopic compared to the number of guys that ride in the lower divisions or in the US.

There are so many levels of competition in all sports. Your natural abilities will eventually limit you to a certain level whether it's cat4 or pro. i like to call it athletic darwinism.


----------



## filly (Feb 6, 2003)

You think all the 150+ riders you find in a major pro stage race are genetically gifted? I don't think so. And I'm not talking about becoming a LA. I'm talking about being a pro rider (there are varying levels, obviously). Like I said, have someone take away your job, your financial responsibilities, have someone massage your ass everyday, prepare the right foods for you, and follow you around in a support car brimming to the top with all the fancy bars, gels, drinks, etc while you pedal around for hours each day, and I think you could do it. And, I already mentioned age. 

Would I try it? Heck no! I'm 28, got a family and a job. I'm not stupid. If I were 18, could live with my parents for a couple of years, any my only chores were to cut grass to earn my lunch and dinner...maybe. I'm happy with club rides and a couple of po-dunk races each year. I'm just saying that with everything in place, most anyone could do it.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Genetics: Steve Bauer hopped on a bike just for fun and entered a race as a cadet or junior. Won. Add hard work to that genetic gift, and you have a pro.


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

filly said:


> You think all the 150+ riders you find in a major pro stage race are genetically gifted? I don't think so. And I'm not talking about becoming a LA. I'm talking about being a pro rider (there are varying levels, obviously). Like I said, have someone take away your job, your financial responsibilities, have someone massage your ass everyday, prepare the right foods for you, and follow you around in a support car brimming to the top with all the fancy bars, gels, drinks, etc while you pedal around for hours each day, and I think you could do it. And, I already mentioned age.
> 
> Would I try it? Heck no! I'm 28, got a family and a job. I'm not stupid. If I were 18, could live with my parents for a couple of years, any my only chores were to cut grass to earn my lunch and dinner...maybe. I'm happy with club rides and a couple of po-dunk races each year. I'm just saying that with everything in place, most anyone could do it.


You really think all "pro" riders get that kind of treatment? Heck I could probably spit now and hit a good number of Cat 1 riders in the Boulder area. Virtually none of them make tons of money. Many have side jobs just to support their cycling. Sure with the proper training you could be some hack that carries water bottles from the car for a few years but would you be satisfied with that?


----------



## GeekRoadie (Dec 27, 2001)

*Disagree...*

I'm sorry but I disagree with your post. TIME and AGE are not the only limiting factors in ones potential in cycling or any competetive sport. Certainly, having the desire, resources and support are important but you reach a point where you are limited by the cards that you have been dealt (genetics). Ask anyone who had raced at any level and undoubtedly you will find examples of people who might have the luxury of riding whenever they want but yet can't seem to get enough points to upgrade to the next category (read: lots of 3's and 4's). 

I respect your post and can relate to what you are saying... But to say that "anyone" can be a pro would diminish the talents that these folks have.

-- I'm curious, what do you think of athletes who play "ball sports" like basketball and baseball? --

Mike


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

Just saw a program on Secretariat on cable. Can't remember which channel, probably the History Channel. He was a horse phenom, winning races by over 30 lengths. Triple Crown, etc., etc., etc. He was greater than Eddy Merckx. What set him apart from the rest of the horses? They did an autopsy on him when he died and his heart was over twice the size of a normal thoroughbreds heart. His engine, and his ability to process oxygen and get it to his muscles was that much better than any other horse, probably ever.

Horses have desire and personality but it's more limited than humans. They're all trained pretty much the same. It's their genetics that sets them apart. Without that foundation no amount of desire or training will make a horse or a person a great athlete. There are certainly plenty of genetic freaks that never lived up to their potential, usually because of lack of desire or training, but you'll never find a pro without the genetic gift.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

*BIG wattage in the legs and..*

a paycheck to ride. basically...


----------



## Spinfinity (Feb 3, 2004)

*Tennis makes the levels much more obvious.*

I believe that I'm as different from Lance Armstrong as I am from Andy Roddick or Shaquille O'Neal. The difference is that you can see the difference on a court much more clearly than on a bike. 90 rpms always looks the same. 

I also played regional and college tennis. I knew I couldn't run as fast as the pros but believed I could hit the ball as well. Then somebody came around with a speed gun and timed my serve - a strong part of my game - at 105 mph for the fastest one I hit. That was about as fast as the women pros of that era served. 

Most all of the people who think that if they trained enough they could ride in the peloton are fooling themselves. It isn't even certain that their bodies would stand up to that amount of training - a talent in itself.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

I have a hard time believing a pro consistantly puts in 40 hours/week on a bike. Most of us would ride a ton of junk miles that would do nothing short of keeping us on an indefinite plateau.

Most of us do not have the willingness to suffer to the degree that we could even begin to compensate for our lack of genetic gifts- read Bobke II if you need some examples.

I think you are underestimating what it means to be "pro." Sure there are plenty of people who could probably hang with a pack on a flat stretch of road, but once the road turns upwards, or there is a sprint- or even just take a look at an avg. pro's TT times- anything the requires a bit of specialization, and the differences quickly come into focus... and then you have the different degrees of pros... from the guys who race for food to a guy who can make it through (and come in dead last) a multi-week european stage race.


----------



## Nigeyy (Mar 30, 2003)

I think you're missing a couple of really really important factors..... dedication and motivation.

If we're honest, we've all had time enough in our lives to make spectacular changes to our bodies -not only is the difference between me and a pro rider probably down to genetics and (possibly) drugs, but it's the dedication and motivation they've exhibited over a time period (which, obviously I freely admit to having not done) that subsequently enables them to receive such benefits as money and a more scientific based approach to nutrition and training. The dedication to eat right and the motivation to get up at 4 or 5 in the morning to do that ride while many of us are still in bed (though now I do admit to often getting up at 5:00am or earlier to get a ride in) is not to be ignored. Remember all those late night parties with alcohol and pizza at school?

You've got to remember how pro-athletes got paid in the first place -i.e. initially they weren't -they were "just like us" but somehow they made it (you've got to ask why here), and I just don't believe it's down to genetics and drugs. Don't take away the credit for pro-athletes for this -I believe it seperates many pros from the "wannabes". They put their unpaid time in.

My .02 cents.


----------



## The Walrus (Apr 2, 2000)

_"-- I'm curious, what do you think of athletes who play "ball sports" like basketball and baseball? --"_

Those aren't sports--they're games.


----------



## fastfinish (Mar 3, 2002)

*I believe you can!!!!!*

I agree with you, an average athlete with the time and dedication can become a pro. Maybe not Lance or a strong Div 1 rider, but a good Division 2 or 3 pro,...yes. Most people believe in the limits that are set by their own minds and never ever bother to see what their limits really are. 

We have all heard stories about the guy with no talent doing great things because of his/her dedication to getting better and working harder than everyone else. If one person can do it, then you can do it.

I've been testing this theory the last couple of seasons as I think about getting into coaching. I've taken several riders who were willing to commit to six months of a strict training program, had them set goals that they thought were attainable and then one that was not attainable. Of the ones that stayed with the program and gave it an honest effort, everyone achieved the goal they thought was unattainable. 

What was really shocking is even though I had documented proof these riders achieved a goal that was not possible just six months before,.....75% would not buy into the fact that they could get much better with continued training and achieve another level thought to be unreachable.


----------



## cdmc (Feb 3, 2004)

Spunout said:


> Genetics: Steve Bauer hopped on a bike just for fun and entered a race as a cadet or junior. Won. Add hard work to that genetic gift, and you have a pro.


Reminds me of a post from last year where a guy mentioned that Eddie Mercx was like 270 pounds and had let himself go. Somebody responded that they rode a ride with him earlier that year and even at 270 and 50 something years old, Mercx was still a fast rider.


----------



## GeekRoadie (Dec 27, 2001)

*Semantics*



The Walrus said:


> _"-- I'm curious, what do you think of athletes who play "ball sports" like basketball and baseball? --"_
> 
> Those aren't sports--they're games.


I ask this to illustrate the issue of genetics and natural talent. Whether, or not, they are called sports or games is unimportant.


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 5, 2004)

*Sorry....*



filly said:


> OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.


It is not in the cards for you . There is much more than just riding time and desire to ride. There is such a thing as talent and natural ability.

I don't want to sound like I am name dropping here, nor I am sporting an ego, because in the big picture I am very insignificant amateur cyclist and I KNOW IT. I have been fortunate to race at a high enough level to compete against some good N.American pros over the past few seasons. Believe me, when you see Danny Pate blast across a 30 second gap to the front group at 55 km/h, or when you see Gord Fraser accelerate in the final 200m, or when you watch Eric Wohlberg lap the bunch twice in a crit or take 5 minutes of out of you in a 25 km ITT, you begin to understand. Or more subtle hints, like when you are redlined next to Chris Horner on a climb and he is eating a sandwich. Or when the race is single file and your eyes are about to pop out of your head, and you see Mark and Frank McCormack having a casual conversation on the radio. Then you begin to understand that even if you rode 25 hours a week instead of 12, and slept 12 hours a day, you would not make it.

And then....you look at how these guys fare in the deeper talent pool of Europe and you realize that while they are great cyclists, they would be for the most part, average pros in Europe.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

*No way!*

You need the talent (i.e. genetics, development whatever) FIRST & FOREMOST, then you need to start riding at a young enough age to discover you're talented, and then you need the opportunity and time to develop the talent. But without the talent, you will never be a pro.

Just ride with juniors, you will see the people who have it, have it in short order, and those that don't never get it. You don't need to train 25 hours a week to find out if you're fast or not. And if you race, you would see it's pretty much the same guys year in and year out at the top of the pecking order with some young new guys showing up here and there. And fast guys are quite often fast without even training much.

Didn't Tyler Hamilton break his club's time trial record after he gave up skiing and took up cycling after only riding for a few months?

I know guys who work their butts off to try and break 1 hour in a 40k time trial and don't, and others who can not have hardly touched a bike in months and go out and ride a sub-hour 40k time trial.


----------



## Allez Rouge (Jan 1, 1970)

*I don't think he missed those, did he?*



Nigeyy said:


> I think you're missing a couple of really really important factors..... dedication and motivation.


To play devil's advocate for a moment, I think filly stipulated, in so many words, that these two factors had to be there. If an aspiring pro did have the luxury of having sufficient time to train, he still has to actually follow through and actually use that time to _train_, as opposed to, say, partying or playing video games.

As regards whether dedication and motivation can overcome a lack of natural ability and/or genetic good fortune ... I do think that is occasionally possible. But only occasionally. Certainly infrequently enough to be the very rare exception, and nowhere near the rule.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

filly said:


> You think all the 150+ riders you find in a major pro stage race are genetically gifted? I don't think so. And I'm not talking about becoming a LA. I'm talking about being a pro rider (there are varying levels, obviously). Like I said, have someone take away your job, your financial responsibilities, have someone massage your ass everyday, prepare the right foods for you, and follow you around in a support car brimming to the top with all the fancy bars, gels, drinks, etc while you pedal around for hours each day, and I think you could do it. And, I already mentioned age.
> 
> Would I try it? Heck no! I'm 28, got a family and a job. I'm not stupid. If I were 18, could live with my parents for a couple of years, any my only chores were to cut grass to earn my lunch and dinner...maybe. I'm happy with club rides and a couple of po-dunk races each year. I'm just saying that with everything in place, most anyone could do it.


You have clearly never ridden with or raced against anyone who was at or made it to the pro level.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Dwayne is the man!*



Dwaynebarry said:


> You need the talent (i.e. genetics, development whatever) FIRST & FOREMOST, then you need to start riding at a young enough age to discover you're talented, and then you need the opportunity and time to develop the talent. But without the talent, you will never be a pro.
> 
> Just ride with juniors, you will see the people who have it, have it in short order, and those that don't never get it. You don't need to train 25 hours a week to find out if you're fast or not. And if you race, you would see it's pretty much the same guys year in and year out at the top of the pecking order with some young new guys showing up here and there. And fast guys are quite often fast without even training much.
> 
> ...




I think this post is the best in this entire thread as to the issue of, gosh, if I train real hard......

A little example.Clarendon Cup, got to ride with the B team. So, there I am at 27mph with my buds who are really really strong CAT3 folks and really, better than I am. Lets be honest folks, my heart feels like its going to squirt out of from behind my ribs and dance on the road. BUT, I hang in there. Then at the front, whats going on?: CSC B riders having a a cell phone conversation about whats on TV and dinner later. Christ, I thought he was going to go get a hand job in the parking lot and come back later. Not even breathing hard. Then the cell phones get turned off and a casual, lets pick up the pace folks as we watch them ride away with little effort if any at all. 

Another example, winning an alpine stage and then sure, going out on a TT the next day at 30 mph. Then, just for kicks, give that to me all natural. Bullsh!t.

The riders in the peleton today are not at another level, they are another dimension. If by 20, you havent started putting in top 3 at nats or have even started thinking about Olympic tryouts, etc etc, go home. You do not have it and you never will. Sorry. Its a cold hard fact of life and no desire or drive will get you at that level unless you have the gifts and then IMO, the dope.

IMO

Lets face it, even at the Junior level, EPO usage has been found, what do you think you have at the elite level? A little hint, the tests dont work, thats why we have cuties kissing fingers and getting KOM jerseys while they admit they doped for years and never tested positive. Then in a gesture of good sportsmanship, officials tell you you are not welcome, but 2 years later, you are winning at the elite level again. Alot of care there.


----------



## shaq-d (Apr 19, 2004)

Bocephus Jones said:


> Don't think so. Many of the pros are very genetically gifted. Being small helps for climbing. Very rare that a big or tall dude will ever be a great climber. SOmeone like Indurain might be an exception. If you have a large preponderance of fast-twitch muscle fibers you are never gonna have great endurance and if you have mostly slow twitch you aren't gonna outsprint Cipollini. Sure you can probably become a pro, but I seriously doubt that the only thing standing between most people and a good pro career is time and training.


just wanna say, Indurain is no exception. In the real world he's not a big guy. Indurian is a lean mean machine. Big guys are hockey players, football players, and beer belly bozos. 

also, this thread is ridiculous. i don't get the constant comparisons between "us" and the "pros". you don't go to a hockey or basketballf an site and read about the difference between a real pro and your hockey pond afficianado. the difference is huge: time, genetics, hard work, luck, etc., etc., etc.

sd


----------



## lonefrontranger (Feb 5, 2004)

*no, and I personally know dozens of examples*

I've been racing a long, long time. I've known many, many riders who had what on the outset appeared to be tons of talent as junior / espoir riders, who hit Cat 1 or D3, then languished there for years until they eventually went belly-up and had to get a real job.

D3 is analogous to playing semipro baseball, incidentally. It in no way indicates that you are making a decent living from racing. At best these guys clear $10K per year and get their equipment paid for. That ain't gonna buy a whole lot of burritos and beer and it won't even begin to cover rent and daily expenses in cycling hotbeds like Boulder, Colorado Springs, San Diego, NorCal or Boston, places you need to live in order to consistently race in fast enough fields to get better and get noticed.

A great example is one of the guys featured in "The Hard Road", who shall remain nameless. Now, I don't know dude personally, but my coach does, and word is that this guy is an awesome guy but physically he just ain't got it. He's a perfect example for this discussion as he's apparently a trust fund baby with a free housing situation and unlimited time to train, as well as unlimited desire to go for it and a decent head for tactics and pack skills. Despite all this, the guy has been languishing in D3 hell for the past five or six years now, because he can barely even win local P/1/2 races, much less survive at the NCS level. 

I could cite many more examples including guys and gals I've ridden and trained with, but I'm just not willing to go there out of personal respect for them.


----------



## Bocephus Jones (Feb 3, 2004)

Hey LFR...just out of curiousity what is the exact path to get where someone like Lance or Ullrich is today? I know that you become a Cat 1, but then what? You mention this D3 and other designations. What do you have to do to get there other than the obvious of winning some major races?


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

Nigeyy said:


> I think you're missing a couple of really really important factors..... dedication and motivation.
> 
> If we're honest, we've all had time enough in our lives to make spectacular changes to our bodies -not only is the difference between me and a pro rider probably down to genetics and (possibly) drugs, but it's the dedication and motivation they've exhibited over a time period (which, obviously I freely admit to having not done) that subsequently enables them to receive such benefits as money and a more scientific based approach to nutrition and training. The dedication to eat right and the motivation to get up at 4 or 5 in the morning to do that ride while many of us are still in bed (though now I do admit to often getting up at 5:00am or earlier to get a ride in) is not to be ignored. Remember all those late night parties with alcohol and pizza at school?
> 
> ...


Amen. 

To quote Barry Melrose: "Will beats skill --- everytime"


----------



## MShaw (Jun 7, 2003)

I'm not what you'd call "overly gifted" in the cycling sense. I never really have been. I do enjoy going out with the big dogs occaisionally (and here in San Diego, that can be weekly...). I realize that were I to train as much as they do, I'd probably be able to hang till they went all out, then I'd be OTB...

I have friends that have had a shots. One's been training like the pros and living with mom-n-dad and is winning Masters races. He's too old to actually get the pro contract, but he's getting closer than anyone else I know.

The other did the whole 'do the tour' with the pros. He drove around all summer racing the NCS. Got his rear end handed to him consistently... It just wasn't in the cards for him. Too bad it hasn't done anything for his attitude. He still thinks his excrement smells like roses.

I had a roommate in college that had the genetics to be good. As much as I trained, he could go out on half the miles and still spank most me. 

There are a few guys out there that have more desire than talent. They are willing to hurt more than those guys that have the talent but no desire. You CAN get by more or less on desire, but you'll never get to the top.

M


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 5, 2004)

*Long and winding road*



Bocephus Jones said:


> Hey LFR...just out of curiousity what is the exact path to get where someone like Lance or Ullrich is today? I know that you become a Cat 1, but then what? You mention this D3 and other designations. What do you have to do to get there other than the obvious of winning some major races?


Not to take the LFR's spot here, but the exact path is not very exact. Getting to the pro level is all about having legs, timing and luck. Obviously, a rider has to get some serious results just to get noticed. Then, he has to get them consistently to prove he is not a one-hit wonder. Even then, this is not enough, as the rider has to show that he is motivated to work for it and show that he has initiative, so he has to get around to meeting team managers and industry types who have connections and making his case. In Europe, a lot of up-and-coming riders have "handlers" who do a lot of groundwork. These people are not necessarily agents as per se, more likely local family friends or cycling community icons who take an interest in the rider and work on his behalf to advance his career.

Here in N.America it isn't exaclty like that, and the rider has to be more responsible for his own marketing. I have a friend who shall remain nameless for this discussion, but he has some very high quality results in both N.America and Europe (as an Espoir), yet he languishes in the pseudo-pro world riding for a tiny D3 team in small races where he has no chance to really advance himself. Why? Because he is what I call a "reluctant bike racer". He has oodles of natural talent, he puts the time in and gets some good results, but in the big picture one gets the sense that he is rather indifferent to the whole thing. Team managers and sponsors pick up on this very quickly, and as a result he has sort of stalled out in his progression at age 24.


----------



## thatsmybush (Mar 12, 2002)

PDex said:


> Amen.
> 
> To quote Barry Melrose: "Will beats skill --- everytime"


Three reasons not to listen to Barry...

1) The mullet
2) The Don Cherry ugly as all hell suits
3) He coached Gretsky the greatest skill player of all time.


----------



## TypeOne (Dec 28, 2001)

*There's a difference*



rusa1586 said:


> I believe that I'm as different from Lance Armstrong as I am from Andy Roddick or Shaquille O'Neal. The difference is that you can see the difference on a court much more clearly than on a bike. 90 rpms always looks the same.
> 
> I also played regional and college tennis. I knew I couldn't run as fast as the pros but believed I could hit the ball as well. Then somebody came around with a speed gun and timed my serve - a strong part of my game - at 105 mph for the fastest one I hit. That was about as fast as the women pros of that era served.
> 
> Most all of the people who think that if they trained enough they could ride in the peloton are fooling themselves. It isn't even certain that their bodies would stand up to that amount of training - a talent in itself.


I used to play a lot of basketball in college, and I would drop in on pickup games on weekends and run with the big guys on a Div. 1 program. I'm bragging on myself only to prove this point: I could shoot, pass, dribble technically just as well but NOT at the same speed. It was like "The Matrix," where the main characters can react to bullets. These guys were at a different level of quickness.
I knew right then and there - and cycling must be the same - that I could practice and play and reach my potential, but something kept me from the next level and I would never get there. Fun to try, though.
FYI - played against Nick Van Exel, for one. Nearly broke my ankles.


----------



## TrailNut (May 11, 2004)

*the money making Pros had time and money to grow*

the money making Pros have had the time, which means parental $ sponcership & encouragement at an early enough age, combined with strong will and body and good coaching.
There are exceptions, but not many

sure many can reach pro level, but few, very few, can reach sponcered pro level...that took time (money$$) and talent.


----------



## bigriderblack (Jan 27, 2004)

*Interesting thought!!*



filly said:


> OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.


When I read this thread it got me thinking back to my days playing football. All through high school I was "the man" - bigger, stronger, faster and really dominated on ability and talent. I did not really have to work that hard - Then I got to college and the picture changed a bit. Div 1 college football teams are full of "the mans". I did not see the field until my Jr. year and that was really by default (injury to the starter). Now, I did okay and played pretty well but I realized that these were better,hungrier players than I was and if I wanted to stay on the field I was going to have get better,hungrier etc. Worked my ass of the rest of the year and my senior year played well enough to get invited (not drafted!) to a pro camp. This is when the other shoe fell - It was apparent (in technicolor!!) to me the second day in camp that I did not have the talent, desire, ability, character or any other trait needed to compete at that level - This is my longwinded way of saying that to be a professional in any sport (much less an elite professional) would require abilities and a character that most of us could never even imagine - That's why I don't get all pissy and judgemental about the money that some of these athletes are paid. I have only been cycling for a couple of years and I don't really know any professional riders but I imagine that there are long term consequences for them just like other ex pros - Ever see a 40 year old ex-pro football player ?- 90% will suffer from arthritis or at the very least feel like hell getting out of bed every morning. 

A bit longwinded and maybe a little self absorbed but I just have tremendous respect for any professional athlete - they are willing to sacrifice and suffer things most of us wont.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

*No way, jose!*



rusa1586 said:


> I believe that I'm as different from Lance Armstrong as I am from Andy Roddick or Shaquille O'Neal. The difference is that you can see the difference on a court much more clearly than on a bike. 90 rpms always looks the same.
> <SNIP>


This is a baseless comment. 90 rpms is very different on different gears, and at
different elevations. Your statement is like saying that all serves look the same. 
Roddick can serve at the speed of sound, the rest of us mortals cannot, even 
though we all lob the ball over our heads and swing our rackets to hit it.

The next time that you see the cyclists sprint up to the top of the col to get to
the finish line, keep in mind that they've put kilometers of elevation gains on their
legs before they get there, all in a space of 5-6 hours.

If television only showed Serena Williams' serve and Jennifer Capriati's unforced
error that beat her, would you say that tennis looks easy?


----------



## Nigeyy (Mar 30, 2003)

I read back my post, and I decided I way oversimplified things. I do believe occasionally someone with incredible determination, motivation and dedication can make pro ranks of sports.... however they do most certainly have to have an innate gift (usually genetics!) to do so. I definitely didn't want it to sound like any old Tom, Dick or Harry could become a pro-cyclist just because they willed it so.


----------



## Cool Roadie nom de Plume (Apr 8, 2004)

*Idiots I have run across*

And if we all sat around trying to solve problems all day every one of us would have come up with Eienstine's theoiry of relativity or John Nash's game theory.

What are you paid to do for 8 hours a day may I ask?

Are you in the top 1% of the world popiulation in that field? If not whats your excuse for loafing about all those hours....


----------



## lonefrontranger (Feb 5, 2004)

*bingo*



Eric_H said:


> In Europe, a lot of up-and-coming riders have "handlers" who do a lot of groundwork.
> 
> Here in N.America it isn't exaclty like that, and the rider has to be more responsible for his own marketing.


Agree on all the variables. The politics alone can be positively hellish. Even making the jump from Cat 1 to D3 is difficult, and merely applying for a pro licence is not a very straightforward affair according to what I've heard; I don't pay much attention because women don't have a pro licence option anyway, the most we could aspire to is Cat 1, though believe me, within that realm there are many, many "layers" of Cat 1. I understand that for the boys it's kind of a chicken-and-egg hassle, cos you have to have a team designation to a D3 or greater squad for your application to be approved. For Bocephus' sake here are some quick definitions:

D3: Division 3: Jelly Belly, Health Net, Jittery Joe's and countless Euro "development" squads. These guys pretty much labour in the trenches of anonymity on the grand scheme of things, but you'll see them referred to in rider diaries and coverage of the lower level events. Most of the U.S. pros racing the NRC are on D3 squads.

D2: Division 2: Navigators, Kelme, Acqua & Sapone, Saunier Duval: These are the squads that commonly land "invitational slots" to their national grand tours and sometimes cause controversy as a result i.e. the various snubs of Cipo's teams to include the likes of Jean Delatour, and who on Giro or Vuelta coverage you'll often wonder "what the hell team kit is THAT in the breakaway". 

D1: Division : Fassa Bortolo, US Postal, Liberty Seguros, Phonak. The uber-pros we all see and talk about in the trade mags and TV coverage. The level that all cycling pros (and sponsors, and directeurs sportif, etc...) are ultimately gunning for.

Don't even get me started on UCI event classifications and what level of pro your team has to be at to gain invitation for each classification, meaning all those numbers in parenthesis following the race titles on cyclingnews.com (UCI 2.7.1 or 1.3 or CDM, et cetera) I can kinda follow some of it, but I don't think even the UCI fully understands them.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

filly said:


> OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.


I have to agree with most of the posts above in that I totally *disagree* with your statement and the aforementioned replies have certainly rebutted your argument. I would like to add my own experience with those individuals who are, without question, genetically gifted (in addition to being frighteningly dedicated etc.). I have chatted to a couple of ex-pros (both US and Euro) on a local ride (I am safely in the pack so I can actually talk rather than gasp!) and some of them, just for the hell of it, have tried their hand at running post-cycling career, 10K's to marathons, and these guys post times like 32min/10K, 1:12 half-marathon or 2:40 marathon. Obviously these are not *world*-class times but my point is these guys (and girls) can go out and stomp most of the field in a discipline which they are simply "visiting" having done fairly minimal specific training. Oh, and some of them were national-level swimmers etc. prior to cycling. My point is, to use the vernacular of previous posts, their engines and innate talent are huge and god (whoever)-given and are not simply the product of loads of hours on the saddle. Just because one may be able to handle the physical and mental stresses of a pro's training load (and that is a big "if") it is simply faulty logic to assume that one will turn into a pro as a result! These people are so physically talented that it's not funny so don't flatter yourself that living on the bike day in and day out would propel one to the ranks of the pro peloton, "lowly" domestique or otherwise. OK, I"m done...


----------



## fasteddie (Jun 20, 2003)

The Walrus said:


> _"-- I'm curious, what do you think of athletes who play "ball sports" like basketball and baseball? --"_
> 
> Those aren't sports--they're games.


You're trolling, right? That's of the more ridiculous comments in this thread. I assume then that you're implying that cycling is a "sport". Just what is it about riding a bicycle that qualifies it as a sport, whereas you consider ball sports to be games...?


----------



## bigrider (Jun 27, 2002)

With all due respect, Barry Melrose is a mullethead.
The only difference between my wife and Julia Roberts is how long Julia takes to put on her makeup.






PDex said:


> Amen.
> 
> To quote Barry Melrose: "Will beats skill --- everytime"


----------



## CLTRD (May 3, 2004)

alright, let's bring up another point.. I'm 14 years old, am I naturally athlete, have an affinity to handling pain, and am highly dedicated.. would someone like me be able to go pro, with the right training? By the time I'm 18 I'll have trained for 5 years, and will be able to peak out like the pros; is it a possibility?


----------



## filly (Feb 6, 2003)

Hey, CLTRD, I think you can. Now, I can't see you to verify whether or not you have that hampering wooden leg with a kickstand, but assuming you don't, I'd say you definitely have a chance. Don't let the pessimistic folks around here shoot holes in your sails.

Here's how I see it. 98% of the respondents basically totally disagreed with me. That's cool, you have your opinion. But, a lot of you also have an underlying tone of "This guy's retarded. What is he thinking? Us mere mortals can't even touch the golden sweat of a pro..." etc, etc, etc. You know why you all answered with that tone? It's because you realize there is no real talent to cycling. Aside from some genetics, which some pros have (not all by any means), I believe most of you truly know that what I'm saying has a shred of truth to it. And now, sitting at your computers, in your 30's, 40's, 50's, whatever, you realize that you missed the boat--if you even ever had the desire to get to the level we're talking about. You realize that cycling is about fitness--about training. If you put in the training, you can get to where you want to be. Especially you, Henry, you're really put off by this thread. Seems like you've got a bit of self-regret going on. Give it up, man, just give it up. Most of you put it off as impossible, "It's genetics, man," because you'd rather tell yourself it simply wasn't in the cards for you so you don't feel like Henry does because you didn't give it a shot (if you wanted to). It's easier for you to say that it simply wasn't going to happen--that it wasn't "in the cards." That way, you don't feel bad that you didn't have the dedication, motivation, drive, etc. to give it a shot. 

So, CLTRD, don't let the elitist attitude that permeates this board and many group rides get to you. Yes, you can get into this "club" that others here relegate to the impossible. You don't have to be born with olive oil flowing through your veins. Of course, you've got school and other activities to contend with, but at your age, thinking now about what the sacrifice would be already puts you ahead of the game. 

Nitey, night, folks, I've got work this weekend. There's that damn job thing again...


----------



## The Walrus (Apr 2, 2000)

*No, not trolling...*

...it's just that there seems to be something juvenile about all of the "ball sports", maybe because like everyone else, I played football, basketball, volleyball, baseball, etc. all through school--and then outgrew whatever interest I'd had, unlike the pro or college players. I've always associated these activities with playgrounds, and can't take them seriously. If you find something uplifting about 'em, more power to you.


----------



## filly (Feb 6, 2003)

Agree with Walrus. Football--eat a lot, lift weights (or be a fat ass), run a bit. Basketball--throw a ball in a hole, run a bit, jump high (genetics). Baseball--run a bit, grab your junk, swing a stick. As Walrus said, they seem juvenile and very easy to get into. Why do you think millions of kids play these "games"?


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

*The ability to SUFFER!*

Many people have already mentioned pure god-given talent... genetics, proper nutrition.... all that... the one MOST OVERLOOKED FACTOR is the ability to SUFFER!

I raced as a Cat 1. I got onto a Euro Div 3 team in the early 90's. I failed to make it because I didin't have it in my head to make it. I wasn't able to absolutely suffer like you need to suffer to be a pro. A couple ex-cyclists who wrote books touched on the subject. Bob Roll for one, Paul Kimmage was another. Both of them were good riders in the pro levels, but never excelled (Bobke did have a great MTB career and did help Hampsten to the 88 Giro, but never reached Hampsten's level...) in their own right as a pro. But both have writen in books as to how much a pro level cyclist needs to suffer. Not only in races, but training as well. You need to be able to shred your legs every single ride, because if you don't someone else is. There will always be someone out there who is willing to out work you to achieve their goals. You have to not only be talented enough to beat them, but willing to suffer to no end to beat them as well.

Russ


----------



## lonefrontranger (Feb 5, 2004)

*it is not an elitist attitude, it is the unalloyed truth*

The people who answered in the negative all have one thing in common: we RACE. We have seen and experienced this stuff in real life and we know how hard it is just to win a damn sock prime at the local Tour de Barnyard. Can you say that?

I have been racing since I was in my early twenties. I knew I didn't have it then, and I still don't have it now. My coach was one of the special ones bound for greatness. Like most of the ones who WILL "make it", he upgraded from Cat 5 to Cat 3 in less than six months, and was a pro within 2 years of his first road race start. His genetic gift was a phenomenal VO2MAX and a willingness to suffer that I still cannot comprehend. A combination of injuries conspired to destroy his career before he realised his goal of getting to the Olympics, but believe you me it was not for lack of trying.

Now, CLTRD may or may not have the talent to make it, and I strongly encourage him to try if it's his dream. God only knows there are not enough like him in the good ole U.S. of A, land of the fat and home of the Braves. We definitely need more enterprising junior racers out there.

And not to throw another bucket of icewater on this dream, but russw19 is dead on correct about the level of suffering one must be willing to endure. I've known scads and scads of very promising, talented junior riders who are just unbeatable AS JUNIORS but cannot make it once they hit the senior ranks and get discouraged and quit. And, we also have 16 and 17-year-olds out here in Colorado who race in the Pro/1/2 field and do quite well. But once they make that leap to the "bigtime" and start racing in Europe, they unfortunately get to go straight to the bottom of the deck and have to claw their way back up the ladder regardless of how hard they trained to get there in the first place, and I've seen many, many riders realise they just cannot make themselves suffer that much.

A lot of folks look down on bike racers because we're grown adults playing around on kid's toys, and it's a sport where you get to sit down all the time, so filly, I'm not sure whether you're trolling or merely uneducated about bike racing, but I strongly urge you to go pin a number on at your local Cat 5 crit and get a honest to god clue how freaking hard this sport really is.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

*Narrower than my tires ...*



filly said:


> Agree with Walrus. Football--eat a lot, lift weights (or be a fat ass), run a bit. Basketball--throw a ball in a hole, run a bit, jump high (genetics). Baseball--run a bit, grab your junk, swing a stick. As Walrus said, they seem juvenile and very easy to get into. Why do you think millions of kids play these "games"?


This is one of the more simple-minded posts I've ever read. Given your logic, one could describe cycling as: Cycling - move feet in circles, don't fall. Come on. And as far as being easy to get into, what would you say re the millions of kids who ride bikes once they hit 5?

Absolutely absurd.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

I think I have what it takes to suffer. I managed not to have a single beer or hamburger in over a year, but now I'm too old to a be pro in anything....


----------



## freezin_is_the_reason (Feb 5, 2004)

*You are mistaken*

"You know why you all answered with that tone? It's because you realize there is no real talent to cycling."

If you pay attetion, you will notice that there IS talent involved in cycling. Some guys are better descenders than others. This skill is akin to that of a motorcycle racers. I seem to remember seeing certain TDF contenders end up in a ditch because they were not able to descend as well as their rival. (Note I was very careful not to drop any names.) If you have ever raced MTNbikes, the skill gap becomes apparent quite quickly. In my best years, I could finish top ten in Sport class at local races. I was never as fast as the guys that I finished with in the flat-smooth sections. They could always gap me. But as soon as things got narrow and twisty, I would be right back on their wheels. Add rocks, roots, and logs, and I am now gapping them. If there were no talent or skill involved, I would have always been relegated to the back of the feild. As it was, the small amount of Talent/skill that I did posess, helped to make up for my genitic deficiency. 

My point is this. Like many of the other posters, I feel that it takes a combination of Talent, Genetics, Drive, Training, and luck to make it to the top level of any sport. Remember, when you watch the PROS, you are watching an infitessimally small portion of the population at large.


----------



## fasteddie (Jun 20, 2003)

The Walrus said:


> ...it's just that there seems to be something juvenile about all of the "ball sports", maybe because like everyone else, I played football, basketball, volleyball, baseball, etc. all through school--and then outgrew whatever interest I'd had, unlike the pro or college players. I've always associated these activities with playgrounds, and can't take them seriously. If you find something uplifting about 'em, more power to you.


Uplifting...? Not quite sure I find any sport to really be uplifting, but fact is you did not fully answer the question - what is it about riding a bicycle that qualifies it as a sport? For the vast majority of the world riding a bike is an activity, if not a basic necessity. Something to do with the family, for exercise and/or basic transportation to get from point A to point B. You think 700 million Chinese consider a bicycle a piece of sports equipment? I would agree that once you get into competitive cycling then that's definitely a "sport". Just as I would not consider a 5 yr old riding her "pretty pink pony" or grandpa on a beach cruiser to be athletes. I can't think about this any longer - your reasoning is so tortured it's giving me a headache.


----------



## filly (Feb 6, 2003)

Hey, LFR, I thought you were smarter than this. Your whole post adds credibility to my OP. Wow, why is it so hard to win a sock prime? Why is it that you'll never advance past maybe winning your local Tour de Barnyard? Hmmmm....it's because you're not riding 6 hours a day!!! What's so hard about this to understand. When you were in your teens and early twenties, if you had the opportunity (and capitalized on it, of course) to do the things I've talked about, you wouldn't be competing in the Tour de Barnyard. You'd be much better than that. All I'm saying is, is that you didn't put in the time required, so now you're chasing sock primes and certificates to IHOP.


----------



## filly (Feb 6, 2003)

Hey freezin, you too are missing my point. I said, "Put in the time, and most anyone can become a pro." I'm saying there is not much talent in cycling (above what you'd develop by riding for 6 hours a day), and you're implying there must be talent to be a pro. Yet read your post again. You said SOME are better descenders than others and "certain" TDF contenders end up in the ditch. OK, so what? These guys that end up in the ditch are still pro, right? So, you see, you don't have to be the best descender to be a pro. You have to be fit, that's it. A certain fit that only hours and hours of dedicated, no bullshit, hard riding can get you. And if you can't descend to well and end up in the ditch, oh well, you're still a pro.


----------



## filly (Feb 6, 2003)

Hey, DrRoebuck, football is football as baseball is baseball, but cycling as we know it is not cycling at the age of 5. How many high school slobs decide they're going to join the football team one morning on their schoolbus ride to school. Millions. And they succeed. How many teenagers decide they're going to start racing bikes while chugging a Coke for breakfast? Hmmm, probably none. Why, because you just can't hop on a bike and succeed unlike many other sports that are not really fitness-based.

And yes, cycling is "move feet in circles, don't fall." But you have to move your feet in circles real fast and for a long time.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

The Walrus said:


> ...it's just that there seems to be something juvenile about all of the "ball sports", maybe because like everyone else, I played football, basketball, volleyball, baseball, etc. all through school--and then outgrew whatever interest I'd had, unlike the pro or college players. I've always associated these activities with playgrounds, and can't take them seriously. If you find something uplifting about 'em, more power to you.



how do you figure top soccer players in euro teams (think milan, barcelona, manc united..) see cycling pros? yup, underpaid stupid thin masochists (soccer players make much more money than cyclists incl LA)... it takes TONS of talent to play ball sports.


----------



## The Walrus (Apr 2, 2000)

*The whole thread was based on the question...*

...of what it takes to succeed in _competitive_ cycling--a sport--and not commuting or recreational riding. What makes anything a sport? Enough people calling something a sport, and your acceptance of their judgement. It's roughly analogous to the Supreme Court justice's description of pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Cycling just fits the bill for me, and ball sports don't. I don't care if it's Barry Bonds knocking one over the wall into the bay, or Derek Fisher sinking the .4-sec shot--I look at ball players and wonder when they're gonna grow up and get real jobs.


----------



## xcmntgeek (Aug 24, 2002)

filly said:


> How many teenagers decide they're going to start racing bikes while chugging a Coke for breakfast?




Hehehe, Me
a few years ago


----------



## Reynolds531 (Nov 8, 2002)

*Sure, and if you just studied harder you could develop the string theory*

There's as much difference between you and the Pro peloton as there is between you and Steven Hawkings. You could train perfectly for 5 years and you'd never be able to ride with the Pro's. You could study physics for 5 years and never be able solve the equations used to derive string theory.

Many people cannot accept the fact that compared to the elite in any field, they really have no telent in anything whatsoever. I't a cruel, hard fact to face.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

There is a really big difference between different kind of sports. You are dead right concerning games, tennis, short distance runnung (I would say till 800m) and so on - in this disciplines genetics is a key and any amount of training can't compensate. Endurence sport is different. Many person those are devoted enough can reach quite high level. Definitely not Lance level, but enough to ride in peleton. Sure, for different peoples different amount of trainig is required, but anyway. Few words about me - I was an competitive rower in my youth (I would say my level in rowing was like Cat.1 in US cycling) and then worked few years as rowing coach, my trainees have have won Soviet Union junior championship and have participated in world championship.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Not enough information. Can you describe yourself more detailed?


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

*A couple of points...*



filly said:


> OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.


Enter yourself in a hilly circuit race where your cat will do about 50 miles while the pros will be doing about 150. At some point in the race, the pros will pass you. Please be sure to pay special attention to the speed with which they pass you on the climb (you will literally feel like you're pedaling backwards). Then pay even more attention to their faces and their calmness on the bike and you'll notice that they'll appear to be almost half asleep. This isn't desire or training time.... this is genetics! There's a magic number that gifted pro cyclists reach on the V02 max test (is it 80, I forget). It's magic, because when the testers see that number, they say "Yep, we have someone special here." After the amateur cyclist has won the first 12 races he's entered, someone will take enough notice to give him the testing necessary to see if he's truly gifted and might someday make it or if he's just winning with guts, training and desire more then gifts.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

The Human G-Nome said:


> There's a magic number that gifted pro cyclists reach on the V02 max test (is it 80, I forget). It's magic, because when the testers see that number, they say "Yep, we have someone special here."


You forget one, but very important word :* "*that *some* gifted pro cyclists reach on".
Or you belive that whole peleton can't reach this value? Or you mean that not all pro cyclist are gifted? Anyhow withou gift person never rich top of pro level but perfectly can rich "average" (domestique) level.


----------



## serbski (Dec 2, 2002)

filly said:


> Hey freezin, you too are missing my point. I said, "Put in the time, and most anyone can become a pro." I'm saying there is not much talent in cycling (above what you'd develop by riding for 6 hours a day), and you're implying there must be talent to be a pro. Yet read your post again. You said SOME are better descenders than others and "certain" TDF contenders end up in the ditch. OK, so what? These guys that end up in the ditch are still pro, right? So, you see, you don't have to be the best descender to be a pro. You have to be fit, that's it. A certain fit that only hours and hours of dedicated, no bullshit, hard riding can get you. And if you can't descend to well and end up in the ditch, oh well, you're still a pro.


Honestly, you must be trolling here! I think that *you* need to re-read Freezin's post because if becoming a pro is only about the mega-training and not about natural talent/genetics then shouldn't *all* pro cyclists climb, descend, sprint, time trial etc. at a fairly similar level seeing as they have unlimited amounts of time to devote to training? Are you saying that Erik Zabel is a better sprinter than Roberto Heras because the the former spent more time training in that discipline that the latter? If one is to follow your logic "you have to be fit" then any beefcake male model on the cover of Men's Fitness should have a good shot at being a pro cyclist! I mean, they're fit and have low body fat content. Hell, just sling 'em on a bike for 6-8 hours a day and they're almost there. Plus, they'll look better than Isidro Nozal! Pro athletes, from lowest to highest levels, all have copious amounts of NATURAL TALENT (see the above posts about VO2 max etc.) that is brought to a peak through the arduous and obsessive training that you believe is, in and of itself, the only thing that makes them a pro and you (and the rest of us) a recreational rider or racer. Some people are simply born with bigger engines and the like, just as some of us are tall or have brown eyes, and that is the foundation upon which an aspiring pro stacks the insane amout of training. So, yes, there certainly must be some recreational cyclist who may have been born with the same genetic predisposition for cycling as Lance Armstrong (who, BTW, could out-swim/run most as a young triathlete) who rides a couple of hours a week, never pushes himself and is selling insurance, blissfully unaware of what he could have been. Nevertheless, he would still be a physical oddity and not an example of the population at large. Also, if you think that you can descend better than the pro who "ends up in a ditch" or can climb better than a sprinter in the grupetto you should think again because they are the worst of the absolute best (at these particular skills). Honestly, if it makes *you* feel better to think that these guys/girls are only where they are because they have the *time* to train then by all means continue to delude yourself. I'm just curious, do you believe that elite marathoners are only "elite" because they train more than mid-pack runners or do you find that there is some type "skill" to running that is not required in cycling?


----------



## filly (Feb 6, 2003)

Man, you guys are hopeless. I'm done...new topic?


----------



## kilofox (Mar 4, 2004)

*The Mac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*



djg said:


> I saw John McEnroe at the New York State hardcourt championships when I was 13 and he was a couple of years older than that and I knew in an instant--an instant--that I'd never move like that.QUOTE]
> 
> But could you cuss as good as he did????
> 
> I miss the Mac's and Connors. While Pete S. was without a doubt a fine champion, he never won me over as a fan as Mac and Jimmy. Isn't it weird to hear McEnroe to do tennis commentary? He is so layed-back and low key... I sometimes think it is someone else.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*I finally figured it out!*



al0 said:


> You forget one, but very important word :* "*that *some* gifted pro cyclists reach on".
> Or you belive that whole peleton can't reach this value? Or you mean that not all pro cyclist are gifted? Anyhow withou gift person never rich top of pro level but perfectly can rich "average" (domestique) level.



For the folks who say cycling isnt so hard and anyone can do it with alot of training, I really have to agree with alot of folks here that this opinokn is really complete mule muffins.

To reach this uninformed state of galactic proportions its either trolling as I suspect or sheer stupidity. Ignorance can be educated, stupidity is permanent. Gee, it looks easy on TV right? Or that a55hole writer in TX who say cycling is not a true sport every year after Lance wins the Tour suire. By the way, that writer has an ass 2 axe handles wide and I am sure is ver much in touch with all things athletic and what true fitness means as he stuffs another donut in that sweaty hole he calls a mouth.

Go home, break open the piggy bank, go to the store and buy a fvcking clue my friend.


----------



## 2faced (Apr 18, 2004)

filly said:


> OK, barring the fact that you don't have a wooden leg with a kickstand, I honestly think the difference is time. There are discussions elsewhere on this board about the amount of time one has to dedicate to cycling. One can only go so far if he/she can only put in 10 hours a week. You're going to reach your limit, and there's nothing you can do about it. But, if you're young (sorry, I'm excluding you older folks), I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone (yes, anyone) could become a pro cyclist. I honestly believe it's the 30-hour gap between the average Joe's cycling hours and those pro's whose job it is to ride. Take away my job, pay me, and give me an 8-hour window in which to ride as much as I want, and I think it's possible for all of us. Of course, the will has to be there. With the will/mindset to want to be a cyclist for a living, and the time available to do so, I think it's in the cards for anyone.




Lest we forget about the personal traners, physical therapists,and dieticians on the pro's payroll.


----------



## Dwaynebarry (Mar 16, 2004)

al0 said:


> There is a really big difference between different kind of sports. You are dead right concerning games, tennis, short distance runnung (I would say till 800m) and so on - in this disciplines genetics is a key and any amount of training can't compensate. Endurence sport is different. Many person those are devoted enough can reach quite high level. Definitely not Lance level, but enough to ride in peleton. Sure, for different peoples different amount of trainig is required, but anyway. Few words about me - I was an competitive rower in my youth (I would say my level in rowing was like Cat.1 in US cycling) and then worked few years as rowing coach, my trainees have have won Soviet Union junior championship and have participated in world championship.


Just because one physical ability is more trainable than another (sprint versus endurance) doesn't mean that everyone has the ability to reach a similar top level in the more trainable trait.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

I guess that that real trolling is from your side

Nobody says that no special gift is needed to become top-level pro (like Lance or Zabel or Heras) but just to have your place in peleton? I guess that anybody with abiliti not below average can reach it with suffucient devotion and really good coaching. BTW, how many guys are in pro peleton (I mean in all pro teams together and not in one particular race)? I guess not less then thousand. And when you compare you normally compare to the best ten of them, yes?


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

....perhaps you could just train for one race a year and make people believe you're actually good?


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

It is opposite - cycling *IS a true sport* just because a lot of dedication and training could overcome (only to some extent, but to substantial extent) lack of talent.


----------



## palewin (Mar 12, 2003)

*It takes genetics! Read Marla Streb's book.*

I agree with the many posters who agree that while training and dedication can make a "good" racer, it takes genetics to be a "great" racer (i.e. a professional). There is an interesting section on this subject in Marla Streb's book "Life story of a Downhill goddess." Marla, a good professional MTB racer (and I think current US Downhill champion) writes on pgs 209-212 about discovering that her VO2 uptake was "merely average": "...the upshot was, as hard as I trained, and as much as I would try, even if I was able to race for two hours in zone 5 at 200 heartbeats a minute without passing out, I still would be stuffing less oxygenated fuel into my muscles than my competitors who might be gliding along happily in zone 3." Despite the fact that she was a good cross country racer, the VO2 max test made her switch to downhill where it was less of a disadvantage to have an "average" VO2 max. Interestingly, no other post has mentioned wattage. No matter how much one trains, very few people will ever put out the sustained (or for that matter instantaneous) wattage figures that pros put out regularly. When you read that Cipolini put out close to 1800 watts in a sprint, or that Petacci can sprint at over 40mph, realistically these are numbers that simply "training more" won't get you. I've been a competitive cyclist and/or runner for something like 40 years, and have friends who made the Olympic team in those disciplines - I agree with the earlier poster who said that to get to the top of most sports you simply must be a "mutant" - it simply isn't the boy or girl next door who just trained more than you did, or wanted it more. That may have worked at some time in the distant past, but certainly no longer.


----------



## Nat (Feb 22, 2004)

filly said:


> ...you just can't hop on a bike and succeed .


What??? If you can pedal several rotations without falling over then you're riding a bike...success! That's not success at organized racing, but millions of little kids playing football on the playground isn't the same thing as playing NFL or even college ball.


----------



## Silver222 (Aug 5, 2004)

*No way desire beats talent...*

Melrose is a bad coach, a crappy dresser, and a terrible pundit.

Gretzky was mentioned upthread. He had desire AND talent...but mostly talent. You're talking about a kid that had more media exposure by the time he was 15 than most professional athletes get in a lifetime. Why was that?

He's a freak. I saw him play professionally in Edmonton. No one did the stuff he did as a skinny kid at 18 who wasn't a fast skater. Ever. Desire played a part, but Greztky still would have been one of the ten best ever if he never cared.

Desire is the difference between Armstrong and Ullrich. Talent is the difference between Ullrich and the rest of us.


----------



## NoMSG (Mar 6, 2004)

*This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.*

Do you really think you can run a three minute mile by just putting in the time? Break a world record long jump just by putting in the time? Be an elite Formula 1 driver by putting in the time?

Maybe you can increase your IQ as well. Perhaps Einstein just contemplated the speed of dust bunnies a lot before he came up with the theory of relativity. Maybe you can do the same?

Simple example. I have this naturally gifted atheletic friend that used to play college football. Big guy at 6'4" and 230 pounds at the time (with a gut). I was 6' and 165. I rode a little more than him. We used to ride around this 3 mile loop where some racer types did their training in a 100+ peleton. Every so often we would chase. Although these chases were always unsuccessful, my friend would easily pull away from me and stay on their tail longer. I rode more than him and he had a big gut, yet he clearly was the stronger rider.

Put some thought into your question next time. I don't understand why you discount genetics.


----------



## Jed Peters (Feb 4, 2004)

lonefrontranger said:


> Agree on all the variables. The politics alone can be positively hellish. Even making the jump from Cat 1 to D3 is difficult, and merely applying for a pro licence is not a very straightforward affair according to what I've heard; I don't pay much attention because women don't have a pro licence option anyway, the most we could aspire to is Cat 1, though believe me, within that realm there are many, many "layers" of Cat 1. I understand that for the boys it's kind of a chicken-and-egg hassle, cos you have to have a team designation to a D3 or greater squad for your application to be approved. For Bocephus' sake here are some quick definitions:
> 
> D3: Division 3: Jelly Belly, Health Net, Jittery Joe's and countless Euro "development" squads. These guys pretty much labour in the trenches of anonymity on the grand scheme of things, but you'll see them referred to in rider diaries and coverage of the lower level events. Most of the U.S. pros racing the NRC are on D3 squads.
> 
> ...


I think it takes a little "something extra" to move to an elite level. Take my wife, whom I'm very proud of...she went from never riding a road bike before last September, to racing in January, to Cat 2 by the end of the year. Next year she will be fully supported racing on a woman's Elite team. I think there are many layers of Cat 2 in the women as well! Suzy'll never get the freakin' chance to move up next year....no locals, only NRCs!

She works 40 hours a week, and is still about 8 pounds overweight. Sure, she has a coach (now), access to the best equipment around, and a supportive team and husband, but here in NorCal, I see VERY few women making that kind of a leap in a single season, especially never having ridden a road bike before. And this is very clearly the best and fastest amateur racing in the country.

The NRC (what's this NCS?) races she will be doing will be an eye opener, but honestly? Not that much faster than NorCal local races. Only she won't be able to place high enough to get upgrade points.

Just wait 'till she does some European races. Then she'll see fast.


----------



## Sympatico (Apr 7, 2004)

lonefrontranger said:


> I've been racing a long, long time. I've known many, many riders who had what on the outset appeared to be tons of talent as junior / espoir riders, who hit Cat 1 or D3, then languished there for years until they eventually went belly-up and had to get a real job.
> 
> D3 is analogous to playing semipro baseball, incidentally. It in no way indicates that you are making a decent living from racing. At best these guys clear $10K per year and get their equipment paid for. That ain't gonna buy a whole lot of burritos and beer and it won't even begin to cover rent and daily expenses in cycling hotbeds like Boulder, Colorado Springs, San Diego, NorCal or Boston, places you need to live in order to consistently race in fast enough fields to get better and get noticed.
> 
> ...


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

*Talent is number one*

I don't know if you remember when you first started school. Most boys play some sports, some of us just excel and others just aren't that good no matter how hard we try (yours truly being the latter).

Same thing with school work. Some people get admissions from most of the Ivy League schools with very little effort. 

Talent is probably more important than training (assuming no doping).


----------



## filly (Feb 6, 2003)

Man, someone was bored to dig this up out of the trenches. I won't restate what I've said over and over, but I will repeat that I said "pro." Not Lance Armstrong, Ullrich, etc. To simply be a pro and sit in the peloton (and quit when you want to when the terrain is unfavorable--Petacchi) is doable. Now, go back to work.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

*Where talent fits in*

When people talk about talent, they're absolutely right. However, the real talent to excel at the top level is a little different.

There are a lot of great cat.1/D3 racers that have some serious physical gifts.

They train full time and race a ton. However, the top European pros that train full time and race a ton do so at an entirely different level. This is where talent comes in. 

Anyone can have the time to train 30-40 hours a week but first of all, not everyone can actually do that without falling apart and secondly, a lot of talented guys can do that time but not at the same level as the best guys. Lance doesn't put in more time than Mayo. The big difference is that Lance puts in the time at a higher level. Iban can try to put in the same program but his body can't handle it. It will break down. This is the physical ability to do the work repeatedly.

I'll give you an example: 

Racer A (real person, shall remain nameless): Vo2mx of 82 ml2/kg, resting hr of 31, lung capacity of 140% height weight and age index. Only drawback is a hematocrit of 38%. Puts in over 21,000 miles a year. Puts out 355w for an hour and has an abnormally high max power. Wins lots of races in this hemisphere and a race in Europe as an elite amateur. National champion, top tens in international elite championship competition. Races against some big names and gets nothing better than really mediocre results. 

Racer B (real person, shall remain nameless). Almost identical physical characteristics except slightly higher hematocrit. Puts in about 16,000 miles a year but at a very, very high level. Every workout is structured around power output and they are hard. Racer A can maybe do 2 of B's workouts in a week before falling apart at the seams, despite being used to higher mileage. Racer B only puts out 1350w as max power but can sustain substantially higher wattage.Racer B is an hour record holder, yellow jersey wearer in the tour, Olympic gold medallist, world champion as both amateur and pro. 

The difference is that racer B has the natural talent to absorb some serious work. Compared to a local cat 3 racer, racer A is physically gifted too but it goes beyond the obvious measurements. 

Think of the ability to absorb work as a cup. The typical local cyclist has a pretty small cup, like an 8 -12 oz cup. Racer A has a 20 oz cup, Racer B has a 32 oz cup. while all of the cups can be put under the same running faucet, the difference is that the cups for the first two cyclists start running over well before Racer B's is full and all that water is lost. It cannot be held or utilized. That's kind of what training is: Racer B can take so much more in a given time than Racer A and even if Racer A tries to do it all, his cup will be unable to hold it all and at the very least he will not progress but possibly it will set him back, rather than put him forward. 

So you can take all the time you want to train as a pro but the odds are that you won't have the talent to absorb the work and get the improvement necessary to get the necessary fitness.


----------



## pg212 (Feb 15, 2004)

*About 4 years ago...*

I took a year off from school and did nothing but focus on my running. I know, its not cycling, but I think it answers the question.

I had been a good, though never great distance runner in highschool and college. During medical school I took a year off but was still able to get financial aid (suckers!). During that time I dedicated my entire life to seeing how fast I could go. I ran 70-100 miles a week, builiding a huge base, followed by hillwork, followed by speedwork in a systematic, science based program. Because I was in medschool I read exercise physiology books constantly and applied the latest science to my training. I ate only to enhance my racing. I spent 4 or five hours a day in a combination of running, weights, stretching, visualization, reviewing heatrate data,etc. I am obsessive as is, but man I really really got into it. My whole point was for once in my life to see if I totally trained how fast I would go when I was at a peak age.

You know what happened? I got a lot faster, I placed consistently in the top 5% of races. You know what else happened? I consistently got my ass kicked by pro runners who trained less than I did, ate whatever, and drank more beer. It was a great year of my life, but I realized once you reach a certain level, you won't go any faster. Pro's are pros because they are genetic freaks AND train like maniacs. Training like a maniac won't change your genetic disposition. You may reach your potential but unless you are a person who wins without doing much training (as most pro's do when starting out) then you may be a cat 3, cat 2 rider or a cat 1. But for 99% its not hours, its genetics. 

My year I raced I got good, but I was never great. I had no other limits, no other focus, nothing. But at least I know what I can do at my best and I am damn glad I did it. But I can guarantee you in the end its not hours training, its genetics plus some unknown amount of time training.


----------



## tupper (Apr 23, 2004)

*Which race?*



ttug said:


> I think this post is the best in this entire thread as to the issue of, gosh, if I train real hard......
> 
> A little example.Clarendon Cup, got to ride with the B team. So, there I am at 27mph with my buds who are really really strong CAT3 folks and really, better than I am. Lets be honest folks, my heart feels like its going to squirt out of from behind my ribs and dance on the road. BUT, I hang in there. Then at the front, whats going on?: CSC B riders having a a cell phone conversation about whats on TV and dinner later. Christ, I thought he was going to go get a hand job in the parking lot and come back later. Not even breathing hard. Then the cell phones get turned off and a casual, lets pick up the pace folks as we watch them ride away with little effort if any at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## turdburgle (Oct 2, 2004)

elviento said:


> I don't know if you remember when you first started school. Most boys play some sports, some of us just excel and others just aren't that good no matter how hard we try (yours truly being the latter).
> 
> Same thing with school work. Some people get admissions from most of the Ivy League schools with very little effort.
> 
> Talent is probably more important than training (assuming no doping).


The problem with your argument is that your fail to take into account that it takes years to mature into a capable endurance athlete. No one is anywhere near their genetic potential when the first hop on a bike. You have to cultivate it. It's a long process...

I don't believe just anyone can be a euro pro. However, I would agree that the average person could at least achieve cat 2 given all the necessary time, coaching, equipment, etc...


----------



## turdburgle (Oct 2, 2004)

lonefrontranger said:


> Agree on all the variables. The politics alone can be positively hellish. Even making the jump from Cat 1 to D3 is difficult, and merely applying for a pro licence is not a very straightforward affair according to what I've heard; I don't pay much attention because women don't have a pro licence option anyway, the most we could aspire to is Cat 1, though believe me, within that realm there are many, many "layers" of Cat 1. I understand that for the boys it's kind of a chicken-and-egg hassle, cos you have to have a team designation to a D3 or greater squad for your application to be approved. For Bocephus' sake here are some quick definitions:
> 
> D3: Division 3: Jelly Belly, Health Net, Jittery Joe's and countless Euro "development" squads. These guys pretty much labour in the trenches of anonymity on the grand scheme of things, but you'll see them referred to in rider diaries and coverage of the lower level events. Most of the U.S. pros racing the NRC are on D3 squads.
> 
> ...


I interpreted the original postes suggestion as anyone could attain D3 pro status. And I believe that the average schmoe given unlimited time, etc, could at least attain cat 2 or cat 1. And the above average schmoe could definately attain D3 given unlimited time, etc...


----------



## The Human G-Nome (Aug 26, 2002)

turdburgle said:


> I interpreted the original postes suggestion as anyone could attain D3 pro status. And I believe that the average schmoe given unlimited time, etc, could at least attain cat 2 or cat 1. And the above average schmoe could definately attain D3 given unlimited time, etc...


Of course, you base this on nothing scientific, but rather, some "funny feeling" you have that it must be true. 

I bet that if they played the NBA championship series on the moon last year that the Lakers would have taken Detroit in 5 games easy.


----------



## hrv (Dec 9, 2001)

*Excellent post!*

Thanks for the great insight. Plus, you've really brightened my day seeing someone rise to such a high level (racer A) with such a low hematocrit. Mine is like his or lower. Sure there are many, many more variables that go into racing success but at least it sounds like I can't use it as an excuse for holding me back at the cat 4 or maybe 3 level.

Thanks again,
hrv


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

hrv said:


> Thanks for the great insight. Plus, you've really brightened my day seeing someone rise to such a high level (racer A) with such a low hematocrit. Mine is like his or lower. Sure there are many, many more variables that go into racing success but at least it sounds like I can't use it as an excuse for holding me back at the cat 4 or maybe 3 level.
> 
> Thanks again,
> hrv



Obviously a little EPO would go a long way for Racer A but he never took anything illegal and accepted his lot. BTW, Racer B is not better because of the slightly higher hematocrit. There's just something else that he has that allows him to absorb the really hard work. It's that difference in talent.


----------



## andrello (Oct 6, 2004)

Hey filly,

Now do you understand why the world is filled with hacks and mediocres?

One might think nearly everyone here has Ph.D.s in genetics and physiology. What many people here seem to ascribe to is genetic predeterminism which is bunk.

A large portion of "sports science" is psuedoscience - opinions and quotes based on limited and flawed studies. Remember when they used to say neurons do not grow in adulthood, e.g., one cannot grow new brain cells? This was such common knowledge. It was also false. Remember when it was "known" that muscle tissue only grows is size (hypertrophy) not quantity (hyperplasia)? This is also false. Remember when nobody (and then only "super-humans") could run a 4 minute mile? After the barrier was broken high school kids started doing it.

Presently there exists a false dichotomy between "fast-twitch" and "slow-twitch" when there is actually a whole spectrum of muscle fibres in between.

The bottom line is that a human being is so complex (and very poorly understood regardless of what people like to say) there is no way to know someone's capabilities in advance.

Here's my favorite reply in this thread:


russw19 said:


> the one MOST OVERLOOKED FACTOR is the ability to SUFFER!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

"A large portion of "sports science" is psuedoscience - opinions and quotes based on limited and flawed studies. Remember when they used to say neurons do not grow in adulthood, e.g., one cannot grow new brain cells? This was such common knowledge. It was also false. Remember when it was "known" that muscle tissue only grows is size (hypertrophy) not quantity (hyperplasia)? This is also false. Remember when nobody (and then only "super-humans") could run a 4 minute mile? After the barrier was broken high school kids started doing it."

Really! How did you come about this knowledge that the pseudoscientists couldn't uncover? What's the evidence that hyperplasia occurs in normal adult human muscle?

"Presently there exists a false dichotomy between "fast-twitch" and "slow-twitch" when there is actually a whole spectrum of muscle fibres in between."

False in the lay public's eyes, most physiologists have a pretty good grasp on muscle fibre type but it gets greatly simplified in public discussions because it's somewhat complicated. In short, there are multiple techniques to determine fibre type, and therefore multiple systems of classification. For most intents and purposes, in adult limb muscles there are 3 fibre types (I, IIA and IIB or x) as determined by the different isoforms of the myosin heavy chain protein. This protein also largely determines the contraction speed of the muscle due to the rate at which it can consume ATP. 

"The bottom line is that a human being is so complex (and very poorly understood regardless of what people like to say) there is no way to know someone's capabilities in advance."

Who's arguing you can know anything in advance? That's completely different than saying that one's ultimate ability at something is limited by talent. Hard work, luck, timing are exceedingly important factors in anything but so are the uncontrollables such as genetics and development. You can influence the former, you can't do much about the latter so naturally, ultimately it's the latter that will constrain your ability level.


----------



## andrello (Oct 6, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> What's the evidence that hyperplasia occurs in normal adult human muscle?


Here's a place to start:
http://www.google.com/search?q=hyperplasia+in+human+muscle
You'll find plenty of links to journal articles if you look at what's going on in physiology (which is real science and not psuedoscience, by the way) instead of presuming you know everything and when something doesn't agree with your understanding that it must be wrong.




Dwayne Barry said:


> Who's arguing you can know anything in advance?


A large number of posts in this thread. Did you read it?





Dwayne Barry said:


> That's completely different than saying that one's ultimate ability at something is limited by talent. Hard work, luck, timing are exceedingly important factors in anything but so are the uncontrollables such as genetics and development. You can influence the former, you can't do much about the latter so naturally, ultimately it's the latter that will constrain your ability level.


Yes, but you have no idea how much. Of course people have genetic advantages over others, but it's idle speculation to indulge in hypotheticals about how important they are. There are at least a dozen other factors that are equally important and all work together nonlinearly, randomly and ultimately unpredictably throughout one's life. Anyway, one has no way of knowing who has the "genetic gifts". Even if you had everyone's genetic profile you wouldn't even know which genes are responsible for which talent. To say someone is genetically gifted because they're a superior athelete is a circular argument.

The point is that to defer to mysterious innate and immutable talent is to trivialize the inconceivable amount of effort and suffering that great atheletes endure.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*a different view AGAIN*



andrello said:


> Here's a place to start:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=hyperplasia+in+human+muscle
> You'll find plenty of links to journal articles if you look at what's going on in physiology (which is real science and not psuedoscience, by the way) instead of presuming you know everything and when something doesn't agree with your understanding that it must be wrong.
> 
> ...


Unless your a Doctor, physician, lab rat or for that matter have the ability to distinguish between an actual science journal and what a reprint of Newsweek says about human physiology, odds are your opinion is no better or worse than what you are reading here.

Some, not all have several years experience in strength based sports and have started cycling as a new ineterest and guess what? Their opinion on cycling is no more or less valid than your as well. The exception to this is, they have a bit more reality based experience than a desire and alot of bad science in a magazine.

Its not cruel to be honest and have an opoinion, sp to be clear, if you are in your 20's and wondering if you have it, go home, you do not.

If you are in your 30's, its delusional at best to even ask. Its the I can be the next Lance crowd that tends to drain the fun, (you remember fun right?) out of this wonderful sport.Why does anyone care enough to have to be the best when in reality, most of us here are not and last I checked, nobody seems too overwhelmed by that.

Talent ad genetics are real. Odds are, you havent been awed yet or had the courage to get your a55 handed to you by a rider with superior skills who tells you point blank, wow, I wish I could ride like a pro, but I dont have the talent. Its humbling and needed.  

Ride well and enjoy what you have as opoposed to making yourself and others miserable by the cold hard fact that hey, nature does not give everyone the full deal.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

*I think we got off on the wrong foot...*

and there are some misunderstandings.

FWIW, I have a PhD and I am essentially a muscle physiologist. Don't bother with google, go to the sources via PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

As far as hyperplasia occuring or not in human adult muscle, it needs to be placed in the proper context. Yes, it probably can occur, for instance to generate new cells after cell death. However, when people talk about hyperplasia happening or not, it usually is in the context of muscle enlargement due to training. I think, in this context, most physiologists would say it doesn't occur as a regular, normal adaptation. Rather, the existing muscle cells add contractile proteins and get bigger, there are probably 100s of studies showing this. You would expect to see small, presumably new cells if hyperplasia was occuring and you typically do not. Now maybe it's a limitation of the available techniques but I doubt it. I think it can safely be said, that normal muscle hypertrophy occurs predominently by enlargement of the existing cells, and even if hyperplasia is happening (and it is simply very hard to detect), it's contribution is relatively small if not negligible.

And I really don't think it trivializes the hard work that someone has done to achieve a high level of performance in any endurance sport by saying that a large proportion of their ability comes down to genetics. They still need to work as hard (or smarter) than all the other folks with good genes.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

RockyMountainRacer said:


> Wow, I just read the whole thread.
> 
> Very interesting that most of the people who are touting the "not much difference except training time between ME and the pros" are the ones that clearly have little to no actual racing experience.
> 
> ...



LOL! Nice work on the edit.

FWIW, I wish that everyone had the time to put into training full time. That way each person could see for himself/herself that access to unlimited training time is such a small component in making it to the pro level. I have a friend who quit school to race full time, figuring that it would take 2 years to break into the D3 ranks. He was a talented Cat. 3 when started and after two seasons, he's a mid pack cat. 2. Even though he wants to do 800kmto 1200 km weeks, his body can't handle it. I would estimate that he does about half the workload of the top u-23 riders. And this guy has desire, work ethic, ability to suffer, etc. It's just one of those things.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

I think this thread has had a good run, but it is time to say goodnight gracie.


----------

