# Biggest difference between 'amateur' and 'pro' racers?



## nyvram (Apr 11, 2002)

obviously pros have more more money for testing, equipment, training, maximizing aerodynamics, etc. and the athletes clearly have more time to train properly.

however it seems to me that the amateur racers on here take things nearly as seriously. ..and i mean that in a good way. are all sports like this? i really enjoy the discussions on here whether its endlessly debating the material you use for your inner tube or the never-ending discussions about eating (ok my fault on that) or tips on becoming a better rider.

i admit i had to drop a pretty penny this weekend on fixing my broken race bike (i just bit the bullet and had the LBS upgrade my 10 year old ultegra group) and i didn't mind doing it..while a bit pricey its nothing like what you'd spend on auto racing or some other sports that are out-of-reach of regular people. this is one of the few sports out there we as average mortals get to enjoy almost as much as the real pros.

it feels great to be a part of this community and to learn and hopefully do things properly. i'll try not to be so annoying in the future.  

god i'm rambling again..time for my meds...


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

I think you will find this in many amateur sports: 

Golf...How much goes into amateur swing analysis, greens fees, clubs, travel to courses, tournaments, etc.

Softball: Not to the same extent, but there is a large amount spent on bats and beer.

Running: Those guys are as anal about their training as cyclists and spend a fair amount on shoes and race/event fees.

Triathletes: Hitting your pocketbook in three areas, none of which are inexpensive.

Pick a hobby/sport and you can see your wallet shrink...QUICKLY!!! 

As for the performance differences between amateurs and professionals...There is a definite genetic difference. Those guys could train 5 hours a week and still throttle me in a race (especially uphill, but I might get some of them in a sprint)...while I spend 12-14 hours a week on a bike and still get my butt kicked by other amateur racers.

Without the correct genetics you will not be a top level pro...regardless of how much you train or want to be at the top level. You might be able to become a low level domestic pro if you do everything right, but don't have the genetics...but to get the the top levels, without the right genetics, forget it!

Time to train is huge, as is training properly...of which having full time coaches, others to train with of similar ability and all the other perks pro's get helps a lot.

Having professional doctors to "Monitor" your training also helps  but that's for another forum  

Of course being 138 pounds with an FTP of 400 watts never hurts either when it comes to being a pro


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

They have it all. The training plans, the coaches, the motivation, the natural/genetic ability, youth, etc. 

Sure, amateurs are missing 1 or more of those things above. Heck, I think even _if_ I had the time to devote all to training (which I don't and never will), I started WAY too late to even contemplate the professional level. 

That being said, the amateur/working class competition level still gives it their all. Our abilities and focus may vary, but I think a common trait might be that we're the type who give it all or nothing.


----------



## nyvram (Apr 11, 2002)

i agree. i spent a year just trying to get the point where i wouldn't embarrass myself in a race. i worked my tail off last year by myself on the bike with the goal to do a couple of races this year and my stretch goal was to have a single top-10 finish in *any* type of race. i may or may not make that goal but if i do i'm already putting the next ones in place.

i like the group rides on the weekends..but those will NEVER give me the same feeling i get from doing races. i forgot how much i love it..even if i'm bad at it.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

nyvram said:


> obviously pros have more more money for testing, equipment, training, maximizing aerodynamics, etc.


That's far from obvious.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Actually, the budget pro teams is not all equal. The Pro Tour teams generally have a pretty good budget and can splurge on all sorts of testing, but the domestic pro teams don't always have that sort of luxury.


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

I think a large part of becoming into a pro rider is also the culture/system of identifying and developing riders at a young age. 

One excellent example is the country of Colombia. A tiny, tumultuous, and relatively poor country of only 40 million people developed an amazing amount of pro riders: Victor Hugo Pena, Santiago Botero, Mauricio Soler, Ivan Parra, Cesar Grajales, George Hincapie (Colombian-American), Alvaro Mejia, Lucho Herrera, etc. 

And I think it's because Colombia really values cycling as a activity and a sport, and has a system that filters and identifies those with an exceptional motor at a young age. Plus there is not many competing sports: it's either soccer or cycling. 

In the US, probably some of our most potentially talented youth cyclist are playing video games and eating Doritos; or getting into the multitude of other sports available to them.


----------



## DMH1721 (Aug 30, 2010)

If you are talking about performance . . . 

The main difference is not the power levels pros can reach, but the time they can spend there. For example, let's say my max sustained effort for 5 minutes is 350 watts, a pro might be able to maintain that for 10+ minutes. 

Also, most have been riding since before puberty. I have no empirical data to support this, but having raced and ridden with lots of cat1s/pros, the ones who trained while their bodies where changing and developing have just a "little extra" - of course there are exceptions . . . but that's my general impression. Those who road/trained through that period of body development also seem to be very good "off the coach." Meaning, they can do nothing for months on end and still kick ass . . . I just think their muscles developed in a certain way as they matured . . .


----------



## dot (Mar 4, 2004)

Pros are paid. Amateurs pay.


----------



## dot (Mar 4, 2004)

Poncharelli said:


> I think a large part of becoming into a pro rider is also the culture/system of identifying and developing riders at a young age.
> 
> One excellent example is the country of Colombia. A tiny, tumultuous, and relatively poor country of only 40 million people developed an amazing amount of pro riders: Victor Hugo Pena, Santiago Botero, Mauricio Soler, Ivan Parra, Cesar Grajales, George Hincapie (Colombian-American), Alvaro Mejia, Lucho Herrera, etc.
> 
> ...



This is quite an interesting example. Yesterday I counted how many pro cyclists from the USA and from former soviet republics are in ProTour teams. 

Breakdown by nation is like this:

USA - 26 riders

Russia - 19
Kazakhstan - 13
Ukraine - 10
Latvia and Lithuania, Moldova and Uzbekistan - 5

total: 47

That is the USSR provides more riders than the USA. All the former soviet republics including Russia are poor more or less and cycling culture merely does not exist anywhere.


----------



## Sonomasnap (Feb 10, 2010)

DMH1721 said:


> If you are talking about performance . . .
> 
> The main difference is not the power levels pros can reach, but the time they can spend there. For example, let's say my max sustained effort for 5 minutes is 350 watts, a pro might be able to maintain that for 10+ minutes.


Correction. More like 2 hours.

The difference between pro's and most amateurs is like the difference between a gold fish and a marlin.


----------



## DMH1721 (Aug 30, 2010)

My example wasn't an actual example, just a way to explain what I meant


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

DMH1721 said:


> If you are talking about performance . . .
> 
> The main difference is not the power levels pros can reach, but the time they can spend there. For example, let's say my max sustained effort for 5 minutes is 350 watts, a pro might be able to maintain that for 10+ minutes.


During last years Tour de France they were posting Chris Horner's power numbers on a local papers website.

When you look at his sprint power numbers, they were not all that impressive...though he's a climber and not a sprinter so that's not a huge deal. His largest 5 second max was 1029 watts...though for somebody that's 140 pounds that's not bad.

With that said...I know CAT 3 & 4's that can put out that kind of wattage for 5 seconds and bigger guys like myself that can put out a whole lot more (I'm in the 1400+ watt range for 5 seconds...but I'm 192 pounds).

The big difference was his 20 minute numbers (they only reported average, 5 second and 20 minute numbers).

For 20 minutes his best number was *389 watts for 20 minutes on stage 16 of the 2010 TDF.* That's after 16 days of racing and at the end of a 5 hour climbing stage. An amateur would be on the side of the road crying in pain if he tried to replicate that effort after 16 days of "Very Hard" racing. Again remember that he only weighs 140 pounds (63.63 kilos) which equates to 6.11 w/kg for that time period.

I'm guessing his FTP is pretty close to that 390 watt range.

This is for a top 10 TDF finisher, the top 3 guys are putting out a fair amount more power at the same weight as Chris Horner.

So it's not that they put out the same power longer...it's that they put out *"MORE"* power for *"LONGER"*!

His is a link to his Power Numbers that were posted.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

*Pros are the best..amateurs are less..*

All the way along, the ranks of riders are pared-away...

We all start as beginners then some of us 'normals' even work up to a group ride. A huge % never make that. Some go on and ride a Century ride, or two...a huge % never do. Some try a real race..most never.

Some race a couple of seasons and learn to 'finish with the bunch", most don't make it that far. An even smaller percentage of cyclists might even win an amateur race...or finish in contention...sometimes.

All along this 'process of elimination', as people reach their maximum potential and other's begin to consistently leave them behind, cycling...they have no choice other than..."keep on riding at that level" or perhaps do something else.

Out of this "elite group' a tiny percentage of the numbers we started with, people who ride bikes....a few will become full time racers, first at the domestic level. Only a tiny percentage of these will find they have what it takes to get to the "big time"

So we begin with 7 billion people and pare it down to what....maybe a few thousand very elite world class pros and full time bike racers? It takes a very different human to overcome odds like that...to reach the pro level in cycling.

Odds like one in seven billion that YOU might have what it takes to become a winner of the TDF...


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

dot said:


> That is the USSR provides more riders than the USA. All the former soviet republics including Russia are poor more or less and cycling culture merely does not exist anywhere.


I wonder how much the soviet countries still practices its communistic ways of identifying and developing athletes. I would doubt the sport culture in this regard is much different than it used to be. 

The US has really come a long way in the last 10 years (the "Lance catalyst"). In a big local Utah MTB race just a month ago, the Pro class had a 17 and 16 year old in the top 6 (out of 23 racers). Pretty amazing


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

As said above, the biggest difference between a Pro rider and an Amateur is how fast they go. That is the only real difference. After that it comes down to individuals and how they handle the sport. 

I know Pro riders that are super fast but take the sport very lightly. They love racing their bike and winning is not the end all be all of their existence. If they lose a race they can brush it off and go on with their lives no problem. At the same time I know life time Cat 4 racers that take winning the local town line sprint more seriously than they do their children's well being  

I know Pro riders that are pansies when it comes to pushing themselves (this is not common though), but their level of comfort would blow any amateur rider out of the water. I know Amateurs that can push themselves to the point of passing out or throwing up all over themselves but all they can push is 230 watts. 

Those are just some examples. It changes drastically from person to person. I have struggled at times to push myself to my absolute limit, but I am learning. Some guys never learn to do it, where others never stop doing it no matter what they do in life.


----------



## dot (Mar 4, 2004)

Poncharelli said:


> I wonder how much the soviet countries still practices its communistic ways of identifying and developing athletes. I would doubt the sport culture in this regard is much different than it used to be.


the system keeps crumbling but somehow works. for many in depressive regions it's the only way up. But this way needs lots of money from the state to keep it running and sieving through lots of kids and it contributes nothing to a subculture, no matter what it is, cycling of xc skiing. The largest part of those who fail to produce decent results leave their sport forever.

I'm not talking about fashionable sports like football, hockey and tennis. These are commercial and booming! Kids in poor cities might still ride road bikes made in eighties and designed in sixties.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> During last years Tour de France they were posting Chris Horner's power numbers on a local papers website.
> 
> When you look at his sprint power numbers, they were not all that impressive...though he's a climber and not a sprinter so that's not a huge deal. His largest 5 second max was 1029 watts...though for somebody that's 140 pounds that's not bad.
> 
> ...


Nibali's power data from the penultimate stage of the Vuelta:

http://www.srm.de/index.php/gb/srm-...vuelta-espana-2010-bergankunft-bola-del-mundo

He does ~350 watts for nearly an hour. At the end of a 4 hour day. After three weeks of racing. At 138 lbs.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Wookiebiker said:


> So it's not that they put out the same power longer...it's that they put out *"MORE"* power for *"LONGER"*!


It seems your own data contradicts this. You can put out 1400+W well over Horner's 389 or Nibali's puny 350W. It really is that pro's put out the same power (or less*) but for much longer.

Chris Boardman has admitted he never broke 1000W in training or racing.


----------



## eddya (Aug 7, 2009)

Gnarly 928 said:


> Odds like one in seven billion that YOU might have what it takes to become a winner of the TDF...


This is very misleading, and would only be true if every one of these seven billion people rode bikes competitively. The vast majority don't. You need to look at the total number of people riding bikes competitively, and then compare it to the ones who make it as pros. The odds are now a lot higher. Still low, but definitely not one in X billion.


----------



## Zipp0 (Aug 19, 2008)

Genetics plays very little part in the equation, actually. The most important factors are time and deliberate practice. Most studies say 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is what is generally needed to reach the highest levels of a sport or other endeavor. Do that math - 10 years, 1000 hours a year. Start at 16 years old, put in 1000 hours every year of focused, directed effort, and by 26 you will probably be at the top, or near it.

I started deliberate practice a few years ago and put in maybe 350 hours a year, and my results speak for themselves.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

asgelle said:


> It seems your own data contradicts this. You can put out 1400+W well over Horner's 389 or Nibali's puny 350W. It really is that pro's put out the same power (or less*) but for much longer.
> 
> Chris Boardman has admitted he never broke 1000W in training or racing.


*If I could put out 1400+ watts for an hour...I wouldn't be here on these forums typing away...I'd be making "MILLIONS" riding a bike.*

That's 1400+ watts for 5 seconds...which all of the sprinters can do, but they weigh 30+ pounds less than I do and have every bit as high or higher FTP than I do.

Horner and Nibali are putting out that power for 20 minutes to 1 hour and weigh 55-60 pounds "LESS" than I do. So they are putting out MORE power than the average person, even larger riders and similar amounts of power to upper level racers...for LONGER periods of time.

Also remember that Horner was just a top 10 finisher. Contador has an FTP somewhere in the 420-440 watt range, well above what I can even fathom for an hour...even for 20 minutes (I'm not sure I really want to know what Cancellara puts out for an hour). His FTP is what my 5 minute VO2 max is...and I put out a lot of power for an amateur racer (I just weigh more than most also :cryin: ) and weigh 55 pounds more than Contador.

So yes...They do put out "MORE" power for "LONGER" periods of time than amateurs.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Zipp0 said:


> Genetics plays very little part in the equation, actually. The most important factors are time and deliberate practice. Most studies say 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is what is generally needed to reach the highest levels of a sport or other endeavor. Do that math - 10 years, 1000 hours a year. Start at 16 years old, put in 1000 hours every year of focused, directed effort, and by 26 you will probably be at the top, or near it.
> 
> I started deliberate practice a few years ago and put in maybe 350 hours a year, and my results speak for themselves.


I agree with the statement that you need a huge amount of time doing focuses work to get to the top, but I completely disagree with your assertion that genetics plays a small role. Sure, at the top level of sport guys with slightly different talent levels will all succeed in different ways (efficiency, mental strength, luck, balls) but simply to reach that top level of the sport requires extremely special genetics, let alone do well. 

Take a look around at some of the Vo2, Functional Threshold and Max Aerobic Power numbers of top level cyclists (and even other sports, like running).There are few to no examples of world class endurance athletes having a Vo2 of less than 67 or 68. Most top level athletes have Vo2 numbers above 75 mL/Kilo/Minute, and even more have Vo2s in the low to mid 80's or above. 

A high Vo2 is not the end all be all of endurance sports. But it does require a high level to get to the point where other factors will come into play. A Cat 5 with a Vo2 of 50-55 is not going to become a pro without extreme artificial help


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Zipp0 said:


> Genetics plays very little part in the equation, actually. The most important factors are time and deliberate practice. Most studies say 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is what is generally needed to reach the highest levels of a sport or other endeavor. Do that math - 10 years, 1000 hours a year. Start at 16 years old, put in 1000 hours every year of focused, directed effort, and by 26 you will probably be at the top, or near it.
> 
> I started deliberate practice a few years ago and put in maybe 350 hours a year, and my results speak for themselves.


I'd disagree with that...For several reasons:

1. If it were that easy, everybody that aspires to be a pro...would be a pro. This isn't the case and it does take the right genetics to get to that level.

2. There are reasons why athletes move in one direction or another as they progress. Genetics dictate what they are better at and that's what separates one person from being a great football player and one from being a great cyclist. I'm not saying that some of them couldn't cross over with the proper work and time, but most couldn't. 

3. It wouldn't have mattered if I started at 14 years of age...my genetics would have prevented me from ever becoming more than a domestique on a local domestic pro squad even if I followed what you are quoting. Why? Even with minimal body fat...I wouldn't weigh under 175-180 pounds and I could never put out enough power to overcome the weight penalty I would suffer.

If you were just talking about a "SKILL" I would agree with you...however, sports are skills + genetics and that equation doesn't work.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Zipp0 said:


> Genetics plays very little part in the equation, actually. The most important factors are time and deliberate practice. Most studies say 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is what is generally needed to reach the highest levels of a sport or other endeavor. Do that math - 10 years, 1000 hours a year. Start at 16 years old, put in 1000 hours every year of focused, directed effort, and by 26 you will probably be at the top, or near it.
> 
> I started deliberate practice a few years ago and put in maybe 350 hours a year, and my results speak for themselves.


Wow do I hate malcolm gladwell...


----------



## the_gormandizer (May 12, 2006)

Take a look at these climbs by local pro Jamie Driscoll in the Green Mountain Stage Race:
Appalachian Gap
http://app.strava.com/segments/295
Baby Gap
http://app.strava.com/segments/407

On Baby Gap, he averaged "only" 364W for 13 mins. He must have been saving himself for
App Gap, where he averaged 405W for 13 mins

Even the really good amateurs (some Cat 1's) on Strava averaged more than 100W less.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Sure, genetics plays a role, but there are so many components and other ifs. Even if I started training when I was younger, I wouldn't have had the luxury to build to the required amount of time to become a pro. Based on that alone, I was more or less sunk. I also started too late. Good genes or not, I've already hit that particular roadblock. 

That being said, I'm still going to train with with work and life events allow. I'll probably have a kid or two in the upcoming years, so I guestimate I'll be Cat 3-ish at best, maybe Cat 2 if I lived in an area where the races finished in the nasty climbs I like.


----------



## climbinthebigring (Mar 13, 2011)

Anybody hear Phil comment on the fact that the pros were 3 HOURS faster than the fastest amateur that rode the tour of Flanders the day before. 

I would say that about three hours is the difference.


----------



## WEG (Nov 6, 2005)

Lets not forget that many pros and elite amateurs are also using performance enhancing drugs

So genetics, time training and pharmacology all contribute

Chris Horner is currently on a team that is widely regarded to have a strong culture of doping


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

WEG said:


> Lets not forget that many pros and elite amateurs are also using performance enhancing drugs
> 
> So genetics, time training and pharmacology all contribute
> 
> Chris Horner is currently on a team that is widely regarded to have a strong culture of doping


Oh great, now Dr. Falsetti will get his meat hooks in this thread.


----------



## nyvram (Apr 11, 2002)

yeah i'm always going to be a hack..single dad with 2 kids..but i sneak out when i can..early mornings on weekends when they sleep in (my oldest is 13 so i'm not completely irresponsible lol) and something like TCTP is about the best i can do to maximize what time i have.

doesnt matter..i had forgotten how much i love racing..even if i dont hit my goal of top 10 this season, i'm already happy with my results one race in. 

i think chris said a tour-caliber pro needs to average 600 watts for 30 minutes in training. that seems pretty high but again in a controlled environment (not 3 weeks out on the road) i suppose its possible


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

I also wonder if cycling now is so structured, that if a person doesn't go through the U23's, there's no chance for consideration.

The U23s may filter the talent and age for potential european pro development.


----------



## dot (Mar 4, 2004)

Poncharelli said:


> I also wonder if cycling now is so structured, that if a person doesn't go through the U23's, there's no chance for consideration.
> 
> The U23s may filter the talent and age for potential european pro development.


A funny thing about the soviet system was that racers of age 27-30 was considered old and usually were forced out of sport until Ekimov won the olympics at thirty-something.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the difference between a good amateur and a top pro is about 1 watt/kg. No rider will average 600 watts for 30 minutes. Cancellara, who is currently riding pros off his wheel, averages 6 watts/kg at threshold. Since he weighs 80 kgs that's 480 watts. Sometimes the magical figure of 7 watts/kg is touted - but that benchmark is due to Dr Ferrari and we all now know how he obtains that number. Estimates of Merckx's power during his hour record is roughly 6.4 watts/kg, about the same level Boardman had (and higher than Indurain and most others).


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/michael-morkovs-srm-data-from-tirreno-adriatico-ttt


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

spade2you said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/michael-morkovs-srm-data-from-tirreno-adriatico-ttt


597 watts for 40 seconds at the END! Ouch!!


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

kbiker3111 said:


> Wow do I hate malcolm gladwell...


Thanks for the comment. 

Wow!! What a great read so far!!

http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Stor...7922/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302745941&sr=8-1

I checked it out from the library though. Very interesting.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2011)

"Pro cyclists put between 20,000-25,000 training and racing miles into their legs per annum".

I don't think many amateurs put that much time in the saddle, but I also don't know how accurate that statement is...

http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com/Peloton/TNT-corner/life-of-a-pro.html


----------

