|Is no one good enough?||Tye-N-Solder|
May 8, 2002 2:02 PM
|I am just thinking about how difficult it is to become a professinal cyclist, and wondering just who has the physical ability to do so. I mean, cycling is certainly a difficult sport, but at the same time it seems like it is SO difficult that natural ability isn't as important as desire and dedication. Plus, look at all these middle-aged housewives who go and pick up the back end of their mini-vans when their bratty kid runs himself over. They are certainly not all weightlifters, but use adrenaline and mental control to overcome their physical inabilites. To an extent, isn't the same thing possible with cycling? Does anyone have any evidence supporting either perspective?
|"Want to" is necessary, but not enough.||retro|
May 8, 2002 3:32 PM
|I've been around professional and top amateur athletes (though not cyclists) quite a bit, and I think you have to have a combination, with "natural" ability probably on top.
I put natural in quotes because the ability is almost always developed through years of coaching and effort. There may be a few exceptions (some running backs in football, and many runners, seem almost born with the ability). Once they reach that point, though, many pro ballplayers do very well at less than full effort. Hustle or drive or ambition or whatever you call it can make a marginal player better, even help an average one make a team. But I can guarantee you that no matter how hard I worked, I could never have won the Tour de France or run a 2:15 marathon or played in the Rams' defensive line.
|He who knocks Vox shall have a pox...||Me Dot Org|
May 8, 2002 6:52 PM
|It is a combination of great physical ability and great mental attitude. Indurain and Armstrong have great competitive drive, but also incredible physiology.
My gut feeling is that 95% of cyclists are in the top 1% of the heart rate/vox category. Some will get in on competitive fire and savvy, but at the very top you have to have both.