|Why are cyclists so high on their sport?||PODIUMBOUNDdotCA|
Oct 14, 2002 11:07 AM
|I'll start by saying I'm a cyclist. I love doing it. But I find the stupid mentality of cycling either 1) makes fun of other riders (fred mentality)/disciplines (climber vs. sprinter) or 2) other sports.
Here are some examples:
1) People aren't impressed by Cipo winning Worlds cus he's a sprinter. What the heck? Sure Cipo has yet to finish a Tour... rarely has finished the Giro and didn't finish the Vuelta this year. But due to his discipline in cycling his goal is to get across the line first on flat stages. At 65 km/h which takes a very powerful build that sacrifices a lot of climbing speed and even to a lesser degree some of his endurance. Admittedly Mcewen and Zabel finish the stage races but look at Worlds... Cipo flat out was able to beat them.
2) Then in a post below someone said what climbers do requires far more athletic skill than track runners. Where does this come from? Probably not from experience because track runners do so many technique drills to ensure they have the stride to run even a 10 secs 100 m. Athletic skill has nothing to do with training volume that a cyclist like Lance Armstrong does. Yes someone like Lance Armstrong does exponentially more volume than a 100 m runner but thats because his discipline requires him to do so much more training. A 100 m runner just due to the intensity of his training and lower endurance simply cannot handle a lot more training. I hate to break the news to everyone but when it comes to sports like hockey, soccer and athletics... cycling isn't a sport that demands nearly as much athletic ability. What it requires far more is physical ability (gentic potential). You'll see relatively small guys play in the NHL... but you'll never see a big 6'0 220 lbs guy do the tour.
My 2 cents,
|re: Everything looks easy when somebody else is doing it.||dzrider|
Oct 14, 2002 11:33 AM
|The work done by professional cyclists is transparent to football fans. All they see is a skinny guy riding a bike, and, you know, anybody can ride a bike. Cyclists look at NFL linemen and conclude that they're pros because they weigh 300 lbs (that's pounds not local bike shops) and have no idea of how many 300 pound linemen don't make the NFL or even start for a big time college program. Excellence is never easy. It's attainable by very few athletes in any sport and shouldn't be minimized.|
|As Lance once said||McAndrus|
Oct 14, 2002 12:44 PM
|I saw a TV interview with Lance in his pre-cancer days. The interviewer was questioning the athleticism of cyclists. Or should I say he was questioning the perceived lack of athleticism of cyclists.
Lance's response went something like this: "I wouldn't want to go three rounds with Mike Tyson and Mike wouldn't want to ride 100 miles on a bike with me."
|re: Why are cyclists so high on their sport?||mainframe|
Oct 14, 2002 11:41 AM
|You can say that again. lol. nm||fbg111|
Oct 14, 2002 12:14 PM
|Because bikes are great to ride||Chainstay|
Oct 14, 2002 12:14 PM
|I don't think it's really about the professional racing at all. I don't know anyone that is a bike racing fan that is not a cyclist. We get out on the road and we just talk about the pros because it's something we have in common and because Lance and others are so awesome. At the core of it though, cycling is a participation sport more than it is a spectator sport.
By the way, Did you see how Botero nailed that time trial at the worlds?
|On the Cipo' issue,||TJeanloz|
Oct 15, 2002 6:13 AM
|I don't think people aren't impressed by Mario's win on Sunday. Let's face, it, the man put his money where his mouth was. It is true, however, that the race was practically designed for him. But that's like saying Heras winning the Angrilu is not impressive, because the course was designed for him.
Does winning the world title in a field sprint make Mario more of a complete bike racer? Not really. He's still a one-dimensional sprinter. The world title doesn't change that. And riders with one dimension are rarely considered among the greatest riders- because winning in every way is more important than winning one particular way.
|I beg to differ...||scary slow|
Oct 15, 2002 12:48 PM
|I would have to disagree with you on this one. Yes he is a one dimensional rider, but due to the sheer number of wins he has and he his flamboyance he will be regarded as one of the greats.You could argue that Lance is a one dimensional rider since his focus is soley on winning the tour.|
Oct 15, 2002 1:26 PM
|You could make the arguement that Armstrong is a one dimensional rider- but it would be a tough sell. Armstrong has won: Classics, Tour mountain stages, Tour time trials, has an Olympic medal, and a World Championships jeresy. And four consecutive Tours de France, as well as a 4th place Vuelta finish. Volume of sprint wins won't really buy you greatness- ask Roberto Gaggioli, the self-proclaimed winningest active cyclist.
Cipo' will be remembered as a great sprinter- maybe even the greatest of all time- but his name will never come up in a discussion of cycling's all time greatest.
Oct 16, 2002 12:01 PM
|Arguing that Armstrong is one-dimensional is absolutely ridiculous. He wins time trials and he wins in the mountains.
Heras and Cipo are both one-dimensional, no question about that. Sprint-wins are the quintessence of one-dimensionality and so is losing a tour on the last TT by 3 minutes.