|Cycle Sport vs. Pro Cycling?||yzfrr11|
Jan 12, 2003 6:46 PM
|Which mag should I subscribe to? I can't decide. I think they are both excellent! Which do you prefer? Why?
|re: Cycle Sport vs. Pro Cycling?||Akirasho|
Jan 12, 2003 6:55 PM
|... they're both quite similar... couldn't decide either... subscribe to both... end of story.
Be the bike.
|re: Cycle Sport vs. Pro Cycling?||I_See_Fred_People|
Jan 12, 2003 6:56 PM
|I subscribe to Cycle Sport. Am thinking of subscribing to ProCycling, because I end up buying it every month anyway at $7 a pop.
If I had to pick 1 or the other, I would go with Cycle Sport. Great magazine.
|re: Cycle Sport vs. Pro Cycling?||thisendup|
Jan 12, 2003 8:43 PM
|Both. They are both excellent mags. Cycle Sport had a little more human interest stuff than procycling if you like that.|
|Pro Cycling||I Love Shimano|
Jan 12, 2003 8:45 PM
|Procycling;s articles are more interestign and well written. The bike tests are great too..however, I hear Wust is doing a bad job. Robert Millar used to do the tests and ther were pretty good. cycle sport also has good articles...not as good as procycling..but better pictures.|
|re: Cycle Sport vs. Pro Cycling?||Trent in WA|
Jan 12, 2003 9:26 PM
|ProCycling has irritating scandal-sheet tendencies. I vote for Cycle Sport.|
|re: Cycle Sport vs. Pro Cycling?||Spunout|
Jan 13, 2003 5:06 AM
|Cycle sport. But here in Canada, it is cheaper to buy it $10 Cdn monthly than subscribe for two years. Not much of a deal at all. Graham Watson's two-page spreads are to die for.|
|Question--How fast does each arrive?||ms|
Jan 13, 2003 6:04 AM
|I do not subscribe to either magazine. However, I will buy either if it is on the rack at Borders or Barnes & Noble. The copies in the bookstores often are not available until late in the month printed on the cover. How far in advance of the time the mags become available at the bookstores do subscription copies arrive?|
Jan 13, 2003 12:14 PM
|ALL THE WAY......Pro Cyling doesnt have the depth and Cycle sport has better photos/stories...besides the whole Lemon award last year was stupid by Pro Cycling|
|a week before issue month- from uk to far east.. nm||battaglin|
Jan 13, 2003 5:15 PM
|re: Cycle Sport vs. Pro Cycling?||cw05|
Jan 13, 2003 12:17 PM
|CycleSport. Both are good but I agree with the guy who said ProCycling has more scandal-type articles that I don't care to read. Also, Graham Watson's photo's in cyclesport are awesome + what better editor for a cycling magazine than Phil Liggett?|
|re: Cycle Sport vs. Pro Cycling?||Rob Sal|
Jan 13, 2003 1:53 PM
|I prefer Procycling, the photos aren't as good as CP but the articles are better, especially Chris Boardmans bike test. This months edition has a nice couple of pictures of Levi Leipheimers wife, Odessa (including one of her stroking her pussy, apparently she has 6 plus 3 roaming strays!) and a test ride of the De Rosa King.|
|re: Cycle Sport vs. Pro Cycling?||faberbz|
Jan 13, 2003 5:17 PM
|"procycling" does have something Fleet Street about it. It tends to bottom-feed for much of its reporting.
Their reviews, now that Robert Millar no longer writes them, are lacking. Boardman, with his drier wit, is a more entertaining writer than Wüst, but both tend to write to the fan, not the serious amateur. Here I would blame the editors and not necessarily the reviewers. Although how could Wüst not know that the Reynolds fork was carbon nor what 6Al4V means? The editors should have caught that.
The pro columnists do little more than prattle on about their last month, how they want to train more/less/better/not at all, when they could be discussing issues concerning the sport from their unique perspective within the peloton. David Millar and Frank Hoj (right nice chaps, I'm sure) don't go out on any limbs as writers. Millar could be writing about the growing number of foreigners on French teams in the post-Festina era; Hoj could be writing about Team Coast and double standards in their persuit of Ullrich while he, and others, weren't paid for much of the season. Again...editors.
Once a month, however, there is usually at least one interesting, in-depth piece on something. Usually "procycling's" stories are somewhat longer than CycleSport's.
CycleSport's pro columnists usually take on issues in their columns. Vaughters's take on racing and the issues therein often drew fire, but daring journalism often does. At times Vaughters used his column as his soapbox, but his pieces on Armstrong's climbing (or whenever he does the math) more than make up for it. Bölts's seasoned perspective always provides an interesting read. He never pulled punches, even when he was deep in the Telekom camp. Both writers always stick to a certain topic/theme. Even if the editors push it on them (as clearly was the case with Bölts's panegyric on Jalabert), it still reads well.
The dispatches from other countries are usually interesting, providing other perspectives on the sport. Although, Noël Tuyers's Museeuw-worshipping is growing tiresome. To be fair, what else should one expect from a Flandrian?
CycleSport's weakness is its reviews. There used to be more, and they were quite good--written by serious amateurs for the same. But now the "Cycle Tech" section is little more than a shop window. Perhaps when the season returns, so will the reviews.
I clearly prefer reading CycleSport, but I often buy "procycling" too. The difference, I believe, is in the editorial staff.
Now, Tour-Magazin is first rate!