Nice article - science and sport

ROK ON

http://gaeliclife.com/2013/07/joe-brolly-the-days-of-maurice-fitz-are-over/


ABout one of the greatest footballers ever, but there are parallels with cycling and all sports.

I love sport because of the hopeless romance and against all odds aspect of it.

My view is that profesional sport and science is slowly strangling what I conside to be the purity of amateur sport. The above article encapsulates that - and the past few TDFs have brought home to me just how alien what I have seen is. I dont mean doping at all. What I mean is just how planned things are. When I remember the likes of Fignon, Hinault, Lemond, Chiapucci, Kelly - we will never again have days as regular as that.

Raam

Adapt or die, or something profound like that.

Slo_Rida

I've been saying this about GAA for years. I think it happeed in the years building up to Tyrones successes. The 9 million hand passes per game, players who could run a marathon but couldn't kick a point. .I stopped watching it then.

Also, in rugby, I enjoy a Friday night AIL game far more than most Celtic league games, more honesty and romance. And potential for the kid on the wing in his first start scoring a winning try or a sub coming on and having a stormer to win the game. Instead of the latest Ronan O Gara type outhalf kicking the ball to death for position instead of posession.


As for pro cycling....it's probably worse in terms of entertainment. Sunday races around the country might be more entertaining I fear.

Chips Lovell

Maurice Fitzgerald was magic.

godtabh

Isnt it the difference between a profession and a hobby?

GAA is professional in all put the payments!

For me I love the science behind anything. I'd read about and maybe apply the principles. I've a garmin to track my rides and compare my results. It doesnt add or take away from the fact that I love to get out on a bike

godtabh

PS Joe who won the game?

Lumen

I read that article as: GAA is full of dopers. You don't use carelessly use Tyler Hamilton as an example without knowing what inferences will be drawn.

Doping aside, the objections are sentimental nonsense. Top sportspeople only care about winning or they wouldn't be top, and it's always been that way. You think Kelly cared about romance? He'd have done whatever it took to win.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if Bertie or Quintana had won the tour.

IM0

I remember when this was all fields

petethedrummer

Edit: Woops already pointed out by Godtabh

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

We wouldn't be having this conversation if Bertie or Quintana had won the tour.

No, ROK ON would be recommending where to get the best steak in Dublin.

petethedrummer

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Maurice Fitzgerald was magic.

A modern coach with proper training methods might have tailored an individual training program for him that allowed him to fit playing football around his job and his injuries.

Didn't he have a back injury that prevented him training with the team? Didn't O'Se want everyone training together as a unit? Or have i got my stories all wrong.

Squidgy Black

Personally I think the bigger problem is how the juvenile ranks of the sport are being brought through with these new training regimes and diets.

I went to school with several lads on the Dublin minor panels over the last couple of years, and they were all put on strict diets, training regimes, and supplements etc., they were all handed tubs upon tubs of stuff like whey protein and other muscle builders.

Years ago a minor panel was literally a group of lads who ran around a pitch doing drills and then after a match went back to the captain's house, now it's weight lifting in gyms and pasta and chicken.

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

the objections are sentimental nonsense. Top sportspeople only care about winning or they wouldn't be top, and it's always been that way. You think Kelly cared about romance? He'd have done whatever it took to win.

Of course it is sentimental nonsense - that is the entire point.

I am glad that one of the posters mentioned rugby. I used to go to watch rugby every weekend. The game has slowly evolved into a significant borefest as it has become more professional and scientific.

What I liked about rugby and cycling when I were a young 'un was the chaos of it all - it seemed like lots of protagonists were evenly matched and people would have a go.
Not just in cycling, but take rugby for example. Despite the fact that flankers did not have to remain boound to a scrum *thus there being less space), it seemed to my young mind at the time that out halfs attacked the gain line a lot more.


In the 80's in cycling we had as many as 10-15 serious contenders for stage hounours and people (including the patrons of the peleton) often put in seemingly suicidal attackes.

In many sports nearly everything is now planeed meticulously. This has even filtered down to us low level freds racing at an extraordinary low level (speaking here about myself largely).

I hate Joe Friel and his ilk. I despise the analysis of cadence. I hate pods and possession. I would like things to be they way they were - I would still be cr*p but it might be a lot more fun.

(Mid life crisis thread obviously).

Raam

I think you need a drink. I know a nice Merlot...

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

I hate Joe Friel and his ilk. I despise the analysis of cadence.

You only hate it because Joe Friel says your cadence is wrong and that makes you feel insecure.

ThisRegard

stetyrrell wrote: »

they were all handed tubs upon tubs of stuff like whey protein and other muscle builders.

Creatine is a biggy too to bulk them up.

ROK ON

Raam wrote: »

I think you need a drink. I know a nice Merlot...

I had a gorgeous Rioja Reserva with the missus last night.

But I will kindly accept your invitation too your gaff for a drink from your collection.

Raam

ROK ON wrote: »

I had a gorgeous Rioja Reserva with the missus last night.

But I will kindly accept your invitation too your gaff for a drink from your collection.

I generally like Rioja. We should start a club or something.

ROK ON

Raam wrote: »

I generally like Rioja. We should start a club or something.

Cool, but we wont ever analyse the wine that we drink. Nothing to be gained from that

petethedrummer

stetyrrell wrote: »

Personally I think the bigger problem is how the juvenile ranks of the sport are being brought through with these new training regimes and diets.

I went to school with several lads on the Dublin minor panels over the last couple of years, and they were all put on strict diets, training regimes, and supplements etc., they were all handed tubs upon tubs of stuff like whey protein and other muscle builders.

Years ago a minor panel was literally a group of lads who ran around a pitch doing drills and then after a match went back to the captain's house, now it's weight lifting in gyms and pasta and chicken.

I've seen lads destroyed with old school training methods too. Alot of the problem is coaches thinking more of the latest fad is always better.

But that is starting to fade. I know some physios and doctors involved in elite level sport and they are vehemently opposed to over training and letting players play through niggles.

If you listen to the BMJ podcasts on sports science and injuries, you'll note there is now a huge amount of effort placed on injury and over training prevention. Which I think is a good thing.

Raam

ROK ON wrote: »

Cool, but we wont ever analyse the wine that we drink. Nothing to be gained from that

Jesus no!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc1ilmImfRc

Slo_Rida

There's another element to this. Yes school kids are being fed into systems where they're given suplements and diets etc but this is killing the natural selection process. Before this obsession with science in sport, the 6 guys with the most accurate shots or clever attacking minds made up the forwards, the mid fielders were fit athletic and most of all could field high balls and the backs were essentially the best tacklers and all round tough guys of what is left over when you pick all the others (the goal keeper is the youngest of 11teen brothers who, from the age of 3, was made stand between jumpers on the front lawn while the other 10 practiced kicking the ball as hard as they could right at him!).
Kerry and Cork probably have the most natural footballers left. Donegal, despite being AI champs have about 2 and Tyrone managed to win AI's with only a handful too.

Sport is about entertainment, excitement and emotion. Whether amateur or pro. Whether you are playing or spectating, you should be entertained, excited and emotional.

Otherwise, it's not sport, it's just a thing.

ford2600

Slo_Rida wrote: »

There's another element to this. Yes school kids are being fed into systems where they're given suplements and diets etc but this is killing the natural selection process. Before this obsession with science in sport, the 6 guys with the most accurate shots or clever attacking minds made up the forwards, the mid fielders were fit athletic and most of all could field high balls and the backs were essentially the best tacklers and all round tough guys of what is left over when you pick all the others (the goal keeper is the youngest of 11teen brothers who, from the age of 3, was made stand between jumpers on the front lawn while the other 10 practiced kicking the ball as hard as they could right at him!).
Kerry and Cork probably have the most natural footballers left. Donegal, despite being AI champs have about 2 and Tyrone managed to win AI's with only a handful too.

Sport is about entertainment, excitement and emotion. Whether amateur or pro. Whether you are playing or spectating, you should be entertained, excited and emotional.

Otherwise, it's not sport, it's just a thing.

I've played and watched Gaelic football a long time. People are always talking about back in the day it was much better.

Same for rugby. Watch TG4 show 5 Nations games from 80's, some of the basic skill levels on show were appaling.

ditto for soccer

Maurice FitzGeralds ommission from Kerry team probably had more to do with personality clashes than anything else. two stubborn men etc...

Reminds me of people harking on about the old reliable cars they used to make....

Off the top of my head, McGuigan, Canavan, O'Neill, Cavanagh, Jordan, Gormley. Tyrone's tenacity might not of been the most endearing, but they could certainly play

Slo_Rida

ford2600 wrote: »

but they could certainly play

I could play, that's not quite enough for me to be honest. I'd just rather watch players who can play in an entertaining, highly skilled manner.

As for Le Tour. But for the dominance of Sky it would have been the most entertaining tour in years. The mighty Quin versus Bertie in a battle of 2 attacking, tenacious riders. Then throw in Purito and co to keep the pressure on and it's edge of your seat for 3 weeks.
It's not a then versus now thing either, it's a good versus bad thing. Donegal do not please me now, Kerry do. Christopher Froome does not entertain me now, Quintana does.

We may have strayed off topic here, I'm not sure.

petethedrummer

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Kerry and Cork probably have the most natural footballers left. Donegal, despite being AI champs have about 2 and Tyrone managed to win AI's with only a handful too.

If teams with lower levels of footballing talent figure out systems to win trophies and this is deemed a problem then the authorities need to look at the rules of the sport. Asking Donegal to play prettier football for the betterment of the game is a waste of breath.

ford2600

Slo_Rida wrote: »

I could play, that's not quite enough for me to be honest. I'd just rather watch players who can play in an entertaining, highly skilled manner.

As for Le Tour. But for the dominance of Sky it would have been the most entertaining tour in years. The mighty Quin versus Bertie in a battle of 2 attacking, tenacious riders. Then throw in Purito and co to keep the pressure on and it's edge of your seat for 3 weeks.
It's not a then versus now thing either, it's a good versus bad thing. Donegal do not please me now, Kerry do. Christopher Froome does not entertain me now, Quintana does.

We may have strayed off topic here, I'm not sure.

Are you saying the guys I listed are not top drawer natural footballers?

Cork aren't a good example of a naturally gifted footballers. More battering ram than anything.

I take the point that the ante has been upped, big time. People will still be saying it in another 10 years

mistermano

except gaelics not cycling

theres more than math

ROK ON

ford2600 wrote: »

Same for rugby. Watch TG4 show 5 Nations games from 80's, some of the basic skill levels on show were appaling.

I absolutely agree with you. But talent is not the issue here.

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Sport is about entertainment, excitement and emotion. Whether amateur or pro. Whether you are playing or spectating, you should be entertained, excited and emotional.

Otherwise, it's not sport, it's just a thing.

This is.

I am not claiming that Froome, Contador, Wiggins and Nibali are less skillful or less athletic than Hianault, Fingon, Lemond, Roche etc.

My assertion is that the striving for perfect while natural is dulling the chaos. It is the chaos that was exciting for me. The unpredictability.

Rugby in the 80's was of a shockingly low standard of ball handling and retention relative to nowadays - but the games were more exciting. I despise this phase by phase relentless nonsense and over commercialism.

Same with cycling - last year when Mick Rogers brought it all back to analysing opponent attacks by looking at the SRM and deciding whether or not is was sustainable really woke me up. I lost a bit of interest that day and I dont think that it will ever come back. There is no mystery (or very little).
In this years tur we had one day of chaos (the Saxo/OPQS day). That was it.
One day out of 21. Pooor return.

I am not saying that there were 21 magical days in the 80's tours but Fignon and Hinault recognised that they had a responsibility to entertain - hence they attacked. They kept attacking until they won or blew. I liked that and I miss it.

godtabh

petethedrummer wrote: »

I've seen lads destroyed with old school training methods too. Alot of the problem is coaches thinking more of the latest fad is always better.

But that is starting to fade. I know some physios and doctors involved in elite level sport and they are vehemently opposed to over training and letting players play through niggles.

If you listen to the BMJ podcasts on sports science and injuries, you'll note there is now a huge amount of effort placed on injury and over training prevention. Which I think is a good thing.

That reminds me of Milan Lab run by AC Milan. One season they got a **** load of injuries and couldn't figure it out. They set up Milan Lab to monitor players more closes to try and prevent injuries so new ground was made not only on how to train players but also how to manage them

DirkVoodoo

I sometimes watch some of the British Premier Calendar on Eurosport and while it lacks the fan fare, scale and history of the grand tours, etc. it is actually quite exciting racing, but it is still dominated by the favourites.

If you are disillusioned with the top level of the sport, drop down a few notches and watch some of the "lower tier" events.

I think it is possibly wide-eyed romanticism to say that sport has fundamentally become more boring because of more advanced and disciplined training regimes. In fact, I would argue that Sky's domination of the sport will push other teams to become more ruthless in how they approach the science of training. Didn't Nico say he never had a power meter at AG2R?

If you want to ruin a sport, follow the example of the NFL or formula 1 and allow commercial interest to ruin the spectacle. Corporate boxes, VIP passes...thankfully the beauty of cycling is that roads are open to everyone willing to get out on a mountain in a camper van.

godtabh

Something that hasnt been picked up on. To many elite athletes its not sport its a profession and something Nico alluded to in one of his diary updates in the Indo.

pprendeville

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Maurice Fitzgerald was magic.

Never forget that point down in Semple Stadium against The Dubs with the outside of his boot. Also, a good game of hurling can't be beaten for end to end entertainment.

Slo_Rida

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

If you want to ruin a sport, follow the example of the NFL or formula 1 and allow commercial interest to ruin the spectacle. Corporate boxes, VIP passes...

Team Sky came in with buckets of money, rounded up some of the best racers and bought themselves some Grand tours. A bit like Chelsea and Man City in the P'ship
Sounds commercial to me.

But I fully agree with your point re dropping down a tier. That's what I meant by watching club rugby (AIL) over pro rugby (Celtic league/Heineken Cup)

DirkVoodoo

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Team Sky came in with buckets of money, rounded up some of the best racers and bought themselves some Grand tours. A bit like Chelsea and Man City in the P'ship
Sounds commercial to me.

But I fully agree with your point re dropping down a tier. That's what I meant by watching club rugby (AIL) over pro rugby (Celtic league/Heineken Cup)

Slightly older information, I'm sure after two Tour wins they will have more money to play with (deservedly so, not in the case of Chelsea and City). Sky didn't really buy success in the way those teams did, they just spent the money they had wisely (and apparently exploited the "RTE broadcaster" loophole when paying their employees):

http://inrng.com/2012/08/team-sky-budget-accounts/

Sky aren’t the biggest budget team, it’s said they rank fourth or fifth but I think they’re top-three yet it’s always hard to make direct comparisons. First because the annual budget is one thing but the set-up costs of a team are another, for example do you include all the team cars and buses in one year or do you spread the cost over time? Sky also benefit from the facilities provided in Britain, like coaching staff, rather than having to hire everyone outright. Either way Sky’s wage bill is greater than the entire budget of several other teams but we should note Wiggins is probably the most valuable rider of the year with his wins.

Sky use the contractor method to recruit staff. The UCI rules allow this and it saves the team from paying payroll taxes on employee wages as they are instead billed money for “services” provided by the riders and even the mechanics. But the rider has to set aside money to cover this and the UCI rules include some protections for this. But it gives the team a big head start over others, for example French teams must pay hefty payroll taxes so one million Euro spent in Britain buys you a lot more riders and talent than it does in France.

Brian?

ThisRegard wrote: »

Creatine is a biggy too to bulk them up.

Creatine does not bulk you up, it allows
you to train a little longer and recover a tad quicker.

DirkVoodoo

Brian? wrote: »

Creatine does not bulk you up, it allows
you to train a little longer and recover a tad quicker.

I thought it increases water retention, which would make you "bigger"?

Brian?

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I thought it increases water retention, which would make you "bigger"?

It does increase water retention and bloat the muscles slightly, tis true. Thats not the point of creatine supplementation though, as very few people seem to realise. It allows you to train a wee bit longer and recover a little bit quicker, which means you can add muscle slightly quicker.

Marginal gains if you will.

Stop taking creatine for a few days and you lose the extra water, so to me that's not bulking you up as its not added muscle.

Possibly pedantic, but the level of misunderstanding about creatine is ridiculous.

uphillonly

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

If you are disillusioned with the top level of the sport, drop down a few notches and watch some of the "lower tier" events.

In America, the most commercialised sporting country in the world, many fans prefer college level to professional. The science is obviously still there in college games but even as an outsider watching, it has much more passion for player & fans than pro level. I was in Indianapolis once during the Final Four Weekend (semi-finals of college basketball). It was great to see the city buzzing & most fans off their head, in a way I hadn't seen in US sports before.

I don't like modern football's money dominance but can't deny from going to Division 1/Premiership games since the early 80s, the quality and entertainment on the pitch has improved hugely. Sadly the atmosphere in the stadiums has become more similar to the US except for the derbies & big matches but I don't blame the science for that.

Despite his power use I thought Froome was one of the most entertaining winners for years. Successful long rang attacks we haven't seen for a long time. The problem with power & FTP is that rather than gut instinct you know what you can & can't do for how long.

Slo_Rida

Brian? wrote: »

Possibly pedantic, but the level of misunderstanding about creatine is ridiculous.

That's because the lack of published results on the use of creatine is ridiculous.

There's a big veil over it for good reason. It's not a healthy supplement for muscle building. From what I couold see before I left rugby was that they reccommend eating more good foods eg 2 breakfasts, and 2 dinners and extra healthy snacks in between. Most supplements are in the form of protein now I think. Creatine is a thing of the past for this purpose.

lennymc

Didn't the yellow jersey attack several times during this tour instead of just sitting on the wheel of his opponents when that would have been more than sufficient to win? Best of both worlds? using science and numbers to know when to launch a committed do or die attack.

Brian?

Slo_Rida wrote: »

That's because the lack of published results on the use of creatine is ridiculous.

There's huge amount of published studies on creatine. The results are quite clear.

There's a big veil over it for good reason. It's not a healthy supplement for muscle building. From what I couold see before I left rugby was that they reccommend eating more good foods eg 2 breakfasts, and 2 dinners and extra healthy snacks in between. Most supplements are in the form of protein now I think. Creatine is a thing of the past for this purpose.

There's no veil over anything. Creatine is perfectly healthy. It's naturally occurring in food, mainly meat.

There appears to be media induced hysteria over creatine I don't understand.

ThisRegard

godtabh wrote: »

That reminds me of Milan Lab run by AC Milan. One season they got a **** load of injuries and couldn't figure it out. They set up Milan Lab to monitor players more closes to try and prevent injuries so new ground was made not only on how to train players but also how to manage them

Some would say it was an alleged connection with Fuentes that aided the recovery and performance of their players, rather than some preventative program they put in place.

Brian? wrote: »

Creatine does not bulk you up, it allows
you to train a little longer and recover a tad quicker.

And training longer results you in being able to bulk up quicker than the average guy in the gym. I don't think there's any media hysteria about it, certainly not here, people were simply pointing out that it's used as a supplement at county level.

Brian?

ThisRegard wrote: »

And training longer results you in being able to bulk up quicker than the average guy in the gym.

Except the average gym goer is probably taking creatine. . It helps you bulk, just a wee bit though.

I don't think there's any media hysteria about it, certainly not here, people were simply pointing out that it's used as a supplement at county level.

You obviously don't listen to George Hook.

ThisRegard

Good god no, sure isn't Hook hysteric about everything !