The skill of cycling.

petethedrummer wrote: »

There is plenty of research that shows that to become world class on a musical instrument or a high skilled sports are as the result of an early start with constant good quality repetitive practice and not any god given/genetic gift.

I don't know much about becoming proficient in sport, but this isn't true for music. There are certain innate gifts that some individuals have and others don't. It's impossible to imagine becoming a concert-standard musician without a great deal of work, but it doesn't mean that anyone who puts in a great deal of work can become a concert-standard musician. Ask any music teacher and they'll tell you that some pupils make extraordinary progress in almost no time, while others plod along for years, barely improving.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know much about becoming proficient in sport, but this isn't true for music. There are certain innate gifts that some individuals have and others don't. It's impossible to imagine becoming a concert-standard musician without a great deal of work, but it doesn't mean that anyone who puts in a great deal of work can become a concert-standard musician. Ask any music teacher and they'll tell you that some pupils make extraordinary progress in almost no time, while others plod along for years, barely improving.

The time spent practising is an over simplification, it must be quality practise. And students may be plodding along because they aren't in fact practising and just turning up for lessons.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

You think you don't need high neuromuscular Skills to be a good cyclist?

I suppose we'll have to define the term neuromuscular skill first. What do you mean by this neuromuscular skill. Its hard to find a proper definition for it on the web.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

You think all that separated the TDf winners and second was dedication and mental toughness? I don't because physical ability is more fundamental

No. I didn't say that.

lol, Actually I said something similar to that but it was an incomplete list of all things necessary

petethedrummer wrote: »

So you are telling me that had I started early enough that I could have been the 10,000km athletics champion of the world or even of Ireland? I'd say I wouldn't win a club race had I started at age 1.

There are many examples of people turning up in cycling and being good at it out of the blocks. Because they were born with superior cardiovascular capacity. I was not and there is no way on this earthly world I could develop it. Are you suggesting the human body is endlessly adaptable? when it comes to speed an endurance?

Also, I don't want this to come across as me dissing cycling. It takes supreme dedication and mental toughness to seperate yourself from the other equally gifted athletes. But the skill level is not high. Sure look at denis menchov. He cycles like a drunk and he won a giro.

Ullrich in 1996 and 1997 T'sDF was dreadful when it came to bike skills.
The man could not descend properly.
He took corners at a snails place. His angle of approach to said corner was all wrong.

Didn't stop him finishing 2nd on GC in 1996 and 1st on GC in 1997.

hinault wrote: »

But he had natural ability, skill if you like.

I thought the whole point of this debate was that skill was acquired and talent was genetic?

petethedrummer wrote: »

I thought the whole point of this debate was that skill was acquired and talent was genetic?

I'm convinced that what Laurence (and Stephen) had was genetic, having seen them up close.

adrianshanahan wrote: »

what adrian said

I was just thinking of all these examples as I was driving home from work. I'd agree they require high amounts of learned skill. Also Cadel Evan's handling skills helped him to a stage win in the Giro. But that stage and Paris Roubaix are an exception rather than the rule in road cycling.

petethedrummer wrote: »

No its far easier to surmise that Lemond was doing down hill skiing, Hinault was cycling to work and Fignon played a bit football. They all took up cycle racing and from the word go were awesome at it. Because they were genetically far superior. Had lemond never skied and only ever cycled there is no way he would just have been world class from the moment he strapped on a pair of skis. Same goes if Fignon had grown up cycle racing all his life and then suddenly decided to switch to football.

And even if they had been doing endurance sports. what transferred over was their endurance and fitness not skill.

if if if my aunt had balls she be related to Vinokurov

petethedrummer wrote: »

The time spent practising is an over simplification, it must be quality practise. And students may be plodding along because they aren't in fact practising and just turning up for lessons.

Quality practice will mean a pupil makes more progress than that same pupil would make with unfocussed practice.

But some pupils are just better at playing than others, if not from the very beginning, at least early on. It's usually a complex of skills that they possess, some of which are physical and some of which are mental. Some are down to personality. An ability to play with restraint and taste is partly an aspect of personality, and some people with phenomenal technique never acquire it.

There are even some elementary physical differences that make a difference. If a pupil has poor ability to stretch their fingers apart or has very short fingers or both, then they won't be able to progress very far playing classical guitar. I'm sure that's true of other musical disciplines, but classical guitar is the one I know something about.

So while quality practice is very important in becoming excellent at anything worthwhile, it really isn't everything (unfortunately).

I think it would be silly to suggest that nothing is out of the reach of anyone. There are subtle physical differences in everyone. And while it's possible for almost anyone to reach the "good amateur" level at almost anything (unless they have an actual disability), the top spots and highest level of competition are reserved for those who possess both the necessary physical and mental traits to get to that level. Simply having the genetic physique is never enough.

I'm pretty sure everyone at some point knows someone in school who annihilated the competition at <insert hobby>, everyone was convinced they'd become a professional, but when they reached their teen years they simply faded out because they didn't have the mental determination/focus/stamina to go through it.

Exactly the same, we probably all know someone who spends their days and nights working at <insert hobby>, but has never progressed beyond the amateur barrier.

I think what gives us the false sense of possible achievement is the sheer numbers involved. When you look at the TDF and see 200 riders, it seems as though there are lots, therefore it must be something reachable by even your average Joe.
But when you consider that there are 7 billion people on this planet and only 200 have the physical and mental capacity to make the TDF this year, it goes to show just how elite the top-level of any competition really is.

Granted, 7 billion people don't cycle, but even if we have 2 million competitive cyclists worldwide, then that means that only 1 in every 10,000 competitive cyclists has the ability to make the top level.

The idea that everyone has the potential to make good of themselves is totally worthwhile. The idea that everyone has the potential to the best is complete nonsense. Only a fraction of people have the potential to be the best.

Now here is a roadie with some serious skills....

It may well be McAskill, either way its pretty savage.