The skill of cycling.

blorg · 12-08-2010 01:37PM

It says it is Martyn Ashton on the YouTube page.

CramCycle · 12-08-2010 01:53PM

I skipped to the end so if this point has been made already, I do apologise.

It is both physical or mental or both depending on where you are and what you want to achieve.

Proof:

I cycled out of The Matrix (Mental)
Once out of the Matrix I could no longer ride a bicycle (Physical)
After an age of being stuck with needles (no comment) I could ride a bike reasonably well again (Physical and Mental)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOu_MoPmo-s

hshortt · 12-08-2010 05:11PM

adrianshanahan wrote: »

The Skill of Cycling....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19zFlPah-o

Adrian

Bloody hell! :eek: I've never seen anything like it. Clearly he has no balls left hence the lack of fear but I cringed just watching! How the hell did yer man cycle up a tree?

Seriously impressed with this. Thanks

desertcircus · 12-08-2010 10:36PM

Most people could easily reach the level of talented amateur in pretty much any discipline or sport, but I don't think it's right to say that anyone could reach the top. Most sports tend to favour a particular body type - if you're short and stocky, you'll never make NBA-level basketball no matter how hard you try. There will always be someone working as hard as you but six inches taller. Getting better than most people is within the range of pretty much anyone at anything; getting to the top echelon is more or less impossible if you don't have the physical attributes needed. Someone like Gael Monfils is 17th-ranked in the world at tennis and is 80kg at six foot four; Brian O'Driscoll is possibly the best outside centre in history and clocks in at five foot nine and 93kg. If you started with the two of them at birth and decided Monfils was going to be a centre and O'Driscoll was going to be a tennis star, would they be equally successful now? I doubt it; Monfils' reach and O'Driscoll's low centre of gravity are massive advantages in what they do. Remove those advantages and they become, at best, well-drilled and skilled players, but always at a disadvantage because of their physical attributes. Nothing O'Driscoll could do would change the fact that he's too short and too stocky to make major opens, and nothing Monfils could do would change the fact that he'd lose in the tackle to people with heavier frames than his.

In fact, you don't even have to go outside cycling to find an example. Could someone like Mark Cavendish ever win the yellow jersey? Almost certainly not; heavier cyclists tend towards sprinting because there'll always be people beating them in GC. Cavendish could destroy at least 99% of the world's cycling community on a climb, but the competition isn't against them: it's against the people who are just as fit and just as dedicated as you, but have the right physiques for the task they're facing.

petethedrummer · 13-08-2010 12:51AM

brianthebard wrote: »

afraid not because you've argued in favour of genetic skill

no i didn't. I believe most skills can be acquired. In simple terms, some people are born sprinters, some people are born endurance athletes, some people are born strong etc.... These are not skills, physical attributes perhaps they could be called. The greats in simple sports are born with base level higher than most mortals and develop to become world champions. These physical attributes can improved on but its not limitless. Linford Christie could never have been a decent 5000km runner no matter what he did.

brianthebard wrote: »

and the suggestion that you would not be capable of being a better endurance athlete regardless of time spent training for such, which is pretty much the opposite of what I've argued.

Again I did not say this. You can improve on your own base level of fitness but only to a point and it is not limitless.

Chris Boardman was born with a high VO2 max and developed it further with training but had a low level of testoterone, giving him a slower recovery time than other pros. Which is one of the reasons (along with being clean) that he never considered being a tour contender. So he concentrated on TTs, Prologues and track pursuit. Therefore he was not born to be a tour contender.

Andy bolton, one of the best dead lifters in the world, was born strong:

When did you start training with weights?
I started weight training at age 18. Right from the start I was strong. The first time I ever lifted I squatted 500lbs and deadlifted 600 pounds. Lads from the gym thought I had trained before, but no, it was my first time. That's when it all started.
http://www.criticalbench.com/Andy-Bolton.htm

Again a simple sport. He had a natural advantage. Worked on it and became the best in the world. Without the natural advantage he would not have been the first man to deadlift 1000lb.

petethedrummer · 13-08-2010 01:10AM

There are tons of examples of people displaying natural talent at simple sports.

I have a mate who wasn't doing any training and decided to a marathon, his first run was 9 miles. That would take me weeks to build up to.

Another lad I knew in college didn't do any weight training. but went to the gym one day, put all the weights on the bench press machine and lifted the lot with ease. I lifted about 1/4 what he did. If I followed a strict lifting regime I might have achieved his base level.

I worked in a factory with a powerlifter/body builder who endlessly did weights and took steroids and was beaten in an arm wrestle by a fairly lazy 55 year old man.

The idea that everyone has the potential to become the fastest, strongest or fittest is absolutely preposterous.

brianthebard · 13-08-2010 01:19AM

petethedrummer wrote: »

no i didn't. I believe most skills can be acquired. In simple terms, some people are born sprinters, some people are born endurance athletes, some people are born strong etc.... These are not skills, physical attributes perhaps they could be called. The greats in simple sports are born with base level higher than most mortals and develop to become world champions. These physical attributes can improved on but its not limitless. Linford Christie could never have been a decent 5000km runner no matter what he did.

Again I did not say this. You can improve on your own base level of fitness but only to a point and it is not limitless.

Chris Boardman was born with a high VO2 max and developed it further with training but had a low level of testoterone, giving him a slower recovery time than other pros. Which is one of the reasons (along with being clean) that he never considered being a tour contender. So he concentrated on TTs, Prologues and track pursuit. Therefore he was not born to be a tour contender.

Andy bolton, one of the best dead lifters in the world, was born strong:

Again a simple sport. He had a natural advantage. Worked on it and became the best in the world. Without the natural advantage he would not have been the first man to deadlift 1000lb.

I wasn't talking about outliers at all and explicitly said that they lie outside the curve, that's the whole point. If your measure of skill or talent is only the very best of the best then you will have a very distorted view of the world.
Its ridiculous to say Christie could not have been a long distance runner if he had been trained to do so.
Also what do you mean by denying you made the genetic skill argument and then immediately saying you believe in natural skills and abilities? What's that about?

petethedrummer · 13-08-2010 02:46AM

brianthebard wrote: »

I wasn't talking about outliers at all and explicitly said that they lie outside the curve, that's the whole point. If your measure of skill or talent is only the very best of the best then you will have a very distorted view of the world.

I gave examples of people I know. And the headstart we all have at different (simple) sports.

brianthebard wrote: »

Its ridiculous to say Christie could not have been a long distance runner if he had been trained to do so.

. We're not ever going to agree on this. Do you think haile Gabreselaise could have been a great 100m runner if he had chosen to pursue that distance?

brianthebard wrote: »

Also what do you mean by denying you made the genetic skill argument and then immediately saying you believe in natural skills and abilities? What's that about?

I suppose we'd have to strictly define what a skill is. I don't believe strength, speed and endurance are skills. thats my point. I can't think of a proper term to decribe them. They are innate qualities some humans in differing measures which can be improved upon but not limitlessly. Some people i.e. greg lemond have such a high natural endurance (not a skill) that when applied with training to a simple sport (cycling) reach a level you or I with our lower natural endurance but equal training and dedictation could never hope to attain.

In a sport with more skill football/tennis/golf his superior endurance may not have made him standout, because there are so many other complex aspects to these sports. And he would not have been instantly better than anyone else.

It doesn't have to be greg lemond in the example above, it can be your mate who does no training and still spanks you at cycling.

Anyways I'm done. We won't see eye to eye.

CramCycle · 13-08-2010 03:23AM

Good points all, except for the "simple sport" bit, there are few sports, none I can name, that are simple at any competitive level*.
*cue the list of sports people consider simple

Slideshowbob · 13-08-2010 05:28AM

Pete you were going on previously about10000 hours now u are on about natural advantage. Talk about having it both ways. From this thread it appears u acquired debating skills by neither method anyway. And you had the cheek tocall me condescending.

Ps you go on about cycling being a simple sport would you call footballers highly complex get real. Did tiger woods have complex thoughs when it came to his sexual desires. On the courts a physical beast like nadal can excel.

You are contradicting your original hypotheses. You chose to ignore my questioning of the merits of bringing malcolm gladwell into this debate. Hom convenient.

Maybe cycling ain't so simple. Get more positive. So what if your mate can run quicker or lift more than you. Quit taking it so personal and maybe provide us with some sports science research on your contentions If such exists.......

petethedrummer · 13-08-2010 08:55AM

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Pete you were going on previously about10000 hours now u are on about natural advantage. Talk about having it both ways. From this thread it appears u acquired debating skills by neither method anyway. And you had the cheek tocall me condescending.

I'm am taking about natural advantage when it comes to speed, strength and endurance. And a person with those advatages will excel over a person without the natural advantages, at a simple sport even if they both train equally.

In sports of a complex nature and highly skilled. those natural advantages will not have such a dramatic effect as they do in cycling.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Ps you go on about cycling being a simple sport would you call footballers highly complex get real. Did tiger woods have complex thoughs when it came to his sexual desires. On the courts a physical beast like nadal can excel.

I didn't call footballers complex. I said football was a complex sport compared to cycling. I don;t know what tiger woods shagging has to do with anything. In fact if you look at some of his text conversations to the pornstars, some of it was quite complex.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

You are contradicting your original hypotheses. You chose to ignore my questioning of the merits of bringing malcolm gladwell into this debate. Hom convenient.

short of time. and you haven't provided any links as to what neuromuscalar skill was.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Maybe cycling ain't so simple. Get more positive. So what if your mate can run quicker or lift more than you. Quit taking it so personal and maybe

None of that depresses me. None of it I take peronally. Merely pointing to examples. Of natural advantage for performing simple tasks. Not complex highly skilled ones.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

provide us with some sports science research on your contentions If such exists.......

I will have a look over the weekend. And if you find some evidence on your contentions, you post them too.

brianthebard · 13-08-2010 02:40PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

I suppose we'd have to strictly define what a skill is. I don't believe strength, speed and endurance are skills. thats my point. I can't think of a proper term to decribe them. They are innate qualities some humans in differing measures which can be improved upon but not limitlessly. Some people i.e. greg lemond have such a high natural endurance (not a skill) that when applied with training to a simple sport (cycling) reach a level you or I with our lower natural endurance but equal training and dedictation could never hope to attain.

Yes some people can be slightly better at speed and endurance but these things can be trained, they are certainly not innately fixed and unchangeable. If 'your mate' is 'naturally' better at endurance cycling he still won't stand up against someone who's properly trained, even someone who had a lower untrained starting point.

You used Andy Bolton as an example before. Before pulling 1008lbs Andy was a strongman competitor and through injury left the sport for a while. He therefore apparently was not as innately gifted as you suggest, because he wasn't on par with Pudz and others. Further there are numerous competitors lifting within 100bs of Andy who would straight up say they are not naturally gifted (some maybe only 20lbs away). Further we have no idea what the top strongmen competitors of the past 20 years could have done if they had focused all their energy on powerlifting instead. The point is your method of reasoning is completely subjective and only takes account of the situation that you are immediately faced with.
Its also slightly condescending to the athletes you named, none of whom would think they got by on innate skill and ability alone. We all know how much training these people go through, but if Usain Bolt* or whoever else are as genetically gifted as you say, why do they even bother turning up for training?

*

Bolt is actually the opposite of what one objectively considers the proper or best build for a 100m sprinter. If he had followed your rules he would have gotten into basketball instead. So this is someone with the genetic skill you're arguing for proving your argument wrong.

Platform Web · 13-08-2010 03:06PM

snollup wrote: »

After reading Zorba's signature aloud, Cycling, it takes a lot of hard work just to be average., my wife just asked me the follow:

Is there a skill to cycling or is it just a question of being really fit and pedaling as fast as possible?

I'm finding it difficult to answer her, can you help please?

Thanks.

I think, like any hobby or sport it takes a certain amount of application, perhaps more than some of the more non physically demanding sports around. Consider that eventually you do get to a level where turning the big ring gets natural enough. Also remember, your training often has a three week lag so better performances are just around that corner. I raced as a junior when younger and do triathlons now. I have completely gone way up the field for bike times from way below mediocre at the outset. So keep it up!

As you develop the physical bit, the skill bits just come naturally. No harm to keep cadence (how fast you spin the pedals) as high as is naturally comforatble to you, and keep your upper body as still as is naturally comfortable to you. Above all, enjoy it and then everything comes naturally enough. Finally, always a good idea to check you have the right frame size and saddle/handle bars adjustments if not done so already.

Wo! some rancour further down this thread :-)

petethedrummer · 13-08-2010 06:57PM

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes some people can be slightly better at speed and endurance but these things can be trained, they are certainly not innately fixed and unchangeable.

I agree and have said such before. Where I think we disagree is the level with which speed and endurance can been changed in a person. You think the level can be changed much more than I do. I don't believe I could have won the tour de france had I started early enough and been diligent enough at training and had all the desire and backing in the world, maybe you believe it is possible.

brianthebard wrote: »

If 'your mate' is 'naturally' better at endurance cycling he still won't stand up against someone who's properly trained, even someone who had a lower untrained starting point.

Again I don't disagree. But if he trains the same as someone with a lower starting point he will fair much better.

brianthebard wrote: »

You used Andy Bolton as an example before. Before pulling 1008lbs Andy was a strongman competitor and through injury left the sport for a while. He therefore apparently was not as innately gifted as you suggest, because he wasn't on par with Pudz and others. Further there are numerous competitors lifting within 100bs of Andy who would straight up say they are not naturally gifted (some maybe only 20lbs away). Further we have no idea what the top strongmen competitors of the past 20 years could have done if they had focused all their energy on powerlifting instead.

100lbs is a 10% difference and is enormous at the highest levels of sport. Even 2% is a fairly big difference. But i'm not arguing whether he is innately stronger than the other elite weight lifters. He and the other top guys I would reckon are naturally much stronger than the rest of the population. And not everyone can reach their level. Even with all the will in the world.

brianthebard wrote: »

The point is your method of reasoning is completely subjective and only takes account of the situation that you are immediately faced with.
Its also slightly condescending to the athletes you named, none of whom would think they got by on innate skill and ability alone. We all know how much training these people go through, but if Usain Bolt* or whoever else are as genetically gifted as you say, why do they even bother turning up for training?

I have never said they got on ability alone. Their untrained level of speed/endurance/strength mark them out early against mere mortals. They then require training to increase these physical talents they have to compete with the other equally gifted top level athletes.

brianthebard wrote: »

Bolt is actually the opposite of what one objectively considers the proper or best build for a 100m sprinter. If he had followed your rules he would have gotten into basketball instead. So this is someone with the genetic skill you're arguing for proving your argument wrong.

Following my rules? It was noted Bolt could run fast at a very early age. Destroying all junior records, while admitting he was lazy. By my 'rules' basketball would never have entered the equation. If a young fella is running as fast as he was it would be easy to conclude he would be come a world class sprinter. By my reasoning his huge natural advantage in speed could be diluted by all the other elements involved in basketball, a highly skilled sport and it would not be guaranteed he would shine like he does at sprinting. In fact given he admits he is lazy, he may not have had the dedication to acquire all the skills to make him the best basketball player in the world.

He was lazy, didn't train much, eats poorly and was still in the world elite. A bit of knuckling down in the last couple of years and he is strolling to olympic golds with his shoes untied. He's 1% faster than Tyson Gay. Yet everyone is scratching their heads wondering where Tyson Gay is gonna find this extra 1%.

Actually Asafa Powell might be a better example to challenge my opinion on whether you're born sprinter. He didn't excel as a teenager but was at one point the fastest in the world. The American and Canadian universities over looked him when they were talent spotting/poaching and he stayed at home training in Jamaica. But when they say he didn't excel it was probably relative to other elite Jamaicans and still would have hockeyed a regular joe.

brianthebard wrote: »

genetic skill you're arguing for

how many times in this thread do I have to say that I don't consider speed strength and endurance to be skills.

English Bob · 13-08-2010 09:09PM

Some very thorough debating going on here!
As already has been mentioned there are different body types; ectomorph, endomorph & mesomorph that determine our make up. Meaning depending on your genetics you might have more fast twitch or slow twitch fibres, you might have a birth right to build muscle easily or you may be born to be tubby!
All physical locomotion movement is learnt, ie., developed as a skill through repetitive voluntary actions that over time become involuntary due to our nueromuscular system adapting to certain stimuli.
Think about when you first learnt to ride a bike. You didn't have the correct body control to cycle without some support. As you repeated and learnt the skill of cycling your muscle memory developed and these actions of balance etc became involuntary. So to keep things very simple of course there is a skill to cycling which develops constantly. How good or fast or how long you can cycle to a large extent will be influenced by your genetic make up and your dedication to training.

Slideshowbob · 13-08-2010 09:17PM

English bob. We must be related. Thanks for such a succinct and comprehensive answer

As a certain emminent cycling coach in Ireland once said - you can't turn a donkey into a race horse!!!

Slideshowbob · 15-08-2010 11:40AM

http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/mil06230.pdf

Or just google neuromuscular skill

petethedrummer · 15-08-2010 01:17PM

Slideshowbob wrote: »

As a certain emminent cycling coach in Ireland once said - you can't turn a donkey into a race horse!!!

which is exactly what I have said all along.

Slideshowbob · 15-08-2010 01:41PM

Eh except you did not actually say it

I did

U went on among other things about the merits of 10000 hours training

I can't take u seriously anymore. People reading this can choose themselves whether to take me seriously

petethedrummer · 15-08-2010 03:19PM

Slideshowbob wrote: »

U went on among other things about the merits of 10000 hours training

I was referring to high skill level sports. I don't regard cycling as a high skill sport. Maybe you do and thats where we differ. Below I was refferring to high skill level sports(and muscial instruments) NOT 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.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Eh except you did not actually say it

Below are some of the examples of the times I said natural genetic advantages play a large part in cycling....

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'm am taking(sic) about natural advantage when it comes to speed, strength and endurance. And a person with those advatages will excel over a person without the natural advantages, at a simple sport even if they both train equally.

In sports of a complex nature and highly skilled. those natural advantages will not have such a dramatic effect as they do in 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.

petethedrummer wrote: »

Hmmm there's a limit when it comes to cycling, endurance sports and sprinting. I think you have your natural aerobic/anerobic capacity which you can only improve on so much... its not limitless

petethedrummer wrote: »

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?

Where you and I disagree is whether cycling is highly skilled or not. I would contend it isn't relative to other sports. That doesn't make it any less of a sport and could perhaps make it a purer sport.

Where I disagree with BriantheBard and agree with you, is that I think natural genetic advantages play a huge part in cycling (and also running and weightlifting).

silverharp · 15-08-2010 03:37PM

Can I ask a question, I know next to nothing about the sport but I am always in awe of the endurance of riders that do the Tour de France etc. The idea of people cycling several hours a day for several days, taking in kms of ascent long the way would appear to put the girliemen that play soccer to shame or to be serious, even Marathon runners only train for 1 day events.
So are cyclists up there with ultra marathon runners as far as energy expended and fitness is conerned or does it just look that way?

English Bob · 15-08-2010 07:04PM

Is cycling really a "simple sport?"
Maybe the pro's make it look "simple" when descending a mountain at over 90kph or when sprinting for a stage win on glass like slippery roads, but, trust me this is something that has been developed over thousand of hours of training and developing an understanding of bike handling. Your genetic make up will determine your body type which will determine your ability to sprint, climb, and keep up a decent pace for over 200k. But, genetics will not determine how you handle your bike when descending at savage speeds ala Sean Kelly!! That my friends takes a big set of brass ones and great, GREAT SKILL!!!

Slideshowbob · 15-08-2010 08:58PM

Pete

I would not say cycling is a highly skilled sport compared to others.

U never actually said you cant turn a donkey into a racehorse

petethedrummer · 15-08-2010 09:05PM

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Pete

I would not say cycling is a highly skilled sport compared to others.

Grand so we're in agreement.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

U never actually said you cant turn a donkey into a racehorse

Of course I did not say the exact phrase of course but that was the general thrust of my posts.

brianthebard · 16-08-2010 02:54PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

I agree and have said such before. Where I think we disagree is the level with which speed and endurance can been changed in a person. You think the level can be changed much more than I do. I don't believe I could have won the tour de france had I started early enough and been diligent enough at training and had all the desire and backing in the world, maybe you believe it is possible.

You know what I've said a dozen times I'm not talking about outliers, the OP wasn't talking about outliers, you're the only one who is and its faulty logic. You've constructed a strawman and you're beating the **** out of it, but my argument is far off in the distance.

how many times in this thread do I have to say that I don't consider speed strength and endurance to be skills.

You're saying they are genetically fixed, I don't care if you call them skills or not it equates to the same thing in your posts.

Slideshowbob · 16-08-2010 06:22PM

agree with brian on this one - pete has spoken through his hat alot on this thread

he is even assuming i am him are on the same hymn sheet - perish the thought

Gavin · 16-08-2010 08:01PM

Slideshowbob wrote: »

agree with brian on this one - pete has spoken through his hat alot on this thread

If you are going to make comments like that, you could at least back them up

Slideshowbob · 19-08-2010 10:01PM

More: http://is.gd/ep51b

If u read through the thread u can see I did back up my contentions

CramCycle · 20-08-2010 02:14AM

Slideshowbob wrote: »

More: http://is.gd/ep51b

If u read through the thread u can see I did back up my contentions

Sorry to be a pain but can you give a scientific paper as there are one or two phrases that are a bit hard to swallow in that article.

Not disagreeing with it, I'd just like to see a peer reviewed paper.

Edit: Found the letter is to appear in PNAS this week, maybe I'll wait till it's published before going on a " I did back up my contentions" warning

barochoc · 20-08-2010 03:01AM

As a former amateur cyclist myself I can definitely say you need a lot of skill.

Talent is one thing & natural talent helps a lot, but if you don't learn the necessary skills you'll struggle & make life a lot harder for yourself.

Plenty of people in here mentioned all the skills needed so I won't repeat them. But at the same time, you can learn all the skills needed but if you don't have the talent you'll stand still.

i think the single most important skill (or is it talent) in cycling is the ability to conserve energy. I personally believe this starts with a great pedal stroke & then ability to judge the terrain & position yourself accordingly.

Just my tuppence worth

The skill of cycling.

Comments