Can anyone become Pro cyclist?

[Number 9]

Sounds good, and very logical. thanks

"Mark Fennell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cB_Mf.40095$V27.28446@fed1read06...
> Number 9 wrote:
>> Assuming average ability, and proper training, can "anyone" become a
>> professional cyclist?
>
> imho, there is a common belief that a person's *physical* characteristics
> determine how far he/she can go in bike racing. That is the wrong way to
> look at it. If a rider can put in 20-30 hours a week of quality training,
> for 4-6 years in a row, I think it is possible to reach at least the
> bottom of the domestic pro level. And please don't think I'm trivializing
> it. Quite the opposite actually, the mental strength and commitment to
> train that hard is huge. It's that mental ability to train hard and smart
> that separates cyclists.
>
> Here's the difference in a nutshell... The lower cat wannabe sits down and
> writes up a training plan (or pays a coach to do it), but ends up riding
> less than planned because of wind, rain, wife, kids, work, beer, you get
> the idea... The pro-destined rider does the opposite, almost always
> sticking to the plan and even going further, seeking out extra hills and
> headwinds, because he knows that successful racing is all about training.
> imho.
>
>

 

[William Asher]

"Callistus Valerius" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>> >
>> >Really, all he is saying is that cyclists are triathletes who can't
>> >run
> or
>> >swim. In that sense bicycle racing is sort of like the special
>> >olympics, except without all the damned hugging.
>>
>> Actually it is the ironman length tri that requires no talent
>> whatever,
> only
>> training time. Bike racing calls on some inate talent, mostly
> stubbornness, but
>> some athletic ability.
>>
>> Ron
>
> Ironman's don't involve drafting, so you do have to have athletic
> ability. Drafting takes none, as you already know. I would say
> stubborn, in the way that they don't want to lose the draft, as then
> they would be exposed as an athletic dunce. Have you ever seen the
> ones that drop out of the peloton, for whatever reason, and they're
> all alone? They don't look like much. The only racer I've seen that
> tries to use his athleticism, is Chris Horner. And critpro called him
> an ASS CLOWN for daring to do something athletic.
>
>

Are you talking about the weird dancing thing he does if he wins?

We need to cross-post this thread to people who would care. Maybe
rec.sports.rhythmicgymnastics.ball, rec.sports.rhythmicgymnastics.ribbon,
rec.sports.rhythmicgymnastics.hoop, and
rec.sports.rhythmicgymnastics.jackrabbit?

--
Bill Asher

 

[[email protected]]

Callistus Valerius wrote:
> >
> > Really, all he is saying is that cyclists are triathletes who can't run or
> > swim. In that sense bicycle racing is sort of like the special olympics,
> > except without all the damned hugging.

> exactly, a special olympics without the hugging. Instead is what you get is
> arrogance and pomposity on a scale that is so huge that I can't even think
> of another sport where the participants even come close to those in
> pro-bicycle racing. They attack their fans (freds), and then they are
> surprised when they have none.

Luftmensch,

The arrogance, pomposity, and anti-fred sentiment you are
*****ing about are characteristics of Masters Fattie racers, not pros.

Masters Fatties don't need fans. We are our own biggest fans.

Thank you for your attention. I deserve it, of course.

Ben

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Callistus Valerius wrote:
> > >
> > > Really, all he is saying is that cyclists are triathletes who can't run or
> > > swim. In that sense bicycle racing is sort of like the special olympics,
> > > except without all the damned hugging.
>
> > exactly, a special olympics without the hugging. Instead is what you get is
> > arrogance and pomposity on a scale that is so huge that I can't even think
> > of another sport where the participants even come close to those in
> > pro-bicycle racing. They attack their fans (freds), and then they are
> > surprised when they have none.
>
> Luftmensch,
>
> The arrogance, pomposity, and anti-fred sentiment you are
> *****ing about are characteristics of Masters Fattie racers, not pros.
>
> Masters Fatties don't need fans. We are our own biggest fans.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Often this is literally (or is it figuratively?) true.

--
tanx,
Howard

Various rats are whacked.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Raptor]

Number 9 wrote:
> Thanks for that serious opinion Raptor. I was referring to the "basic" Pro
> cyclist. This includes the guy that rides in the race to break the wind
> for the winner, and bring food, etc to everyone as well. I get the feeling
> you mean "top" Pros. Please revisit.

Robbie McEwen, a sprint specialist, climbs Alpe du'Huez in a time that
would make any amateur proud, even the climbing specialists. He has to,
or he won't make it through the cutoff time.

Someone reading this thread probably knows the VO2Max of the typical
pro, and how it compares to the typical human. Perhaps with hard
well-focused training, the average human could achieve a state of
fitness that wouldn't get them laughed out of the peloton.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"You American workers haven't seen an increase in real wages since the
1970s... But are you rioting? No. You're voting for Republican
candidates who give people like me tax cuts. You know what? I think
that's your way of saying 'Thank you.'" - Stephen Colbert

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:38:03 -0700, Raptor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Number 9 wrote:
>> Thanks for that serious opinion Raptor. I was referring to the "basic" Pro
>> cyclist. This includes the guy that rides in the race to break the wind
>> for the winner, and bring food, etc to everyone as well. I get the feeling
>> you mean "top" Pros. Please revisit.
>
>Robbie McEwen,

This brings up the question -- what "pro" is the question about? A
leader on a Protour team like McEwen? That' s a pretty high level.
Most pros never even get to ride the Tour of France like McEwen. What
about a leader of a small US team. Or even a worker on a small US
team?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[routebeer]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:59:45 GMT, "routebeer" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Number 9" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Assuming average ability, and proper training, can "anyone" become a
> >> professional cyclist?
> >
> >Yes, pretty much anyone can make money cycling.
>
> Make money? I thought being pro meant paying to ride. Are you sure
> about that?

Yeah, really.

> J was pro in high school -- messengering -- T

Being a bicycle messenger is being a professional cyclist. And you can make
money (a little bit) and will not need any talent whatsoever!

 

[routebeer]

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mark Fennell wrote:
> > Number 9 wrote:
> > > Assuming average ability, and proper training, can "anyone" become a
> > > professional cyclist?
> >
> > imho, there is a common belief that a person's *physical*
characteristics
> > determine how far he/she can go in bike racing. That is the wrong way to
> > look at it. If a rider can put in 20-30 hours a week of quality
training,
> > for 4-6 years in a row, I think it is possible to reach at least the
bottom
> > of the domestic pro level. And please don't think I'm trivializing it.
Quite
> > the opposite actually, the mental strength and commitment to train that
hard
> > is huge. It's that mental ability to train hard and smart that separates
> > cyclists.
> >
> > Here's the difference in a nutshell... The lower cat wannabe sits down
and
> > writes up a training plan (or pays a coach to do it), but ends up riding
> > less than planned because of wind, rain, wife, kids, work, beer, you get
the
> > idea... The pro-destined rider does the opposite, almost always sticking
to
> > the plan and even going further, seeking out extra hills and headwinds,
> > because he knows that successful racing is all about training. imho.
>
> I think there's a point you're failing to address, that being that
> those folks who have the will to train as you described do so because
> they HAVE the physical ability to benefit from the training and are
> receiving sufficient feedback to make the continued training
> worthwhile. Those without the inate physical ability will not get the
> feedback required and will not continue the training as required.

I understand what you are saying, but I think Mark has it right. If you
have better jeans then you will simply respond better to the stress induced
by the intensive training. You will develop more strength faster. Age is
more important than jeans. There is a huge difference between someone 28
and someone 30 years.

 

[Donald Munro]

routebeer wrote:
> I understand what you are saying, but I think Mark has it right. If you
> have better jeans then you will simply respond better to the stress induced
> by the intensive training. You will develop more strength faster. Age is
> more important than jeans.

When it comes to female cyclists I think better jeans are tighter jeans
(and a sexy butt of course which might be due to good genes).

> There is a huge difference between someone 28 and someone 30 years.

Between 28 and 35 perhaps, not that much between 28 and 30.

 

[Number 9]

Exactly, I was not only referring to Tour specialist, etc. I know many of
those riders are well above average. I do mean the average Pro. If you
get paid to ride a bike in America. Anything over say 20K per year.



"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:38:03 -0700, Raptor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Number 9 wrote:
>>> Thanks for that serious opinion Raptor. I was referring to the "basic"
>>> Pro
>>> cyclist. This includes the guy that rides in the race to break the
>>> wind
>>> for the winner, and bring food, etc to everyone as well. I get the
>>> feeling
>>> you mean "top" Pros. Please revisit.
>>
>>Robbie McEwen,
>
> This brings up the question -- what "pro" is the question about? A
> leader on a Protour team like McEwen? That' s a pretty high level.
> Most pros never even get to ride the Tour of France like McEwen. What
> about a leader of a small US team. Or even a worker on a small US
> team?
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Fennell wrote:

> Number 9 wrote:
> > Assuming average ability, and proper training, can "anyone" become a
> > professional cyclist?
>
> imho, there is a common belief that a person's *physical* characteristics
> determine how far he/she can go in bike racing. That is the wrong way to
> look at it. If a rider can put in 20-30 hours a week of quality training,
> for 4-6 years in a row, I think it is possible to reach at least the bottom
> of the domestic pro level.

Sorry, but I must disagree: no matter how dedicated you might be, I
don't think you can become even a domestic professional unless you have
a genetic "leg up" over >50% of the population.

Andy Coggan

 

[Stu Fleming]

[email protected] wrote:

> Sorry, but I must disagree: no matter how dedicated you might be, I
> don't think you can become even a domestic professional unless you have
> a genetic "leg up" over >50% of the population.

Entry level back in 1991 or so was 390W of aerobic power.
75 ml/kg/min VO2max was the other rule of thumb.

Probably better indicators now...

Stu
(topped out at 360W and 70 ml/kg/min)

 

[routebeer]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Fennell wrote:
>
> > Number 9 wrote:
> > > Assuming average ability, and proper training, can "anyone" become a
> > > professional cyclist?
> >
> > imho, there is a common belief that a person's *physical*
characteristics
> > determine how far he/she can go in bike racing. That is the wrong way to
> > look at it. If a rider can put in 20-30 hours a week of quality
training,
> > for 4-6 years in a row, I think it is possible to reach at least the
bottom
> > of the domestic pro level.
>
> Sorry, but I must disagree: no matter how dedicated you might be, I
> don't think you can become even a domestic professional unless you have
> a genetic "leg up" over >50% of the population.
>
> Andy Coggan

Every once in a while you can get an expert's opinion out of rbr.

 

[routebeer]

"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> routebeer wrote:
> > I understand what you are saying, but I think Mark has it right. If you
> > have better jeans then you will simply respond better to the stress
induced
> > by the intensive training. You will develop more strength faster. Age
is
> > more important than jeans.
>
> When it comes to female cyclists I think better jeans are tighter jeans
> (and a sexy butt of course which might be due to good genes).

LOL. And I didn't even spell jeans right. My spell checker had to correct
jens.

> > There is a huge difference between someone 28 and someone 30 years.
>
> Between 28 and 35 perhaps, not that much between 28 and 30.

The way I understand it, by 30 your body has begun to die. At 28 you're
still on level ground, and in your early 20's you are still growing. If you
begin training at age 28 then you benefit much more than if you waited until
30. At 30 your body will take longer to adapt to the physical stress. That
said, you're no old man at 30. I don't know if this is 'huge' per se but it
seems to be the largest gap to me, bigger than say 30 to 32. 18=smart,
28=late/still some partying, 30=fukt, 32=fukt+

 

[Mark Fennell]

Andy Coggan wrote:
> Sorry, but I must disagree: no matter how dedicated you might be, I
> don't think you can become even a domestic professional unless you have
> a genetic "leg up" over >50% of the population.

Andy,

I'm certainly no Robert Chung, but aren't you simply saying that if one is
"below" the median, then it might not be possible to make it to a
professional level? Since the original question was about the average
person, it doesn't seem like you're disagreeing too strongly.

btw, my opinion is based only on comments from people who have made it to
that level and credit hard work, not superior genetics, as well as observing
the correlation between training commitment and success of many people over
a long time. So, totally empirical. Are there studies that address this
issue? In particular, quantifying the response to significant training over
many years?

Mark

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:06:12 -0800, "Mark Fennell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>btw, my opinion is based only on comments from people who have made it to
>that level and credit hard work, not superior genetics, as well as observing
>the correlation between training commitment and success of many people over
>a long time.

I still think that is self-selecting and comparing themselves to
others around them - IMO others that have some affinity to bicycle
racing. Some have great talent in that group and seem to achieve
without great efforts and others need to work harder and train more
carefully - but there were those that trained hard and still went off
the back.

I look at marathon runners to form my opinion - some of the amateurs
put in ungodly training hours and still are mediocre, even running
with $ 200 shoes. If a sport with an almost minimal threshold of entry
has a large disparity even among those that train hard, I have to
believe that it is also true of bicycling.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Scott]

Mark Fennell wrote:
> Andy Coggan wrote:
> > Sorry, but I must disagree: no matter how dedicated you might be, I
> > don't think you can become even a domestic professional unless you have
> > a genetic "leg up" over >50% of the population.
>
> Andy,
>
> I'm certainly no Robert Chung, but aren't you simply saying that if one is
> "below" the median, then it might not be possible to make it to a
> professional level? Since the original question was about the average
> person, it doesn't seem like you're disagreeing too strongly.
>
> btw, my opinion is based only on comments from people who have made it to
> that level and credit hard work, not superior genetics, as well as observing
> the correlation between training commitment and success of many people over
> a long time. So, totally empirical. Are there studies that address this
> issue? In particular, quantifying the response to significant training over
> many years?
>
> Mark

Of course they credit to their own hard work. Nobody wants to admit
that they are 'naturals'.

 

[Number 9]

This answer seems to be very reasonable. I do think cycling is a
commitment sport. thanks

"Mark Fennell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cB_Mf.40095$V27.28446@fed1read06...
> Number 9 wrote:
>> Assuming average ability, and proper training, can "anyone" become a
>> professional cyclist?
>
> imho, there is a common belief that a person's *physical* characteristics
> determine how far he/she can go in bike racing. That is the wrong way to
> look at it. If a rider can put in 20-30 hours a week of quality training,
> for 4-6 years in a row, I think it is possible to reach at least the
> bottom of the domestic pro level. And please don't think I'm trivializing
> it. Quite the opposite actually, the mental strength and commitment to
> train that hard is huge. It's that mental ability to train hard and smart
> that separates cyclists.
>
> Here's the difference in a nutshell... The lower cat wannabe sits down and
> writes up a training plan (or pays a coach to do it), but ends up riding
> less than planned because of wind, rain, wife, kids, work, beer, you get
> the idea... The pro-destined rider does the opposite, almost always
> sticking to the plan and even going further, seeking out extra hills and
> headwinds, because he knows that successful racing is all about training.
> imho.
>
>

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

[email protected] wrote:

> Mark Fennell wrote:
>
>
>>Number 9 wrote:
>>
>>>Assuming average ability, and proper training, can "anyone" become a
>>>professional cyclist?
>>
>>imho, there is a common belief that a person's *physical* characteristics
>>determine how far he/she can go in bike racing. That is the wrong way to
>>look at it. If a rider can put in 20-30 hours a week of quality training,
>>for 4-6 years in a row, I think it is possible to reach at least the bottom
>>of the domestic pro level.
>
>
> Sorry, but I must disagree: no matter how dedicated you might be, I
> don't think you can become even a domestic professional unless you have
> a genetic "leg up" over >50% of the population.
>
> Andy Coggan
>


Allowing that except for almost any performance parameter, it is tough
to figure out even what the 50th percentile is. Maybe for fast-twitch
fibers.
I know that when I raced, George Hincapie was riding away from our B
group easily and consistently. I'm sure he trained hard, but...I was
33, and he was 13 at the time.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

 

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Mark Fennell wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Number 9 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Assuming average ability, and proper training, can "anyone" become a
>>>> professional cyclist?
>>>
>>>
>>> imho, there is a common belief that a person's *physical*
>>> characteristics
>>> determine how far he/she can go in bike racing. That is the wrong way to
>>> look at it. If a rider can put in 20-30 hours a week of quality
>>> training,
>>> for 4-6 years in a row, I think it is possible to reach at least the
>>> bottom
>>> of the domestic pro level.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I must disagree: no matter how dedicated you might be, I
>> don't think you can become even a domestic professional unless you have
>> a genetic "leg up" over >50% of the population.
>>
>> Andy Coggan
>>
>
>
> Allowing that except for almost any performance parameter, it is
> tough to figure out even what the 50th percentile is

I mean for genetic component of a given performance parameter.

Steve

.. Maybe for
> fast-twitch fibers.
> I know that when I raced, George Hincapie was riding away from our B
> group easily and consistently. I'm sure he trained hard, but...I was
> 33, and he was 13 at the time.
>
> Steve
>


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001