Is cycling the most physically demanding sport ?



Hi there everybody, I couldn't resist chipping in.

I was a relatively high standard rowing up until a year ago. I went to the Junior and Under 23 World Championship, and trained pretty hard since I was about 15.

Now, the thing with rowing is that beacuse of the duration of most races (Olympics, World Champ) is between 5 1/2 and 7 minutes, you can't really classify it as a sprint or endurance sport. Indeed, it is both.

A rower's training is made up of long steady sessions and short, bursty ones. It ranges from a 120 minutes ergo to 3x10x20 second bursts, depending on how close a race is. Furthermore, you use many, many muscles in your body. Only swimming uses more muscles than rowing, and that is if you swim all types of strokes. If you are a specialist, say freestyle, you would use more muscles during the rowing movement.

During my years I have tried many sports as part of my rowing training. That is how I got into cycling!! These included: running, cycling, cross-country skiing, footbal (soccer) basketball, and many more. All as part of my training!! Also, golf was on the card during the summer months to just relax and have a break.

Now, there are two issues with rowing. Like not many sports, rowing has its pinnacle in the Olympics. While World Championships are held every year, winning an Olympic gold is the ultimate goal. It follows that if you commit to rowing as a full-time athlete, your chance to prove you're worth something only comes once every four years and it only lasts 5 1/2 to 7 minutes. And trust me, everything in those 5 1/2 to 7 minutes has to go to absolute perfection. There is no room for errors.

The other issue is the high standard of most rowers. You would agree with me that cycling is something everyone can do as a week-end outing once a month. Rowing isn't like that. The essence of rowing is competition. And even at the novice level, people train up to 15 hours per week. I used to train 30 hours a week. People like Redgrave or Pinsent are around 40-45 hours per week. That is a lot of effort and you don't get very much in return.

Having said this, I respect any sportsman for what they do. To be the best at anything you need practice, dedication, commitment. I admire anyone who's at the top of their game. At the same time, I admire people who are passionate about a sport, even though they only practise it sporadically.

It's not a question of the toughest sport. It's a question of how far people are willing to go to succed.
 
Originally posted by Psycorower
In rowing, EVERYTHING and i mean EVERYTHING hurts, and i don't just mean aching i mean proper hurting.

Yeah, I've been there. Not for long but a couple of years was enough! In rowing, you use practically every muscle in your body, and you train them for both strength and endurance. This is why rowers have to do weight training 3 times a week, after the 2 (or more) hour outings every day. Everything does indeed hurt.

On top of this, you get blisters. Blisters hurt and it doesn't matter how good you are, you still get them.

I admit that the Tour de France is definitely tougher than any single boat race, but that is only due to its length. I think there are plenty of other sports which would be tougher if you had to do them for 6 hours a day for 3 weeks. I guess it doesn't make for a very fair comparison.
 
Hey all. Been reading all the responses on the above hypothetical topic with a fair degree of interest. My history is a reasonable one of various competative sports. As a high school pupil into my university years I was a competative middle distance athlete 800m (1.52) and cross country (provincial level) as well as a national level Karate exponent. After varsity I switched to longer distance road running - the competative edge ws gone for me- and upped mydistances to half and full marathons with respecatble times - sub 2.45's. I also entered sprint triathlons at that time with not great success - cant swim to save my life.

After a few years hiatus, I got back onto the road - this time on a bicycle. In truth, after a reasonably successful and v competative history of athletics, I wasnt quite expecting the difficulty encountered when getting onto a bike. The new levels of pain were a real eye opener for me. I have since endured and moved on to become a reasonably competative vet racer in the 30-39 age category (K I am over 30 so maybe comparison a bit unreliable).

I think that for me the biggest difference between running and cycling is the power output demanded in pedalling a bicycle around. The heart may be there as is the aerobic ability, but the power output demanded by high level competative cycling would completely drain a marathon specialist in attempting a stage race (not even the TDF)- my opinion/experience of course.

I think the rowers comments down below appear reasonable as well - rowing looks to me like an incredibly demanding and intense power type sport - v v difficult I reckon. The point to make here is that the diff between amateur and worldclass rowing is in performance, not duration, whereas a pro cyclist cannot be compared with a top amateur - a 3 week tour is an insane endeavour.

Hope my 5 cents worth has made int reading - enjoy your days
 
Originally posted by ItalianStallion
Hi there everybody, I couldn't resist chipping in.

I was a relatively high standard rowing up until a year ago. I went to the Junior and Under 23 World Championship, and trained pretty hard since I was about 15.

Now, the thing with rowing is that beacuse of the duration of most races (Olympics, World Champ) is between 5 1/2 and 7 minutes, you can't really classify it as a sprint or endurance sport. Indeed, it is both.

A rower's training is made up of long steady sessions and short, bursty ones. It ranges from a 120 minutes ergo to 3x10x20 second bursts, depending on how close a race is. Furthermore, you use many, many muscles in your body. Only swimming uses more muscles than rowing, and that is if you swim all types of strokes. If you are a specialist, say freestyle, you would use more muscles during the rowing movement.

During my years I have tried many sports as part of my rowing training. That is how I got into cycling!! These included: running, cycling, cross-country skiing, footbal (soccer) basketball, and many more. All as part of my training!! Also, golf was on the card during the summer months to just relax and have a break.

Now, there are two issues with rowing. Like not many sports, rowing has its pinnacle in the Olympics. While World Championships are held every year, winning an Olympic gold is the ultimate goal. It follows that if you commit to rowing as a full-time athlete, your chance to prove you're worth something only comes once every four years and it only lasts 5 1/2 to 7 minutes. And trust me, everything in those 5 1/2 to 7 minutes has to go to absolute perfection. There is no room for errors.

The other issue is the high standard of most rowers. You would agree with me that cycling is something everyone can do as a week-end outing once a month. Rowing isn't like that. The essence of rowing is competition. And even at the novice level, people train up to 15 hours per week. I used to train 30 hours a week. People like Redgrave or Pinsent are around 40-45 hours per week. That is a lot of effort and you don't get very much in return.

Having said this, I respect any sportsman for what they do. To be the best at anything you need practice, dedication, commitment. I admire anyone who's at the top of their game. At the same time, I admire people who are passionate about a sport, even though they only practise it sporadically.

It's not a question of the toughest sport. It's a question of how far people are willing to go to succed.

Mr Stallion,

A very well articulated argument.
 
it is fascinating to hear the accounts of how tough other sports are, especially rowing.
I have tried it - and to be honest, I found cycling more appealing.
But that's just me : having said that rowing is extremely competitive and extremely tough and I am the first to admit that I simply did not have the strength required to row at a reasonable level..

Keep the comparisons coming !
 
"I think that for me the biggest difference between running and cycling is the power output demanded in pedalling a bicycle around."

I agree with you entirely. For me, the tough part is powering a bike uphill. I find this physically strenuous (I haven't fitted a triple cog yet). I've encountered hills where I've been forced to push 80% to keep the pedals moving and then you have to keep the effort going over several minutes.

For me it's interesting to compare my bike training with my squatting. The squats I do are with moderate weights for high reps and I also squat very low. This is more strenuous than riding a bike since there is more demand on the big muscles. Usually by the 10th rep I'm breathing very hard and that's when the real work kicks in as the reps are grinded out. I see very few people doing high rep squats as most guys stay on low reps. But it's really tough and I dread squat days.

I find it odd that squats don't seem to help my cycling - which proves how exercise differs. You would expect that the huge demand on oxygen intake via squatting would improve stamina as a whole but when I got back on my bike in Spring, my bike stamina wasn't too hot.








Originally posted by Mufasa
Hey all. Been reading all the responses on the above hypothetical topic with a fair degree of interest. My history is a reasonable one of various competative sports. As a high school pupil into my university years I was a competative middle distance athlete 800m (1.52) and cross country (provincial level) as well as a national level Karate exponent. After varsity I switched to longer distance road running - the competative edge ws gone for me- and upped mydistances to half and full marathons with respecatble times - sub 2.45's. I also entered sprint triathlons at that time with not great success - cant swim to save my life.

After a few years hiatus, I got back onto the road - this time on a bicycle. In truth, after a reasonably successful and v competative history of athletics, I wasnt quite expecting the difficulty encountered when getting onto a bike. The new levels of pain were a real eye opener for me. I have since endured and moved on to become a reasonably competative vet racer in the 30-39 age category (K I am over 30 so maybe comparison a bit unreliable).

I think that for me the biggest difference between running and cycling is the power output demanded in pedalling a bicycle around. The heart may be there as is the aerobic ability, but the power output demanded by high level competative cycling would completely drain a marathon specialist in attempting a stage race (not even the TDF)- my opinion/experience of course.

I think the rowers comments down below appear reasonable as well - rowing looks to me like an incredibly demanding and intense power type sport - v v difficult I reckon. The point to make here is that the diff between amateur and worldclass rowing is in performance, not duration, whereas a pro cyclist cannot be compared with a top amateur - a 3 week tour is an insane endeavour.

Hope my 5 cents worth has made int reading - enjoy your days
 
Originally posted by ItalianStallion

Having said this, I respect any sportsman for what they do. To be the best at anything you need practice, dedication, commitment. I admire anyone who's at the top of their game.

I have to agree here, one thing that amazes me is the ability which those who attain the highest levels of their sport posses. Elite rowers can maintain speeds for nearly 20 minutes that someone considered quite fit might only be able to maintain for 30 seconds or so. I'm sure that the same is true for cycling, being able to complete a days ride faster than a fit amateur...for three weeks. I think alot of people who do not delve too deeply into these types of sports don't ever see the phenomenal physical abilities of those who are at the top of their sports.
 
Originally posted by menglish6
I have to agree here, one thing that amazes me is the ability which those who attain the highest levels of their sport posses. Elite rowers can maintain speeds for nearly 20 minutes that someone considered quite fit might only be able to maintain for 30 seconds or so. I'm sure that the same is true for cycling, being able to complete a days ride faster than a fit amateur...for three weeks. I think alot of people who do not delve too deeply into these types of sports don't ever see the phenomenal physical abilities of those who are at the top of their sports.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.
Television coverage does not do justice to how fast runners run, rowers row or cyclists cycle.
The other day, I saw Paula Radcliffe on her training run (she comes to Limerick, Ireland, to attend the pre-eminent
physiotherapist Ger Hartmann).
Paula was probably out for her daily jog - if you been able to see
her daily 'jog', it would surpass my sprinting speed !
She was moving really really quickly.
And I'm sure it would be the same seeing Redgrave/Pinsent or
Ullrich/Armstrong.
The ability to do what they do is God-given but it also requires
hours and hours of sheer practice and dedication.
 
Originally posted by limerickman

The ability to do what they do is God-given but it also requires
hours and hours of sheer practice and dedication.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but I'm not sure that does the individuals effort justice. The _capacity_ to do what they do is god given, the ability to do it was earned.
 
Originally posted by menglish6
I don't mean to nit-pick, but I'm not sure that does the individuals effort justice. The _capacity_ to do what they do is god given, the ability to do it was earned.

I did state that they all work very very hard.
But they're also born with certain attributes too.
I'm reading a thesis by Tim Noakes MD on sport performance in running and invariably, he states that although the great athletes
work extremely hard - they also have been born with the attributes upon which hard work shows progression.
In other words, he concludes, that no matter how hard one works at ones sport, unless you are born with physical attributes to be the very best, you will never get there without those physical attributes.
 
Originally posted by limerickman
I did state that they all work very very hard.
But they're also born with certain attributes too.
I'm reading a thesis by Tim Noakes MD on sport performance in running and invariably, he states that although the great athletes
work extremely hard - they also have been born with the attributes upon which hard work shows progression.
In other words, he concludes, that no matter how hard one works at ones sport, unless you are born with physical attributes to be the very best, you will never get there without those physical attributes.

Right right...That's what I mean. They have the capacity to achieve these things (i.e. their hard work continues to pay off until they are among the best...whereas the rest of us given infinite free time would still plateau). I just wanted to point out that probably many others have these capacities as well, but are not able to apply themselves with the same degree of rigor.
 
Originally posted by menglish6
Right right...That's what I mean. They have the capacity to achieve these things (i.e. their hard work continues to pay off until they are among the best...whereas the rest of us given infinite free time would still plateau). I just wanted to point out that probably many others have these capacities as well, but are not able to apply themselves with the same degree of rigor.

Good.
Yes, our physical capacities would confine our progress - no matter how hard/well we train.
Although, Merckx has always stated that where the mind goes, the body will follow.
I guess it is good to train anyway - but to be the best of the best,
unfortunately you need to have the physical raw material to get you there !

It is a fascinating subject though - what makes a person have the physiological attributes to do well.
Is it genetic ?
Or can it be made given the right conditions ?
It's interesting
 
I have what might be considered to be a dumb question. I was watching the re-run of the Thriller in Manilla between Ali and Frazier on the sports channel. In those days boxers hovered around 210 - 250 pounds. Foreman, for that matter, was one of the biggest pro heavyweights.
Here is my dumb question:
How come boxers and cyclists differ so much in weight category? The thing is boxers like Ali would have done heaps of aerobics such as running and skipping, not to mention hours of sparring and working on the bag. Yet pro boxers tend to weigh far more than pro cyclists and boxing also has to be divided into weight divisions. However, as far as I know there are no weight divisions in cycling and you would never encounter a 230 lb cyclist.
Basically I watched Frazier and Ali go the full fifteen rounds and both were totally exhausted. So, I was led to appeciate the endurance that must be involved.
Can anyone offer any reason as to why pro-cyclists aren't divided into weight categories?
Another thing that struck me about boxing was when I watched a 200 pound fighter meet an opponent who weighed around 280. Amazingly the 200 pound fighter dropped his opponent in the first round and the bigger guy was flat out for ages. Again, it makes you understand that size and power are 2 different issues but I'm still puzzled as to why there are no heavyweight division cyclists.
Sorry if my question might seem stupid but I simply don't have an answer myself.



Originally posted by limerickman
Good.
Yes, our physical capacities would confine our progress - no matter how hard/well we train.
Although, Merckx has always stated that where the mind goes, the body will follow.
I guess it is good to train anyway - but to be the best of the best,
unfortunately you need to have the physical raw material to get you there !

It is a fascinating subject though - what makes a person have the physiological attributes to do well.
Is it genetic ?
Or can it be made given the right conditions ?
It's interesting
 
At the elite level I think some of the following are fairly equal due to energy requirements. Granted some are more aerobic and others are more anaerobic:

Wrestling, boxing, sprinting, middle distance running, long distance running, ultramerathon anything, rowing, cross country skiing, swimming, cycling.
 
Originally posted by Carrera
I have what might be considered to be a dumb question. I was watching the re-run of the Thriller in Manilla between Ali and Frazier on the sports channel. In those days boxers hovered around 210 - 250 pounds. Foreman, for that matter, was one of the biggest pro heavyweights.
Here is my dumb question:
How come boxers and cyclists differ so much in weight category? The thing is boxers like Ali would have done heaps of aerobics such as running and skipping, not to mention hours of sparring and working on the bag. Yet pro boxers tend to weigh far more than pro cyclists and boxing also has to be divided into weight divisions. However, as far as I know there are no weight divisions in cycling and you would never encounter a 230 lb cyclist.
Basically I watched Frazier and Ali go the full fifteen rounds and both were totally exhausted. So, I was led to appeciate the endurance that must be involved.
Can anyone offer any reason as to why pro-cyclists aren't divided into weight categories?
Another thing that struck me about boxing was when I watched a 200 pound fighter meet an opponent who weighed around 280. Amazingly the 200 pound fighter dropped his opponent in the first round and the bigger guy was flat out for ages. Again, it makes you understand that size and power are 2 different issues but I'm still puzzled as to why there are no heavyweight division cyclists.
Sorry if my question might seem stupid but I simply don't have an answer myself.

Ok, first off, I have some experience in boxing, not really heavy experience but I did train for boxing for a few months. Secondly,
there are some reasons why boxers are separated into weight categories is because when you're comparing the punching power of someone at 118 lbs to someone at 140 lbs, there is definitely a difference and that difference will usually result in the smaller guy being dominated given that they are both elite.

Secondly, when you're dealing with the heavyweights, each punch has more power and there is a much higher likelihood of knockouts because the jaw can only absorb so much force. The strength of the jaw doesn't necessarily increase with weight. Yes, it's true that their jaws are probably capable of absorbing more power, but there's an upper limit to how much power a person's jaw can take. That's why you'll notice in fights among elite lightweights turn into very rapidfire punching contests with an emphasis on points and when someone gets knocked out, it's usually because they got hit several times consecutively whereas in the higher weight divisions, it usually takes one magic punch to put someone to sleep. With the case of the 200 lb guy vs. the 280 lb guy, two things, one, the 280 lb guy will most likely be slower in movement of his hands and punches. Two, he may have had a weak chin aka glass jaw, which means he can not absorb as much force as someone with an iron jaw before his brain takes a concussion, a mild one.

With pro cycling, and also the demands of the sport, considered that they are extremely endurance based, the heaviest cyclist you MIGHT see would be 190 and a sprinter at that. The energy demands of professional cycling are so great that weight loss to a healthy minimum is going to happen inevitably. Another disadvantage that heavy or large cyclists receive is that they suffer a huge loss of speed in comparsion to the mean of the competition in both wind resistance and climbing. Whereas, a boxer has to have a healthy mixture of speed, power, and weight in order to be successful. I can promise you that every guy who would normally weigh 200 lbs in boxing would probably TRY to go down to 190 or 185 weight classes if the money was there for the reason that they could probably keep the extra power that they would naturally have while and simultaneously increasing speed. They also utilize different parts of their bodies whereas a cyclist focuses on the legs. They have to be able to use their arms, legs, trunk to produce sufficient power while sustaining speed and that means being able to achieve those means via weightlifting which often slows down the weight loss.

In cycling there is also a division of people of sorts by weight. IE, the ones who are featherlight are the mountain goats, the ones who are heavier but have extremely high peak power outputs are the sprinters, the ones who are in between are the GC riders as well as the best time trialists. You'll rarely see a featherweight cyclist beat the snot out of the sprinters and time trialists in those things just like you'll rarely see a pure sprinter beat the TTists and the climbers in those disciplines. Keep in mind that cycling's a team sport, not individual at the professional levels, it takes a good mix of all three to win GC or Team titles.

Thomas Davis
 
Hi,
An interesting response to my question. I guess I agree with everything you said in your post.
I've never boxed myself and usually only watch the fights where Ali or Foreman or Frazier boxed. Having said that, I do watch the old Chris Eubank bouts and I was really impressed by Tyson (before he threw it all away and deteriorated.)
The bout I referred to shocked me (the one you picked up on). The 280 pound guy didn't have a glass jaw and had been in with some quality heavyweights. However, the small 200 lb plus boxer was incredibly powerful and he hit very hard (a bit like Rocky Marciano). I think this really proved to me that power and size are 2 different things.
I find it interesting that boxers do so much aerobics. Boxers will jog and do road-running almost on a daily basis as well as lots of skipping and sparring. Their aerobic activity is pretty advanced and, to my knowledge, most boxers don't use weights.
At any rate, your take on cycling was informative. I'm presently reading Lance Armstrong's book "Every Second Counts" and it seems the aspect he developed most was climbing since he relies on making big gains in the mountains. Apparently he lives in Girona and spends hours up in the mountains. So maybe it would be correct to say that Armstrong is more of a climber where training is concerned. He seems to have a slight edge on Ulrich in the mountains but I note that Ulrich beat Lance in the Olympics.


Originally posted by tomdavis80
Ok, first off, I have some experience in boxing, not really heavy experience but I did train for boxing for a few months. Secondly,
there are some reasons why boxers are separated into weight categories is because when you're comparing the punching power of someone at 118 lbs to someone at 140 lbs, there is definitely a difference and that difference will usually result in the smaller guy being dominated given that they are both elite.

Secondly, when you're dealing with the heavyweights, each punch has more power and there is a much higher likelihood of knockouts because the jaw can only absorb so much force. The strength of the jaw doesn't necessarily increase with weight. Yes, it's true that their jaws are probably capable of absorbing more power, but there's an upper limit to how much power a person's jaw can take. That's why you'll notice in fights among elite lightweights turn into very rapidfire punching contests with an emphasis on points and when someone gets knocked out, it's usually because they got hit several times consecutively whereas in the higher weight divisions, it usually takes one magic punch to put someone to sleep. With the case of the 200 lb guy vs. the 280 lb guy, two things, one, the 280 lb guy will most likely be slower in movement of his hands and punches. Two, he may have had a weak chin aka glass jaw, which means he can not absorb as much force as someone with an iron jaw before his brain takes a concussion, a mild one.

With pro cycling, and also the demands of the sport, considered that they are extremely endurance based, the heaviest cyclist you MIGHT see would be 190 and a sprinter at that. The energy demands of professional cycling are so great that weight loss to a healthy minimum is going to happen inevitably. Another disadvantage that heavy or large cyclists receive is that they suffer a huge loss of speed in comparsion to the mean of the competition in both wind resistance and climbing. Whereas, a boxer has to have a healthy mixture of speed, power, and weight in order to be successful. I can promise you that every guy who would normally weigh 200 lbs in boxing would probably TRY to go down to 190 or 185 weight classes if the money was there for the reason that they could probably keep the extra power that they would naturally have while and simultaneously increasing speed. They also utilize different parts of their bodies whereas a cyclist focuses on the legs. They have to be able to use their arms, legs, trunk to produce sufficient power while sustaining speed and that means being able to achieve those means via weightlifting which often slows down the weight loss.

In cycling there is also a division of people of sorts by weight. IE, the ones who are featherlight are the mountain goats, the ones who are heavier but have extremely high peak power outputs are the sprinters, the ones who are in between are the GC riders as well as the best time trialists. You'll rarely see a featherweight cyclist beat the snot out of the sprinters and time trialists in those things just like you'll rarely see a pure sprinter beat the TTists and the climbers in those disciplines. Keep in mind that cycling's a team sport, not individual at the professional levels, it takes a good mix of all three to win GC or Team titles.

Thomas Davis
 
Hey, guys, remember this thread and how it died out, well, guess what, ESPN did a study of which sports out of 60 sports was considered the most difficult sport to excel at. Guess what got the top marks? Boxing, like I thought it would. It's so hard to be any good at boxing and the physical demands on the body are incredible. That's why I took up cycling because I wanted to keep my brain intact when I was 50 years old. This is the results of that study. Enjoy analyzing it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills?sort=total_rank#grid

Thomas Davis
 
Originally posted by tomdavis80
Hey, guys, remember this thread and how it died out, well, guess what, ESPN did a study of which sports out of 60 sports was considered the most difficult sport to excel at. Guess what got the top marks? Boxing, like I thought it would. It's so hard to be any good at boxing and the physical demands on the body are incredible. That's why I took up cycling because I wanted to keep my brain intact when I was 50 years old. This is the results of that study. Enjoy analyzing it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills?sort=total_rank#grid

Thomas Davis

Hi Thomas

I agree with you about boxing being the hardest but ESPN's definition of "difficultness" doesn't correspond to my idea of hardness: thus they rate figure skating as marginally harder than cycling mainly because of its high agility, flexibility ratings. But look at a figure skating at the end of an event - they aren't collapsed in a heap, under an oxygen mask or looking like 80 year old men with all strength drained away.

What ESPN does not consider is competiteveness of sports. Certain sports because of their financial rewards may also be incredibly competitive and be able to be practised by a much higher % of population than the aerobic/anaerobic sports which can only be contested really by a small % of population because of physical demands. Thus sports which are easier physically may be much more difficult to excel at because they're so much more competitivefrom the greater population who can participate.

In addition the ESPN survey just adds up the difficulty factor in each category eg flexibilty + agility + "strength" + power etc (why not "psychology" also) while there's a case for weighting each factor differently.

For my idea of hardness I'd like a physiological measure like perceived pain, heart rate, stress considered with duration of activity. There's the TRIMP measure with I think measures intensity * duration which some use for rating effort within cycling. Also to be considered is running enables higher heart rate than cycling so is running harder than cycling.
 
Hi All
Just having come in at the end of this thread, having myself participated in a number of sports over the years, and ironically my cycling career starting as merely a part of a training regime for another sport. Have any of you given consideration to motocross and some of the similar off road motorcycle racing such as Paris to Dakar.
From personal experience whilst racing motocross for 11 years of my life before the 5th knee operation ended any aspirations, i can tell you that it is probably (similar to Boxing) one of the most overall body workouts you can imagine, and to add to the difficulty is the concentration, required for this kind of activity.
It is not uncommon to do a 40 minute race with your heart rate in the 90+ zone for the entire period.
Whilst it may not have the endurance requirements of a cycling event lasting a couple of hours, my personal experience is that when racing the intensity is far greater to what i have experienced in an overall exhaustion manner than anything i have experienced in cycling, and have had more than my share of 'hitting the wall' in my last 8 years of cycling.

Just thought it would be interesting to hear anyone else's comments, as i have in the past seen comparisons that it was considered one of the most physically demanding sports around.
 
Originally posted by DarrylZ

It is not uncommon to do a 40 minute race with your heart rate in the 90+ zone for the entire period.

Hmm... It doesn't really sound that much......

Marathon runners will have theirs up to 130-140 for the whole race.

Cyclist (I am taking a bit of a guess here) will be around 110 for most of their races......

Rowers (and I should know this) do training sessions for 2 hours in the 140-150 range, and up to 1 hour in the 150-170 range....

Motocross, however, probably requires a lot of concentration, even during training. Possibly more than most sports.

Back to the ESPN chart, I think most values are a bit (and a fair bit) out. As a former rower, and someone who's tried lots of sports, I think those values simply do not reflect reality.

Example: I used to do 1 hour stretching every day, plus 30 minutes of core stability exercies. How come is it that rowing only scored 4.00 in flexibility? Nerve: 1.75. I guess the writer never found himself racing side by side another crew with his heart rate at about 180 bpm!!!

And rodeo..... come on.......

I'm sure there will be people here that disagree with my views, but one of the reasons I stopped rowing is the little recongnition it gets. I hope you can understand this is a bit of a touchy subject for me.

Have a great day everyone!!!
 

Similar threads