Lol, by ringo's logic Kruiswijk is the winner of 2016 Giro and Rodriguez did the Giro-Vuelta double in 2012. And Martin didn't win Lombardia in '14 and Nibali didn't win San Remo this year and so on.
The user formerly known as 'The Schleck Fan' Gracias Alberto.
Kalach wrote:
Guys you are just twisting words and catching for words.
In general, I think @ringo is right in his main point of the discussion that cycling is not comparable with other sport. Physical build is there what is crucial. And obviously, thats why there is a lot of scientific approach needed.
Therefore it may be possible, that right people, team and money may provide you "the best method" and you can possibly become one of the best in the peleton (considering you have some genetic potential) even if you had been mediocre. Maybe before, you were doing wrong things, or applying methods and approaches which did not suit you at all. Once you fixed it and solved what is best for you, even from average rider may become one of the best.
Obviously, at least in cycling it seems that it is possible.
How is that different from running or swimming?
What have running or swimming got to do with anything? Who has ever mentioned swimming and cycling? The comparison was cycling to skill based sports like football tennis and golf as referenced by Avin at the start of the discussion.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Forever the Best wrote:
Lol, by ringo's logic Kruiswijk is the winner of 2016 Giro and Rodriguez did the Giro-Vuelta double in 2012. And Martin didn't win Lombardia in '14 and Nibali didn't win San Remo this year and so on.
Please explain. Are they not all strong physically and did the physical element not play a major role in allowing Martin to win Lombardia up the final climb or Nibali to attack and hold off the field at San Remo.
You seem to be implying that Nibali thought his way to the finish line with no physical effort at all. But that would be a ridiculous thing to say. Lol.
If only winning MSR was as simple as thinking to attack on the Poggio. Why on't all the excellent bike handling intelligent riders just do that every year?
Edited by ringo182 on 26-07-2018 14:19
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Let's try it differently then. Based on physical skills (sprint, good on short hills, strong endurance), would you agree that Sagan is physicaly the best rider for a race like Milan - San Remo? And if you agree, how has he never won it if 90% of cycling is about the physical part?
Forever the Best wrote:
Lol, by ringo's logic Kruiswijk is the winner of 2016 Giro and Rodriguez did the Giro-Vuelta double in 2012. And Martin didn't win Lombardia in '14 and Nibali didn't win San Remo this year and so on.
Please explain. Are they not all strong physically and did the physical element not play a major role in allowing Martin to win Lombardia up the final climb or Nibali to attack and hold off the field at San Remo.
You seem to be implying that Nibali thought his way to the finish line with no physical effort at all. But that would be a ridiculous thing to say. Lol.
If only winning MSR was as simple as thinking to attack on the Poggio.
So you're saying when Allaphillipe won a couple days ago with Yates crashing, he wasn't more skillful?
Ollfardh wrote:
Let's try it differently then. Based on physical skills (sprint, good on short hills, strong endurance), would you agree that Sagan is physicaly the best rider for a race like Milan - San Remo? And if you agree, how has he never won it if 90% of cycling is about the physical part?
Because he probably is the strongest, but not by much over a peleton of elite cyclists. There are over 200 other riders and 300km of riding that decide the overall race. Anything can happen and the overall win is very often a lottery in any race. But being physically the strongest is a hell of a lot more important than being the smartest or the best bike handler.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Ollfardh wrote:
Let's try it differently then. Based on physical skills (sprint, good on short hills, strong endurance), would you agree that Sagan is physicaly the best rider for a race like Milan - San Remo? And if you agree, how has he never won it if 90% of cycling is about the physical part?
Because he probably is the strongest, but not by much over a peleton of elite cyclists. There are over 200 other riders and 300km of riding that decide the overall race. Anything can happen and the overall win is very often a lottery in any race. But being physically the strongest is a hell of a lot more important than being the smartest or the best bike handler.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Forever the Best wrote:
Lol, by ringo's logic Kruiswijk is the winner of 2016 Giro and Rodriguez did the Giro-Vuelta double in 2012. And Martin didn't win Lombardia in '14 and Nibali didn't win San Remo this year and so on.
Please explain. Are they not all strong physically and did the physical element not play a major role in allowing Martin to win Lombardia up the final climb or Nibali to attack and hold off the field at San Remo.
You seem to be implying that Nibali thought his way to the finish line with no physical effort at all. But that would be a ridiculous thing to say. Lol.
If only winning MSR was as simple as thinking to attack on the Poggio.
So you're saying when Allaphillipe won a couple days ago with Yates crashing, he wasn't more skillful?
Anyone can crash on a wet road. Didn't Sagan "The best bike handler in the world" crash yesterday? It's luck as much as judgement.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Kalach wrote:
It does not have to be convenient to compare totally different sports. In fact they are not comparable. I know what you want to say about Ronaldo, Federer etc. But maybe in cycling it does not work like that. If you have ability to suffer and right people around you, maybe you can succeed.
Okey, hockey, Zdena Chara, he should have been judo fighter. But here we go he became one of the best defenders in NHL.
Cycling in general seems to be the most complex and scientific oriented sport I can think of right now. Maybe thats the reason why things like this are happening....Because it seems that in cycling such things (to become somebody from nobody) are feasible.
I totally agree with your point, btw my question is, one thing is to be a partial time cyclist and turning into a good pro team it can give you a great improvement, but another point is if you are already a pro cyclist from many years, it is supposed that you are close at your best, and ok, like Sky support the fact that research in technology and training methods can give you those "marginal gains" it's true, I don't doubt about, but how can you improve? 3% maybe 7/8% at most? and it is a very high percentage of improvement at top level 7/8%
Dont know exactly what do you mean by those percentages? How did you come to those numbers?
Yes it would be very high percentage at high level but how do you know that it is 7/8%?
nothing scientific, just approximately, I'm sayng that with "marginal gains" you can't climb a mountain in 35:00 if your best record is about 50:00 when you are already a procyclist at 26/27, more credibly you can improve to 46/47', and that's already a good improvement
And Gilbert went head first over a wall. Is he not a good bike handler?
At the end of the day, when you are racing at your PHYSICAL limit intelligence and bike handling go completely out of the window and are not important at all. Did Froomes bike handling or intelligence matter yesterday when he couldn't physically stay with the leaders? How can he bike handle/think his way to victory in that instance?
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
ringo182 wrote:
Cycling is a purely athletic sport. There is no skill involved. People will reach their physical peak at different ages and it's possible for people who are average to improve with increased training. The best 16-18 year old cyclist may have reached their peak physically while someone who may be a late developer may be very average at 16-18 and then develop at a later age with the right trianing/diet/coaching.
Golf, Tennis, Basketball and Football are skill based games. You tend to learn the "skills" at a younger age when you are developing your motor skills and so those who are the best at a young age will tend to be the best at a later age, depending on how much time and effort they continue to put into it. If you can't kick a ball straight at 16-18 you're are never going to increase your skills to a point where you can be world class.
How many cyclist come late from other sports because their physiology is perfect for cycling? Quite a few. How many athletes go into football or tennis at a later age having not played before to any great level? None. It's impossible.
Therefore any comparison between cycling and other sports in this instance is completely pointless.
No, no, VERY no, and perhaps, even more no. I cover sports for a living, and these generalizations are laughable. At BEST. This whole arguments invalidates so much about “sports” of all kinds it’s ridiculous. The entirety falls apart from square one. No sport, NONE, is wholly one thing or the other. Golf, is not skill based. Every golfer you every talk to, interview, etc. will tell you it’s mostly mental. Hitting a golf ball is not overly difficult. Knowing which clubs are good in which situations, or against certain conditions is. Overcoming a bad day on the greens, or a pulled shot (which even the world’s greatest do more often then you’d think) is. Just look at the situation at Carnoustie last weekend — is Molinari the most skilled golfer in the world? No, but he played the smartest round on Sunday last week, and won a major because of it.
Tennis, come on now. Fed may have been the example, but let’s be honest, you don’t survive in tennis without physical prowess. Don’t underestimate how physical amazing Roger is. Also, arguably his greatest nemesis is Nadal, universally acclaimed at the most physically fit tennis player ever. Djokovic? A physical specimen. His endurance is unheralded. Serena Williams? Literally hits everyone other women off the court and wins by nailing them to the baseline. Sure, fancy shots between the legs and the occasion stunning cross court forehand winner dazzle. But the stark majority of tennis matches are won by breaking down your opponents forehand/backhand/etc.
Basketball. This is the most ludicrous. There are TWO skill facets in basketball: shooting (aka jumpers, post moves) and dribbling. EVERY other piece is physical. The greatest player in the game right now, LeBron, like Nadal, is universally accepted to be a freak of nature. The majority of his game now, at 33, is back down and bully to the rim, or accelerate a backpedaling defender and muscle to the hoop. Kevin Durant, he’s amazing because he’s a 6’11 jumpshooting nightmare. Emphasis is on 6’11, because, again, someone with his PHYSICAL attributes shouldn’t be so gifted. The only person that currently fits into your model of skill over physical in basketball is Steph Curry, and even still, he’s 6’2 and could bench press a couch with you lying on it. C’mon now...
And football...again, seriously? I’ll give you more skill facets in footie than perhaps the other three. But does skill perpetuate being able to run for 90-120 minutes essentially non stop? Or, know that your opponent is weak in the midfield or on the wings, and therefore you should channel your attacks to that area of the pitch? Not even. Skill is huge on free kicks, less so on something like penalties. Tackling, that’s a good 50/50 mix. Speed, which is a HUGE part of modern football, all physical. Sorry, but debunked, debunked, debunked.
At the end of the day, EVERY sport, from hockey to handball, is a combination of physical attributes, knowledge of gameplanning, and ad nauseam repetition. Skill is something learned at a relatively young age across the board, for all endeavors. Just like it was mentioned any five year old can ride a bike, any five year old can also shoot a basketball, throw a baseball and catch a football. The argument that one sport is more or less “X” is pointless. And to make the point that Avin was originally going for, ACROSS THE HISTORY of sports, no major superstar has ever burst on to scene after being a fledgling, at best, competitor for the first portion of their PRO career. The only analogous situation is home run hitting in baseball during the 80s and 90s...which we affectionately know as the steroid era. So, given cycling DODGEY history, it’s reasonable to be highly skeptical. /end of rant
Basketball. This is the most ludicrous. There are TWO skill facets in basketball: shooting (aka jumpers, post moves) and dribbling. EVERY other piece is physical. The greatest player in the game right now, LeBron, like Nadal, is universally accepted to be a freak of nature. The majority of his game now, at 33, is back down and bully to the rim, or accelerate a backpedaling defender and muscle to the hoop. Kevin Durant, he’s amazing because he’s a 6’11 jumpshooting nightmare. Emphasis is on 6’11, because, again, someone with his PHYSICAL attributes shouldn’t be so gifted. The only person that currently fits into your model of skill over physical in basketball is Steph Curry, and even still, he’s 6’2 and could bench press a couch with you lying on it. C’mon now...
Gotta disagree here. You forgot timing (f.e. for blocks and steals), footwork and the huge mental aspect of it which is a skill as well. This whole argument is rather redundant anyway as all of these categories mesh together. I could argue that shooting in basketball f.e. relies on physical abilities (efficiency of the shooting motion) and again argue that it's mostly mental
Never said purely at all. Please read my actual posts before wasting your time writing an essay.
I said Cycling is more physical. Probably 90/10% split
The skill based games are possibly the other way.
Therfore they can't be compared as a previous poster had argued.
Obviously other aspects come into it but that wasn't the discussion.
So are you saying you can compare cycling to football in terms of skill vs physical attributes?
By your essay Usain Bolt can become a Premier League football player or a basketball player.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Never said purely at all. Please read my actual posts before wasting your time writing an essay.
I said Cycling is more physical. Probably 90/10% split
The skill based games are possibly the other way.
Therfore they can't be compared as a previous poster had argued.
Obviously other aspects come into it but that wasn't the discussion.
So are you saying you can compare cycling to football in terms of skill vs physical attributes?
By your essay Usain Bolt can become a Premier League football player or a basketball player.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Basketball. This is the most ludicrous. There are TWO skill facets in basketball: shooting (aka jumpers, post moves) and dribbling. EVERY other piece is physical. The greatest player in the game right now, LeBron, like Nadal, is universally accepted to be a freak of nature. The majority of his game now, at 33, is back down and bully to the rim, or accelerate a backpedaling defender and muscle to the hoop. Kevin Durant, he’s amazing because he’s a 6’11 jumpshooting nightmare. Emphasis is on 6’11, because, again, someone with his PHYSICAL attributes shouldn’t be so gifted. The only person that currently fits into your model of skill over physical in basketball is Steph Curry, and even still, he’s 6’2 and could bench press a couch with you lying on it. C’mon now...
Gotta disagree here. You forgot timing (f.e. for blocks and steals), footwork and the huge mental aspect of it which is a skill as well. This whole argument is rather redundant anyway as all of these categories mesh together. I could argue that shooting in basketball f.e. relies on physical abilities (efficiency of the shooting motion) and again argue that it's mostly mental
Fair point on steals, left that out most definitely. Much like your point about shooting, I could argue blocking a basketball goes back to vertical or body position in regards to being a defending, which I attribute to physical. Then we all start grasping at straws I think.
Ultimately, your main point is what I was getting at, sports of any kind require a blend of talents that are more than just “this” or “that,” and arguing that cycling is it isn’t serves no real substantiation one way or the other. It’s unlikely my points would, or will, changes Ringo’s outlook; just as his are unlikely to change others.
I think it just serves to discredit all athletes to try and box them into a specific category; for example those individuals who laugh every four years and say “I could be an Olympic curler!” Simply put, it’s HIGHLY unlikely. These athletes are the best at what they do because excel in a wide scope of talents, not just being able hit a ball, score a goal, climb a mountain, etc.
Forever the Best wrote:
Lol, by ringo's logic Kruiswijk is the winner of 2016 Giro and Rodriguez did the Giro-Vuelta double in 2012. And Martin didn't win Lombardia in '14 and Nibali didn't win San Remo this year and so on.
Please explain. Are they not all strong physically and did the physical element not play a major role in allowing Martin to win Lombardia up the final climb or Nibali to attack and hold off the field at San Remo.
You seem to be implying that Nibali thought his way to the finish line with no physical effort at all. But that would be a ridiculous thing to say. Lol.
If only winning MSR was as simple as thinking to attack on the Poggio. Why on't all the excellent bike handling intelligent riders just do that every year?
Martin didn't even attack on the climb. He attacked with 1 km to go when everyone was looking at each other and Martin took a big win by using his brains that day, unlike Valverde who easily won the sprint of back but lost a monument because he wasn't tactically good enough.
Nibali's attack was braveness getting rewarded. If everyone had attacked there he wouldn't have won. He was one of the few that dared to attack and won. Also if someone like Pinot would have been in the position of Nibali at the top of Poggio he would have lost time in the descent and caught by peloton.
The user formerly known as 'The Schleck Fan' Gracias Alberto.
ringo182 wrote: Cycling is a purely athletic sport. There is no skill involved. People will reach their physical peak at different ages and it's possible for people who are average to improve with increased training. The best 16-18 year old cyclist may have reached their peak physically while someone who may be a late developer may be very average at 16-18 and then develop at a later age with the right trianing/diet/coaching.
Golf, Tennis, Basketball and Football are skill based games. You tend to learn the "skills" at a younger age when you are developing your motor skills and so those who are the best at a young age will tend to be the best at a later age, depending on how much time and effort they continue to put into it. If you can't kick a ball straight at 16-18 you're are never going to increase your skills to a point where you can be world class.
How many cyclist come late from other sports because their physiology is perfect for cycling? Quite a few. How many athletes go into football or tennis at a later age having not played before to any great level? None. It's impossible.
Therefore any comparison between cycling and other sports in this instance is completely pointless.
@Ringo
I don’t know if your definition of purely is different than mine, but you definitely did say it. If you’re speaking in hyperbole, that’s one thing, but at least own up to it.
Beyond that, it was not uncommon in the pre-Open era of tennis to be accomplished at both tennis and golf. So no, IMPOSSIBLE doesn’t quite fit. It might not necessarily ring true TODAY, but at one point it did. You can argue with me all you want, but when you put impossible, I have to scoff a bit. Furthermore, there are loads of footballers who played multiple sports in their amateur careers before settling on football as their professional careers.
To answer your Usain Bolt question: yes, I do. Perhaps not at his current age, but certainly during his prime. Over here in the US, a good amount of our national Track and Field team is comprised of multi-sport athletes. Just google Marquis Goodwin. Track is a VERY crossover heavy sport because it requires most simple speed and endurance. Could Usain have been as GREAT in those other sports as he was at sprinting? Almost certainly not. Could he have held his own, yes.
Pre open era and amateur level doesn't really count does it. I've played numerous sports amateurly, not particularly good at any of them.
And as said, I don't consider riding a bike as a skill so I stand by my purely athletic statement. At least in as much as the percentage importance of other things is that small to make it irrelevant when compared to the physical aspect.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
