PCM.daily banner
22-11-2024 22:41
PCM.daily
Users Online
· Guests Online: 73

· Members Online: 1
Mresuperstar

· Total Members: 161,788
· Newest Member: Robertner
View Thread
PCM.daily » Off-Topic » Cycling
 Print Thread
Boasson Hagen
ringo182
[quote]schleck93 wrote:

2) Genetics is not a theory it's a fact, genetics determinates how tall people can be, how their building is (some people are born chuppy others eat themself into chuppiness). The same way some people are born with lots of shorttichets and others with lots longtichets muscelfibres, longtichets are used in endurance sports like cycling, sprinters have more shorttichestsfibres than guys like the Schlecks. Envoirment as you state is very important to, but just look at Lövkvist a decent climber but from island he's from (gotland) the highest point ain't much higher 10 meters above sealevel.

there's always the odd exception. :lol:

yes genetics is fact, but that it decides what type of rider you will be from birth is what i don't agree with. you have 6 foot plus riders who are good at climbing. becasue that is how they were brought up and what they did from an early age.

then you get tiny riders, like Roger Hammond, who is rubbish in the mountains because he developed into a classics rider because of his environment. i don't believe that genetics plays any part in decided what style of rider you turn into.

it can all be trained and changed.
 
ringo182
yes it will take time, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. this is my point. i'm simply saying it's possible but others seem to think i'm saying it's gonna happen over night.

as for cav loosing weight, yes he will loose muscle, but it will be upper body muscle which isn't needed in the mountains.
 
issoisso
ringo182 wrote:
bare with me, this could be a long post mostly directed at isso.

1) no not many riders make a massive transition from one speciality to another, but it has nothing to do with generic build. Firstly, like all sports, cycling is a results sport and teams and sponsors want results for their money. Here's a scenario:

Cavendish: yes i'll join your team. i want £100 000 a month.
DS: thats more then anyone else on the team but i think it's worth it for someone to garantee 25 wins a season.
Cavendish: no, i don't want to be a sprinter anymore. i want to try to improve my climbing and compete in stage races for the overall GC.
DS: There's the door!!!

No team is going to pay a rider to transfer skills when they are good at something already. teams sign riders because they can do a job, not because they might be good at something else if they train (which they will do). Wiggins is a good example. High Road obviously just wanted him to be a lead out man but Wiggins wanted more. He found a team who were willing to support him a hey presto.
Secondly, in this section. If a rider is good at something then why try to be something else? Why would a rider like cavendish or contador or Cancellara try to change if they were already the best at what they do?

thats why you don't see many riders crossing over.


That's one reason. The other reason is that you'd be foolish to try something you're not suited for.

ringo182 wrote:
2) Genetics. This whole theory is in my opinion a load of rubbish. yes it will make a difference between two sprinters or 2 climbers, but to say it will determine what type of rider you are is a load of rubbish. look at the best classics riders and where do they all come from? ( or the vast vast majority at least) the answer is northern Europe because they have been brought up in those conditions and so are used to riding and have developed into a certain style.
Now look at where all the best climbers come from? The answer is from countries with mountain ranges because that is what they have been brought up doing and so have also developed into a certain style. it has nothing to do with genetics or muscle build, it's all just what they did in their own country. all it takes to change from a mountain rider into a cobbled rider is to change how you change and your body shape which is easy to do.


Wrong. The reason most riders tend to be good at the type of terrain of their country is twofold:

1. It's where they train. You can't train to be a mountain goat if you live in holland.

2. More importantly, the racing is where you can show yourself. If you're a great sprinter who lives and races in mountainous terrain, you're never going to turn pro because you will never have a single chance to show your sprinting skills.

However, some are so talented, that they supersede this. And that's another hole in your point. If what you said were true, belgian superclimbers like Lucien Van Impe would never have existed. Robert Gesink would be a classics rider.

The fact that you're throwing genetics down the chute as "crap" is insane. You sound like a creationist. You're saying that science is bullshit.

ringo182 wrote:
3) personally i believe that all cyclist are the same no matter what their speciality, they all just use there legs in a differant way. you can show me all the studies at in the world to disprove me


And you won't believe them. Which shows you're not rational. So why am I even bothering with this post?


ringo182 wrote:
but at the end of the day 30 years ago no-one knew any of the training routines of today and still did fine and in 30 years time people will look back and say what we do now is wrong. it's all just what kind of training is in fashion at the time.


Completely wrong. They were fine because they didn't train very well and neither did anyone else. Make Contador nowadays train like in 1970 and he'll be lucky to finish the Tour.

ringo182 wrote:
Now take Contador and Cavendish. I'm sure isso could tell me their power outputs when Cavendish sprints and Contador accelerates up a mountain. I'm guessing they're probably similar.


Not even close. We're talking one is more than double the other.


ringo182 wrote:
if they've both got the power then why couldn't they train their legs in a different way to use this power however they wanted. If Cavendish lost weight and trained in the mountains then he'd still have the same power but less weight and better endurance. why isn't it possible.


Because

1. He wouldn't have the same power

2. He'd still have fast-twitch muscle fibers. He'd be a great climber....for 200m long climbs.

ringo182 wrote:
4) yes i have not got a grasp of biology, but that means i'm asking questions that you wouldn't because you just take what you know as a given and everything else is wrong. as i said, 30 years ago scientist believed something different and in 30 years time some new theory will be all the rage.

and i haven't got a know it all attitude. just an inquisitive one and one that won't be fobed of by being told i'm wrong with no evidence to back up that i'm wrong. all i'm doing is asking a question, offering my theory and waiting for someone to disprove me.

thats what a forum is for.


Quite the contrary. You're being offered the facts. You just choose to sprinkle them with fairy dust so they'll disappear into the jolly old kingdom of OZ. Also know as "ignoring them".


Also....what schleck said.

Honestly, I can't be bothered with someone like you who denies facts. So I'll just say...

"Read This"

A recent training article in a cycling magazine looked at the impact of talent on how riders will respond to training. Those with low potential face a rapidly-flattening performance curve. Training will yield initial gains but the rider will struggle to get beyond, in the example, the capabilities of a cat.4 racer. Those with high potential have a performance curve that leads all the way to the top of the sport. Most riders, of course, fall somewhere in between to varying degrees.

In cycling, we take this idea of low and high potential as a given. There are certain unalterable physical characteristics that we as individuals have, based on our physiological makeup with muscle composition and aerobic capacity and so on. Improvements can be made, for sure, and the tools can certainly be sharpened, but we’ve all only got the toolbox we were born with.

In his book A Dog in a Hat (perfectly subtitled as: An American bike racer’s story of mud, drugs, blood, betrayal, and beauty in Belgium), Joe Parkin describes how when he first arrived in Belgium he was thoroughly tested physically by a local sports doctor to see if his ‘numbers were good’. Parkin’s numbers were quite good and he was well over the dividing line from amateur to “Beroepsrenner” or professional. He was placed solidly as a Classics rider. But according to Parkin, he had dreams of becoming a King of the Mountains and fastidiously watched his weight when he should probably have learned how to sprint.

Testing is more advanced these days, with VO2 Max and other parameters readily accessible and profiles of the sort of rider one might become, with dedication, are available. Ultimately, there really is no way of overcoming certain limitations - no matter how much training one does.

Whether those with physical gifts make it to the top is a difference question, and training and motivation are obviously central to this equation. Hidden advantages will, of course come into play, and perhaps even cultural legacies as well. These are useful self-evident conclusions to consider on the issue of training. If one is a high potential rider, the only limitations to performance may well be how hard one is prepared to work to maximise that potential.


For those with low potential, it can actually be reassuring to know training oneself into the road is not going to produce a miracle result. Some humility in the face of nature is important.

Still, as Parkin recounts, if he had accepted his apparent predestination as a solid Classic rider he might not have tried as hard to achieve something else, to push himself towards a goal that ultimately, perhaps not surprising, proved to be elusive. “If I had understood and accepted the verdict of the numbers, I might not have given it the shot I gave it. Who knows?”

We might accept some humility, but to add a piece of fortune-cookie wisdom, perhaps the point of the journey is not to arrive. Which is why many of us, despite limited potential, will still be out there on the roads trying to to push ourselves a little bit more, all for the sake of the journey.

Edited by issoisso on 07-08-2009 16:26
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified

i.imgur.com/YWVAnoO.jpg

"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
 
Wyman
Theres more chance of Adolf Hitler coming back from the dead, reforming the Third Reich and taking over the world....
Than Cav ever becoming a climber....
i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk33/alexwyman/sign11.png
 
Stijn_vranken
Epic huge post by Resident
prevent hangovers --> stay drunk
pozzato, basically the most stupid cyclist around

RIP WW. Gone but not forgotten
 
Waghlon
This thread reeks of deja-vu.
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY


pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/funniest.png
 
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
ringo182
good points isso. maybe some of my comments were a bit over the top. of course i'd look at scientific evidence if it was reliable. but everyhing changes, even scientific belief. what is thought to be true today might not be in 30 years and that you can't really deny that. technology will improve and we'll learn more about the human body then we know now. if anything i'm the opposite of a creationist.

yes there are instances of one off riders being good at something not natural to them and Gesink is a good example. has he spent his whole career in northern Europe? has he spent time living and training in mountainous regions? has he always been a good climber from a junior through to professional? does anyone know this?

but these are the very rare exceptions rather then the rule. also, it's a sticky subject, but drugs can improve a riders performance in terrains not natural to them. not saying everyone is drugged, but it's a definate factor.

also, where did your article come from? i read articles all the time and lot's of the time they are just opinion. anything can be proven with statistics.

the article doesn't really prove you right or me wrong. yes the rider says he was told he had the making of a classics rider and should have stayed at that. but he was at a team that had already placed him as a classics rider and so gave him no support in trying to improve his climbing. if he had the proper support would it have been a differant story? also the article says "Testing is more advanced these days, with VO2 Max and other parameters readily accessible", would the same conclusions of his ability have been made today?

sorry if i'm coming across as being a stubborn know it all isso, but i am the opposite and am simply asking questions on the subject and then looking at the answers and asking more questions.
 
raar1991
EBH takes another stage in Tour de Pologne Grin
 
Kirchen_75
EBH smashed them all including Ballan at finish. What a rider. Next World Champion?? Grin
 
ruben
Relax, it's just Tour of Poland stage, for crying out loud
 
Calzone
EBH could win the world championships, if he has a bit luck Smile
 
Ad Bot
Posted on 22-11-2024 22:41
Bot Agent

Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09

IP: None  
Kirchen_75
ruben wrote:
Relax, it's just Tour of Poland stage, for crying out loud


Lol that was mountain stage of UCI Pro Tour race and he beat them like 50 meters on the finish. This guy is godlike
 
doddy13
Since when did people actually pay that much attention to a race hyped up by the UCI, which has even has a calendar slot change in the vague hope to make it popular.
There's no point slapping a schleck - Sean Kelly on "Who needs a slap"
 
schleck93
Kirchen_75 wrote:
ruben wrote:
Relax, it's just Tour of Poland stage, for crying out loud


Lol that was mountain stage of UCI Pro Tour race and he beat them like 50 meters on the finish. This guy is godlike


It was a stage where, no frecking thing happened! It was a 25 man group finishing together on the queen stage, ofcourse Hagen would in a group like that, it doesn't amke him godlike, if the "bigguns" had been racing he wouldn't have been close to winning.
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
 
Goldberger
Everytime Edvald wins a stage one part of the forum says best rider ever, and the other half look for every possible weakness with either him, his opponents, or the race.

I just say well done.Rolling Eyes
 
Stijn_vranken
Goldberger wrote:
Everytime Edvald wins a stage one part of the forum says best rider ever, and the other half look for every possible weakness with either him, his opponents, or the race.

I just say well done.Rolling Eyes

Freedom of speech!
prevent hangovers --> stay drunk
pozzato, basically the most stupid cyclist around

RIP WW. Gone but not forgotten
 
Waghlon
THIS JUST IN! The Tour de France 2011 will start in Norway to celebrate last years winner, Edvald Boasson Hagen!
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY


pcmdaily.com/files/Awards2016/funniest.png
 
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
ruben
Kirchen_75 wrote:
ruben wrote:
Relax, it's just Tour of Poland stage, for crying out loud


Lol that was mountain stage of UCI Pro Tour race and he beat them like 50 meters on the finish. This guy is godlike


Grow hair on your balls first, than come back. Thanks.
 
doddy13
ruben wrote:
Kirchen_75 wrote:
ruben wrote:
Relax, it's just Tour of Poland stage, for crying out loud


Lol that was mountain stage of UCI Pro Tour race and he beat them like 50 meters on the finish. This guy is godlike


Grow hair on your balls first, than come back. Thanks.


Dude. Every UCI pro tour race that has mountains is as hard as the hardest possible mountain stage ever.

Surely a cycling fan like you would know that. Pfft
There's no point slapping a schleck - Sean Kelly on "Who needs a slap"
 
mb2612
ringo182 wrote:
good points isso. maybe some of my comments were a bit over the top. of course i'd look at scientific evidence if it was reliable. but everyhing changes, even scientific belief. what is thought to be true today might not be in 30 years and that you can't really deny that. technology will improve and we'll learn more about the human body then we know now. if anything i'm the opposite of a creationist.

yes there are instances of one off riders being good at something not natural to them and Gesink is a good example. has he spent his whole career in northern Europe? has he spent time living and training in mountainous regions? has he always been a good climber from a junior through to professional? does anyone know this?

but these are the very rare exceptions rather then the rule. also, it's a sticky subject, but drugs can improve a riders performance in terrains not natural to them. not saying everyone is drugged, but it's a definate factor.

also, where did your article come from? i read articles all the time and lot's of the time they are just opinion. anything can be proven with statistics.

the article doesn't really prove you right or me wrong. yes the rider says he was told he had the making of a classics rider and should have stayed at that. but he was at a team that had already placed him as a classics rider and so gave him no support in trying to improve his climbing. if he had the proper support would it have been a differant story? also the article says "Testing is more advanced these days, with VO2 Max and other parameters readily accessible", would the same conclusions of his ability have been made today?

sorry if i'm coming across as being a stubborn know it all isso, but i am the opposite and am simply asking questions on the subject and then looking at the answers and asking more questions.


I am worried by some of the assumtions you make in your post, yes sciencentific opinions change over time, on the whole for the better, but that does not mean we should completely disregard what we know now, studies can be wrong, and produce misleading results, studies can also be based on faulty assumtions but I do not know of a single experiment which has been turned 180 degrees by future science which was not treading on unstable ground based even on knowledge available at the time.
By your argument we should not bother teaching science in school at all because it might be wrong, or even is wrong (i.e. Newton).

On the subject of riders conforming to stereotypes, there are a couple of main reasons:
1) Exposure, if you have the potential to grow up to be a world beater however you live in Bangladesh and don't see a bike untill you are 20 you are never going to have the opportunity to do well. the same is true to a lesser extent for belgian climbers and Spanish sprinters. The culture of cycing has to be there in order for the good sportsmen to pick cycling as the sport they want to continue.

2)Genetics, the Dutch people are on average the tallest in the world and as such those with the talent for cycling will naturally be more suited to the rigours of classics racing as opposed o climbing.
i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq112/Gustavovskiy/microjerseys/PT/std_zpsb6c2f350.png[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182]Team Santander Media Thread[/url]i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq112/Gustavovskiy/microjerseys/PT/std_zpsb6c2f350.png

Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated
 
Jump to Forum:
Login
Username

Password



Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Latest content
Screenshots
Misunderstanding
Misunderstanding
PCM10: Funny screenshots
Fantasy Betting
Current bets:
No bets available.
Best gamblers:
bullet fighti... 18,376 PCM$
bullet df_Trek 17,374 PCM$
bullet Marcovdw 15,345 PCM$
bullet jseadog1 13,552 PCM$
bullet baseba... 10,439 PCM$

bullet Main Fantasy Betting page
bullet Rankings: Top 100
ManGame Betting
Current bets:
No bets available.
Best gamblers:
bullet Ollfardh 21,890 PCM$
bullet df_Trek 15,520 PCM$
bullet Marcovdw 14,800 PCM$
bullet jseadog1 13,500 PCM$
bullet baseball... 7,332 PCM$

bullet Main MG Betting page
bullet Get weekly MG PCM$
bullet Rankings: Top 100
Render time: 0.31 seconds