RainmanP

Racerx,
Let me see if I can address your concerns. I am using caps for my resp

"...most male cyclists are smaller than the general population of which country? ALL endurance atheletes are thin...."

I'm not sure I understand how this makes what I said wrong.

"Where do you find female atheletes larger than the average population??? That is totally off base."

I did not say athletes. I said cyclists. Take a look at the ladies winning the races.

"as for the general size range of "better riders", how do you come up with 5'6"-5'9"? Indurain, Armstrong, Meuseuw, Millar, Extebarria, Bettini, Bartoli, etc etc etc are all outside this range."

I guess I could have stated that better. I was referring to all the pros good enough to make the better teams in Europe, not to the elite of the elite. The pros on US teams seem in general a little larger.

"As for sprinters not being able to develop as much absolute power- hogwash! Did you see who won the Green Jersey this year? Hello? Robbie is about 5'8"/ 160lbs. did you see who won the World championship rr 2 years in a row? Friere is about 5'6" and known as one of the best sprinters in the world."

I said smaller muscles could not develop as much absolute power and that sprinters are not lightweights. At 160 Robbie is not a lightweight for someone 5'8". He has huge thigh muscles which certainly do have a lot of absolute power. Ditto Freire. Besides, don't both these examples support the point above.

"Size is not important. It is the power you can produce in comparison to your body weight, lung capacity, mental toughness. All that other stuff, while interesting, has no real meaning in any race and doesn't show anything of how great a cyclist can be."

While this is a theoretically accurate statement, I don't think we will be seeing many 6'6" 250 pound riders on pro teams.

I think my response to the question was on point and accurate. I could probably go through all the male and female pro team rosters and support my points, but frankly I don't care that much.