Originally Posted by grolby

Bleh. At a certain point, the worship of suffering in cycling culture ceased to have appeal to me, and then turned back on itself. From my point of view, there's so much crap out there about pain and suffering out there and it so dominates how "real" cyclists are supposed to view the sport that it drowns out almost any new or interesting thoughts on the sport. And this article just contributes to the fetish - you can always go harder, suffer more and you can be greater than you realized. That's what separates us from guys like Contador, etc. etc.

It's an idea that deserves more critical examination. Yeah, Craig Lewis is one tough mofo to finish Colorado with an incompletely healed femur. Is the take away supposed to be that that's somehow good for him? We out such an emphasis on mental toughness and then completely neglect to temper it with self-knowledge or prudence. I want to be able to tough it out to my athletic limit, but also to know when persistence is only damaging my body and my prospects of healing. It's not the easiest balance to strike, we're not talking about easy, are we? Sometimes just continuing to push is easier than being smart.

And there's just some flat-out bogus stuff there, too. Right on the front page. Like the idea that Voeckler is a lesser-talented rider, hanging on by dint of grit and persistence rather than physiological ability. That's baloney. The guy is one of the best talents in the peloton. Voeckler with a power meter and modern training methods would likely be a genuine podium contender in Grand Tours.

Basically, I'm with RX. A lot of times, you could have gone harder. Unless you couldn't have. Duh.

I'm so tired of the idea that racing is about suffering more than the other guy. It's not. Racing is about racing better than the other guy! This seems simple enough - if we're talking about racing, why are we suddenly switching to another verb? The ability to go really, really deep is a tool in the drawer, but it's just one of many.