Originally Posted by
peterot
I dont know waterrockets but calling a guy "gifted" that is downgrading from 2 to 3 cause he cant hang is a ******** joke. I am sure he is a great cyclist but the term gifted is usually used for the elite.
I dont know the path every single Cat 1 took to get to where they are and either do you. All I know is that a few guys that race in the Pro/1/2 field are not genetically superior. They will never win a Pro/1/2 race or place in the top 10 and they are basically on for the ride. Besides racing the local crit and TT series I dont keep tabs on the lates developments in upgrading points and amateur rules. However, when I used to race xc mountain bikes I remember that the Junior Experts would go directly to the Elite field when they came of age and I always remember think that it was a ******** joke that these average juniors could fast track to Elite without doing anything of note.
Look, the genetically determined physiological characteristics that affect performance are on a spectrum, not on/off switches. You don't just "have genetics" or not. The best of the best have the perfect storm of genetics and they train their ass off. Someone who has higher than average genetic potential may be able to get by and be "excellent" on very little training, and someone with lower than average potential may train harder than everyone else just to be merely "good". The average person is therefore going to be primarily determined by training alone.
At the risk of using one person as an example, Waterrockets has achieved quite a bit on a relatively small amount of training. Some of that is just training smart with what limited time he has, and some of that is just natural ability.
So, you are saying that "a few guys that race in the Pro/1/2 field are not genetically superior," but then the question becomes "superior" to what? To get to that level, they are going to be far superior to the average cyclist.
Mountain biking categories, as far as I can tell, are pretty much a joke regardless...