Originally Posted by
pdxtex
Really, how do you know? Other sports have benchmarks that show your relative skill level. Can you run a mile in 6 minutes? Well you are probably a good runner. Can you do a kickflip? Well you are probably on your way to being a good skater. Oh, you can go down that black diamond? You get the point. So what makes a a cyclist "good"? Or accomplished? Doing a century is great, but if you have all day seems like anybody with relative fitness could finish it. So what, are some realistic bench marks that separate the athletic and skilled cyclists from everybody else? Do I have to ride up some 20 percent grade or be able to ride 40 mph?
Who cares?
Hopefully, we all enjoy our time on the bike, whether anybody thinks we're good at it or not, no matter what our average speed or post count is. I guess if you need some benchmark, though, being able to stay upright on the bike is good.
When you've done something (a hard climb, good placement in a race, a technical descent, whatever) that impresses you, you've accomplished something. And then you're more of an accomplished cyclist. But the bar is in your mind, so don't let other people set it for you.