|
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200314)
You must have missed the point twice. He did zero training in track and set a state record.
He was a freak athlete who had no interest in track. I'm not saying he was a world class sprinter, but had he spent more than 10 seconds a week training, he very well could have been. The frame and build of these guys are vastly different than that *required* to be a pro linebacker And we have thousand and thousand of data points (combine 40yd dash) to draw upon. This guy might have been an exceptionally quick LB, but I would bet the mortgage and the kids that he would have never been an IAAF / Worlds level sprinter no matter how much he would have trained |
Originally Posted by series1811
(Post 18200541)
If that were true, then Daniel Ruettiger should have been a pro football player. He worked hard and was inspirational, but lacked the raw talent that would have set him apart from others performance wise.
|
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200133)
Your conclusion about pro riders being "genetically" superior is a bit hyperbolic. I would guess out of all of the athletic activities that youth participate in, maybe 1/2 of 1% ever give cycling a serious try.
Genetically gifted athletes usually go on to play popular sports. The guy who ran the fastest 100m at my school and in my state for that matter went to the NFL as a linebacker. He likely could have been a world class track athlete, but had ZERO interest in the dull sport of running. State record high-jumper... did he persue Olympic glory? Nope. Went to junior college hoping an NBA scout would notice his 40+ inch vertical leap. Cycling doesn't even cross the minds of most kids with genetic athleticism. Then consider the odds of a super-freak athlete having no interest in any other sport but cycling, his/her parents buying a bike, hiring a coach, etc.. My guess is that cycling is dominated by those who were not athletic enough for mainstream sports and have worked their butts off to get to the top of a professional sport that pays less than a decent job. The best athletes gravitate towards sports which offer the most rewards: both material and symbolic. In the US, those would be football, basketball and baseball. Cycling is a sport for averaged sized men: typically around average height with a wiry build. Most of the pro's are based in europe anyway, so we're talking apples and oranges here. |
I should pick up fishing as my sport. I'm genetically predisposed to being lazy and drinking beer.
|
Originally Posted by redfooj
(Post 18200616)
98% of track stars play football at defensive back, receiver, or half back (or at smaller mix QB) position.
The frame and build of these guys are vastly different than that *required* to be a pro linebacker And we have thousand and thousand of data points (combine 40yd dash) to draw upon. This guy might have been an exceptionally quick LB, but I would bet the mortgage and the kids that he would have never been an IAAF / Worlds level sprinter no matter how much he would have trained There are many 100m sprinters built like he was in high school. Did you know Usain Bolt weighs over 200lbs? |
Slightly off topic, but years ago in one of the Richmond basketball leagues there was a player that had made the roster for the Miami Dolphins. He was their 3rd string middle linebacker. Watching him play and seeing his freakish athletic ability made me think, "if this guy can't crack the starting lineup, I'd sure like to see the two people in front of him on the depth chart!"
|
Originally Posted by calimtb
(Post 18200623)
Cycling doesn't get the most gifted athletes. That's not to say they aren't gifted, however.
The best athletes gravitate towards sports which offer the most rewards: both material and symbolic. In the US, those would be football, basketball and baseball. |
Originally Posted by Dan333SP
(Post 18200535)
I think our point is that some people put everything into their training and nutrition and lifestyle, and yet the best they will ever be is a Cat 1 or a domestic elite rider. Their discipline and commitment may be exactly the same as that of Chris Froome, they may even have very similar physical attributes, but they won't ever get to his level and at least some of that is down to genetics. Some of the hypothetical discussion here regarding what you could do following the same training regime is I think missing a point. A training volume that many pro's could handle would break me down over a pretty short time period. In my mind that ability to work/recover consistently at a higher level may be one of the more significant differences at least between a domestic Pro and a middling Cat 2. Keep in mind nobody improves when they are working, all of that happens in recovery. |
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200620)
Yeah, because football is a game that covers thousands of miles and takes a month to play.
|
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200665)
In high school, he was 6'1", 200 lbs. When he started his first NFL game, he was 240 lbs. He built his body as he progressed. He wasn't born at 240lbs.
There are many 100m sprinters built like he was in high school. Did you know Usain Bolt weighs over 200lbs? But stock and frame is altogether another matter. Just look at combat sports for the concept of Natural Weight. |
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200620)
Yeah, because football is a game that covers thousands of miles and takes a month to play.
|
|
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200314)
You must have missed the point twice. He did zero training in track and set a state record.
He was a freak athlete who had no interest in track. I'm not saying he was a world class sprinter, but had he spent more than 10 seconds a week training, he very well could have been. Furthermore, this is all irrelevant as the very things that make this guy good at sprinting and football (large, mesomorphic build, lots of fast twitch muscle fiber etc.) will make him a poor cyclist. From a cycling perspective, he's not "gifted" at all. The physical traits required to be successful at major North American sports are not the same as those needed to be an elite cyclist. So no, cycling isn't losing its top potential athletes to other sports with the possible exception of long distance running. |
Originally Posted by series1811
(Post 18200721)
You completely missed my point. I take it you don't know who Daniel Ruettiger is. Here is a hint: he wasn't a cyclist, he was a football player.
He played a sport that relies on physical attributes he didn't have. With his work ethic, at 5'6" 165lbs, he likely could have trained himself into pro cycling. |
Originally Posted by Lazyass
(Post 18200693)
I remember in the early 90's when I was in the military I was riding my new Cannondale on base on a sat morning. I stopped at my unit to hang out for a bit and we had one kid who wanted to take my bike for a spin. Black guy, about my size @ 5'10" 160. He got on it, took off like a rocket and starting sprinting down the street until I lost sight of him. Then he came back, full sprint, right past us. That dude must have been going 35mph in full jeans and tennis shoes. He rode back up to me and was hardly even breathing. Everyone was like holy ****. I said, man, you could be a pro. He probably never sat on a road bike again. I never forgot about that guy.
I just tend to believe that cycling, whether at the pro ranks or even recreationally, simply doesn't attract the very best athletes. There are lots of great athletes in the less prestigious sports who just aren't great athletes overall. Take Jon "Bones" Jones Jr., (former) MMA light heavy champ. He has a reputation for being exceptionally tall, having an incredible reach and being a superior athlete compared to most MMA guys. He's known for his jumps and kicks in the cage, and for his exceptional reach. JJ is listed at 6'4". I saw him in a video clip with Al Horford, an NBA forward/center. Horford is 6'10" and was attempting to teach JJ how to dunk. JJ could barely dribble a basketball. He dribbled, jumped straight up, hit the ball on the bottom of the rim I think and damn nearly fell straight on his ass. Here's the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FLPugqrWvM Baseball, basketball and football are far more likely to attract athletes who can and do excel at a variety of sports. It is far less likely for elite athletes in the less prestigious sports to do the same. Despite the mass ridicule, MJ at the end of his minor league run, was close to being a low level MLB player. Not an all star mind you, but a player capable of deserving a roster spot as a reserve. There are different tiers of athletes, and the biggest, strongest, fastest athletes are in the major professional team sports. Cycling is a sport which actually rewards smaller sized athletes with fantastic endurance. It's a niche sport for athletes of a very specific size and genetic gifts. Having said that, even those with a genetic predisposition to be excellent at cycling will either never take it up or pursue it even if they try it. The pay, prestige and visibility are all terrible among pro sports. Once you factor in the training hours, forget it. Pro cycling is really only prestigious in europe. Americans just don't care. Bikes are for kids and weekend beach cruises. |
Originally Posted by OBoile
(Post 18200757)
No, I still think it is you who is underestimating just how good world class sprinters are. 'very well could have been' is not the same as 'is'. Was he even the fastest at his NFL combine?
Furthermore, this is all irrelevant as the very things that make this guy good at sprinting and football (large, mesomorphic build, lots of fast twitch muscle fiber etc.) will make him a poor cyclist. From a cycling perspective, he's not "gifted" at all. The physical traits required to be successful at major North American sports are not the same as those needed to be an elite cyclist. So no, cycling isn't losing its top potential athletes to other sports with the possible exception of long distance running. To him, track was a dumb waste of time. His talents went to a mainstream sport, like most talent does. What parents (who don't cycle), try to get their kids on a road bike at the age of 5? How many world class cyclists would be US born if cycling was a school sport? The point of what I am saying is that 99% of potentially "gifted" cyclists never even get on a road bike. |
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200523)
I completely agree with what you just said about how world class cyclists rise to the top. What I am getting at is that saying they are genetically blessed is hyperbolic.
They worked their way to the top. It wasn't the gene fairy blessing them at birth. The people most often "gifted" the marathon runner gene reside in Kenya. Yet studies proved that Kenyans who begin running at an early age have 30% higher V02 Max than those from the same gene pool who don't have to run 10k to school every day. They aren't genetically blessed, they run 100 times more than anyone else. Dismissing an endurance athletes hard work and saying it's "genes" is hogwash. Unless a person of normal genetic makeup spends 6-8 hours a day on a bike for a few years to find out, it's pure speculation. How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners : Parallels : NPR In addition to the thin ankles discussed here, the members of the Kalenjin tribe live at altitude and have evolved slightly to compensate for it. They also have long limbs on average (this is a trait seen in many animal species, those that live near the equator have longer limbs which helps dissipate heat better). |
Originally Posted by OBoile
(Post 18200813)
Kenyans, and specifically the Kenyans from the region that produces most of their top talent, have a lot of genetic advantages with respect to running.
How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners : Parallels : NPR In addition to the thin ankles discussed here, the members of the Kalenjin tribe live at altitude and have evolved slightly to compensate for it. They also have long limbs on average (this is a trait seen in many animal species, those that live near the equator have longer limbs which helps dissipate heat better). What Makes Kenya's Marathon Runners The World's Best? : Goats and Soda : NPR |
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200613)
I respectfully disagree.
Studies have found that East Africans actually have a very high percentage of fast twitch muscle fibres, yet continually dominate marathon circuits. Without a person first dedicating a lifetime of training to any endurance sport, it is impossible to say who would be good at what. Sports where reflexes, explosive power, jumping high and coordination are staples... Sure you either have "it" or you don't. Cycling is no such sport. other skill sports require a comparatively larger component of other attributes - reaction, reflex, dexterity, instinct, awareness, decision-making, coordination, technique - that could offset deficiencies in raw physical talents cycling needs some of those, but is largely pure physical exertion. riders avoid walking up stairs in between stages. purportedly they try to not walk or even stand up unless required. that doesnt happen in other sports. we class them by measurables like w/kg. nothing analogous in other sports. they scrutinize their body weight to the utmost. [not talking about fighters making weight for regulation purposes]. we analyze heart rate, vo2, VE, etc. some even claim to be able to assess whether real world performance is legitimate from looking at associated data files (see: Froome). the level of physiology in cycling is intense. and as much as i dont like to oversimplify cycling and cyclists, but it's as if we're not really measuring who rides a bike the quickest, but merely seeing which bag of flesh houses the best engine. and that engine can be fine tuned. all those metrics aforementioned can be refined and improved. but it needs to come from an extremely extremely good raw base. simply put, some people were just born to be cyclists. |
Originally Posted by OBoile
(Post 18200813)
Kenyans, and specifically the Kenyans from the region that produces most of their top talent, have a lot of genetic advantages with respect to running.
How One Kenyan Tribe Produces The World's Best Runners : Parallels : NPR In addition to the thin ankles discussed here, the members of the Kalenjin tribe live at altitude and have evolved slightly to compensate for it. They also have long limbs on average (this is a trait seen in many animal species, those that live near the equator have longer limbs which helps dissipate heat better). What separates these average sized men from other average sized men, once you factor out: 1. drugs 2. 200 man pack drafting 3. aerodynamic everything 4. a COLOSSAL amount of training and dedicationO One could say "genetic advantage" but what does that mean exactly? |
Originally Posted by seypat
(Post 18200582)
No, you missed the point or maybe I wasn't clear enough. Every sport at the top level requires the superior genetics..........for that particular sport. Sports are generally either explosive(fast twitch) type or endurance(slowtwitch) type. There are a few such as wrestling that might require a combo. Have the right genes and you can compete at the highest levels in those types of sports. But try the other types and you will be mediocre at best. Jim Brown, Bo Jackson, Deon Sanders, Randy Moss, Usain Bolt, Michael Jordan and Shaq ONeil were all World Class athletes. But put them in cycling and they could never even hang onto the local A group ride no matter how hard they tried. Nothing they can do about it either. Same for the pro cyclists. Put them in the other sports and they won't make the local varsity team. They don't have the genetics needed to be successful.
Track and field is the only sport that covers the whole spectrum. Bolt is currently the best sprinter of all time. But start increasing that length and he will become average, then mediocre, then downright bad. At about the mile, he might can hang with good high school runners. At 5k, he is most likely getting lapped once or twice. At marathon distance, he probably finishes in over double the time of the winner. That's life. Your point about North American athletes not even thinking about the other sports is right though. Kids in the USA grow up dreaming of being in the NFL, NBA or MLB. That is what is popular in the USA. Through the years I tried and attempted many types of sports. I am a fast twitch type and played some of those at a high level. I was going to play baseball in college but played basketball instead. I had a 40+ vertical like your school mate. I had to quit football because of an injury. Close to scratch golfer. Terrible at endurance sports. Out of all of the sports that I have tried, the one that requires the best overall combination of skills, athleticism and is super fun to play is................................. Competitive badminton! There I said it. Not goofing off in your back yard, but the real stuff. It requires everything except for size and is so much fun to play. |
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200665)
In high school, he was 6'1", 200 lbs. When he started his first NFL game, he was 240 lbs. He built his body as he progressed. He wasn't born at 240lbs.
There are many 100m sprinters built like he was in high school. Did you know Usain Bolt weighs over 200lbs? Another did pretty well playing basketball for a team in the southwest. He held the 3 point scoring record for a good while as well, did the all star thing, etc... again, superb athlete, but not likely to run a world class mile or become a pro road cyclist. It's all fine and well to talk about 1% athletes. The basic point of the thread is that the 1% are different genetically. Hard work is also part of the equation as is simple discipline. We all know people we grow up with who might have had the skills and genetics to go farther, but didn't have the interest, support, or basic mentorship to make it. But someone who has the 'right stuff' to be an NFL tight end doesn't automatically have the skills to succeed at high levels at other sports. Not too many NFL linemen were starting QB's in HS or college, nor was Payton Manning ever cut out to be a nose guard. In each sport, there are a handful of guys/gals who can indeed perform at world class levels in a different sport, but even in that 1%, they're relatively rare. Mr. Bolt? Sure, I'll bet he could have been a hell of a kilo rider. A TdF GC contender? Not so much. I'd put my money on taking a world class XC skier and putting them on a bike. |
69chevy have you ever entered a bike race?
|
Originally Posted by 69chevy
(Post 18200665)
In high school, he was 6'1", 200 lbs. When he started his first NFL game, he was 240 lbs. He built his body as he progressed. He wasn't born at 240lbs.
There are many 100m sprinters built like he was in high school. Did you know Usain Bolt weighs over 200lbs? Another did pretty well playing basketball for a team in the southwest. He held the 3 point scoring record for a good while as well, did the all star thing, etc... again, superb athlete, but not likely to run a world class mile or become a pro road cyclist. It's all fine and well to talk about 1% athletes. The basic point of the thread is that the 1% are different genetically. Hard work is also part of the equation as is simple discipline. We all know people we grow up with who might have had the skills and genetics to go farther, but didn't have the interest, support, or basic mentorship to make it. But someone who has the 'right stuff' to be an NFL tight end doesn't automatically have the skills to succeed at high levels at other sports. Not too many NFL linemen were starting QB's in HS or college, nor was Payton Manning ever cut out to be a nose guard. In each sport, there are a handful of guys/gals who can indeed perform at world class levels in a different sport, but even in the 1%, they're a minority. |
Originally Posted by calimtb
(Post 18200803)
Haha that's a great story!
I just tend to believe that cycling, whether at the pro ranks or even recreationally, simply doesn't attract the very best athletes. There are lots of great athletes in the less prestigious sports who just aren't great athletes overall. Take Jon "Bones" Jones Jr., (former) MMA light heavy champ. He has a reputation for being exceptionally tall, having an incredible reach and being a superior athlete compared to most MMA guys. He's known for his jumps and kicks in the cage, and for his exceptional reach. JJ is listed at 6'4". I saw him in a video clip with Al Horford, an NBA forward/center. Horford is 6'10" and was attempting to teach JJ how to dunk. JJ could barely dribble a basketball. He dribbled, jumped straight up, hit the ball on the bottom of the rim I think and damn nearly fell straight on his ass. Here's the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FLPugqrWvM Baseball, basketball and football are far more likely to attract athletes who can and do excel at a variety of sports. It is far less likely for elite athletes in the less prestigious sports to do the same. Despite the mass ridicule, MJ at the end of his minor league run, was close to being a low level MLB player. Not an all star mind you, but a player capable of deserving a roster spot as a reserve. There are different tiers of athletes, and the biggest, strongest, fastest athletes are in the major professional team sports. Cycling is a sport which actually rewards smaller sized athletes with fantastic endurance. It's a niche sport for athletes of a very specific size and genetic gifts. Having said that, even those with a genetic predisposition to be excellent at cycling will either never take it up or pursue it even if they try it. The pay, prestige and visibility are all terrible among pro sports. Once you factor in the training hours, forget it. Pro cycling is really only prestigious in europe. Americans just don't care. Bikes are for kids and weekend beach cruises. Cycling is very popular in Europe (as you say). In order to be a pro, you need to compete with top European talent which does have elite genetics (for cycling). |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:52 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.