Well I don't think it makes much sense to fixate on the equipment...and most of the developed world has sorted the issue of 'hospital bills' long ago. So I can't really get behind these criticisms, but in terms of the danger, yea can't argue that. Breaking a hip or a collar bone is a real downer.

But...I think we're on a forum called 'bikeforums', so it seems a little strange to be debating the worth of bike racing. Presumably everyone here has accepted those risks, even folks who never race can crash.

oh yeah, that too. :)

I ride with an eyeglass mirror so I am never caught by a group unexpectedly. When I see a group coming up from behind if I feel like joining them I will wait until they are 100m behind then start to increase my speed. As they approach I am almost matching their speed and will move to the center so they can hold their line and pass right. I'll acknowledge them and if they aren't going crazy fast I'll tuck in and watch how the group is riding. I might wait for a full rotation by dropping back and letting the rider pull back in with plenty of notice as to not interrupt his/her rhythm. If I go into rotation I will keep with their flow and see how things go.

Depending on effort and speed my pulls range from 50 crank rotations up to 5 miles +/-.

22mph to 27mph maxing at 30mph with the guys I ride with. Depending on conditions I can get the line up to 28-30 and let them sprint from there.

You missed my sarcastic point. If you go back, you'll find it tucked into the last sentence in the post.

No, I understand, I just disagree. I think that some of these sports have less merit than others. It's not just a matter of opinion.

Your sentences in the above quote contradict each other.

If you disagree with someone, if you "think" something is someway, they obviously the matter being discussed is a matter of opinion; you are proclaiming yours. RW was just making the point that any sport, any endeavor which is based on arbitrary rules and a field of play, is from some perspective, ridiculous. Proclaiming you know the true score of which sport has "merit" and which does not, is kind of like saying you know the best flavor of icecream. It's a child's argument.

Is not.

To you it maybe dumb. I don't care to watch 'professional' wrestling either. But the guys that are at the top are built like bulldozers and can kick some serious ass. Its common place for average joe to take a swing at them. There are a lot of average joe's minus a few teeth. Basically the bouncers that escort pro wrestlers as they leave the arena are there to protect 'average joe'...not the pros. The pros can kick everybodies ass and do on occasion when required.

Do you have a link to the factoid that Patrick left open wheel for the cash? No doubt is was part of the calculus but would love to see proof.

You're making two points here, and neither is accurate. To forward an argument does not immediately reduce both positions to triviality. One of us could be 'right' and the other can be 'wrong' - or, just because I do not know something does not mean that it can not be known. In this case, I suggest that some of these perspectives have more merit than others. I do not know this.

I do not have to proclaim anything to suggest this, and I'm not doing so here.

Consider: I can proclaim myself the world champion of whatever obscure 'sport' of my own design at any time. The fact that I'm the only one who participates would probably colour people's opinion of this particular rainbow jersey. Now let's take bob sledding. This is a sport that a tiny, tiny population is able to engage in and really has no value to the general population whatsoever. It is completely a contrived activity. You can't bob sled to the store. You can't bob sled to work. You can't even get together with a bunch of friends and bob sled for fun after work, generally speaking. So what does it mean to be world champion of bob sledding? I contend that it matters something less than being world champion of something that is more accessible - like say running. That's why everyone knows Usain Bolt's name and no one knows the name of whoever won the gold medal on the bob sled track a few years ago.

A sport's merit is thus tied to its participation and whether it's relatable to something in the real world. You can say anything is a sport, but if the activity being contended is too contrived, at some point people just shrug their shoulders and say, "well okay you're great at tiddly winks, but who cares?"

Does that apply to the sports being discussed? Maybe, maybe not.

You should stop...lol. Baloney. Many so called sports are less than relatable. How many 'baseball' to the store?...or football or hockey to the store?
Many say golf isn't a 'sport'. Of course those are the guys that suck at it an can't drive a golf ball over 150 yards.

It would be links. trust me on this...I was on a pit crew for a while, know a load of people in racing and there were articles for months speculating, etc...she's driving for Tony Stewart and brought a huge sponsor along who is also in Indycar with James Hinchcliffe. Her old race team was about a mile from where I used to live (Andretti) and I know a few guys that work there, holdovers from the Team Green days.

If you google you'll probably get 10,000 hits. There is not one article on this.

NASCAR money is a lot more than Indy Car. A lot more. It had nada to do with the Vegas wreck. that NASCAR deal was done before the Vegas race.

lol? That's exactly my point.

And that is your opinion.

Good grief.

I've read some interesting stuff out here over the years...

/facepalm

I can't believe I got sucked into having a debate on BF that required people to actually read what was written. My mistake I guess.

I pull 30mph uphill.

You said, "I think..." and that is an opinion.

Good lord.

My ribs hurt. Is snowboarding a sport? Anything in the "X Games"? What about BMX? Ski jumping? What's on the list?

Sounds like you follow it pretty close. I thought that wreck was a catalyst but if the deal was done ahead of time, nuff said. Crashes have made more than a few pro racers 'retire' from the sport.
Thanks

By your estimate, since many many more people participate in baseball than cycling, or football than cycling, or basketball than cycling, then cycling is less important than those three sports. Cycling is a really obscure sport in the US.

Sport is about athletics. It's about strength, agility, coordination, and the spirit of competition. That's all sport has ever been about. The fact you can bike to work is pretty secondary to everything sport is about. The benefit of sport is far deeper than whether you can multi-use the equipment.

Now you've done it - you've pissed off all of the chess players.

Have you ever played serious chess? They are amongst the most competitive people out there. They have the spirit of competition in spades.

I understand that, but you said that sport was about strength, agility and coordination - chess requires none of these, yet is still a sport, hence the potshot which you didn't seem to understand was tongue-in-cheek.

Particularly the ones that bench over 300.

"There are only three sports. Bullfighting, Mountaineering, and Motor Racing. All the rest are merely games."

Ernest Hemingway.

:)

Obviously I get it. Don't get too serious here...