5 ms·

I think because there's less "skill" required, in the sense of hand-eye coordination, than ball sports. The predominant factor seems to be how hard and how long

I think because there's less "skill" required, in the sense of hand-eye coordination, than ball sports. The predominant factor seems to be how hard and how long you can push yourself. Once you reach the human body's natural physical limits, chemical advantage seems like the only way to break through those.

mertd 2y ago
As a cyclist (albeit never raced), I want to get offended by this but I feel is largely correct. There is a lot of real time strategizing happening in road races however the marginal gains of simply having more Watts per kg for more hours trumps everything else.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  Bicycles are the most efficient form of transport... at moderate speeds. At elite level speeds you are so far down the exponental well of wind resistance that you need meticulous attention to aero savings and sustained power output. All of the possible aero gains permitted under the rules are already accounted for. That leaves power output as the only avenue for gaining a competitive advantage. No other sport has the same combination of antagonizing factors at play.
vorador 2y ago
This is very wrong. These guys go downhill on small country roads very fast – sometimes over 100 kmh. You need deep riding skills to handle these speeds without getting injured.
- dtech 2y ago
  He didn't say no skill, he said less in comparison with other professional sports.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    Try riding down the side of a mountain at 50-70mph and tell me there’s less skill in that
    - its_ethan 2y ago
      For what it's worth, I don't think people are trying to say it's a zero skill sport. It's not an indictment of you or the sport. I see the "argument" as: in sports like soccer or basketball, skills like dribbling or shooting accuracy don't have a skill "cap" and are generally uncorrelated to physiology. This is compared to the skill of descending a mountain at speed, which is dictated by how fast you can actually make yourself go, which is a matter of physiology. It's not that strategy and skill don't exist in cycling, it's that raw power output (Watts per Kg) is ultimately the deciding factor once cyclists get to the skill cap of piloting their bike down a mountain. So basically, could I cycle down a hill at 50-70mph? Absolutely not. But among the people who can, then the competitive advantage becomes how fast you can make yourself go down that hill.
      - vorador 2y ago
        The competitive advantage is not physiological. Following your reasoning, that'd mean an F1 driver's competitive advantage is how fast they can push the pedals to get to 300kmph. The real advantage is how fast you can navigate dangerous mountain roads which are narrow and have many hairpin turns.
        its_ethan 2y ago
        I don't know that that's the analogy you'd want to use. It is correct that an F1 driver's competitive advantage is how fast they can get to 300 kmph (or just accelerate in general, since there's skill/strategy involved as to when/where to accelerate). If we're following that reasoning... the engine is that competitive advantage, and we know that to be a significant factor because there are millions of dollars of engineering effort to optimize the cars they race. The reaction time of how fast you can push the pedal is an incredibly small part of that equation. If you're on a bike, that competitive edge "engine" is the cyclist own physiology. Yes, how fast you can navigate the roads is part of it, but is it not the acceleration/max speed out of the hairpin turn that represents the lion's share of overall time? Rather than the fractions of seconds gained/lost in the timing of accelerations at the turn? I guess it depends on the length/ frequency of turns in the course. Just out of curiosity, would you be defending the skill required to do cross country as vigorously as you are for cycling?
its_ethan 2y ago
This is an interesting thought, it makes sense intuitively.. I could see it being adjacent to why steroids are prevalent amongst body builders. After you've hit your "genetic wall" for size/strength, chemical advantage could seem like the only way to keep progressing. It's interesting to see it play out in an "official" sport, rather than just individual workout/ "aesthetic" tournaments. Maybe they should add some more skill elements to major cycling races.. perhaps a slalom through the orange cones of a construction site every few miles? lol
scott_w 2y ago
Only someone who’s never cycled quickly could say there’s less skill involved. Try riding down the side of a mountain at 50mph and follow up your post.

mertd 2y ago

As a cyclist (albeit never raced), I want to get offended by this but I feel is largely correct. There is a lot of real time strategizing happening in road races however the marginal gains of simply having more Watts per kg for more hours trumps everything else.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
Bicycles are the most efficient form of transport... at moderate speeds. At elite level speeds you are so far down the exponental well of wind resistance that you need meticulous attention to aero savings and sustained power output. All of the possible aero gains permitted under the rules are already accounted for. That leaves power output as the only avenue for gaining a competitive advantage. No other sport has the same combination of antagonizing factors at play.

vorador 2y ago

This is very wrong. These guys go downhill on small country roads very fast – sometimes over 100 kmh. You need deep riding skills to handle these speeds without getting injured.

dtech 2y ago
He didn't say no skill, he said less in comparison with other professional sports.
- scott_w 2y ago
  Try riding down the side of a mountain at 50-70mph and tell me there’s less skill in that
  - its_ethan 2y ago
    For what it's worth, I don't think people are trying to say it's a zero skill sport. It's not an indictment of you or the sport. I see the "argument" as: in sports like soccer or basketball, skills like dribbling or shooting accuracy don't have a skill "cap" and are generally uncorrelated to physiology. This is compared to the skill of descending a mountain at speed, which is dictated by how fast you can actually make yourself go, which is a matter of physiology. It's not that strategy and skill don't exist in cycling, it's that raw power output (Watts per Kg) is ultimately the deciding factor once cyclists get to the skill cap of piloting their bike down a mountain. So basically, could I cycle down a hill at 50-70mph? Absolutely not. But among the people who can, then the competitive advantage becomes how fast you can make yourself go down that hill.
    - vorador 2y ago
      The competitive advantage is not physiological. Following your reasoning, that'd mean an F1 driver's competitive advantage is how fast they can push the pedals to get to 300kmph. The real advantage is how fast you can navigate dangerous mountain roads which are narrow and have many hairpin turns.
      - its_ethan 2y ago
        I don't know that that's the analogy you'd want to use. It is correct that an F1 driver's competitive advantage is how fast they can get to 300 kmph (or just accelerate in general, since there's skill/strategy involved as to when/where to accelerate). If we're following that reasoning... the engine is that competitive advantage, and we know that to be a significant factor because there are millions of dollars of engineering effort to optimize the cars they race. The reaction time of how fast you can push the pedal is an incredibly small part of that equation. If you're on a bike, that competitive edge "engine" is the cyclist own physiology. Yes, how fast you can navigate the roads is part of it, but is it not the acceleration/max speed out of the hairpin turn that represents the lion's share of overall time? Rather than the fractions of seconds gained/lost in the timing of accelerations at the turn? I guess it depends on the length/ frequency of turns in the course. Just out of curiosity, would you be defending the skill required to do cross country as vigorously as you are for cycling?

its_ethan 2y ago

This is an interesting thought, it makes sense intuitively.. I could see it being adjacent to why steroids are prevalent amongst body builders. After you've hit your "genetic wall" for size/strength, chemical advantage could seem like the only way to keep progressing. It's interesting to see it play out in an "official" sport, rather than just individual workout/ "aesthetic" tournaments. Maybe they should add some more skill elements to major cycling races.. perhaps a slalom through the orange cones of a construction site every few miles? lol

scott_w 2y ago

Only someone who’s never cycled quickly could say there’s less skill involved. Try riding down the side of a mountain at 50mph and follow up your post.