Are Pro-Cyclists uncommonly stupid?

steerpike

I'm sure that pro-cycling is in many respects, no different from many top level professional sports. Namely, it attracts and then nurtures young men who are unusually focussed in achieving a very, very specific sporting goal and who are not naturally academic. As such, they are nurtured in a bubble of sport from an early age, protected and discouraged from other life experiences.

So...I kind of understand how young professional sportsmen often come across as one-dimensional and often, thick as two short planks.

But I thought footballers were at the sharp end of this until I started hearing and reading some of the things recently coming out of the mouths of the likes of Sanchez, Contador, Indurain, Roche, Cavendish. Now I've just heard Benoit Joachim's remarks.

Do the panel think that pro-cycling is geared to people of low IQ or the generally dull of mind? The kind who can follow instruction and do mind numbing slog for hour on end and only talk and think in cycling?

It's certainly the reason I started.

steerpike

David Millar shows signs of having an IQ of more than 2 digits. Are there others?

MrTapir

I believe there are plenty of cyclists who are generally intelligent. I dont think its more or less of a percentage than in normal life. Some people at my work are idiots. I've also found the Dilbert Principle to be fairly true to life.

rick_chasey

Less likely to be educated but top sports people, especially those involved in sports which involve tactics, are rarely stupid.

Same goes for footballers.

There's a good article that examines Rooney's genius somewhere. He may he inarticulate, undisciplined, but when it comes to the way he thinks abouts and goes about football he obviously is.

steerpike

Rick Chasey wrote:

Less likely to be educated but top sports people, especially those involved in sports which involve tactics, are rarely stupid.

perhaps 'stupid' is an unhelpful term. I'm sure that somewhere up top, their synapses are well suited to judging attacks, average speeds etc....But I sure wouldn't want to go on a road trip with Nicolas Roche.

BillyMansell

steerpike wrote:

It's certainly the reason I started.

I suspect you were uncommonly stupid before you started cycling and that the two aren't intrinsically linked. Starting threads to try to denigrate people whose views you disagree with simply evidences what you had previously told us about your uncommon stupidity.

Jez mon

I think a combination of them being less likely to be educated and not having English as a first language means that they may well come across as less intelligent.

Also, bear in mind that that being intelligent is no barrier to making stupid comments, Roger Hammond's comments on Lance certainly seemed a bit stupid, but he's got a materials science degree from Brunel*.

(*Having sat through lectures with materials scientists last year, I'm having thoughts that maybe that isn't the best example of being intelligent)

mooro

Tricky one this in that we only really hear from them through press interviews either face to face with a camera or through a written interview. Both of these are pretty unnatural ways to communicate as its often pretty uncomfortable in front of a camera or its a journo who rarely writes and asks questions without having a predetermined slant on what they want for their story.

not saying they are all bright though...

steerpike

BillyMansell wrote:

steerpike wrote:

It's certainly the reason I started.

I suspect you were uncommonly stupid before you started cycling and that the two aren't intrinsically linked. Starting threads to try to denigrate people whose views you disagree with simply evidences what you had previously told us about your uncommon stupidity.

So I am not entitled to form an opinion of someone by what comes out of their mouths? And if what comes from their mouths is tripe I am not entitled to make a connection between this and their relative intelligence (lack of)?

Hmmm, I've been doing it wrong all these years. I must be even thicker than I thought.

iainf72

Pinotti and Quinziato both very sharp.

However, I believe there have been some studies that show being very intelligent is not ideal in an elite athlete.

steerpike

iainf72 wrote:

Pinotti and Quinziato both very sharp.

However, I believe there have been some studies that show being very intelligent is not ideal in an elite athlete.

Hmmm. Interesting. I guess such discussions are only useful up to a point. I can see that a specific type of intelligence is useful (ability to 'see' a pass in football or 'sense' a good time to make a break') but I wonder which part of the brain well developed here. I sense it is a different part than the part that makes one good at maths.

confused@BR

The problem appears to be that whatever you discover about the athlete is filtered by the media. They have their agenda and can produce an article which, although accurate, emphasizes aspects of that person which may not be entirely in tune with your expectations. Even if you should encounter one at an event they will be focused on that event with little attention to spare for you, or exhausted after the event.

Should you meet them in a social situation, without external pressures, I am confident you would find them "most remarkable, like you".

OffTheBackAdam

Certainly having a complete lack of imagination is a prerequisite when descending on piss-wet roads, with a great drop on one side!

rick_chasey

steerpike wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Pinotti and Quinziato both very sharp.

However, I believe there have been some studies that show being very intelligent is not ideal in an elite athlete.

Hmmm. Interesting. I guess such discussions are only useful up to a point. I can see that a specific type of intelligence is useful (ability to 'see' a pass in football or 'sense' a good time to make a break') but I wonder which part of the brain well developed here. I sense it is a different part than the part that makes one good at maths.

It's true that having perspective and a wide range of interests is unlikely to be particualrly useful as a professional - in that it makes it more difficult to be particularly single minded and fully dedicated to one thing.

shockedsoshocked

Rick Chasey wrote:

steerpike wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Pinotti and Quinziato both very sharp.

However, I believe there have been some studies that show being very intelligent is not ideal in an elite athlete.

Hmmm. Interesting. I guess such discussions are only useful up to a point. I can see that a specific type of intelligence is useful (ability to 'see' a pass in football or 'sense' a good time to make a break') but I wonder which part of the brain well developed here. I sense it is a different part than the part that makes one good at maths.

It's true that having perspective and a wide range of interests is unlikely to be particualrly useful as a professional - in that it makes it more difficult to be particularly single minded and fully dedicated to one thing.

From literature I have read, the more intelligent an athlete, the more they tend to analyze their own performance, which suffers as a result. Hence why Sean Kelly was so good

RoadPainter

I was at school with a lad who was seriously good at golf. Got a full scholarship to Stanford (where tiger went) and played in Walker Cup (alongside Donald & Casey, against Kuchar - who he played & beat 3 times). He was also very intelligent and well rounded. Didn't make it as a pro, when I saw him a few years ago, he was saying that he was having to work on the mental rather than physical or technical side.

A one case example, but I think it's fairly typical.

Richmond Racer

I doubt that many of them are any more stupid than many fans

mr_poll

Again not sure I totally agree with the OP - and I haven't seen any stats. However there is an argument that would say that if you are academically gifted then you spend your time with your head in the books at weekends and evenings concentrating on your grades rather than driving across the country competing in a cat 4/3/2/1 race or playing their chosen sport. Therefore those with talent and brains drop away leaving the ones are aren't as academically gifted (not going to say stupid) to hone their sporting prowess.

alihisgreat

steerpike wrote:

I'm sure that pro-cycling is in many respects, no different from many top level professional sports. Namely, it attracts and then nurtures young men who are unusually focussed in achieving a very, very specific sporting goal and who are not naturally academic. As such, they are nurtured in a bubble of sport from an early age, protected and discouraged from other life experiences.

So...I kind of understand how young professional sportsmen often come across as one-dimensional and often, thick as two short planks.

But I thought footballers were at the sharp end of this until I started hearing and reading some of the things recently coming out of the mouths of the likes of Sanchez, Contador, Indurain, Roche, Cavendish. Now I've just heard Benoit Joachim's remarks.

Do the panel think that pro-cycling is geared to people of low IQ or the generally dull of mind? The kind who can follow instruction and do mind numbing slog for hour on end and only talk and think in cycling?

It's certainly the reason I started.

I think you're uncommonly stupid for thinking that pro-cyclists are uncommonly stupid.

rick_chasey

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

steerpike wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Pinotti and Quinziato both very sharp.

However, I believe there have been some studies that show being very intelligent is not ideal in an elite athlete.

Hmmm. Interesting. I guess such discussions are only useful up to a point. I can see that a specific type of intelligence is useful (ability to 'see' a pass in football or 'sense' a good time to make a break') but I wonder which part of the brain well developed here. I sense it is a different part than the part that makes one good at maths.

It's true that having perspective and a wide range of interests is unlikely to be particualrly useful as a professional - in that it makes it more difficult to be particularly single minded and fully dedicated to one thing.

From literature I have read, the more intelligent an athlete, the more they tend to analyze their own performance, which suffers as a result. Hence why Sean Kelly was so good

Don't think being smart immediately means you're self critical. I know plenty of very smart people who are anything but.

Richmond Racer

This has to be up there as one of the most unbelievably patronising OP + thread titles ever

mike6

Pro cyclists seem, by and large, to be fairly cleaver. Most of them speak at least two languages, through necessity.
If you consider most do not have English as a first language but still manage to do interviews to Sky or ch4. Then skip to another language to give info to another national station, Its pretty impressive.

Footballers, on the other hand, mostly come over as thick and inarticulate and speak in cliche. "We need to get a result" What douse that mean? Losing 4-0 is a result, is it not? If you consider that some of the foreign imports do better and more incisive interviews in, English, than most of the home born players.

jerry3571

Richmond Racer wrote:

This has to be up there as one of the most unbelievably patronising OP + thread titles ever

I have heard on many occassions that a lot of Cyclists aren't the sharpest tools in the box otherwise they wouldn't be riding bikes to make money? Traditionally, Professional Cyclists came from Mining and Agriculture where Education was a low priority. Riding a bike was to escape a life of complete poverty and over work. I think this may be where the tradition of saying that Cyclists weren't well educated has come from. I must be honest; the sport is a sport of the working classes and is only now being taken up by the rest of society. If it was a sport of the Upper Classes then this label would be much different.

My work is a manual kind of work and, to be honest, the people in my trade (me included) wouldn't be the brightest of the bunch otherwise we would get better jobs. It's kind of logical. Anyone thinking that I choose to do my kind of work is taking the p1ss.

Jerry

Neale1978

Richmond Racer wrote:

This has to be up there as one of the most unbelievably patronising OP + thread titles ever

Oh yes

Cleat Eastwood

When cyclists have been interviewed on eurosport I've only ever heard them sound like David Harmon - so yeah, a bit thick.

Neale1978

Tbh its a 'bit thick' to judge a mans complete level of intelligence solely from sketchy tv interviews.. Most of which are probably done when they are pooped dear boy. Bad form.

itisaboutthebike

There's a good article that examines Rooney's genius somewhere

Well, he may not be very articulate, and will never be a brain surgeon, but 250k big ones a week says he's doing something reet.

pottssteve

I don't understand the question. It has too many long words in it...

esafosfina

To be frank I find it a bit offensive... it's a sweeping statement and to generalise in such a manner is disingenuous. I'm an ex-professional cyclist with a Bachelor's Degree and a yet to be completed Masters. Whilst I accept that 'traditionally' many professional riders were from backgrounds where education was a secondary aspect, many I raced with and against were graduates, and had 'smarts'...

Educated people make some incredibly insensitive and foolish comments too; so the premise that because some riders have mouthed off/opined in a thoughtless manner does not make them 'thick'...

Right, hopping off my soapbox now... (where did I put my Ladybird Book of Big Words...?)

Richmond Racer

esafosfina wrote:

To be frank I find it a bit offensive... it's a sweeping statement and to generalise in such a manner is disingenuous. I'm an ex-professional cyclist with a Bachelor's Degree and a yet to be completed Masters. Whilst I accept that 'traditionally' many professional riders were from backgrounds where education was a secondary aspect, many I raced with and against were graduates, and had 'smarts'...

Educated people make some incredibly insensitive and foolish comments too; so the premise that because some riders have mouthed off/opined in a thoughtless manner does not make them 'thick'...

Right, hopping off my soapbox now... (where did I put my Ladybird Book of Big Words...?)

Nice one, Esa....I was hoping you'd post on this.

dolan_driver

Laurent Fignon wasn't exactly thick. Robert Millar has proven himself to be another rider of some intelligence, both on the bike and in his writings. Sean Kelly might have left school early but he is, as we say here in Ireland, a "Cute Hoor", which, roughly translated, means he is a shrewd operator. Every walk of life has a few people of lower intelligence, except perhaps the area of rocket science, but there is nothing to suggest professional cyclists are any more dense than the rest of us.

Wiggins flipping the bird at the papparazi = an indication of a particularly high IQ. I rest my case.

DD.