How many hours of training to become a pro?

BianchiBiker

Just curious, I don't have any ideas of becoming pro, hell I've only just bought my first bike.

I'm wondering how many hours training, approximately are needed to get to a regional, then national, then international professional level.

I read somewhere before that it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill. Although there is skill in cycling; a heck of a lot in fact, most of it surely comes from physical conditioning and mental attitude?

Any discussion is welcome, very interested in the different ideas people have.

Cheers

Herbsman

40 hours a week. Start today

Herbsman

Serious answer: it depends. Too many variables.

BianchiBiker

Those where my original thoughts. Too many variables.

Nobody has any idea to a rough timescale?

ju5t1n

I’ve seen first 4th Cat race to domestic pro done in 2 seasons a couple of times

BianchiBiker

Wow! That is a lot faster than I thought it could even be! These must be very naturally talented individuals don't you think? Of course with a lot of hard work and effort.

Herbsman

BianchiBiker wrote:

Those where my original thoughts. Too many variables.

Nobody has any idea to a rough timescale?

That's my point. There ISN'T a rough timescale, because every single human being is different and every individual's response and adaptation to training is different.

doyler78

Herbsman wrote:

BianchiBiker wrote:

Those where my original thoughts. Too many variables.

Nobody has any idea to a rough timescale?

That's my point. There ISN'T a rough timescale, because every single human being is different and every individual's response and adaptation to training is different.

Reread and saying nothing now

imposter2.0

ju5t1n wrote:

I’ve seen first 4th Cat race to domestic pro done in 2 seasons a couple of times

It was done recently - one of the youngsters now riding for Rapha Condor this season has only been racing a couple of seasons.

In terms of the question "how many hours to become a pro" - you could put in 40+ hours a week and still not be good enough - depends on the individual.

okgo

It's all subjective. Depends on many things, not least who you know in the sport to actually go pro. But certainly much of the genetic stuff is probably going to be obvious fairly soon into your cycling career.

But winning races I what talks, look at Cav, he is a good example of where you can get to without the absolute numbers but by just winning and winning.

imposter2.0

okgo wrote:

But winning races I what talks, look at Cav, he is a good example of where you can get to without the absolute numbers but by just winning and winning.

By comparison, I think the guy with supposedly 'the best numbers ever recorded' by BC is still riding semi-pro in the UK somewhere.

okgo

Who was that?

imposter2.0

okgo wrote:

Who was that?

sorry, don't remember his name - I just remember someone from BC referencing it during a wattbike session last winter.

mr_eddy

Impossible to say, I think it takes a certain type of person more than amount of training so really its more down to character. You could be superfit and bang in 8 hours training a day but if you don't have the heart to give 100% commitment then you will never be pro or if you did make it you would never win anything.

I firmly believe that the best pro's regardless of sport are the people that simply won't give up, won't stop until they reach the top and will be willing to make sacrifices to get there.

imposter2.0

mr_eddy wrote:

I firmly believe that the best pro's regardless of sport are the people that simply won't give up, won't stop until they reach the top and will be willing to make sacrifices to get there.

^^ probably this. If you're committed enough to be up and out the door at 4.30am to get a 3-hour ride in before work/school and still committed enough to get out for another 3-hours after work/school in all weathers, then it might be for you..

gavbarron

Imposter wrote:

mr_eddy wrote:

I firmly believe that the best pro's regardless of sport are the people that simply won't give up, won't stop until they reach the top and will be willing to make sacrifices to get there.

^^ probably this. If you're committed enough to be up and out the door at 4.30am to get a 3-hour ride in before work/school and still committed enough to get out for another 3-hours after work/school in all weathers, then it might be for you..

And even that would be assuming that you have the right genetic makeup and natural ability on which to build from.
The pros train their arses off no doubt but they also have that little something that made them a bit faster than the other amateurs in the first place

imposter2.0

gavbarron wrote:

And even that would be assuming that you have the right genetic makeup and natural ability on which to build from.
The pros train their arses off no doubt but they also have that little something that made them a bit faster than the other amateurs in the first place

Agreed. I hate them

Cleat Eastwood

I think that 10,000 hours was something Malcolm Gladwell came up with - he analysed the hours put in by people who were popular in the media, and hence famous - so being a famous pro and being a pro are 2 different things.

Incidentally just for interest - Gladwell also found that in most sports there is a cut off point for registration to amateur sports bodies - he found that in ice hockey the biggest and strongest players were born in the early part of the year (cut off for ice hockey registration in canada is Jan 1st).

Long story short - Someone born in January would have had a whole 11 months of growth/training/encouragement compared to someone born in Dec.

Consequently the 'relatively' older players seem stronger, better coordinated, better trained, and get praised/noticed more.

So according to Gladwell - to be famous build a time machine and interrupt the milk man doing his stuff with your ma.

imposter2.0

The birthday thing is certainly a factor in youth/age-related racing - especially at the younger levels.

Herbsman

Looking pro is more important than being pro. One should buy the most pro-looking shoes even if they don't fit properly.

carl_p

The several cycling biographies I have read suggest competing and winning races at a fairly young age. If you don't have that grounding you might already be at a disadvantage, especially in terms of getting yourself noticed.

kamil1891

sh*t, I was born on the 30th Dec...

davidof

BianchiBiker wrote:

J

I read somewhere before that it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill.

Yes, to Tiger Woods or Fabien Cancellara level. I would say 10K hours is what GC or classics contenders have put in, and more.

okgo

There is (in my opinion) a fairly large difference in that statement - its reasonable to me that you could train someone to get to the top level of golf more easily than you could cycling. Golf is a game of skill that doesn't have much in the way of genetics dictating whether someone will be good or bad (fat, thin, young old etc are all worlds top players).

However Fabian and any other top level pro is what he is mainly down to having amazing genetics, obviously he has something that not everyone has or would EVER get no matter how hard they trained - to be able to produce the wattages Cancellara/Wiggins do is beyond the reach of most people and 10k hours would still not get you anywhere near.

manxshred

The 10K hours study has been identified as being flawed. I have seen some very talented people not reach the top in their sport due to not being that interested, where the people who work exceptionally hard did.

imposter2.0

ManxShred wrote:

The 10K hours study has been identified as being flawed. I have seen some very talented people not reach the top in their sport due to not being that interested, where the people who work exceptionally hard did.

agreed.