Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Non-cycling cycling fans

13»

Posts

  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Transworld Sport were good for 30 seconds of classics highlights and the occasional rider profile too.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Lanterne_RogueLanterne_Rogue Posts: 3,692
    Sure you can appreciate art, but wont an artist has a deeper understanding of what it takes to produce a piece of art. Similar in cycling, you must have gained some appreciation of what it takes to climb and descend a col, maybe sprint in a bunch or whatever, by doing it.

    This doesn't stack up. Most art critics are mediocre artists by their own standards. Neither Roger Ebert nor Mark Kermode ever made a decent film. Brian Sewell remains unhung in the Tate (now THAT would be an installation, but I digress...). Piers Morgan is an absolute censored (this has no relevance, but can't be stated often enough). What qualifies the most insightful critics isn't an understanding of the precise physical experience of creating an artwork, but in having the depth of experience and knowledge of other artworks with which to make valid and illuminating comparisons.

    Thus with cycling. Watching a number of races at all levels, learning to understand the patterns in the chaos, and understanding the history of the sport is a surer path to enlightenment than wheezing your way up to the top of the Col de la Madeleine and discovering no greater insight than 'it takes a lot of work to do that'.
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,936
    Sure you can appreciate art, but wont an artist has a deeper understanding of what it takes to produce a piece of art. Similar in cycling, you must have gained some appreciation of what it takes to climb and descend a col, maybe sprint in a bunch or whatever, by doing it.

    This doesn't stack up. Most art critics are mediocre artists by their own standards. Neither Roger Ebert nor Mark Kermode ever made a decent film. Brian Sewell remains unhung in the Tate (now THAT would be an installation, but I digress...). Piers Morgan is an absolute censored (this has no relevance, but can't be stated often enough). What qualifies the most insightful critics isn't an understanding of the precise physical experience of creating an artwork, but in having the depth of experience and knowledge of other artworks with which to make valid and illuminating comparisons.

    Thus with cycling. Watching a number of races at all levels, learning to understand the patterns in the chaos, and understanding the history of the sport is a surer path to enlightenment than wheezing your way up to the top of the Col de la Madeleine and discovering no greater insight than 'it takes a lot of work to do that'.

    That is a phenomenally good post. It's also worth noting that many of the top football managers were fairly limited as players. Many of the top players are fundamentally illiterate when it comes to any analysis of what happened in a match.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • artstanartstan Posts: 27
    Mike Tyson has extensive knowledge about the history of heavyweight boxing.

    He is scholar but is he a gentleman?
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 25,178
    Sorry, the question was how did you get into Pro Cycling if you do not cycle yourself.
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • w00dsterw00dster Posts: 880
    I got into cycling from C4s coverage when I was a boy. I used to have a BMX but never really wanted a racing bike even though I loved watching road racing.
    I loved the colours and the scenery. When first watching it I had no idea about the characters in the race nor the tactics, but I really did appreciate the effort these athletes would be putting in. As a previous poster has mentioned, the mountain stages of the tour with the guys riding with unzipped jerseys and pain etched over their faces whilst a rider would then make a break away, as a teenager that was awesome watching.
    I've never climbed Everest, rowed a rowing boat across the Atlantic and nor have I ever dragged a sled acoss the Antartic, however I get immense enjoyment out of watching and reading about humans putting in efforts that are beyond the norm.
    For me it was about appreciating this effort, without really knowing the tactics, but it got me hooked and made me want to know more.
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 4,081
    ddraver wrote:
    Sorry, the question was how did you get into Pro Cycling if you do not cycle yourself.

    I quite like where this thread has deviated.

    Apart from anything else, there are many themes swirling about that don't necessarily preclude one another.
    Riding a bike - especially at a competitive level - will give you some insight into the demands put on the pro's - and of some of the nuances of racing that a non-cyclist might remain ignorant of: but if you're a bright and compassionate non-cyclist, you might be better equipped to appreciate the sport than a thick cyclist.

    The level of insight during commentary that both Sean Kelly and Chris Boardman provide, for example, can inform everyone's appreciation of what they are seeing - but it is fundamentally borne out of actual experience. We are more inclined to listen to those who've got the chops.
    DeVlaeminck talks about increased appreciation of art being informed by being an artist (which I think, in very general terms, is true) - which is analogous to having a greater appreciation of pro cycling by being a cyclist (also generally true). underlayunderlay says "this doesn't stack up" because lots of people who are paid to express their opinion in public were poor exponents of their chosen medium themselves. But very few people of any background/previous experience have ever made a decent film. Certainly a tiny fraction of all those that attempt it. Similarly, very few who enter a race ever win. What does that tell us about racing (or making a film)?

    In conclusion:
    1) Being a cyclist can increase appreciation of what it takes to compete professionally - but not being a cyclist doesn't necessarily curb it.
    2) It takes immense skill (or luck) to have alignment of all of the necessary components in order to succeed.
    3) Piers Morgan is a censored .
  • artstanartstan Posts: 27
    ddraver wrote:
    Sorry, the question was how did you get into Pro Cycling if you do not cycle yourself.

    Apology accepted


    OCDuPalais that was a post of perfect perfection.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 26,451
    Any extra insight a moderate level cyclist gains by their cycling is lost in their delusion that what they do is in any way similar to pro cycling.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • yorkshirerawyorkshireraw Posts: 1,613
    jordan_217 wrote:
    It all started here for me:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=243BJu0zB50

    Goosebumps listening to it now and used to be in my head riding around our estate on a 5spd Raleigh Mustang.

    I have that as my ringtone.... it's great.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 17,690
    iainf72 wrote:
    Transworld Sport were good for 30 seconds of classics highlights and the occasional rider profile too.

    I used to love Transworld sport. You've inspired me Sky plus it and start watching again.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 25,178
    RichN95 wrote:
    Any extra insight a moderate level cyclist gains by their cycling is lost in their delusion that what they do is in any way similar to pro cycling.

    :lol::lol::lol:

    Transworld Sport was fantastic. They should bring that back, it was like an olympics every weekend

    Edit - Big Bean - HowWhatWhereWhen??

    Still intrigued to know where Mike Tyson fits into our little clinicians narrative...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Paul 8vPaul 8v Posts: 5,458
    Transworld sport. I used to watch it every weekend in the hope there was some cycling. I forgot about that!
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 4,081
    RichN95 wrote:
    Any extra insight a moderate level cyclist gains by their cycling is lost in their delusion that what they do is in any way similar to pro cycling.

    Perhaps the inverse is true: that any cyclist who reaches a "moderate" level has the delusion (that what they do is in any way similar to pro cycling) slip away?*

    On that basis, "moderate" cycling will always be closer to pro cycling than not cycling at all.






    *in this instance there's no accounting for the staunchly delusional/dim-witted
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 17,690
    ddraver wrote:
    Transworld Sport was fantastic. They should bring that back, it was like an olympics every weekend

    Edit - Big Bean - HowWhatWhereWhen??


    7am on Saturday it would appear.

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/trans-world-sport
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 26,451
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    On that basis, "moderate" cycling will always be closer to pro cycling than not cycling at all.
    Very true. Just as the people on the fourth floor of NASA HQ are closer to being astronauts than those on the first floor.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • artstanartstan Posts: 27
    RichN95 wrote:
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    On that basis, "moderate" cycling will always be closer to pro cycling than not cycling at all.
    Very true. Just as the people on the fourth floor of NASA HQ are closer to being astronauts than those on the first floor.


    People can actually ride a bike and push themselves hard and ride the same roads as pro riders.

    A person can suffer just as a tour rider suffers fighting to get up a Col.



    The only people going into space are astronauts.

    Not really a sensible comparison to try and prove your point.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 26,451
    artstan wrote:
    A person can suffer just as a tour rider suffers fighting to get up a Col.
    No they can't. The two experiences have little in common.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,667
    Explain, Rich?
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 26,451
    coriordan wrote:
    Explain, Rich?
    Because one is a actual race done by elite professionals after several consecutive days, permenantly tired, probably injured in some way with variable pace which gets faster and faster. They are doing a job.
    The other is a bloke on holiday.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • MacaloonMacaloon Posts: 5,545
    edited April 2014
    RichN95 wrote:
    No they can't. The two experiences have little in common.

    You're unfamiliar then, with the helicopters, the police outriders and the Marxist protesters, experienced twice daily by the Holloway-Highgate peloton?

    But I don't lose my livelihood if the guy in front stays there.
    ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,936
    RichN95 wrote:
    coriordan wrote:
    Explain, Rich?
    Because one is a actual race done by elite professionals after several consecutive days, permenantly tired, probably injured in some way with variable pace which gets faster and faster. They are doing a job.
    The other is a bloke on holiday.
    I went on holiday to Spain last year. Didn't take a bike.
    But I did learn enough Spanish to order a beer and an ice cream, and am now a world expert on Spanish social mores, society and politics.

    Just sayin.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • ocdupalaisocdupalais Posts: 4,081
    I went on holiday to Spain last year. Didn't take a bike...

    I didn't take in whatever you wrote after that... What kind of fool are you?
  • knedlickyknedlicky Posts: 3,097
    For those who got into cycling in the 80s and 90s how were you watching?
    I don't recall it being on terrestrial TV in the UK outside of C4s TDF highlights.
    In the 80s – no watching but listening to live commentary of the TdF on French radio (longwave), and buying L’Equipe or France Soir on days after the mountain stages (and also after the final stage). Eventually watching on the roadside right there (actually three times that decade).
  • knedlickyknedlicky Posts: 3,097
    I know the OP is asking about people who follow professional cycling and don’t cycle themselves, but I actually find the opposite relationship equally surprising, i.e. those who ride don’t necessarily follow professional cycling.
    With ‘those who ride’, I don’t mean commuters (who might well only see a bike for its functional use and not as an item related to sport), rather I mean the typical club member who may have a race licence, will certainly do the odd sportive, and has already ridden several of the famous passes used in GTs. These I would expect to follow cycling as a sport, but it doesn’t appear to always be the case.

    In my club, of about 20-25 regularly active members, only about 3-4 people (myself included) follow professional cycling throughout the season. Another 6-7 members loosely follow the TdF, but the rest, so 10-15 members, have no interest in professional cycling and never bother following or watching races, whether live or on TV.
    These 10-15 even include one member with a licence, who can relate the detailed results of all recent nearby races in his category and who can speak of the strengths, weaknesses and tactics of his main rivals in those races, but who knows no more about professional racing than what he might occasionally read in a popular tabloid (i.e. very little).
  • FJSFJS Posts: 4,820
    coriordan wrote:
    While grateful for the input, it was more a question of just how you got into it, and why (as a non-cyclist) you like it.

    Comparisons with some of the biggest sports in the world aren't really valid.
    they are valid for me. In some places cycling is one of the highest sports, and you would get into cycling the way you get into football in the UK
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 25,178
    knedlicky wrote:
    Good stuff

    True dat. Go to any trail centre on a summer weekend and I'd bet that you could count on your fingers how many people could name the current XCO World Champ (either sex). In Britain you may have a little more luck with DH, but I'd be surprised if you ran out of toes as well...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 8,298
    Sure you can appreciate art, but wont an artist has a deeper understanding of what it takes to produce a piece of art. Similar in cycling, you must have gained some appreciation of what it takes to climb and descend a col, maybe sprint in a bunch or whatever, by doing it.

    This doesn't stack up. Most art critics are mediocre artists by their own standards. Neither Roger Ebert nor Mark Kermode ever made a decent film. Brian Sewell remains unhung in the Tate (now THAT would be an installation, but I digress...). Piers Morgan is an absolute censored (this has no relevance, but can't be stated often enough). What qualifies the most insightful critics isn't an understanding of the precise physical experience of creating an artwork, but in having the depth of experience and knowledge of other artworks with which to make valid and illuminating comparisons.

    Thus with cycling. Watching a number of races at all levels, learning to understand the patterns in the chaos, and understanding the history of the sport is a surer path to enlightenment than wheezing your way up to the top of the Col de la Madeleine and discovering no greater insight than 'it takes a lot of work to do that'.

    That is a phenomenally good post. It's also worth noting that many of the top football managers were fairly limited as players. Many of the top players are fundamentally illiterate when it comes to any analysis of what happened in a match.

    But have any managers never played the sport? If anything that supports the argument that playing a sport at some level gives you an understanding of it at any level. The same for art critics who may be mediocre artists - they are still artists? In any case being an art critic does not mean one has an understanding of the process of producing a piece of art - they may understand the history, the importance and even the quality of a painting but if you have never picked up a brush inevitably you are disadvantaged in understanding the process.

    If you have never raced a bike you are at a disadvantage in understanding bike racing just as an amateur racer is disadvantaged compared to a pro. That does not mean you can't appreciate a bike race, be a fan, have some understanding and perhaps a deeper understanding than a bike racer who takes only apassing interest in the pro side of things, but you are still disadvantaged in some aspect.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,936
    Sure you can appreciate art, but wont an artist has a deeper understanding of what it takes to produce a piece of art. Similar in cycling, you must have gained some appreciation of what it takes to climb and descend a col, maybe sprint in a bunch or whatever, by doing it.

    This doesn't stack up. Most art critics are mediocre artists by their own standards. Neither Roger Ebert nor Mark Kermode ever made a decent film. Brian Sewell remains unhung in the Tate (now THAT would be an installation, but I digress...). Piers Morgan is an absolute censored (this has no relevance, but can't be stated often enough). What qualifies the most insightful critics isn't an understanding of the precise physical experience of creating an artwork, but in having the depth of experience and knowledge of other artworks with which to make valid and illuminating comparisons.

    Thus with cycling. Watching a number of races at all levels, learning to understand the patterns in the chaos, and understanding the history of the sport is a surer path to enlightenment than wheezing your way up to the top of the Col de la Madeleine and discovering no greater insight than 'it takes a lot of work to do that'.

    That is a phenomenally good post. It's also worth noting that many of the top football managers were fairly limited as players. Many of the top players are fundamentally illiterate when it comes to any analysis of what happened in a match.

    But have any managers never played the sport? If anything that supports the argument that playing a sport at some level gives you an understanding of it at any level. The same for art critics who may be mediocre artists - they are still artists? In any case being an art critic does not mean one has an understanding of the process of producing a piece of art - they may understand the history, the importance and even the quality of a painting but if you have never picked up a brush inevitably you are disadvantaged in understanding the process.

    If you have never raced a bike you are at a disadvantage in understanding bike racing just as an amateur racer is disadvantaged compared to a pro. That does not mean you can't appreciate a bike race, be a fan, have some understanding and perhaps a deeper understanding than a bike racer who takes only apassing interest in the pro side of things, but you are still disadvantaged in some aspect.

    Does the process of making a piece of art have any real relevance though? We judge and evaluate what's actually hanging on the wall, how it got to be there provides little of merit in understanding the work.

    I've coached kids football teams, there are kids there that just know how to hit a ball, or how to control it, but most of them couldn't begin to explain how they do it, let alone put words on how they saw a specific defence splitting pass before they made it. There are others that learn through having it explained what the instep is, how to position your body when striking the ball etc. and go away and practice it until they improve. They gain a technical understanding of the game the former don't have, but may never achieve the same level of technique. So even the answer to a question like: "What does it take to strike a free kick?" is going to get you different answers - and that's from people actually playing the sport. The most insightful answers will come from those that weren't innately able to do it instinctively, but had to work on it theoretically first. The others just kick the ball where they want it to go. But that theoretical knowledge is available without ever kicking a ball. I've got plenty of it, despite having been absolutely useless at football as a kid and never having played in anything resembling an organised football team.

    When I watch football I can see players make fundamental and basic mistakes every match, even at the very top levels of the sport. And if I can't give you a match analysis more insightful than Alan Shearer's then please just euthanise me. But give me a ball, a patch of grass and a goal and I'll send you round to ask for the ball back from the neighbour with the 12 ft tall fence next to the pitch.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
Sign In or Register to comment.