-
My entire point here is that training is a hugely more relevant factor in cycling ability than ANY other factor, genetics, bike weight, aerodynamics, anything.
It's only at the extreme end of the wedge where natural talent might give someone an edge. For example, Tony Martin clearly has some ridiculous TT-specific blood. His competition have roughly equivalent training and equipment, but he can still outperform anyone.
Andy, are you honestly telling me that if I went and trained every day for a Hour Record attempt (for example), that someone with this completely undefined 'talent' could just hop on an equivalent bike and beat me? You lot are insane.
MechaMorgan-
No, what I'm saying is that if the person with the natural ability did the same amount of training as you for the hour record, they'd do a significantly better distance. Training is important, but if I did the same training as Nibali, I'd still not be capable of winning the Tour.
-
My entire point here is that training is not a hugely more relevant factor in cycling ability than genetics. It all goes together with the other components like aerodynamics, weight etc. There's published evidence that supports my claim, what have you got?
Hutch makes the point in an earlier book that his genetics are so good that he doesn't get hugely better from training, and he could probably get in the top 10 in the CTT nationals without touching a bike for a year.
andyp
umop3pisdn
How is any of that relevant at all? Thinking that bike weight significantly affects performance>>>>>>>