-
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.
andyp-
If I did the same amount of training as Nibali, I'd be dead within a week.
-
No argument with what you're saying at all, but we're talking across purposes.
What I'm saying is that if, for example, Tony Martin and myself had never ridden bicycles before, and we started training at the same time for the Hour Record, but I did twice the training, I would beat Tony Martin*.
Training > Natural Talent
*lol
-
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.
How do you know? Have you tried?
Brommers
MechaMorgan
Sumo
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.