[its_ethan]

I’ve given up on this thread because people seem to be getting very defensive and interpreting malice when there is none, but your comment here is similar to what I was trying to say. Cycling has a tighter bell curve of skill than other sports, just like all/most endurance sports.

It’s not a knock, I still enjoy those sports a lot, often more than wider skill bell curve sports.. oh well

[scott_w]

> he said less in comparison with other professional sports.

No, we’re taking umbrage with the fact that people are saying cycling requires less skill, when this simply isn’t true. It requires different skills, that’s all.

[LargeWu]

No, you're still not getting it.

It's not that it requires less skill, relative to an average person. It's that skill is not the differentiating factor among elites.

[ElGreco]

I'm a keen cyclist (doing and watching); the elite differentiator is aerobic capacity (anaerobic for sprinters) not skill. Going fast up a hill wins GC and require no skill. Going fast down is more skilful but less important.

[scott_w]

I’ve answered this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40965857

There’s plenty of amateur footballers more skilful than professionals, yet can’t make it because they lack the physical attributes (speed/strength/stamina). I’ve watched high skill teams shredded by a team that just shoved them off the ball and outran them. Barcelona’s style under Pep wasn’t mostly skill, it included a HUGE amount of physical fitness to maintain a press to win the ball back.

A massive part of Rooney’s rapid decline was his shit lifestyle reducing his fitness and speed as he grew older.