Well, not quite but.
Chris Froome did 17 km time trial in 30 minutes yesterday. Over hills.
I was out the other day and did 26 km, on the flat…maybe 300 metres climb all told over whole amount (bit of a headwind but it was there and back on the same road, cancels out) in hour and twenty. Not that ~I was pushing it I was going for a ride, not trying to race but that was as fast as I wanted to go.
OK, I’m 53, smoke, am overweight and not fit.
Heck of a difference there. Schoolboy sprinters can do 100 m in 14 secs maybe. 40% difference to Bolt. Rather than the what, 300% difference here?
And I see it around here too. Some teams will practice here in the Algarve and so I’m sometimes out and a training ride goes past me. I’m puffing up a hill putting the work in and they sail past at twice the speed as they have a natter and a joke.
Yes, yes, obviously, middle aged man stretching the legs and professionals in a sport, the speeds and results are going to be entirely different. But here’s my ponder. Which sports produce the largest difference in results between the OK amateur (so I’m not talking about John B and his marathons, I do mean just the “I’m just doing some exercise, me” amateur) and the professional?
Running sprints perhaps a 50% difference? Swimming I could (and if I trained for a few weeks, could again that’s about technique not fitness) swim a mile in 35 -40 minutes (17 minutes seems to be competition speed) so 100%. Cycling though out at 200 and 300%?
London marathon amateurs regularly come in at 4 hours….2 hours to win it, 100%.
I know we’ve some formerly competitive cyclists around here. Is Grand Tour riding where there’s the greatest difference between performances, the pros and the OK amateur? Or would you nominate some other sport?