Do Prodigies Peak Early or Sustain Growth?

[Juan Pelota]

When trying to forecast careers like Egan Bernal, we seem to assume they will continue their meteoric rise and peak in their late 20's..but is this true? Might some riders just peak early? Off the top of my head here are some recent prodigies( GC riders)..

For my definition - a prodigy is anyone who competes for GC at a GT at age 23 or under.

Nairo Quintana .. tough to say he is any better at age 28, as opposed to when he burst on into the limelight at 23.
Andy Shleck - 2nd place in Giro at at 21. Peaks at age 24.
Damiano Cunego - wins Giro at age 23, and never again.
Jan Ullrich- Wins only TDF at 23.
Ricardo Ricco - 6th at Giro at 23...Well you know

Unless I am forgetting some riders, the last time we had prodigy jump on the GC scene and continue their excellence may have been Lemond. Fignon won the TDF at 23, and arguably had his best season in 89, so I'll say he qualifies..but after that it doesn't seem like prodigies really sustain and improve their excellence. More often, they just peak young.

Now Bernal is so young ,21, that I absolutely expect him to be winning GC's by 23 or 24, but I'm not sure this means he'll be even better at 30 then he will be at 23.

Thoughts?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

In endurance sports, it has less to do with absolute age, and more to do with when their breakthrough is. For some readers, that distinction might not be any more helpful, but it means that the breakthrough performance, and the years leading up to it, are no predictor of growth or trend in future performances. The breakthrough only means that the athlete will be at or around that level for a few or many years to come. The clock starts once people start talking about that athlete, and I would hypothesize that that there has been no athlete who had their breakthrough after wide-ranging discussions among fans (as opposed to one fan or "calling it now" in an obscure post or article). Put another way, I can't think of an athlete who has broken through twice, into two different levels of performance years apart.

 

[Red Rick]

Huge mid career improvements are a lot rarer than earlier and more consistent progression toward top level.

I'm inclined to say that the earlier a rider breaks through the more unlikely it is he continues improving until what you normally expect, and the better a rider is at an x age the less improvement he can likely make compared to a lesser rider of the same age. Steady improvement after breakthrough is not a given at all, no matter how young, and it is definitely possible that Egan Bernal starts stagnating at 22 for example, like Quintana did at 23. Of the current riders, Nibali probably had the least sudden improvement of results

Also, different rider types mature at different ages. Sprinter peak really early, and classics riders probably peak the latest.

 

[Escarabajo]

We are mixing clinic with natural issues. Hard to evaluate.

 

[Leinster]

Re:

In endurance sports, it has less to do with absolute age, and more to do with when their breakthrough is. For some readers, that distinction might not be any more helpful, but it means that the breakthrough performance, and the years leading up to it, are no predictor of growth or trend in future performances. The breakthrough only means that the athlete will be at or around that level for a few or many years to come. The clock starts once people start talking about that athlete, and I would hypothesize that that there has been no athlete who had their breakthrough after wide-ranging discussions among fans (as opposed to one fan or "calling it now" in an obscure post or article). Put another way, I can't think of an athlete who has broken through twice, into two different levels of performance years apart.

There’s been several examples of a rider “reinventing” himself. It’s usually a case of a sprinter discovering that they can also climb/TT/ride for gc/win long monument classics, see Kelly, Boonen, Jalabert, Museeuw etc. All of those guys were considered talented sprinters, green jersey contenders at an early age. All of them won their first monument aged 27 or later, iirc. (Although Boonen’s “breakthrough” ride came in Roubaix, granted), and all carried on winning races into their 30s and had long careers.


Re the OP, lots of riders flame out early, and lots of riders are slow burners. As said above, endurance and “old man strength” tend to develop later in careers, so a sprinter, say, will burst onto the scene young, but be done by 30 (barring the above mentioned reinvention).

It’s very rare to find a rider who does a Ryan Giggs; bursts into the sport as a teenager, and keeps going til 40. But then, that’s very rare in all pro sports.

 

[woodburn]

Lemond and Fignon struggled with injuries during their "prime" years. Perhaps that was due to overracing in a different era where GT contenders rode all season.

Schleck seems to have been hampered by motivation more than physically, though he was really never the same after the crash in the Dauphine in 2012. Amazing to consider he is actually one month younger than Froome.

Truth is endurance sports aren't much different than other sports. Some kids peak early and it's that they drop but they improve at a lower rate than others that reach their physical peak sooner. It's why you see Dumoulin clearly showing greater progress in the past few years than Quintana.

Another aspect is that when you are a prodigy, it's more difficult to grind through training when you've always been a natural talent that hasn't always had to outwork people. That obviously seems to be what happened with Schleck after 2011.

 

[Escarabajo]

Lemond wasn't overraced, he was shot. Survived by miracle!

 

[woodburn]

Re:

Lemond wasn't overraced, he was shot. Survived by miracle!

Yes. Before the 87 tour. But he came back in 88 and missed the race due to leg tendonitis.

 

[toolittle]

Re: Re:

Rider's training, life style, healthy issues... Lots of factors behind.

Quintana is still there. Crash...

TJ Van Garden is one of the peak early example.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Well it is the same thing with Popovich (sp), Kreuziger, Fothen, Linus, Cilok, etc. who have great performances at the age of 23 or less and then stagnate.

 

[jaylew]

Re:

Well it is the same thing with Popovich (sp), Kreuziger, Fothen, Linus, Cilok, etc. who have great performances at the age of 23 or less and then stagnate.

Moser

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

Lemond wasn't overraced, he was shot. Survived by miracle!

Yes. Before the 87 tour. But he came back in 88 and missed the race due to leg tendonitis.

Hinault had similar problems with his knee.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

Lemond and Fignon struggled with injuries during their "prime" years. Perhaps that was due to overracing in a different era where GT contenders rode all season.

Schleck seems to have been hampered by motivation more than physically, though he was really never the same after the crash in the Dauphine in 2012. Amazing to consider he is actually one month younger than Froome.

Truth is endurance sports aren't much different than other sports. Some kids peak early and it's that they drop but they improve at a lower rate than others that reach their physical peak sooner. It's why you see Dumoulin clearly showing greater progress in the past few years than Quintana.

Another aspect is that when you are a prodigy, it's more difficult to grind through training when you've always been a natural talent that hasn't always had to outwork people. That obviously seems to be what happened with Schleck after 2011.

Schleck was never the same after losing the 2011 Tour. A hairline fracture of the pelvis is nothing compared to other injuries riders have come back from. Porte fractured his pelvis in last year's Tour but was back a few months later at least in training. Schleck obviously had other things going one with a new family, his brother's suspension etc......I think Schleck went into the 2011 Tour expecting to win especially after what happened in 2010. Never gave the impression he was mentally tough compared to some of his rivals. Probably someone who could have done with a strong coach or mentor. Probably more of a natural talent who didn't hit the heights a lot of people expected him to. Quintana sometimes gives a similar impression.

 

[ppanther92]

Nairo Quintana .. tough to say he is any better at age 28, as opposed to when he burst on into the limelight at 23.
Andy Shleck - 2nd place in Giro at at 21. Peaks at age 24.
Damiano Cunego - wins Giro at age 23, and never again.
Jan Ullrich- Wins only TDF at 23.
Ricardo Ricco - 6th at Giro at 23...Well you know

I mean - wrong part of the forum, but Cunego, Ullrich and Ricco are obvious clinic cases. Schleck had his career cut short by injuries in the end. Quintana is a curious case though.

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

Lemond and Fignon struggled with injuries during their "prime" years. Perhaps that was due to overracing in a different era where GT contenders rode all season.

Schleck seems to have been hampered by motivation more than physically, though he was really never the same after the crash in the Dauphine in 2012. Amazing to consider he is actually one month younger than Froome.

Truth is endurance sports aren't much different than other sports. Some kids peak early and it's that they drop but they improve at a lower rate than others that reach their physical peak sooner. It's why you see Dumoulin clearly showing greater progress in the past few years than Quintana.

Another aspect is that when you are a prodigy, it's more difficult to grind through training when you've always been a natural talent that hasn't always had to outwork people. That obviously seems to be what happened with Schleck after 2011.

Schleck was never the same after losing the 2011 Tour. A hairline fracture of the pelvis is nothing compared to other injuries riders have come back from. Porte fractured his pelvis in last year's Tour but was back a few months later at least in training. Schleck obviously had other things going one with a new family, his brother's suspension etc......I think Schleck went into the 2011 Tour expecting to win especially after what happened in 2010. Never gave the impression he was mentally tough compared to some of his rivals. Probably someone who could have done with a strong coach or mentor. Probably more of a natural talent who didn't hit the heights a lot of people expected him to. Quintana sometimes gives a similar impression.

A hairline fracture that permanently affected his riding position.

But at the same time he was also bad in 2012 prior to the crash.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

I think it might also just be a case of a reduction in the margins right. If 100 is the absolute peak of what is humanly possible to do on a bike, if you're on 90 (as say Quintana at 23 or whatever) gaining much is very very hard compared to someone who's at 70 (Dumoulin maybe) at the same age.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Personally, i think in many cases, it's a mental issue. Riders that had to fight for years, to become a top rider, to earn their spot, get their shot... appear (to me) to be mentally stronger. They got to grow out of the spotlights, without too much pressure and expectations. So when they eventually get there at age 27, they are "full grown". Whereas riders that are "brought" soon, at the age of 21-24, they are often considered "top talents"; get all the attention, pressure and expectations... and are mentally "done" by the time they should be at their best.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re: Re:

Lemond and Fignon struggled with injuries during their "prime" years. Perhaps that was due to overracing in a different era where GT contenders rode all season.

Schleck seems to have been hampered by motivation more than physically, though he was really never the same after the crash in the Dauphine in 2012. Amazing to consider he is actually one month younger than Froome.

Truth is endurance sports aren't much different than other sports. Some kids peak early and it's that they drop but they improve at a lower rate than others that reach their physical peak sooner. It's why you see Dumoulin clearly showing greater progress in the past few years than Quintana.

Another aspect is that when you are a prodigy, it's more difficult to grind through training when you've always been a natural talent that hasn't always had to outwork people. That obviously seems to be what happened with Schleck after 2011.

Schleck was never the same after losing the 2011 Tour. A hairline fracture of the pelvis is nothing compared to other injuries riders have come back from. Porte fractured his pelvis in last year's Tour but was back a few months later at least in training. Schleck obviously had other things going one with a new family, his brother's suspension etc......I think Schleck went into the 2011 Tour expecting to win especially after what happened in 2010. Never gave the impression he was mentally tough compared to some of his rivals. Probably someone who could have done with a strong coach or mentor. Probably more of a natural talent who didn't hit the heights a lot of people expected him to. Quintana sometimes gives a similar impression.

A hairline fracture that permanently affected his riding position.

But at the same time he was also bad in 2012 prior to the crash.

His coaches simply say he was lazy and lied about how much he trained. Coasted on natural talent, and when he had to work hard to regain fitness on what was going to be a long hard slog, he couldn't be bothered.

Here's a telling line, he said it at the end of the 2012 Tour: "20th isn't bad. I could've been 15th but I would've had to really try hard". If even when his career is on the line he can't try hard, when would he?

 

[Valv.Piti]

I suppose you mean the 2013 Tour

Schleck was always a weird character. I obviously don't know him, but he rode for CSC the majority of his career so there was a lot of talk about him in Denmark and cycling fans kinda got to know him and Frank. Infinitely more talented than his brother, but Frank was a superb professional and is almost training the same now as before. Had Frank had Andy's talent or Andy had Frank's head it would suddenly have been a lot more fun. The stuff Andy did on Galibier in 2011 was insane because Im 100% positive that he wasn't even in his best possible shape, or when he demolished the field in Liege two years earlier.

 

[SHAD0W93]

I would say it was a combination of things that finally broke Andy. Those being losing the 10 Tour only to be awarded it 2 years later, losing the 11 Tour when going in he thought he would win, his crash, and Frank's suspension. All 4 of those took a big toll on him and by the looks of it was to much for him to handle.

 

[jmdirt]

There are several things at play: physiology, mental/emotional, clinic...and several sub categories under each of those.

So the simple answer to your question is yes.

 

[woodburn]

The point about Andy compared to Porte or others coming back from disappointment or injury was that he lacked the work ethic that others with a grinder mentality. That's the curse of being a prodigy w/o requisite mindset of a guy like Lance that had to win.

He was 26 years old after the 2011 Tour and nosedived at the first sign of adversity. Some of that also was impacted by moving away from Riis where he was in a complete comfort zone. It was OK with Leopard-Trek but a disaster when he had to work with Brunyeel.

 

[KyoGrey]

It depends.

For example, here Spanish riders historically tend to mature a little bit later.

 

[The Hegelian]

Re:

Personally, i think in many cases, it's a mental issue. Riders that had to fight for years, to become a top rider, to earn their spot, get their shot... appear (to me) to be mentally stronger. They got to grow out of the spotlights, without too much pressure and expectations. So when they eventually get there at age 27, they are "full grown". Whereas riders that are "brought" soon, at the age of 21-24, they are often considered "top talents"; get all the attention, pressure and expectations... and are mentally "done" by the time they should be at their best.

I think this is the most compelling response thus far. Physiological talent is one thing. But converting that potential into actuality requires immense mental discipline and drive - the best legs + heart may not have the best head....

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

Personally, i think in many cases, it's a mental issue. Riders that had to fight for years, to become a top rider, to earn their spot, get their shot... appear (to me) to be mentally stronger. They got to grow out of the spotlights, without too much pressure and expectations. So when they eventually get there at age 27, they are "full grown". Whereas riders that are "brought" soon, at the age of 21-24, they are often considered "top talents"; get all the attention, pressure and expectations... and are mentally "done" by the time they should be at their best.

I think this is the most compelling response thus far. Physiological talent is one thing. But converting that potential into actuality requires immense mental discipline and drive - the best legs + heart may not have the best head....

And then we have a guy like Sagan. The biggest performances of a 20 year-old in our era, and he turns out to become the best cyclist in our era as well.

Even though people think he is goofing around too much.

But I honestly don't know if he is physically stronger now than when he was 23.