On the current Q & A Chris Boardman I found myself agreeing with most of what he said except;
Well first of all what is cycling if it's not human powered vehicle racing? Secondly Chris Boardman rode in a period where he broke British records using tri bars. I'm not against innovation but happen to think that episodes like Lemond beating Laurent Fignon at the 1989 tour shouldn't have been allowed to happen. The lessons learnt from this period are now being used to try and ensure a level playing field.
However to call the superman position (or allowance of its use) as stupid is offensive to Graeme Obree, who had been allowed to use it.
It also smacks a bit of sour grapes that Obree had been the one to innovate using purely his mind, as opposed to the number crunching scientific methods of Boardman and Keen. In other words he didn't want to admit that Obree had been the pioneer and been correct - that he doubts Obree would have challenged him had they adopted the same position.
At the age of 22 and at the national track cycling champoinships in Britain I saw Obree competing in his original crouched position - and laughed along with the others. At the age of 42 and with the befit of hindsight I am embarrased at how Graeme was perceived and treated. I have nothing but admiration for what he acheived and think the question mark over his positions aesthetics are pathetic. It's the same breed of snobbery that sees a road rider, equipped with the latest carbon rig, breeze past a mountain biker without saying a word.
Really Chris, having reached the pinnacle of the sport, and holding the records, be sporting enough to think twice before making comments which, whether intended or not, denigrate someone who was a great rival and actually validated your own performances.
I agree with everything else Chris had to say. Oh and by the way, stop calling it the 'superman' position and start calling it the Obree position (mark 2).
Well first of all what is cycling if it's not human powered vehicle racing? Secondly Chris Boardman rode in a period where he broke British records using tri bars. I'm not against innovation but happen to think that episodes like Lemond beating Laurent Fignon at the 1989 tour shouldn't have been allowed to happen. The lessons learnt from this period are now being used to try and ensure a level playing field.
However to call the superman position (or allowance of its use) as stupid is offensive to Graeme Obree, who had been allowed to use it.
It also smacks a bit of sour grapes that Obree had been the one to innovate using purely his mind, as opposed to the number crunching scientific methods of Boardman and Keen. In other words he didn't want to admit that Obree had been the pioneer and been correct - that he doubts Obree would have challenged him had they adopted the same position.
At the age of 22 and at the national track cycling champoinships in Britain I saw Obree competing in his original crouched position - and laughed along with the others. At the age of 42 and with the befit of hindsight I am embarrased at how Graeme was perceived and treated. I have nothing but admiration for what he acheived and think the question mark over his positions aesthetics are pathetic. It's the same breed of snobbery that sees a road rider, equipped with the latest carbon rig, breeze past a mountain biker without saying a word.
Really Chris, having reached the pinnacle of the sport, and holding the records, be sporting enough to think twice before making comments which, whether intended or not, denigrate someone who was a great rival and actually validated your own performances.
I agree with everything else Chris had to say. Oh and by the way, stop calling it the 'superman' position and start calling it the Obree position (mark 2).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram