Er, historical evidence? For which there a very well documented natural reasons. Including weight and build. The upper body is actually quite important. Mass and muscle distribution count. I listed the last thirty odd years worth. At the very least would you not accept that he’s rather anomalous.
I hear you, I do. But your objections are not ultimately logical. We must analyse Pogacar's performances against his physical attributes, not merely because science tells us they are important, but because history confirms that they are. We have, in essence, the test results from a laboratory called world professional cycling over the last thirty years. This is when hyper specialised cyclists emerged and then came to dominate certain types of bike races. This was the inevitable result of professionalisation of the sport, particularly the influence of money married with sports science and an understanding of what works, what was optimal. Setting aside the rest of the cycling calendar for now, we can look at the Spring Classics and see a huge list of results, test results if you will. Real life events. And what do we see? What does reality tell us about the type of rider who wins and even competes in this type of race? See my previous post. The results are stark.
Now as to Pogacar's physicality. Upper body strength and weight are vital, particularly on the cobbled classics. I should not really have to do this here, and I may not be successful in explaining what I mean. But hopefully it will explain why I have serious problems with believing what Pogacar is doing. Apologies in advance for the length of the post. And apologies also if I sound as if I'm teaching you or anyone else how to suck eggs. I'm just trying to explain my thinking, shaped by nearly fifty years of watching the sport.
Upper‑body strength matters in the cobbled Classics because the rider must:
-stabilise the bike
-absorb violent impacts
-maintain power through chaos
-keep the front wheel planted
-resist lateral deflection
-act as the suspension
This is why the sport has always favoured 75–85 kg riders with powerful upper bodies — and why Pogačar’s success is so hard to reconcile with the last 30 years of physiology. Cobbles try to throw the bike off line. At 45–55 km/h on pavé, the bike is hit by thousands of micro‑impacts every minute. Each impact tries to:
-twist the handlebars
-bounce the front wheel sideways
-pitch the rider forward
-destabilise the hips
A rider with stronger arms, shoulders, and core can resist those forces and keep the bike tracking straight. A lighter climber gets deflected more easily.
The power conundrum:
You need upper‑body torque to keep power going. On smooth tarmac, power is almost entirely legs + hips (and I still have problems believing the power he generates given his size and bike positioning and movement but anyway). On cobbles, power becomes full‑body:
-shoulders stabilise the front end
-arms counteract lateral shocks
-core keeps the pelvis stable
-back muscles transmit force to the pedals
If the upper body collapses under vibration, the legs can’t deliver steady power. This is why real Classics riders look “thicker” through the trunk.
In effect, the rider becomes the suspension system. There’s no suspension on a road bike, obvs. On cobbles, the rider is the suspension. That means:
- arms absorb vertical hits
- shoulders and back dissipate vibration
- core prevents the torso from bouncing
- the whole upper body smooths the bike’s motion
A climber’s body is optimised for lightness and efficiency, not shock absorption. Pogacar is a lightweight climber. No one like him has ever done what he is doing, and for very good reasons. Even the world's best programme would struggle to make him competitive in this type of race.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram