Posted Jan 27, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC
I don't really understand this whole, CX makes the best road racers argument that Haussler puts forward.
There's nothing from a power, explosivity and "going deeper" criteria that you get from cyclocross that you can't get from normal intervals or HIIT training.
Furthermore, being a top CX rider is very hit and miss in making a top road racer. For every Van Der Poel and Van Aert, you get a Eli Iserbyt and Toon Aerts who are pretty poor on the road.
Some people train better in different settings.
For example, a lot of amateur riders struggle to get through intervals on a trainer but say they have no problem going deep in a Zwift race. Likewise, a subsegment of pros prefer racing into shape, while others can do training blocks and show up in peak condition.
So while the work may be the same, how it's dolled out can matter.
It's funny because a year ago Haussler was talking about being in the form of his life and finally having his pre-2011 legs back, and scoffed any suggestion that it was the cyclo-cross specifically that caused it, saying that it's just the motivation from doing something new and different that makes you train harder
I don't really understand this whole, CX makes the best road racers argument that Haussler puts forward.
He says it's a great preperation for the classics, not tour riders or climbers. Which makes sense to me. But i think you're also right that he could train to achieve the same results, but that's probably a lot less fun for him.
He also said to expect him at the front of the race in omloop & kuurne, so he's quite confident. I'm very curious to see if we get the old Hausler that came in 2nd in Flanders or the fairly anonymous one from the last couple of years. I'm guessing somewhere in between.
You say that as if iserbyt and aerts are as good as van aert or van der poel. They're quite a obviously a long way off, in either cross or road.
You have to consider that van der poel and van aert are just exceptional cycling talents as opposed to cyclo-cross making them who they are.
Toon aerts and iserbyt are the 4th and 5th best CX riders respectively. They are absolutely nowhere on road.
The 3rd best CX rider in the world is the world champion MTB, E-MTB world champion, Junior ITT world champion, Paris roubaix juniors and u23 champion, baby giro winner and the CX world's runner up.
I think at this point it's pretty conclusive the top 3 of cyclo-cross aren't top road racers because of CX, but because they're just amazing bike riders.
Yep of course. I can't wait to see what pidcock does in the world tour
Pulling the pack for Ineos.
Sorry to spoil that for you.
You also don't know where they would be without CX. But i can't think of a reason why you would not improve that way, besides being over trained.
You also don't know where they would be without CX.
Yeah, they might be even better if they didn't do any CX and had concentrated on road early on.
They could also be worse. Or the same. Can't conclude much from it as they are clearly just top talents.
The 3rd best cyclo-cross rider is Aerts not Pidcock. Don't revise history.
The context suggests that it only improves his early season, which makes a lot of sense.
I already experienced this on the road in February and early March last year.
I don't really understand this whole, CX makes the best road racers argument that Haussler puts forward.
He says it's great for development of young cyclists, and a good place for prep for the cobbled classics, because you can't simulate that intensity during a training session.
The racing environment gives a lot of people an extra gear. For instance my personal max HR is 203 in a race, but during intervals I can never hit above the 194 mark. The CX season will be 2 months of one or two races a week, which is a substantial training block.
Even though they're both cycling sports I think they're too far apart to openly compare. In the same way good cyclocross riders aren't great on the road, Haussler proves being good on the road doesn't translate to being good at cross. Obviously he hasn't perfected the technique, but a good cross rider won't necessarily be able to handle position, handling and the intelligence needed to ride well in a bunch on the road.
I can see why Haussler would say this especially if he struggled with being restricted indoors the past season. The monotony of indoor or even outdoor sprints or HIIT when you get to his long a career will definitely get to you. If he has found a way to enjoy training and gets more out of it, then cross does work for him. If it gets him another big win then he could train to do 1000 watts on a unicycle and it wouldn't matter.
I don't really understand this whole, CX makes the best road racers argument that Haussler puts forward.
It's not that difficult to understand though. After all cyclocross was invented as winter training for road cyclists.
The thing is when you look at it cyclocross basically is 1h of threshold level effort. That's a very good training as could be seen from Van der Poel's Amstel win (the last hour there was basically a cyclocross style effort).
Now I don't think it's a good training for GC guys but anyone aiming for day wins should really consider it.
But it isn't though -
CX is basically 15 seconds of 700+ watts, then 5 seconds of 0 watts, then 5 seconds of 700+ watts, then 5 seconds of 1200 watts, then 5 seconds of 0 watts, then 5 seconds of running, then 20 seconds of 700+ watts.
It's constantly over unders, only rather than 6 x 3 or 12 x 1, its 120 x 0.25.
It's completely different to 1 hour FTP effort, where your effort is constant. Over-unders is far more encumbering than FTP.
Which is why if you ride 300 watts for 20 minutes, you'll get an average weighted power of 300 watts.
If you ride 200 watts for 10 minutes and 400 watts for 10 minutes, you'll get a 375w ish weighted average power.
Heino Roubaix hype here we go!
Does it have to do with he fact that cross races are an hour?
CX for the win. Whooo!
(I love road cycling as well)
He's still talking about bike racing, right?