Forum menu
Mtbel as a good point, its not about the hours in the saddle its the hours typing bullshit on forums that makes you the awsumz
Damn! you mean the 8 hours I've ridden so far this week have been a waste of time?
Any tips on typing this "bullshit" you speak of? and how many hours a week do I need to put in to compete with your posting history?
I reckon if you ride 169 hours a week or more you will be officially [s]awesome[/s] knackered.
Trust me on this.
I know a doctor who could help 😉
beat the training partner in garmin and buy moto green or yellow apparel = osum!!!
Don't worry, i'm never going to be a DH national champion! (or any other kind of champion for that matter!) and i'm fine with that 😉
But, there are things i'd like to be able to do, and current can't, and those things are going to take practice as tbh, i'm not really a "natural" rider
clearer?
I get Awesomeness = skillz but still none the wiser about what DH racing has to do with the OP wanting to learn some bicycle stunts to become more awesome and advance himself further in the ultimate quest for absolute and total awesomeness {smiley fukking face in my most ornate brackets}
Damn! you mean the 8 hours I've ridden so far this week have been a waste of time?
An internet expert told me that at least 6 of them have
You really should take his advice as he really knows what he is talking about
only 2 of those hours were mtb padawan 😉
Oh my aching sides...you're like so funny dude
Riding 40 hours a week ie as a full time job would take five full years to get to 10,000 hours. Who rides 40 hours a week? The 10,000 hours concept would suggest that you either need to start very early in life, or don't bother, or if you start training when you are in your mid-teens you won't be awesome until your mid 20s. Evidence suggests otherwise.
Depends on your definition of awesome. I reckon Danny McAskill is awesome. How many hours has he put in?
I know plenty people who have ridden for many hours over many years and technically they still suck.
I repeat, time spent practicing is not the most important factor. Talent (not necessarily innate but a combo of many internal and external factors) mixed with repeated deliberate, progressive practice is what's important.
Starting young definitely helps.
I was as good as I'll ever be on a bike when I was 17. Jumped off any double or drop and rode down any technical descent I came across. In the proceeding 16 years I have not improved at all despite seasons spent working in the alps and many many hours on the bike. I have in fact, become less confident and able on a bike in that period.
Why? Because I did not push/apply myself while practicing with the enthusiasm that I did previously. (And ultimately I perhaps reached my celing of ability?)
Your words are wise and echo in my soul Robz.
Junkyard. did you ever even stop to think that it might simply have been an honest reply? or are you always far too busy trying to WIN teh intarnetz?
I rode mtb on Monday afternoon for an hour, a 3.5hr road ride yesterday morning, a 1 hour evening mtb ride then 2.5 hours on the road this afternoon. Tomorrow I'll probably ride BMX
The 10000 hours suggestion was "deliberate practice". In terms of mountain biking just hooning around wouldn't count. The Ericsson studies were carried out in a number of areas - notably sport and music - and a similar conclusion reached.
Oh and the idea of "talent" has often been poo-pooed. Turning up and putting in the work (focussed deliberate practice with measurable results) is what is required to develop skills.
did you ever even stop to think that it might simply have been an honest reply?
No not for one second did I take what you said as the truth.
You think anyone here does?
There is nothing to be won, nor gained, from a chat with you.
. a few folk "here" actually KNOW it is true.You think anyone here does?
RobzStarting young definitely helps.
Bugger.
😉
So, i've been steadily improving my MTB skills over the last 3 years. Nothing major, nowhere near "awesome" skills, but recently i've kinda felt i am hitting a bit of a plateau and not improving much.So it got me to wondering, how many hrs a week does one have to actively ride a bike to be classed as "AWESOME" these days? I suspect i'm just not riding enough?
Max.... get a motocross bike - take it to a track and get lessons. Watch the size of the stuff and the speed you hit it at increase, you get used to higher speeds and your brain gets rewired to the new speed, when you get back on your push bike things are muted in comparison - you unconsciously start riding everything faster.
Downsides to this is that;
A) You might get bored of cycling
B) You might compress you spine 6 inches and or break every bone in your body and end up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life 
Some are born awesome
some achieve awesomeness
And some have awesomeness thrust upon them
But most are born crap and eventually achieve mediocrity through a lot of blood, sweat and tears.
It depends on what you mean by awesome surely?
The best rider I know (and I would class as awesome) is a very fit, daring guy who can ride trails incredibly quickly and for a long time. However his skills - bunny hops etc - level is actually pretty low.
I agree with earlier posts, it is more about what you do than the volume/time spent doing it.
Just a thought but is the quest to be awesome/plateau you have stopping you enjoying being on the bike? If not is it such a big deal?
Oh and the idea of "talent" has often been poo-pooed. Turning up and putting in the work (focussed deliberate practice with measurable results) is what is required to develop skills.
Most of the very top DHers appear to combine phenomenal natural talent with really hard work.
I don't think anyone one here would claim they could be as awesome as Sam Hill if only they'd had the same amount of practice.
Well maybe one person.
Talent is the result/combination of many things.
Look up "Jackson Goldstone" to see what can be achieved on a bike at a very young age.
That kid knows how to push himself to progress.
Who rides 40 hours a week?
Steve Abraham
Riding 40 hours a week ie as a full time job would take five full years to get to 10,000 hours. Who rides 40 hours a week? The 10,000 hours concept would suggest that you either need to start very early in life, or don't bother, or if you start training when you are in your mid-teens you won't be awesome until your mid 20s. Evidence suggests otherwise.
The question was "how many hours a week do I need to MTB to be awesome?", the answer is that you need to amass 10k hours, how long that takes is up to you. You can be bloody good on a lot less, you can enjoy it on virtually none but to be "awesome" takes a lot of time and practise. The best riders in the world are "awesome", it's their job and I suspect they ride almost as many hours as most of us spend at work (road riders certainly do, I see no reason why MTB would be different). The young riders who burst onto the scene are often kids who lived on their bikes since they could walk and therefore amassed their 10k hours early in life.
I'd be interested to read your evidence that suggest otherwise.
Edit, Jackson Goldstone is 11 years old, lets say he rode his bike for 3 hours per day since he was 5, that means he has got to 6.5k hours by 11 (he's on 4.5k hours if it was only 2 per day), so he's already well on his way. The average middle age MTBer who's been riding for 10 years, 4 hours per week is only on 2000 hours.
ost of the very top DHers appear to combine phenomenal natural talent with really hard work.
I think this is true of all sports; there was never a time when Usain Bolt was a slow runner [ for his age] but he has worked bloody hard to get where he i./
There was never a time when Rooney was not good at football but he has worked damn hard etc
All we can do is improve and it depends on what you mean by awezome
Fitness wise or skills wise. They have a different answer and both will require more than 2 hours unless you want to just create the persona on the internet in which case two hours will be plenty of time.
10,000 hours is nonsense for this context.
The OP is looking to develop some specific skills not win the DH World Cup.
Deliberate practice is the way forward.
Don't just ride trails, session obstacles that would benefit from the skill you are trying to learn and practice, practice, practice.
If you are struggling to get the techniques dialled then find someone who can do it and get them to teach you (this is sometimes called "coaching")
50 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
lunge - Member
Riding 40 hours a week ie as a full time job would take five full years to get to 10,000 hours. Who rides 40 hours a week? The 10,000 hours concept would suggest that you either need to start very early in life, or don't bother, or if you start training when you are in your mid-teens you won't be awesome until your mid 20s. Evidence suggests otherwise.The question was "how many hours a week do I need to MTB to be awesome?", the answer is that you need to amass 10k hours, how long that takes is up to you. You can be bloody good on a lot less, you can enjoy it on virtually none but to be "awesome" takes a lot of time and practise. The best riders in the world are "awesome", it's their job and I suspect they ride almost as many hours as most of us spend at work (road riders certainly do, I see no reason why MTB would be different). The young riders who burst onto the scene are often kids who lived on their bikes since they could walk and therefore amassed their 10k hours early in life.
I'd be interested to read your evidence that suggest otherwise.Edit, Jackson Goldstone is 11 years old, lets say he rode his bike for 3 hours per day since he was 5, that means he has got to 6.5k hours by 11 (he's on 4.5k hours if it was only 2 per day), so he's already well on his way. The average middle age MTBer who's been riding for 10 years, 4 hours per week is only on 2000 hours
So are you saying that every single rider in the pro peloton, or racing at the top level has completed 10,000 hours? I assume so, looking at that last paragraph.
Btw, I'm not denying that top level riders put a huge amount of training in, it's just the rigid 10k thing. Maybe it's the definition of awesome I'm missing? To explain my thinking - a rider who gains a professional contract (surely as good a definition of awesome as any?) at, say, 21 years of age, would have spent 10 years riding 20 hours per week. That's 20 hours per week, consistently, year in, year out, from the age of 11. While I'm sure that some riders will have done this, I'm pretty certain from my own experience that not all pro riders have.
And just to make a totally ridicuulous point, I know several riders who will have spent well over 10,000 hours in the saddle who are very much not awesome, and never have been. 😀
Of course if the definition of awesome is TdF winner, or equivalent, then yes you are right. 😉
So are you saying that every single rider in the pro peloton, or racing at the top level has completed 10,000 hours? I assume so, looking at that last paragraph.
Yes. 6 hours per day, 5 days per week (about standard in the under echelons of the sport) is 30 hours per week is 1500 hours per year, doing that for 6 years gets you to around 10k, so if you started riding "properly" at 16 by 21 you're about there.
Obviously, the "awesome" definition is where ambiguity lies. Also, the 10k theory is just that, a theory, but it's not a bad start point.
I've ridden way over 10000 hours
And are you awesome on a bike?