A new study suggests a link between cyclists’ looks and their performance

[mattobrien]

Well that explains why I am so damn fast then

Anyway, it must be true, it's written in the Economist: here

 

[ScotiaLass]

Explains why I am slow and can't do hills...

 

[Donger]

I was hoping they were inversely related. Otherwise all effort is futile. Anyone wanna buy a bike?

 

[MissTillyFlop]

So some people found some athletes attractive, so, ergo, unattractive people can't be athletes... Is it just me who finds this conclusion bit of a leap?

 

[welsh dragon]

What rubbish. Who writes these things. I have never heard such balderdash.

 

[Jon George]

I seem to remember a study investigating the correlation between bodily symmetry and athletic prowess - those more 'balanced' achieved better results. And facial symmetry has been perceived as an advantage in various aspects of life for most of human history - the main one being attractiveness to a sexual partner - and so I'd expect there is an increased probability that those with 'balanced' faces, might just well have 'balanced' bodies, as well. Still, on the face of it (pun intended), I doubt Van Gogh could run a mile - and chopping a bit of his ear off didn't help his looks - but, by God, he contributed to the general well-being of humanity with his art. That fact gives me hope ...

 

[Julia9054]

So . . . only male athletes studied then? Typical!

 

[Kookas]

What rubbish. Who writes these things. I have never heard such balderdash.

Have you conducted your own studies to disprove this, then?

 

[welsh dragon]

And are you saying that looks do have a lot to do with a persons ability?

 

[Kookas]

And are you saying that looks do have a lot to do with a persons ability?

I'm saying you can't rubbish a study just because you don't like the outcome.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

I'm saying you can't rubbish a study just because you don't like the outcome.

The study does seem to have been a bit basic. Or maybe the write up of the study was a bit lacking but the conclusion as reported, seems to be: these people fins successful athletes attractive, so therefore unattractive athletes cannot be successful.

Attraction is subjective anyway so I think a study in attraction is a bit of a red herring.

I mean Bradley Wiggins to me is H-O-T but I think if you asked the vast majority of my non cycling, non mod friends, they wouldn't find him attractive at all.

In fact most of my friends find strapping, beefy rugby types far more attractive than slim cyclists.

 

[welsh dragon]

It isnt a case of not liking the outcome, but the fact that there are far more cyclists who aren't particularly good looking, but who are very sucessful can be seen all the time. This conclusion would also apply to other sports as well not just cycling, and look at the very successful athletes who are not good looking. Take wayne rooney for instance.

bradly wiggins isn't what you would call good looking, so he shouldn't be as successful, which obviously he is. It is a bit of an Insult to tell other athletes that they can only be successful if they have the looks to go with the talent and they're performance will not be as good as others if they don't have the looks as well.

If that is the case, then 90% of athletes shouldn't even bother. Next week a new study will say that people with blue eyes will perform better than people with brown eyes at downhill skiing.

 

[Jon George]

It's worth noting that this is a media report of a study appearing in a peer-reviewed publication, and we all know how accurate such reporting can be. After giving this some further thought, following my initial response, my main quibble would be that while the study was apparently done of cyclists taking part in the 2012 Tour, there appears to be no accounting for the fact that it's a team event to get the leader as high up the GC as possible, and not an individual time trial over three weeks. There's also the question of the volunteers used in their test: how random was their demographic? Le Tour is predominantly contested by Western Caucasians and 'attractiveness' differs from culture to culture, so bias may have crept in.

 

[Hitchington]

There's always one that goes and spoils the theory (Tour De France runner up 2005)