Mags

[black'n'yellow]

There is nothing odd about that at all. Football is a defined game, with scores and points, winners and losers. Plenty of cyclsts ride for the simple pleasure of it and the feel of the open road, with no interest in race reports or product reviews for that matter.

I'm sure that's true - but that's not what is being discussed. 'Rouleur' is apparently for people who are passionate about cycle sport - which is not what you just described.

If you compete - it's a sport. If you don't - it's a hobby/interest/pastime.

 

[zizou]

"Rouleur is the highly acclaimed cycling magazine, issued eight times a year. It brings together leading cycling writers and photographers to convey the essence and imagery of road racing. Rouleur features photography and serious writing celebrating the passion and beauty of the sport and has built a dedicated and valuable following from both discerning cycling fans and the most influential bike riders in the world. The magazine appeals to those who, like us, are passionate about the sport, but don't want to read bike tests and race reports. Instead, the magazine focuses on exquisite photography and writing that really gets under the skin of the great riders and theatres of road racing. Rouleur puts a premium on design; we print on heavy art-stock paper and we use the highest quality reproduction and printers."

I'm sure that's fine for some - but it holds absolutely no interest for me. The bit in bold is particularly ironic - a bit like being a football fan and not being interested in the scores...

I dont think it is ironic as it is possible to cover the sport but not the results. For example if they have a feature about Paris Roubaix then it is about the history and why it is a special race, interviews with riders, great photographs etc. Then rather than a review of a groupset (for example) it could be an article about Campagnolo as a company through the years, visiting the factory etc.

I realise it might not be to everyones tastes but it offers something a bit different - in some respects the content is a bit more like a book than a magazine.

 

[RAYMOND]

Iv'e just been to asda and looked at the mags,
cycling plus are giving a altura windproof jacket and skullcap worth £52 if you subscibe.
You have to be quick though as they go fast.first 100 or so.
www.myfavouritemagazines.co.uk/cypc1P
if you try it and they say the jackets have all gone you dont need to proceed with the subscription.

 

[hoopdriver]

I'm sure that's true - but that's not what is being discussed. 'Rouleur' is apparently for people who are passionate about cycle sport - which is not what you just described.

If you compete - it's a sport. If you don't - it's a hobby/interest/pastime.

Come again?

Cycling is a sport - it needn't involve racing or competition. Take the blinkers off. Flower arranging is a pasttime. And as the poster above points out, the magazine carries plenty of articles about racing and the philosophy of racing etc. no need for long lists of competitors names an the latest news from the peloton. That is served elsewhere. What Rouleur offers is not

 

[mark st1]

I dont buy i stand in a line with the other non payers and read them all in WH Smiths on a weekend whilst the Mrs is shoping.

 

[black'n'yellow]

Come again?

Cycling is a sport - it needn't involve racing or competition. Take the blinkers off. Flower arranging is a pasttime.

'Sport' is normally defined as a 'competitive physical activity'. Unless you are competing, it's just a hobby, much like flower arranging. Nothing wrong with that, but it ain't sport. I gave you my opinion on 'rouleur' mag - and you disagree with it - which is fine.

 

[hoopdriver]

I'

'Sport' is normally defined as a 'competitive physical activity'. Unless you are competing, it's just a hobby, much like flower arranging. Nothing wrong with that, but it ain't sport. I gave you my opinion on 'rouleur' mag - and you disagree with it - which is fine.

I've no brief fir Rouleur but you used the adjective rubbish to describe all of the magazines, including Rouleur,and I was intrigued. The production values for that particular magazine are far from rubbishy, and neither is the content. It just seemed an odd choice of words. I see now that all you meant by rubbishy is that they do not include race results and therefore could not be a serious sporting magazine.

I am also intrigued by your definition if sport. The Oxford English Dictionary's first definition is "a diversion, entertainment, fun, a pasttime." But then the OED doesn't include race results and so s probably a pretty rubbishy publication.

 

[black'n'yellow]

I'
I've no brief fir Rouleur but you used the adjective rubbish to describe all of the magazines, including Rouleur,and I was intrigued. The production values for that particular magazine are far from rubbishy, and neither is the content. It just seemed an odd choice of words. I see now that all you meant by rubbishy is that they do not include race results and therefore could not be a serious sporting magazine.

That's a pretty comprehensive mis-interpretation there...

I think all the mags are 'rubbish' because they do not appeal to the reasons why I ride a bike. I use the word 'rubbish' (not 'rubbishy', incidentally) to decribe the cycling media in the same way as I might refer to West Ham United as being 'rubbish' - it is a throw-away term and not worth mounting a legal challenge over it.

I'm glad you like 'Rouleur' and I'm sure the quality of the paper stock is absolutely superb.

 

[hoopdriver]

That's a pretty comprehensive mis-interpretation there...

I think all the mags are 'rubbish' because they do not appeal to the reasons why I ride a bike. I use the word 'rubbish' (not 'rubbishy', incidentally) to decribe the cycling media in the same way as I might refer to West Ham United as being 'rubbish' - it is a throw-away term and not worth mounting a legal challenge over it.

I'm glad you like 'Rouleur' and I'm sure the quality of the paper stock is absolutely superb.

I quoted you accurately and said you used the word 'rubbish'. You just didn't read my post accurately. See first sentence.

Production quality means more than paper stock by the way.

And your definition of sport needs help.

 

[black'n'yellow]

I quoted you accurately and said you used the word 'rubbish'. You just didn't read my post accurately. See first sentence.

I can read accurately enough to see that you have used the word in two seperate replies.

Production quality means more than paper stock by the way.

I know - it's an area I'm fairly familiar with.

And your definition of sport needs help.

Look - if it makes you feel better to think that what you are doing is 'sport' as opposed to simply 'pursuing a hobby whilst using a bicycle', then that's fine with me. We both know it ain't true though...a bit like saying that 'driving a car is sport' because 'that's what F1 drivers do'...

 

[hoopdriver]

I can read accurately enough to see that you have used the word in two seperate replies.



I know - it's an area I'm fairly familiar with.



Look - if it makes you feel better to think that what you are doing is 'sport' as opposed to simply 'pursuing a hobby whilst using a bicycle', then that's fine with me. We both know it ain't true though...

We both know you are correct, do we? i see. I shall expunge that definition of sport in my Oxford English Dictionary forthwith and replace it with yours...

 

[black'n'yellow]

We both know you are correct, do we? i see. I shall expunge that definition of sport in my Oxford English Dictionary forthwith and replace it with yours...

That would be good, thanks. Alternatively, you could actually try some 'cycle sport' for yourself and then experience the difference first hand...

 

[hoopdriver]

That would be good, thanks. Alternatively, you could actually try some 'cycle sport' for yourself and then experience the difference first hand...

I do. Every morning. Thirty miles or so for pure pleasure. For fun. For entertainment. For a past time. All things the OED lists as definitions for 'sport'.

 

[black'n'yellow]

If you're so keen on the OED, perhaps you could look up 'delusional' at the same time...

 

[hoopdriver]

If you're so keen on the OED, perhaps you could look up 'delusional' at the same time...

I wouldn't say you were delusional just because you like to create, and live by, your own definitions of words. The dictionary doesn't happen to agree with you, and neither, I daresay, would very many other cyclists, most of whom would maintain they are participating in 'sport' whether they compete or not. The fact that you announce unilaterally that we all know you are right is a little flaky, I'll admit, but I wouldn't go so far as to call you delusional. Just a bit misguided.