Originally Posted by
wheelreason
I find that most folks who hold your position define it narrowly around visible physical prowess.
I don't hold that position at all. I would define skill as dexterity, hand-eye coordination and technique. Physical prowess for me is more related to fitness and strength.
So if you compare say marathon running vs tennis. What really separates amateurs from pros in those two sports? For marathon running I would say it is mainly down to their aerobic fitness and with tennis I would say it is mainly down to their racquet skills. It's that relative weighting of skill and fitness that varies from sport to sport. I think endurance cycling is much closer to running than most ball sports in that respect. That's not to say there aren't considerable skills involved. But they are less important than physical fitness. You can be a very average descender in the pro peloton (no better or worse than decent amateurs) but you need to have fitness levels way beyond the norm. Usain Bolt briefly tried to cross over into pro soccer when he retired from running, but didn't have the ball skills required despite possessing supreme speed and strength.