Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
It seems to me, that is exactly what you were saying when you clarified your position in your second post.
No you are still misunderstanding. First, there was no mention of racing by the OP.
Second, his whole point is you don't need to reach an equivalent level of competency in cycling. In cycling you can participate, without detracting from the experience for others, with only a base level of competency and that base is attained fairly quickly. This is not the case in many other sports.
For instance: I can golf with my friend who is a scratch golfer while I rarely break 100. We can have fun together because my crappy play doesn't affect him.
It is annoying for me to play basketball (and I'm nothing special at it) with new (say less than 3 years experience) players because they have no idea what they are doing and generally just get in the way.
Jogging, assuming one can keep up, is even easier to learn than cycling. That doesn't make it a bad, or inferior, sport, it's just easy to learn the basics quickly.
What would be more frustrating for you, a group ride with 3 cyclists like you and one that has only been doing group rides for 2 years, or a doubles match where three of the players are at your level and one has only been playing for 2 years?
I'd estimate that I've played tennis 100 times in my life. I doubt I've been on 100 group rides. But, next week I'm going vacation which is really just an excuse to go riding with a Cat 1 racer and I'm not the least bit worried about having insufficient skill (though he is, no doubt, more skilled than I am). The trip was his idea and we'll both have a good time. Conversely, I'd never suggest playing with a serious tennis player. I'd just embarrass myself and waste his time.