HIS historic Tour de France victory may have garnered Bradley Wiggins considerable column inches, but his trademark bushy sideburns have gained almost as much attention.
As I strode down the Champs-Elysees in Paris a week ago on Sunday the boulevard was awash not only with British flags and Team Sky tops, but men – and even a few women – sporting comedy prosthetic facial hair in homage to the cyclist.
But sideburns, like moustaches and chest hair, historically tend to polarise. On some they can look more seedy 1970s porn star than swashbuckling period drama hero.
Wiggins, however, is being credited with luring closet mutton-chop fans out of the closet. In recent days he has topped a poll of the sexiest sideburn heart throbs of all time.
I've always been partial to sideburns myself – although with a strict caveat. In short: Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice = good; Liam Gallagher from Oasis = bad. It's a simple formula. There is something whimsical yet gloriously alpha male about sideburns (although not on Slade's Noddy Holder; and never on racing pundit John McCririck). They are the perfect antithesis to the over plucked and preened metrosexual male (Shane Warne, anyone? Thought not ...). You know that a man with a good sideburn isn't going to be elbowing you aside at the bathroom mirror or pouting because he's out of his £45 a pot eye cream.
As for Wiggins, you've got to admire a man who shaves his legs, but who can rock facial hair with the kind of masterful aplomb previously only achieved by John Lennon, Elvis and George Best.
Wiggins and his sideburns will be in action in the Olympic time trial tomorrow, sticking two fingers up to the laws of aerodynamics. Hopefully they'll be standing atop the podium afterwards. If not, indoctrination into the Facial Hair Hall of Fame is surely not a bad consolation?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article