Top athletes don't ride bicycles

[Bulk Beef]

Fausto's gonna be pissed when he reads this. Some guy (same guy?) wrote pretty much the same thing a couple of years ago - dumb then, dumb now.

The world of athletics does not revolve around the NFL.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: sward666
Fausto's gonna be pissed when he reads this. Some guy (same guy?) wrote pretty much the same thing a couple of years ago - dumb then, dumb now.

The world of athletics does not revolve around the NFL.

******* paging Fausto ****** paging Fausto*******

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I understand where this guy is coming from. But my definition of athleticism is apparently different from most of you. When I look at a person and say 'that's a damn athlete!' I'm referring to overall athletic skill and the ability to adapt and do many different things. Take Michael Jordan for example. That guy could probably play wide receiver in the NFL, could probably do decent at track (high jump!), could obviously play a bit of baseball, is a decent golfer, etc. Lance Armstrong himself has admitted that he's not half the overall athlete as the rest of these guys.

I totally respect him and definately consider him the most dominant cyclist in the world. However, we all know how to ride a bike. Lance is just the most well conditioned bike rider in the world. And being well conditioned isn't a natural athletic trait.

No sports stars just turn up and play due to some god given talent. They all have to work very hard achieving and maintaining themselves at peak fitness, or in your words, the best conditioned in their field.

The article is garbage, the author, a Cycling-hating tool.

I dunno, people like Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson would probably argue against that.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I understand where this guy is coming from. But my definition of athleticism is apparently different from most of you. When I look at a person and say 'that's a damn athlete!' I'm referring to overall athletic skill and the ability to adapt and do many different things. Take Michael Jordan for example. That guy could probably play wide receiver in the NFL, could probably do decent at track (high jump!), could obviously play a bit of baseball, is a decent golfer, etc. Lance Armstrong himself has admitted that he's not half the overall athlete as the rest of these guys.

I totally respect him and definately consider him the most dominant cyclist in the world. However, we all know how to ride a bike. Lance is just the most well conditioned bike rider in the world. And being well conditioned isn't a natural athletic trait.

Yes, we all know how to ride a bike, but do we know how to ride a bike well? I know how to catch a footbal, does that mean if I condition myself enoguh I can outdo Jerry Rice? Even the most conditioned bike rider must posess certain other traits to elevate him to the top. Do running backs have a special talent they were born with that allows them to get hit by a linebacker?

This does bring up another point though. Talent only gets you so far. It truly is hard work that will bring you to the top.

 

[murphy55d]

so freegeeks, do you have an actual opinion on this, or are you just going to quote everyone who disagrees with you and make a one-line comment about how THEIR opinion is wrong?

 

[CChaos]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
...but he is probably right in saying that X % of football players COULD win the Tour if they dedicated their life to it like Lance did, but that Lance does not meet the requirements for the NFL...

What he said was ANY NFL running back is a better athlete than Armstrong. So, ANY NFL running back "if they dedicated their life to it like Lance did" would win 7 Tours? Are you seriously standing behind that statement?

Also, why do the running backs get to dedicate thier lives to cycling, but Lance has to meet the requirements as is? Oh, because you're just a biased as this jackass? Ok.

 

[0roo0roo]

eh, my newspaper had a thing with pictures and charts on the course he has to ride. it is freakin crazy, esp the mountain portions. i've driven up a few mountains, about the same height, and jeez.. if i had to ride that daya fter day? nutzo. its no wonder they burn so much calories they lose weight by the endof the race , can't eat enough. daily cal requirements are very very high.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: murphy55d

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: murphy55d
I would agree that Ricky Williams is a better athlete than Lance Armstrong. I don't think that Armstrong is not an athlete, I just don't think he's a "top" athlete, especially when you start comparing him to NFL running backs, who are often 6'2, 230 lb freaks who run a 4.4 40 time. Hell, look at Ray Lewis, 6'1 245 lbs, probably runs about a 4.5 or 4.6, strong as an ox, and an incredible mind for the game. How can you argue that a guy who rides a bike is a 'better athlete' than Ray Lewis? I'm not trying to belittle cyclists, but to me, it's difficult to compare them to guys like that.

Lance is not a "top athlete"

:roll:

Correct.

you are correct!!!! he only has one of the hightest VO2 max ever recorded and an unbelievable lactate threshold

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: CChaos

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
...but he is probably right in saying that X % of football players COULD win the Tour if they dedicated their life to it like Lance did, but that Lance does not meet the requirements for the NFL...

What he said was ANY NFL running back is a better athlete than Armstrong. So, ANY NFL running back "if they dedicated their life to it like Lance did" would win 7 Tours? Are you seriously standing behind that statement?

Also, why do the running backs get to dedicate thier lives to cycling, but Lance has to meet the requirements as is? Oh, because you're just a biased as this jackass? Ok.

cycling is one motion over and over and over and over and over.....no real skill in volved you can either do that one motion faster than others or you can not.

Lance doesn't have the body type for a contact sport, even if he bulked up to his bodies capacity he'd still get beaten around like a rag doll in any contact sport...

 

[godspeedx]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: murphy55d
I would agree that Ricky Williams is a better athlete than Lance Armstrong. I don't think that Armstrong is not an athlete, I just don't think he's a "top" athlete, especially when you start comparing him to NFL running backs, who are often 6'2, 230 lb freaks who run a 4.4 40 time. Hell, look at Ray Lewis, 6'1 245 lbs, probably runs about a 4.5 or 4.6, strong as an ox, and an incredible mind for the game. How can you argue that a guy who rides a bike is a 'better athlete' than Ray Lewis? I'm not trying to belittle cyclists, but to me, it's difficult to compare them to guys like that.

Lance is not a "top athlete"

:roll:

Yes, he is.

 

[ThePresence]

It's really a silly argument. It just depends how you define the world "athlete". It's semantics, really.
I find myself agreeing with the article. Lance is the world's greatest cyclist. That does not mean he's the world's greatest athlete.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: CChaos

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
...but he is probably right in saying that X % of football players COULD win the Tour if they dedicated their life to it like Lance did, but that Lance does not meet the requirements for the NFL...

What he said was ANY NFL running back is a better athlete than Armstrong. So, ANY NFL running back "if they dedicated their life to it like Lance did" would win 7 Tours? Are you seriously standing behind that statement?

Also, why do the running backs get to dedicate thier lives to cycling, but Lance has to meet the requirements as is? Oh, because you're just a biased as this jackass? Ok.

No, that's not what anyone is saying. That's like saying that any NFL running back is a better athlete than the #1 ping pong champ in the world and therefore would be able to be the best ping pong player ever.

I think the problem is that people have their own definition of what an athlete is and what an athlete isn't. To me an 'athlete' is one that looks to possess the physical skills that would allow him/her to compete in various sporting events to some degree of success. I mean, take your average NFL running back vs. Lance :

(These are assumptions)
He can run faster than Lance.
He can knock Lance out.
He can catch passes better than Lance.
He is more agile than Lance.
He is tougher than Lance.
He can probably throw a football further than Lance.
He can probably jump higher than Lance.

Lance can ride a bike faster.
Lance can outlast the running back in running and cycling.

Pair the two in a neutral sport such as soccer. Who will probably be better? Pair the two in a neutral sport such as basketball. Who will probably be better?

 

[TitanDiddly]

The auther should be forced to eat a brick.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
It's really a silly argument. It just depends how you define the world "athlete". It's semantics, really.
I find myself agreeing with the article. Lance is the world's greatest cyclist. That does not mean he's the world's greatest athlete.

I didn't say that Lance is the greatest athlete - everybody knows that the greatest athlete ever was Eddy Merckx

 

[gigapet]

someone should settle this once and for all and take the top two athletes from baseball, hockey, basketball, football, soccer and tennis....

line them up with lance on some bikes and see who would win.......do it for charity or something.

 

[godspeedx]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: murphy55d

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: murphy55d
I would agree that Ricky Williams is a better athlete than Lance Armstrong. I don't think that Armstrong is not an athlete, I just don't think he's a "top" athlete, especially when you start comparing him to NFL running backs, who are often 6'2, 230 lb freaks who run a 4.4 40 time. Hell, look at Ray Lewis, 6'1 245 lbs, probably runs about a 4.5 or 4.6, strong as an ox, and an incredible mind for the game. How can you argue that a guy who rides a bike is a 'better athlete' than Ray Lewis? I'm not trying to belittle cyclists, but to me, it's difficult to compare them to guys like that.

Lance is not a "top athlete"

:roll:

Correct.

you are correct!!!! he only has one of the hightest VO2 max ever recorded and an unbelievable lactate threshold

His is insanely high, and I agree with what you are saying, but he doesn't have the highest ever recorded. Unless he was recorded over 93 and I didn't hear about it.

But yeah, he is a prodigy.

EDIT: Oh, my fault. I thought you said he did have the highest ever. I see that you just said one of the highest. Please accept my many apologies.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: ThePresence
It's really a silly argument. It just depends how you define the world "athlete". It's semantics, really.
I find myself agreeing with the article. Lance is the world's greatest cyclist. That does not mean he's the world's greatest athlete.

I didn't say that Lance is the greatest athlete - everybody knows that the greatest athlete ever was Eddy Merckx

No way man, you're freaking crazy.

The greatest athlete ever was Dale Earnhardt! OMG!

 

[freegeeks]

some info on Lance

Resting heart rate: 32-34
VO2ml/kg: 83.8
Max power at VO2: 600 watts
Max heart rate: 201
Lactate Threshold HR: 178
Time Trial HR: 188-192
Pedal rpm's during TT: 95-100
Climbing rpm's: 80-85, sometimes faster when attacking
Average HR during endurance rides (4-6 hrs): 124-128
Average watts during endurance rides: 245-280 watts
Training miles/hours, endurance rides: 5- 6 hrs / 100-130miles

 

[godspeedx]

Originally posted by: gigapet
someone should settle this once and for all and take the top two athletes from baseball, hockey, basketball, football, soccer and tennis....

line them up with lance on some bikes and see who would win.......do it for charity or something.

How could you even imagine that anyone else in another sport could beat him?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
some info on Lance

Resting heart rate: 32-34
VO2ml/kg: 83.8
Max power at VO2: 600 watts
Max heart rate: 201
Lactate Threshold HR: 178
Time Trial HR: 188-192
Pedal rpm's during TT: 95-100
Climbing rpm's: 80-85, sometimes faster when attacking
Average HR during endurance rides (4-6 hrs): 124-128
Average watts during endurance rides: 245-280 watts
Training miles/hours, endurance rides: 5- 6 hrs / 100-130miles

Yup, no one is arguing against him being the greatest cyclist.

 

[Jzero]

I think we should ask Ricky William's opinion. I doubt that even the stupidest bonehead that a professional sport can offer would have the gaul to claim that he is a better athelete than someone in a totally different professional sport.

No, that gaul is reserved only for fatasses sitting behind keyboards.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: godspeedx

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: murphy55d

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: murphy55d
I would agree that Ricky Williams is a better athlete than Lance Armstrong. I don't think that Armstrong is not an athlete, I just don't think he's a "top" athlete, especially when you start comparing him to NFL running backs, who are often 6'2, 230 lb freaks who run a 4.4 40 time. Hell, look at Ray Lewis, 6'1 245 lbs, probably runs about a 4.5 or 4.6, strong as an ox, and an incredible mind for the game. How can you argue that a guy who rides a bike is a 'better athlete' than Ray Lewis? I'm not trying to belittle cyclists, but to me, it's difficult to compare them to guys like that.

Lance is not a "top athlete"

:roll:

Correct.

you are correct!!!! he only has one of the hightest VO2 max ever recorded and an unbelievable lactate threshold

His is insanely high, and I agree with what you are saying, but he doesn't have the highest ever recorded. Unless he was recorded over 93 and I didn't hear about it.

But yeah, he is a prodigy.

I know - Lemond was in the 90's and some sort of Scandinavian cross country skier (if I remember correctly)

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Jzero
I think we should ask Ricky William's opinion. I doubt that even the stupidest bonehead that a professional sport can offer would have the gaul to claim that he is a better athelete than someone in a totally different professional sport.

No, that gaul is reserved only for fatasses sitting behind keyboards.

I guess the same could be said for neffers assuming that other neffers are fatasses. I agree with the sitting behind a keyboard part!

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: godspeedx

Originally posted by: gigapet
someone should settle this once and for all and take the top two athletes from baseball, hockey, basketball, football, soccer and tennis....

line them up with lance on some bikes and see who would win.......do it for charity or something.

How could you even imagine that anyone else in another sport could beat him?

seems like a self limiting belief to think otherwise......

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Jzero
I think we should ask Ricky William's opinion. I doubt that even the stupidest bonehead that a professional sport can offer would have the gaul to claim that he is a better athelete than someone in a totally different professional sport.

No, that gaul is reserved only for fatasses sitting behind keyboards.

:thumbsup: