Top athletes don't ride bicycles

[adlep]

The link above doesn't make any sense...
Why Football (should be: An American Football)
is ranked higher than Rugby or Soccer?
Rugby > American Football
Football > American Football

The entire table should be scrapped IMO...
Rugby is very similar to American Football, but more demanding, you do not wear a protective, gay armor and there are no comercial stops every 5 minutes or so..
?

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
This guy has OBVIOUSLY never seen a professional bike racer as many of you obviously haven't either judging by your posts. I dated a girl whose dad was on one of the #1 US biking teams in the world, knows Lance, and carried the Olympic torch. The guy is freaking huge. He bikes miles every day and mountain climbs and he's one of the most massive men I have ever met. He's as much of a "guy" as any jock I have ever come into contact with. Lance may be thin but he fscking survived cancer for Christ's sake, of course he's thin. However, if you saw him in real life I bet he's a lot more muscular tan you think. All of these biker guys have pretty impressive ammounts of muscle and I bet they could out squat most any NFL athlete in the business, just like in highschool the football guys would be leg pressing for 300 while us cross country guys would be hitting it close to 500lbs.

Ahahahah. That is the funniest thing I've read in awhile... the heavier you lift or faster you can sprint, the more fast twitch fibers you will have... Lance doesn't need fast twitch fibers because he primarily needs endurance. Look at the build between a X country and sprinter, much different. It is highly doubtful that a X country runner could outsquat a football player (maybe in high school but doubtful in college), of course there are exceptions.

For example, the FB the Eagles just drafted, Thomas Topeh, is 6-1 245. He squats 630lbs, and runs a 4.81 40 which is good for a FB. Name me many cyclist who can squat that much and still run a 4.81 40...

You don't know many college CC runners do you? Most of our CC team played football or wreastled. We were a bunch of 6' 200lb. guys that ran in the off season. Why? Oh yeah that's right because running was better leg training than any other training I have ever seen. I bet Lance's legs are huge, even compared to most football players'.

You're talking about HIGH SCHOOL. Of course in high school you could easily do 3 sports, and basketweave on the side.

How many of these kids got a scholarship, played in college, and then went pro? How many of your X Country/wrestler/football high school buddies could squat 630 (slightly above the average for Fullbacks who make the NFL) and ran a 4.8 40? Again, that was just a random sample of a FB drafted from the Eagles. I'm sure many are even better than this, for example Barry Sanders could squat almost 900 lbs. Do you know how insane that is? The man was only 5-7. Tell me how many of your high school buddies could squat 900, brush off a lineman who also squats 900, cut on a dime, and then outrun a secondary (which consists of players who run 4.2/4.3 40's) in one play? This ain't high school son, we're talking about the cream of the crop. Anyone that tells you a pro X Country runner can outsquat an NFL player is full of sht (of course there are few exceptions). Anyone who tells you Lance Armstrong can outsquat an NFL player is full of sht as well (he can probably do more than 1-5% I'm willing to bet, there are some smaller RB/TB's who are skinny/small/fast).

True, I guess you proved your point that none of us took steroids. I tried googling to see Lance's weight lifting stats and couldn't find them. If someone can get them great but till then imo you need to make more friends in college sports.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
This guy has OBVIOUSLY never seen a professional bike racer as many of you obviously haven't either judging by your posts. I dated a girl whose dad was on one of the #1 US biking teams in the world, knows Lance, and carried the Olympic torch. The guy is freaking huge. He bikes miles every day and mountain climbs and he's one of the most massive men I have ever met. He's as much of a "guy" as any jock I have ever come into contact with. Lance may be thin but he fscking survived cancer for Christ's sake, of course he's thin. However, if you saw him in real life I bet he's a lot more muscular tan you think. All of these biker guys have pretty impressive ammounts of muscle and I bet they could out squat most any NFL athlete in the business, just like in highschool the football guys would be leg pressing for 300 while us cross country guys would be hitting it close to 500lbs.

Ahahahah. That is the funniest thing I've read in awhile... the heavier you lift or faster you can sprint, the more fast twitch fibers you will have... Lance doesn't need fast twitch fibers because he primarily needs endurance. Look at the build between a X country and sprinter, much different. It is highly doubtful that a X country runner could outsquat a football player (maybe in high school but doubtful in college), of course there are exceptions.

For example, the FB the Eagles just drafted, Thomas Topeh, is 6-1 245. He squats 630lbs, and runs a 4.81 40 which is good for a FB. Name me many cyclist who can squat that much and still run a 4.81 40...

You don't know many college CC runners do you? Most of our CC team played football or wreastled. We were a bunch of 6' 200lb. guys that ran in the off season. Why? Oh yeah that's right because running was better leg training than any other training I have ever seen. I bet Lance's legs are huge, even compared to most football players'.

You're talking about HIGH SCHOOL. Of course in high school you could easily do 3 sports, and basketweave on the side.

How many of these kids got a scholarship, played in college, and then went pro? How many of your X Country/wrestler/football high school buddies could squat 630 (slightly above the average for Fullbacks who make the NFL) and ran a 4.8 40? Again, that was just a random sample of a FB drafted from the Eagles. I'm sure many are even better than this, for example Barry Sanders could squat almost 900 lbs. Do you know how insane that is? The man was only 5-7. Tell me how many of your high school buddies could squat 900, brush off a lineman who also squats 900, cut on a dime, and then outrun a secondary (which consists of players who run 4.2/4.3 40's) in one play? This ain't high school son, we're talking about the cream of the crop. Anyone that tells you a pro X Country runner can outsquat an NFL player is full of sht (of course there are few exceptions). Anyone who tells you Lance Armstrong can outsquat an NFL player is full of sht as well (he can probably do more than 1-5% I'm willing to bet, there are some smaller RB/TB's who are skinny/small/fast).

True, I guess you proved your point that none of us took steroids. I tried googling to see Lance's weight lifting stats and couldn't find them. If someone can get them great but till then imo you need to make more friends in college sports.

Honestly, his max squat or whatever probably isn't all that impressive. Most cyclists spend relatively little time in the gym and I know his coach prefers on-bike "weight training" (uphill intervals in a huge gear) over freeweights anyway. The only cyclists who have truly massive legs are the sprinters like Nothstein. He had 32" quads before making the decision to switch from track to road cycling.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Fausto
<shrug> It's certainly possible, but the only issue is body type. Cyclists are really small for the most part; if you're much over 170lbs, you're not going to win the Tour as your power to weight ratio will suck compared to the other contenders. I'm not sure someone who has the genetic potential to be an NFLer could ever be light enough (even if you got them as a kid) to compete in the Tour.

That's probably true about body size. There are some pro NBA guards, boxers, skiiers, swimmers, LD runners, or pro soccer players who would be small enough and could compete in terms of aerobic capacity. I think if the writer had actually compared one of these pro's to Lance with regards to endurance it wouldn't have been so ridiculous... we all know that football is "tougher" as a sport overall, but cycling is "tougher" with regards to endurance than football which is what the author has failed to realize. Just because Ricky Williams plays in a "tougher" sport doesn't mean he has the aerobic capacity and/or build to compete in the Tour!

 

[Lazy8s]

Still can't find weight lifting stats but look at his legs here:
http://a104.g.akamai.net/7/104/1751/0001/www.lancearmstrong.com/headon.jpg

I agree he's a scawny mofo up top but considering he probably burns more calories than we can eat in one day he's got HUGE legs.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Fausto
<shrug> It's certainly possible, but the only issue is body type. Cyclists are really small for the most part; if you're much over 170lbs, you're not going to win the Tour as your power to weight ratio will suck compared to the other contenders. I'm not sure someone who has the genetic potential to be an NFLer could ever be light enough (even if you got them as a kid) to compete in the Tour.

That's probably true about body size. There are some pro NBA guards, boxers, skiiers, swimmers, LD runners, or pro soccer players who would be small enough and could compete in terms of aerobic capacity. I think if the writer had actually compared one of these pro's to Lance with regards to endurance it wouldn't have been so ridiculous... we all know that football is "tougher" as a sport overall, but cycling is "tougher" with regards to endurance than football which is what the author has failed to realize. Just because Ricky Williams plays in a "tougher" sport doesn't mean he has the aerobic capacity and/or build to compete in the Tour!

Good call. It's like being a horse Jockey, half the sport is being skinny enough to die without dying

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Fausto
<shrug> It's certainly possible, but the only issue is body type. Cyclists are really small for the most part; if you're much over 170lbs, you're not going to win the Tour as your power to weight ratio will suck compared to the other contenders. I'm not sure someone who has the genetic potential to be an NFLer could ever be light enough (even if you got them as a kid) to compete in the Tour.

That's probably true about body size. There are some pro NBA guards, boxers, skiiers, swimmers, LD runners, or pro soccer players who would be small enough and could compete in terms of aerobic capacity. I think if the writer had actually compared one of these pro's to Lance with regards to endurance it wouldn't have been so ridiculous... we all know that football is "tougher" as a sport overall, but cycling is "tougher" with regards to endurance than football which is what the author has failed to realize. Just because Ricky Williams plays in a "tougher" sport doesn't mean he has the aerobic capacity and/or build to compete in the Tour!

But of course, he chose not to make a reasonable comparison because then his article wouldn't be "edgy and controversial" and freegeeks wouldn't have popped an artery this morning.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Still can't find weight lifting stats but look at his legs here:
http://a104.g.akamai.net/7/104/1751/0001/www.lancearmstrong.com/headon.jpg

I agree he's a scawny mofo up top but considering he probably burns more calories than we can eat in one day he's got HUGE legs.

The most impressive thing about seeing a pro in person isn't how big their legs are, but how cut they are. I've met a few Euro pros here and there over the years and their legs look like various cuts of beef wrapped in cellophane. You can see pretty much every striation and blood vessel; it's bordering on being gross actually.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Still can't find weight lifting stats but look at his legs here:
http://a104.g.akamai.net/7/104/1751/0001/www.lancearmstrong.com/headon.jpg

I agree he's a scawny mofo up top but considering he probably burns more calories than we can eat in one day he's got HUGE legs.

The most impressive thing about seeing a pro in person isn't how big their legs are, but how cut they are. I've met a few Euro pros here and there over the years and their legs look like various cuts of beef wrapped in cellophane. You can see pretty much every striation and blood vessel; it's bordering on being gross actually.

that's how ullrich's legs look like



Ullrich linky

Fausto knows what I'm talking about with this link

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: jjones
I don't see what's wrong with the article. He's arguing against the idea that Armstrong is the world's greatest athlete. I'd have to agree with him.

It's really not the premise that's flawed, it's how he goes about arguing his point.

...

I could go on, but you hopefully get my point; the author is just being "controversial" for the sake of getting ink.......just like the previous idiots who've written similar bits.

Well, I have to agree with you that his argument doesn't really touch on anything genuinely comparing athletes and athleticism, and I'd go further to say that it is really difficult to find an individual today that you could definitively say is the world's greatest athlete. Jim Thorpe would have likely had my vote many years ago, but today's specialization seems to make that type of athleticism nearly impossible.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

The whole idea that there would be 1 single worlds greatest athelete pretty niave. The article is a great example of a straw man fallacy.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: jjones
I don't see what's wrong with the article. He's arguing against the idea that Armstrong is the world's greatest athlete. I'd have to agree with him.

It's really not the premise that's flawed, it's how he goes about arguing his point.

...

I could go on, but you hopefully get my point; the author is just being "controversial" for the sake of getting ink.......just like the previous idiots who've written similar bits.

Well, I have to agree with you that his argument doesn't really touch on anything genuinely comparing athletes and athleticism, and I'd go further to say that it is really difficult to find an individual today that you could definitively say is the world's greatest athlete. Jim Thorpe would have likely had my vote many years ago, but today's specialization seems to make that type of athleticism nearly impossible.

Honestly, the most badass athletes around today (IMHO) are decathletes. Being able to compete in the wide range of events they do without killing yourself is pretty damn impressive. They're also going to be the guys most able to cross over into pretty much any other sport if they wanted to.

 

[MaxDepth]

This isn't about Lance or Ricky.

It's all about it being a slow newsday in sports and some hack is vainly attempting to make a name for himself by trying to make something out of a non-realistic topic.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: jjones
I don't see what's wrong with the article. He's arguing against the idea that Armstrong is the world's greatest athlete. I'd have to agree with him.

It's really not the premise that's flawed, it's how he goes about arguing his point.

...

I could go on, but you hopefully get my point; the author is just being "controversial" for the sake of getting ink.......just like the previous idiots who've written similar bits.

Well, I have to agree with you that his argument doesn't really touch on anything genuinely comparing athletes and athleticism, and I'd go further to say that it is really difficult to find an individual today that you could definitively say is the world's greatest athlete. Jim Thorpe would have likely had my vote many years ago, but today's specialization seems to make that type of athleticism nearly impossible.

Jim Thorpe would have been a good vote. I think you could name any famous boxer (Ali, Lennox Lewis, maybe Iron Mike in his prime), NHL (Lemeiux/Gretzsky), rugby or NFL (Barry Sanders/Jerry Rice/Ray Lewis) player and there would be few peers to compare them in this category.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: MaxDepth
This isn't about Lance or Ricky.

It's all about it being a slow newsday in sports and some hack is vainly attempting to make a name for himself by trying to make something out of a non-realistic topic.

WINNAR!!

 

[GasX]

A great athlete is defined by his strength, speed, stamina &amp; coordination

football players fall short on stamina (name another sport with as much down time)
cyclists fall short on strength (it's all in their legs) and possibly coordination

you can look at any sport and see it as a balance of the above criteria. You can even break down sports withing criteria (e.g. leg strength vs. arm strength)

In my mind, the best athletes maximize these four attributes. Four sports come to mind that produce balanced athletes of this sort:

gymnastics
decathlon
rugby
hockey

Lance doesn't qualify. Ricky doesn't qualify.

 

[Doboji]

ahhh football isnt that hard... I could take a hit of an NFL athlete anyday... no big thang... and you know what?... So could Armstrong. People have an over inflated ideal of what it means to be an NFL football player. Rugby is far more demanding, and just as violent.

The author of this article is probably a big fat guy who's only athletic activity is clicking the space bar on his keyboard.

-Max

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Doboji
ahhh football isnt that hard... I could take a hit of an NFL athlete anyday... no big thang... and you know what?... So could Armstrong. People have an over inflated ideal of what it means to be an NFL football player. Rugby is far more demanding, and just as violent.

The author of this article is probably a big fat guy who's only athletic activity is clicking the space bar on his keyboard.

-Max

Yes, you would take a hit and live, but wouldn't you rather enjoy life outside of a hospital? If pro football players played rugby people would probably be paralyzed and the sport would be banned. For instance, if Larry Allen (6-3, 335lbs, 900lb squat, 700lb bench, rumored to be strongest man in NFL) blindsided you at full speed (or even if you were ready for the hit) in rugby without pads on you would most likely be paralyzed or could even die (or have your lungs crushed with any 300+ lb guy that jumped on you). How about Ray Lewis? I don't doubt that he could probably destroy anyone on the rugby field... Rugby may be more demanding endurance wise, but the force of pro football is unparalleled, and why they have to wear pads because of the elite power that no other sport can boast.

 

[mobobuff]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
football players fall short on stamina (name another sport with as much down time)

Bowling.

But it all comes down to who has the right to define what an athlete is? Much less who the BEST athlete is, without an accurate definition of one? It's just one big cyclical (NPI) argument that loses its point in the first few minutes.

Now if you wanted to argue about which sports demand the most integrity in certain areas, that's an argument with context.

 

[murphy55d]

No question Sp33D. If Ray Lewis hit someone without pads on full force, they'd be knocked silly for about 6-8 weeks, if not longer, or permanently. These guys get hurt WITH all that 'gay armor' or whatever someone called their pads, and it isn't because these guys are wimps, it's the sheer force that goes along with the sport.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: murphy55d
No question Sp33D. If Ray Lewis hit someone without pads on full force, they'd be knocked silly for about 6-8 weeks, if not longer, or permanently. These guys get hurt WITH all that 'gay armor' or whatever someone called their pads, and it isn't because these guys are wimps, it's the sheer force that goes along with the sport.

Of course, you're forgetting that without pads Mr Lewis would also hurt himself pretty badly in the process. You don't see hits in rugby like you do in the NFL for this very reason.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: murphy55d
No question Sp33D. If Ray Lewis hit someone without pads on full force, they'd be knocked silly for about 6-8 weeks, if not longer, or permanently. These guys get hurt WITH all that 'gay armor' or whatever someone called their pads, and it isn't because these guys are wimps, it's the sheer force that goes along with the sport.

Of course, you're forgetting that without pads Mr Lewis would also hurt himself pretty badly in the process. You don't see hits in rugby like you do in the NFL for this very reason.

Plus, in Rugby you can't just 'take someone out' for the hell of it like you can in American Handball.

 

[murphy55d]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: murphy55d
No question Sp33D. If Ray Lewis hit someone without pads on full force, they'd be knocked silly for about 6-8 weeks, if not longer, or permanently. These guys get hurt WITH all that 'gay armor' or whatever someone called their pads, and it isn't because these guys are wimps, it's the sheer force that goes along with the sport.

Of course, you're forgetting that without pads Mr Lewis would also hurt himself pretty badly in the process. You don't see hits in rugby like you do in the NFL for this very reason.

Plus, in Rugby you can't just 'take someone out' for the hell of it like you can in American Handball.

You can't just 'take someone out' in the NFL either. You can tackle the ball carrier, or legally BLOCK a defender.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Doboji
ahhh football isnt that hard... I could take a hit of an NFL athlete anyday... no big thang... and you know what?... So could Armstrong. People have an over inflated ideal of what it means to be an NFL football player. Rugby is far more demanding, and just as violent.

The author of this article is probably a big fat guy who's only athletic activity is clicking the space bar on his keyboard.

-Max

Yes, you would take a hit and live, but wouldn't you rather enjoy life outside of a hospital? If pro football players played rugby people would probably be paralyzed and the sport would be banned. For instance, if Larry Allen (6-3, 335lbs, 900lb squat, 700lb bench, rumored to be strongest man in NFL) blindsided you at full speed (or even if you were ready for the hit) in rugby without pads on you would most likely be paralyzed or could even die (or have your lungs crushed with any 300+ lb guy that jumped on you). How about Ray Lewis? I don't doubt that he could probably destroy anyone on the rugby field... Rugby may be more demanding endurance wise, but the force of pro football is unparalleled, and why they have to wear pads because of the elite power that no other sport can boast.

Most injuries in football are caused by equipment. If football was played without equipment, NFL knees would last at least a few extra seasons. While I agree some of the hits are harder in football, props and eights are usually pretty amazing. And they run fast enough to catch you even once you get past them.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
A great athlete is defined by his strength, speed, stamina &amp; coordination

football players fall short on stamina (name another sport with as much down time)
cyclists fall short on strength (it's all in their legs) and possibly coordination

you can look at any sport and see it as a balance of the above criteria. You can even break down sports withing criteria (e.g. leg strength vs. arm strength)

In my mind, the best athletes maximize these four attributes. Four sports come to mind that produce balanced athletes of this sort:

gymnastics
decathlon
rugby
hockey

Lance doesn't qualify. Ricky doesn't qualify.

I'd 2nd Gymnastics as a high ranking sport. But they can't run for sh!t those but they have to run in a 'weird' way so that is that. They are 'fast' but they run weirdly.

Decathlon's are insanely hard. The IronMan stuff is crazy also. Swim, cycle and run. NO THANKS. All marathon's in the full IronMan stuff. That is CRAZY on endurance. I'd be dead after the swimming...

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Doboji
ahhh football isnt that hard... I could take a hit of an NFL athlete anyday... no big thang... and you know what?... So could Armstrong. People have an over inflated ideal of what it means to be an NFL football player. Rugby is far more demanding, and just as violent.

The author of this article is probably a big fat guy who's only athletic activity is clicking the space bar on his keyboard.

-Max

Yes, you would take a hit and live, but wouldn't you rather enjoy life outside of a hospital? If pro football players played rugby people would probably be paralyzed and the sport would be banned. For instance, if Larry Allen (6-3, 335lbs, 900lb squat, 700lb bench, rumored to be strongest man in NFL) blindsided you at full speed (or even if you were ready for the hit) in rugby without pads on you would most likely be paralyzed or could even die (or have your lungs crushed with any 300+ lb guy that jumped on you). How about Ray Lewis? I don't doubt that he could probably destroy anyone on the rugby field... Rugby may be more demanding endurance wise, but the force of pro football is unparalleled, and why they have to wear pads because of the elite power that no other sport can boast.

I'm a Rugby guy myself. If we wore pads and a plastic/metal helmet I'd tackle harder of course. I'd use that to my 'advantage' if it was regulation equipment. Remember in Rugby you don't have that to help you out. Granted you tackle harder and I'd like to see an American Football guy play Rugby. I can bet my life he'd tackle A LOT less hard with no padding. Remember he doesn't want to be sent off the pitch or end up with broken bones also. He has to play the rest of the time also. You can only tackle the ball handler so no crazy tackles to other guys also.

I bet that 900lb squat wasn't to rock bottom also. Rugby guys lift also. An OL would out out vertical jump and be more explosive then the lot of them, but we have little endurnace

Lance is a great athlete. No NFL guy is going to compete on the TdF. He wouldn't last with the amount of training anyway. He couldn't be 'bothered' with it.

said X% of RB's, if they dedicated their lives, could definitely

beat Lance... there's a reason why they earn millions of $ and

it's not just to do Gatorade commercials.

They earn millions (a smaller number earn the millions) because they are marketable and play well. If you really think a guy is worth 'millions' your crazy. He helps to bring in cash to the team also so that is why they pay him that much. He also is a 'solid' player also.

Cycling requires fast twitch muscles and endurance, which many

football players possess.

Cyclists are slow twitch with some fast twitch for sprints but more predominately slow twitch. An NFL player would be Fast twitch predominately and some slow twitch %. He would not have the stamina for the endurance at all. No way.

Koing