Top athletes don't ride bicycles

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: esun
Heh, this is like an apples vs. oranges argument. If the apple were an orange, then it would beat all oranges! No, that doesn't make sense. It is stupid argue that an athlete from any one sport is better than an athlete competing in a different sport, or that if they changed sports (or if they had originally trained in some sport) they would've been the best in that other sport because it is completely irrelevant. It will never happen.

You always have to qualify when discussing things divided as such. He or she is the best athlete in this sport, or at this activity. The best overall athlete? It doesn't matter. Nowadays, everyone specializes, whether in athletics or in a professional career, everyone specializes (and if you don't, you won't succeed unless you are exceptional). Who's smarter, Ken Jennings or Stephen Hawking? Well, I'll bet Ken would whoop Stephen in Jeopardy or any game show or trivia competition; however, Hawking would probably beat the crap out of Ken discussing astrophysics. Again, it's about specialization. That's why IQ tests are a bunch of bull. You could argue they test potential, but likewise they do not test the likeliness of the utilization of that potential, which is equally important, thus rendering such a general comparison of intelligence again irrelevant.

Yes it is comparing apples to oranges... but we can generalize that some sports are tougher to play than others due to the number of God given abilities required for the respective sport.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: WhoYoDaddy

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, now that we've established that Rugby does take slightly more endurance (it only scored 1.37 pts higher on ESPN), let's talk about power and strength. Now do you really think the mean bench/squat is higher in rugby leagues? Why isn't rugby more popular than the NFL then, if they're so much bigger and badder? Also, is the pro rugby process as highly selective as the NFL's (you have to be phenomenal in HS, or great in college) draft? The NFL generates more $$$ than pro rugby could ever dream of doing. yes, you mentioned one badass who was 6-5 275lbs. He MIGHT be lucky to make the NFL, there are many with the same speed/size and better... maybe someone can shed some light on these questions since I don't play rugby.

lol, you're quoting these ratings as if they were fact? Really, if you've never played rugby then why do you keep commenting on it? The fact that it's not popular in the US has nothing to do with it being any less of a sport. Different countries have different tastes! Also, according to you, basketball players are EVENER BETTER ATHLETHES BECAUSE THEY"RE PAYED EVEN MORE THAN FOOTBALL PLAYERS!!!@!@!OMG!!@!@!@@

Whatever they are payed, it has nothing to do with how strong the people are. Can you explain to me why the UFC or pride fighting isn't that popular in the US while most of those guys are pretty huge and would probably kick the butts of any and all football players, including your Larry Allen despite his strength. Does the fact that they can kick your football player's butt's have anything to do with anything??? NOOO!!!

My point is, you really need to shutup about things you've never done. And who are you to say nonone on the tour, if they trained since birth with weight training and conditioning couldn't be a football player? You don't know that,nor do I so how can either of us say whether they can do it or not?!? The fact that they are skinny now has to do with the fact that they've trained all their lives to be that way. If they trained themselves to be massive, I'm sure some of them could be massive!
Anyways, I had a friend before college who was 5'11 and weighed only 140. When he graduated, he was still 5'11" and guess what 190 of mostly muscle. Did anyone expect him to be able to gain that much muscle in 4 yrs, no...but it was the only time in his life that he actually worked hard at getting big. So yes, my point is you're one of the stupidest posters in this board.

edit: Oh yes, even though I've never touched a golf club in my life, I'm sure if I trained as a kid I'd own Tiger Woods and so would all the football running backs cuz they're just that COOL!!! Oh yeah, swimming doesn't look that hard either. You only move your arms and kick your legs! Wow, if I only stuck with it I'm sure I'd be giving michael Phelps a runfor the gold at athens. Oh yeah, I could have done gymnastics too since those guys look like super fit pansies!! Riiiiight sp33ddemon. Hey you should compete too!! Since you think rugby is so easy, you should go over to england and give it a shot.

Everything I stated above is fact, and I did it without personally attacking anyone. Your age is showing.

Fact is, there is not a bigger/stronger/faster league in the world other than the NFL, it is fact that the mean bench/squat/any power lift is higher in the NFL than any rugby league. That is fact. It is fact that NFL players get paid more than rugby players, pick any country. It is fact that American football is the more popular than any other sport in the US, including rugby, and spreading like a wildfire in popularity worldwide (do you know how many people tune into the Super Bowl globally?). It is also fact that many high schools, let alone colleges, do not have a rugby team. At the college I went to, the people who weren't good enough to make the wrestling or football teams usually played rugby. It is fact that the 6-5 275 Rugby star would be lucky to make the NFL, this is fact. Brock Lesner is in the same boat, he has the physical tools but many analysts have given him a less than 50% chance to make it due to his age/health/prior knowledge of the game, and Brock is a complete badass.

Your analogy to the NBA athletes getting paid more is invalid, because I was comparing rugby to NFL players. The difference in pay is much more significant between pro rugby/NFL players than the big 3 in the US (MLB, NBA, NFL). Stick with the argument.

If you think a distance cyclist could have made the NFL (without using steroids and only supplements), then you are wrong. Most distance cyclists do not have the frame or build for the NFL, let alone the mesomorph bodytype. Like Koing said, the majority of cyclists need slow twitch muscle fibers (slow oxidative) whereas mainly NFL players need more fast twitch since they require power more than endurance. What does this translate to? That cyclists are not born with the necessary fast twitch muscle fibers needed to pack on muscle or speed for the NFL. IF they had the fast twitch fibers, then they would most likely be competing in sprint cycling at the moment. Yes, maybe <1% might make it (anomaly), but it would be a "Rudy" type situation. Also, just because your friend is now 5-11 190 and packed on some muscle does not mean he could now play in the NFL (nor could anyone who goes to the gym for the first time and experiences fast muscle gains, this is normal). Aside from bodybuilding myself and studying physiology on the side, I've seen guys who could only bench 135 at 170lbs and 6 months later be at 330/210lbs. However, there is no way he would have made the NFL, because you have to be fast from birth, which is God given. You cannot get significantly "faster", it is something you are born with. If you don't stimulate your fast pitch muscle fibers, you will lose them permanently. However, you can increase your endurance significantly (SO fibers), which is why I think many NFL players could compete in the tour if they trained from birth, because X% of NFL players have a mix of slow and fast pitch muscle because endurance is also required (not as much as cycling though). It would be a better argument to say that many NFL players could probably crossover into sprint cycling (without years of training) as opposed to distance, where they would have had to train from birth. It would also be feasible to say that some sprint cyclists could also cross over into the NFL (alot more than distance cyclists), but they would have to be trained from birth.

Also funny how you say that I think rugby is "so easy". Please quote where I said that, or where I said that I personally could do that (which you will be unable to do). That is the difference between you and I, I base my opinions off of facts and not personal attacks.

 

[cycochic]

Originally posted by: 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

I once knew a great man who was over 6 ft and about 300 lbs., he was a high school math teacher(not mine), he grew his own food, raise pigs, killed bears (mmmm good eatin), and rode in the 100k(i think) bicycle race in California(not sure in the name of it). He wasn't the best athlete in the world, as with Lance or Williams, nor was he even as famous. He was the biggest, brightest, and funniest guy I've ever known though.
He ended up having colon cancer, during chemo he raced in the 50k, then he did some travelling, went back home and died from a heart attack.

Anyway Ricky Williams hasn't won 6 anythings. Lance has overcome so much and then to win 6 times in a row, that's just amazing. So someone who doesn't have what it takes to stay in the NFL can beat Lance, hmmmmmm.

Let's just stick the author on a bike and tell him to ride 100k up and down tough mountain and see how long it takes him to get off.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: cycochic
Let's just stick the author on a bike and tell him to ride 100k up and down tough mountain and see how long it takes him to get off.

Did you read *up*?

I think the author already got off.

Now the argument is that Money = athleticism.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: cycochic

Originally posted by: 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

I once knew a great man who was over 6 ft and about 300 lbs., he was a high school math teacher(not mine), he grew his own food, raise pigs, killed bears (mmmm good eatin), and rode in the 100k(i think) bicycle race in California(not sure in the name of it). He wasn't the best athlete in the world, as with Lance or Williams, nor was he even as famous. He was the biggest, brightest, and funniest guy I've ever known though.
He ended up having colon cancer, during chemo he raced in the 50k, then he did some travelling, went back home and died from a heart attack.

Anyway Ricky Williams hasn't won 6 anythings. Lance has overcome so much and then to win 6 times in a row, that's just amazing. So someone who doesn't have what it takes to stay in the NFL can beat Lance, hmmmmmm.

Let's just stick the author on a bike and tell him to ride 100k up and down tough mountain and see how long it takes him to get off.

Yup, Ricky could never be as mentally tough as Lance, that is something that cannot be taught. Ricky has won a Heisman, however, which is a great accomplishment. But that's about all that he's ever done (the curse of the Heisman is alive and well!). It was also widely known that Ricky had many social problems, when he first came into the league he was on medication which helped him get over his fear of large crowds.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yup, Ricky could never be as mentally tough as Lance, that is something that cannot be taught. Ricky has won a Heisman, however, which is a great accomplishment. But that's about all that he's ever done (the curse of the Heisman is alive and well!). It was also widely known that Ricky had many social problems, when he first came into the league he was on medication which helped him get over his fear of large crowds.

I feel for that guy - talk about having the one tragic flaw...

I'd just like to say I have no disrespect for athletes in any sport (well, not any that has to do with their athleticism), even though I don't see the NFL as the pinnacle of the sporting world.

I watch the Superbowl though; it's a good excuse to make chilli.

 

[Rayden]

If you guys really want to make fun of a sport, make fun of curling.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Rayden
If you guys really want to make fun of a sport, make fun of curling.

As long as you redefine it as a game though...

It's more complicated than it looks (I don't do it, but I know someone who has...)

 

[Doboji]

Whatever... Rugby rules and football drools....

And anyone who thinks otherwise is a shrimpy moronic wussy boy.... I challenge anyone to dispute these facts

-Max