07-28-2004, 10:22 AM
|
#18 (permalink)
|
| | Re: have you seen this article?
"El Paisano" wrote:
> <snarkoutboy7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:410873f6.212295078@news.ni****okyo.att.ne.jp. ..
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>In case you didn't read this article, this guy thinks cyclitsts are
>>not as athletic as football players. It just made me mad, figures i
>>would share it with as many as i could.
>>
>>
>>http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/co...intid=38194111
>>
>>I know it won't mean anything, but i wrote him a letter.
>>
>>
>
> Depends on how you define athleticism. There are some downright stupid
> statements (Gretzky, Rodman, A-Rod, or Ricky Williams could win the Tour;
> misspelling of pedal; etc.) but I would have to agree that cyclists are not
> athletic in the sense that football (American) players are. The author gives
> some of his criteria: speed, agility, muscle, and ability to take a hit. If
> these are your criteria, then indeed, Ricky Williams (and every NFL running
> back) is a far better athlete than Armstrong.
But again I ask, can they do this 4-6 hours a day, every day, for 23
days, only 2 of them rest days?
American football players are NOT endurance athletes. You can't compare
an elite pro cyclist to them. Pro cyclists are more adequately compared
to marathon runners, cross-country skiers, long distance speed-skaters,
and the like.
-km
--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
|
|
|  |