Cycling Forums - View Single Post

07-28-2004, 12:04 PM

"the black rose" <blackrosequilts@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:k9SNc.68082$yd5.10926@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "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.
>
And that's the point. You have different criteria for "athletic." Using your
criteria, I can't argue that Williams is a better athlete than Armstrong,
and using the journalist's criteria I can't argue that Armstrong is a better
athlete than Williams.

At any rate, most knowledgeable people would not even call Armstrong the
greatest cyclist ever.

07-28-2004, 12:04 PM	#25 (permalink)
\El Paisano\ Guest Posts: n/a	Re: have you seen this article? "the black rose" <blackrosequilts@netscape.net> wrote in message news:k9SNc.68082$yd5.10926@twister.nyroc.rr.com... > "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. > And that's the point. You have different criteria for "athletic." Using your criteria, I can't argue that Williams is a better athlete than Armstrong, and using the journalist's criteria I can't argue that Armstrong is a better athlete than Williams. At any rate, most knowledgeable people would not even call Armstrong the greatest cyclist ever.