have you seen this article? - Page 4

07-28-2004, 11:07 AM

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "El Paisano" wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> And by that definition a heavyweight boxer is probably more "athletic"
than
> a triathlete.
>
Indeed, but I imagine this journalist's ideal of an athlete would be a
lighter, quicker boxer.

07-28-2004, 11:35 AM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:07:25 -0600, "\"El Paisano\""
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> And by that definition a heavyweight boxer is probably more "athletic"
>than
>> a triathlete.
>>
>Indeed, but I imagine this journalist's ideal of an athlete would be a
>lighter, quicker boxer.

Someone like, say Manny Pacquiao? But then, nobody pays attention to
the flyweight divisions anyway.

-Luigi
Looking forward to the Pacquio-Marquez rematch, in September,
hopefully in Manila. Prediction: Pacquiao by KO in 6.

07-28-2004, 11:35 AM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:07:25 -0600, "\"El Paisano\""
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> And by that definition a heavyweight boxer is probably more "athletic"
>than
>> a triathlete.
>>
>Indeed, but I imagine this journalist's ideal of an athlete would be a
>lighter, quicker boxer.

Someone like, say Manny Pacquiao? But then, nobody pays attention to
the flyweight divisions anyway.

-Luigi
Looking forward to the Pacquio-Marquez rematch, in September,
hopefully in Manila. Prediction: Pacquiao by KO in 6.

07-28-2004, 11:35 AM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:07:25 -0600, "\"El Paisano\""
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> And by that definition a heavyweight boxer is probably more "athletic"
>than
>> a triathlete.
>>
>Indeed, but I imagine this journalist's ideal of an athlete would be a
>lighter, quicker boxer.

Someone like, say Manny Pacquiao? But then, nobody pays attention to
the flyweight divisions anyway.

-Luigi
Looking forward to the Pacquio-Marquez rematch, in September,
hopefully in Manila. Prediction: Pacquiao by KO in 6.

07-28-2004, 11:35 AM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:07:25 -0600, "\"El Paisano\""
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> And by that definition a heavyweight boxer is probably more "athletic"
>than
>> a triathlete.
>>
>Indeed, but I imagine this journalist's ideal of an athlete would be a
>lighter, quicker boxer.

Someone like, say Manny Pacquiao? But then, nobody pays attention to
the flyweight divisions anyway.

-Luigi
Looking forward to the Pacquio-Marquez rematch, in September,
hopefully in Manila. Prediction: Pacquiao by KO in 6.

07-28-2004, 11:35 AM

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:07:25 -0600, "\"El Paisano\""
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> And by that definition a heavyweight boxer is probably more "athletic"
>than
>> a triathlete.
>>
>Indeed, but I imagine this journalist's ideal of an athlete would be a
>lighter, quicker boxer.

Someone like, say Manny Pacquiao? But then, nobody pays attention to
the flyweight divisions anyway.

-Luigi
Looking forward to the Pacquio-Marquez rematch, in September,
hopefully in Manila. Prediction: Pacquiao by KO in 6.

07-28-2004, 12:35 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Luigi de Guzman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:39:37 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> >
> >I know it won't mean anything, but i wrote him a letter.
> >
>
> I'm guessing that this fellow has neither ridden a bicycle for any
> serious distance, nor taken a serious hit.
>
> If the likes of Ricky Williams were as good as Lance Armstrong at
> cycling, we would reasonably expect many more athletes of their body
> type and training regimen in that sport. The fact that we don't says
> something about the peculiar demands of cycling at the elite
> level--just as the build of an olympic swimmer, or champion boxer, or
> gymnast tells us about the peculiar demands of their own sports.
>
> -Luigi

The interesting curiosity about cycling (and a reason I'm rather better
at it than most other sports) is that it requires almost no skill.

Skill is quite a different thing from athleticism. Skill is much of what
gives a baseball player a good on-base percentage, or a darts or
billiards player the ability to do their thing. Even a simple "cirrus,
altius, fortius" sport like the high jump has a remarkable amount of
technique in its execution.

Road cycling, perhaps even less than distance running, isn't very
skill-dependent. You need tremendous (and specific) physical attributes,
a certain amount of competitive will, and the willingness to train to
fanatical levels of perfection.

Cycling isn't completely skill-free: we all know of riders who are good
or bad at descents, riders who tend to crash a lot, and riders who don't
know how to pee from their bicycle. But none of these is nearly as
important as the physical attributes of a rider and the training.

Baseball, among nominally athletic events (unless you think golf is a
workout) is probably the antithesis of cycling. While there are athletic
positions like short stop, and there are advantages to being fit (or at
least strong), baseball has seen some of the more unlikely physiques in
the history of competitive athletics, largely because certain
not-very-athletic-based skills are so vital to the jobs at hand. If you
read _Moneyball_, you will hear of successful ball players for that team
who had dysfunctional throwing arms (but a great OPS), a limp (in the
case of one very competent pitcher), a pot belly (and a great OPS...)
and a underhand pitcher with a release so bizarre no other team would
touch him.

Sports can be deceptive. Some of the fittest endurance athletes in the
world are F1 race car drivers. The demands of the sport are that great
over the 90 minutes of a race. Soccer players probably have the most
remarkable combination of fitness and skill of any sport, and football
seems to support the most diverse range of physiques. Even some forms of
cycling are very technique-based: DH racing is almost pure skill, though
the elite riders are hardly slugs.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

07-28-2004, 12:35 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Luigi de Guzman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:39:37 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> >
> >I know it won't mean anything, but i wrote him a letter.
> >
>
> I'm guessing that this fellow has neither ridden a bicycle for any
> serious distance, nor taken a serious hit.
>
> If the likes of Ricky Williams were as good as Lance Armstrong at
> cycling, we would reasonably expect many more athletes of their body
> type and training regimen in that sport. The fact that we don't says
> something about the peculiar demands of cycling at the elite
> level--just as the build of an olympic swimmer, or champion boxer, or
> gymnast tells us about the peculiar demands of their own sports.
>
> -Luigi

The interesting curiosity about cycling (and a reason I'm rather better
at it than most other sports) is that it requires almost no skill.

Skill is quite a different thing from athleticism. Skill is much of what
gives a baseball player a good on-base percentage, or a darts or
billiards player the ability to do their thing. Even a simple "cirrus,
altius, fortius" sport like the high jump has a remarkable amount of
technique in its execution.

Road cycling, perhaps even less than distance running, isn't very
skill-dependent. You need tremendous (and specific) physical attributes,
a certain amount of competitive will, and the willingness to train to
fanatical levels of perfection.

Cycling isn't completely skill-free: we all know of riders who are good
or bad at descents, riders who tend to crash a lot, and riders who don't
know how to pee from their bicycle. But none of these is nearly as
important as the physical attributes of a rider and the training.

Baseball, among nominally athletic events (unless you think golf is a
workout) is probably the antithesis of cycling. While there are athletic
positions like short stop, and there are advantages to being fit (or at
least strong), baseball has seen some of the more unlikely physiques in
the history of competitive athletics, largely because certain
not-very-athletic-based skills are so vital to the jobs at hand. If you
read _Moneyball_, you will hear of successful ball players for that team
who had dysfunctional throwing arms (but a great OPS), a limp (in the
case of one very competent pitcher), a pot belly (and a great OPS...)
and a underhand pitcher with a release so bizarre no other team would
touch him.

Sports can be deceptive. Some of the fittest endurance athletes in the
world are F1 race car drivers. The demands of the sport are that great
over the 90 minutes of a race. Soccer players probably have the most
remarkable combination of fitness and skill of any sport, and football
seems to support the most diverse range of physiques. Even some forms of
cycling are very technique-based: DH racing is almost pure skill, though
the elite riders are hardly slugs.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

07-28-2004, 12:35 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Luigi de Guzman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:39:37 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> >
> >I know it won't mean anything, but i wrote him a letter.
> >
>
> I'm guessing that this fellow has neither ridden a bicycle for any
> serious distance, nor taken a serious hit.
>
> If the likes of Ricky Williams were as good as Lance Armstrong at
> cycling, we would reasonably expect many more athletes of their body
> type and training regimen in that sport. The fact that we don't says
> something about the peculiar demands of cycling at the elite
> level--just as the build of an olympic swimmer, or champion boxer, or
> gymnast tells us about the peculiar demands of their own sports.
>
> -Luigi

The interesting curiosity about cycling (and a reason I'm rather better
at it than most other sports) is that it requires almost no skill.

Skill is quite a different thing from athleticism. Skill is much of what
gives a baseball player a good on-base percentage, or a darts or
billiards player the ability to do their thing. Even a simple "cirrus,
altius, fortius" sport like the high jump has a remarkable amount of
technique in its execution.

Road cycling, perhaps even less than distance running, isn't very
skill-dependent. You need tremendous (and specific) physical attributes,
a certain amount of competitive will, and the willingness to train to
fanatical levels of perfection.

Cycling isn't completely skill-free: we all know of riders who are good
or bad at descents, riders who tend to crash a lot, and riders who don't
know how to pee from their bicycle. But none of these is nearly as
important as the physical attributes of a rider and the training.

Baseball, among nominally athletic events (unless you think golf is a
workout) is probably the antithesis of cycling. While there are athletic
positions like short stop, and there are advantages to being fit (or at
least strong), baseball has seen some of the more unlikely physiques in
the history of competitive athletics, largely because certain
not-very-athletic-based skills are so vital to the jobs at hand. If you
read _Moneyball_, you will hear of successful ball players for that team
who had dysfunctional throwing arms (but a great OPS), a limp (in the
case of one very competent pitcher), a pot belly (and a great OPS...)
and a underhand pitcher with a release so bizarre no other team would
touch him.

Sports can be deceptive. Some of the fittest endurance athletes in the
world are F1 race car drivers. The demands of the sport are that great
over the 90 minutes of a race. Soccer players probably have the most
remarkable combination of fitness and skill of any sport, and football
seems to support the most diverse range of physiques. Even some forms of
cycling are very technique-based: DH racing is almost pure skill, though
the elite riders are hardly slugs.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

07-28-2004, 12:35 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Luigi de Guzman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:39:37 GMT, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> >
> >I know it won't mean anything, but i wrote him a letter.
> >
>
> I'm guessing that this fellow has neither ridden a bicycle for any
> serious distance, nor taken a serious hit.
>
> If the likes of Ricky Williams were as good as Lance Armstrong at
> cycling, we would reasonably expect many more athletes of their body
> type and training regimen in that sport. The fact that we don't says
> something about the peculiar demands of cycling at the elite
> level--just as the build of an olympic swimmer, or champion boxer, or
> gymnast tells us about the peculiar demands of their own sports.
>
> -Luigi

The interesting curiosity about cycling (and a reason I'm rather better
at it than most other sports) is that it requires almost no skill.

Skill is quite a different thing from athleticism. Skill is much of what
gives a baseball player a good on-base percentage, or a darts or
billiards player the ability to do their thing. Even a simple "cirrus,
altius, fortius" sport like the high jump has a remarkable amount of
technique in its execution.

Road cycling, perhaps even less than distance running, isn't very
skill-dependent. You need tremendous (and specific) physical attributes,
a certain amount of competitive will, and the willingness to train to
fanatical levels of perfection.

Cycling isn't completely skill-free: we all know of riders who are good
or bad at descents, riders who tend to crash a lot, and riders who don't
know how to pee from their bicycle. But none of these is nearly as
important as the physical attributes of a rider and the training.

Baseball, among nominally athletic events (unless you think golf is a
workout) is probably the antithesis of cycling. While there are athletic
positions like short stop, and there are advantages to being fit (or at
least strong), baseball has seen some of the more unlikely physiques in
the history of competitive athletics, largely because certain
not-very-athletic-based skills are so vital to the jobs at hand. If you
read _Moneyball_, you will hear of successful ball players for that team
who had dysfunctional throwing arms (but a great OPS), a limp (in the
case of one very competent pitcher), a pot belly (and a great OPS...)
and a underhand pitcher with a release so bizarre no other team would
touch him.

Sports can be deceptive. Some of the fittest endurance athletes in the
world are F1 race car drivers. The demands of the sport are that great
over the 90 minutes of a race. Soccer players probably have the most
remarkable combination of fitness and skill of any sport, and football
seems to support the most diverse range of physiques. Even some forms of
cycling are very technique-based: DH racing is almost pure skill, though
the elite riders are hardly slugs.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club