have you seen this article?

Quoted message said:

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/col_imrem.asp?intid=38194111

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

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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/col_imrem.asp?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.

El Paisano said:

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.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

El Paisano said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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/col_imrem.asp?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

"the black rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

El Paisano said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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/col_imrem.asp?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;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

misspelling of pedal; etc.) but I would have to agree that cyclists are

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

athletic in the sense that football (American) players are. The author

gives

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some of his criteria: speed, agility, muscle, and ability to take a hit.

If

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

these are your criteria, then indeed, Ricky Williams (and every NFL

running

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

El Paisano said:

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

Quoted message said:

a triathlete.

Indeed, but I imagine this journalist's ideal of an athlete would be a
lighter, quicker boxer.

\'El Paisano\ said:

Quoted message said:

And by that definition a heavyweight boxer is probably more "athletic"

than

Quoted message said:

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.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Luigi de Guzman said:

Quoted message said:

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/col_imrem.asp?intid=38194111

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, [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Quoted message said:

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_imrem.asp?intid=38194111

The worst part of this hack job, neglecting the misused word "peddle",
is that it is just a second-rate re-hash of Dave Del Grande's article in
the Oakland Tribune the previous Sunday.

Imrem's baseless ramblings about Ricky Williams, Wayne Gretzky, and
others he thinks could-a, would-a, been better cyclists than Armstrong
is just some kind of perverted hero-worship gone very wrong.

--
Robots don't kill people -- people kill people.
http://www.irobotmovie.com/

I heard a similar rant by somebody "like him" on ESPN radio a few
weeks ago. Like you, I was ready to blow. Then it hit me ? A few
years ago would not have considered Lance the Greatest Athlete of our
Time. I certainly knew about him and followed the Tour, but I just
would not have included him in that category. Although, after cycling
now for almost two years, there is absolutely not doubt in my mind he
is "the greatest" or dam close in my lifetime. I expect sports
writers like this have never sat on a bike for 10 minutes, no less
hammering in 20, 50 or even a century. For this guy to even compare
Ricky Williams and Lance Armstrong is nothing less then a joke.

Peace,
Dan

Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:07:15 -0600, <[email hidden]>,

\'El Paisano\ said:

ability to take a hit.

Hit the tarmac in your undies at 50. Get up, go faster.
For 20 more days in a merciless sun.
.. . with a busted collar bone.

These boys ain't playin' on grass.

Be thankful sports writers aren't doctors.
--
zk

"Luigi de Guzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Top athletes don't ride bicycles
Posted Monday, July 26, 2004
By Mike Imrem

How thought-provoking over the weekend that the paths of Lance Armstrong and
Ricky Williams crossed halfway around the world from each other.

In France, Armstrong won the Tour de France for a record sixth consecutive
time. From Hawaii, Williams announced his retirement from the NFL.

What this started me thinking about again is the claim Armstrong is the
world's greatest athlete.

I have said this before: Even if Armstrong is the world's most dominant
athlete ever, he's nowhere near the world's greatest athlete.

What does Williams have to do with the equation?

Well, to me the suddenly former Dolphins running back was a better athlete
than Armstrong is. So is anyone who can hit Kerry Wood's curveball or
execute a crossover dribble in Kobe Bryant's face.

Wayne Gretzky was skinny enough in his prime to win the Tour de France.
Dennis Rodman could have if it wouldn't have bored him to death. Alex
Rodriguez would have if there were more money in it.

This isn't personal on my part. A half-hour on a stationary bike is about my
limit. I'd have trouble riding around France for three weeks in a Porsche
unless it was chauffeur-driven.

Back to Williams, the point being anybody who ever carried the football once
in the NFL is a better athlete than even cycling's best ever.

Put it this way: Williams could peddle a bicycle for a couple hours in the
Tour de France but Armstrong couldn't survive a single hit in the NFL.

That doesn't minimize Armstrong's accomplishments. His training regimen
suggests he's superhuman and his cycling record confirms the notion.

But I'm sorry ... neither makes him more athletic than an NFL running back.

Like, it's no surprise Williams announced his retirement the week NFL
training camps begin, because few football players want to go through that.
Nor is it surprising Williams quit after five seasons, because that's as
long as any human being should have to endure the punishment.

It's one thing to tolerate physical agony while sitting on a bicycle. It's
another while angry 300-pounders are slamming into you.

Just imagine the speed, agility and muscle - the athleticism - it takes to
navigate past, around and through people like Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher and
Warren Sapp.

Walter Payton did it for 13 seasons. After a couple, he indicated he would
play five total, then go teach hearing-impaired children. Unlike Williams,
however, Payton just kept on keepin' on.

Now, don't you think if Payton applied himself to cycling the way he did to
football - and if it were as financially and emotionally rewarding to
Americans - that he could have become Armstrong?

I mean, if Payton could run up and down that Arlington Heights hill to get
in shape for NFL beatings, don't you think he could have withstood a
cyclist's workouts?

If Ricky Williams stays retired he will be the rare football player - along
with the likes of Jim Brown, Barry Sanders and Robert Smith - with the
strength to both play that brutal game and to leave us wanting more.

Williams wants to explore other interests, fulfill other ambitions and
experience other sensations.

Who knows, he might even take up cycling just for the fun of it and win the
Tour de France just for the heck of it.

If so, he won't be the athlete he was as an NFL running back.

What an ignoramus!

This guy is as ignorant as Mike V.

Peter G.

Quoted message said:

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

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/col_imrem.asp?intid=38194111

I know it won't mean anything, but i wrote him a letter.

cheers

There's no sense in getting upset about it. Think of it this way-
The author is a sportswriter. He's *supposed* to have some level of expertise
about major sports events yet if one were to ask him even the simplest question
about pro cycling like, "Name two major stage races.", he'd be stumped.
Armstrong's record 6th TdF victory was the biggest sports news story of the
week and he was totally clueless. His thought process probably ran something
like:
"I better denigrate the sport, the accomplishment, and the man and deflect any
questions before somebody realizes I'm ignorant." Unfortunately for him, he
forgot Mark Twain's words- "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Quoted message said:

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_imrem.asp?intid=38194111

What a genius. Stealing ideas from Rob Dibble.

Dibble is a co-host on the Dan Patrick show. One day last
week while Dan was off, Dibble was discussing the Tour de
France and Lance Armstrong, and he claimed that riding a
hundred miles was easy.

Quoted message said:

I know it won't mean anything, but i wrote him a letter.

I wrote Dibs (and basically the whole Dan Patrick show)
a letter. It went:

This is for the pitcher/sidekick:

Man. Did you ever step in it.

Does Dan know what you do when he's away?

How can a pitcher--a freaking PITCHER--pretend that Lance
Armstrong is not the toughest SOB on the planet? I bet you
whined every time your coach told you to go do your laps.

Riding a bike uphill takes exactly the same amount of
energy as running up the hill, plus you have to drag the
bike along, which in the case of most competitive riders
is a 10% or more weight penalty.

Why don't you strap 18 pounds of gear to your ass and try
walking up l'Alpe d'Huez. You'd be thumbing a ride after
400 yards.

Yes, a cyclist can sit and coast down the mountain.
But it takes two hours to get up it, and only 5 minutes
to get down. And it's not time for relaxation, because
everyone else is after the trophy, too, so you have to
maintain 60+ mph on 1-inch tires and not crash over
whatever comes at you: rocks, sticks, sand, broken
glass, hairpin turns, water, oil, drain grates, crazy
pitchers who run out into the road--all kinds of junk.
There's a reason you have to wear a helmet on a bike
and no runner would ever bother.

Here's some simple physics even a melon-headed color-man
can understand: even the best tuned bike takes power
from your stroke due to friction of the bearings and the
chain, plus the rolling resistance of the tire constantly
deforming against the road surface, plus flex in the frame,
plus the wind resistance that is ten times what any runner
ever faces.

The people riding in the Tour de France are at the pinnacle
of one of the oldest competitive sports in the world.
They aren't riding like you did when you were a kid.
They aren't tooling down to the Dairy Queen to get
another fricken' dilly bar. They're pushing each other
to feats of energy expenditure that no human being has
ever accomplished.

Dibs, you owe Lance Armstrong billboard space on your ass.
He's owned the biggest human speed contest in the world
for an unprecedented 6 years in a row. He's not just
a superlative athlete, he's an athlete of historical
proportions.

Think about that next time you try to bust 90 on a
Juggs gun.

--Blair
"5-11, 200"

Quoted message said:

Dibble is a co-host on the Dan Patrick show. One day last
week while Dan was off, Dibble was discussing the Tour de
France and Lance Armstrong, and he claimed that riding a
hundred miles was easy.

Friday, July 23, 2004
Uninformed Commentary Disturbing
by Keith Strudler for The Poughkeepsie Journal

ESPN's Rob Dibble again showed his obtuse grasp of sports this week with
his sophomoric analysis of cycling, reminding us why Bobby Valentine
called Dibble "the reason people switch off ESPN."

As co-host of Dan Patrick's radio show, Dibble told listeners that
cycling was not a sport and that he too could have competed in the Tour
de France had he started training at the age of four.

His comments placed him on the same moronic plane as Skip Bayless this
week, filling in for Jim Rome on his national radio broadcast. Bayless
entertained his audience with e-mail comparing Diana Taurasi to a horse,
exactly what we should expect from a self-congratulatory hack whose
claim to fame is libelous commentary on Troy Aikman's sexuality.

I enjoy over-the-top radio as much as anyone, and I have long defended
guys like Mike Russo and Sid Rosenberg as loud but knowledgeable
entertainers. But Dibble and Bayless's brand of entertainment, loud but
offensive, hurdles Spinal Tap's fine line between clever and stupid, the
trademark of these pseudo-journalists.

--
Robots don't kill people -- people kill people.
http://www.irobotmovie.com/

Quoted message said:

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/col_imrem.asp?intid=38194111

Kind of explains why journalists are held in lower public esteem than
lawyers and used car salesmen.

Austin

Quoted message said:

Imrem's baseless ramblings about Ricky Williams, Wayne Gretzky, and
others he thinks could-a, would-a, been better cyclists than Armstrong

He was just trolling for controversy...He hooked yez!!

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: have you seen this article?
From: [email hidden] (Hunrobe)
Date: 7/28/2004 10:50 PM US Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

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/col_imrem.asp?intid=38194111

I know it won't mean anything, but i wrote him a letter.

cheers

There's no sense in getting upset about it. Think of it this way-
The author is a sportswriter. He's *supposed* to have some level of expertise
about major sports events yet if one were to ask him even the simplest
question
about pro cycling like, "Name two major stage races.", he'd be stumped.
Armstrong's record 6th TdF victory was the biggest sports news story of the
week and he was totally clueless. His thought process probably ran something
like:
"I better denigrate the sport, the accomplishment, and the man and deflect
any
questions before somebody realizes I'm ignorant." Unfortunately for him, he
forgot Mark Twain's words- "It is better to remain silent and be thought a
fool
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

He knew what he was doing, he was trying to get attention for his
column...being controversial works in media!~

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Imrem's baseless ramblings about Ricky Williams, Wayne Gretzky,
and others he thinks could-a, would-a, been better cyclists
than Armstrong

He was just trolling for controversy...He hooked yez!!

What "controversy"?? There is consensus here that Imrem is a moron, with
no dissent. He hasn't "hooked" anything but a bad reputation.

--
Robots don't kill people -- people kill people.
http://www.irobotmovie.com/