|
|
#82
07-24-2006, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tiger, Michael or Lance?
Right now its Jordan.
It will probably end up being Tiger. Lance definitely deserves mention though. Gretzky was better than all 3 of them, but in a sport not as popular / didnt have cancer 
|
|
#85
07-25-2006, 05:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tiger, Michael or Lance?
[ QUOTE ]
You don't go from being a promising but unaccomplished rider like Lance was in 95 to being the best at a sport ever, let alone one that is famous for drug use, without using drugs. [/ QUOTE ] he won the World Cycling Championship in '93 and was the #1 ranked cyclist in the world in '96. [ QUOTE ] Wow I posted before I had read the thread, but not even ONE MENTION of Armstrong's performance-enhancing drug use from ANYONE?? [/ QUOTE ] lets pretend we're 100% sure he doped. do you really think that gave him any kind of edge over his opponents? a juiced up Lance dominating other juiced up riders isn't any less impressive than other athletes crushing their respective sports. the only way performance enhancing drugs are relevant in this thread is if he didn't actually use them, in which case his accomplishments are even more impressive.
|
|
#86
07-25-2006, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tiger, Michael or Lance?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Keep in mind that Lance was only competitive on one course. Tiger owns a ton of them. [/ QUOTE ] actually, each year they made courses flatter to take away lances climbing edge. [/ QUOTE ] What the hell? Was anyone else under the impression that the Tour de France course had never changed?
|
|
#87
07-25-2006, 10:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tiger, Michael or Lance?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Keep in mind that Lance was only competitive on one course. Tiger owns a ton of them. [/ QUOTE ] actually, each year they made courses flatter to take away lances climbing edge. [/ QUOTE ] What the hell? Was anyone else under the impression that the Tour de France course had never changed? [/ QUOTE ] heh. they keep some routes every year (Alp de Huez, for instance) but the rest changes pretty often. I saw the tour start in Luxembourg one year (including a race thorugh the old cities cobblestone streets, very cool), and the race starts in London next year. although I don't know, my guess is that various routes are repeated throughout the years, but the bits and pieces change annually
|
|
#89
07-25-2006, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tiger, Michael or Lance?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You don't go from being a promising but unaccomplished rider like Lance was in 95 to being the best at a sport ever, let alone one that is famous for drug use, without using drugs. [/ QUOTE ] he won the World Cycling Championship in '93 and was the #1 ranked cyclist in the world in '96. [/ QUOTE ] You either don't know that much about cycling or are being incredibly biased and taking things way out of context. Winning single stages or events (which yes, Lance was very good at before 97) =/= winning something like the Tour de France. No one would have ever put Lance on a list of favorites to win the tour before 99. He went from a very talented rider who could perform well on single days but would burn himself out on something like the 20 stage, mountainous, Tour de France, to a level of unreal domination. Steroids are probably what helped him make that transition. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Wow I posted before I had read the thread, but not even ONE MENTION of Armstrong's performance-enhancing drug use from ANYONE?? [/ QUOTE ] lets pretend we're 100% sure he doped. do you really think that gave him any kind of edge over his opponents? a juiced up Lance dominating other juiced up riders isn't any less impressive than other athletes crushing their respective sports. [/ QUOTE ] Read what I said, I am still a huge fan of his and think he's one of the greatest athletes of our time but I have a huge objection to all the americans who naively believe he wasn't a user. I agree with you in that it doesn't really make what he did less impressive, but if you take that logic you can't object to someone saying "It's silly to mention Lance in this argument without also mentioning steroids." Because it is pretty silly, bills217 was right about that.
|
|
#90
07-25-2006, 12:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Tiger, Michael or Lance?
Can you give some context to exactly how hard cycling is for those of us (me) that don't know anything about it?
For example, how long did it take the winner to do it this year? How long did it take the guy that came in last? How long would it take an averagely healthy US male? What was Lance's best time (assuming courses are comparable)?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
