General Cycling Discussion - Article on Lance

This guy seams to think that you are only a great athlete if your sport involves a ball.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf?/base/sports/1059134962289110.xml

I just read the article, I would think this guy has never seriously ridden or knows what the sport of cycling is about anyhow... I think that there are many people with this opinion. look at the lack of coverage of the TDF, and other bicycle races in the US. Untill cycling is as big a sport in the US as it is in Europe, we will have to hear these types of comments.

I first saw this on another forum I frequent. Several of us sent him emails in an attempt to "educate" him. His standard response was, "sorry you disagree".:mad:

i don't think he's ever tried doing a mountain descent at 70mph. that takes a LOT of technical skill.. taking the most aggressive lines going down turns, banking your bike 30 degrees to the surface of the road...

Using his argument, I’m afraid that the Babe wasn’t exactly an athlete. He could hit a ball, but his physical conditioning was appalling. Has a baseball player ever done anything that puts them at or above their lactate threshold for hours?

This guy exemplifies the American sports attitude. If it’s not sponsored by Budweiser, it’s not a sport.

i think my IQ just dropped several points because i bothered to read the article.

This guy has really infuriated me. I know he majored in sports journalism because he wanted to be reminded of his high school glory days, but baseball being more athletic then cycling. I would imagine Bonds could not ride a TT bike 50 feet. Assuming it could support his weight. I imagine this guy believes Dale Earnhardt was a better athelete. This guy is suppose to be a professional sports writer. He actually believes that a 3 week race across france requires less athleticism that hitting a ball with a stick or running 60 yards. Well this Buds for you. :irritated

I'm be curious to hear a professional ballplayer's opinion on the matter. What is the old John Kruk quote? "I'm not an athlete. I'm a baseball player."

Have you seen this follow up article?:rolleyes:

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf?/base/sports/1059306918250251.xml

Just because he has an article published in The Oregonian doesn't mean he's not an idiot. Don't waste your time. :)

there goes 5 more points off my IQ.
the guy doesnt seem to understand that the problem isnt with him saying that LA isnt the greatest athelete of all time. its the fact that he thinks riding a bike isnt very atheletic.
people could argue intelegently over who they think the greatest athelete is.

I've just read both articles - seem reasonable, intelligent and consitently argued. I agree to some extent, too.

He isn't saying Lance isn't an athlete, or that cycling is non-athletic, he is saying that it takes more skills (particularly hand-eye coordination) combined with Lance's other attributes (stamina, "clutch" etc) to make the world's greatest. Do I necessarily agree with all his other contenders? No.

I think some of you should take a little more pause and read the articles carefully before trying to jump down his throat.

************ takes a lot of hand eye cordination. does that make me an athlete?

He's simply a troll.

Video games also takes incredible hand-eye coordination.
Um, So does bike racing.

hehe that reminds me, when lance fell, he didn't clip in properly, he almost fell again but his arms and balance helped him not to fall again.


ALso. in the resent mag of Bicycling, they show you how to grab a water botle from hte grown on a bike!

Originally posted by eric1971
This guy seams to think that you are only a great athlete if your sport involves a ball.
Have patience with the ignorant. John Canzano does not consider Armstrong an athlete because "he rides a bicycle." After all, Canzano considers himself a writer, even though he doesn't know the definition of the word, "athlete."

If Canzano were to be more honest, he would have said something like, "I thought I knew everything about sports until I watched the Tour de France. That's when I discovered I didn't know enough about the sport of cycling to make any intelligent comments."

The really sad thing about the article is that is isn't really original. It is almost the same article as one published last year in USA Today.

He made a lot about comparing Lance to Barry Bonds.

Has Barry won any World Series rings at all? No less five?

Nuff said.

ath·lete ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thlt)
n.
A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts.

hehehehehe

The email I sent him:

Let me start by saying I’m a cyclist and I agree with you; Lance Armstrong in
not the greatest athlete ever. Neither is Bonds, Ruth, Ali, etc. The truth is
no one is “the greatest athlete ever”. No one ever has been and no one ever
will be. How can you compare different athletes from different sports and
different eras? It can’t realistically be done. Titles like that are created
by people like you; sports journalists. They make for good headlines, create
discussion, controversy, etc.

That being said, when you say Lance cannot be the greatest athlete ever
because “he rides a bicycle” you are attempting to diminish his (an all other
cyclist’s) accomplishments by saying it is some how less of a sport when
compared to baseball, football, or basketball. What you fail to realize is
that similar arguments can be made for all three of the major sports:

Baseball: How can a baseball player be the greatest athlete ever when players
spend more time standing around or sitting than anything else?

Football: How can a football player be the greatest athlete ever when they
only play half of the game?

How can a basketball player be the greatest athlete ever when they can come out
of the game whenever they are tired?

You mentioned Muhammad Ali in your article. How can he be the greatest athlete
ever when he was able to take a break every 3 minutes?

As you can see, these arguments are flawed. They assume that endurance is the
most important trait of an athlete. This is very similar to your argument,
which seams to put hand-eye coordination above all else.

As you can see, comparing athletes from different sports is comparing apples to
oranges. Each sport requires different skills and attributes in order to
excel. Saying that one skill or attribute is more important than another is
just being bias towards the sports that you feel are more important.

His responce:

Thanks for the note.

I appreciate it.

john

well, here is his email.

JohnCanzano@aol.com

lets send him some "nice" emails about what we think an athlete really is. ;)

This guy needs a frame pump jammed in his spokes... Team Cinzano style !

Jeff

This Canzano guy didn't read Lance's title correctly. It's "World's Greatest Athlete", not "America's Greatest Athlete." Gosh, he actually thinks that no one else live in this world except Americans.

Since I imagine he doesn't ride a bicyle...The only other logical and possibly a more deserving place to shove the frame pump would be in his...well, you know

Well, the sports he mentioned I don't really consider true sports..I consider them games.

Baseball, football, basketball, hockey....They are games. Not that they aren't coolio.

I see sport as a test of the limits of human capability..Cycling, swimming, running, gymnastics...that sort of thing.

I betcha none of the games I mentioned would be so popular if there was no TV, I bet cycling would be more popular.

Originally posted by fubar5
Well, the sports he mentioned I don't really consider true sports..I consider them games.

Baseball, football, basketball, hockey....They are games. Not that they aren't coolio.

I see sport as a test of the limits of human capability..Cycling, swimming, running, gymnastics...that sort of thing.

I betcha none of the games I mentioned would be so popular if there was no TV, I bet cycling would be more popular.

Right on. Seems like Americans measure the greatness of an athlete by TV ratings.

Oh yeah, this guy is also an unoriginal dork..Someone wrote an article last year that was basically the same idea.

Thats what they get paid to do... :)

Here's mine, I hope I tick him off...

Lame article dude.

Cycling is a sport. Sports require athletes.

Basketball, baseball, hockey, football...They are games.

Go buy a bike, and try riding up a hill.

Develop a training program, become a cat 5 racer (beginner) and try a few, and see what kinda "eye hand coordination" is required, along with decision making.

I bet you don't even know what Lance's bike is made out of.

Enjoy your Budwieser.

Matt Brown

Originally posted by Joe Gardner
Thats what they get paid to do... :)


Well, if you're going to get paid to be stupid, then you better be ready to stand to the music.


I sent him two just for good measure...Don't want to be ungenerous.

Hey guys, go to the Road Cycling forum and check out the thread about a new Nike commercial...It's like they read this guys article.

Lance Armstrong can't be the "greatest athlete ever" when he isn't even the greatest ever at his own sport, can he?

That being said (and taking nothing from Armstrong, he's a once in a lifetime performer - I can tell my kids one day I watched him ride, like I'll tell them I saw Bonds hit, and Jordan dunk) the implication that cycle racing takes nothing but stamina and endurance is so laughable, but such a common perception.

The tactics, mental games, and pure handling skills required to just finish a race are much more difficult than almost anything in any other professional sport, let alone doing that for 5.5 hours a day for 3 weeks straight, while so fatigued you can't see straight at times.

"The greatest athlete must have special levels of hand-eye coordination, strength, speed, power and body control. This person must also be a clutch performer."

Any cyclist meets those criteria, easily. Lance certainly has all of those qualities, and in spades. If he can't be considered great, then great has no meaning. Just watch stage 15 of this years race if you doubt any of those, or watch him deftly skip around Beloki, go off-road and save his tour - at speeds our friendly columnists would be lucky to be alive at.

It's funny; cycling and running are very similar in terms of conditioning required and what makes an athlete excel in each sport, but you never see anyone deny that runners are athletes or say that track and field events aren't sports.

Originally posted by doonster
I've just read both articles - seem reasonable, intelligent and consitently argued. I agree to some extent, too.

He isn't saying Lance isn't an athlete, or that cycling is non-athletic, he is saying that it takes more skills (particularly hand-eye coordination) combined with Lance's other attributes (stamina, "clutch" etc) to make the world's greatest. Do I necessarily agree with all his other contenders? No.

I think some of you should take a little more pause and read the articles carefully before trying to jump down his throat.

I kinda agree with doonster. This isnt nearly as bad as the last article that started up this discussion. At least this guy says armstrong is a talented athlete. Hes just making the statement that hes not THE GREATEST. Dont get me wrong, I believe lance is real high up in the ranks of the greatest. Although, like in the last article, I see this guy as being of the american mind set that whatever sport isnt shown on fox or nbc with commericals for beers isnt really a sport. He could also have been watching the CBS 'coverage' of the tour which you cant deny made lance to be some god. I mean they wouldnt even announce the stage winner they would just say 'lance came in this place and is still the leader.' I just chalk this up to american ignorance and arrogance. Just my .02$ worth.

OK. I read the article. It seems that the author objects to Lance being called the "world's greatest athlete." He has a point. He doesn't say that Lance is not an athlete. He doesn't say that Lance is not a great athlete. He underestimates what it takes to win the TdF, and he dismisses cycling as not being a "major sport." That is typical, sadly parochial American sports journalism. Then again, to say that Lance is the "world's greatest athlete" is hyperbole. Heck, even fans of cycling like to argue whether Lance is greater than Merckx was.

So the author is a bit of a bonehead. He makes a point. I hope that he would say the same thing about Barry Bonds or anyone else branded as the "world's greatest athlete."

I love the Nike commercial. Lance can't tell a joke or make cheese. He sure can ride a bike though!

Just read this article... I can't believe this guy has a job. What a shame. Not only is he putting down Armstrong, but the entire sport of cycling. It's a shame that someone like this who is supposed to give a fair and balanced opinion about all sports chooses to put the person and sport down instead of doing some research and finding out what the real deal is. He's obviously showing his bias toward more "American" sports that involve a ball and contact.

Hopefully an article like this will generate a lot of letters to his editor that point out what a complete and utter imbecile he really is. Here's to hoping anyway...

He has a legit point, and no he didn't say Lance wasn't an athlete...But he made it sound like cycling is a lame sport, all the stick and ball games are great, and that those(the stick and ball games) are were one would in fact find the worlds greatest athlete.

He could have written and awesome article on the subject calling someone the "worlds greatest athlete, but instead he decided to write something cynical that comes off as cycling bashing.

Cynics abound in our society, how about some non smoke-up-the rear, in-depth writing???

this guy is from Mars, calling cycling as not a sport,

Yeah. My complaint, which is the same as in the other thread I started about the Betting Fool article, is that it isn't particularly original. Basically the major thesis is: Cycling doesn't require great athletic skill. Minor thesis: All LA does is cycle. Conclusion: LA isn't a great athlete. Same basic argument as the Betting Fool and Ron Borges in last year's msnbc.com article.

Lame.

I actually agree with the guy.

Last year, some wannabe shock journalist wrote the same article, but he claimed that Armstrong wasn't an athlete at all. That is ignorance. To him, I would challenge him to go on an uphill ride with Lance (or any of us here). I think the guy would soon retract his statements.

However, the guy still gives props to Lance. He acknowledges that the man has phenomenal stamina and has overcome major obstacles. I do agree, skill is required in cycling. But I really don't think cycling skill is what separates the men from the boys. Skill only gets you so far in cycling. When it comes to sports like basketball and hockey, the best not only have great strength and stamina, they have skills far above anyone else.

Do I think that Lance should have been in the top 100 athletes of all time? Yes. Do I think he should have been in the top 10? Well, maybe 10 at the highest.

I had to send this guy a little reply. His email is at the bottom of the article.

"Why don't you put your money where your mouth is if it is so easy. It's funny I played football basketball, track and cross country in school and cycling is by far the most physical and very strategic. I would be interested to see you on a decent at speeds in excess of 60 MPH. It's funny to hear opinions like yours because most people who shoot their mouth off about everything are good at only that."

This line is too funny "Armstrong didn't have to throw, catch, run, jump, dive, tackle, dribble a ball or hit a 92-mph slider. "

Jump? catch? So i see now, to be a pro athlete you have to be an idiot. You have to jump or catch or run. So everyone on the playground is an athlete. I see. They should pay these people who get paid to run and jump and catch in shiny nickels.

John Canzano's article is verbal diarrhea. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on an issue. The "greatest" of anything is always an interesting discussion. I just find his argument sophomoric at best. I would expect an intelligent discussion from a professional writer. His opinion is obvious. His reasoning is weak. There are many people on this forum who are better writers...many of them in this thread!

Skill I think, is extremely important in cycling, and without the skill to match stamina, I don't think one would be a succesful racer. I also submit that very few sports require the amount of mental ability that cycling demands. Try singletrack at speed, try DH at insane speeds, and on the road, it's nothing but focus. Hockey comes close.

Lance's impromptu cyclocrossing in stage 9 more than disproves the argument that cycling doesn't require hand-eye coordination and skill. And I agree with fubar5, that the author obviously has never seen much less tried snaking down a singletrack and hopping slippery roots or clearing logs.

oln highlights with LA answering questions and when asked about when he fell.Wasnt that nice of jan to wait.I dont think he did.Not until TH told everybody to wait up.He said TH was the reason.He said by the look on jan's face,he was going.

Let's not waste any more time on this jerk. We all know the truth.

Yep right there on tv,jan was gone.

I love how he speaks as if everyone can ride a bicycle and no one can "run". I bet more people can run than those which can ride a bicycle.

While these Bonds, Ali, and many of the others featured in your article are great athletes, how many of them have had to overcome feats such as being told "you have about a 3% chance you are going to live"? Being taken to the brink of death and back can certainly change a person, and make them better. If you didn't see how many close calls Armstrong had to deal with in the 2003 Tour de France, you might want to watch the tapes again. I don't see Michael Jordan, or Barry Bonds, or Muhammed Ali take life into their hands on a daily basis, flying down hills in excess of 70 miles an hour, knowing that a few grains of sand can literally KILL you because your back wheel slips out from under you. Joseba Beloki for instance, or Fabio Casartelli. What makes him the greatest athlete? Who knows. There are many things that make him great. But to say bicycling is not athletic is a crock. I'd like to see you bike the Trek Across Maine, which starts at the New Hampshire Border in the White Mountains, and goes to Belfast. In 3 days. 180+ Miles. And not get on your bike, or do anything, BEFORE you start the ride. If you think there's no "hand-eye" coordination, Take your hands off the handlebars, and close your eyes simultaneously. Or maybe try looking behind you and not at the road for 5 minutes. Do you think you'd fall? Probably. You think you'd get hurt in that fall? Oh yeah. How about careening down a mountainside with 100 other cyclists wanting to get ahead of you? You have to know what is around you in order NOT to hurt yourself or your opponents. And you know what? It's NOT about the bike...It's so much more. Yeah, bicyclists might look peaceful on the road, but the only reason that we have to be peaceful is because cars are so much bigger than us, and we have so much more to be concerned about if we enfuriate a car driver... The only way that we can safely express ourselves is in print, or vocally. You try bicycling on a 6 lane highway, and see how YOU do...Or try cycling 100 miles in a day...
Good luck...and don't get hit!