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.