boze

'greatest athlete ever' is a fine description as far as i'm concerned.

i mean there are plenty of threads about how merckx is the greatest cyclist of all time and they site things like how Lance himself acknowledges it. but lance is pretty pious on camera - he says things like 'tomorrow will be a tough day and basso could put some time into me'. he's not going to call out his own heroes.

"greatest athlete of their time" is one thing, but "greatest athlete of _all time" will always be someone active in the sport at present give or take a few years.

seriously, a baseball enthusiast i know recently spoke of how in Babe Ruth's time you can see footage of him with time to step twice before a pitch got there! Wilt Chamberlain gives up like >100lbs to Shaquille O'Neal! honestly, i don't even think Ali could beat Tyson in his prime, much less Lennox Lewis!

to play pop psychologist for a minute, i think maybe we all want to find a double standard for heroes of old as a way to hang on to our own youth.

-- and i want to add that i'm _really not trying to bait anybody here, the great ones of the past can be unparalleled in terms of competitive spirit, will or even technique. i just think that we need to face facts in terms of physical ability that on some very measurable level the heroes of old are "not as great" because they didn't benefit from the science of athletics and performance as it has evolved to this point. i'd love to see a stat of an exact race where Merckx has a better standing time at that point than LA does now, but this is a race after all and if Lance will always be stronger and faster then he is better in at least that respect. focus, drive and other intangibles make a champion as much as anything but in some sense you gotta leave it to the record books and the numbers tell the story.