Top athletes don't ride bicycles

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Um, nobody ever said cycling was for pansies. IMO, if you took all of the NFL players and gave them X amount of years of training (as many as Lance had) in their physical prime, I'm willing to bet at least one of them would stay "with the pack" of TdF. Give all of the cyclists the years of training any NFL player has had, and I'd bet not one would make it. The TdF is a test of endurance, the NFL is a test of mental ability/power/strength/speed/agility/endurance. Your comparison of only endurance is like saying that an Olympic sprinter could beat all NFL RB's, well no sht Sherlock. Of course Lance would beat them in endurance b/c that's all he trains for...

15 minutes of playing, if you play offense AND defense, spread over 2 hours != endurance

LoL, ask a large D/O lineman how much endurance it takes to bang with someone close to your own size for 4 quarters... the energy expended is insane and you have to have endurance to outlast your enemy.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Doboji

and cycling is still more demanding then rugby AND football

Nonsense... Rugby is the only sport... all other athletes are pansy azzed girly men

But seriously.. anyone who would argue that Ricky Williams and Lance Armstrong compare is just smoking crack... now if you were talking about Walter Payton, or Barry Sanders... we'd have a discussion... but IMHO Lance Armstrong would still be the more impressive athlete...

Unless we're going to make every athlete play every single sport we can never have a good discourse on this subject...

-Max

I like rugby :thumbsup:

 

[Doboji]

Football is still a simple concept... you memorize the play calls... for most players the work is simple... a blocking assignment or a gap assignment... Sure reading zone coverages and getting wr mismatches is challenging... but in Rugby everyone is responsible for all possible responsibilities... you have to be able to read defenses in a split second and know where to be at any given time... plays are not planned, they are improvised... when do I take a guy down, and when do I set up a maul... as the 8 man do I take the ball and dive, or allow the scrummy to play it.

Not to mention the boat loads of ambiguous rules you have to be constantly aware of. I've played Rugby and Football... and Rugby is far more mentally demanding... it took me a solid year to understand enough of the game to even get into half the plays going on in Rugby... All this mental exertion while running CONSTANTLY... it's amazing how fuzzy the mind gets after running for 20 minutes straight non-stop.

Have you played either football or rugby?

-Max

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Have you ever seen a playbook that a QB has to memorize for the NFL? Good defensive players know it as well in order to react accordingly... Prove to me that rugby is as mentally challenging other than saying it is...

I dunno

millions of college kids all around the world have to absorb huge amounts of information so that says nothing really

Can any college kid properly recall and execute a certain play out of hundreds in the split seconds it takes for a 300lb gorilla to smash his face into the turf on a blitz? It's one thing to study the plays, it's another to execute the right play under mental duress in a fight or flight response.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Um, nobody ever said cycling was for pansies. IMO, if you took all of the NFL players and gave them X amount of years of training (as many as Lance had) in their physical prime, I'm willing to bet at least one of them would stay "with the pack" of TdF. Give all of the cyclists the years of training any NFL player has had, and I'd bet not one would make it. The TdF is a test of endurance, the NFL is a test of mental ability/power/strength/speed/agility/endurance. Your comparison of only endurance is like saying that an Olympic sprinter could beat all NFL RB's, well no sht Sherlock. Of course Lance would beat them in endurance b/c that's all he trains for...

15 minutes of playing, if you play offense AND defense, spread over 2 hours != endurance

LoL, ask a large D/O lineman how much endurance it takes to bang with someone close to your own size for 4 quarters... the energy expended is insane and you have to have endurance to outlast your enemy.

That's more like '1 rep max' than endurance; I'm not questionning the physical strength of linemen.

I'm also not trying to credit the average football player with the strength of a line player, the memory of a quarterback, the reaction of a DB, the craftiness of a coach and the speed and agility of a running back all at the same time.

Running backs and lineman are most similar to rugby forwards, so:

If you honestly think playing four quarters of football, with maybe 8-9 minutes 'in motion' is a better testament to endurance than 80 minutes of constant motion, being tackled, tackling, having to sprint onside, rucking and scrumming, then I guess there's nothing I can do to convince you. The players in rugby have to push just as hard to get their way as linemen, and the guys on the other team are just as strong. They just do it for 3-4 times as long as football players and have to do sprints in between

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Have you ever seen a playbook that a QB has to memorize for the NFL? Good defensive players know it as well in order to react accordingly... Prove to me that rugby is as mentally challenging other than saying it is...

I dunno

millions of college kids all around the world have to absorb huge amounts of information so that says nothing really

Can any college kid properly recall and execute a certain play out of hundreds in the split seconds it takes for a 300lb gorilla to smash his face into the turf on a blitz? It's one thing to study the plays, it's another to execute the right play under mental duress in a fight or flight response.

If they did it for 3 or 4 years all year long like the NFL guys do? Hell yeah they could. I memorized all the lines for Our Town (I was the part of the Stage Manager) flawlessly in about 8hrs. one weekend. You're talking about almost 40min. of solid dialogue.

What I find more impressive than pro QB memorization is the college guys who get plastered 4 nights per week and STILL remember the plays, I know I couldn't do that.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Doboji

and cycling is still more demanding then rugby AND football

Nonsense... Rugby is the only sport... all other athletes are pansy azzed girly men

But seriously.. anyone who would argue that Ricky Williams and Lance Armstrong compare is just smoking crack... now if you were talking about Walter Payton, or Barry Sanders... we'd have a discussion... but IMHO Lance Armstrong would still be the more impressive athlete...

Unless we're going to make every athlete play every single sport we can never have a good discourse on this subject...

-Max

Nobody is arguing that Ricky Williams and Lance are on the same level... but Payton and Sanders were without a doubt better "athletes" than Armstrong. Just Sanders' ridiculous strength and power for his size (squat 900) as well as breakaway speed with decent endurance trumps Armstrong IMO.

Yup, if anything you should be arguing that the NFL was ranked the 3rd highest sport... what about boxing? Do you think that should be #1?

 

[eigen]

Stuff your rugby and your football climbing owns all.

pic 1
pic2

You want endurance hand eye coordiation etc..

The guys in the first pic is dead now suprisingly enough from equipment failure

 

[BeauJangles]

Honestly, how can you compare athlete x to athlete y when they participate in different sports?

Apples and oranges IMO. Lance is an incredible athlete within the cycling world. Ricky is a talented running back. Leave it at that. Compare them to their peers, but don't try to interpret the difficulty of sport x vs sport y because that will ALWAYS be subjective.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Doboji
Football is still a simple concept... you memorize the play calls... for most players the work is simple... a blocking assignment or a gap assignment... Sure reading zone coverages and getting wr mismatches is challenging... but in Rugby everyone is responsible for all possible responsibilities... you have to be able to read defenses in a split second and know where to be at any given time... plays are not planned, they are improvised... when do I take a guy down, and when do I set up a maul... as the 8 man do I take the ball and dive, or allow the scrummy to play it.

Not to mention the boat loads of ambiguous rules you have to be constantly aware of. I've played Rugby and Football... and Rugby is far more mentally demanding... it took me a solid year to understand enough of the game to even get into half the plays going on in Rugby... All this mental exertion while running CONSTANTLY... it's amazing how fuzzy the mind gets after running for 20 minutes straight non-stop.

Have you played either football or rugby?

-Max

Nope, never played rugby but played football. I'd probably be good at rugby for the physical aspect considering I was benching twice my weight awhile back and ran varsity track (sprints) in high school. Although I like baseball more than either sport because of it's laidback attitude and 99% mental game...

 

[PHiuR]

totally different.

armstrong = endurance...and a way better 'overall' athelete
the footballer is jus good for sprints and stuff. he prob couldnt ride a bike for 15 mins at the pace the pros ride their bikes at.

 

[SP33Demon]

Yes, now that we've established that Rugby does take slightly more endurance (it only scored 1.37 pts higher on ESPN), let's talk about power and strength. Now do you really think the mean bench/squat is higher in rugby leagues? Why isn't rugby more popular than the NFL then, if they're so much bigger and badder? Also, is the pro rugby process as highly selective as the NFL's (you have to be phenomenal in HS, or great in college) draft? The NFL generates more $$$ than pro rugby could ever dream of doing. yes, you mentioned one badass who was 6-5 275lbs. He MIGHT be lucky to make the NFL, there are many with the same speed/size and better... maybe someone can shed some light on these questions since I don't play rugby.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, now that we've established that Rugby does take slightly more endurance (it only scored 1.37 pts higher on ESPN), let's talk about power and strength. Now do you really think the mean bench/squat is higher in rugby leagues? Why isn't rugby more popular than the NFL then, if they're so much bigger and badder? Also, is the pro rugby process as highly selective as the NFL's (you have to be phenomenal in HS, or great in college) draft? The NFL generates more $$$ than pro rugby could ever dream of doing. yes, you mentioned one badass who was 6-5 275lbs. He MIGHT be lucky to make the NFL, there are many with the same speed/size and better... maybe someone can shed some light on these questions since I don't play rugby.

Most of your information here is just plain wrong... the only one I can see is that the NFL probably generates more money than professional rugby.

'ultimate strong man' competitors are stronger than NFL players, why aren't they more popular?

And those ESPN ratings are crap. I guess 'highly subjective' is the nice way to put it.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, now that we've established that Rugby does take slightly more endurance (it only scored 1.37 pts higher on ESPN), let's talk about power and strength. Now do you really think the mean bench/squat is higher in rugby leagues? Why isn't rugby more popular than the NFL then, if they're so much bigger and badder? Also, is the pro rugby process as highly selective as the NFL's (you have to be phenomenal in HS, or great in college) draft? The NFL generates more $$$ than pro rugby could ever dream of doing. yes, you mentioned one badass who was 6-5 275lbs. He MIGHT be lucky to make the NFL, there are many with the same speed/size and better... maybe someone can shed some light on these questions since I don't play rugby.

Most of your information here is just plain wrong... the only one I can see is that the NFL probably generates more money than professional rugby.

'ultimate strong man' competitors are stronger than NFL players, why aren't they more popular?

And those ESPN ratings are crap. I guess 'highly subjective' is the nice way to put it.

i can't believe ppl are quoting the espn rankings. that list is horrible and i thought most ppl knew that.

like others have said, this argument is ridiculous - you're comparing apples to oranges (somewhat). move on to more interesting topics...

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, now that we've established that Rugby does take slightly more endurance (it only scored 1.37 pts higher on ESPN), let's talk about power and strength. Now do you really think the mean bench/squat is higher in rugby leagues? Why isn't rugby more popular than the NFL then, if they're so much bigger and badder? Also, is the pro rugby process as highly selective as the NFL's (you have to be phenomenal in HS, or great in college) draft? The NFL generates more $$$ than pro rugby could ever dream of doing. yes, you mentioned one badass who was 6-5 275lbs. He MIGHT be lucky to make the NFL, there are many with the same speed/size and better... maybe someone can shed some light on these questions since I don't play rugby.

Most of your information here is just plain wrong... the only one I can see is that the NFL probably generates more money than professional rugby.

'ultimate strong man' competitors are stronger than NFL players, why aren't they more popular?

And those ESPN ratings are crap. I guess 'highly subjective' is the nice way to put it.

Strongman competitions do not generate alot of interest b/c a)it's no more exciting than a powerlifting meet b)it's only a couple of guys who are super strong, not a whole LEAGUE full of very strong people crashing into each other with rules c)it's not a contact sport

Get these world's strongest men into battle with one another in either a boxing match or like UFC and it would generate more interest. Hell, boxing matches alone pull how many millions? The fact of the matter is that there is no official contact sport in the world that are bigger, faster, and stronger(on avg) than the athletes of the NFL. This is the reason why they are paid more than rugby players, why the NFL generates more revenue than any rugby league, and it's more popular than than any other sport in the United States.

 

[JWU42]

Jumping in here late but...

Throwing out the "athlete" part of this, how can anyone not see what he accomplished as phenomenal? I think this guys beef is that cycling isn't a sport. I suggest he try and complete a single stage (let alone a Mountain Stage) and answer back if these guys aren't athletes. He has the neanderthal opinion that one must hit somone (or evade being hit) for it to be "sport".

What a stupid pile of sh!te

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: JWU42
Jumping in here late but...

Throwing out the "athlete" part of this, how can anyone not see what he accomplished as phenomenal? I think this guys beef is that cycling isn't a sport. I suggest he try and complete a single stage (let alone a Mountain Stage) and answer back if these guys aren't athletes. He has the neanderthal opinion that one must hit somone (or evade being hit) for it to be "sport".

What a stupid pile of sh!te

The basic problem (IMHO) is that most people's experience with a bike is as a kid and that's it. As such, they just don't get how difficult road racing really is.

 

[dr150]

The guy who wrote that article is definitely a moron....an arrogant moron at that!

I'm going to email him to take a f*cking leap!

 

[boyRacer]

lol... funny thread...

sorry but even if lance wasn't the world's top athlete... i don't consider american football to be the a gauge to determine who is. :roll:

 

[Rayden]

How many carbs does a football player burn in a game? The cyclists burn 7000 carbs EVERY DAY OF THE TOUR! The problem is not eating that many carbs, it is digesting it.

You WALK up L'alpe D'huez and then you can consider how difficult it is averaging over 10 miles an hour on a bike. (Armstrong went much faster than that.)

 

[WhoYoDaddy]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Yes, now that we've established that Rugby does take slightly more endurance (it only scored 1.37 pts higher on ESPN), let's talk about power and strength. Now do you really think the mean bench/squat is higher in rugby leagues? Why isn't rugby more popular than the NFL then, if they're so much bigger and badder? Also, is the pro rugby process as highly selective as the NFL's (you have to be phenomenal in HS, or great in college) draft? The NFL generates more $$$ than pro rugby could ever dream of doing. yes, you mentioned one badass who was 6-5 275lbs. He MIGHT be lucky to make the NFL, there are many with the same speed/size and better... maybe someone can shed some light on these questions since I don't play rugby.

lol, you're quoting these ratings as if they were fact? Really, if you've never played rugby then why do you keep commenting on it? The fact that it's not popular in the US has nothing to do with it being any less of a sport. Different countries have different tastes! Also, according to you, basketball players are EVENER BETTER ATHLETHES BECAUSE THEY"RE PAYED EVEN MORE THAN FOOTBALL PLAYERS!!!@!@!OMG!!@!@!@@

Whatever they are payed, it has nothing to do with how strong the people are. Can you explain to me why the UFC or pride fighting isn't that popular in the US while most of those guys are pretty huge and would probably kick the butts of any and all football players, including your Larry Allen despite his strength. Does the fact that they can kick your football player's butt's have anything to do with anything??? NOOO!!!

My point is, you really need to shutup about things you've never done. And who are you to say nonone on the tour, if they trained since birth with weight training and conditioning couldn't be a football player? You don't know that,nor do I so how can either of us say whether they can do it or not?!? The fact that they are skinny now has to do with the fact that they've trained all their lives to be that way. If they trained themselves to be massive, I'm sure some of them could be massive!
Anyways, I had a friend before college who was 5'11 and weighed only 140. When he graduated, he was still 5'11" and guess what 190 of mostly muscle. Did anyone expect him to be able to gain that much muscle in 4 yrs, no...but it was the only time in his life that he actually worked hard at getting big. So yes, my point is you're one of the stupidest posters in this board.

edit: Oh yes, even though I've never touched a golf club in my life, I'm sure if I trained as a kid I'd own Tiger Woods and so would all the football running backs cuz they're just that COOL!!! Oh yeah, swimming doesn't look that hard either. You only move your arms and kick your legs! Wow, if I only stuck with it I'm sure I'd be giving michael Phelps a runfor the gold at athens. Oh yeah, I could have done gymnastics too since those guys look like super fit pansies!! Riiiiight sp33ddemon. Hey you should compete too!! Since you think rugby is so easy, you should go over to england and give it a shot.

 

[LongCoolMother]

from reading some of the idiotic replies in here, i guess that makes track runners non-atheletes. i mean, hey, how hard is running? long jumpers arent atheletes, anyone can jump of course. shot putters- its just throwing a damn ball. sheesh, these guys arent atheletes at all, i mean, anyone can be just like them if they train.

same with x-country, marathon, and weight lifting. even swimming borders that category.

 

[Rayden]

What is the #1 sport in the world? Football. And I don't mean American football, I mean soccer. Come up with any one on one physical competition between a soccer player and a football player and I'm willing to bet the football player will win. It doesn't mean football players are better athletes. There is more to a sport than size and strength. There is also skill involved. What matters in cycling includes more than just speed and endurance. It is no surprise all you Americans don't understand it. I am an American, the only reason I know a little about cycling is because my dad did a lot.

You do have to be in incredible shape. I already mentioned how many carbohydrates they eat each day.
There is a lot of strategy that none of you will be able to understand, and I only know a little but, so I wont bother explaining. Cycling is unlike any other team sport, or any sport for that matter.

I would put Lance among the world's greatest athletes ever. He has dominated his sport like no one else has. If cycling is so easy and there is nothing special about Lance how was he able to win the Tour 6 times in a row? Because there is no one else who can touch him! If you think most football players could even stand a chance competing in the tour think again. You know how much cyclists weigh? They are very light. When climbing a hill weight is bad. All your 6'2" 275lb footballer players couldn't climb a mountain at all. This doesn't make them any less of an athlete though.

You know why Lance dominated? He is biologically an anomolly. Someone already posted some of his statistics. He also trained the entire last year for the race. He was tremendously prepared.

And now the disclaimers. I am an American. I like watching a little bit of football. Mostly because my mom is a rabid USC fan. My favorite sport is hockey, not because it's physical but because it can be a finesse sport and it has teamwork. In my opinion (you guys see that? I'm not stating fact)

So now that I've just said that I am very opinionated, though I try to be objective, most of you are complete idiots.

 

[WhoYoDaddy]

Originally posted by: Rayden
What is the #1 sport in the world? Football. And I don't mean American football, I mean soccer. Come up with any one on one physical competition between a soccer player and a football player and I'm willing to bet the football player will win. It doesn't mean football players are better athletes. There is more to a sport than size and strength. There is also skill involved. What matters in cycling includes more than just speed and endurance. It is no surprise all you Americans don't understand it. I am an American, the only reason I know a little about cycling is because my dad did a lot.

You do have to be in incredible shape. I already mentioned how many carbohydrates they eat each day.
There is a lot of strategy that none of you will be able to understand, and I only know a little but, so I wont bother explaining. Cycling is unlike any other team sport, or any sport for that matter.

I would put Lance among the world's greatest athletes ever. He has dominated his sport like no one else has. If cycling is so easy and there is nothing special about Lance how was he able to win the Tour 6 times in a row? Because there is no one else who can touch him! If you think most football players could even stand a chance competing in the tour think again. You know how much cyclists weigh? They are very light. When climbing a hill weight is bad. All your 6'2" 275lb footballer players couldn't climb a mountain at all. This doesn't make them any less of an athlete though.

You know why Lance dominated? He is biologically an anomolly. Someone already posted some of his statistics. He also trained the entire last year for the race. He was tremendously prepared.

And now the disclaimers. I am an American. I like watching a little bit of football. Mostly because my mom is a rabid USC fan. My favorite sport is hockey, not because it's physical but because it can be a finesse sport and it has teamwork. In my opinion (you guys see that? I'm not stating fact)

So now that I've just said that I am very opinionated, though I try to be objective, most of you are complete idiots.

Haha, I agree with you almost completely.

I forgot to mention for sp33ddemon anyways, soccer is the most popular sport in the world, (in comparison to football in the US) so what does that really tell us about soccer? Just that a bunch people like it!!! It doesn't mean they're super duper amazing and would dominate in every other sport because their sport is popular, which is what your "football is the most popular sport in the US for a reason, and that reason is because they'd do everything better than everyone else if they trained for it."

 

[esun]

Heh, this is like an apples vs. oranges argument. If the apple were an orange, then it would beat all oranges! No, that doesn't make sense. It is stupid argue that an athlete from any one sport is better than an athlete competing in a different sport, or that if they changed sports (or if they had originally trained in some sport) they would've been the best in that other sport because it is completely irrelevant. It will never happen.

You always have to qualify when discussing things divided as such. He or she is the best athlete in this sport, or at this activity. The best overall athlete? It doesn't matter. Nowadays, everyone specializes, whether in athletics or in a professional career, everyone specializes (and if you don't, you won't succeed unless you are exceptional). Who's smarter, Ken Jennings or Stephen Hawking? Well, I'll bet Ken would whoop Stephen in Jeopardy or any game show or trivia competition; however, Hawking would probably beat the crap out of Ken discussing astrophysics. Again, it's about specialization. That's why IQ tests are a bunch of bull. You could argue they test potential, but likewise they do not test the likeliness of the utilization of that potential, which is equally important, thus rendering such a general comparison of intelligence again irrelevant.