Monday, July 25, 2005

None of the others dated Sheryl Crow

Lance Armstrong won his seventh straight Tour de France on Sunday. He's an inspiration to cancer patients and cancer survivors everywhere, and he's easily the best cyclist of all time. My question: Would you rank him among the greatest athletes of all time, and if so, where? Above or below Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Pele, and Babe Ruth?


Blogger King Cockfight said...

I rank him higher than Jordan and Ali because while they were phenoms and the best in their sports, they were embarrassments when they left it. From all indications, Armstrong's stupid about a few things (his "skeptics" line about cycling yesterday was absolutely retarded), but not stupid enough to attempt a poor comeback.

While he's certainly the most inspirational of the five, and damn sure the best athlete and physicial freak, Armstrong's still second to Babe Ruth simply because Babe Ruth is the ultimate sports phenom based on his pitching, hitting and whoring numbers.

As for Pele, I don't really consider soccer a sport, but more something for the sons and daughters of bored suburban moms. Really, can you say you're a sport if you're only entertaining if the word "mob" is somehow involved.

That's right, screw you world.

2:59 PM  
Blogger Gun-Toting Liberal said...

I think Lance has overcome more diversity than any other athlete who has dominated the world so thoroughly in his/her sport. I rate him no. 1 as the finest athlete of all-time (so far). Next, would be Joe Montana (4 world championships; "too small", "too skinny", "not tall enough", etc.).

6:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't really like Lance all that much. He's grown to believe he's a rock star basically and he walked out on his family. He can ride a bike and win a contest in France, big whoop.

8:46 PM  
Blogger Hanging by the News said...

I'd rank Armstrong among these greats, no doubt. His win streak in his sport is unprecedented.

Would I rank him the highest among this group? No.

Out of these guys, I'd say Ali is the greatest. I don't have their winning percentages or any of their stats on hand, but Ali is the clear top choice because he is an individual competitor; the others are part of a team.

Jordan, Pele and Ruth are greats but none of them can win games alone. Same goes for Armstrong. Though people see him as an individual competitor, he has a team to help him win - he drafts off of them to save stamina and to get a "slingshot" when the finish line is near; they help in blocking his competitors.

All that said, he is still one of this country's greatest athletes and the best cyclist of his time. (Not knowing cycling history, I dare not say Armstrong's the best of all time, because the greats of yesteryear could perhaps stand a chance against Lance if they were alive today, in their prime and able to utilize the technologies of today.)

And I give Armstrong great credit for finding the will to not only survive cancer but to really live after beating it. That itself doesn't make him a great athlete - it makes him a great human being.

11:51 PM  
Blogger King Cockfight said...

Actually, I would have to believe that Ruth did win a few games alone since he was both one hell of a pitcher and one hell of a hitter.

2:05 PM  
Blogger Hanging by the News said...

Unless a pitcher pitches a no-hitter and scores the winning run himself (hits one or more homers, no other player scores or earns an RBI for batting him in), he cannot come to close to claiming hat he won the game by himself. Plus, most no-hitters have batters making contact with the ball somehow (pop outs or ground outs), so there have to be some fielders around to make plays. And even if no batters made contact with the pitcher's pitches, there has to be a catcher there, else the game's going to take a long time.

So despite Ruth's talent on the mound and 60 feet, 6 inches in front of it, he still cannot technically win a game alone.

3:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home