dh
dh
Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com
But you're right, superb achievement. I find it hard to be impressed by
sprinters or javelin throwers or any of that "one trick pony" stuff. But
events that require serious mental and physical endurance do impress me a
lot, particularly cyclists.
Andrew McP
Andi.
--
Remove only one zero to reply.
> > subject says it all.
> Maybe not *all* ;-)
> But you're right, superb achievement. I find it hard to be impressed by
> sprinters or javelin throwers or any of that "one trick pony" stuff. But
> events that require serious mental and physical endurance do impress me a
> lot, particularly cyclists.
> Andrew McP
Andrew McP
Andi.
--
Remove only one zero to reply.
> > I'm recovering from testicular cancer at the moment maybe
> > I should try my luck next year ;-)
> Not sure most doctors would recommend the Armstrong recovery method.
> You'll end up back in the doctor's surgery getting your knees replaced and
> the blisters on your backside Lanced :-)
> Andrew McP
Man, I've been a tour junkie since the early 80s when I watched "the
Badger", then the rise of Lemond, some good performances by my countryman
Bauer, big Mig's five in a row etc. etc. If you're a cyclist, you can relate
to the physical performance. At my best, I was time-trialing in the very
low 40s (kph), and these guys are in the high 50s. That's just a whole
other level of human performance. The mental game is the second (and
arguably more important element) and this is where Armstrong excels.
What is sad is that, just as in Formula 1, half the media is turning a good
thing into a bad thing. There are parallels between Armstrong and
Scumacher. The formula is pretty simple: (1) have an absolutely insane
personal work ethic, (2) build the best, most highly-motivated team around
you and (3) be incredibly self-confident. Win. Repeat. People can't seem
to understand that the world can be so simple. "Ferrari must be cheating".
"Lance must be doped". Considering that after over 3000kms of riding, the
margin of victory was a handful of minutes, I think it is fair to say that
there is no phsiological difference between the top 5 cyclists. It's the
mind that separates the winner from the loser. Read Armstrong's books to
see that his "dominating" performances were often situations where he was a
hair's breadth from blowing up completely.
Is Armstrong the best cyclist ever? Probably not, but it's like saying
Schumacher is the best ever. What Coppi did on dirt roads and a clunker of
a bike is similar to Fangio. Merckx would probably have won more than five
if he had concentrated only on the Tour de France. Armstrong's like a
contemporary F1 driver, not dabbling in other events the way Jim Clark used
to race saloons on odd weekends. It's a different era. Armstrong is
certainly the star of his era, and an incredible cyclist.
Way to go. I watched almost every tour stage live and thought it was great
stuff.
Stephen
> Andi.
I once emailed a question to the ZDF's excellent tour commentary team,
asking naively why, during the last stage to Paris, so many riders
where seen pedalling standing up when the speed was relatively
relaxed, and got just that for an answer: "well, maybe they're not too
comfortable sitting after 3,000km in the saddle." 8)
All the best,
uwe
PS: I missed the "champagne on the bike" episode that Lance and USP
went through last year... did they repeat it?
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
> > subject says it all.
> Man, I've been a tour junkie since the early 80s when I watched "the
> Badger", then the rise of Lemond, some good performances by my countryman
> Bauer, big Mig's five in a row etc. etc. If you're a cyclist, you can
relate
> to the physical performance. At my best, I was time-trialing in the very
> low 40s (kph), and these guys are in the high 50s. That's just a whole
> other level of human performance. The mental game is the second (and
> arguably more important element) and this is where Armstrong excels.
> What is sad is that, just as in Formula 1, half the media is turning a
good
> thing into a bad thing. There are parallels between Armstrong and
> Scumacher. The formula is pretty simple: (1) have an absolutely insane
> personal work ethic, (2) build the best, most highly-motivated team around
> you and (3) be incredibly self-confident. Win. Repeat. People can't
seem
> to understand that the world can be so simple. "Ferrari must be
cheating".
> "Lance must be doped". Considering that after over 3000kms of riding, the
> margin of victory was a handful of minutes, I think it is fair to say that
> there is no phsiological difference between the top 5 cyclists. It's the
> mind that separates the winner from the loser. Read Armstrong's books to
> see that his "dominating" performances were often situations where he was
a
> hair's breadth from blowing up completely.
> Is Armstrong the best cyclist ever? Probably not, but it's like saying
> Schumacher is the best ever. What Coppi did on dirt roads and a clunker
of
> a bike is similar to Fangio. Merckx would probably have won more than
five
> if he had concentrated only on the Tour de France. Armstrong's like a
> contemporary F1 driver, not dabbling in other events the way Jim Clark
used
> to race saloons on odd weekends. It's a different era. Armstrong is
> certainly the star of his era, and an incredible cyclist.
> Way to go. I watched almost every tour stage live and thought it was
great
> stuff.
> Stephen
Elrikk
He's not cheating and he's probably not doped up either, but he does not
take part in anything like the same number of events per year as the other
riders.
His objective is the Tour. All his training and preparation is for the Tour.
Not quite comparable to someone like Schumacher or Eddie Merckx who won week
in-week out .
Sadly, though it was one of the greatest moments in sports history, few
Americans will see it -- let alone *remember* it -- as such: where's the
stick? Where's the ball?
BB
> dh