subject says it all.
dh
agreed..
congratulations! I stayed up to watch nearly every stage.. very impressive.
Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)
> subject says it all. > > > > > > > > dhIn article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Dave Henrie) wrote:
> 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
I'm recovering from testicular cancer at the moment, maybe I should try my
luck next year ;-)
Andi.
--
Remove only one zero to reply.
"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] (Dave Henrie) wrote:
>
> > 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
In article <4104e525$0$63365$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Andi Cole) wrote:
> 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
These guys are amazing aren't they, up to six hours in the saddle, not sure
I could do six minutes!
Andi.
--
Remove only one zero to reply.
"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <4104e525$0$63365$[email hidden]>,
> [email hidden] (Andi Cole) wrote:
>
> > 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
>
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> 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
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:05:08 +0100, Andi Cole wrote:
> These guys are amazing aren't they, up to six hours in the saddle, not sure
> I could do six minutes!
>
> Andi.
I followed Joerg Ludewig's daily "tour diary" in our local paper here
(he's a bit of a local hero from Steinhagen, about 30km from where I
live), and don't you think for a minute that these guys are
comfortable on a bike. They gallantly call it "Sitzprobleme", but I
think their butts must be wallowing around in a sea of vaseline and /
or good old "Penatencreme" most of the time.
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
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:33:29 +0200, Uwe =?iso-8859-15?Q?Sch=FCrkamp?=
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>PS: I missed the "champagne on the bike" episode that Lance and USP
>went through last year... did they repeat it?
Yes. Some of the top finishers joined in this year as well (I believe
even Ullrich had a glass with him on the final leg).
"Stephen F." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:41050d6f$[email hidden]...
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 agood
> 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'tseem
> to understand that the world can be so simple. "Ferrari must becheating".
> "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 wasa
> 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 clunkerof
> a bike is similar to Fangio. Merckx would probably have won more thanfive
> 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 Clarkused
> 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 wasgreat
> stuff.
>
> Stephen
So did I. I only watch OLN for those couple of weeks a year, but they make
it all wotrhwhile. ;o)
Elrikk
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > 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> > 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 saythat
> > there is no phsiological difference between the top 5 cyclists. It'sthe
> > mind that separates the winner from the loser. Read Armstrong's booksto
> > see that his "dominating" performances were often situations where hewas
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 .
Hear, hear! Having watched George Mound make the first big American
impression in modern international cycling at the 1976 Montreal
Olympics, when most Americans knew zip about the Tour, and most
Europeans thought the Americans could never hack it, it is extremely
gratifying to see Armstrong break the record of records. Merckx,
Anquetil, Indurain, Hinault -- stupendous athletes every one, in the
toughest sport on earth. And yes, there are many parallels one could
draw between Armstrong (is THAT an American name or what!) and
Schumacher, or, more to the point, Armstrong and Senna -- they all
nearly gave up being human to be, in that felicitous phrase from "The
Natural," "the best there is, the best there ever was." But let us not
forget the team: US Postal showed itself to be an incredibly disciplined
powerhouse that can match strategy, psych-jobs, and sheer determination
with ANY of the big European teams.
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
Dave Henrie wrote:
