I have. Rocky Marciano was one of their favoured boxers, plus several from the early 20th century.
It says something to me that people will rate a boxer that they have neveer seen above one who they have, and who did things not done before. Remember, there are people within boxing who dislike Ali, especially for what he did refusing the draft and becoming muslim. But maybe that's another parallel with Lance.
Different weights need a slightly different style. It's quite common for some boxers to fight at a heavier weight category then slim down to fight at a lighter weight. A lot of boxing fans prefer lightweight boxing because they say it is more skilled.
Sure, it's about more than just 1 punch at the lower divisions. You get far fewer bangers at the lower divisions, and they get found out more frequently (Hatton maybe being a case in point). Ali was a boxer, not a banger though. And the guys who move around tend to do so at lower weights. Heavyweight has no upper limit, so it's not like if you put on 4 or 5 pounds you can move up - it is possible that you have to shift several stone in order to go down a division.
Blimey! you're 'avin a go at Ullrich now! I think that Ullrich was a very worthy oponent and made Lance suffer an awful lot. I'm sure that Lance has the upmost respect for Ullrich. Merckx thought that Ullrich was a very impressive rider. Some think it an injustice that such a talented rider who was a worthy TDF winner had Lance as his opponent.
Ulrich was a very talented rider, who, if he had applied himself and provided the level of dedication Lance had, would have been much tougher competition. But you have to question how much he wanted it, given that every year he ended up having to lose 5-10 kilos to get down to his racing weight. I acknowledge that he was also unlucky with injuries, but I don't have much sympathy for self induced ones (eg drunken car crashes).
And if you can't compete financially with his team, you can't think about winning the tour.
Dunno? Money certainly helps and there is a minimum cost. Isn't that just the way it's all going? It's all controlled by capitalism. (That's why I like Graeme Obree, he flew in the face of it all)
I agree about Obree. I don't think it's a natural progression though. I can't see why Kloden or Leipheimer ride at Astana (especially if Lance stays). I think it's just cash. If Kloden or Leipheimer were at other teams, they would be working out how to beat Lance\Contador.
Cycling is changing. The TDF is avery different race to it's original. Cyclists are becoming more specialised and there are new types of cycling developing. I think that Lance is ahead of his time. Merckx rode (and won) everything. But if there was an Eddy Merckx clone riding now, he couldn't do it because there are too many events.
I don't think that's true. Sure, you have to pick a grand tour to focus on, because you can't really win 2 (then again, people said that before Roche and before Indurain too), but there's no reason why you can't carry on from the Tour and ride the classics then, or ride the Vuelta and the Tour of Lombardy and the Worlds. Even marathon runners have several objectives in 1 season.
The only public eye difference in the time I've been watching the Tour (pre-post Lance) is that it's moved from being half an hour on Channel 4 every evening, to being an hour on ITV4. That's not progress or increased popularity.
But this is England, his domain is America really. Besides, media coverage is all about the allmighty dollar. It has to compete with popularist programmes and much more popular sports such as football.
At least as a non TV owner, I can watch it on the net. This is the first tour I've watched (from last week) for over a decade.
I can't speak for the perception of cycling as a sport in the US, I'm just talking about what I perceive in the UK. And you could watch Eurosport on the net last year.
Edit to say that this tour, and especially after yesterday's stage (just watched the highlights) he's generally been smart and sensible, and in credit with me. I think that at the start his ego was writing cheques his body couldn't cash, but he's now accepted that. So kudos to him for that, especially if he rides for Contador from here on in...
I don't think it was about an ego trip. I just don't think that he thinks in that way.
Kudos to you too for being open minded.
I don't see what other way there is to see it. If he wanted to push his charity, he's have got as much publicity joining bruneel in the team car. If it were Astana Livestrong, his charity would have got more publicity. His comments last year were basically that the current crop of riders suck. So he figured he could do better and came back to prove it. I've yet to see a better explanation for his comeback. Since he got there, he's realised that Contador is the real deal, and has had the guts to admit it. So the way he has conducted himself in the last week has nothing but admiration from me.
The other thing that irritates me is that his biological passport isn't complete - he didn't announce his comeback in time to start the out of competition stuff early enough. No-one else got a pro license without it. So the UCI has literally one set of rules for him and another for everyone else. (Note, this is not me saying that he's on drugs.)
Lee - I was responding to someone else's post on the greatest champion thing.
As for legendary status, I agree. Armstrong is a genuine legend.
Flintoff has achieved that status (in the UK) too - he cemented it his week. Doesn't make him great. Doesn't make him the best allrounder of his era (he's certainly behind Kallis, Pollock, Gilchrist), let alone the best cricketer. It doesn't bother me that they have achieved what they have achieved, or that they get recognition for it. The only thing that bothers me is that they eclipse all others, some of whom, I would argue were better. And no, I don't think it's wrong of you. Just like how so many english cricket fans are enjoying Ponting getting his comeuppance.
Everyone - sorry for the essay.