I've never heard a panel of experts who agree that Ali wasn't the greatest ever heavyweight. The other name people put forward is Rocky Marciano, and you won't get unanimity in that.
I have. Rocky Marciano was one of their favoured boxers, plus several from the early 20th century.
I don't understand what other weights have to do with it. 
No-one goes down the weights, especially if they are a natural heavyweight as a teenager. And Ali's competition was awesome.
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.
I appreciate that comparing one sport to another is deeply flawed, but my point is that Muhammad Ali used to publicly mickey take and name call his opponents and claim to be the greatest and everyone seemed to like him. But Lance makes a few comments and he's an arrogant so and so. I personally think that a lot of that comes from media spin.
I see Lance on par with Muhammad Ali. Both have their advantages over each other and are very diferent in some ways. That's just my opinion though.
Lance's competition was a fat Ullrich.
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.
As for MMA, that's about as accurate as saying that Lance sucks at track and mountain biking
I agree, comparing fighting to cycling is very crude. But Merckx was an excellent trackie (I rate Merckx well above Lance and M Ali) Lance did some mountain biking too. Not as good a mountain biker as Merckx was a trackie, but still very good.
As above, I was more trying to compare the public image of M Ali to Lance because I see similarities between the two.
[/quote]
Because IMO he's not bringing cycling anywhere.
Fair enough. I dissagree. I remember seeing his image in a post office while touring America in 2004. I think that he as made a significant impact on cycling in America. I could of course be very wrong.
He's just focusing all the attention, and all the money into 1 race.
Well, I suppse he would do as he is very focused on the TDF and hs fans follow where he goes. Does that indicate that he's got people interested in ccling who ouldn't noramlly be? I think it does. And if so, I think that is good for cycling as it may inspire people to go and try riding a bike. From there, they can explore cycling for themselves.
So if you can't get into the TdF, it's enormously difficult to get sponsorship.
It is, is that really all because of Lance?
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 think he damaged the rest of the sport. Who else rode the odd classic as a training ride? Who else stopped racing after the Tour?
Who else? Nobody that I know. That's another reason I respect Lance. Any other rider could have done it the Lance Armstrong way. But who was confident enough to base theirentire season on just one race? Not just any race, but the most prestigious in the world. I think that's a very ballsy thing to do. Maybe some would call it arrogant?
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.
We've seen how much better the racing has been, and how much more uncertainty there has been at the Tour since he left.
Another reason I admire him. To seemingly systematically win such a race is nothing short of awesome to me.
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.
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.
