Is Lance Armstrong the greatest athlete of our time? (bumped from 2005)

[SkinsHokieFan]

Closing in on another dominating victory and reaching the pinnacle of his sport for an unprecedented 7th straight time, the question has to be asked.

Is he the best athlete in the modern era?

Is he better then Jordan, Gretzky, Bird, Montana, Bonds, Tiger?

At this point I have to say yes. A few years ago Tiger had the chance, but Armstrong has absoutley dominated his sport for the past 7 years, giving rivals no hope for victory until he is gone.

Will we ever have someone this dominant in any sport again?

[FBChick]

Personally I find him much more impressive with everything he went through to get to the point of winning, so yes I would call him one of the best!

[footballhenry]

Pure Athlete....Yes, no question.

[sith lord]

Not by a long shot.

[dreamingwolf]

damn Im drunk, no he isnt

[Sarge]

Nope

[bnacpa]

Hard to say because of apples to oranges to the different sports ... but I would have to say that he is the most dominant athelete in cycling and is in the top 5 for impacting his sport. Chamberlain and Jordan owned basketball for a long time, but not 7 years running ... so that adds credit to your claim. Gretzky owned hockey for a long time, but not 7 years straight either ... but basketball, hockey, football and baseball are all team sports where you rely on others so it is hard to compare those atheletes against someone who relies on his own intestinal fortitude, inner strength, and skills. Great debate, but hard to prove out.

[dreamingwolf]

Im pretty sure cycling is a team sport too

[Ancalagon the Black]

I know people who claim that he isn't even the best cyclist of our time.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by dreamingwolf
Im pretty sure cycling is a team sport too

Not in the same sense. Armstrong may be part of a "team", but that is merely a collection of competitors being sponsored by the same sponsor. They don't get a composite score. Armstrong could, if he chose, finance his own trip and be there on his own. (Unless there's something about the Tour de France that I'm oblivious to).

SHF makes a good case for Armstrong being the best athlete of our era, since basically everyone else has to just wait for him to retire before they have a shot again. I believe that if he wanted to, Armstrong could win 8 or 9 or 10 Frenchy Tours.

The only other athlete I would put in the same category is Jordan. He was in a class by himself, and he owned basketball until he retired. And had he chosen to retire a few years later, I believe he would have owned it that much longer.

But then we're back to comparing a team athlete to an individual athlete...

[BlueTalon]

sorry 'bout the double post.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black
I know people who claim that he isn't even the best cyclist of our time.

Really?!? On what basis? Winning 7 Tours makes a pretty compelling case.

[dreamingwolf]

actually I think the cycling teams do aide each other, they block and do all kinds of things to make their lead win. Just like nascar, admittedly I know as much about nascar as I do cycling but from what Ive listened to it appears the teams can help the one on the team they want to win.

[Mooka]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


Not in the same sense. Armstrong may be part of a "team", but that is merely a collection of competitors being sponsored by the same sponsor. They don't get a composite score. Armstrong could, if he chose, finance his own trip and be there on his own. (Unless there's something about the Tour de France that I'm oblivious to).

Its about more than just money. Without a Team no one is winning the tour by himself; not possible.
First reason is the team lowers the wind resistance for its captain. Biking against the wind feels like running on a treadmill and it wears you down very quickly. Also, members of the team push the leaders of the pack to slow them down. The sprinter will go up against the leading sprinter on the fast parts. The up-hill guy will go up against the leading up-hill guy etc.

Im sure theres more reasons but I don't know that much. I do know however that without a team 1 person has no chance to win.



To go with the thread I would have to say Lance is. I don't like him personally but winning the Tour de France is rediculous and he's done it 7 straight years. Plus overcoming cancer is an amazing story.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


Really?!? On what basis? Winning 7 Tours makes a pretty compelling case.

Not sure--I know next to nothing about the sport. But one of my friends lists the following names:

Miguel Indurain
Eddy Merckx
Bernard Eno

Mean anything to anyone?