new transposer      circle of 5ths    wap


Lance...

General Chat
EMB5490  
11 Jul 2010 18:58 | Quote
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
United States
Lessons: 1
Licks: 1
Karma: 31
Oh my, as a cyclist its painful to hear about lance. Absolutly terrible. For those who dont know, his tour hopes are gone, hes now over 13 minutes behind after his 3 crashes with no chance, now announcing hes gonna ride for teamate levi leipheimer whos in 8th.

For those who dont know how INSANELY hard it is to do this and that its not just riding a bike, go ride your bike, now go 35 mph on a flat, 60 65 down a hill, and probably 20mph up a huge alps incline (depends how steep the incline is)

Yeah its just about impossible to do that alone, now do about 115 miles per day (approx the length of long island) and over 2,300 miles over 20 days of racing. (thats from nyc to salt lake city approx) Id say its something thats near impossible for any human.

I cycle, and when i cycle with the best of them, AA group or open group they can go 25 or 27 on a flat max. and they do about 40 or 50 miles a day so they go all out. and they t ake rest stops and break days... to do 100+miles per day that fast for 20 days straight is near impossible i think for most people...

so how bout your opinions on lance and his 7 consecutive tour wins and now his loss of the 2010 tour. discuss
macandkanga  
11 Jul 2010 19:44 | Quote
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
United States
Karma: 21
I'm not a cyclist but I thought Lance should have got athlete of the century. At least in the top 10. I don't even think he made the top 100.
Ozzfan486  
11 Jul 2010 19:48 | Quote
Joined: 01 Oct 2008
United States
Licks: 1
Karma: 18
The guy had ball cancer and started RIDING A BIKE COMPETITIVELY after-wards. He's MY hero just for that.
EMB5490  
11 Jul 2010 21:56 | Quote
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
United States
Lessons: 1
Licks: 1
Karma: 31
not only that i believe it metastisized to the lungs and chest i think... he was extreamly lucky that testicular cancer is one of the cancers that responds to chemo. hes also incredibly lucky that it went into remission. On top of that his O2 intake is like double the average person which is inane. you have no idea how hard it is to ride a bike in the tour, let alone win. many people dont even finish. probably the best cyclist ever. certainly the most wins on the tour
btimm  
12 Jul 2010 13:01 | Quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
United States
Lessons: 2
Licks: 1
Karma: 16
macandkanga says:
I'm not a cyclist but I thought Lance should have got athlete of the century. At least in the top 10. I don't even think he made the top 100.


It is absolutely correct that he was left off the list, because he doesn't deserve it. Before gasping in horror at that comment, realize his Tour de France wins spanned from 99-05. That means that just 1 of his wins actually qualified in that century. If you said decade, I'd say you have a strong argument, but no way for century.
macandkanga  
12 Jul 2010 14:16 | Quote
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
United States
Karma: 21
Ok btimm. You dont have to be so dramatic;) You're right though! I didnt realize his wins were mostly in this century. He's still not on any lists this decade either that I can see.

Out of about 200 riders per event he's come up number 1 seven times in a row. If you do the math that's 1400 people that he beat!
EMB5490  
12 Jul 2010 14:19 | Quote
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
United States
Lessons: 1
Licks: 1
Karma: 31
btimm says:
macandkanga says:
I'm not a cyclist but I thought Lance should have got athlete of the century. At least in the top 10. I don't even think he made the top 100.


It is absolutely correct that he was left off the list, because he doesn't deserve it. Before gasping in horror at that comment, realize his Tour de France wins spanned from 99-05. That means that just 1 of his wins actually qualified in that century. If you said decade, I'd say you have a strong argument, but no way for century.


are we talking about this century or last? i think hed be a strong contender for this century but in the 90s he wasnt at his prime. cept '99.

@btimm: who would you say is the althelete of the century?
btimm  
13 Jul 2010 06:03 | Quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
United States
Lessons: 2
Licks: 1
Karma: 16
I had something posted yesterday and my computer wiped it out for some reason. Grrrr.

I kinda thought since this century wasn't complete that we were talking about last century.

As far as best athlete ever, I am not really sure. The thing that makes this a difficult process is that the best athlete is often not the best player. It also becomes difficult because most of the athletes we've never seen play, so it's really tough to make a comparison at all. But I'll make a list of best athletes I've seen in my almost 30 years on Earth.

Baketball: Hate him if you want, but there hasn't been anyone even close to LeBron. I personally don't think he is even the best player currently though, but he is a freak of nature physically and is an amazing athlete.

Baseball: Tough to beat Rickey Henderson.

Football: Adam Archuleta. The defensive back ran a 4.4 40, could bench press 530 pounds in 1.09 seconds, squat in excess of 600 in 1.24 seconds I believe, and had a 39-inch vertical. That is mind boggling.

Hockey: I have not seen anyone with the explosiveness and strength that Pavel Bure had. Pretty crazy stuff.

Others that come to mind: Diego Maradona, Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps.

The other thing that makes it tough is that there are different types of athletes. Guys like Armstrong could do endurance like no other, but he couldn't even come close to the explosiveness of a guy Henderson had. But that is because they didn't train for the same things.

So really I have no clue. lol Maybe Henderson.
EMB5490  
13 Jul 2010 06:32 | Quote
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
United States
Lessons: 1
Licks: 1
Karma: 31
yeah thats definatly true, haha hes definatly one of the best in the past decade.

thats true i think maybe in a sport you can choose best althete/player but overall i think its opinionated...

Honestly i have to say lance, ive played all the other sports on teams and for competition at one time, baseball honestly you kinda just stand around most of the time... Basketball players are usually in great shape and most terrific atheletes... football ranges you can have a great running back to a punter or defensive end... both of whom are out of shape on way or another. Hockey takes balls in my opinion... golf takes little phsycal strength and more mental strength...

to say the best athlete id think hed have to be the best at the sport, in great phsyical shape etc etc, and at that i think its impossible to say whos the best athlete. you really cant compare players of different sports...

However the absolute hardest to do in my opinion is cycling. I dont think people realize how fast they go and how hard it is to do... 35 miles an hour on a flat for over 100 miles for 20 days... Its insane... theyre in the saddle for something like 3 or 4 hours...
btimm  
13 Jul 2010 07:19 | Quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
United States
Lessons: 2
Licks: 1
Karma: 16
EMB5490 says:
Honestly i have to say lance, ive played all the other sports on teams and for competition at one time, baseball honestly you kinda just stand around most of the time... Basketball players are usually in great shape and most terrific atheletes... football ranges you can have a great running back to a punter or defensive end... both of whom are out of shape on way or another. Hockey takes balls in my opinion... golf takes little phsycal strength and more mental strength...


Baseball: Yes much of the time you are standing around, which is why I say you can't compare. The best athlete in that sport certainly isn't the best player ever, but if you ever watched Rickey play, it was amazing to see. Closest by today's standards might be Carl Crawford, but he isn't even close. You'd just have to see it I think. Rickey had such more power and strength than people ever gave him credit for. And his speed and explosiveness on the base paths were unrivaled. But this is a completely different type of athleticism than what Lance has.

There is no such thing as a RB or DE who is out of shape in any manner.

EMB5490 says:
to say the best athlete id think hed have to be the best at the sport, in great phsyical shape etc etc, and at that i think its impossible to say whos the best athlete. you really cant compare players of different sports...


I disagree with you saying that the best athlete would be the best at the sport. The perfect example is baseball. Babe Ruth was phenomenal. A power hitter hitting 50 HRs at a time when the second best had 12 ... and before that he was an elite pitcher! But you ever seen footage of him ever? He was beyond out of shape! lol

EMB5490 says:
However the absolute hardest to do in my opinion is cycling. I dont think people realize how fast they go and how hard it is to do... 35 miles an hour on a flat for over 100 miles for 20 days... Its insane... theyre in the saddle for something like 3 or 4 hours...


I agree and disagree. I'd say it is the most challenging when it comes to the endurance aspect of athleticism. I do ride, I need to do it more and get in shape again, but I do about 10 miles several times a week. And I have immense respect for how amazing those athletes are. But you can't really say it is the hardest, because there are many other things that are just as challenging, if not more challenging for many people. It's just that there is such a range of athleticism.

I think I could do to the Tour de France before I could ever run a 10-second 100m for example. I am not saying I can do the Tour de France, I am saying my body type can't do explosive, short bursts needed to do a 10-second 100m, it just can't. So does that mean the 100m is more challenging and indicative of a better athlete? No. It means it is different.
deefa  
13 Jul 2010 07:21 | Quote
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
United Kingdom
Karma: 8
Interesting point about his remission from metastasised testicular cancer. It's quite possible that all this superhuman activity saved his life as it will have caused his endorphin production to sky-rocket. This in its turn will have increased the production of NK cells within his immune system. The down side is that when he decides to retire, his endorphin production will return to normal and his cancer may return.
btimm  
13 Jul 2010 08:17 | Quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
United States
Lessons: 2
Licks: 1
Karma: 16
It's interesting to note that although Armstrong has a very high O2 intake compared to normal people, it isn't the highest ever of a cyclist. Just further shows how amazing these cyclists are.
EMB5490  
13 Jul 2010 08:38 | Quote
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
United States
Lessons: 1
Licks: 1
Karma: 31
btimm says:
There is no such thing as a RB or DE who is out of shape in any manner.


a de? really? being over 300lbs isnt out of shape?

and for the rb just because their muscular doesnt mean their in shape, their body takes such a beating that it gets broken down... you can see that in lt... he started on a high and is declining, i think because the hitting takes a toll.

btimm says:
I agree and disagree. I'd say it is the most challenging when it comes to the endurance aspect of athleticism. I do ride, I need to do it more and get in shape again, but I do about 10 miles several times a week. And I have immense respect for how amazing those athletes are. But you can't really say it is the hardest, because there are many other things that are just as challenging, if not more challenging for many people. It's just that there is such a range of athleticism.

I think I could do to the Tour de France before I could ever run a 10-second 100m for example. I am not saying I can do the Tour de France, I am saying my body type can't do explosive, short bursts needed to do a 10-second 100m, it just can't. So does that mean the 100m is more challenging and indicative of a better athlete? No. It means it is different.


im curious whats harder then that?

you could say running, however most runs are a sprint, short distance and isnt nearly as hard if you are born with the gift to run. I am not, and will never be a runner so i cant do stuff like that, but if your someone who can run, if you build up and run often i think its easier then cycling. By the way, i dont think people undnerstand still how hard it is to cycle, 10 miles for me is a sprint, in a race i could do 10 miles straight at a rate of probably anywhere from 20 to 30 if i wanted to attack. However after the race id be dead... These people go 35 on a flat and over 20 up hills for 100 miles, its honestly impossible to understand unless youve done serious milage before. Cycling is great but no offence, 10 miles is barley a warm up for most cyclist... Yesterday and the day before i did 40 and 50 miles, today im doing a slightly shorter recovery day, you get to the point where it hurts to walk up stairs.

im curious to see what you think would be harder, i dont mean any offence its hard to tell what tone people are talking in over the internet but i dont mean any offence but am curious...


deefa says:
Interesting point about his remission from metastasised testicular cancer. It's quite possible that all this superhuman activity saved his life as it will have caused his endorphin production to sky-rocket. This in its turn will have increased the production of NK cells within his immune system. The down side is that when he decides to retire, his endorphin production will return to normal and his cancer may return.



Sadly thats true, however most cyclists and especially lance will keep riding after his retirment, however if it does return i will feel so sorry for him because his faith in chemo, however thats a different story... However also testicular cancer is like one of 3 cancers that respond to chemo better then others... so a chance there maybe

Yeah their O2 intake is insane but thats mainly because of training, most of them were born just like us maybe more "cycling gifted" then others... but you gotta work to get a 80-90 O2 intake
EMB5490  
13 Jul 2010 08:49 | Quote
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
United States
Lessons: 1
Licks: 1
Karma: 31
also meant dt when i said de... most de's arnt over 300 becuase they need speed... but overall in sports, baseball most people in shape, some out of... basketball id say 95-98% in shape... people like shaq would be the 2-5%... football is widely ranging, while a WR or RB or CB would be in peak physical shape, the opposite could be for a offensive or defensive lineman. cycling everyone is in peak phsyical shape... except maybe alphonse :) haha
btimm  
13 Jul 2010 08:57 | Quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
United States
Lessons: 2
Licks: 1
Karma: 16
DTs can be out of shape in some aspects sure, but not a DE.
btimm  
13 Jul 2010 09:01 | Quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
United States
Lessons: 2
Licks: 1
Karma: 16
EMB5490 says:
you could say running, however most runs are a sprint, short distance and isnt nearly as hard if you are born with the gift to run. I am not, and will never be a runner so i cant do stuff like that, but if your someone who can run, if you build up and run often i think its easier then cycling. By the way, i dont think people undnerstand still how hard it is to cycle, 10 miles for me is a sprint, in a race i could do 10 miles straight at a rate of probably anywhere from 20 to 30 if i wanted to attack. However after the race id be dead... These people go 35 on a flat and over 20 up hills for 100 miles, its honestly impossible to understand unless youve done serious milage before. Cycling is great but no offence, 10 miles is barley a warm up for most cyclist... Yesterday and the day before i did 40 and 50 miles, today im doing a slightly shorter recovery day, you get to the point where it hurts to walk up stairs.


I am not stupid, I do understand that for a regular cyclist that 10 miles is next to nothing. But you are missing my point. My point was that since I do ride, I understand clearly how difficult it is to do what they do. My point though is that you can't really compare. Endurance vs explosiveness. They require completely different training techniques and completely different muscle strengths. To say that either Armstrong or Henderson for example were not peak athletes is just flat out wrong. Which is the better athlete? How can you tell?
EMB5490  
13 Jul 2010 09:13 | Quote
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
United States
Lessons: 1
Licks: 1
Karma: 31
cyclists have plenty of explosiveness (mark cavindish) i think his speeds were something like gone from 35 or 38 to like 50mph. insane...

But your completly right, you cant compare sports...

Can we agree armstrong is the best in the sport of cycling? not now but overall...

What do you think about his drug accustions... Personally i dont think he touched it.
btimm  
13 Jul 2010 09:19 | Quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
United States
Lessons: 2
Licks: 1
Karma: 16
I don't know really know a ton about cycling to say whether he is the best ever, but it sure seems that way.

As far as PEDs, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. And that is the way I see things like this too. Until it is actually proven, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

I think most people are just so blown away by his performances and they see guys like McGwire and Bonds and they just assume. It could also be a lot of jealousy as well.
tinyskateboard  
13 Jul 2010 13:29 | Quote
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
United States
Karma: 11
Wayne Gretzky was pretty good at sports, at least at one. Hockey is a pretty tough game too.


Copyright © 2004-2017 All-Guitar-Chords.com. All rights reserved.