Although I've been doing recreational bicycling for 25 years, I've generally regarded bicycle racing and and the type of riding I do as apples and oranges. Racing bicycles have different gear ratios, different frame shapes, different tires, etc. There's also the obvious difference in attitude; I enjoy riding a bicycle to get somewhere because I can connect to the surroundings in a way that doesn't happen when you're riding in a car with the windows rolled up. As for bicycle racing as a spectator sport, well, my preference is for the Good Old Boys of NASCAR. (I'm not even going to attempt to explain this; there are always things about human interests that don't make sense.)
Lance Armstrong must have popped onto my radar screen three or four years ago, which is about the same time that he started catching the attention of lots of other people outside of the bicycle racing cult. Now that he has firmly established himself as the best bicycle racer since the bicycle was invented, I want to put what Armstrong has accomplished into perspective.
You have to be a pretty good athlete to win a bicycle race of any sort. It's not like gymnastics or figure skating, where you have to start learning the necessary skills before your tenth birthday. Instead, a few months of intense conditioning will suffice, if you're already in pretty good physical shape.
Winning even one stage of a major race like the Tour de France is a big step up. It's something that thousands of competitive cyclists around the planet aspire to, and only a few achieve. A winner of the Tour de France joins an even more elite club, and should be regarded as one of the best athletes on the planet for a few months.
What do you say, then, about a recovered cancer victim who has won the Tour de France seven consecutive times? That's twice more than anyone else, including cycling legends Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault, and the five wins of Merckx and Hinault were not consecutive.
I've heard Rafe Mair pontificate a couple of times about Tiger Woods, and whether Tiger Woods should be regarded as the greatest golfer of all times. The only answer you can give to this one is “maybe”. The quality of golf clubs and balls has improved considerably since the time of Bobby Jones. On the other hand, Woods faces far stiffer competition on a weekly basis than Jones, Walter Hagen, Arnold Palmer, and Jack Nicklaus did.
There are no such considerations when comparing Armstrong to any other person who has raced a bicycle with a number pinned to the back of his or her jersey. The only thing left to talk about it, how do we compare Lance Armstrong to all outstanding athletes in all sports?
Well, riding a bicycle doesn't require the eagle-sharp vision and quick reflexes necessary to hit a major-league fastball. An above-average football quarterback has to be able to locate open receivers, throw a football to them that hits them on the numbers more often than not, and simultaneously evade defensive linemen and linebackers determined to inflict physical damage.
A successful bicycle racer has to be good at avoiding accidents, and there's strategy involved that falls mostly in the category of exercising good common sense. However, I have to conclude that I can't put Armstrong at the level of Wayne Gretsky, Larry Bird, Ichiro Suzuki, David Beckham, or John Elway, in terms of overall athletic ability.
I have yet to think of an example of anyone in the same league as Armstrong in the stamina category. Iditarod dogsled racers? Marathon runners? None of these people proved themselves the best in the world at what they do for seven consecutive years.
Like the discussion of Tiger Woods earlier, people write stuff about subjects like this because it's fun to argue about. Are golfers and curlers really athletes? Is motor racing really a sport? This is my $0.02 worth, and if you want to agree or disagree with me, bring it on.
