teddy ballgame wrote: Omaha Red Sox wrote: teddy ballgame wrote: Omaha Red Sox wrote:
teddy ballgame wrote:cyclists are not better athletes than any baseball, basketball, football, or hockey player.
wikipedia wrote:Regarding the level of athleticism and endurance required to complete the Tour de France, the following excerpt from a New York Times article sums things up nicely: "The Tour de France’s status as the world’s most physiologically demanding event is largely unquestioned. The riders cover 2,272 miles at an average speed of 25 miles per hour, roughly the equivalent of running a marathon almost every day for almost three weeks. In the Pyrenees and the Alps, they climb a vertical distance equal to three Mount Everests. They take in up to 10,000 kilocalories (kcal) per day, the equivalent of 17 Big Macs, elevating their metabolic rates to a level that, according to a Dutch study, is exceeded by only four species on earth."
Demanding and being a good athlete are 2 different things in my mind. To cycle you need to be able to push pedals faster than other people. To be succesful in the other sports there are a lot more skills neccessary.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary wrote:athlete:
a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina
Ok. That doesn't change my opinion that pushing pedals on a bike is not as difficult as hitting a baseball, making a shot, or avoiding 11 other men who are trying to knock you out on a field.
There was a long discussion/poll on this a while back. Plus your looking at the difference between the best athelete (the definition posted), and someone who is skilled at their sport. You can hit a baseball 500 ft but still be fat as hell and out of shape. Maybe your just thinking of a Barry Sanders or Bo Jackson type guy that does everything, and you think that is an amazing athlete.
Almost anything can "test" your athletic ability. Biking up and down mountains for like a month is a much greater test than playing baseball.