Posted: July 12, 2004, 2:08 pm
His world chess association membership is paid through the end of the year!Kelshara wrote:Unless Fischer is currently active he doesn't qualify!
Page 3 of 4
Posted: July 12, 2004, 5:14 pm
Winnow wrote:His world chess association membership is paid through the end of the year!Kelshara wrote:Unless Fischer is currently active he doesn't qualify!
I looked into and it is, Winnow fronted him the $7.38 to cover it
Posted: July 15, 2004, 3:49 am
2004 ESPY Awards (to be announced 7-18-2004):
Posted: July 15, 2004, 5:07 am
Nothing against Lance winning but the ESPYs seem kind of lame. I don't see the reason for them. Atheletes prove themselves in their sport, there's no reason for a general award telling them they had a good season...anyone that knows their sport will be well aware of it.
Are the NE Patriots going to celebrate tonight that they won best game for the Superbowl? I dunno...I just don't think you need sports awards when there is plenty of recognition, trophies and awards already in sports.
And where the hell was the lifetime achievement award for Bobby Fischer?!
Are the NE Patriots going to celebrate tonight that they won best game for the Superbowl? I dunno...I just don't think you need sports awards when there is plenty of recognition, trophies and awards already in sports.
And where the hell was the lifetime achievement award for Bobby Fischer?!
Posted: July 15, 2004, 11:19 am
Best Jockey -- Stewart Elliott
Are you kidding me? He rode Smarty Jones - Jerry Bailey is a much better, well rounded Jockey.
Yes, I asked my father who happens to have spent the last 45 years of his life successfully betting on horses for a living.
Edit: That column can't even get a better answer in the jockey category then who won two out of the three legs of the triple crown. It took me literally 10 seconds to get that question answered, a magazine that is claiming who is the best certainly should do some better research then that.
Are you kidding me? He rode Smarty Jones - Jerry Bailey is a much better, well rounded Jockey.
Yes, I asked my father who happens to have spent the last 45 years of his life successfully betting on horses for a living.
Edit: That column can't even get a better answer in the jockey category then who won two out of the three legs of the triple crown. It took me literally 10 seconds to get that question answered, a magazine that is claiming who is the best certainly should do some better research then that.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 12:32 pm
hey noel
Posted: July 15, 2004, 12:35 pm
Fuck, I'm really sorry. I actually went to the ESPY site last night to see how many times Lance has won that award, and saw that 2004 awards. It didn't even occur to me that that was a spoiler since it's all right there on their site.
My apologies.
My apologies.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 12:41 pm
I'm not too worried about it, as there's a good chance I'll miss the Espy's when they are broadcast. Just for future reference that's probably good practice.
It's just like if I were to tell you what I'd read about that current, record-setting Jeopardy champion:
It's just like if I were to tell you what I'd read about that current, record-setting Jeopardy champion:
Posted: July 15, 2004, 12:55 pm
Sorry I spoiled one of the most retarded votes for an athlete I've ever seen!
Posted: July 15, 2004, 3:46 pm
ESPY's are a fucking joke. It's a popularity contest - the voting is open to the general uninformed public and therefore meaningless. It has little bearing on their actual performance and has more to do with how much press they get.
If it were a sportswriter's poll it might be meaninglful, but it's not. Most people don't know anything about 80% of the categories on the polll and only very little about the other 20%.
So, grats Lance on winning a pointless popularity contest that doesn't mean jack or shit.
You people can't even argue that Schumacher isn't more dominant than Armstrong, just that driving isn't a sport...which is an entirely invalid argument.
Face it, fact is, if Schumacher were the American and Armstrong the German, Schumacher would have won this poll and the ESPY poll.
If it were a sportswriter's poll it might be meaninglful, but it's not. Most people don't know anything about 80% of the categories on the polll and only very little about the other 20%.
So, grats Lance on winning a pointless popularity contest that doesn't mean jack or shit.
You people can't even argue that Schumacher isn't more dominant than Armstrong, just that driving isn't a sport...which is an entirely invalid argument.
Face it, fact is, if Schumacher were the American and Armstrong the German, Schumacher would have won this poll and the ESPY poll.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 4:02 pm
Bitter Party of one, Bitter party of one.Karae wrote:ESPY's are a fucking joke. It's a popularity contest - the voting is open to the general uninformed public and therefore meaningless. It has little bearing on their actual performance and has more to do with how much press they get.
If it were a sportswriter's poll it might be meaningless, but it's not. Most people don't know anything about 80% of the categories on the polll and only very little about the other 20%.
So, grats Lance on winning a pointless popularity contest that doesn't mean jack or shit.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 4:13 pm
Eh...ok?Cartalas wrote:Bitter Party of one, Bitter party of one.
Can't prove me wrong, so call me bitter. Makes sense I guess.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 4:17 pm
If you're just trying to bait Winnow my apologies, but I think I gave a decent argument why Armstrong should get the nod over Shumacher.Karae wrote:ESPY's are a fucking joke. It's a popularity contest - the voting is open to the general uninformed public and therefore meaningless. It has little bearing on their actual performance and has more to do with how much press they get.
If it were a sportswriter's poll it might be meaninglful, but it's not. Most people don't know anything about 80% of the categories on the polll and only very little about the other 20%.
So, grats Lance on winning a pointless popularity contest that doesn't mean jack or shit.
You people can't even argue that Schumacher isn't more dominant than Armstrong, just that driving isn't a sport...which is an entirely invalid argument.
Face it, fact is, if Schumacher were the American and Armstrong the German, Schumacher would have won this poll and the ESPY poll.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 4:20 pm
When I posted my first post - I had no idea that this poll was between people - who when voting didn't get to choose the sport they actually know about, and had to vote for everything.
That in itself is absolutely retarded and not credible - you can tell by the winners of most categories - I mentioned one, where I am 100% positive that Elliot is not the best jockey. Elliot even being in the same category with Bailey is like putting an average college basketball player into the same poll as an nba superstar.
Ellliot probably got the most amount of publicity for winning 2 legs of the triple crown, the only other jockey that got even close to his publicity this year was Gary Stevens who was in the movie Seabiscuit, and is an actual jockey.
That in itself is absolutely retarded and not credible - you can tell by the winners of most categories - I mentioned one, where I am 100% positive that Elliot is not the best jockey. Elliot even being in the same category with Bailey is like putting an average college basketball player into the same poll as an nba superstar.
Ellliot probably got the most amount of publicity for winning 2 legs of the triple crown, the only other jockey that got even close to his publicity this year was Gary Stevens who was in the movie Seabiscuit, and is an actual jockey.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 4:24 pm
The ESPYs have nothing to do with the vote on this post. I'm just pointing out that and while I agree that it doesn't mean too much-- it's not like say... winning 5 Tour's in a row-- it's still nice to see an American based sports news service recognizing his accomplishments.
Discount the ESPYs all you want, Karae but here are several points that are ireffutable:
Discount the ESPYs all you want, Karae but here are several points that are ireffutable:
- You don't get nominated if you haven't done something notable in your sport
- It wouldn't hurt ESPN in any way to go with a more notable American athlete such as Kevin Garnett, Barry Bonds, Michael Phelps, etc.
- Sports Illustrated also selected Lance as their Sportsman of the year last year
Posted: July 15, 2004, 4:51 pm
Why, because even you admitted that Armstrong isn't the best in the history of his sport and thereby proved my point for me?noel wrote:If you're just trying to bait Winnow my apologies, but I think I gave a decent argument why Armstrong should get the nod over Shumacher.Karae wrote:ESPY's are a fucking joke. It's a popularity contest - the voting is open to the general uninformed public and therefore meaningless. It has little bearing on their actual performance and has more to do with how much press they get.
If it were a sportswriter's poll it might be meaninglful, but it's not. Most people don't know anything about 80% of the categories on the polll and only very little about the other 20%.
So, grats Lance on winning a pointless popularity contest that doesn't mean jack or shit.
You people can't even argue that Schumacher isn't more dominant than Armstrong, just that driving isn't a sport...which is an entirely invalid argument.
Face it, fact is, if Schumacher were the American and Armstrong the German, Schumacher would have won this poll and the ESPY poll.
No, your argument was entirely predicated, like everyone else, on the assumption that driving isn't a sport (or that cycling is more of one). That isn't relevant to this poll. The poll is "Most dominant active athlete" not "What's the hardest sport?"
Your argument is just as irrelevant as everyone else trying to put Armstrong forward.
Want to prove Armstrong is the most dominant? Show me numbers greater than Schumacher's. Show me that, not only does he hold every major record in his sport, that he's also surpassed the previous record by nearly ~2x. You simply cannot, because Armstrong is not as dominant in cycling as Schumacher is in driving.
However, I do agree you made a great argument for Kiraly. There's no doubt in my mind that in his prime he was the most dominant athlete and was on equal footing with the dominance Schumacher is displaying now. But, he's decidedly past his prime and no longer dominant (yes, he continues to win but not dominantly so). His dominance waned about the time Schumacher's began to wax, so it's almost as though he passed the status of most dominant to Schumacher. But, I took active to mean actively dominant. It could be interpreted as anyone who is actively participating rather than actively dominant, in which case Kiraly ability to still compete past his prime would be a boon and, imo, push him past Schumacher. But like I said, I think this poll is for people who are actively dominant and Kiraly is not that.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 5:03 pm
I've already said Lance gets more press in this country than Schumacher. It doesn't change the fact that he's not as dominant. We wouldn't even hear about Armstrong if he wasn't an American, though. He'd be in the same relatively obscure boat as Schumacher and Bonds or Shaq would have won the poll/ESPY.noel wrote:The ESPYs have nothing to do with the vote on this post. I'm just pointing out that and while I agree that it doesn't mean too much-- it's not like say... winning 5 Tour's in a row-- it's still nice to see an American based sports news service recognizing his accomplishments.
Discount the ESPYs all you want, Karae but here are several points that are ireffutable:
- You don't get nominated if you haven't done something notable in your sport
- It wouldn't hurt ESPN in any way to go with a more notable American athlete such as Kevin Garnett, Barry Bonds, Michael Phelps, etc.
- Sports Illustrated also selected Lance as their Sportsman of the year last year
However, it probably is true that Armstrong is a better athlete than Schumacher - he's just not more dominant. I'm not convinced he's the best athlete in the world - but that's far too subjective a category to make a meaningful judgement. By all means, if you want to debate which sport is the hardest, or who the most athletic is, create that poll yourself, but neither is pertinent to this poll.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 5:18 pm
Karae, you have to take into consideration that both athleticism and difficulty factor into dominance. I think that is the opposing argument anyhow. Racing is a sport, and in F1 a damned hard one at that, I'm not discounting that at all. But you are comparing the dominance of a 3 hour race to a 3 week race (or 20 days at roughly 3 hours a piece). So yes, going by numbers, Shumacher is hands down the most dominating, without a doubt. But he races 17 times a year, where as Lance races what, 3-4 times a year? That is where athleticism and difficulty factor in, because just by the numbers alone he is more dominant, but you have to remember that Lance is in a harder and way more athletic sport than F1 racing.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 5:32 pm
Lance races a few times a year (pretty much TDF and that's it heh). Schumacher has so far won 10 out of 11 races (crashed out of one). Lance is probably more athletic, but he is not more dominant in cycling as a general sport.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 7:02 pm
I've already explained why cyclists in the past cannot be compared to cycling present day. To reiterate, it has to do with the way training is done (periodization), focus on specialization (sprinting, time-trialing, climbing, track, etc.) and events that have more prestige (Tour, Giro, Vuelta). When Eddy Merckx was cycling, people just showed up at whatever race there was every week, and rode as hard as they could. Eddy was the strongest. Had any of his contemporaries trained the way Armstrong does, to be at peak fitness for a specific event, I have no doubt he would have been beat in many events, but that was in a time before the science of training, aerodynamics, etc. had been applied to the sport. You simply cannot compare the two riders other than to say they both dominated their era.Karae wrote:Why, because even you admitted that Armstrong isn't the best in the history of his sport and thereby proved my point for me?
No, your argument was entirely predicated, like everyone else, on the assumption that driving isn't a sport (or that cycling is more of one). That isn't relevant to this poll. The poll is "Most dominant active athlete" not "What's the hardest sport?"
Your argument is just as irrelevant as everyone else trying to put Armstrong forward.
Want to prove Armstrong is the most dominant? Show me numbers greater than Schumacher's. Show me that, not only does he hold every major record in his sport, that he's also surpassed the previous record by nearly ~2x. You simply cannot, because Armstrong is not as dominant in cycling as Schumacher is in driving.
Lance is dominating the one event in cycling that every rider would like to win and when this Tour is over, he will be the only person to ever win the tour six times in a row.
I've never stated that driving wasn't a sport or that Shumacher wasn't a superb athlete. Ever. Feel free to treat other posters in this forum like children, but I never said that. I do think being in a position to win the Tour is more difficult, the competition is BY FAR closer between Amstrong's competitors than it is with Shumachers competitors. I also think maintaining that level of consistency in cycling is far more difficult than in F1, and though I have nothing but respect for Shumacher, he's no Armstrong. The day he races 21 days in a row for 4-8 hours a day in all types of weather, without crashing, getting sick, or being so dehydrated/malnourished that he has to quit, and finishes with the lowest cumulative time, I'll call him the most dominant.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 7:04 pm
Damn you are worse than Blizzard fanbois 
Posted: July 15, 2004, 7:06 pm
Just bored at work at the moment. 
Posted: July 15, 2004, 7:54 pm
Like I said before, this poll isn't about the difficulty of the sport, nor is it relevant to the poll. You said it yourself, "the competition is BY FAR closer between Armstrong's competitors than it is with Schumachers competitors."
In other words, Schumacher is more dominant.
I'll stop treating you like a child when you stop posting irrelevant arguments.
In other words, Schumacher is more dominant.
I'll stop treating you like a child when you stop posting irrelevant arguments.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 7:59 pm
Your hopeless. I'm not acting like Winnow, and don't need to be treated like Winnow. I've posted reasonable arguments, and I've agreed with you where I think you're correct.
I think it's great that you've taken the time to understand F1, but given that you don't understand cycling, or the Tour de France, you don't understand what Lance has accomplished, and you can't appreciate just how dominant he actually is. Let me put it to you very simply. Lance wins every event he chooses to win. Cycling isn't structured in such a way that you can win 17 out of 20 events during the course of the year. Why not? The human body doesn't work like a machine does. You can't just change out the engine whenever you want.
Until you understand periodization, you won't get it.
I think it's great that you've taken the time to understand F1, but given that you don't understand cycling, or the Tour de France, you don't understand what Lance has accomplished, and you can't appreciate just how dominant he actually is. Let me put it to you very simply. Lance wins every event he chooses to win. Cycling isn't structured in such a way that you can win 17 out of 20 events during the course of the year. Why not? The human body doesn't work like a machine does. You can't just change out the engine whenever you want.
Until you understand periodization, you won't get it.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:02 pm
11/12 nowKelshara wrote:Lance races a few times a year (pretty much TDF and that's it heh). Schumacher has so far won 10 out of 11 races (crashed out of one). Lance is probably more athletic, but he is not more dominant in cycling as a general sport.
He only crashed cos he came out of a curving tunnel and hit a car that had previously crashed - was in first with 22 laps left and had a sizable lead (about a minute if I remember correctly). I don't see Lance winning 85% of the Tour de France stages... not that that's really a fair comparison since Schumacher has more downtime between races than Lance has between stages.Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:06 pm
*sigh*Karae wrote:I don't see Lance winning 85% of the Tour de France stages... not that that's really a fair comparison since Schumacher has more downtime between races than Lance has between stages.
You can't possibly imagine how little winning stages matters to someone who can win the yellow jersey. Winning stages is a good goal for people who can't win the overall. I assure you that any cyclist alive would tell you he'd rather win the yellow jersey and never win a stage than to win 85% of the stages and not win the jersey. The tour does not work the same way that other sports work.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:07 pm
wtf, my responses are reasonable. They're just not what people want to hear. I've made valid points on this thread.noel wrote:Your hopeless. I'm not acting like Winnow, and don't need to be treated like Winnow. I've posted reasonable arguments, and I've agreed with you where I think you're correct.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:10 pm
I never said you didn't. I do however think you (at times) post simply to agitate Karae, which is not what I'm doing. I think his responses have been to treat you like a child, and I don't think I deserve that.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:28 pm
Karae's posting style treats everyone like they're an ignoramus. I don't specifically target Karae but when there's disagreement on a topic, which happens quite often, it blows up as any response by Karae will be written with a condescending tone. It's not a big deal.noel wrote:I never said you didn't. I do however think you (at times) post simply to agitate Karae, which is not what I'm doing. I think his responses have been to treat you like a child, and I don't think I deserve that.
I have my own annoying posting style and can't be concerned with someone elses shenanigans.
Debates on this board remind me of the old SNL news skit with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain...responses to comments always started with, "Jane you ignorant slut"...and then the actual content of the post kicks in.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:29 pm
I never said you were - simply that a discussion of the difficulty of the sport has no place a debate on who dominates their sport more. We're not debating which is the better athlete or which sport is more difficult. We're debating which more dominates their sport.noel wrote:Your hopeless. I'm not acting like Winnow, and don't need to be treated like Winnow. I've posted reasonable arguments, and I've agreed with you where I think you're correct.
I think it's great that you've taken the time to understand F1, but given that you don't understand cycling, or the Tour de France, you don't understand what Lance has accomplished, and you can't appreciate just how dominant he actually is. Let me put it to you very simply. Lance wins every event he chooses to win. Cycling isn't structured in such a way that you can win 17 out of 20 events during the course of the year. Why not? The human body doesn't work like a machine does. You can't just change out the engine whenever you want.
Until you understand periodization, you won't get it.
I guess he didn't want to win an Olympic Gold Medal? Bronze is a much prettier color.noel wrote:Lance wins every event he chooses to win.
Ohhh...look at that dominance. How about the current rankings?International Cycling Union Road Rankings - 2003 Final Rankings wrote:1 1 ITA19740401 BETTINI Paolo QSD ITA 29 2,266.75
2 2 GER19700707 ZABEL Erik TEL GER 33 2,087.75
3 3 ITA19740103 PETACCHI Alessandro FAS ITA 29 1,989.00
4 4 ITA19710825 SIMONI Gilberto SAE ITA 32 1,715.00
5 5 ITA19710809 REBELLIN Davide GST ITA 32 1,656.00
6 6 KAZ19730916 VINOKOUROV Alexandre TEL KAZ 30 1,640.50
7 7 ESP19800425 VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro KEL ESP 23 1,611.00
8 8 USA19710918 ARMSTRONG Lance USP USA 32 1,521.00
9 9 NED19720528 BOOGERD Michael RAB NED 31 1,441.00
10 10 ESP19770819 MAYO DIEZ Iban EUS ESP 26 1,425.00
hmm.International Cycling Union Road Rankings - 8/2/2004 Rankings wrote:1 2 ITA19740103 PETACCHI Alessandro FAS ITA 30 2137.00
2 3 GER19700707 ZABEL Erik TMO GER 34 2122.00
3 1 ITA19740401 BETTINI Paolo QSD ITA 30 2066.00
4 5 ESP19800425 VALVERDE BELMONTE Alejandro KEL ESP 24 1977.00
5 4 ITA19710809 REBELLIN Davide GST ITA 33 1931.00
6 6 ITA19810919 CUNEGO Damiano SAE ITA 23 1675.00
7 7 USA19710918 ARMSTRONG Lance USP USA 33 1592.00
8 8 ESP19770819 MAYO DIEZ Iban EUS ESP 27 1440.00
9 9 GER19731202 ULLRICH Jan TMO GER 31 1437.00
10 11 ESP19721014 MARTIN PERDIGUERO Miguel Angel SDV ESP 32 1374.00
Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:36 pm
I still say Schumacher is more dominant in F1 as a sport than Armstrong is in cycling as a sport. Armstrong dominates TDF, but he doesn't ride nor win as many races or as high percentage of races.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:36 pm
Only those who can't make a logical differentiation between dominance of a sport and the difficulty of a sport...Winnow wrote:Karae's posting style treats everyone like they're an ignoramus.
I know everytime I point out that I'm smarter than you it hurts your little feelers. Well, tough shit, I am. Deal with it.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:40 pm
You posted the UCI standings... Any idea how they're calculated, what they're used for, etc? Or did you just look for some statistics and post them?
Let me give you a hint... Winning the Tour every year is more prestigious than winning the UCI rankings every year. Additionally, the way the UCI rankings are set up, they heavily favor sprinters and single day riders.
I'll say it again. You don't understand the sport.
Let me give you a hint... Winning the Tour every year is more prestigious than winning the UCI rankings every year. Additionally, the way the UCI rankings are set up, they heavily favor sprinters and single day riders.
I'll say it again. You don't understand the sport.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 8:57 pm
Am I supposed to just take your word for it? How about posting some facts instead?noel wrote:You posted the UCI standings... Any idea how they're calculated, what they're used for, etc? Or did you just look for some statistics and post them?
Let me give you a hint... Winning the Tour every year is more prestigious than winning the UCI rankings every year. Additionally, the way the UCI rankings are set up, they heavily favor sprinters and single day riders.
I'll say it again. You don't understand the sport.
No, the reason Lance Armstrong isn't in first isn't because it's slanted towards sprinters and single day riders, it's because he doesn't participate in as many races.
In other words, he wins the tour every year because he's the most rested.
This debate isn't about prestige either - it's about complete and utter dominance in every aspect of the sport. Schumacher has it, Armstrong doesn't.
P.S. and in any event, the rankings are 1000000000000000000x more relevant than the ESPY award you posted earlier.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 9:11 pm
Your need to continually spam your self proclaimed genius demonstrates that you are not one. Arrogance and mediocrity are an entertaining combination to laugh at to pass the time.Karae wrote:Only those who can't make a logical differentiation between dominance of a sport and the difficulty of a sport...Winnow wrote:Karae's posting style treats everyone like they're an ignoramus.
I know everytime I point out that I'm smarter than you it hurts your little feelers. Well, tough shit, I am. Deal with it.
Your definition of dominance does not match mine. While I take into account other factors like degree of difficulty, you do not. According to your definition, Bobby Fischer is the most dominant athlete as actual physical skill doesn't come into play. It's just wins baby.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 9:16 pm
I'm sorry. I guess it's too much to ask for you to actually understand statistics before you post them.
I agree with you. Armstrong does not dominate every aspect of his sport. Period. No one else does either. You're reasoning for him winning the Tour is flawed. It's not because he's the most rested. There are a handful of people that even have a shot at winning the Tour, and all of them use periodization in their training. None of the legitimate contenders compete in every event year round. Cycling doesn't work the way the sports you want to compare it to work. I'm really sorry if you can't wrap your brain around that, but that's a fact. Once again, you don't understand the sport.
As far as relevance of the ESPYs, I never said they were more or less relevant than anything. I posted a link to the cyclinghalloffame.com website on perhaps the first page, and I think that's by far the most accurate of the available rankings for cyclists, even though they're somewhat arbitrary. The reason being is that they weight the races based on importance. Sprinters, climbers and rounders have fair weighting to be number one. Anyway, I think winning the biggest bike race in the world against 188 of the best cyclists in the world for the last 5 years in a row speaks for itself.
I agree with you. Armstrong does not dominate every aspect of his sport. Period. No one else does either. You're reasoning for him winning the Tour is flawed. It's not because he's the most rested. There are a handful of people that even have a shot at winning the Tour, and all of them use periodization in their training. None of the legitimate contenders compete in every event year round. Cycling doesn't work the way the sports you want to compare it to work. I'm really sorry if you can't wrap your brain around that, but that's a fact. Once again, you don't understand the sport.
As far as relevance of the ESPYs, I never said they were more or less relevant than anything. I posted a link to the cyclinghalloffame.com website on perhaps the first page, and I think that's by far the most accurate of the available rankings for cyclists, even though they're somewhat arbitrary. The reason being is that they weight the races based on importance. Sprinters, climbers and rounders have fair weighting to be number one. Anyway, I think winning the biggest bike race in the world against 188 of the best cyclists in the world for the last 5 years in a row speaks for itself.
Posted: July 15, 2004, 9:25 pm
You want some facts... here you go. Be careful reading, you might hurt yourself.
First, how cyclinghalloffame.com calculates their standings:
First, how cyclinghalloffame.com calculates their standings:
Second, here are the top ten rankings for All-time and for Active Riders:INTRODUCTION
CyclingHallofFame.com is dedicated to preserving the history of cycling's greatest races and the riders who rode them.
There are literally hundreds of races on the professional calendar each year. The seventeen CyclingHallofFame.com annually designated races are recognized as the most prestigious on the racing calendar. This provides a platform from which meaningful comparisons between riders of different eras can be made.
CyclingHallofFame.com awards points for these races. To make it into the Hall of Fame, a rider must win one of the designated races, place in the top 5 in the World Championships, place in the top 3 at Paris-Roubaix, place in top 3 or win the Mountains Jersey or Points Jersey competitions in one of the three Grand Tours (Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a Espana).
RACE CALENDAR
Below are the designated races for entry in the CyclingHallofFame.com. To see the actual schedule, view Race Calendar, Results.
Het Volk The last Saturday in February or first Saturday in March
Milan-San Remo The third Saturday in March
Tour of Flanders The first Sunday in April
Ghent-Wevelgem Wednesday after Tour of Flanders
Paris-Roubaix The second Sunday in April
Amstel Gold Race The third Sunday in April
Fleche Wallone Wednesday after the Amstel Gold Race
Liege-Bastogne-Liege The fourth Sunday in April
Giro d'Italia (Tour of Italy) Three weeks from mid May to early June
Tour de France Three weeks in July, usually beginning the first full weekend
HEW Cyclassics First Sunday in August
San Sebastian Classic The second Saturday in August
Championship of Zurich The third Sunday in August
Vuelta a Espana (Tour of Spain) Three weeks in September, usually beginning the first full weekend
Paris-Tours The first Sunday in October
World Championship The second Sunday in October
Tour of Lombardy The third Saturday in October
Olympic Road Race Every four years
POINTS SCALE OF RACES
In the designated races, there are 10,000 points available each year with 57.5% of the points awarded in the Grand Tours and 42.5% of the points awarded in the major one-day races. In addition, the Olympics Road Race has been included since 1996, the year the competition was open to professional riders. Below is a list of the races in the CyclingHallofFame.com, the points awarded, and the starting year of the race for professionals.
Classification Race Points (Beginning Year)
GRAND TOURS
Tour de France (1903)
1st Place
2nd Place
3rd Place
Mountains Jersey
Points Jersey
1200
600
480
360
360
Giro d'Italia (1909)
1st Place
2nd Place
3rd Place
Mountains Jersey
Points Jersey
600
300
240
180
180
Vuelta a Espana (1935)
1st Place
2nd Place
3rd Place
Mountains Jersey
Points Jersey
500
250
200
150
150
Annual Total for Grand Tours 5750 (57.5% of annual total)
MAJOR ONE-DAY RACES
World Championship Road Race (1927)
1st Place
2nd Place
3rd Place
4th Place
5th Place
400
200
160
120
80
The Five Monuments
(1896)
(1907)
(1913)
(1892)
(1905)
Paris-Roubaix
1st Place
2nd Place
3rd Place
Milan-San Remo
Tour of Flanders
Liege-Bastogne-Liege
Tour of Lombardy
300
150
120
280
280
280
280
Other Major Classics
Paris-Tours
Championship of Zurich
Amstel Gold Race
San Sebastian Classic
HEW Cyclassics
Ghent-Wevelgem
Fleche Wallone
Het Volk
210
210
210
210
200
200
200
160
(1896)
(1914)
(1966)
(1981)
(1996)
(1934)
(1936)
(1945)
Annual Total for One-Day Races 4250 (42.5% of annual total)
Annual Total for Combined 10000
The Olympic Road Race (1996 - the first year professional cyclists were allowed to participate)
1st Place
2nd Place
3rd Place
400
200
160
DESCRIPTION OF RACES
GRAND TOURS
The Grand Tours are the longest stages races on the calendar. The races are three weeks long (generally 23 total days with 1 or 2 rest days) and are usually between 2000 and 2500 miles in length (3300 to 4100 km), though the new overall length limit is now 3500 km or approximately 2175 miles. Riders who win these races are all-round cyclists who are great climbers and/or time trialists. Their ability to recover quickly enables them to be competitive in these marathon events day in and day out for three weeks.
Doing well in these events usually requires a significant amount of specialized training. This specialized training sometimes prevents the rider from participating in races prior to the Grand Tours. "Survival of the fittest" is usually the case because of the sheer physical demands required in a three-week event. Due to these physical demands, luck plays less of a role in the Grand Tours than in the one-day races.
TOUR DE FRANCE
The Tour de France is the most prestigious bicycle race in the world. First held in 1903, the race makes a three-week circuitous route through France. The event is truly a French national pastime. Each day of the event sees grand celebrations as the race winds through both urban and rural settings.
The Tour de France is considered the most difficult race on the calendar due to the extreme terrain and the top level of competition. The winner of the race is generally regarded as the top cyclist that year regardless of other race results. The race leader wears a yellow jersey, or "Maillot Jaune" in French, the color of a French newspaper, L'Auto, the race's original sponsor.
The yellow jersey allows the public to more easily identify the race leader. The King of the Mountains jersey, which signifies the best climber, is a white jersey with big red polka dots on it. The Points jersey, which signifies the rider with the most consistent finishes and intermediate sprints, is a green jersey. Winners of the green jersey are usually the best sprinters in the race that year.
GIRO D'ITALIA
Started in 1909, the three-week Giro d'Italia or Tour of Italy is the second most prestigious stage race on the calendar. It was originally dominated by Italian riders. It wasn't until 1950 that a non-Italian won and it wasn't until 1959 that a non-Italian won multiple times. The list of winners now includes riders from a variety of countries including the USA, Ireland and Russia. The race leader wears a pink jersey, or "Maglia Rosa" in Italian, which is the color of the Italian newspaper, Gazetta dello Sport, the sponsor of the race. There is also a King of the Mountains jersey and a Points jersey competition.
VUELTA A ESPANA
Begun in 1935, the Vuelta a Espana is the three-week Tour of Spain and is the third most prestigious stage race on the calendar. The race boasts a list of all-time greats as winners. The race date has moved from the Spring to September which has increased the interest in it. Since the late 1990's, the race leader wears the "Jersey Oro" or golden jersey. There is also a King of the Mountains jersey and a Points jersey competition.
MAJOR ONE-DAY RACES
One-day races provide a platform to sucess for riders possessing raw power and shrewd tactical skills. Strategy, intrigue and sprinting prowess play major roles in these races. Although luck can play a part in winning, those who have won these races on multiple occasions demonstrate that luck alone is not sufficient to win these races.
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP ROAD RACE
The most prestigious one-day race on the calendar is the World Championships Road Race. The World Championships are held in a different location every year. The race is, on average, 165 miles (265 km) in length. Some courses are brutally steep and are designed to provide for a showcase for climbers while flatter courses become an all-out speed contest for sprinters.
Riders contest the race in national jerseys, not their regular team-sponsored jerseys. This is the only race of the year where this occurs. Because the teams are organized by country solely for this race, strange alliances can arise during the race. One such example might be a trade-team that has riders from three or four different countries. Although these riders may appear to be riding for their fellow countrymen, the chance for one of the trade-team team-mates to win may provide incentive for the others to work for him even though they are not from the same country.
Winning the World Championship Road Race provides a highlight to many careers and those who have won multiple times are considered special. The winner of the race each year wears the "rainbow jersey" for a entire year until the next World Championships. The "rainbow jersey" is a white jersey with five horizontal colored (blue, red, black, yellow, green) bands around the chest and arms signifying the colors of the rainbow. It is the second most prestigious jersey in cycling, behind the yellow jersey of the Tour de France.
OLYMPIC ROAD RACE
The Olympic Road Race provides a showcase for cyclists in the Olympics. Unfortunately, not all of the top riders are allowed to compete due to the team limits placed on each country. The Olympic Road Race has been included in the CyclingHallofFame.com designated races since 1996, the year that professional cyclists were allowed to participate.
THE MAJOR CLASSICS
Although there are dozens of races during the year, the following twelve represent the most prestigious one-day events in cycling. Often a rider's career is measured by the number of wins in these races.
THE FIVE MONUMENTS
These supreme classics represent the pillars of traditional cycling. These races are the oldest and most-prestigious one-day races on the calendar and the winners include the greatest champions of the sport.
PARIS-ROUBAIX
The "Queen of the Classics" is held every April, since 1896, in northern France. The course is, on average, 165 miles (265 km) and includes significant sections of cobblestones. Because of the large cobblestone sections in the race and the rough ride over them, it has been dubbed "The Hell of the North". The race is a brutal test of power, endurance, agility and luck. The course is very difficult in the best of weather. With rain, it becomes a quagmire of men and machines trying to navigate unseen obstacles beneath the water and mud.
MILAN-SAN REMO
First started in 1907, and known as "La Primavera" after the early-blooming primrose flower, Milan-San Remo is the first of cycling's monuments on the calendar and is held in mid March. As the name implies, the race runs from Milan, Italy to San Remo, a town on the Italian Riviera. The 180 mile (290 km) course includes one major climb, The Turchino, and a few smaller climbs.
TOUR OF FLANDERS
First conducted in 1913, the Tour of Flanders is Belgium's greatest classic. The course is, on average, 165 miles (265 km) in length and winds through picturesque villages and wind-mills that dot the countryside. The first half of the race is flat, fast, and windy. The second half includes numerous, gruelling, cobblestoned climbs which provides a harsh selection which ensures that only the strongest survive.
LIEGE-BASTOGNE-LIEGE
Started in 1892, the Liege-Bastogne-Liege is cycling's oldest classic. As the name implies, the event is held between two cities in eastern Belgium. The course is, on average, 160 miles (260 km) in length. The race runs through the Ardennes mountains where steep climbs and unpredictable weather make it one of the more grueling classics. The outward leg to Bastogne is hilly, but the return is even hillier, brutally so at the end.
TOUR OF LOMBARDY
First held in 1905, the race is the last major classic of the year and is hence dubbed "The Race of the Falling Leaves". The course is, on average, 160 miles (260 km) in length. The race runs through the Lombardy region in northern Italy and includes spectacular scenery through locations such as Lake Como. The course is fairly selective since it includes some significant hills which usually reduce the race field to a small group.
OTHER MAJOR CLASSICS
In addition to the five monuments, these races represent the top one-day events in cycling.
PARIS-TOURS
Started in 1896, the Paris-Tours is typically a sprinter's classic. The mostly flat French roads between Paris and Tours usually provide a showcase for sprinters. This is not always the case though, as the race has been won by long solo attacks and breakaways by small groups of riders. The course is, on average, 155 miles (250 km) in length.
CHAMPIONSHIP OF ZURICH
First held in 1914, the Championship of Zurich is Switzerland's only classic. The course runs in and around the northern Swiss city. The course is, on average, 155 miles (250 km) in length. The race is difficult because of the terrain surrounding Zurich.
AMSTEL GOLD RACE
Began in 1966, the Amstel Gold Race is Holland's biggest cycling event. Sponsored by the country's famous brewery, the course includes narrow, winding roads and approximately thirty steep climbs, some up to 23% in gradient. The course averages 155 miles (250 km) in length.
SAN SEBASTIAN CLASSIC
Began in 1981, the San Sebastian Classic is Spain's only major classic. The race is held in the Basque region around the northern Spanish coastal town of San Sebastian and includes the significant climb up the Jaizkibel. The course is approximately 145 miles (230 km) in length.
HEW CYCLASSICS
Began in 1996, this race is Germany's only major classic. The race is held in and around Hamburg. The course is fairly flat and approximately 157 miles (253 km) in length.
GHENT-WEVELGEM
Started in 1934, the traditional route includes everything from farm roads to highways through the countryside of central Belgium. Riders must ride or walk up some of the toughest cobbled climbs in existence, including the famous Kemmelberg. The course is, on average, 130 miles (210 km) in length.
FLECHE WALLONE
First held in 1936, the Fleche Wallone runs through the Ardennes mountains of eastern Belgium and includes the 20% gradient of the Muy de Huy. The course is approximately 125 miles (200 km) in length.
HET VOLK
Started in 1945, The Het Volk is the first classic race of the year. Due to the early-season Belgian weather, the race is almost always brutal requiring the riders to be prepared for both North Sea gales and the frozen cobblestones. The course is approximately 125 miles (200 km) in length.
Code: Select all
1 Eddy Merckx, BEL 21730 1 Lance Armstrong, USA 6930
2 Bernard Hinault, FRA 13590 2 Jan Ullrich, GER 5300
3 Fausto Coppi, ITA 10860 3 Erik Zabel, GER 4810
4 Gino Bartali, ITA 10360 4 Richard Virenque, FRA 3690
5 Jacques Anquetil, FRA 10020 5 Michele Bartoli, ITA 2620
6 Miguel Indurain, ESP 8460 6 Alex Zulle, SWI 2450
7 Felice Gimondi, ITA 7560 7 Gilberto Simoni, ITA 2100
8 Louison Bobet, FRA 7210 8 Peter Van Petegem, BEL 1850
9 Joop Zoetemelk, HOL 7160 9 Mario Cipollini, ITA 1820
10 Lance Armstrong, USA 6930 10 Paolo Bettini, ITA 1780 Posted: July 16, 2004, 1:05 am
wait, 11/12 wins?
hrmm....
hrmm....
Posted: July 16, 2004, 9:56 am
I dont follow F1 racing at all but I cant see what all the hubub is about Michael Schumacher, I looked up a few races last year and well?
2003 Japanese Grand Prix
Race Results
Position Driver Team Tyre Race Time
1 R. Barrichello Ferrari B 1:25.11.743
2 K. Raikkonen McLaren M 11.085 sec. behind
3 D. Coulthard McLaren M 11.614 sec. behind
4 J. Button BAR B 33.106 sec. behind
5 J. Trulli Renault M 34.269 sec. behind
6 T. Sato* BAR B 51.692 sec. behind
7 C. da Matta Toyota M 56.794 sec. behind
8 M. Schumacher Ferrari B 59.487 sec. behind
9 N. Heidfeld Sauber B 60.159 sec. behind
10 O. Panis Toyota M 61.844 sec. behind
11 M. Webber Jaguar M 71.005 sec. behind
12 R. Schumacher Williams M 1 lap behind
13 J. Wilson Jaguar M 1 lap behind
14 R. Firman Jordan B 2 laps behind
15 J. Verstappen Minardi B 2 laps behind
16 N. Kiesa Minardi B 3 laps behind
2003 Hungarian Grand Prix
Race Results
Position Driver Team Tyre Race Time
1 F. Alonso Renault M 1:39:01.460
2 K. Raikkonen McLaren M 16.768 sec. behind
3 J. Montoya Williams M 34.537 sec. behind
4 R. Schumacher Williams M 35.620 sec. behind
5 D. Coulthard McLaren M 56.535 sec. behind
6 M. Webber Jaguar M 1:12.643 min. behind
7 J. Trulli Renault M 1 laps behind
8 M. Schumacher Ferrari B 1 laps behind
9 N. Heidfeld Sauber B 1 laps behind
10 J. Button BAR B 1 laps behind
11 C. da Matta Toyota M 2 laps behind
12 J. Verstappen Minardi B 3 laps behind
13 N. Kiesa Minardi B 4 laps behind
2003 German Grand Prix
Position Driver Team Tyre Race Time
1 J. Montoya Williams M 1:28.48.769
2 D. Coulthard McLaren M 1:05.459 min. behind
3 J. Trulli Renault M 1.09.060 min. behind
4 F. Alonso Renault M 1.09.344 min. behind
5 O. Panis Toyota M 1 lap behind
6 C. da Matta Toyota M 1 lap behind
7 M. Schumacher Ferrari B 1 lap behind
8 J. Button BAR B 1 lap behind
9 J. Villeneuve BAR B 2 laps behind
10 N. Heidfeld Sauber B 2 laps behind
11 M. Webber Jaguar M 3 laps behind
12 N. Kiesa Minardi B 5 laps behind
13 G. Fisichella Jordan B 7 laps behind/Water Leak
Now looking at 2004 Holy shit he wins everything but one year does not make you the most dominate athlete of all time but I have to agree with Karae ( If you think racing is a sport), He is pretty impresive.
2003 Japanese Grand Prix
Race Results
Position Driver Team Tyre Race Time
1 R. Barrichello Ferrari B 1:25.11.743
2 K. Raikkonen McLaren M 11.085 sec. behind
3 D. Coulthard McLaren M 11.614 sec. behind
4 J. Button BAR B 33.106 sec. behind
5 J. Trulli Renault M 34.269 sec. behind
6 T. Sato* BAR B 51.692 sec. behind
7 C. da Matta Toyota M 56.794 sec. behind
8 M. Schumacher Ferrari B 59.487 sec. behind
9 N. Heidfeld Sauber B 60.159 sec. behind
10 O. Panis Toyota M 61.844 sec. behind
11 M. Webber Jaguar M 71.005 sec. behind
12 R. Schumacher Williams M 1 lap behind
13 J. Wilson Jaguar M 1 lap behind
14 R. Firman Jordan B 2 laps behind
15 J. Verstappen Minardi B 2 laps behind
16 N. Kiesa Minardi B 3 laps behind
2003 Hungarian Grand Prix
Race Results
Position Driver Team Tyre Race Time
1 F. Alonso Renault M 1:39:01.460
2 K. Raikkonen McLaren M 16.768 sec. behind
3 J. Montoya Williams M 34.537 sec. behind
4 R. Schumacher Williams M 35.620 sec. behind
5 D. Coulthard McLaren M 56.535 sec. behind
6 M. Webber Jaguar M 1:12.643 min. behind
7 J. Trulli Renault M 1 laps behind
8 M. Schumacher Ferrari B 1 laps behind
9 N. Heidfeld Sauber B 1 laps behind
10 J. Button BAR B 1 laps behind
11 C. da Matta Toyota M 2 laps behind
12 J. Verstappen Minardi B 3 laps behind
13 N. Kiesa Minardi B 4 laps behind
2003 German Grand Prix
Position Driver Team Tyre Race Time
1 J. Montoya Williams M 1:28.48.769
2 D. Coulthard McLaren M 1:05.459 min. behind
3 J. Trulli Renault M 1.09.060 min. behind
4 F. Alonso Renault M 1.09.344 min. behind
5 O. Panis Toyota M 1 lap behind
6 C. da Matta Toyota M 1 lap behind
7 M. Schumacher Ferrari B 1 lap behind
8 J. Button BAR B 1 lap behind
9 J. Villeneuve BAR B 2 laps behind
10 N. Heidfeld Sauber B 2 laps behind
11 M. Webber Jaguar M 3 laps behind
12 N. Kiesa Minardi B 5 laps behind
13 G. Fisichella Jordan B 7 laps behind/Water Leak
Now looking at 2004 Holy shit he wins everything but one year does not make you the most dominate athlete of all time but I have to agree with Karae ( If you think racing is a sport), He is pretty impresive.
Posted: July 16, 2004, 10:22 am
Winnow wrote:Honorary mention goes to Bobby Fischer as best Athelete of all time (you have to physically move the chess pieces)
Huge quote but great read if you're interested in total domination of something that takes mental skill:
The Amazing Bobby Fischer
It does not take a chessplayer to realize that Bobby Fischer is an absolutely amazing man. Aside from his numerous chess accomplishments, he has an astronomical I.Q. with an exceptional memory; in the world of chess, no player has ever proved to be as devoted as Bobby Fischer. Fischer is "generally acknowledged as the greatest chessplayer of all time" (Pandolfini 1). Robert James Fischer was born in Chicago, Illinois, on March 9, 1943. His parents were divorced in 1945, and his mother moved him and his sister to Brooklyn a year or so later. "At the age of six he acquired a chess set and soon became deeply absorbed in the game" (Hooper and Whyld 115). This was the beginning of a legend.
Bobby Fischer had many incredible chess accomplishments. At age twelve, Fischer began to visit the great Manhattan Chess Club ,which had the best players in the country, and "even then hardly anybody could beat him" (Schonberg 258). At age thirteen, Fischer beat International Master, Donald Byrne, in what was generally acknowledged as the "game of the century." "The winning moves were perhaps the most insightful ever played by a youngster" (Pandolfini 2). In 1957, at age fourteen, he won the U.S. Junior Championship, which was a nice accomplishment for a young man of his age. However, that same year he won the U.S. Senior Championship overtaking the renowned Samuel Reshevsky, which was an amazing accomplishment for a man of any age. Fischer became the youngest grandmaster in the history of chess at age fifteen. "At 16 he was able to earn his living from chess" (Hooper 115), and he added status to any tournament he attended. Now the only steps left were to win the Candidates Matches and then the World Championship Match. In 1971, step one was completed with superior dominance, leaving only the World Championship Match. In 1972, Fischer domineered Borris Spassky to become the World Champion.
Contributing to Bobby Fischer's numerous chess accomplishments, was his high I.Q. and enormous memory. "There is probably no other topic that intrigues chessplayers as much as the inner machinations of the mind of Bobby Fischer" (Brady V). Chessplayers universally feel that they can improve their own game by understanding how Fischer's mind operates, but it does not take a chess player to realize that Fischer has enormous mental capabilities. A political scientist, at Fischer's high school in Brooklyn, had an opportunity to study Fischer's personal records. He was amazed to see that Fischer's I.Q. was in the range of 180, a very high genius. In addition, Fischer has an incredibly retentive memory. On one occasion, right before the World Championship Match in Reykjavik, Fischer toured Iceland for a few days. One morning he called Frederick Olaffson, who was Iceland's only grandmaster. Olaffson's Icelandic speaking daughter answered the phone and Fischer said, "Mr Olaffson, please." The girl explained that her father and mother were out of the house and would not return until dinner. Fischer did not know one word of Icelandic and he did not understand the little girl. Fischer had to hang up with an apology. Later that day Fischer met up with another Icelandic chess player that spoke English. After explaining what had happened, Fischer "then repeated every Icelandic word he had heard over the telephone, imitating the sounds with perfect inflection, so well, as a matter of fact, that the Icelander translated the message word for word" (Brady vii). Another amazing example of his the mental capacity was witnessed by Frank Brady:
In 1963 Fischer played in and won the New York State Open Championship at Poughkeepsie, New York. During the last round I was involved in a complicated ending with Frank S. Meyer . . . Fischer, on his way to the washroom, briefly paused at my board -for perhaps five seconds- and then walked on. A few months later, he visited me at my office . . . "How did that last round game turn out?" he inquired. I told him I had won, but with difficulty. "Did you play Q-B5?" he asked. I told him quite frankly I couldn't remember what I had played. He immediately set up the exact position to "help" me remember, and then demonstrated the variation I should have played to have secured a much more economical win. The main point is . . . he remembered not only the position but also his fleeting analysis as he had passed my board months previously. (VII)
"It is said that he has never forgotten a game he has played or an analysis he has read" (Schonberg 264). Fischer can also remember most of his speed games, in which both players are limited to five minutes to make all of their moves. After the World Speed Chess championship at Hercegnovi, Yugoslavia, in 1970, "Fischer rattled off the scores of all his twenty-two games, involving more than 1,000 moves, from memory!" (Brady VIII). Not only does he remember speed chess directly after a match, he has also been known to remember for years. "Fischer met the Russian Player Vasiukov and showed him a speed game that the two had played in Moscow fifteen years before. Fischer recalled the game move by move" (Brady VII). It is plain to see that these qualities were instrumental in producing the chess accomplishments of Bobby Fischer, but his I.Q. and memory capacity could have gone nowhere without one final quality.
Bobby Fischer had an overwhelming desire to win. One of his teachers remarked about his abnormal competitive urge.
"No matter what he played, whether it was baseball in the yard or tennis, he had to come out ahead of everybody. If he had been born next to a swimming pool he would have been a swimming champion. It just turned out to be chess." (Schonberg 261) "The boy, of a poor family and without any friends, had an overwhelming urge to win, to dominate, and chess became his outlet" (Schonberg 261).
Fischer was a monomaniac, he had an obsession with one idea and that was to be the "Best Chessplayer of All time." People who were around Fischer would say that he studies chess day and night, and that they have never seen him do anything but chess. Fischer was totally dedicated to chess and had no room for girls or friends. The only people he saw socially were chessplayers. "Regarded as anti-social, resentful of all authority, he increasingly became alienated from his fellow men" (Hooper 115). Fischer satisfied his emotional life through the losses of his opponents, and that was why it was so important to win. After Fischer took the World Championship title from Spassky, Spassky later commented "Fischer has a burning desire to win every game."
Bobby Fischer's chess career was full of accomplishments that earned his peer-given title "The Best Chessplayer of All Time." His I.Q. and memory were essential to his success, and without his total devotion, he would have never became legend.
WINNOW!!!! Look at yoru Hero now
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4879278.html
TOKYO -- Former world chess champion Bobby Fischer, wanted since 1992 for playing a tournament in Yugoslavia despite U.N. sanctions, has been detained in Japan, clearing the way for his extradition to the United States.
Posted: July 16, 2004, 12:31 pm
He's still active!Cartalas wrote:
WINNOW!!!! Look at yoru Hero now
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4879278.html
TOKYO -- Former world chess champion Bobby Fischer, wanted since 1992 for playing a tournament in Yugoslavia despite U.N. sanctions, has been detained in Japan, clearing the way for his extradition to the United States.
None of that matters according to the dominance definitions on this thread. He may have lost his marbles but he'll still kick ass in chess! In the name of dominance we must ignore all other deficiencies.Posted: July 16, 2004, 12:33 pm
The Mother Fucker is going downWinnow wrote:He's still active!Cartalas wrote:
WINNOW!!!! Look at yoru Hero now
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4879278.html
TOKYO -- Former world chess champion Bobby Fischer, wanted since 1992 for playing a tournament in Yugoslavia despite U.N. sanctions, has been detained in Japan, clearing the way for his extradition to the United States.
I hear he was on Roids!!!!Posted: July 16, 2004, 12:37 pm
Worse. He was a Commie!
Posted: July 16, 2004, 1:03 pm
Well, Schumacher is not just a one year dominant.. lets look at the results from 2000 to 2004:
2000: 9 of 17 wins. Wins driver championship with 108 points, 19 ahead of second place
2001: 9 of 17 wins. Wins driver championship with 123 points, 58 ahead of second place.
2002: 11 of 17 wins. Wins driver championship with 144 points, 67 ahead of second place.
2003: 6 of 17 wins. Wins driver championship with 93 points, 2 ahead of second place
2004: 10 of 11 thus far. Leads championship with 100 points, 26 ahead of second place.
I can't name someone that has been more dominant in his sport(if racing is a sport) for the last 5 years.
2000: 9 of 17 wins. Wins driver championship with 108 points, 19 ahead of second place
2001: 9 of 17 wins. Wins driver championship with 123 points, 58 ahead of second place.
2002: 11 of 17 wins. Wins driver championship with 144 points, 67 ahead of second place.
2003: 6 of 17 wins. Wins driver championship with 93 points, 2 ahead of second place
2004: 10 of 11 thus far. Leads championship with 100 points, 26 ahead of second place.
I can't name someone that has been more dominant in his sport(if racing is a sport) for the last 5 years.
Posted: July 16, 2004, 1:08 pm
Bonds 74 Intentional walks
Next highest
St Louis Cardinals- 41 IBB, yes that's the next highest TEAM
Next highest
St Louis Cardinals- 41 IBB, yes that's the next highest TEAM
Posted: July 21, 2004, 12:44 pm
It would appear that Lance is in fact the most dominating active athlete in his sport.
Posted: July 21, 2004, 1:10 pm
Dont jinx him! There's still some stages left. You never know if a crazed frenchman will shove a stick between his spokes.noel wrote:It would appear that Lance is in fact the most dominating active athlete in his sport.
Posted: July 23, 2004, 8:03 am
hey noel or aranuil or whatever you wanna call yourself...you didn't vote for lance armstrong.
you voted for a volleyball player.
you voted for a volleyball player.
Posted: July 23, 2004, 11:19 am
Didn't you once post under the name Spangaloid_PE?Spang wrote:hey noel or aranuil or whatever you wanna call yourself...
Posted: July 23, 2004, 3:44 pm
yea, i shortened it.