Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MIJB#19
It may have to do with the fact that Armstrong chanced the way riders prepare their cycling season and pick races to win. Armstrong looked self-confident in what he could do and had to do to win the Tour. Fact is that most people in the World associate self-confidence with arrogance. It's nothing French, it's human. And to be honest, the way Armstrong dominated (not the domination itself, but his calculated tactics) made watching the Tour boring. Most cycling fans like the heroic stuff Landis did yesterday (and ironically quickly forgot his arrogant words the past week and how Landis basically planned to win in the Armstrong-fashion). You also have to realize that before Armstrong there was Miguel Indurain, who had the same Tour winning strategy from 1991 to 1995. It even appears that Frenchmen Jacques Anquetil isn't so popular in his homeland, despite being five-time winner, as he is regarded the inventor of calculated winning.
|
I guess the thing about calculated winning, is that you still have to get it done on the bike. You still have to answer all comers, and you can't be dropped nor afford to not answer an attack by a legitimate rival. I also find it hard to believe that some of the things that Armstrong pulled off in his string weren't considered heroic. The time trial to Alp d' huez, the resumption of the stage where he had the collision with the fan and other difficulties, his response following the stage in 2000 where he was dropped on the final(?) climb, not to mention the '99 rebound from cancer. I would think he would be somewhat of a heroic figure.