|
Armstrong (although retired) has clearly dominated his sport for a long time... I think one thing against him is just the time a race can take... I mean, lets face it... watching a Tour de France stage isnt as exciting as watching Michael Johnson run 200 metres in an unbelievable time, is it - even if both are purely physical triumphs?
I think, to me the key is kind of - that what someone like Armstrong does is really based on fitness, strength, heart... while someone like Federer is just graced with such skill. It isnt that Federer has won so many more slams than anyone else (which he hasnt, but probably will if he keeps playing up to 30)... its just the way he seems to be able to reach, consistantly, another level of skill, another level of brilliance.
I genuinely think Federer is capable of moments, with reasonable regularity, that no one else in the sport can even imagine performing. Someone like Armstrong has shown himself again and again to be immensly strong, but its somehow different, at least to me.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."
The Gospel of Thomas
|