S
Sonarrat
Guest
(concatenated your two messages)
> Actually that's even worse. Sonarrat hasn't been a troll that I've
> noticed and usually had something to say that you would want to
> read. Pot shots at Lance are a bit "in" aren't they? I'm actually
> not a great Lance fan because he's too mechanical for my tastes. But
> a winner is a winner and someone telling us that he'd rather a bunch
> of also-rans won is pretty unreal. Let's face it, there were plenty
> of the "Anyone but Merckx" crowd during Eddy's day.
I'm not trolling, because I believe what I say; I don't think "a winner
is a winner," no matter how you look at it. In particular, from the
spectator's point of view, we're just in it for the entertainment and
catharsis. That's what spectator sports are about. If you're in it to
be an analyst, well, you ought to be making money off of it.
Catharsis comes from uncertainty, revelation... now the '03 Vuelta was
incredibly exciting, because on the one hand, you had Isidro Nozal
putting a minute and a half into David Millar, and on the other, you had
Alejandro Valverde scaring the living hell out of everyone. Then
finally, Roberto Heras turned the race sideways and though it was
anticlimactic because the underdog didn't win, it was incredible to
watch Heras flying up that mountain.
There was plenty of catharsis in the '03 Tour, too, but Lance only
contributed to it himself in terms of almost losing. (This was true
whether you are a fan of his or not, by the way.)
> My appologies to Sonarrat if I misunderstood his postings. But the
> anti-Lance talk does get as boring as Brian Lafferty's "Every pro is a
> doper".
That's my point!!!!! Once his career ends, hopefully, the Lance talk
will, too! And hopefully nobody else will win it 5 times for a long
while to come, because variety keeps the sport interesting.
-Sonarrat.
> Actually that's even worse. Sonarrat hasn't been a troll that I've
> noticed and usually had something to say that you would want to
> read. Pot shots at Lance are a bit "in" aren't they? I'm actually
> not a great Lance fan because he's too mechanical for my tastes. But
> a winner is a winner and someone telling us that he'd rather a bunch
> of also-rans won is pretty unreal. Let's face it, there were plenty
> of the "Anyone but Merckx" crowd during Eddy's day.
I'm not trolling, because I believe what I say; I don't think "a winner
is a winner," no matter how you look at it. In particular, from the
spectator's point of view, we're just in it for the entertainment and
catharsis. That's what spectator sports are about. If you're in it to
be an analyst, well, you ought to be making money off of it.
Catharsis comes from uncertainty, revelation... now the '03 Vuelta was
incredibly exciting, because on the one hand, you had Isidro Nozal
putting a minute and a half into David Millar, and on the other, you had
Alejandro Valverde scaring the living hell out of everyone. Then
finally, Roberto Heras turned the race sideways and though it was
anticlimactic because the underdog didn't win, it was incredible to
watch Heras flying up that mountain.
There was plenty of catharsis in the '03 Tour, too, but Lance only
contributed to it himself in terms of almost losing. (This was true
whether you are a fan of his or not, by the way.)
> My appologies to Sonarrat if I misunderstood his postings. But the
> anti-Lance talk does get as boring as Brian Lafferty's "Every pro is a
> doper".
That's my point!!!!! Once his career ends, hopefully, the Lance talk
will, too! And hopefully nobody else will win it 5 times for a long
while to come, because variety keeps the sport interesting.
-Sonarrat.
