Site Presented By
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009
When we disparaged the idea that Lance Armstrong could be named Athlete of the Year, many of you got very, very upset. Well, get over it.
Jan 13, 2003 | Serena Williams was named the winner of the prestigious Salon Sports Person of the Year award Jan. 3. That selection sparked a firestorm of letters, not so much because of Williams' selection but because readers felt that I had insulted Lance Armstrong, bicycle racing, Europe, cancer survivors and perhaps a few other things when I called it outrageous that others, especially Sports Illustrated, had named Armstrong Sportsman of the Year.
There was also that part where I wrote that cycle racing was an obscure sport with a skill set that could be described thusly: "pedaling fast and not falling over." That chapped a few heinies.
I love the interplay with my readers, but I couldn't respond personally to each of the dozens of people who wrote, so I compiled a sort of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the piece in question. It might also be called a Frequently Launched Attacks, although that doesn't have quite the same ring, and anyway the abbreviation FLA is already taken.
There's more to bike racing, you idiot, than "pedaling fast and not falling over." You idiot!
Yes, of course. I exaggerated a bit for humorous effect. Obviously, any sport, or any activity, can be comically reduced like that: All Michael Jordan does is throw a ball through a hoop, and all Louis Armstrong ever did was blow through a metal tube.
My point here is that the athletic skill set in bicycle racing is extremely limited. Just to take Serena Williams and tennis as an example, since that's the comparison at hand: Williams must move with speed and quickness in every direction. She must judge the speed and spin of her opponent's shot and chase it down accurately. She must hit the ball with power, accuracy and touch, in various combinations. And on those rare occasions when her opponent keeps the match close, she must have endurance, though obviously not the same kind of endurance necessary to win the Tour de France.
So, that's reflexes, quickness, speed in a 360-degree field, power, hand-eye coordination, endurance and shot-making skill vs. Armstrong's speed -- in one direction -- power and endurance. And I think that tennis is a fairly limited sport in terms of the athletic skills needed. The skill set needed for basketball, for example, is much greater.
OK, even if we leave that aside, you're missing the point about cycle racing. It's a complicated tactical sport. You just don't appreciate it because you're so ignorant. There's an incredible amount of teamwork and strategy going on.
Every sport has strategy and tactics. There's lots of strategy in baseball too, but that doesn't get Barry Bonds any closer to this year's award. If strategy were a factor, chess players would be in the running. And there's plenty of teamwork in bridge.
Lance doesn't deserve to be Sports Person of the Year, eh? Why don't you try riding 100 miles a day, up and down mountains, every day for three weeks. Why don't you come riding with my cycling club someday, huh, fat boy? Get a bike. Get off your couch for once, put down that brew. Then maybe you'll understand something about sports.
This is a really, really frequent comment. Do cycling people really divide the world into two groups, cycling people and fat, lazy, beer-swilling slobs who never get off their couch? And what difference would getting on a bike make? I don't play tennis, but I didn't notice a lot of tennis fans impeaching my tennis knowledge or demanding that I learn to play before I write about their sport.
I can't compete with any well-known athlete, male or female, in any sport. There, I said it. But that means nothing in determining who's the Sports Person of the Year, any more than my being a better writer than Lance Armstrong or Serena Williams, if true, would qualify me for the Nobel Prize in literature.
I just don't get what your criteria for Sports Person of the Year are. Reading your article, it seems like they are: 1) Winner should come from a popular sport that reflects the interest of the majority of Americans; 2) Winner should, obviously, have a great year; 3) Winner should be flashy and exciting enough to elicit a lot of discussion (i.e. Serena's knee-high socks and Oprah appearances); or 1) Bike racing is not popular in the U.S. 2) Armstrong isn't a recognizable figure; 3) Bike racing consists of simply pedaling and more pedaling.
Actually, for a fat, lazy, beer-swilling slob of a writer, I think I did a nice job clearly spelling out the criteria. To wit: "Around here we look for someone who dominates his or her sport, and sports that Americans watch carry more weight than those we ignore. Table tennis juggernaut Timo Boll has little chance of ever winning. If that dominant performer also separates from the pack, becomes a hot topic around the water cooler, so much the better."
So the winner doesn't have to be flashy and exciting enough to elicit a lot of discussion, but it helps. Though probably not a lot -- if Williams were as boring as Steffi Graf, she'd probably still win because of her dominant year. If I'm unique in considering charisma and flash, which I don't think I am, I'm only unique for being honest about it.
So you would remove from consideration other sports that are similarly one-dimensional or unpopular in America, among them track and field, swimming and ski racing (alpine and cross country)?
I wouldn't say I'd eliminate them from consideration, but I would say it would take a lot for someone from one of those sports to win. I can see Jesse Owens, Jackie Joyner-Kersee or Mark Spitz winning in their big years.
