You clearly don't understand much. Your putting words into my mouth, and not comprehending my comparisons whatsoever. Or, you decided it was time for another kindygarten joke that makes no sense. Above you said I contradicted myself, not at all. I'm giving somewhat logical reasons as to why cycling is not that athletic of a sport(mainly that its one dimensional). All your saying is riding up a hill takes a lot of strength, and taking the curves takes agility. And it does, but its not a high level of agility. Its difficult to argue the exact amount of agility something takes, but certainly the side to side movement, quickness, hand eye coordination, reflexes, timing, etc that it takes to take part in a baseline rally in pro tennis takes much more agility then any part of cycling. To me the agility contest between cycling and tennis is very obviously lopsided. Tennis players are'nt strong, but they have good power. To be able to hit a serve 140 mph you've got power. Tennis players have the edge on speed too. If you had a cyclist race a tennis player in the 40, the cyclist would get dusted. They're all slow twitch, they have no speed. And of course the endurance goes to cycling, although tennis takes a huge amount of endurance as well, playing 3 hours of tennis every other day for 2 weeks during a grand slam is rigorous. Although cycling clearly takes a lot more endurance, cycling kills pretty much any sport in endurance. So, thats how I rationalize to myself that Federer(and Fedor)is a far better ATHLETE then Lance. A lot of it may also be that I don't find cycling impressive. Its all a matter of opinion I suppose, I will agree to disagee.