www.euroforums.co.uk/cgi_...0&&#entry1
Printable View
Piss off wanker.
Sounds like a Euro. If you don't like American football and basketball then don't watch it. It doesn't matter to me.
I am from Slovenia (in Europa) and I like ALL SPORTS from all over the world and I have nothing against American sports. I love basketball !:A
I Second TLong. If you don't like it, don't watch it.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to watch the highest quality of sports competition the world can offer.
UberTroll
It is kinda funny though.
Why don't you americans like to play the sports the rest of the world loves to play ?
eg: Rugby - It's got to be the 2nd or 3rd biggest sport in the world but yet you guys don't play it (you play your own little game called American Football) no other country plays American Football !
And Cricket, why don't you play that? Every country in the world apart from the Americans play that game.
Do you guys not play it because you may be scared of losing to another country?
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, i just want to here your opinion on the subject, and ask WHY don't you play them ?
Because Cricket is gay....
it's not bad.....
but what about rugby ? if you were to show a game to all the NFL players they would run and hide like little girls.... Why don't they play the game without helmets and a tonne of pads on them ?
Don't get me wrong i love basketball and the NBA.
I just want to know why play you own little games, why not play what the rest of the world plays aswell.
Because we are self-absorbed. We invented football, baseball, and basketball so we like them better. Our country was founded on the premise that we could do things better so its only natural that we would think we could invent better sports. Personally, I think we succeeded.
1. Cricket is easily the dumbest game ever invented. Second to Soccer.
2. Rugby, Not popular here?? Dont know why, never thought about it. Prob same reason why soccer isnt, it stinks.
I could say the same thing about baseball . . .Quote:
Because Cricket is gay....
Because americans don't give a damn what you think. We have a mind and are not afraid to express it. No matter what your political affiliation, as a country we are kinda like a George W or the stereotypical texan. We do what we want, we say what we want and if you don't like it, piss off. Maybe the rest of the world should should have an opinion instead of doing what everyone else is. But since you mentioned it. You know why boxers wear boxing gloves? Its not to protect the head. Its to soften the blow on your hands so you can hit harder and more. Put pads and helmets on the rugby players and they'll hit harder.
Soccer is not stupid and rugby is a decent game. The reason practically everyone is the world plays soccer is that it's not cost intensive. You need one ball, an open field and makeshift goals made out of whatever you can make them out of. The same applies to rugby in terms of all you need is a ball and a group of people who want to play. Most of the world does not have the economical advantages that the US has. We play our type of football because kids grow up playing in little leagues, then middle school, high school, etc but to play in league/team-like structure, there are extra costs to incur like helmets, pads, uniforms and goal posts. Basketball is spreading in popularity because once you get a court built, all you need is people to play and a ball. The lower the cost to play a game, the more accessible it is to the world. Personally, I love football and basketball and will watch some baseball and hockey. And I agree that since the US was the birthplace of these sports, we tend to play them more than other worldwide games. And of course, some people believe that we do things better in America so we do American things. It's good to see that there has been some recent excitement about soccer here and it would be great if we could get excited about the World Cup the way the rest of the world gets excited but that would be hoping too much. And because rugby is somewhat similar to football without being football, I don't see rugby florishing here.
I know i'm not alone in remember playing basketball as a kid with a kickball and a bucket nailed onto a pole with the bottom cut out.
Malik Rose used to tie a milk crate with the bottom cut out of it to a tree.
If you find Cricket the dumbest sport ever invented, you have to agree with me that baseball is a close second.Quote:
1. Cricket is easily the dumbest game ever invented. Second to Soccer.
Soccer dumb?????
It looks like you have no appreciation for sports. 4 billion people find soccer the most entertaining sport on Earth. But, hey, what do those suckers know . . .
In my opinion, WWE is dumb. Drag races are dumb. Bullfights are really dumb. NASCAR is boring. Luge is boring. Curling is boring as hell.
Soccer, which is called football everywhere else in the world, is anything but dumb.
Rugby RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
2. Rugby, Not popular here?? Don't know why, never thought about it. Prob same reason why soccer isn't, it stinks.
All the NFL Players? Guess you have never see Ray Lewis, Lavar Arrington or Roy Williams play.Quote:
if you were to show a game to all the NFL players they would run and hide like little girls
All this from a continent whose soccer violence makes what that dumbass did in Oakland looks like child's play.
"Hey our team lost, let's beat the shit out of people"
or better yet "You scored an own goal against the US...time to get shot."***
Edit: Not European but still pretty stupid.
And I played basketball with a bicycle rim nailed to a tree. I thought about mentioning the bucket/milk crate/bicycle rim/peach basket in my original reply but it was getting a little long already. But we all also had some type of pre-existing interest in the game. We saw others play it and it was an established game to us. The expansion of access to news and media is what is driving a sport like basketball to new heights around the world. Some kid in eastern Europe who doesn't have access to a TV or even know about the sport can't play it. But as NBA marketing goes global, now most people have at least seen it if not developed an interest in playing.
Mikey:Quote:
All this from a continent whose soccer violence makes what that dumbass did in Oakland looks like child's play.
I agree with you. Soccer related violence is a horrible by-product of the sport. In any case, I believe you are referring to Europe, and the violence there.
Where I come from, Argentina, the violence is much worse. Several people per year are killed in soccer-related violence, similar to what happens with gangs here in the US. The only difference being that those assholes in Argentina claim to defend the colors of their club when they fight against rival fans.
you are correct, I was referring to England.....the shooting incident was in Columbia.
I think its ironic that Americans are labeled as barbaric when things like that go on in other countries. Our behavior at sporting events can improve but we do not have the high number of extreme incidents that are present around the world.
Whoever labels American sports fans as barbaric is clueless of whatever goes on with sports fans in other parts of the world.Quote:
I think its ironic that Americans are labeled as barbaric when things like that go on in other countries.
In Argentina, when you go to a soccer match, fans from the visiting team have to be placed in different areas of the stadium than fans from the home team. If not they would kill themselves right there and then.
But Mikey, we digress.
Soccer rules!!!
Rugby rules!!!!
Basketball rules!!!
American football is OK.
Baseball sucks!!! (except in the playoffs)
Rugby is cool, I'd much rather have it than baseball or golf. No way should a sport allow for physically unfit people to dominate, ie any golfer, John Daly,all middle relief pitchers,David Wells. It's like it's an invitation to fat people that they can be star athletes too AND not ever have to get in shape. Also we can get rid of NASCAR, its not the fastest cars nor is it skilled, like rally sport. They just drive in circles for hours and hours. How can it be a sport when the drivers always thank the car makers for a great car? It would be like a baseball game where some batters use plastic nerfball bats and others get aluminum and at the end, Barry Bonds thanks Louisville slugger for such good equipment. Lame.
You contradicted yourself by using the phrase rally sport. Fat people can be good at rally racing, why call it a sport?
Babe Ruth, David Ortiz, Cecil Fielder
Shaq, Keith Traylor, Khalid El-Ahmin,
Any lineman in the NFL
Fat people can be good at their sport and at times use it to their advantage, just as i showed examples. How i like to define a sport between an activity is by how much of an advantage do you get from being stronger and quicker?
Which brings me to that beer commercial, i can't remember if it was for Labatt Blue or Michelob light but the one about the fat goalie for the hockey team. He drank so much beer he was obese and he covered the entire goal. Hilarious.
Not really, just former British colonies play it (India, Pakistan, Autralia...).Quote:
And Cricket, why don't you play that? Every country in the world apart from the Americans play that game.
No country in Latin America plays it, and I don't know much about it but I guess its not popular in Europe either, besides the British countries.
Baseball is just unwatchable, and I've tried, I even learned some of the rules...too boring, too much time between players at bat or between swings.
Football (soccer just for the US) is by far the most popular sport in the planet, played in all continents, played in the pourest countries in the world and in the richest.
Everybody have their own view on sports.
Right now I'm piised off ! :pc2
Icant't go play soccer, I can't run , ride a bicycle and what pissing me off on max is that I can't play baskettball like I could a year ago.
Why?
Because of an injured knee!
**** it. :bang
I love basket aspecialy NBA. Without it , probabably I would be in depression (but it's another story)
My dream is to watch live (in Arena) NBA games (Spurs in the finals- that would be something- huh?)
We've got passion to this game , we love to watch it and love to play it (I think).
And I'm open to every sport. What interest me - I watch it and maybe I'll try to play it.
Oh - not boxing (Hopkins in six)
Peace.
well it might be off topic...
i come from a basketball crazy country (philippines)
we have basketball courts on almost every street (well at least a ring)
due to the fact that the NBA has the greatest players + the greatest games, it has killed our local basketball sports scene.
more NBA coverage = less ticket sales :(
and you are proud about it?Quote:
Because americans don't give a damn what you think. as a country we are kinda like a George W or the stereotypical texan. We do what we want, we say what we want and if you don't like it, piss off.
Baseball- the most boring sport in the world- SUCKS
American Football - SUCKS
Cricket - SUCKS
Futbol (soccer) - Rules
Basketball - Rules
Rugby - Rules.
The only reason to go to baseball games is if you have free tickets and to drink beer.Quote:
Baseball is just unwatchable, and I've tried, I even learned some of the rules...too boring, too much time between players at bat or between swings.
Baseball is an acquired taste, but if you grew up playing it every day as I did you would know how great it is. I love it.
American football is by far the most popular sport in America. It has everything we love...violence, power, speed, pageantry, hot chicks, and beer. It is the ultimate game.
My personal favorite sport is basketball though. I've had more success playing basketball than the others so I have naturally gravitated toward it.
Soccer is an excellent sport when played by world-class teams. I was in London during the 2002 World Cup and watching the games in the pubs was fantastic. We just have very little quality games over here.
Rugby sucks. They are a bunch of wannabe football players. Every rugby player I have seen would get destroyed in a pro football game. Until you see pro football up close and personal you have no idea of the magnitude of size, speed, power, and violence in the game. It's unbelievable.
I've played on amateur teams for soccer, basketball, baseball, football, and beach volleyball. Basketball was the most fun to play, and at times required more stamina than soccer. Baseball was the most boring from a player's perspective. The funny thing about baseball is the pitcher and the batter are the two only players who are constantly under pressure. The pitcher is like the football quarterback, in the fact they have so many responsibilities to attend to. Hitting people in football was fun, like getting a hit in baseball or making a big catch. I guess basketball, being so fluid and action oriented, is just what drew me to it.
Useruser666 :eyebrow
Ha Ha Ha!Quote:
Rugby sucks. They are a bunch of wannabe football players
Tlongll, most rugby players don't even know what American Football is becuase is is only played in a competitive league here in the US.
Rugby has a very rich history. It was created in the 1840s in England and is one of the most popular sports in many parts of the world, as diverse as NZ and Australia, France and the British Isles, Argentina and SouthAfrica.
I'm not saying American Football sucks, 'cause I enjoy watching games, but do not state that rugby players are Football wannabees. That statement is simply dumb and ignorant. In some countries such as NZ and Fiji, rugby is a religion.
Nonsense.Quote:
Every rugby player I have seen would get destroyed in a pro football game.
And I might add, at the end of the day, who the **** cares.
Sad. If you enjoy violence so much, your favorite sport should be Ultimate Fighting.Quote:
American football is by far the most popular sport in America. It has everything we love...violence, power, speed, pageantry, hot chicks, and beer
For those who don't know American Football started out as Rugby...It was the American Rugby League...Rugby itself is an offshoot of Soccer...The people in our country that would be attracted to Rugby play football instead...
So basically our American Football is our version of both Rugby and Soccer...and out of all the games America has contributed to the World...Baseball..Basketball and Volleyball among them...American Football is by far our crowning achievement.
It is the most physical and direct team sport there is...Debate it if you want but the truth is that Football demands physical clashing...It is the nature of the game, not a side effect..no other sport besides boxing does this.
And the Superbowl is also the most watched event World Wide...so we must be doing something right...it is also the most expensive team sport, which explains why it isn't popular as a league sport in many other countries.
Soccer is a popular game to play here but it is not that popular to watch, and the truth is that baseball hasn't been a popular TV sport for decades...Baseball is what poor Americans played...you don't need a diamond to play it, you just need a stick and a ball...Soccer and baseball both were popular because of they were inexpensive to play...but neither of them are the most exciting game to watch IMO. I thinkt that's the truth...Football is exciting without an emotional or national investment...baseball and soccer aren't.
So the question is not when will we start liking soccer...indeed it is the oldest game, and it's not like we aren't aware of the game.....the question is...when are you guys going to catch up and start playing American Football..We changed the rules from the original Rugby rules to make it more exciting and more physical...IMO the rules worked.
Come...kick our ass in American Football..we lost interest in Soccer long ago...This is the year 2004....
I don't understand how you come to this conclusion when Basketball and Volleyball are sports that are played in almost every country in the world and baseball, to a lesser degree, also is (it is mainly played in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela and Japan). But American Football is only played in the US.Quote:
and out of all the games America has contributed to the World...Baseball..Basketball and Volleyball among them...American Football is by far our crowning achievement.
Don't have the stats handy, but I believe the Soccer World Cup the most viewed sporting event in the world.Quote:
And the Superbowl is also the most watched event World Wide
Good question. Don't know the answer.Quote:
when are you guys going to catch up and start playing American Football
What I do know is that it seams to be easier for the US to like soccer (one country playing a sport that the rest of the world already does) than the rest of the world starting to play American Football
Well, I come to that conclusion because it is the most popular of the American games in America.Quote:
I don't understand how you come to this conclusion when Basketball and Volleyball are sports that are played in almost every country in the world and baseball, to a lesser degree, also is (it is mainly played in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela and Japan). But American Football is only played in the US.
Technically speaking though it is the most sophisticated and complicated game...
Technically speaking it is the sport that requires the most specalized athletes, it requires, agility, speed and strength at all levels.
It requires players of all sizes and weights...
And given the specialized nature of offense, defense and special teams it surpasses Rugby's 15 man requirement by ineffect requiring about 25-28 different starters.
It's difficut to find the stats...technically speaking, China having 1/3rd of the World Population is capable of having the most watched event all by itself...Quote:
Don't have the stats handy, but I believe the Soccer World Cup the most viewed sporting event in the world.
I don't know what the recent World Cup numbers are but I know that SuperBowl xxvii between the Cowboys and Bills held the record last time I checked...
And IIRC the most watched moment in TV history was this past Superbowl when Janet Jackson had her nipslip...I know that nipslip is the most searched event on the internet.
Well we also pioneered the internet...should we go back to using scratchpads because the rest of the World doesn't have net access?Quote:
Good question. Don't know the answer.
What I do know is that it seams to be easier for the US to like soccer (one country playing a sport that the rest of the world already does) than the rest of the world starting to play American Football
You don't go back to the horse and carriage...you can long for those days...you can talk about your love of classic things...but generally you move onward and upward...Rugby...and it's offshoots like American Football..and Aussie Rules football are progressions of Soccer...There will still be those who love the classic...but generally speaking... man marches forward...I know America does. Human beings do...you either do it or you become extinct.
America loves advancement newness and progression in all things...we aren't much on traditionalism..We move onwards...and that's what football is to us VS Soccer..
And just so we are clear on this to the Rugby lovers...America is the reigning two time defending champion in Olympic Rugby which at the time was the defacto World Championships..So all you guys accusing us of being afraid to play it...Fraid not...
You guys haven't even caught us in Rugby yet...so I guess we won't be seeing the gridiron gaining in popularity anywhere else but America for quite a few years.
I do like Aussie rules football though...I wish they would show it here again...See America isn't the only country that alters games...We changed the rules to a form we like better...We don't get upset that noone else like American Football...So I don't see why everyone gets upset that we aren't that big on Soccer..
I highly doubt that, 2002 world cup final was watched by aprox. 1.5 billion peopleQuote:
And the Superbowl is also the most watched event World Wide
sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002
But its probably the most watched annual event world wide.
I don't know what the numbers were for the most recent Superbowl...but I am 100% Certain that the Bills Cowboys Superbowl held the record for many years...even in the era when the World Cup was telivised in virtually every nation...how can that be explained?
But if 1.5 Billion watched the last World Cup then I imagine that would put it number 1 now.
And I would be willing to be that the Bejing Olympics will challenge that total...Speaking of which why aren't the Olympics rated higher? They have Soccer and basketball the two most popular sports in the World...So they have sports equally popular in America and the rest of hte world.. and unlike the World Cup every country in the World Participates...
Why aren't the Olympics number 1? Confusing.
But since you mentioned annual events and said the Superbowl is probably the most watched...that still begs the question...since basketball is so popular world wide...allegedly more popular than American football..and since even the NBA has become an international organization with it's large number of international players...how is it that the Superbowl still outdraws the NBA finals?
American Football is a great game...I do not see how you can like Rugby and not football...the lure of both games is the violence...and Football is a hundred times more violent...it is designed to be more violent...
I will always regret that the Soviets never took up the challenge to play American Football as well as they did basketball and volleyball...that would have the been the dream sports events for a lot of Americans...The USSR and America trying to rip each others heads off at the height of the cold war...
By the way...how come you guys in South America and Britain haven't picked up Hockey yet? I mean it's right there with Soccer and Basketball for World Wide popularity....
Who are you talking to. I said many times I like American Football. I only said I like rugby better.Quote:
I do not see how you can like Rugby and not football
You mean all events added or just a single event?Quote:
Why aren't the Olympics number 1? Confusing
It's 1 game against 4 to 7 games.Quote:
how is it that the Superbowl still outdraws the NBA finals?
I guess you do know that it doesnt snow in most South American countries at all, so winter events like hockey arent big at all, although field hockey kinda but just in Argentina.Quote:
By the way...how come you guys in South America and Britain haven't picked up Hockey yet? I mean it's right there with Soccer and Basketball for World Wide popularity....
I think football (soccer) popularity in the US is going to increase in the next years along with the latin american community increasing.
I do not doubt that. But you said of all the sports that America has contributed to the World. So my statement still stands. Volley and basketball have made an impression in other countries and are therefore contributions by America to other parts of the World who did not come up with them (or anything similar).Quote:
Well, I come to that conclusion because it is the most popular of the American games in America.
American Football seems to entertain only Americans (hardly a contribution to the rest of the World).
According to the link below, the last superbowl was viewed by 1 billion people.Quote:
I don't know what the recent World Cup numbers are but I know that SuperBowl xxvii between the Cowboys and Bills held the record last time I checked...
www.superbowl.com/features/entertainment/aerosmith
Whottt, I don't follow where you are trying to get to.Quote:
Well we also pioneered the internet...should we go back to using scratchpads because the rest of the World doesn't have net access?
You don't go back to the horse and carriage...you can long for those days...you can talk about your love of classic things...but generally you move onward and upward...Rugby...and it's offshoots like American Football..and Aussie Rules football are progressions of Soccer...There will still be those who love the classic...but generally speaking... man marches forward...I know America does. Human beings do...you either do it or you become extinct.
America loves advancement newness and progression in all things...we aren't much on traditionalism..We move on wards...and that's what football is to us VS Soccer..
Are you saying that, for example, because badminton, squash and paddle are offshoots of tennis, we should move on and stop playing tennis in favor of those other sports?
If tomorrow somebody comes up with a revolutionary sport where people bump into each other, beat the shit out of each other, and score by throwing a ball into a hoop, people should forget about basketball?
What are you talking about?Quote:
America is the reigning two time defending champion in Olympic Rugby which at the time was the defacto World Championships
There is a Rugby World Cup. Its has been played since 1987. The trophy is called William Webb Ellis Cup, in honor to Rugby's creator. It is played every four years (much like the Soccer World Cup). The last champion was England (2003).
Again. I'm not upset. I just find it peculiar.Quote:
So I don't see why everyone gets upset that we aren't that big on Soccer..
Smeagol wrote:
I was talking to all the Rugby lovers who didn't like football as I had stated in the previous post, where I mentioned America still being the reigning two time Olympic champ in Rugby. Neither of those last two Rugby rants were directed at you in particular.Quote:
Who are you talking to. I said many times I like American Football. I only said I like rugby better.
I mean a single event, say gold medal game featuring basketball or Soccer...the Olympic format for Soccer is virtually the same as the World Cup...so why the difference in ratings? In particular since Olympic coverage should be carried in more countries than the World Cup since more countries participate(in all the various competitions) in the Olympics.Quote:
You mean all events added or just a single event?
I mean I have to believe that the Olympics are recieving more TV coverage in countries like China and the USSR than the World Cup, thus making it easier for people in those countries to catch the Gold Medal Soccer or basketball game.....so why the difference in ratings?
Well there still has to be a penultimate game of the finals...let me put it a better way...why didn't say....Game 1 of the Lakers VS Rockets draw better than the Superbowl...you are talking the most popular basketball team in the World facing a Superstar from the worlds most populous nation...so why don't any 1 of those games outdraw the Superbowl?Quote:
It's 1 game against 4 to 7 games.
So do you think that environmental differences play as much a factor in Northern Countries as they do in Southern? With regards to sports like Soccer?(And BTW we didn't invent the word Soccer, the British did)Quote:
I guess you do know that it doesnt snow in most South American countries at all, so winter events like hockey arent big at all, although field hockey kinda but just in Argentina.
Just out of curiosity, what part of the World has won the most World Cups? The Southern or the Norther? How have Canada and Russia done in World Cup Soccer? How popular is it in those countries?
Realize this...most organized sports in America were first organized in the Northern(and thus colder) part of the country...Soccer doesn't lend itself to either a cold weather or indoor environment...That doesn't explain away the popularity of baseball but you still don't play baseball in shorts...
And this is what I don't get...you guys act like we have never heard of Soccer or seen a Soccer game....Quote:
I think football (soccer) popularity in the US is going to increase in the next years along with the latin american community increasing.
We have...we have had the choice Soccer or our other sports for many years now and we choose other sports...
America is made up of people from countries where Soccer is the most popular sport...the modern version of Soccer was invented and exported by the British...we were a British colony...The Indians living here prior to colonization played a game similar to Soccer....we still chose other Sports over it...
The fist pro Soccer club in the World not based in England was in the US...the first international Soccer games played outside of England were played in the US...
Pele himself played pro Soccer in the US and tried to give the game popularity here....he succeeded farily well..but he couldn't put it on the level with football, basketball or baseball...We have had decent Soccer crowds before...we pioneered womens Soccer and drew some amazing attendance records for womens athletic events...
We have had about 2000 different pro Soccer leagues in the US...It's as good as it's going to get barring Freddie Adieu leading us to a World Cup and even then it's still not gonna replace American Football or the NBA.
It's not going to happen...we know what Soccer is..it isn't some mystery to us...we just like other sports better.
Gurantee you that most Americans have seen more Soccer games than other countries have seen American Football games...It's not us that are ignorant of the World and Soccer...it's vice versa...
Latin Americans do like Soccer but a funny thing happens to them when they move to America permanently..they become American....they learn to love American Football real quick...using that immigration logic baseball should still be the most popular sport in America given it's popularity in Latin America...but it isn't.
Even with China being the most populous country in the world a big part of their population is still pour, so I'm not sure most of those families have a TV set over there, probably not.
Soccer olympics isnt that popular for a variety of reasons (U23 with 3 older, many countries not sending their best players, etc.). I have no idea how the ratings in the basketball medal game were, truth is that there arent any serious measurement of ratings globaly so its all just conjetures and predictions.
In the NBA finals of course there is always a last game and a penultimate game but you never know that, do you? except if its the 7th game.
Well, many northern countries, like Russia or Iceland have a shortened period in wich their soccer leagues take place, so I guess it does play a factor.Quote:
So do you think that environmental differences play as much a factor in Northern Countries as they do in Southern? With regards to sports like Soccer?(And BTW we didn't invent the word Soccer, the British did)
Southern: Brazil has 4, Argentina 2, Uruguay 2Quote:
Just out of curiosity, what part of the World has won the most World Cups? The Southern or the Norther? How have Canada and Russia done in World Cup Soccer? How popular is it in those countries?
Northern: Italy 3, Germany 3, France 1, England 1.
Pretty much tied. But none of those European countries has a shortened period soccer league. You can play soccer in snow, they use an orange ball.
I guess soccer is pretty popular in Russia, no idea about Canada.
I have ever heard of a ice hockey game league being played in Argentina, or even a single match. Ice skating places are not that popular either.
Well we contributed American Football to the world everybit as much as we did Basketball or Volleyball...the rest of the world just hasn't learned to appreciate it....the contribution is the same...the appreciation isn't. It's the best game we invented...both technically and based on popularity among Americans.Quote:
But you said of all the sports that America has contributed to the World. So my statement still stands. Volley and basketball have made an impression in other countries and are therefore contributions by America to other parts of the World who did not come up with them (or anything similar).
Well then it must be popular with people in countries where it isn't played since there are only about a quarter that many Americans in world.Quote:
According to the link below, the last superbowl was viewed by 1 billion people.
http://www.superbowl.com/features/en...ment/aerosmith
No, I'm not saying that...but I'm saying you don't not embrace a newer game just because the rest of the world doesn't...nor should the rest of the world not embrace that game just because it isn't Soccer.Quote:
Whottt, I don't follow where you are trying to get at.
Are you saying that, for example, because badminton, squash and paddle are offshoots of tennis, we should move on and stop playing tennis in favor of those other sports?
Soccer is an ancient game..and you are not going to like this... but it is a very simple game that while it does involve immense skill...it also is based on a lot of luck and has a very helter skleter nature...gamees like that aren't that popular in American...Hockey..Handball...Field Hockey...even the modern version of Water Polo..which we invented...those games just aren't that popular in the USA...even baseball as it has become more pitching dominated, and thus more of a game of luck, has dropped in popularity.
LOL Watch the NBA much? No need for a new sport because that is what basketball is becoming...Quote:
If tomorrow somebody comes up with a revolutionary sport where people bump into each other, beat the shit out of each other, and score by throwing a ball into a hoop, people should forget about basketball?
What am I talking about? Violence loving American Athletes and sports fans moved on from Rugby to the much more violent NFL long before 1987...when Rugby was the most violent game around we were the best at it and the last Olympic champions...which at the time were the World Championships...then along came the NFL...those types of athletes who play Rugby in any other country, play American Football in America...Plus football requires other types of athletes as well...hell a lot of our kickers were Soccer players when they were younger...ask them why they chose the NFL..Quote:
What are you talking about?
There is a Rugby World Cup. Its has been played since 1987. The trophy is called William Webb Ellis Cup, in honor to Rugby's creator. It is played every four years (much like the Soccer World Cup). The last champion was England (2003).
You won't see us winning any Rugby or Soccer World Cups because our best athletes do not play those sports...if we start winning those as well then the rest of the World has a problem as far as the athletes they are producing...
So why you think it is Whottt that American Football hasnt catched internationaly? I mean it can't be just ignorance, right? how is it that we know about basketball and volleyball and not about american football?
Soccer is still the cheapest sport to play in the world, I think thats probably where its popularity is based.
You don't think soccer is more popular between the hispanic community than in the average population? so how that with the increase in the hispanic population soccer wont become more popular?
Univision press releaseQuote:
Univision Broadcast of Mexico-USA Game the Most-Watched Sporting Event in History of U.S. Spanish-Language TV
Quote:
Mexican Soccer Broadcasts Break Audience Records for the Univision and Telefutura Networks
Another Univision press releaseQuote:
In fact, more Hispanic Men 18-49 watched this emotionally charged final match than watched the 2004 Super Bowl, last year’s World Series Final or the 2004 NBA Final.
Whottt, Why you always have to act like its a personal attack on you? I dont get it.
Cant we just find it unsual that by far the most popular sport in the world isnt popular in the US?
You can take all those sports that Whottt is posting about and put them on TV...but if a World Wrestling Federation wrestling event is on the tube, my guess is Whottt will forsake the other sports for WWF every single time. 8)
http://royalrumble.wwe.com/matches/p.../images/05.jpg
NOQuote:
Well we contributed American Football to the world everybit as much as we did Basketball or Volleyball...
Again, if American Football was a "contribution to the rest of the World" the rest of the World would embrace it (like they embraced Basketball and Volley). The rest of the world has not embraced it.
In Argentina we invented a game called "Pato". Its played on horseback. Two teams of four players each (much like Polo) try to grab a ball with handles and through it in a goal. To the best of my knowledge, it is only played in Argentina. I would say it is hardly a contribution to the rest of the World.
American Football is a contribution to the US. The rest of the World does not care.
You did not get my point. I put up the link to show you that what you said in an earlier post was incorrect. You said:Quote:
Well then it must be popular with people in Countries where it isn't played since there are only about a quarter that many Americans in world.
And this is incorrect.Quote:
And the Superbowl is also the most watched event World Wide
Superbowl: 1 billion
2002 World Cup Finals: 1.5 billion (as per Danyel's post with the link).
Yes, yes you are saying that. You spewed some nonsense about the internet, about how you don't go back to the horse and carriage, about how America loves advancement newness and progression in all things, so lets forget about old sports (soccer, tennis) and embrace the new ones (American Football).Quote:
No, I'm not saying that...but I'm saying you don't not embrace a newer game just because the rest of the world doesn't...nor should the rest of the world not embrace that game just because it isn't Soccer.
Please read one of my previous posts about this subject. This statement still shows your lack of knowledge about rugby.Quote:
I was talking to all the Rugby lovers who didn't like football as I had stated in the previous post, where I mentioned America still being the reigning two time Olympic champ in Rugby
Taking another perspective, and I think smeagol would agree with me on this one, for American Football being barely played in most countries, Superbowl does get a huge amount of spectators around the world.
But I don't think its game related, its more about the atmosphere, the shows and all that than the game itself.
and the titties
Yes, I agree.Quote:
Taking another perspective, and I think smeagol would agree with me on this one, for American Football being barely played in most countries, Superbowl does get a huge amount of spectators around the world.
I hope I'm not coming across as an "American Football" hater. I'm not. I like the sport. It's not my favorite sport invented by Americans (Basketball is) but I find it extremely entertaining.
I just enjoy exchanging ideas with Whottt :eyebrow
This is explained easily enough...the formation of international organizations and youth leagues to promote basketball and soccer etc preceded their popularity worldwide...Quote:
So why you think it is Whottt that American Football hasnt catched internationaly? I mean it can't be just ignorance, right? how is it that we know about basketball and volleyball and not about american football?
That never occurred with American Football...there is no FIFA or FIBA for American Football dedicated to that cause, there is only the NFL and it only knows how to get through to the American audience...although it has tried to break through in other countries...but it is an expensive game due to all the equipment needed to play it safely.
I guarantee you if there were an international body dedicated to promoting American Football in youth leagues and organazing an international competition that it would be more popular world wide...regardless of whether you like it personally or not.
I agree...and to be honest Soccer is a fun game to play...it's not that much fun to watch if you don't have a nationalistic or emotional interest in it though...That's why it's not that popular in America...at youth levels Soccer isn't that far behind baseball and football in America in terms of popularity.Quote:
Soccer is still the cheapest sport to play in the world, I think thats probably where its popularity is based.
If they just got off the bus from Latin America(or most of Europe) Soccer probably is more popular...but you give them a generation or two here in the USA and American Football is king baby...Hell the Dallas Cowboys drew something like 100,000 fans to a meaningless exhibition game in Mexico City...imagine how that would have gone over if they actually had little leagues for football in Mexico.Quote:
You don't think soccer is more popular between the hispanic community than in the average population? so how that with the increase in the hispanic population soccer wont become more popular?
I don't know how that data for Univision was aquired...but I don't know many Mexican Americans or Hispanic Americans that prefer Soccer over football...in fact just about everyone one of them I know are hugely dedicated football fans...the fact remains the NFL is the most popular sport in America.
I don't...I feel I was being quite civil...contrast my statements with you and Smeagol to those with Icemanwhineth...you are getting the kinder, gentler Whottt and I feel I am giving you guys very valid reasons for why Soccer isn't as popular in America as it is elsewhere.Quote:
Whottt, Why you always have to act like its a personal attack on you? I dont get it.
By all means...but the reason is not because we are afraid to play it or because we don't understand it...it's just the way it is...and I don't this is unique to America...I think there are other countries where other sports are more popular than Soccer as well...I don't think America is the only one...in fact I think the only places where Soccer is the most popular are Europe and South America...I think when you get into Asia and the Northern Countries other countries have other sports preferred over Soccer...Quote:
Cant we just find it unsual that by far the most popular sport in the world isnt popular in the US?
You telling me Soccer is the most popular Sport in Norway? I mean how do you know this? I don't think it's the most popular in Canada, or Russia...or even China where it has been played in one form or another for 3000 years...
I think we are having a language issue...if I give you a million dollars and you choose to throw it away...that doesn't mean I didn't contribute a million dollars...that means you didn't want it...my level of contribution remains the same regardless of what you did with the money...Quote:
NO
Again, if American Football was a "contribution to the rest of the World" the rest of the World would embrace it (like they embraced Basketball and Volley). The rest of the world has not embraced it.
In Argentina we invented a game called "Pato". Its played on horseback. Two teams of four players each (much like Polo) try to grab a ball with handles and through it in a goal. To the best of my knowledge, it is only played in Argentina. I would say it is hardly a contribution to the rest of the World.
American Football is a contribution to the US. The rest of the World does not care.
Same principal here...we invented it so therefore we contributed it...we have tried to promote it internationally...as you said...you guys don't care...that doesn't have any impact on the level of our contribution...only to your level of appreciation.
Well Danyel saved me on that...as he said...the Superbowl probably is the most watched annual sporting event...and it still doesn't change my point that the NFL Championship game is more watched than any of the other American invented games that you guys claim are more popular...Quote:
You did not get my point. I put up the link to show you that what you said in an earlier post was incorrect. You said: And the Superbowl is also the most watched event World Wide
You see...my point was not that the American Football is the most popular game world wide...only that it's worldwide audience far exceeds proportionally the amount of leagues worldwide that play it...or any other American invented sport. And since it's closest rival is Rugby...has the Rugby World Cup ever outdrawn the Superbowl? Again, our rule changes to change it into American Football worked...
In short..a hell of a lot more people watch it proportionally than those that play it...so judging it's popularity world wide by the amount of national leagues playing the game is obviously not a valid criteria for judging it's popularity.
And I do know that even in the era of Soccer being the Worlds most popular game that the Superbowl has at times drawn more viewers than Soccer...maybe not since 2002 but give it some time...
The key to the Superbowl being the most watched event has always been Dallas making it to the Superbowl...let's see what happens the next time they get there...
That's part of what I said...but I never claimed the rest of the world had to do so...As I said..if you look at Soccer as a classic game..it has it's place and there will always be people that love it and are devoted to it and I find no fault with that...but in America..and rightly so I believe..Progression is loved and I feel that American Football is a more advanced game than Soccer...Quote:
Yes, yes you are saying that. You spewed some nonsense about the internet, about how you don't go back to the horse and carriage, about how America loves advancement newness and progression in all things, so lets forget about old sports (soccer, tennis) and embrace the new ones (American Football).
No, I think it shows your lack of knowledge about the Word Olympic Champion and the history of Olympic Rugby..O L Y M P I C...because what I said remains true...Quote:
Please read one of my previous posts about this subject. This statement still shows your lack of knowledge about rugby.
And even though Solid D was being a bit of a smartass with his WWE comments he inadvertently makes a very valid point on why a game like football is always going to be more popular in America than Soccer...
I'd argue that for much of the past century the most popular American contributed "sport", and I use that term loosely with pro-wrestling, has been the American form pro-wrestling..there are pro-wrestling feds based on American "fake" pro-wrestling in just about every country in the World...In Japan it was the most popular specator sport after Sumo wrestling(which, believe it or not, is more popular in Japan than Soccer)...
Pro Wrestling has drawn crowds of over 100,000 in parts of Asia...in fact they once drew a crowd of 150,000 plus in South Korea...There are pro wrestling feds in Japan, the UK, Germany, Mexico, Canada, Asia, and the Middle East....
What is now called pro-wrestling diverged from honest classical based mat wrestling for one reason...because mat wrestling is fucking boring and wrestlers were starving...so it changed into a scripted performance art based on larger than life characters, spectacular ring work, and choreographed tumbling...
The WWE sells out everywhere it goes outside of North America and draws bigger crowds than any basketball game ever has...It has national leagues unmatched by probably any legitimate sport other than Basketball or Soccer...Quite simply it's more exciting than legit wrestling...and it's as cheap to promote it as it is legit wrestling...
My point is...American Football is expensive, that's why it's not as popular in national leagues as most other sports...that's the #1 reason.... it's the most expensive team sport..that's why there aren't that many national leagues investing in it in other countries..America already had it's pro league set up before the equipment usage became so extensive..so we never had to face the financial problems other countries will in having to float their leagues until they catch onwith their citizens...I think American Football is more popular world wide than people realize..it's just too expensive to start national leagues in most countries where the guranteed audience isn't already built in.....the fact that it's ultimate championship game is veiwed so widely proves that it has the potential to be as popular world wide as it is in America if it were backed internationally by an organization and promoted in youth leagues...
So really...the truth is...it's not us that haven't caught on to soccer...it's the rest of the world that hasn't caught on to American Football...American Football is more exciting and more watchable than soccer...
And Solid...no I wouldn't watch the WWE over most sporting events...just a few...like Soccer :) and I might not even do that if the USA were playing for the World Cup.
It was the other way around, there were first several countries federations that decided to join in a global federation. Soccer was popular in many countries before fifa was created.Quote:
This is explained easily enough...the formation of international organizations and youth leagues to promote basketball and soccer etc preceded their popularity worldwide...
That never occurred with American Football...there is no FIFA or FIBA for American Football dedicated to that cause, there is only the NFL and it only knows how to get through to the American audience...although it has tried to break through in other countries...but it is an expensive game due to all the equipment needed to play it safely.
I guarantee you if there were an international body dedicated to promoting American Football in youth leagues and organazing an international competition that it would be more popular world wide...regardless of whether you like it personally or not.
Soccer isnt the most popular sport in every country, but it is on South America, Europe, Africa and several Asian countries. And its getting more popular on others like China and Japan.Quote:
You telling me Soccer is the most popular Sport in Norway? I mean how do you know this? I don't think it's the most popular in Canada, or Russia...or even China where it has been played in one form or another for 3000 years...
I don't know anyone from Norway to ask him about this so...
I think soccer is probably the most popular sport in Russia but I might be wrong.
I disagree, I do believe Rugby World Cup final has drawn more audience than the superbowl but we dont have any figures to make such a statement, do we?Quote:
You see...my point was not that the American Football is the most popular game world wide...only that it's worldwide audience far exceeds proportionally the amount of leagues worldwide that play it...or any other American invented sport. And since it's closest rival is Rugby...has the Rugby World Cup ever outdrawn the Superbowl? Again, our rule changes to change it into American Football worked...
There are other expensive sports that are popular world wide like skying or golf. There is people with enough resources on most countries to play it, there is even an Argentinian yellow flag american football league.Quote:
My point is...American Football is expensive, that's why it's not as popular in national leagues as most other sports...that's the #1 reason
whatever you say Whottt...:rolleyesQuote:
So really...the truth is...it's not us that haven't caught on to soccer...it's the rest of the world that hasn't caught on to American Football...American Football is more exciting and more watchable than soccer...
You are probably right. Its a language issue. We probably interpret the word "contribution" differently.Quote:
I think we are having a language issue...if I give you a million dollars and you choose to throw it away...that doesn't mean I didn't contribute a million dollars...that means you didn't want it...my level of contribution remains the same regardless of what you did with the money...
Your interpretation of contribution appears to be narrower than mine given that it does not entail usefulness, satisfaction or any sort of gratification by the party that receives the contribution.
If you invent a machine that transforms gold into sand, you might think its a contribution to humanity. The rest of the World will probably think not. This is obviously an extreme example which does not apply to American Football, but it helpes drive my point home.
The English contributed with Rugby and Soccer to the rest of the World. The Americans did the same with Basket, volleyball and baseball. Whoever invented hockey, tennis and the rest of the sports that are played in numerous parts of the World, made wordlwide contributions.
American Football, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby League, "Pato", etc are not contribution to the World. They are simply contributions to the small groups of people who practice those sports (small compared to the other people who practice soccer, basketball, rugby etc.).
Whottt, I read all your discussions with Chump and others in the Manu vs. Hedo controversy earlier this year (needless to say I was on your side) and you would always complain about the "spinning" your adversaries pulled on you.Quote:
Well Danyel saved me on that...as he said...the Superbowl probably is the most watched annual sporting event...and it still doesn't change my point that the NFL Championship game is more watched than any of the other American invented games that you guys claim are more popular...
Here, I think you are doing some spinning of your own. On page 2 of this thread you said:
You said nothing about the Superbowl being more watched than any of the other American invented (bold sentence two quotes above). You said: THE SUPER BOWL IS THE MOST WATCHED EVENT WORLD WIDE.Quote:
And the Superbowl is also the most watched event World Wide...
There's more spinning in this next quote:
You did not mention anything about worldwide audiences far exceeding proportionally the amount of leagues worldwide playing it. You said: THE SUPER BOWL IS THE MOST WATCHED EVENT WORLD WIDE.Quote:
You see...my point was not that the American Football is the most popular game world wide...only that it's worldwide audience far exceeds proportionally the amount of leagues worldwide that play it...or any other American invented sport
So I repeat myself: Your appreciation is incorrect. Soccer, is the most popular sport in the World, and its World Cup Final, is the most watched sport event world wide.
Your statement about Americans playing rugby has two partsQuote:
No, I think it shows your lack of knowledge about the Word Olympic Champion and the history of Olympic Rugby..O L Y M P I C...because what I said remains true...
The first one is factually correct:
What you failed to say is that Rugby was played only in the following Olympic Games: 1900 (three teams entered, France won the gold), 1908 (two teams entered, only one game was played), 1920 (two teams entered, France and the US, the US won the only game played), 1924 (three teams entered, the US won).Quote:
America is the reigning two time defending champion in Olympic Rugby which at the time was the defacto World Championships
In other words, not a lot of competitiveness given the small number of teams playing.
Your second statement is open for interpretation:
Are you saying that nobody else won the Rugby gold medal since the US won it in 1924? That is correct. It is also true that Rugby has not been an Olympic sport since 1924. If it were, the US would probably not have won any more Rugby Olympic medals of any color.Quote:
You guys haven't even caught us in Rugby yet
Are you saying the World has not caught up with the US' rugby skills? No I don't (hope) you are not saying this.
People that don’t like wrestling or NASCAR are like really ignorant and should move to another Country like Alaska or something....
Whottt they're trying to tell you that not ALL but most countries like soccer or futbol.
Well I don't know that I said anything that disagreed with that....but Soccer wasn't unquestionably the Worlds Game at that stage....Quote:
It was the other way around, there were first several countries federations that decided to join in a global federation. Soccer was popular in many countries before fifa was created.
A quick search of the internet shows that 7 countries were founding members of FIFA....not a single one outside of Europe. A quick read of FIFA history shows that in the early stages of FIFA, the success of the president was judged by how many new countries were wanting to join FIFA due to their efforts and the spread of the popularity of the game.
So whether you admit it or not FIFA did play a role in promoting the game worldwide prior to it's worldwide popularity...that is my point.
You don't think we could get 7 Countries to start an international American FootBall Organization?
Or let's look at it another way...FIFA wasn't even comprised of all the countries in a single continent at it's inception...it was comprised of part of the continent of Europe...
That's like saying the NFL is the popular worldwide because it is popular in part of North America. Actually we could do better than FIFA at it's birth......Canada has pro American Football Leagues...so we could get the entire continent of North America on board with this as well...and the Cowboys are already Mexico's team anyway.
Right, it's not the most popular sport in every country. In fact I think Soccer is overhyped quite a bit. Hardly making America unique...I don't think Soccer has had the success in a lot of countries that it has had in America. We are hardly unusual in our feelings about Soccer...Quote:
Soccer isnt the most popular sport in every country, but it is on South America, Europe, Africa and several Asian countries. And its getting more popular on others like China and Japan.
Soccer isn't the most popular sport in Canada...it's Hockey.
It isn't the most popular sport in Japan...it's Sumo.
It isn't the most popular sport in America...it's the NFL.
I don't think it's the most popular sport in Russia...I think Hockey, Volleyball and Basketball are more popular in Russia.
IIRC they even have an American Football League in Russia now..in it's early stages...and it's one not sponsored by the NFL.
The Russians are a lot like America with regards to sports, they produce great athletes...believe me...if Soccer was the most popular in Russia then Russia would have won a World Cup at some point when they had the second largest population in the world, backed by the best chemically enhanced athletes in the world .
It's not the most popular sport in Norway, nor Denmark...I read articles on the internet during this argument that proved this...winter sports are more popular in those countries.Quote:
I don't know anyone from Norway to ask him about this so...
I think soccer is probably the most popular sport in Russia but I might be wrong.
As for it's popularity in China...well I am not going to claim to be an expert on the Chinese culture...and due to the fact that their people have no freedoms I am not going to claim what I said to Smeagol about America and Soccer, with regards to China...about countries not going back to the horse and carriage...
But the earliest record of Soccer being played anywhere is in China..if something surpassed Soccer in popularity in China...like it did in America...I don't think they'll be going back...but then again it's China and they have an opressive and brutal government that opposes it's will upon the people and controls what the people get to watch.....so I don't know for sure that they share our forward momentum.
I don't think soccer is the most popular in Austrailia...I just read on the internet that Rugby draws better ratings than the WC there...
It's not the most popular game in Cuba...baseball is...
Tae Kwon Do is the national sport of Korea...not soccer so I don't think it's the most popular there either.
America is not the only country that doesn't embrace Soccer as it's National game.
And contrary to current world opinion, Europe not America, is the continent always trying to colonize and export it's culture around the world. America has the attitude that if you like what we do fine, then enjoy it...if not, that's ok too...Where our culture is embraced it is done so by choice...not by our agenda.
Now if you attack us you are verely likely to have our millitary shoved up your ass for the next 60 years...but that's still not what Europe has done with trying to impose their culture on the rest of the world.
That's why you will hardly ever hear any Americans wondering why American Football isn't more popular World Wide...we don't care...people are free to choose what they like..we like football...the rest of the world doesn't...so be it. All we can do is say here it is...
Well actually...since both the links that you and Smeagol posted, were posted as being factually based articles on how watched the Superbowl and World Cup Finals were...when in fact, both of those articles were written before the events were actually played, by websites that have an interest in promoting both soccer and football...why stop now?Quote:
I disagree, I do believe Rugby World Cup final has drawn more audience than the superbowl but we dont have any figures to make such a statement, do we?
I don't think Rugby is that popular...countries, including America, have been trying to get it back in the Olympic program...and they have failed due to a lack of support worldwide. That's the reason it was dropped in the first place.
dunno what you mean by skying, skydiving? but Golf, like snow sports etc, are individualized sports...not sports where you have to supply tons of equipement for 50 men per team, specialized goal posts etc.Quote:
There are other expensive sports that are popular world wide like skying or golf. There is people with enough resources on most countries to play it, there is even an Argentinian yellow flag american football league.
Well there is more than one definition of the word contribute...the definition I was using was along the lines of "gift". If you don't like that word then let me just use "invented" instead so we can end this digression.Quote:
You are probably right. Its a language issue. We probably interpret the word "contribution" differently.
Your interpretation of contribution appears to be narrower than mine given that it does not entail usefulness, satisfaction or any sort of gratification by the party that receives the contribution.
And I don't really mean to sound like a dick about this...your English is a hell of a lot better than my Spanish so really I think it's just an honest misunderstanding.
And after reading a statement like that I don't wonder why America is the world's lone SuperPower...I would most definitely consider that one hell of a contribution.Quote:
If you invent a machine that transforms gold into sand, you might think its a contribution to humanity. The rest of the World will probably think not. This is obviously an extreme example which does not apply to American Football, but it helpes drive my point home.
I guess this explains why countries we liberated from dictators hate our guts as well. :majorfukinrolleyes
Those countries that invented those sports didn't make them world wide contributions...the rest of the world did. It's impossible for a country to make it's contribution worldwide...all the country can do it contribute..it's up to the rest of the world to allow it to make an impact...but the fact that the country contributes it to the world doesn't change, no matter what the world does.Quote:
The English contributed with Rugby and Soccer to the rest of the World. The Americans did the same with Basket, volleyball and baseball. Whoever invented hockey, tennis and the rest of the sports that are played in numerous parts of the World, made wordlwide contributions.
Totally disagree....I would say that even your game of "Pato" is a contribution to the world...And no, I don't have a fucking clue what it is or how it is played...but in my mind it is a contribution....just not one that is appreciated at this time. It exists in this world, does it not? Is anyone in the world free to play it? Would it be here in this world without Argentina?Quote:
American Football, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby League, "Pato", etc are not contribution to the World. They are simply contributions to the small groups of people who practice those sports (small compared to the other people who practice soccer, basketball, rugby etc.).
No, spinning is you and Danyel posting articles stating how many viewers the Superbowl and World Cup Final drew, that were written before those events actually occurred...Quote:
Whottt, I read all your discussions with Chump and others in the Manu vs. Hedo controversy earlier this year (needless to say I was on your side) and you would always complain about the "spinning" your adversaries pulled on you.
Here, I think you are doing some spinning of your own. On page 2 of this thread you said:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the Superbowl is also the most watched event World Wide...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said nothing about the Superbowl being more watched than any of the other American invented (bold sentence two quotes above). You said: THE SUPER BOWL IS THE MOST WATCHED EVENT WORLD WIDE.
There's more spinning in this next quote:
Spinning is using only one part of what I said...
What I said was...it is the most most watched television event so we must be doing something right...
At no point was I trying to claim American Football is the most popular sport in the World...to do so would be incredibly stupid...for I know it is not...
But as Danyel said...my statement was not incorrect, because it probably is the most viewed "annual" event...
And just to drive this point home...which drew more viewers last year in 2003? The Superbowl or the World Cup Final?
My point is that American Football has a huge world wide audience inspite of the lack of a national league in many countries...so it obviously isn't the failure many claim it to be in the eyes of the World.
Thanks for playing Smeag....
And why was that? Why weren't there many teams? Why was it dropped from the Olympics?Quote:
What you failed to say is that Rugby was played only in the following Olympic Games: 1900 (three teams entered, France won the gold), 1908 (two teams entered, only one game was played), 1920 (two teams entered, France and the US, the US won the only game played), 1924 (three teams entered, the US won).
In other words, not a lot of competitiveness given the small number of teams playing.
It's not because America wasn't playing it or knew what it was, as some, like NZKickAss, said...
We knew what it was before most of the rest of the World evidently...ditto with modern Soccer, since we had the first pro Soccer Club outside of England.
You guys don't understand why Rugby and Soccer aren't as popular here....You almost seem to think that we haven't figured out what great games these are and that we trail or lag behind the rest of the world in our appreciation of these games...
When the reality is that they were popular here as organized sports before they were popular in any other country outside of the country that invented them...We moved on, other games surpassed them in popularity to us...I don't think we'll be going back. They might enjoy some popularity here...but they will never again surpass basketball and football here IMO.
I wouldn't say either of the games were, or are, failures here..Well ok every pro Soccer league we have ever started has failed eventually..inspite of efforts of people like Pele..But the WC draws decently here...The Womens World Cup was the most watched Soccer even ever in the US..so I wouldn't say those sports are total failrures..they just aren't as popular as our major sports...The NFL is the direct child of Rugby it was first organized by Rugby players....Soccer enjoys a fair amount of success here...it's just not on par with many our other sports.
You are right that that is correct, for it most certainly is.Quote:
Are you saying that nobody else won the Rugby gold medal since the US won it in 1924? That is correct.
That's not our fault, nor is due to our lack of participation in the game, since we were obviously heavy participants in it at that time, and indeed we were the best in the world at it......it's not our fault it continues to not be in the Olympics for we have a National Rugby Team and an organization once again trying to make it into an Olympic sport...Quote:
It is also true that Rugby has not been an Olympic sport since 1924. If it were, the US would probably not have won any more Rugby Olympic medals of any color.
You might be right...we might not have won any medals in it since then...that is hardly a fact...that we won it the last two times it was played as an Olympic sport, when it enjoyed more mainstreak popularity here, than even the NFL, is a fact...and we might not have won any medals...but that would be because our best athletes play other sports...that are more popular, and more profitable for them...here in the U S A.
I am saying when Rugby was a semi-mainstream sport here, the last time it was, we were the best in the world at it. That was before the rise to prominence of American Football...which was invented by the original American Rugby players.Quote:
Are you saying the World has not caught up with the US' rugby skills? No I don't (hope) you are not saying this.
Soccer and Rugby were organized and collegiate sports here before most of the rest of the world...we found other games we liked better...I don't think we'll be going back to those games every being the most popular here again.
To NZKissass and Smeagol...If you see a fight between a Soccer/Rugby team and an NFL team..bet on the NFL team.
The NFL has guys that weigh 300lbs that can bench 700lbs, that could be Olympic powerlifters, that have near sprinters speed whose whole purpose in life, is to knock a defenseless QB, who is trying to compete a pass, out of the game....And it's not foul, a yellow card or a penalty when that man does that...it is his job in the game to do so...it is sanctioned by the league and encouraged by that players coach.
Everything is relative...watch an NFL game...find the smallest guy on the field...he'll usually look like a little kid...then go meet that guy in person...I think you will find that he is usually bigger than most Soccer or Rugby players this side of the goalie.
There is no more brutal sport than pro football...that is part of why Europe never embraced it...it is true barbarianism and we love it.
To Smeagol...as for why it is our best game...American Football is both our most simple and complicated game...what other sport can both power lifters and Olympic sprinters play along side each other...working as a cohesive unit? The NFL also requires guys that posess incredible toughness, poise, and intelligence, in QBs....
It even requires Soccer players on occasion...Rafael Septien from Mexico was a former Soccer player who went on to be a kicker for the Cowboys...Tony Fritsch from Germany was the same...Ditto Morten Andersen(from Denmark I think) and Gary Anderson from South Africa.
It requires many talents, it is many games in one, different players for both offense, defense and special teams...complicted blocking strategies and clock management strategies......multiple ways of scoring points...
At the same time..it is not an elitist sport, like many Americans view Soccer to be(inspite of it's availablity to poorer populations)...it is a blue collar sport and the object is the ultimate in simplicity...to beat the shit out of the other guy and get the ball into the endzone.
As for who should embrace which sport...should America embrace Rugby/Soccer or should the rest of the world embrace American football...
To each their own, I always say...
But what cannot be argued...in America, we have had pro Rugby and Soccer leagues, to choose as alternatives to the NFL...
How many other countries have had that choice? And no I don't mean the WLAF which is basically American scrubs playing in Europe...for it to work as a true choice local athletes in those countries have to play it as well...not have Americans play it for them....
By my reckoning there are two...Canada and America...and to the best of my knowledge both of those countries choose American Football over Soccer or Rugby when given that choice.
Soccer will never surpass the NFL here..it had it's chance, unlike American Football that has never had a chance in other countries.
Most Americans see Soccer for exactly what it is...a game in which sometimes you have a truly gifted performer...like Pele...or the HandBall of God Maradonna :) who rises above his peers and truly stands out with amazing foot coordination...
But basically Soccer boils down to a huge clusterfuck of 10 guys trying to get the ball into a net anyway possible...and often the best team does not win that conflict, to me the nature of Soccer is that should be played in series like Hockey, MLB or even the NBA due to that luck factor..rather than a single game event like the NFL, which requires very little luck...
We see Soccer, we take a passing interest in it, it can draw fairly well...we know what it is...we will watch it with passing interest..maybe even more than passing interest if the US team does well...we might even care about it...until the NFL or NBA season opens. That will never change here.
Quote:
So whether you admit it or not FIFA did play a role in promoting the game worldwide prior to it's worldwide popularity...that is my point.
Duh...FIFA did play a big role making soccer more popular, who said it didnt? But in order to make countries join the FIFA meant that those countries already had a federation and the game was quite popular before they joined FIFA.Quote:
That's like saying the NFL is the popular worldwide because it is popular in part of North America. Actually we could do better than FIFA at it's birth......Canada has pro American Football Leagues...so we could get the entire continent of North America on board with this as well...and the Cowboys are already Mexico's team anyway.
Canada and USA thats 2, I don't think Mexico counts since they dont have a league, or at least not that I know of.
Russia hasnt won any world cups but has been close in many. They have won olympic gold in soccer though.Quote:
The Russians are a lot like America with regards to sports, they produce great athletes...believe me...if Soccer was the most popular in Russia then Russia would have won a World Cup at some point when they had the second largest population in the world, backed by the best chemically enhanced athletes in the world.
If you take Brazil, and maybe England, out of the list of the countries that have won world cups you will notice none of them has great athletes France, Argentina, Italy, Germany, Uruguay...
You are absolutely right on that one...I won't argue that, and I'm not trying to make an excuse for it but there wasnt a World Cup in 2003, World cup is played every 4 years, the next one will be in 2006 in Germany. :spinQuote:
And just to drive this point home...which drew more viewers last year in 2003? The Superbowl or the World Cup Final?
Not that I care about this arguement but I found a couple of links you might found intresting
Top five popular sports in Russia
1. Soccer
2. Hockey
3. Tennis
Although Soccer and Hockey are probably pretty close.
Invented is fine. End of digression.Quote:
If you don't like that word then let me just use "invented" instead so we can end this digression.
I lost you, man. Hope you are not getting political on me. This is a discussion on sports, isn't it?Quote:
And after reading a statement like that I don't wonder why America is the world's lone SuperPower...I would most definitely consider that one hell of a contribution.
I guess this explains why countries we liberated from dictators hate our guts as well. :majorfukinrolleyes
As I said before, the word "invented" defines best what you are trying to convey.Quote:
Those countries that invented those sports didn't make them world wide contributions...the rest of the world did. It's impossible for a country to make it's contribution worldwide...all the country can do it contribute..it's up to the rest of the world to allow it to make an impact...but the fact that the country contributes it to the world doesn't change, no matter what the world does.
I briefly explained the rules some posts ago: 4 players per team on horseback, ball with handles, score by throwing it through a hoop :rollinQuote:
I would say that even your game of "Pato" is a contribution to the world...And no, I don't have a fucking clue what it is or how it is played...
www.fedpato.com.ar/
I had little time to do more research and it was late. But despite the fact that you are right, the link has info written before those events actually occurred, my point is still valid: The Soccer World Finals is watched by more people than the Superbowl, on the years the SWF are played (every four years).Quote:
No, spinning is you and Danyel posting articles stating how many viewers the Superbowl and World Cup Final drew, that were written before those events actually occurred...
Whottt, here's your quote from page two of this thread:Quote:
Spinning is using only one part of what I said...
What I said was...it is the most most watched television event so we must be doing something right...
p090.ezboard.com/ffullsportpressfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=13589 .topic&start=21&stop=40Quote:
And the Superbowl is also the most watched event World Wide...so we must be doing something right...it is also the most expensive team sport, which explains why it isn't popular as a league sport in many other countries.
How am I spinning what you said?
It's there, in black and white. Maybe you meant to say something different.
The fact is if you say: "And the Superbowl is also the most watched event World Wide" than that is what I'm going to use in my discussions with you.
1998 World CupQuote:
And just to drive this point home...which drew more viewers last year in 2003? The Superbowl or the World Cup Final?
1999 Superbowl
2000 Superbowl
2001 Superbowl
2002 World Cup
2003 Superbowl
I'm going out on a limb on these next three:
2004 Superbowl
2005 Superbowl
2006 World Cup
:smokin2
It did not seem to be your point when you started posting on this thread.Quote:
My point is that American Football has a huge world wide audience inspite of the lack of a national league in many countries...so it obviously isn't the failure many claim it to be in the eyes of the World.
I somewhat agree with what you say. I'm also puzzled why American Football has not become popular in other countries.
(1) Don't really know why it was dropped. I found a website that says:Quote:
And why was that? (2) Why weren't there many teams? (1) Why was it dropped from the Olympics (Rugby)?
"Introduced by Baron Pierre de Coubertin (who refereed the first ever French championship final), rugby was on the Olympic program at Paris in 1900, at London in 1908, Antwerp in 1920, and Paris again in 1924. In 1928 the I.O.C. turned down the request to stage rugby at the Amsterdam games. Three factors were believed to be behind this: the IOC wanted more emphasis on individual sports; women's athletics had swollen the number of competitors; and the sport did not receive the backing that it should have from the British entries"
(2) I think there were not many teams playing rugby because not many countries participated in those first Olympic Games.
I guess this is your explanation to my question: Why isn't soccer popular in the US (when its popular elsewhere around the globe)?Quote:
You guys don't understand why Rugby and Soccer aren't as popular here....You almost seem to think that we haven't figured out what great games these are and that we trail or lag behind the rest of the world in our appreciation of these games...
When the reality is that they were popular here as organized sports before they were popular in any other country outside of the country that invented them...We moved on, other games surpassed them in popularity to us...I don't think we'll be going back. They might enjoy some popularity here...but they will never again surpass basketball and football here IMO.
Nevertheless, I don't really buy it. Soccer was popular once, but suddenly someone invented American Football and PRESTO, soccer fell out of fashion. It doesn't add up.
Whottt, you read my post, didn't you.Quote:
That's not our fault, nor is due to our lack of participation in the game (rugby), since we were obviously heavy participants in it at that time, and indeed we were the best in the world at it......
The US beat France in 1920 to win the gold (only game played).
The US beat France and Romania to win the gold in 1924 (only three teams competing).
You were not the best in the World at it. You simply beat two other countries. Heavyweights of the sport (NZ, Australia, South Africa, the four teams from the British Isles) did not participate.
Its like saying the best runners in the World in 1980 were the ones who who one the 100 mts, 200mts etc in the Moscow Olympics.
Answered above. You are not the best in the World when you beat only two teams and the best teams in the world are not participating in the tournament.Quote:
I am saying when Rugby was a semi-mainstream sport here, the last time it was, we were the best in the world at it.
You don't sound like one.Quote:
And I don't really mean to sound like a dick about this
Dude, i like American Football, I enjoy watching it. I follow the Jets (I live in NYC) and the Dolphins (I lived in Miami in 1978 -- I was six at the time).Quote:
To Smeagol...as for why it is our best game...American Football is both our most simple and complicated game...what other sport can both power lifters and Olympic sprinters play along side each other...working as a cohesive unit? The NFL also requires guys that posess incredible toughness, poise, and intelligence, in QBs....
I just like Rugby better. I grew up playing rugby in Argentina. Started playing when I was seven and played it until I was 25 and was transferred to NY by my former employer.
Rugby is an amazing sport. Its a sport that teaches you lessons that can me applied in your everyday life: to be a team player, to be unselfish because you alone cannot win a game, to support your teammates in every situation. Rugby, as a sport, is much more complete than soccer.
My best friends, those that I still keep in touch with, all played rugby with me since we were seven or eight.
Rugby truly Rules!
Whottt, soccer is the in the list of three most popular sports in almost every country. In Latin America and Europe its so far ahead in popularity, it cannot even be compared with number two. Even in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, soccer is the most or the second most popular sport.Quote:
I think there are other countries where other sports are more popular than Soccer as well...I don't think America is the only one...in fact I think the only places where Soccer is the most popular are Europe and South America
I believe soccer is not a top three choice in popularity in NZ, Australia (probably a close fourth after Rugby, Rugby League and Aussie Rules Football) and the US.
The verbosity in this thread is breathtaking.
Whottt, your rep as Mr. Filibuster has been permanently afixed, with no relief or change in sight.
Quote:
The US beat France in 1920 to win the gold (only game played).
The US beat France and Romania to win the gold in 1924 (only three teams competing).
You were not the best in the World at it.
Who was better? We won the only officially sanctioned international competetion at that time...we were the only country to defend their medal or win in consecutive Olympics. We were undefeated.
France was the reigning European and Olympic Champion when we beat them in 1920...
And BTW...we sent college players coming only from the state of California to the 1920 Olympics and in 1924 we sent the Stanford College team to go play against grown men.
It's very similar to what we used to do in basketball.
No, the 1920 Olympics had 29 participating countries...the most ever up to that point in time.Quote:
You simply beat two other countries. Heavyweights of the sport (NZ, Australia, South Africa, the four teams from the British Isles) did not participate.
The 1924 Olympics had 44 participating countries...by far the most ever up to that point in time...
And the 2 or 3 teams represented in Rugby at those Olympics were the sum total of organized international Rugby competition at that time.
No, it's not...the 1980 Olympics were boycotted and had 12 fewer countries than the 1976 Olympics...Quote:
Its like saying the best runners in the World in 1980 were the ones who who one the 100 mts, 200mts etc in the Moscow Olympics.
The 1920 and 24 Olympics had participation by the most countries ever up to that point in time...and Austrailia, NZ, South Africa etc were all participating countries...we do not have to apologize because those countries didn't send teams...I mean we are the ones that supposedly don't embrace the games the rest of the world embraced...well we did....
You must get your Olympic history from the Islamic World News...the revisionism is simply amazing.
First of all...
3 Teams is the most Rugby teams that ever competed in any Olympic competition.
The only two times the USA sent a team we won the Gold Medal. And we did it with collegiate players going up against pro from the European champions.
It's not America's fault there were only 3 and 2 teams...we weren't making the rules then or deciding who could play...If the game was so popular World Wide, it's the other countries fault they weren't represented.
Secondly...The Olympics at which America won the golds had participation by the most nations up to that point in time.
You can say the rest of the world didn't participte and I will say back to you...why not?
It was the only sanctioned international competition to determine a World Rugby Champion at that time...
So why didn't those countries participate?
Thirdly...a quick look at the Olympic website says that NZ, Austrailia, South Africa and all the other so called Rugby Heavyweights you mentioned were all participating countries in the two Olympics at which America won the Gold...so again..we don't have to apologize for those countries not fielding a team..and when those countries do not send a team to the only sanctioned world championship at that time..they lose the excuse to say they were better, because there is no proof of it.
Indeed....your own Argentina made it's debut at the Olympics debut in 1924 when America won the last Olmpic Rugby Gold.
There is absolutely no factual basis for you to claim any other team or Nation was better than the USA in Rugby at that time.
You guys are the ones talking about how popular it is World Wide...well we were there at the beginning and winning...where were ya'll?
Maybe if the rest of the world had it's act together better back then Rugby would still be an Olympic sport.
In searching the internet on Rugy history I found a great page that described in detail the history of Rugby in the Olympics.
First of all..all you need to know about why Olympic Rugby failed is that the only two mainstays of the Olympic Rugby competition were France...the actual most fucked up country in the world...and America...the alleged most fucked up country in the world. Doesn't say a lot for the world Rugby organization does it? Then again neither does NZKissass coming in here and talking Rugby shit about America...America 2 Olympic Golds...NZ - 0.
Even funnier our golds were won by Collegians...Collegians who sparked a rennasaince in Rugby in America because they felt American Football was too violent LMAO. Still want that fight between NFL players and Rugby players NZ? Our pacifists went and beat the shit out of the worlds best the last time we cared.
More info...and BTW here's the link to that site...
rugbymag.com/archive/2004/march/history.htm
In 1920 none of the other European countries sent teams because France was the reigning European champion. South America lacked the money and organization to field teams. Dunno why NZ and Australia didn't go...god knows mother britain had enough American money from WW1(that they never paid us back, ditto france, thereby eventually causing our great depression) and german War reparations, to send them. No one expected America to beat
France...like now, they didn't even think we played the game... and we beat the living shit out of them, our college kids beat the living shit out of them.
In 1924...the Olympic were held in France and France was expected to get revenge...none of the other countries, except Romania sent teams because they were afraid of violence on the part of French Fans.
LMAO...it takes a huge pussy to be afraid of the French.
Both teams bitchslapped the Romanians..
America playing before a hostile hometown French crowd that had to be fenced off from the players....America sending players from exactly 1 college team...beat them...this is not the equivalent of Argentina beating Team USA in basketball...this is the equivalent of Buenos Aires University beating Team USA in basketball...
Everyone expected the French to dominate...and the Americans proceeded to beat the living crap out of them...
5 minutes into the game...2 French players did what the French tradionally do best...Surrendered
...due to the brutality of the Americans..(and remember..these were Americans who felt American Football was too violent)...
It was route...and in a typical exhibition of French class, sportsmanship and dignity...the French Fans procceded to beat the minority American fans senseless...
I don't know who is stupider...France..or us for continually coming to this thankless piece of shits aid in wars..
But anyway...there you have it...I want to thank you guys for bringing this topic up...I knew American Football sprang directly out of Rugby...I knew we were the defending Olympic Champs and were the first country to have pro Soccer outside of Great Britain..but I didn't know just how great our history in Rugby was...and for that I want to thank you guys...particularly NZKissass for coming in here and talking shit.
..
And Smeagol one last thing...
America has a pretty good tradition of organized sports...all of them...and it started due to our college sports programs in the Ivy leagues...
So yes given our well documented history of organized sports I can say with conviction......Soccer, and later Rugby, lost popularity at the direct expense of each other and to American Football...
Soccer was dropped from colleges in favor of Rugby and Rugby was changed and morphed into American Football...that is exactly what happened here. One lost popularity at the direct expense of the other. And the NFL gained popularity at the expense of both. And honestly, I love the NFL, and I am glad it happened that way.
I do like Rugby and Australian Rules Football..To tell you the truth, reading our history in Rugby and with NZ and some of the others shit talking I am pumped up for some Rugby...I hope Rugby does come back...but I don't think most Americans will ever embrace Soccer like they do football..We are an agressive culture, thanks to Europe more than anything else... and the NFL suits that nature...Soccer had it's chance and we moved on....Rugby's spirit is doing quite well in the USA, it's spirit thrives and lives on in American Football..
I wonder if I could write a HTML script that scanned a message board thread, took the first message of said thread and wrote "......is not true" after it. The script or "bot" could then randomly respond to feedback from that post by auto "Googling" the responses and cutting and pasting bits into counter replies. The bot could continue indefinitely responding to threads and possibly propagate new threads with sub-topics. What could I name such a scripted bot interface......hmmmmm.....
World wide web
Hot button topic
Originating
Tactical
Talkative
Technician
Useruser666 :eyebrow
Looks like you want to focus on the whole "Rugby in America in the 1920s" issue. Let me summarize (at least from my perspective) how this discussion started.
On page two of this thread, your third post started like this:
America is the reigning Olympic Rugby Champ. The US won the gold medal in Paris in 1924. You even gave us a pretty complete detail of what happened there. Amazing accomplishment by the US side, beating France in their home turf. In any case, nobody is disputing this fact.Quote:
And just so we are clear on this to the Rugby lovers...America is the reigning two time defending champion in Olympic Rugby which at the time was the defacto World Championships
You guys haven't even caught us in Rugby yet...
What I am disputing is your statement that the US was the "defacto World Champions".
You keep bragging about those championships when the facts (knowing you are vey fond of facts with no spin), are the following:
- The US beat one team in 1920 and two teams in 1924. Hardly an accurate representation of the rugby community at the time.
- The rugby superpowers, for whatever reason, decided not to participate in those two Olympic Games
- Rugby, since 1924, has no longer been an Olympic Sport.
- In 1987, the Rugby World Cup was created. Not surprisingly, in its five editions to date, it was won by Australia (2), NZ (1), South Africa (1) and England (1). These four teams, plus France, are the only teams that have made it to the semi-finals in all five championships. Which goes to show you that today's rugby world is pretty much dominated by a handful on national teams. The US, by the way, has never made it past the first round (I know, your best athletes play in the NFL).
So how the hell can you say: "You guys haven't even caught us in Rugby yet". Please, Whottt, explain to me what you mean by that statement.
NO. Other teams decided not to participate (England, for example, alleged they did not have enough time to prepare).Quote:
And the 2 or 3 teams represented in Rugby at those Olympics were the sum total of organized international Rugby competition at that time.
Nobody is saying the US has to apologize for anything.Quote:
The 1920 and 24 Olympics had participation by the most countries ever up to that point in time...and Australia, NZ, South Africa etc were all participating countries...we do not have to apologize because those countries didn't send teams...
All I'm saying is that because those countries, plus the British Isles, did not participate in the rugby games, then the US cannot be called the "defacto World Champions". Why do you make this discussion sound like its the US vs. the Rest of the World?
I agree with you statement but that is not the point we are discussing. The point is it seams exaggerated when you brag that the US was the "defacto World Champions" when the reality is they beat one and two teams, respectively, to win the gold medals in 1920 and 1924.Quote:
It's not America's fault there were only 3 and 2 teams...we weren't making the rules then or deciding who could play...If the game was so popular World Wide, it's the other countries fault they weren't represented.
There is no factual basis for you to claim the US was better than those teams either, given that they never played against each other.Quote:
There is absolutely no factual basis for you to claim any other team or Nation was better than the USA in Rugby at that time.
How you can dispute this point is beyond me. Claiming the US is the "Defacto World Rugby Champions" of 1924 because they won the gold in such an uncompetitive championship is like saying that Allan Wells (UK) was the fastest man alive in 1980 because he won the 100 mts dash in an Olympics were the US did not compete (knowing how dominant the US is in this event).Quote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
Smeagol said:
Its like saying the best runners in the World in 1980 were the ones who who one the 100 mts, 200mts etc in the Moscow Olympics.
------------------------------------------------------------
Whottt said:
No, it's not...the 1980 Olympics were boycotted and had 12 fewer countries than the 1976 Olympics...
Who cares the reasons why NZ, Australia and SA did not present a rugby team in 1924.
Then fact is they were not there competing against the US. Would have the US won if these countries presented teams? We will never know. But one thing is for sure: the US was not the "defacto World Champs". The were simply the Olympic gold medalists on an extremely uncompetitive championship.
Who cares if there was a boycott in 1980.
The fact is that there were no American sprinters to compete against Alan Wells. Would this guy have won if the Americans were present? We will never know. But one thing is for sure: Alan Wells was not "the fastest man alive" in 1980. He was the 1980 Olympic gold medalist.
I hope you agree with me that the analogy is pretty accurate.
One more analogy. This one is basketball related.
Is Argentina's basketball team the best in the world?
Not in my book. They are simply the Olympic Champions. We will never know if they are the best team in the world given that some pussy players from the US (KG, Kidd, Snaq, Bibby, Allen, etc, etc, etc) decided to "boycott" their NT with phony pussy-like excuses.
Not as good an analogy as my first one (and there are a million more that can be brought up from the 1980 and 1984 games), but IMO a good enough one to show that you are not the "defacto world champion" team in a sport if you simply win a gold medal, specially when your competition was one and two other teams, respectively. You need to win the medal competing against the best.
Again getting political on me.Quote:
You must get your Olympic history from the Islamic World News...the revisionism is simply amazing.
No, I use the same sources as you do to get my Olympic history info. The Internet. I have a different point of view, and I voice it, thats all.
Its funny because when you are discussing hoops with other posters, I usually agree with you.
With respect to your explanation of how soccer lost popularity in lieu of American Football, I gave it some further thought and it makes perfect sense. It might not be the only reason, but its a strong enough argument. Therefore I have bought into it.
One last thing. Dude, why do you hate the French so much?
Solid:Quote:
Whottt, your rep as Mr. Filibuster has been permanently afixed, with no relief or change in sight
What does Filibuster mean in board-language?
It has several meanings Smeagol...
#1.It means he says: thank you Whottt for helping me to find a board personality other than that of generic statistics poster.
#2.It means he doesn't have the knowledge to contribute anything positive to this particular discussion so he'll just make snide comments and snipe from the peanut gallery.
#3.It means he resents actually having to read lengthy information filled posts on a message board in which the poster attempts to give detailed arguments and back his statements up with facts. Resents it even though no one forces him to read them.
User666's comments basically mean...He is a hypocrite who accuses others of making endless posts when he himself has over 900 posts in just over 5 months as a member of the board...and not a one of them has ever been responded too unless he was just flat out insulting someone...
You must understand...some people resent actually having to read on a message board...Some people resent others who put extensive thought into their opinions before forming them.
They'd prefer to just trade monosyllabic gutteral sentences without any detail or indepth discussion... and then can call it a discussion and suck themselves off about their intellectual abilities.
Smeagol..if the USA wasn't the World Champion in 1920 and 1924 then tell me who was more worthy of that title?
There wasn't much in the way of competition between continents...it was mainly regional tournaments, often limited to countries located closely to one another, sanctioned by 2-5 countries.
The Olympic tournament was sanctioned by 29 and 44 countries, including the so called powerhouses of Rugby you mentioned earlier, sanctioned by their participation in the Olympics.
So just who was more worthy? The NZ, Aussie and SA teams played each other more often than not...that's 3 teams.
The UK countries played with themselves...I mean France was the European Champion...
Who esle was more worthy of that title than the US?
As for Britain not having enough time...I have zero sympathy for that claim...those Olympics were a hell of a lot closer to their country than they were to the USA.
The 1920 team also had to pay it's own way to the Olympics since the USOC gave them no funding.
Actually it was better than that...I did some more reading on it...in 1924 the French would not let the ship carrying the US team dock for several days...they would not give them a field to practice on, nor would they let them film the other teams practicing or playing each other. When the Americans were finally allowed to come to shore they were spit upon and insulted by the French, coming in and out of their hotel.Quote:
America is the reigning Olympic Rugby Champ. The US won the gold medal in Paris in 1924. You even gave us a pretty complete detail of what happened there. Amazing accomplishment by the US side, beating France in their home turf. In any case, nobody is disputing this fact.
When the USA played France it had been nearly 6 months since they played game or had a decent practice. The Americans were infuriated with their treatment by the French and it played a huge role in the beating they gave the French.
College kids...ex American Football players, coming from 1 single US college, who felt American football had become to violent.
It may seem exagerated but to me it's a simple fact that they wont he most prestigious world wide tournament at that time. Sanctioned by the most countries...including the Rugby powerhouse countries you mentioned.Quote:
I agree with you statement but that is not the point we are discussing. The point is it seams exaggerated when you brag that the US was the "defacto World Champions" when the reality is they beat one and two teams, respectively, to win the gold medals in 1920 and 1924.
I say that because that was the last time Rugby was anything close to a mainstream sport in the USA, and that Americans cared about half as much as they do the NFL...and look at the results. College kids beat the European Champions...just like we used to do in Olympic basketball. Kids beating pros(and those French were pros).Quote:
So how the hell can you say: "You guys haven't even caught us in Rugby yet". Please, Whottt, explain to me what you mean by that statement.
And I don't mean to sound like I am making an excuse when I say we suck in Rugby and Soccer now because our athletes do not flock to those sports...only to give one reason why it isn't popular here...Those countries are better at Rugby than we are now...and of course Soccer as well.
They were and...well track is different...I'd say who ever had the fastest 100m time in the world that year was the fastest man that year...different evauluation format than Rugby..What cannot be argued is that he was the fastest man at the most prestigious competition...The USA certainly has no right to claim they would have won..anything could happen..a track athlete can false start, fall down,..get injured etc.Quote:
How you can dispute this point is beyond me. Claiming the US is the "Defacto World Rugby Champions" of 1924 because they won the gold in such an uncompetitive championship is like saying that Allan Wells (UK) was the fastest man alive in 1980 because he won the 100 mts dash in an Olympics were the US did not compete (knowing how dominant the US is in this event).
They do and you do if they expect to have any legitimate claim at being the best in the world those years, since the Olympics were the tournament open to the most countries. And I believe the only worldwide tourney.Quote:
Who cares the reasons why NZ, Australia and SA did not present a rugby team in 1924.
The competitiveness of the championship has nothing to do with the number of teams and eveything to do with the level of play...a tournament could have 1000 teams and be uncompetitive or have 2 teams and be ultra competitive, depending on the quality of players. France was the Euro Champion...and as you pointed out, they remain a Rugby powerhouse to this very day.Quote:
Then fact is they were not there competing against the US. Would have the US won if these countries presented teams? We will never know. But one thing is for sure: the US was not the "defacto World Champs". The were simply the Olympic gold medalists on an extremely uncompetitive championship.
The USA cares, if they want to be able to claim their man won the most prestigious track meet that year. He didn't, Wells did. Props to Wells, and anything else is an excuse.Quote:
Who cares if there was a boycott in 1980.
The fact is that there were no American sprinters to compete against Alan Wells. Would this guy have won if the Americans were present? We will never know. But one thing is for sure: Alan Wells was not "the fastest man alive" in 1980. He was the 1980 Olympic gold medalist.
Of course Argentina is the best national team in the world this year. How can you say otherwise? Italy is the second best. It's just that simple.Quote:
Is Argentina's basketball team the best in the world?
Not in my book. They are simply the Olympic Champions. We will never know if they are the best team in the world given that some pussy players from the US (KG, Kidd, Snaq, Bibby, Allen, etc, etc, etc) decided to "boycott" their NT with phony pussy-like excuses.
If people are not going to respect the results of the tournament then why play it?
I can understand the athletes themselves saying this, they are the ones that put the effort forth to win the thing...deflecting praise on their part is a sign of sportsmanship...for anyone else to do it...well they really have no right and it's a huge insult to those players.
The USA sent the best team they could this year given our current nat'l team structure...a lot of our best players refused to play...and since desire is a huge part of winning I am not so sure those players would have made a difference had they been forced to go.
Let me say it for you...Argentina was the best national team in the World this year. I will admit that beating the USA in Olympic competition doesn't mean what it used to...I mean a lot of teams beat us. Argentina #1, Italy #2. Anything else is an excuse and very poor sportsmanship...like LakersFans making ref excuses. Was Argentina the most talented? Prolly not..but I'd rather be less talented and win then more talented and lose...Winning is the object, not being talented and not winning.
LOL, I only have a passing interest in Rugby and look at the length of my posts...you probably don't want me to get into France..I don't dislike all French, I am quite fond of Tony Parker for instance...but just for an example...look at the way they treated the American Rugby players right after WW1. WW1 we helped them win...we loaned them money...and look at the treatment they gave us...look at what they did to the graves of the US and British soldiers that liberated their country. Basically, they're shitheads.Quote:
One last thing. Dude, why do you hate the French so much?
What they did there..and that's just a passing example...that'd would be like the British coming over here to play the US team in a Soccer game and us refusing to let them practice, beating their fans up, spitting on them....no way to treat an ally...and it would never happen here. Yet we are the ones that are supposed to be lacking class, culture and dignity.
smeagol, in forum-board speak, it means dominating a topic with prolonged, wordy arguments until time and interest by others is exhausted.
This topic was started by an Irishman throwing bait out in an attempt to get people here to visit his website. A simple search on his screen-name would tell you all you need to know about him. Interesting how this thread has become what it is.
I don't mind debating points. Most regulars in this place know this.
I prefer efficiency of expression whenever possible, but my jab at Whottt was good-natured. Kind of like the following: Whottt - your reputation for wordy, verbose thread-bloaters precedes you. Even the last two letters of your screen-name suggests excess and repetition. 8)
I'll try to engage in conversation with you guys some more in a basketball-related topic in this forum or perhaps over in the Club, some time soon.
Wow Solid, I never heard it explained that way before...minimilization is better...less is more...
You have a point...
I mean...why do they drag basketball games out by making them for 48 minutes and 4 quarters?
Doesn't this favor the team that actually wants to win and to play, moreso than the team that just shows up and hallasses it?
I mean, why not just make it whoever scores first wins? It'd be efficient? And why play 82 games? Why not just play 1? The principal would be the same. I mean aren't the other 81 all kind of redudant? And the season would be more efficient and less time consuming.
Stop hogging the mike numbnuts.
And you know it's always annoyed me that Stephen King fillibusters in his stories as well...so much useless descriptiveness and over-wordiness...
I mean basically 90% his stories are:
Ghost/Monster
Ghost/Monster kills
Ghost/Monster gets killed.
Yet the asshole has drug that simple concept out to hundreds of thousands of pages.
From now on his stories should just say:
Ghost/Monster
Ghost/Monster kills
Ghosts Monster gets killed.
It'd be more efficient, and it wouldn't dominate the literary world by taking up peoples time and energy to read.
This is a Spurs discussion forum not a novel writing one.
And furthermore..
Solid initially pissed me off by fucking with the third T...
Solid, I hate to break this to you...but the third T gives whottt the ttt sound instead of the tt...Say it in your head...Whottt.....now say Whott...see the difference?
Saying the third T has no place is like me saying Solid D should be spelled DFGSFD hhyth.
But now that I think about it...
What is the point off all these usless extra vowels in words? Wouldn't the English language be more efficient without this anal habit of inserting so many vowels?
Try it...Sld D VS Solid D..Basically it sounds the same(at least it should to someone who doesn't grasp the concept of the 3rd T!!!!)
I thnk I wll try t mk my psts shrtr bt stl kp th cntnt by elmntng al vwls nd xcsve lttrs. Efcncy s bttr!
And one thing that really annoys the shit out of me...why are there so many days in a year?
Isn't this a clear case of inefficient dayage?
Why not just have 1 day?
Think about how efficient it would be...
All birthdays and holidays on the same day...no wasted time and undue mental stress trying to figure out what day it is..no one gets their feelings hurt for a miss birthday or anniversary.
Never miss an appointment...
The human life span would be extended by tens of thousands of years.
Clearly efficiency is the best way.
Well at least you have a sense of humor.
Marcus, since you and Solid D(and Spurminator, who I would love to thank for bringing the concept of fillibuster to this board and applying it to myself :) ) are the champions of anti-fillibuster...
I have an idea...why make so many posts yourselves?
Why not just make 1 post...call it Marcus Bryant or Solid D...and place your comments on all subjects in that single post? Just edit it accordingly. If anyone wants to know what you have to say they can just click on the post with your name on it?
Think of the bandwidth it would save...The total off all posts and threads on this entire board would never exceed the total membership of the board(except in the case of Marcus Bryant and his 15000 nicks)...I definitely think you two should lead us in the ways of efficiency...you lead, we will follow.
Whottt, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree on the whole "who was the defacto Rugby World Champions in the 1920s" debate.
I will try one more time to persuade you that the US is not worthy of that title (my view is that no country can legitimaly claim the title, but there are other countries that have more arguments than the US to seriously claim it) but I fear that you have already made up your mind (as probably, regarding this topic, I have made up my mind too).
Nevertheless, there are positive things that I can take away from this debate which, at least for me, are:
- The fact that I was forced to learn a lot about the rugby tradition in the US (not to mention the fact you guys won those gold medals in the '20s, which I was totally unaware of).
- Our agreement on a plausible explanation of why soccer is not popular in the US.
- Last of all, we both agree that we do not have a fucking clue why such an entertaining sport (Smeagol) / the best sport in the world (Whottt) is not popular in other parts of the globe as it it is in America (I'm talking about American Football, needless to say).
So let me, probably for the last time, try to bring you to my camp on this one point:
The most prestigious rugby championship in the Northern Hemisphere is the 5 Nations (nowadays called 6 Nations with the inclusion of Italy).Quote:
Smeagol..if the USA wasn't the World Champion in 1920 and 1924 then tell me who was more worthy of that title?
This tournament started in 1882 with the NT from the four British Isles countries. France entered the tournament in 1910.
Between 1920 and 1924 (five editions), England won the tournament 4 times. In 1920 the championship was shared between England, Scotland and Wales. In 1921/23/24, England not only won the competition, but they also won the Grand Slam (i.e. they swept the tournament, winning all four games, including the games against France).
Therefore, England is a good candidate for the "defacto World Champions" title. They beat France in 1920 and in 1924.
By the way, France did not win the 5 Nations until 1954 (30 years after the 1924 Olympic Games) and their first Grand Slam was in 1968.
wesclark.com/rrr/5nations.html
Another good candidate is NZ. They have been a dominant force in Rugby for the last 100 years. As I said in a previous post, rugby for New Zealanders is almost like their religion. Amazing that a county with 3 million people can be so dominant in a sport that's practiced in so many countries.
NZs first tour was in 1905. They toured the British Isles and beat Scotland, Ireland and England. In 32 matches they were only beaten once. They scored 830 pts to 39 (105 tries to 5).
In 1924/1925 they toured the British Isles again, gaining the nick name "The Invincibles". They won all their 32 matches.
The only game between the US and the All Blacks I was able to find from that era is a 1913 game where NZ beat the US 51 to 3.
Same thing happens with Australia. They toured the British Isles in 1908 beating England and Wales. Together with NZ, they have historically dominated the countries from the Northern Hemisphere.
In summary
The only meaningful rival the US beat to win two gold medals in the early 1920s was France.
France had been playing the 5 Nations Tournament, a tournament played by the best rugby NT teams of the time, since 1910. They were not able to win it until 1954. Their record against these teams between 1920 and 1924 was:
vs. England (W/D/L):0-1-4
vs. Ireland: 3-0-2
vs Wales: 0-0-5
vs Scotland: 2-1-2
Between 1910 and 1930, France only played once against NZ, Australia and SA loosing all three games:
1/18/1925 France vs NZ: All Black won 30 to 6
1/11/1913 France vs SA: Springbocks won 38 to 5
1/22/1928 France vs Australia: Wallabies won 11 to 8
Note that all three games were played in France.
Here's the link
www.planet-rugby.com/stats/matches/results_listing.phtml/PR/ENG/tournament?tournament_code=FNC&navCode=FNC&search_ type=results&setCode=tournament
I have also read in many chronicles of those games about France being the Continental Champion at the time. I was not able to find any additional info. If you can point me to a website that has additional info on this event, that would be helpful.Quote:
The UK countries played with themselves...I mean France was the European Champion...
I agree with you. Their excuse is unacceptable. But as I said before, that's not the point.Quote:
As for Britain not having enough time...I have zero sympathy for that claim...those Olympics were a hell of a lot closer to their country than they were to the USA.
Keeping in mind my example of Argentina and its basketball team is far from being a good analogy, I still believe It helps me explain my point.Quote:
Of course Argentina is the best national team in the world this year. How can you say otherwise? Italy is the second best. It's just that simple.
Argentina is the Basketball Olympic Champion in a championship where the team from the country that has overwhelmingly dominated the sport, did not present the best team possible. They are not the "best team in the world". Until Manu and the rest of the guys can beat the best team the US can put forward, and that US team has a decent amount of time to prepare for the international competition, I can not say my team is the best in the world. They are the Olympic Champions (which already says a lot).
Whottt, my point has nothing to do with respecting or disrespecting the results of the tournament.Quote:
If people are not going to respect the results of the tournament then why play it?
You can win an Olympic gold medal and still not be the "best in the World".
Let me give you an extreme example. Lets assume the next Olympics are played in Iraq. 75% of the athletes from the developed countries decide not to go. What do you make of the winners of the events? Are they the "best of the world" in their respective disciplines?
For the rugby delegations of NZ, Australia and SA, attending the Olympics in Europe, in the early 1920s, probably meant a six-month trip. Who knows, maybe they were not willing to commit six months of their life to rugby? Lets not forget these guys were amateurs.
Bottom line: The 1920 and 1924 Olympics were not the measure of which team was truly the "defacto World Champions", as far as Rugby was concearned. The reason: The best teams did not compete.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!Quote:
Anything else is an excuse and very poor sportsmanship...like LakersFans making ref excuses
Don't put me at the same level as Laker Lanny. That's the worst insult you could through in my direction.:depressed
Its a mystery to me why the French and some of the other people from the larger European countries (UK, Spain, Germany, Italy) hate the Americans.Quote:
look at the way they treated the American Rugby players right after WW1. WW1 we helped them win...we loaned them money...and look at the treatment they gave us...look at what they did to the graves of the US and British soldiers that liberated their country. Basically, they're shitheads.
I presume that on of the reasons is American foreign policy. Its ironic because when it was their turn to be the superpowers of the world, their foreign policy sucked much worse that America's FP.
Oh no, it's the Souttth American version of Whottt.
Tommy, remind me again why you were the artist formerly known as Marcus Bryant, and now you go around posting as Tommy Duncan?
Also, didn't you leave this board with a slam? Weren't your profound reasons for leaving the board something regarding Jax and the FO being cheap?
Has that situation changed?
Imbecile, I'm from Argentina.Quote:
Oh no, it's the Souttth American version of Whottt.
South America is a large continent, and a pretty heterogeneous one too, with different races, different languages, different religions.
You can call me the Argentttinean/Argentttine version of Whottt.
Did not the front office sign Brent Barry for less than Jack? Your point?
Yes, Argentina is in South America.
No particular point, just a question.Quote:
Did not the front office sign Brent Barry for less than Jack? Your point?
Glad to know you know your geography.Quote:
Yes, Argentina is in South America.
Attaboy Smeagol! Stick it to him!
He's been a forum bully for years now...stand up to him and he'll run away and hide under another nic.
Personally I've enjoyed this discussion with you and Danyel, although I don't think Dnayel is very happy with some of my views on Soccer, still they do reflect the status of Soccer in the USA. I will say that if we did win a World Cup it would be more popular here...at least for that year.
I appreciate your openmindedness and taking the time to read my points. I have tried to do the same in reading your points as well. I've actually learned quite a few things myself about the US tradition of Rugby...I did know they were the last Olympic Champs, but I was totally ignorant of circumstances in which they became the Olympic Champs and it's exactly the type of sports story Americans love, so I might have gotten a bit carried away in ranking those gold medals.
And you do have a point about the 5 Nations...although I am not sure I would rank the 3 Nations on the level with the 5. Even with many of the 3 Nations countries beating the 5 Nations countries in head to head compt.
I have read that the participating countries in the 3 Nations held the 5 Nations in very high esteem well into the 1920's and considered beating their champion more impressive than being the 3 Nations Champ.
I am not sure if France beat the 5 Nations champion to become the European Champion and I am trying to find out if this happened myself...
If they didn't, well I'll admit you have a good point. I still don't think it proves the winner of that tourney was stronger than the US since that winner didn't play the US in the only tourney they were eligible to play one another. I won't admit that winning those tourneys automatically makes them better than winning the Olympics since England lost the Olympics as the 5 Nations Champ.
And they both beat the French...
Remember this was during a renassiance in Rugby in the US...these were not the traditional US Rugby players and they stunned the French with their style of play...who is to say that wouldn't have happened against others? And even if not, these were basically babies in the sport that won the Gold Medal.
What I did read is that the US team did a tour of France and Europe after the Paris Olympics and the European Rugby Fans were in awe of the intensity of their play and they way they imposed physical domination on their opponents. In particular the French Fans went from hating them to giving them much acclaim for their style of play.
I am going to look into it further to see just who France beat to become European Champion, not that it will really make a whole lot of difference since we suck at Rugby now..but we were at the very least comptitive with the rest of the world in Rugby...contrary to what many think. ...
If France didn't beat England to be the Euro Champ it is going to be hard to claim a US victory over them makes them clearly the best in the World at that time. But the point will still remain...the only tourney in which all these teams could have played each other was the Olympics...so their failure to appear, at the very least, gives the US wins the same type of credibility over these teams a forfeiture or disqualification would have, had those teams actually played the tourney.
Also, I wanted to say that a part of the reason it took France so long to win the 5 Nations was because they were kicked out of the tournament for many years because they were being paid to play and had professional status.
Anyway, was a fun debate...I hope we do get more competitive at Rugby since I think that is a fun sport to watch. But once upon a time we were NSKickass......we just couldn't get anyone to play us, like your country.
Smeagol...Argentina is the best national team in the World. We sent the best team we could send since many players refused to play...IMO the team we sent probably was more talented(although most of the guys on team Argentina were NBA caliber or very close to it)..
But the honest truth is we were not as good of a team as Argentina, using players from our highest league, sending the best players we could send. Manu is the fucking man. This is why I didn't think we needed Jason Kidd...this is why I didn't want to trade him and Parker for crap like Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. It didn't surprise me we lost to Manu, and I'd be willing to bet it didn't surprise Pop or Duncan either...We saw Manu nearly beat the LA dream team all by himself early last season.
Last week I've read an article in an English newspaper. It was about why America didn't catch up with football (soccer) like the rest of the world.
There were several reasons, one of them was that in football you use your feet, while most of the American popular sports are played with your hands (except for the little time that kicking is in American Football).
Another reason is that in football the best team does not always win. Basketball or baseball are pretty logic events, with percentage and stats showing who was the best team, and that team usually wins. In soccer, a team may have not had an attempt on goal for 89 minutes and in the last minute can win a match. Also American sports don't have the concept of a draw. All games must have a winner, while in soccer draws are something normal.
Another point is the "low" scoring. In soccer people can be mad and cheer a game that has a score of 1-0 or 0-0. Most of American sports have at least more than 5 points/goals per game.
And at last but not least, is the cultural factor. With all those sports (NFL, NBA, MLB) being so popular, there's little room for the rest of sports, not only soccer, to be hugely popular. So when a tradition is so stongly made, it is hard to break it. Same can be applied to the soccer interested nations that don't care about NFL or MLB.
IMO, the most popular sports worldwide are: (in this order)
- Football (or soccer)
- Basketball
- Car racing (not a particular category)
- Boxing
- Tennis
- Baseball & Rugby at the same level (not an accurate thing, just a perception)
- American Football
- Ice and Field Hockey
- Volleyball
- Athletics
- Handball
Very good points ^
Well, I guess we probably should be rapping this discussion up, and gear up for the next one, whatever that one maybe.
Same here. Not a lot of low blows, not a lot of spinning. I agree: we got the kinder, gentler Whottt.Quote:
Personally I've enjoyed this discussion with you and Danyel
If rugby ever makes a comeback in the US, this would be a great story for a movie.Quote:
I did know they were the last Olympic Champs, but I was totally ignorant of circumstances in which they became the Olympic Champs and it's exactly the type of sports story Americans love
MB is cool. I agree with most of his basketball takes.Quote:
He's been a forum bully for years now...stand up to him and he'll run away and hide under another nic.
I'm with you.Quote:
Manu is the fucking man