Printable View
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