Re: Rugby > American Football
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:
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...
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.
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.
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.
NO. Other teams decided not to participate (England, for example, alleged they did not have enough time to prepare).
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...
Nobody is saying the US has to apologize for anything.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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:
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...
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).
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.
Quote:
You must get your Olympic history from the Islamic World News...the revisionism is simply amazing.
Again getting political on me.
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?
Re: Rugby > American Football
Quote:
Whottt, your rep as Mr. Filibuster has been permanently afixed, with no relief or change in sight
Solid:
What does Filibuster mean in board-language?
Re: Rugby > American Football
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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).
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.
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 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:
Who cares the reasons why NZ, Australia and SA did not present a rugby team in 1924.
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:
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 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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
One last thing. Dude, why do you hate the French so much?
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.
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
Stop hogging the mike numbnuts.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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!
Re: Rugby > American Football
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
Well at least you have a sense of humor.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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:
Quote:
Smeagol..if the USA wasn't the World Champion in 1920 and 1924 then tell me who was more worthy of that title?
The most prestigious rugby championship in the Northern Hemisphere is the 5 Nations (nowadays called 6 Nations with the inclusion of Italy).
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
Quote:
The UK countries played with themselves...I mean France was the European Champion...
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:
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.
I agree with you. Their excuse is unacceptable. But as I said before, that's not the 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.
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.
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).
Quote:
If people are not going to respect the results of the tournament then why play it?
Whottt, my point has nothing to do with respecting or disrespecting the results of the tournament.
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.
Quote:
Anything else is an excuse and very poor sportsmanship...like LakersFans making ref excuses
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Don't put me at the same level as Laker Lanny. That's the worst insult you could through in my direction.:depressed
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.
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.
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
Oh no, it's the Souttth American version of Whottt.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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?
Quote:
Oh no, it's the Souttth American version of Whottt.
Imbecile, I'm from Argentina.
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
Did not the front office sign Brent Barry for less than Jack? Your point?
Yes, Argentina is in South America.
Re: Rugby > American Football
Quote:
Did not the front office sign Brent Barry for less than Jack? Your point?
No particular point, just a question.
Quote:
Yes, Argentina is in South America.
Glad to know you know your geography.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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.
Re: Rugby > American Football
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
Re: Rugby > American Football
Re: Rugby > American Football
Well, I guess we probably should be rapping this discussion up, and gear up for the next one, whatever that one maybe.
Quote:
Personally I've enjoyed this discussion with you and Danyel
Same here. Not a lot of low blows, not a lot of spinning. I agree: we got the kinder, gentler Whottt.
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
If rugby ever makes a comeback in the US, this would be a great story for a movie.
Quote:
He's been a forum bully for years now...stand up to him and he'll run away and hide under another nic.
MB is cool. I agree with most of his basketball takes.
Quote:
Manu is the fucking man
I'm with you.
