Jump to content
Ghoolie

New Stadium in Las Vegs

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, hoorta said:

Ha, until they changed the rules, the same could be said for pro basketball. Led by the King of the floppers, Bill Laimbeer.

There's more action in the first five minutes of a soccer match than an entire baseball game-

That is just a stupid comment.

no wonder a lot of people consider baseball utterly boring, second only to golf. Regarding golf- we hashed this out years ago, and guys are entrenched in their opinions- but personally- I don't consider golf to be a sport- it's a skill.  

Thanks to MJP's article, US major league soccer has a long way to go to catch up in average salary to the European version- (looks like the equivalent of Class A baseball) probably why most of the top US soccer players play on European teams. We'd need to start filling up 60,000 seat stadiums and get major air time to catch up. 

Regarding FS' comments about top athletes, completely different skill set as opposed to playing football. Basketball may be close. Top Marathon runners would gas any NFL player in the first mile or two. Regarding football, I'm always fond of recalling Chris Collinsworth's story about the Bengal's soccer match. The Bengals were in a bar, and called the local semi-pro soccer team a bunch of wusses. Got challenged to a soccer match- the soccer guys were up 10-0 when the Bengals quit. So much for the "superior athletes".  

What do you think would happen if the soccer team took on the Bengals in football? It would be 150-0 after the first quarter.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hoorta said:

I did, Mexico - Germany. You guys must hate hockey too, where there isn't much scoring.

Well hockey is 5 guys on the ice with razor sharp skates carrying clubs and bashing each other against the boards and thank goodness most all important games don't end up 1-0 or in a tie, sometimes 0-0 or 1-1. Zzzzzzzzoooooooo. 

My definition - soccer, recess for big kids. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nero said:

Three key games? There were only three games played. 

There were many attempts in at least two of them (the other one was Serbia-Costa Rica and I know anything about it).

It is all about perspective. If you ONLY value goals,  then you have a point, but goals are more scarce in soccer thus making them more exciting. I love american football but I tell you that I celebrate 10 times more a goal than a touchdown due to this condition.

Following that kind of perspective, the sport this board is about could be a bit lame because you are given 4 DOWNS TO ADVANCE 10 YARDS. And in baseball  IIRC very few batters reach even 0.500, meaning that more than half of the time there's absolutely nothing happening. 

EDIT. Both american football and baseball games average more than 3 hours of time. You have (in football's case) 1h of game clock. Real playing time? 10-12 minutes of REAL ACTION. 

Soccer: a match lasts 1h 45min, many times more than that because of extra time. Let's say 2h. You have a 1h 30min (90min) game clock, with 40mins of REAL ACTION. 

12/180 = 6.67 per cent of real action time per overall time. 

40/120 = 33.33 per cent of real action time per overall time in soccer.

See that I've been generous towards american sports and there's 5 times more action in soccer.

Just because people are out there running around and kicking the ball to each other in the midfield  does not mean that there is any action at all in soccer.  They probably spend less time of REAL ACTION  actually attacking the goal than the 10-12 minutes of action you say is involved in football. This may not be something you are familiar with, but in College basketball at one time there was no such thing as a shot clock.  A team could hold the ball as long as they wanted.  Coach Dean Smith of North Carolina developed what he called his Four Corners offense. Essentially he would just have his players dribble the ball or pass the ball...or hold the ball for minutes at a time around the perimeter before even attempting to shoot the ball.  That is what most soccer matches seem like to me. Are the players out there moving and is the clock moving? Sure...but NOTHING is happening at all. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRVmc6dO0g8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Gipper said:

You are misrepresenting what I said......I have no doubt that more people watch the World Cup than watch the Super Bowl.   After all....it is an event that is held over like a month and a half with like 100 games played and is shown to like 200 nations in the world.  How can not more people watch it?

But, I would bet you that for a single game event....with viewership in a single country....the Super Bowl gets higher ratings. 

Maybe, just maybe.....the countries that are participating in the WC final may get ratings in those countries that might come close to matching those of the Super Bowl. Maybe...like in Germany or Argentina for the 2014 WC final.....but you will have to prove that to me.  (I could not find the figures for those countries)

Here is this:  

Sunday’s 2014 FIFA World Cup Final on ABC – a 1-0 victory in extra time over Argentina to secure Germany’s fourth World Cup title and first since 1990 – ranks as the most-watched Men’s World Cup Final match ever among viewers. Based on Nielsen fast nationals, the ABC telecast averaged 17,324,000 viewers and a 9.1 US HH rating for the game window (3-5:44 p.m. ET). It also ranks as the third most-viewed World Cup game – men’s or women’s – in the United States behind ESPN’s coverage of this year’s USA vs. Portugal match ever (18,220,000 viewers) and the 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final on ABC (USA vs. China with 17,975,000 viewers).

So, here in the USA....that got  17 million viewers.   The most watched soccer game in US history got a bit over 18 million.

The Super Bowl gets  like 120 million viewers. 

 

I would hazard a guess the % of televisions tuned into the WC final in the participating countries would far exceed the % of US televisions tuned into the Super Bowl. Or are you going to try and tell me a significant percentage of people in the USA don't give a rat about American football? 

48% rating for SB LII, and 103 million viewers,  (meaning 52%- the majority- of the TVs weren't watching the Super Bowl). I don't have the world wide rankings. Yawn.  But I'll bet you a double magnum of 1982 Chateau Latour (value $13,000) that pales in comparison to the World Cup final   EDIT: Don't bother- I looked it up.  

Last year's Super Bowl was watched by an estimated 160 million viewers worldwide, the bulk of which were in the United States. By comparison, the 2014 World Cup final between Germany and Argentina had a global audience of about 1 billion.

2014 FIFA World Cup reached 3.2 billion viewers. More than one billion fans tuned in to watch the final of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil, with the competition reaching a global in-home television audience of 3.2 billion people, according to final figures from FIFA and Kantar Media

I'll also say- and bet you a cheap bottle of wine. The US will beat that 18 million viewers for this years WC final. It's like the tide rolling in Gip- as us old fuddy duddies kick off, soccer will become more and more popular here- it's already happening.  :)    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hoorta said:

I would hazard a guess the % of televisions tuned into the WC final in the participating countries would far exceed the % of US televisions tuned into the Super Bowl. Or are you going to try and tell me a significant percentage of people in the USA don't give a rat about American football? 

48% rating for SB LII, and 103 million viewers,  (meaning 52%- the majority- of the TVs weren't watching the Super Bowl). I don't have the world wide rankings. Yawn.  But I'll bet you a double magnum of 1982 Chateau Latour (value $13,000) that pales in comparison to the World Cup final   EDIT: Don't bother- I looked it up.  

Well, then...you have proved nothing.  Until you can come up with the ratings figures for the WC Final for Argentina and Germany...and compare them to the Super Bowl....we have nothing to compare.

Last year's Super Bowl was watched by an estimated 160 million viewers worldwide, the bulk of which were in the United States. By comparison, the 2014 World Cup final between Germany and Argentina had a global audience of about 1 billion.

2014 FIFA World Cup reached 3.2 billion viewers. More than one billion fans tuned in to watch the final of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil, with the competition reaching a global in-home television audience of 3.2 billion people, according to final figures from FIFA and Kantar Media

Again.....3.2 bill watched 64 WC games. (I looked it up and that is the number)  Given that they were broadcast to 200 countries, not that impressed overall....considering that some of that 3.2 bill. may have been the same person counted 64 times.  I mean.....besides the SB...how many people overall watched all of the NFL playoffs?  And 1 Billion for the WC Final...divided amongst 200 countries.  I mean, the USA has only 4% of the world population.  But the Super Bowl...per your figures got 16% of the viewership of the WC.   One country with 4% gets 16% of what the WC gets.

I'll also say- and bet you a cheap bottle of wine. The US will beat that 18 million viewers for this years WC final. It's like the tide rolling in Gip- as us old fuddy duddies kick off, soccer will become more and more popular here- it's already happening.  :)    

I will take that bet.  And I will get you a decent Finger Lakes region wine when I visit my son, if I lose.   The WC Final will NOT get 18 million viewers.  As for soccer "taking over"...that is what the soccer fags have been saying for 40 years.   

Good old American Basketball has taken over more of the World comparatively than soccer has in a similar time frame. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Gipper said:

Just because people are out there running around and kicking the ball to each other in the midfield  does not mean that there is any action at all in soccer.  They probably spend less time of REAL ACTION  actually attacking the goal than the 10-12 minutes of action you say is involved in football. This may not be something you are familiar with, but in College basketball at one time there was no such thing as a shot clock.  A team could hold the ball as long as they wanted.  Coach Dean Smith of North Carolina developed what he called his Four Corners offense. Essentially he would just have his players dribble the ball or pass the ball...or hold the ball for minutes at a time around the perimeter before even attempting to shoot the ball.  That is what most soccer matches seem like to me. Are the players out there moving and is the clock moving? Sure...but NOTHING is happening at all. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRVmc6dO0g8

Well, what I'm talking about is that ''NOTHING'' works every way. Any soccer fan I introduce to american football, I have to explain the importance of a guy running for 2 yards and being stopped, and then another time when a QB misses a pass, and then a punt. 

In soccer you have more real action time, and a way bigger percentage for the overall match time. But in American Football, you have way less playing time, but I'm not going to be the one saying it is action packed and more intense.

The point I'm trying to get across is that, to put it simply:

-Soccer fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is moving, with the tactic consisting on playing both at the same time defense and attack, thus making it a more easy paced sport that never stops. 

-American Football fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is dead, with the tactic consisting on trying to solve the position that is given any given time by the rival, and with short time spans of action, thus making it a sport of top speed, and phisicallity. 

So, the same ''rarara nothing happens in soccer, it's boring blablabla'' can be said to American Football too. 

Furthermore, now that I'm thinking of it, I'm going to say that if there was NO TV (no replays, no different angles, etc.), I would probably enjoy more soccer than american football. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is a number:    Overall this past season, the NFL playoffs, of which only  11 games were played, were watched by  408 million people. (This includes the 103 mill for the SB)

So....11 games in one country get 408 mill viewers......while  3.2 bill watch the 64 WC games in  200 countries.

To break it down:

The NFL playoffs were watched by an average 37.09  million per game....in the USA (with 4% of the population) 

The WC games were watched by about 50 million per game....in 200 countries.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nero said:

Well, what I'm talking about is that ''NOTHING'' works every way. Any soccer fan I introduce to american football, I have to explain the importance of a guy running for 2 yards and being stopped, and then another time when a QB misses a pass, and then a punt. 

In soccer you have more real action time, and a way bigger percentage for the overall match time. But in American Football, you have way less playing time, but I'm not going to be the one saying it is action packed and more intense.

Well...that is just wrong.  again, just because people are moving does not mean that there is meaningful action.  See my 4 corners example

The point I'm trying to get across is that, to put it simply:

-Soccer fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is moving, with the tactic consisting on playing both at the same time defense and attack, thus making it a more easy paced sport that never stops. 

Some can say that it rarely ever starts.

-American Football fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is dead, with the tactic consisting on trying to solve the position that is given any given time by the rival, and with short time spans of action, thus making it a sport of top speed, and phisicallity. 

So, the same ''rarara nothing happens in soccer, it's boring blablabla'' can be said to American Football too. 

Furthermore, now that I'm thinking of it, I'm going to say that if there was NO TV (no replays, no different angles, etc.), I would probably enjoy more soccer than american football. 

The thing is....there is more action and intensity  in the few seconds of a single football game than there are in like 10 minutes of a soccer game.

That is just the nature of each sport. 

But...you can fix soccer....just by eliminating the offside rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Gipper said:

And here is a number:    Overall this past season, the NFL playoffs, of which only  11 games were played, were watched by  408 million people. (This includes the 103 mill for the SB)

So....11 games in one country get 408 mill viewers......while  3.2 bill watch the 64 WC games in  200 countries.

To break it down:

The NFL playoffs were watched by an average 37.09  million per game....in the USA (with 4% of the population) 

The WC games were watched by about 50 million per game....in 200 countries.

 

Gip, no one is arguing that the NFL isn't the #1 major domo sport in the United States As I pointed out, more than half of the TVs in the USA weren't even tuned into the SB. Just get your head out of your a$$ and admit world wide, interest in the NFL pales in comparison to soccer. Or you forget they folded NFL Europe? 

Yawn, so in those 200 countries- make that around 100 because the majority of the world doesn't give a $hit about the NFL, the Super Bowl was out viewed by a ratio of around 10-1 as opposed to the World Cup Final. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Gipper said:

The thing is....there is more action and intensity  in the few seconds of a single football game than there are in like 10 minutes of a soccer game.

That is just the nature of each sport. 

But...you can fix soccer....just by eliminating the offside rule. 

Well if you want to increase the scoring by orders of magnitude- sure. It's the same reason why there's offsides in hockey- and I played the sport Gip. You'd just have a bunch of guys hanging around the goal waiting for (in the case of soccer) a 50 yard pass, or in hockey- why bother to defend,  if the object is to score as many goals as quickly as possible? Want to change it to a score-a-thon? They could make MLB a lot more interesting just by changing it to underhand slow pitch- have 50-40 games. It would change the nature of the game, and that's why it will never happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hoorta said:

Gip, no one is arguing that the NFL isn't the #1 major domo sport in the United States As I pointed out, more than half of the TVs in the USA weren't even tuned into the SB. Just get your head out of your a$$ and admit world wide, interest in the NFL pales in comparison to soccer. Or you forget they folded NFL Europe? 

Yawn, so in those 200 countries- make that around 100 because the majority of the world doesn't give a $hit about the NFL, the Super Bowl was out viewed by a ratio of around 10-1 as opposed to the World Cup Final. 

 

The point YOU are missing is that with just 4% of the population, the Super Bowl gets  16% of the overall viewership as the WC Final. 

So, the bottom line is that the NFL, the Super Bowl is far, far more popular here than soccer is worldwide. That is the point I am making. 

And, as you say....the Super Bowl is seen by "less than half of the TVs" in the US?  Of course, you realize that when the Super Bowl is on you often get dozens of people going to a Super Bowl party....as I do annually go to Westside Steve's SB party.  That means that my TV at home is not turned on to the SB...so by your argument, I would not be counted as watching the Super Bowl....but of course I certainly am watching it at the party.

Now....can you come up with some stats that say what % of people in Argentina or Germany were watching the WC final?  I expect that more than 50% in those countries were watching it.....after all, it only happens once every 4 years....and for those countries it may be a fact that they are in that final only once in a generation, or lifetime.   Like waiting for the Browns to be in the Super Bowl.  So it should garner a ton of viewership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, hoorta said:

Well if you want to increase the scoring by orders of magnitude- sure. It's the same reason why there's offsides in hockey- and I played the sport Gip. You'd just have a bunch of guys hanging around the goal waiting for (in the case of soccer) a 50 yard pass, or in hockey- why bother to defend,  if the object is to score as many goals as quickly as possible? Want to change it to a score-a-thon? They could make MLB a lot more interesting just by changing it to underhand slow pitch- have 50-40 games. It would change the nature of the game, and that's why it will never happen. 

Hockey's offside is a totally different rule than the one in soccer.  Soccer's offside rule is tantamount to saying that in football no WR is allowed to run past their defender on the way to the goal. That any score where the WR outruns the DB covering him would be disallowed. It also treats the goalie like he is a potted plant...incapable of doing anything.  

Yet, in that sport...to hype it up at the end of tie games they go to a silly shootout system.....which is nothing but a mano a mano confrontation between a player and a goalie.  Why not simply incorporate that matchup organically into the regular game?

And you totally overestimate the amount of "cherry picking" that would go on.  Cherry picking is legal in basketball...yet you don't see it happening at all.  So...if the offside rule were to never be eliminated...then that is one reason that soccer will always remain boring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure which is gayer, Soccer or Las Vegas?

Zombo

08722c8c84.jpg

siegfried-roy.jpg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zombo said:

Not sure which is gayer, Soccer or Las Vegas?

Zombo

08722c8c84.jpg

siegfried-roy.jpg

1) Gip is always right. 

2) If Gip is wrong, refer to #1.

To try some co-ckamamie spin that soccer isn't by far the world's #1 sport is just wrong, and I'm not going to bother debating him on it.

It's not like I'm a huge fan Z. I do tune into the highlights. LOL, you can usually condense 90 minutes of a match to 30 seconds. I will watch the final in toto.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the worlds number one sport because it evolved that way. All you need is a ball, two sticks and some grass and kids can play anywhere in the world.

Great sport for ladies, in my opinion.

But here in the United States we have grown-ass man sports.

We developed basketball and that's what kids growing up in the city can play easily, much more exciting game than soccer to play or watch.

We developed baseball and that's what the country kids play, develops a multitude of skills ... you can actually use your hands and arms!.

And for the tough kids, we developed football ... rugby but much more exciting for the common guy to watch. Most exciting sport to watch for me... rest of the world can watch soccer, I'm cool with that .. Doesnt make me wrong for loving football, basketball and baseball and not caring a poop nugget about a ladies sport that the rest of the world still loves as a men's sport.

Z

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Regarding FS' comments about top athletes, completely different skill set as opposed to playing football. Basketball may be close. Top Marathon runners would gas any NFL player in the first mile or two. Regarding football, I'm always fond of recalling Chris Collinsworth's story about the Bengal's soccer match. The Bengals were in a bar, and called the local semi-pro soccer team a bunch of wusses. Got challenged to a soccer match- the soccer guys were up 10-0 when the Bengals quit. So much for the "superior athletes".  

What do you think would happen if the soccer team took on the Bengals in football? It would be 150-0 after the first quarter. :lol:

Oh god my favorite exchange of the day......"deezzz guys were in a bar and were challenged to go play soccer" . Are you kidding me? If I were drinking in a bar I'd throw up if you wanted me to run around chasing a ball like it's the chicken in the Rocky movie. :lol:

If you look at the echelon of world athletes it would be a bit subjective but the hardest team sport to play physically would have to be American football followed by basketball or hockey (ice, try it!) then everything else in some order. Just try for a minute to take out our personal likes and preconceived notions out of the equation. 

Anyone who wants to line up against a professional or collegiate football team and go for four quarters would get killed!

Sure and a skinny butt marathon runner from Kenya can run 26.2 miles also NOT a team sport. Soccer players stand around a lot (yes i've watched the USA men's and women's team in the  Olympics and World Cup and our football team played one summer in high school) just try and watch it! Zzzooooooo.

And soccer the world's game, look it up, some form has been played going back about 2,000 years. All you need is a ball or human skull or something to kick around a field. (yes it's been theorized they used deceased enemies skulls way back but no video remains). The USA was a bunch of woods back then. That is why it is viewed and followed all over the world. OH and when was the last American football riot where they throw lit flares or  people were killed? Do they put chain link link fences around the BROWNS  games? Are some teams fans BARRED from some games or entire countries?  True or false?  

So to each his own but I guarantee you I'm not TIVOing a marathon game or soccer or golf match anytime this century. The recent CTE health crisis has been the biggest recent boom for soccer more mommies won't let their kids play tackle football, that's good for soccer they will get more former football athletes and mom's to attend games.

Just my humble opinion of course. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoorta said:

1) Gip is always right. 

2) If Gip is wrong, refer to #1.

To try some co-ckamamie spin that soccer isn't by far the world's #1 sport is just wrong, and I'm not going to bother debating him on it.

To try some Sockamamie spin that I don't agree that soccer is the world's #1 sport is just wrong.  I recognize that it is...and have said so repeatedly.  Not sure what you have been reading.  It is gay, it is boring...but it is popular.   I am saying that in all those other 200 countries though....futbol is NOT more popular in them than real football is here.

It's not like I'm a huge fan Z. I do tune into the highlights. LOL, you can usually condense 90 minutes of a match to 30 seconds. I will watch the final in toto.

Yep, there you go.....90 minutes of a soccer game CAN be reduced to 30 seconds of real action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zombo said:

It's the worlds number one sport because it evolved that way. All you need is a ball, two sticks and some grass and kids can play anywhere in the world.

Where do the sticks come into play in soccer?  

Great sport for ladies, in my opinion.

But here in the United States we have grown-butt man sports.

We developed basketball and that's what kids growing up in the city can play easily, much more exciting game than soccer to play or watch.

We developed baseball and that's what the country kids play, develops a multitude of skills ... you can actually use your hands and arms!.

And for the tough kids, we developed football ... rugby but much more exciting for the common guy to watch. Most exciting sport to watch for me... rest of the world can watch soccer, I'm cool with that .. Doesnt make me wrong for loving football, basketball and baseball and not caring a poop nugget about a ladies sport that the rest of the world still loves as a men's sport.

☮️☢️♂️

Z

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zombo said:

It's the worlds number one sport because it evolved that way. All you need is a ball, two sticks and some grass and kids can play anywhere in the world.

Great sport for ladies, in my opinion.

But here in the United States we have grown-butt man sports.

We developed basketball and that's what kids growing up in the city can play easily, much more exciting game than soccer to play or watch.

We developed baseball and that's what the country kids play, develops a multitude of skills ... you can actually use your hands and arms!.

And for the tough kids, we developed football ... rugby but much more exciting for the common guy to watch. Most exciting sport to watch for me... rest of the world can watch soccer, I'm cool with that .. Doesnt make me wrong for loving football, basketball and baseball and not caring a poop nugget about a ladies sport that the rest of the world still loves as a men's sport.

Z

And with the shoe on the other foot, the majority of the rest of the world doesn't give a rat about American football.  I agree, basketball is becoming very much a world sport. Not like when the original Dream Team was beating the rest of the world's best by 50, and not even trying too hard. Plenty of foreign stars in the NBA, Nowitzki is a certain first ballot HOFer. It's working the other way around now, the very top American soccer players like Tim Howard, Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey playing in Europe- because the money is way better over there. I've said eventually, us guys will reach a critical mass of top players to make a serious run at a World Cup.  FWIW, the US missing out on the World Cup this year losing to Trinidad is the football equivalent of Michigan getting beat by Appalachian State. 

BTW Z in Third World countries, that's all you need to play soccer, a ball and two sticks for a goal post.  LOL- as an aside to Gip, if you're living in a hut with a dirt floor and no running water, you probably don't have a TV and satellite dish (um, no electricity either) to tune into the World Cup, or the viewership would be a lot higher. 

But I'd bet if we had all grown up in Europe, we'd all be soccer fans.  :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hoorta said:

And with the shoe on the other foot, the majority of the rest of the world doesn't give a rat about American football.  I agree, basketball is becoming very much a world sport. Not like when the original Dream Team was beating the rest of the world's best by 50, and not even trying too hard. Plenty of foreign stars in the NBA, Nowitzki is a certain first ballot HOFer. It's working the other way around now, the very top American soccer players like Tim Howard, Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey playing in Europe- because the money is way better over there. I've said eventually, us guys will reach a critical mass of top players to make a serious run at a World Cup.  FWIW, the US missing out on the World Cup this year losing to Trinidad is the football equivalent of Michigan getting beat by Appalachian State. 

BTW Z in Third World countries, that's all you need to play soccer, a ball and two sticks for a goal post.  LOL- as an aside to Gip, if you're living in a hut with a dirt floor and no running water, you probably don't have a TV and satellite dish (um, no electricity either) to tune into the World Cup, or the viewership would be a lot higher. 

But I'd bet if we had all grown up in Europe, we'd all be soccer fans.  :)  

You overemphasize the lack of access to TV around the world.  How much of it is really that dirt poor that there is no TV.   (and fyi....there are more TVs in China than in the USA).

And we didn't grow up in Europe. So you can thank goodness for that.  Besides that......not ALL Europeans are into soccer.  My cousin in England despises it really....he is more of a rugby guy.   He is the one I quote when I say that  soccer players are a pile of preening pansies.  Those were his words, not mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hoorta said:

BTW Z in Third World countries, that's all you need to play soccer, a ball and two sticks for a goal post.  

But I'd bet if we had all grown up in Europe, we'd all be soccer fans.  :)  

Yep, that's exactly what I said.

We've got basketball courts, baseball fields and football fields, so we're good.

Quote

But I'd bet if we had all grown up in Europe, we'd all be soccer fans.  :)

Well thank God we didn't, because soccer blows.

Quote

And with the shoe on the other foot, the majority of the rest of the world doesn't give a rat about American football.

Did you read the part where I said I don't give a shit that don't give a shit?

Zombo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2018 at 10:07 AM, The Gipper said:

 

Machismo doesn't define whether something is a sport or not. Try your hand at figure skating and tell me if it is hard or not.

Golf isn't a sport. It simply isn't. A pro who is a par shooter is going to take 72 swings per round of golf. From top to contact, let's say generously a swing takes 6 seconds to execute. That means a guy does 432 seconds of physical work to play an entire round. 7 minutes plus change. What the hell kind of sport takes 3 hours and requires 7 minutes of physical activity? Let's not be stupid.

Soccer? A sport for effeminate men. A sport mostly played by homosexuals. Soccer is nothing more than Dancing With The Stars for sissy boys. How can anyone watch this schidt? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghoolie said:

Machismo doesn't define whether something is a sport or not. Try your hand at figure skating and tell me if it is hard or not.

Golf isn't a sport. It simply isn't. A pro who is a par shooter is going to take 72 swings per round of golf. From top to contact, let's say generously a swing takes 6 seconds to execute. That means a guy does 432 seconds of physical work to play an entire round. 7 minutes plus change. What the hell kind of sport takes 3 hours and requires 7 minutes of physical activity? Let's not be stupid.

Soccer? A sport for effeminate men. A sport mostly played by homosexuals. Soccer is nothing more than Dancing With The Stars for sissy boys. How can anyone watch this schidt? 

LOL, you remember Garo Yepremian saying "I keek a touchdown?" But at least on the pro level, you at least have to have endurance, not to mention some skill. We had a pretty decent soccer team in college and I'd see guys running around our basketball court bouncing the ball off their head continuously. Try that one on for degree of difficulty.  Gips protestations there's a lot of standing around is BS.  From Wiki- Long games, a massive field and a constantly moving ball add up to serious distance for soccer players. STATS puts the average at 7 miles per game depending on position, and as much as 9.5 miles for some players

Tom, I'm 100% with you on golf. But you at least have to be able to walk- if you remember they wouldn't give that guy an exemption to use a cart because he had some weird vascular disorder. It's a repetitive skill. At least driving the ball off a tee, and putting. John Daley doesn't have that athletic look. Though with all due respects, the better golfers today do work out. Hey- Rory McIllroy missed some time on the Tour, got himself hurt playing soccer with his friends.  :)  

I played competitive tennis in my earlier years- and for sure you have to have some athletic ability- especially now. Back in the 70s you'd see guys hit kill shots once in awhile, now they murder every stroke. As to a repetitive skill- that's how I learned to develop a decent serve. Went out one summer every day with a bucket of tennis balls, and hit serves for a couple hours, until I got good at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Gips protestations there's a lot of standing around is BS.

I didn't say they just stood around, they move....but just with very rare attempt to attack the goal.   The guys running the Dean Smith 4 corners moved...the would dribble the ball all around and pass it all around....never attempting to score.  You know...like in soccer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Gipper said:

 Gips protestations there's a lot of standing around is BS.

I didn't say they just stood around, they move....but just with very rare attempt to attack the goal.   The guys running the Dean Smith 4 corners moved...the would dribble the ball all around and pass it all around....never attempting to score.  You know...like in soccer. 

Me and Nero would say that's your utter lack of knowledge how the game is played showing. You can't constantly attack in soccer, (you have to look for your openings) it leaves you open to a counter-attack- listen to the FS1 commentators. Shove everyone up close, one boot over the defenders heads, it's the equivalent of a three on none basketball break, and an almost certain goal. Where you don't get a second- or tenth chance, like in basketball. $hit like that happens (using the hockey equivalent) when you're down a goal, and you pull the goalie to go 6 on 5 in the last minute or two. Goals are at a premium- for a reason. They could make the scoring a a lot higher if they just shrunk the field. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hoorta said:

Me and Nero would say that's your utter lack of knowledge how the game is played showing.

Maybe..but that does not make it any less boring.

 

You can't constantly attack in soccer, (you have to look for your openings) it leaves you open to a counter-attack- listen to the FS1 commentators. Shove everyone up close, one boot over the defenders heads, it's the equivalent of a three on none basketball break, and an almost certain goal. Where you don't get a second- or tenth chance, like in basketball. $hit like that happens (using the hockey equivalent) when you're down a goal, and you pull the goalie to go 6 on 5 in the last minute or two. Goals are at a premium- for a reason. They could make the scoring a a lot higher if they just shrunk the field. 

Goals are at a premium because the teams rarely attempt to attack the goal...and because the rules of the game  disallow exciting attacks on the goal.  Eliminate the offside rule....make shootouts an organic part of the game..then it would maybe be interesting and exciting.  (But fuycking God forbid that there actually be 2-3 more goals scored per game.....)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2018 at 4:13 PM, hoorta said:

LOL, you remember Garo Yepremian saying "I keek a touchdown?" But at least on the pro level, you at least have to have endurance, not to mention some skill. We had a pretty decent soccer team in college and I'd see guys running around our basketball court bouncing the ball off their head continuously. Try that one on for degree of difficulty.  Gips protestations there's a lot of standing around is BS.  From Wiki- Long games, a massive field and a constantly moving ball add up to serious distance for soccer players. STATS puts the average at 7 miles per game depending on position, and as much as 9.5 miles for some players

Tom, I'm 100% with you on golf. But you at least have to be able to walk- if you remember they wouldn't give that guy an exemption to use a cart because he had some weird vascular disorder. It's a repetitive skill. At least driving the ball off a tee, and putting. John Daley doesn't have that athletic look. Though with all due respects, the better golfers today do work out. Hey- Rory McIllroy missed some time on the Tour, got himself hurt playing soccer with his friends.  :)  

I played competitive tennis in my earlier years- and for sure you have to have some athletic ability- especially now. Back in the 70s you'd see guys hit kill shots once in awhile, now they murder every stroke. As to a repetitive skill- that's how I learned to develop a decent serve. Went out one summer every day with a bucket of tennis balls, and hit serves for a couple hours, until I got good at it. 

Larry, on a serious note, my trip to the Masters was eye-opening. I don't consider horse racing a sport and will never change my opinion on that, but whatever one calls it, these pro golfers are very, very skilled. I honestly don't want to dis the guys. It is boring to me, but wow they have great hand eye, discipline and range judgement. Soccer? Boring to me, but these guys are athletes. Do you remember Kyle Rote Junior on the Super Stars Competition? We all laughed at the thought of a soccer sissy competing against NFL, MLB, NBA and boxers. hey guy didn't just win, he dominated.

I am an old NFL American. Baseball, Hotdogs Apple Pie and Chevrolet. I remember the great times we had in the 60s and 70s, and I have lived to see much that was good turned to schidt.  I say, God Bless anyone who can get paid to do something they love. I just like football, ya know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big Soccer/Futbol fan.. However.. I have tons of respect for those guys.. They play theyre butts off!... You have to have insane stamina to play it..  My Uncle was an Ohio Regional Championship coach and a player.. Hes won 10 championships as a player.. And an another10 championships as head coach.. That's like Impossible in any sport at any level... Yet there he is.. Inducted and enshrined in the Ohio Soccer Hall Of Fame , in Columbus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×