[Wutang]

(06-23-2014 03:20 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Pride Fighting league was way more entertaining than UFC though.

Japanese MMA has it's roots in pro-wrestling while the UFC started off as a competition to see how different martial arts styles would perform against each other. In other words, the former was as much of a spectacle as it was a sport while the latter tended to focus more on sport. Also, due to the backlash against the UFC and MMA in the states, saying that it was barbaric and had no place in civilizied society, American promoters have spent a lot more time trying to clean up the image of MMA and to present it as a sport that is just as legit as boxing, football, etc. The Japanese never had to worry about that so that's why they could have fights where there's a 50+ lb weight discrepancy between the combatants or have some clueless actor fight a street thug (Ken Kaneko vs. Charles 'Krazy Horse' Bennett in Pride) which yes, I do find entertaining even as a hardcore MMA fan that's always trying to defend it against people think it's just glorified street fighting.

[rudebwoy]

They don't like it because they are no good at it.

Whether you like it or not, it is the number one sport in the world.

[WalterBlack]

(06-23-2014 03:26 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Think about all those girls you see a sporting events - especially for college sports. Do you think most of them actually have anything but the feintiest idea about what's going on? For them it's not about the tactics or strategy or even about the game itself - it's about the social aspects ie. identifying with other people and feeling a sense of community. Men feel this too though with them the actual game does play a big part.

In UK there’s a lot less women at sporting events – one way to make a British woman lose all interest in you in is to bring up sports - most of them hate it. In the US I’ve been to baseball games where there’s groups of women not even watching the game. They go there just to hang out.

[TonySandos]

If USA was top ranked in FIFA we would see more of this

[speakeasy]

(06-23-2014 04:55 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

If USA was top ranked in FIFA we would see more of this

I'm still not sure about that. Americans don't even care about the MLS. I'd wager that half of Americans don't even know who their local MLS team is, or care. If MLS ever became at least as popular as the NHL, we might start seeing a sea-change.

[Hotwheels]

Why did the NFL fail in Europe?

[teh_skeeze]

I have always enjoyed the game of association football. In fact, I would call it my number 2 sport behind baseball. It all boils down to exposure. I played one season when I was 5 because I wasn't old enough for tee ball yet. I didn't play again until I was in high school because I was only allowed 1 sport a year, and I always chose baseball. There was no such thing as soccer on TV until USA '94. The old NASL was defunct before I had a memory, and MLS didn't come into existence until '96. In a way, it's been the sport of rejects in this country. The only reason I played in High School is because the JV team barely had enough guys to field a starting 11. I learned more about the game from playing Football Manager than I did from actually playing the sport.

This is changing now with more media options and the exposure being brought to the game here in the States. The worm is starting to turn as the Americans have fielded their best team ever for the WC this cycle. Give it another 2 cycles and we will be competing for the trophy. I also think the stock of CONCACAF is rising as well. Who would have thought that Costa Rica was advancing from their group?

[WalterBlack]

(06-23-2014 05:27 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Why did the NFL fail in Europe?

One reason is that the stop-start nature of the games pisses people off. If you grow on soccer and watch a free flowing game, then a game that stops every 30 seconds is very irritating.

[TonySandos]

(06-23-2014 05:12 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:55 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

If USA was top ranked in FIFA we would see more of this

I'm still not sure about that. Americans don't even care about the MLS. I'd wager that half of Americans don't even know who their local MLS team is, or care. If MLS ever became at least as popular as the NHL, we might start seeing a sea-change.

Ehhhhh the NHL always seemed to be living off a ventilator with minor blips here and there since I was a kid. I may be out of touch in the south. Still, if that's the standard then soccer will never really catch wind here.

[kosko]

(06-23-2014 12:12 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 11:56 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

#2) The USA likes to compete and win. And the World Cup is this huge sporting event where we are not the favorites. So it is an odd position that most Americans do not like. Rest assured though, Americans do know if our best athletes played soccer, rather than the big three sports, we would be at the top year in/year out, and we may not really get competition to be honest.

This is incorrect. America would not dominate the competition.

It's a valid point he has made. In strong countries your top athletes are on the pitch. Many countries soccer is the top of the food chain and all the resources are thrown at it.

If Lebron James, Adrian Peterson, and Andrew Luck (who plays soccer) played for Team USA it would be a beast of a team.

In places like England the top kids are groomed young and out into Premiership Academy's, in America the only equivalent us the IMG camps but that's only if the kid is already by choice excelling in soccer. In Europe they would guide (force) him into the game if they saw skill early.

[speakeasy]

(06-23-2014 07:04 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:12 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 11:56 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

#2) The USA likes to compete and win. And the World Cup is this huge sporting event where we are not the favorites. So it is an odd position that most Americans do not like. Rest assured though, Americans do know if our best athletes played soccer, rather than the big three sports, we would be at the top year in/year out, and we may not really get competition to be honest.

This is incorrect. America would not dominate the competition.

It's a valid point he has made. In strong countries your top athletes are on the pitch. Many countries soccer is the top of the food chain and all the resources are thrown at it.

If Lebron James, Adrian Peterson, and Andrew Luck (who plays soccer) played for Team USA it would be a beast of a team.

In places like England the top kids are groomed young and out into Premiership Academy's, in America the only equivalent us the IMG camps but that's only if the kid is already by choice excelling in soccer. In Europe they would guide (force) him into the game if they saw skill early.

Like Giovanny had said, I think the US does surprisingly well on the world stage given the deficit of talent we have compared to other nations.

[teh_skeeze]

Another thing that I just thought about. The game will grow exponentially in the next 20 years simply on the cost of going to a game. Last season, I got 2 tickets for an MLS playoff game (Red Bulls) for $70. I'd pay that for one seat to go to another sport. If a kid already plays soccer, it would be much cheaper to get the family out to see an MLS game than of the other sports. I can't speak for other MLS venues, but Red Bull Arena doesn't have a bad seat in the house. You can't say the same about Citi Field.

Edit: I'm pretty sure the Red Bulls have more fannies in the seats than the Mets do right now.

[Feisbook Control]

I'm not American, but here are my reasons:

1. It's a prole sport. Everyone commenting that anyone can play it anywhere with anything is precisely why I don't like it.

2. If you want a long, protracted game that can still end in a tie and has strategy, then try test cricket. Five days per match, tea breaks, can still end with a tie.

3. The riots. What is it about soccer that is so uncivilised? Probably see point 1. It's a game of the mouth-breathing barrio masses and their inflamed passions. Perhaps the players have discipline, but the fans don't. I had an English friend come out to Australia. I took him to an AFL match and he couldn't stop commenting on how the fans of different teams are not only allowed to sit together (with their kids), but get along with one another.

4. Yet given the propensity of soccer fans to burn and break shit, it's still a game of complete soft cocks running around a field. I second the comments by Canadians regarding hockey. Now that's a real game for men, even if I'm not into it. Here's another game for men:

(For you Queenslanders and New South Welshmen, yes, rugby is also hard as fuck.)

[San Luis]

Football is Art.

It perpetuates a form of expression that is palatable for the masses, yet sophisticated enough for connoisseurs. Novices can derive satisfaction and a certain pulsating adrenaline from an exciting game, but when one truly studies this sport, the tactical nous, chess-like unison and intricate details that define this game will astound you.

The drama is incomparable to any other sport. No sport has been able to showcase the extreme dedication and passion of fans worldwide on such a consistent level. Fans in lesser developed regions of the world regularly risk death to display support for their team. Yet, such alienation at club level, is reversed by unity at national level, where blood is thicker than water.

The political undertones behind games are no less of an attraction. If China was in the World Cup and by some twist of fate faces the USA in a make-or-break encounter, will this be purely a game of football or is there more? If Japan was to face China, can the world ignore the history and tension? If Germany were to face Russia in the finals, what is at stake? Any sport at national level can ignite traits of patriotism but football realizes it at such a massive and superior level because of its worldwide fan base and popularity. The World Cup, from a political perspective, is the world war with no guns, but all the strategy.

The criticisms targeted at the sport for its apparent lack of manhood stem from the failure to observe the sport at its true level, as if blood spilled is a barometer of "hardness", the supposed ultimate definition of sporting entertainment. A bloodied nose is nothing compared to a broken foot.

Watching a World Cup does not immediately allow one to know the sport. The USA does not understand football yet, but it will with time.

[kosko]

(06-23-2014 07:29 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 07:04 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:12 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 11:56 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

#2) The USA likes to compete and win. And the World Cup is this huge sporting event where we are not the favorites. So it is an odd position that most Americans do not like. Rest assured though, Americans do know if our best athletes played soccer, rather than the big three sports, we would be at the top year in/year out, and we may not really get competition to be honest.

This is incorrect. America would not dominate the competition.

It's a valid point he has made. In strong countries your top athletes are on the pitch. Many countries soccer is the top of the food chain and all the resources are thrown at it.

If Lebron James, Adrian Peterson, and Andrew Luck (who plays soccer) played for Team USA it would be a beast of a team.

In places like England the top kids are groomed young and out into Premiership Academy's, in America the only equivalent us the IMG camps but that's only if the kid is already by choice excelling in soccer. In Europe they would guide (force) him into the game if they saw skill early.

Like Giovanny had said, I think the US does surprisingly well on the world stage given the deficit of talent we have compared to other nations.

The USA hacks it well. The MLS is a poor mans league but they make it desirable enough for the elite USA players to stay in and develop. Dudes like Dempsey, have, and could be playing in Europe but being on his side of the pond for a good pay day isn't a bad deal. USA soccer didn't even really exist before 1988, so for how consistent they have been I agree it is shown the programs strengths.

And yes there is going to be a rush of talent in the pipeline. Soccer is the most played sport among youth in North America since as you mentioned it's accessible, and cheap to play. Canada is having a national crisis with Hockey because it costs a stack just to put fucking pads on your kid then another $600 in league fees, and a ton of dead time driving your kid to random rinks outside of town. Parents can't deal with that and soccer is more approachable. Canada soccer federation is inept and corrupt, so we have not had the same success as the USA. Plus having your own league helps so much. Any country worth it's salt has some type of league in plays solely as a means to crop and develop players. You have to have young aspiring players get whipped around by more skilled older players and veterans, it's a key way for them to learn.

[Pepini]

(06-23-2014 02:36 PM)scotian Wrote:  

In Canada the only boys who play soccer are the ones whose moms won't let them play hockey, pussies.

[img][/img]

You know what a football player brings to a game for protection? a pair of balls.
Hockey players? Helmets, neck guard, shoulder pads, etc, etc.

Van Basten was a great player who stopped playing because of a wrong tackle from behind (1:50) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8J4V5DHwL4

A tackle destroyed his career and since then I believe any tackle from behind is a direct red card. So you don´t want them to dive every time their being tackled??? Sure they could start using protections. But then it would not be a man game.

I couldn´t walk for 6 months because of a football injury. It was the worst time of my life.

You wanna see guts. Stand in front of a 500kg bull and dominate it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8_iDGChs8U

[Hotwheels]

(06-23-2014 05:52 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 05:27 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Why did the NFL fail in Europe?

One reason is that the stop-start nature of the games pisses people off. If you grow on soccer and watch a free flowing game, then a game that stops every 30 seconds is very irritating.

If you grow up on football you don't care to watch a bunch of little guys in shorts and tshirts chase a ball around for 90 minutes while not being able to use their hands or take out the other guys.


I do like Aussie rules football btw.

[Kingsley Davis]

(06-23-2014 11:21 AM)kosko Wrote:  

It's a sport of strategy and finesse and Americans don't compute with that any more on a taste/cultural level. Boxing and baseball used to be American go to sports and they had a lot of aspects that soccer has but Americans don't mess with it anymore (no more patience for baseball, people think boxing is to barbaric..or not barbaric enough). Now take Football and UFC. Football is a great sport but it's nothing more then a broadway production or jacked up dudes meant for TV. It's TV theatre and Americans eat that up.

I'm in the middle. I like watching soccer live but on TV can't get into the Euro league shit that's on the rest of the time (EPL, LIGA, etc) . I'm not a big enough fan to mess with it full time. I like international play because these guys don't duck around. You can tell it means something versus them going through the motions for a cheque in Europe. That added tension and emotion puts it over the edge and gets me hooked.

But one major flaw is that Americans can't fuck with that softy/flop shit. Even me as a middle of the fence soccer fan it drives me nuts. I can't handle physically elite men acting like frail queers when they get tapped on the shoulder. It's one of the biggest complaints Americans and Canadians make about the game. The time thin is over blown, it's seeing plays and chances develop that is part of the draw. The games actually don't last that long and you don't have to be 100% engaged once you learn how to watch it. You can see a chance or a good counter attack develop early and you know when to focus in on the game. You don't just watch for goals just like with hockey your seeing other things develop, it's the drama before the goal which makes it all worth it.

World Cup is on another level though. If you can't get drawn into the emotions of it you gotta check your pulse. I've been at the edge me my seat almost each game.

Soccer is a good game. It's the one sport everybody can play on a even level. It's a good sport to pick up chic's too. The patient games like baseball and soccer draw a lot of broads since it's low impact and they don't have actually be engaged 100%. There is always hot broads at the Toronto FC games. Even more when they got the International friendlies.

"I like international play because these guys don't duck around. You can tell it means something versus them going through the motions for a cheque in Europe."

England begs to differ.

[Antares]

I grew up on American football, but I like to watch soccer around world cup time and Olympics. I have a lot of respect for the endurance of soccer players given the running clock, field size and measure of talent it takes to play. I can appreciate a game that ends 0-0 and still be entertained by it.

Dont get me wrong, I like american football much more, but I definitely understand the appeal of soccer. Also, I think it is growing in the US. I know its pretty popular in the northwest with the Seattle Sounders and Portland Timbers rivalry and appears to be growing.

Somebody made a comment about the running clock and limited ability for TV ads, which I think could be one of the biggest contributes to the sports inability to gain a following. There is too much money in advertisements to make a soccer game a priority over another sport on television.

[Christian McQueen]

Because in American football we have these:



And in soccer you have these:

[LEMONed IScream]

Jeez McQueen, no cherry picking, there are cheerleaders in "soccer" too. And I won't even mention the wifeys of some players.

[Antares]

You bring up an interesting point. Save for the Cowboys (who are famous for their cheerleaders), some of the franchises with the largest and strongest fan bases actually don't have cheerleaders. For instance Pittsburgh, Green Bay and the New York Giants all do not have cheerleaders but represent a large percentage of fan following in the NFL.

[MidWest]

Im my opionion I think it has to do with our culture and the fact that America is the lone superpower. Think about it, Americans do not like sports that other countries invented or other countries excel on. Remember, we've been told at such a young age that America is #1. So sports are culture and Americans only like sports they invented or made.

Basketball-NBA
Baseball- America's past time

American Football is as American as apple pie and its played at every level, Middle school, High School, College, and Professionally. Friday night is reserved for high school games where parents go and see their kids play as showed in the movie "Friday Night Lights". Saturday is reserved for College games, and Sunday of course is reserved for the NFL.

Also if you notice in Baseball the final is called the "World Series" and when a team in the NBA, MLB and NFL win the final they are referred as "World Champions" by the media here. As to say "the world revolves around us" sort of speak. Americans are the kings of Basketball, are the kings of Baseball, are the kings of American Football by default, and they want to keep it that way. We don't like sports where other countries excel at, it goes against our American identity about being #1 all the time.

Soccer is not American so the mentality is "we don't like it" Many in this country consider it a "foreign" sport. Even a former congressman has once called soccer a socialist sport and un-American.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2010/06/soccer-...ist-sport/


In Conclusion. American Football, Basketball, and Baseball are all American and invented by Americans. Soccer is not. It's just culture.


Also I don't agree with the argument that its "boring". How do you even define boring when it comes to sports. In reality any sport can be boring. In Basketball, nothing spectacular happens until the 4th quarter, you can just watch the 4th quarter. In Baseball, there is no difference in watching a 1-0 ball game than a 1-0 soccer game. Same in Football.

Just my two cents.

[Brosemite]

(06-23-2014 07:46 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The USA hacks it well. The MLS is a poor mans league but they make it desirable enough for the elite USA players to stay in and develop. Dudes like Dempsey, have, and could be playing in Europe but being on his side of the pond for a good pay day isn't a bad deal. USA soccer didn't even really exist before 1988, so for how consistent they have been I agree it is shown the programs strengths.

Definitely a good deal for North American soccer players the MLS is...not to mention for some Latin American players balling in that league too.

MLS will definitely never be as popular for the year round "hardcore fans" living in North America as the European leagues, but technological advancements have made the most well-known ones accessible for people in the US/Canada/Americas not to mention the Asian regions that pour a great deal of $$$ into FIFA too.

(06-23-2014 07:46 PM)kosko Wrote:  

And yes there is going to be a rush of talent in the pipeline. Soccer is the most played sport among youth in North America since as you mentioned it's accessible, and cheap to play. Canada is having a national crisis with Hockey because it costs a stack just to put fucking pads on your kid then another $600 in league fees, and a ton of dead time driving your kid to random rinks outside of town.

Funny enough..to start playing soccer...leagues aren't that expensive. As kids get older and play in more competitive select leagues, soccer can be AS expensive as the tennis route of A) out of pocket traveling expenses for tournaments, B) country club drills, C) private lessons, D) equipment purchases/repairs (new racquets/stringing) etc etc. There just aren't as many volunteers for "competitive" youth soccer as there are for youth baseball, basketball, and American style football.

I could understand hockey being expensive with all the equipment & what not, but the biggest reason soccer is not that popular in the US can be attributed to the costs of competitive leagues. Soccer is therefore considered a "yuppy sport" at least it was when I was growing up. You learn a lot about footwork skills & coordination that can translate extremely well into other sports going forward....but if you're a young buck playing multiple sports growing up and thinking about narrowing down the choices...eliminating soccer from the equation is surprisingly the most cost efficient option when it's apparently the cheapest sport to play all around the world however.

(06-23-2014 07:46 PM)kosko Wrote:  

I'm in the middle. I like watching soccer live but on TV can't get into the Euro league shit that's on the rest of the time (EPL, LIGA, etc) . I'm not a big enough fan to mess with it full time. I like international play because these guys don't duck around. You can tell it means something versus them going through the motions for a cheque in Europe. That added tension and emotion puts it over the edge and gets me hooked.

The time difference is one thing for North Americans, but it's also extremely hard for me at least to keep up with all the leagues occurring in Europe. It's quite the handful especially for a guy like myself who keeps up with NFL, College Football, NHL, NBA, ATP Tennis, and at times NCAA Basketball. Those leagues above are primarily based out of North America with the best athletes around the world typically relocating there to partake in it at the highest level...obviously the ATP is the only standard for tennis @ its highest standard with the PGA being the same for golf.

Maybe if there was a more extensive European Champions league involving a regular season opposed to too much emphasis on the big market zillion dollar rosters of Bayer Munich or Real Madrid running up the score on super poor teams in their own respective country-based leagues....

[Blackmagic]

There were a lot of current American NHL players that grew up watching the "Miracle on Ice," in 1980 and within 20 years that spawned a generation of hockey players that grew up to be able to compete and win against the heavyweights in hockey such as Russia, Canada, Sweden, etc. and win international tournaments. U.S. soccer hasn't had that seminal moment yet and it could happen in this World Cup or the next, but you'd better believe that there are more American kids now inspired by watching the passion of the Nation that are picking up a soccer ball these days instead of a baseball or basketball.

The U.S. is the third largest nation on the planet by population and the largest competing in the World Cup. Statistics also show that there are over 3 million kids registered to play in the American youth soccer system, which is quickly gaining respect around the world because they've began to emulate the youth systems built by the pro teams in Europe. Even in a country with so many other options for sports that talented athletes can play, we should be able to identify a 23 man team to compete against the world's best. Especially, if many of the other power houses around the world have 20% or less of our population. Within the next 20 years, I'd say the U.S. can and should be able to produce a World Cup championship team.