The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Not wholly, but I disagree about football and golf. Football players are in ridiculous shape and have to be because it's a very active game (like I said, a play every 25 seconds or less), and golf requires a lot of walking and a vast array of different swings to successfully play championship-level golf.
I especially agree on the issue of quantitative measurement.
Kind of off-topic, I think timed grouped events in the Olympics (or elsewhere) is a bunch of horseshit. I shouldn't be timed in any instance where someone can legally impair my progress.
If that WSJ image from the first page is correct, then football players aren't that active. If you had a professional football team go play something like soccer or rugby I'm sure they would collapse before half the game was over.
As for golf, I understand it takes a LOT of skill, but the level of physical exertion just seems to be absolutely pitiful when compared to Tennis, Soccer, or Rugby.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Baseball and football are both boring because for most of the time nothing is happening. Basketball, rugby, starcraft and kickboxing are fun to watch.
Football has a ton of strategy that is constantly being revised and created during every moment of the game. It's why there are a dozen coaches up in the booths during the game, mapping the opposing side's formations. They don't wear those headsets the whole time for nothing.
As well, there's a game clock. You're never more than 25 seconds from the next play.
Baseball needs a game clock, as someone suggested.
I'm sure it's terribly exciting for the coaches. Just not for me.
And yeah, the next play that lasts a few seconds comes within 25 seconds when the clock isn't stopped or in a commercial break or in a timeout. But I do realize that it like many things could be even more boring with the right modifications. If they cut out the waiting and left in the hilarious slow-motion shots it would be fun to watch.
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
0
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Not wholly, but I disagree about football and golf. Football players are in ridiculous shape and have to be because it's a very active game (like I said, a play every 25 seconds or less), and golf requires a lot of walking and a vast array of different swings to successfully play championship-level golf.
I especially agree on the issue of quantitative measurement.
Kind of off-topic, I think timed grouped events in the Olympics (or elsewhere) is a bunch of horseshit. I shouldn't be timed in any instance where someone can legally impair my progress.
If that WSJ image from the first page is correct, then football players aren't that active. If you had a professional football team go play something like soccer or rugby I'm sure they would collapse before half the game was over.
As for golf, I understand it takes a LOT of skill, but the level of physical exertion just seems to be absolutely pitiful when compared to Tennis, Soccer, or Rugby.
Football players also get substituted for often enough to get a break on the sideline. But you can't make the blanket judgement that less rest = more physical exertion. Football players don't train to be able to run, nonstop, for 90 minutes. I'm sure they could if they wanted to.
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Baseball and football are both boring because for most of the time nothing is happening. Basketball, rugby, starcraft and kickboxing are fun to watch.
Football has a ton of strategy that is constantly being revised and created during every moment of the game. It's why there are a dozen coaches up in the booths during the game, mapping the opposing side's formations. They don't wear those headsets the whole time for nothing.
As well, there's a game clock. You're never more than 25 seconds from the next play.
Baseball needs a game clock, as someone suggested.
I'm sure it's terribly exciting for the coaches. Just not for me.
And yeah, the next play that lasts a few seconds comes within 25 seconds when the clock isn't stopped or in a commercial break or in a timeout. But I do realize that it like many things could be even more boring with the right modifications. If they cut out the waiting and left in the hilarious slow-motion shots it would be fun to watch.
Football is, to me, one of the better sports to watch on TV instead of live. The replays and commentary fill in the little gaps between plays.
0
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Baseball and football are both boring because for most of the time nothing is happening. Basketball, rugby, starcraft and kickboxing are fun to watch.
Football has a ton of strategy that is constantly being revised and created during every moment of the game. It's why there are a dozen coaches up in the booths during the game, mapping the opposing side's formations. They don't wear those headsets the whole time for nothing.
As well, there's a game clock. You're never more than 25 seconds from the next play.
Baseball needs a game clock, as someone suggested.
I'm sure it's terribly exciting for the coaches. Just not for me.
And yeah, the next play that lasts a few seconds comes within 25 seconds when the clock isn't stopped or in a commercial break or in a timeout. But I do realize that it like many things could be even more boring with the right modifications. If they cut out the waiting and left in the hilarious slow-motion shots it would be fun to watch.
Just watch NFL RedZone. Nonstop football for 7 hours. Cuts from game to game and shows basically only plays that are currently happening from the most interesting game situation and highlights of touchdowns it misses. Cuts out what you don't like
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
People who don't follow hockey have a weird estimation of how much fighting goes on in hockey.
If my memory serves me correctly, I thought hockey had quite a bit of fighting in the 90s before they started instituting some of their fighting rules.
I don't know about the frequency of fighting between the 1990s and the 2000s, but as far as I can recall, there hasn't been any major change to the section of the NHL rulebook which covers fighting since the early 1990s (the "instigator" minor/major/misconduct penalty).
People who don't follow hockey have a weird estimation of how much fighting goes on in hockey.
If my memory serves me correctly, I thought hockey had quite a bit of fighting in the 90s before they started instituting some of their fighting rules.
I don't know about the frequency of fighting between the 1990s and the 2000s, but as far as I can recall, there hasn't been any major change to the section of the NHL rulebook which covers fighting since the early 1990s (the "instigator" minor/major/misconduct penalty).
Also, the rise of the "Broad Street Bullies" in the 1973–74 and 1974–75 Philadelphia Flyers popularized fighting in the NHL. The average number of fights per game rose above 1.0 during the 1980s.[5] Many teams signed enforcers to protect and fight for smaller offensive stars.[12] By 2009–10, however, the amount of fights in the NHL declined to .58 per game.[5]
Since the 1970s, three rules have curtailed the number and scope of fights in the NHL. In 1977, the league created the "Third Man In" rule which attempts to eliminate the bench-clearing brawl by providing for the ejection of the first player that joins a fight already in progress.[13] Another rule automatically suspends the first player from each team that leaves the bench to join a fight when it is not their shift.[14] In 1992, the "Instigator" rule, which adds an additional two-minute minor penalty to the player who starts a fight,[13] was introduced, though the rule has been recently controversial [1]
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
As for golf, I understand it takes a LOT of skill, but the level of physical exertion just seems to be absolutely pitiful when compared to Tennis, Soccer, or Rugby.
On the surface that would seem to make sense. In practice, however, the best scoring golfers these days tend to be the youngest and fittest. Major champions are collectively younger now than they've ever been. In the past, a golfer wasn't "mature" until he hit his thirties; now if you haven't got your first major by your mid 30s, you probably won't ever.
Though I do wonder how much of that has been the "Tiger-proofing" of golf, i.e., making courses longer and more physically demanding. I always thought that was a stupid way to challenge players who started dominating the game with power.
"The studies show that younger, fitter golfers with new technology are scoring better than their more mature or finesse-styled counterparts due to their great length off the tee. To balance the field, we're going to---"
"Shorten the course and craft holes to require a more varied skillset of shots?"
"What? Fuck, no. People want to see dudes ripping shots for 400 yards, not some little shit bending his wedge under a tree for a good chip. No, idiot, what we're going to do is make every hole as long and straight as we can. That'll teach those long-driving fuckers."
People who don't follow hockey have a weird estimation of how much fighting goes on in hockey.
If my memory serves me correctly, I thought hockey had quite a bit of fighting in the 90s before they started instituting some of their fighting rules.
I don't know about the frequency of fighting between the 1990s and the 2000s, but as far as I can recall, there hasn't been any major change to the section of the NHL rulebook which covers fighting since the early 1990s (the "instigator" minor/major/misconduct penalty).
Also, the rise of the "Broad Street Bullies" in the 1973–74 and 1974–75 Philadelphia Flyers popularized fighting in the NHL. The average number of fights per game rose above 1.0 during the 1980s.[5] Many teams signed enforcers to protect and fight for smaller offensive stars.[12] By 2009–10, however, the amount of fights in the NHL declined to .58 per game.[5]
Since the 1970s, three rules have curtailed the number and scope of fights in the NHL. In 1977, the league created the "Third Man In" rule which attempts to eliminate the bench-clearing brawl by providing for the ejection of the first player that joins a fight already in progress.[13] Another rule automatically suspends the first player from each team that leaves the bench to join a fight when it is not their shift.[14] In 1992, the "Instigator" rule, which adds an additional two-minute minor penalty to the player who starts a fight,[13] was introduced, though the rule has been recently controversial [1]
Embarrassingly, I'm pretty sure I knew that the rules haven't changed in any meaningful way since then because of the EA Sports NHL series. But I think we're done nerding up this thread on hockey unless anyone wants to know what icing is and how it's different in the IHL.
As for golf, I understand it takes a LOT of skill, but the level of physical exertion just seems to be absolutely pitiful when compared to Tennis, Soccer, or Rugby.
On the surface that would seem to make sense. In practice, however, the best scoring golfers these days tend to be the youngest and fittest. Major champions are collectively younger now than they've ever been. In the past, a golfer wasn't "mature" until he hit his thirties; now if you haven't got your first major by your mid 30s, you probably won't ever.
Though I do wonder how much of that has been the "Tiger-proofing" of golf, i.e., making courses longer and more physically demanding. I always thought that was a stupid way to challenge players who started dominating the game with power.
"The studies show that younger, fitter golfers with new technology are scoring better than their more mature or finesse-styled counterparts due to their great length off the tee. To balance the field, we're going to---"
"Shorten the course and craft holes to require a more varied skillset of shots?"
"What? Fuck, no. People want to see dudes ripping shots for 400 yards, not some little shit bending his wedge under a tree for a good chip. No, idiot, what we're going to do is make every hole as long and straight as we can. That'll teach those long-driving fuckers."
"damn kids, at least they still don't let women into augusta"
dlinfiniti on
AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Although I think there's a lot of ground to somewhat combine the two to make soccer an entertaining and watchable support, which I currently feel it is not (although it's slightly better than watching baseball IMO).
Arena soccer would be fantastic, play in a walled field approximately the size of a hockey rink, which is about a quarter of a regular soccer field, halve the width of the goal, shrink the player count down to 6 on 6 or so, bam, you have a great sport.
Honestly if there's one thing soccer needs to crib from hockey its line changes. The average soccer player covers 7 miles per game. Which is a lot, until you remember that the game is 95 minutes long. 13 minutes a mile. In Hockey(granted people skate faster than they walk) a player is covering about 4 miles in 20 minutes of play, done in shifts. The game is played at a near-sprint, which is what makes it so exciting.
No. Stop. North Americans (Mexico aside) don't like soccer. We get it. Stop trying to tinker with it though. Just let it go and the rest of the world will handle it just fine. You guys keep your football, mmkay?
In terms of baseball though, I think a lot of people here just don't realize how much of the game is being played away from the action. Just because a player is standing around with no balls coming toward him doesn't mean that he isn't doing anything. I can't count the number of times I've missed seeing a play because I got distracted for a split second.
Obviously soccer's problem is that it doesn't have enough big engines and explosions.
It's quite interesting that people would tell huge groups of other people that the sport they're finding exciting isn't actually exciting at all. Not that they just don't find it exciting, but that it is not exciting and that people who think so are obviously wrong.
I mean, it's not a new thing and understandable to some degree even, but when Youessians start flat-out saying that the game that is the biggest thing in the world is unexciting you gotta wonder what the hell is going on.
Although I think there's a lot of ground to somewhat combine the two to make soccer an entertaining and watchable support, which I currently feel it is not (although it's slightly better than watching baseball IMO).
Arena soccer would be fantastic, play in a walled field approximately the size of a hockey rink, which is about a quarter of a regular soccer field, halve the width of the goal, shrink the player count down to 6 on 6 or so, bam, you have a great sport.
Honestly if there's one thing soccer needs to crib from hockey its line changes. The average soccer player covers 7 miles per game. Which is a lot, until you remember that the game is 95 minutes long. 13 minutes a mile. In Hockey(granted people skate faster than they walk) a player is covering about 4 miles in 20 minutes of play, done in shifts. The game is played at a near-sprint, which is what makes it so exciting.
No. Stop. North Americans (Mexico aside) don't like soccer. We get it. Stop trying to tinker with it though. Just let it go and the rest of the world will handle it just fine. You guys keep your football, mmkay?
In terms of baseball though, I think a lot of people here just don't realize how much of the game is being played away from the action. Just because a player is standing around with no balls coming toward him doesn't mean that he isn't doing anything. I can't count the number of times I've missed seeing a play because I got distracted for a split second.
Obviously soccer's problem is that it doesn't have enough big engines and explosions.
It's quite interesting that people would tell huge groups of other people that the sport they're finding exciting isn't actually exciting at all. Not that they just don't find it exciting, but that it is not exciting and that people who think so are obviously wrong.
I mean, it's not a new thing and understandable to some degree even, but when Youessians start flat-out saying that the game that is the biggest thing in the world is unexciting you gotta wonder what the hell is going on.
I mean, it's not a new thing and understandable to some degree even, but when Youessians start flat-out saying that the game that is the biggest thing in the world is unexciting you gotta wonder what the hell is going on.
Honestly, if that's the absolute worst impression you get of American Exceptionalism, then we're not doing nearly as horribly as I thought.
Well it's the form of American Exceptionalism that seems to be the broadest-held. And it's maybe the most noticeable and striking example.
Only in America would you have a World Series that is actually just a national competition. While most countries have different sports being the biggest, the US seems to be the only country that has biggest sports that are almost nowhere else the biggest. And they don't seem to consider national competition as competition at all (which probably explains why the US doesn't dominate those competitions in basketball,baseball and football).
Baseball and football are both boring because for most of the time nothing is happening. Basketball, rugby, starcraft and kickboxing are fun to watch.
Football has a ton of strategy that is constantly being revised and created during every moment of the game. It's why there are a dozen coaches up in the booths during the game, mapping the opposing side's formations. They don't wear those headsets the whole time for nothing.
As well, there's a game clock. You're never more than 25 seconds from the next play.
Baseball needs a game clock, as someone suggested.
I'm sure it's terribly exciting for the coaches. Just not for me.
And yeah, the next play that lasts a few seconds comes within 25 seconds when the clock isn't stopped or in a commercial break or in a timeout. But I do realize that it like many things could be even more boring with the right modifications. If they cut out the waiting and left in the hilarious slow-motion shots it would be fun to watch.
Just watch NFL RedZone. Nonstop football for 7 hours. Cuts from game to game and shows basically only plays that are currently happening from the most interesting game situation and highlights of touchdowns it misses. Cuts out what you don't like
Man, I got NFLRZ this year and it is so glorious. It feels like I'm developing an attention disorder as I watch. Then at the very end of the day they show every single touchdown of the day again, in a 3 minute highlight reel. It's a highlight reel to a show that consists of 100% highlights.
0
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Baseball and football are both boring because for most of the time nothing is happening. Basketball, rugby, starcraft and kickboxing are fun to watch.
Football has a ton of strategy that is constantly being revised and created during every moment of the game. It's why there are a dozen coaches up in the booths during the game, mapping the opposing side's formations. They don't wear those headsets the whole time for nothing.
As well, there's a game clock. You're never more than 25 seconds from the next play.
Baseball needs a game clock, as someone suggested.
I'm sure it's terribly exciting for the coaches. Just not for me.
And yeah, the next play that lasts a few seconds comes within 25 seconds when the clock isn't stopped or in a commercial break or in a timeout. But I do realize that it like many things could be even more boring with the right modifications. If they cut out the waiting and left in the hilarious slow-motion shots it would be fun to watch.
Just watch NFL RedZone. Nonstop football for 7 hours. Cuts from game to game and shows basically only plays that are currently happening from the most interesting game situation and highlights of touchdowns it misses. Cuts out what you don't like
Man, I got NFLRZ this year and it is so glorious. It feels like I'm developing an attention disorder as I watch. Then at the very end of the day they show every single touchdown of the day again, in a 3 minute highlight reel. It's a highlight reel to a show that consists of 100% highlights.
i feel like football is no longer games, consisting of two teams playing against each other. it is just me, and touchdowns. each week i become more touchdown, and touchdown more i
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited October 2011
So the country that invented the sport is an afterthought, eh? Interesting. :P America isn't even all that into hockey. In Canada, it's a religion.
Honestly, if that's the absolute worst impression you get of American Exceptionalism, then we're not doing nearly as horribly as I thought.
Well it's the form of American Exceptionalism that seems to be the broadest-held. And it's maybe the most noticeable and striking example.
Only in America would you have a World Series that is actually just a national competition. While most countries have different sports being the biggest, the US seems to be the only country that has biggest sports that are almost nowhere else the biggest. And they don't seem to consider national competition as competition at all (which probably explains why the US doesn't dominate those competitions in basketball,baseball and football).
Hey, there's at least a major league baseball team in Toronto. The NFL's about 12 times more self-righteous about their bullshit world championship nonsense.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I mean, it's not a new thing and understandable to some degree even, but when Youessians start flat-out saying that the game that is the biggest thing in the world is unexciting you gotta wonder what the hell is going on.
Or is feeling superior about yourself over someone else's choice of entertainment only bad if you don't agree with it?
I could spit out a bunch of stuff about how football has really dumb players and half the time is just sitting around doing nothing and all kinds of other nonsense but I don't because I can understand that some games have an appeal without necessarily being interested in it. I don't need to justify my entertainment choices by putting them on the top of some objective entertainment-hierarchy.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Honestly, if that's the absolute worst impression you get of American Exceptionalism, then we're not doing nearly as horribly as I thought.
Well it's the form of American Exceptionalism that seems to be the broadest-held. And it's maybe the most noticeable and striking example.
Only in America would you have a World Series that is actually just a national competition. While most countries have different sports being the biggest, the US seems to be the only country that has biggest sports that are almost nowhere else the biggest. And they don't seem to consider national competition as competition at all (which probably explains why the US doesn't dominate those competitions in basketball,baseball and football).
Hey, there's at least a major league baseball team in Toronto. The NFL's about 12 times more self-righteous about their bullshit world championship nonsense.
's true, just using it as an example because I read something earlier about a world series game.
(also because the Dutch team won the baseball championship earlier and thus baseball currently being the sport where the US isn't the world champion)
It's quite interesting that people would tell huge groups of other people that the sport they're finding exciting isn't actually exciting at all. Not that they just don't find it exciting, but that it is not exciting and that people who think so are obviously wrong.
I mean, it's not a new thing and understandable to some degree even, but when Youessians start flat-out saying that the game that is the biggest thing in the world is unexciting you gotta wonder what the hell is going on.
Well, the thing is when talking about Baseball, we're right.
I actually love soccer as an American. I love that all you need to play the game is a pitch, a ball and a watch. Hockey is my passion, but it's fucking expensive just to play a friendly game of no-contact river hockey. Baseball, you need a bunch of gloves, and those are expensive. Football requires a bunch of expensive pads. All you need to play soccer growing up is some friends, a ball and a watch to keep time, and I dig that.
Not true. The defense is at a disadvantage in football because of the complexity of any given football play. A defense can be perfectly stationed to stop one play, but have it be a ruse and break coverage only to give up a big play or score.
Plus, there are situations that defenses are statistically unable/barely able to accommodate for. A quick out route will work every time in man-to-man coverage. A 6'5" receiver will always beat a 5'8" corner for a jump-ball.
There's some chaos in football, and endless variety, and new stuff being invented all the time.
Baseball, more or less, is still the same game it has been for 100 years.
The ironic thing being that most people who are staunch ears-in-fingers-lalalala traditionalists refuse to acknowledge that baseball has changed drastically since its original inception 150 years ago.
Ok, fess up, you're just trolling.
0
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Honestly, if that's the absolute worst impression you get of American Exceptionalism, then we're not doing nearly as horribly as I thought.
Well it's the form of American Exceptionalism that seems to be the broadest-held. And it's maybe the most noticeable and striking example.
Only in America would you have a World Series that is actually just a national competition. While most countries have different sports being the biggest, the US seems to be the only country that has biggest sports that are almost nowhere else the biggest. And they don't seem to consider national competition as competition at all (which probably explains why the US doesn't dominate those competitions in basketball,baseball and football).
Hey, there's at least a major league baseball team in Toronto. The NFL's about 12 times more self-righteous about their bullshit world championship nonsense.
If you honestly believe there's a football team somewhere that would beat whoever wins the Super Bowl this year, present them.
But why is having your own sports a bad thing?
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
MMA is safer than boxing. Sorry, I've done both myself. I've watched both for a long time. I could go into the reasons but I'll spare those for another thread. Not to mention boxing is crooked as hell at this point and is getting more and more difficult to care about.
Having lived in Oz, I can say that the general opinion of soccer there is only slightly above what it is in the US. They do recognize it as a sport. They will watch it. But they are also nuts about sport in general there, and soccer is toward the bottom of the list. Most would probaly watch swimming there before soccer. So there's at least one other country that ain't big on it.
As far as the World Series not being international: yeah, sorta if you only pay attention to team names. MLB is also the premier baseball league in the world and is full of players from nearly the entire baseball-playing world. Nevermind that 100 years ago when it all started the name really was true considering the international standing of baseball.
That Tosh.0 sketch is right, though. Soccer is so popular because it's cheap to play. It's not a superior sport, it's just something everyone can play.
And Soccer is a sport that will kick your ass if you aren't in shape. Basketball too. I find it boring to watch, but I think Basketball and Soccer probably offer the biggest workouts. Tennis too, I guess.
As far as football conditioning goes, don't forget that on most plays, a good portion of the players end up on the ground. And picking yourself up while wearing full padding 30-40 times a game can be exhausting. Just because the play is over doesn't mean the physical aspect is over for most football players
That Tosh.0 sketch is right, though. Soccer is so popular because it's cheap to play. It's not a superior sport, it's just something everyone can play.
But watching soccer isn't any cheaper than watching football, nor is playing it in an actual team cheaper than American sports. Even if it was, basketball is also cheap but it's still way more popular than soccer in the US and the other way around in the rest of the world. (I like a pick-up game of basketball btw, grab a ball, find a court and play a game with others there. It's probably easier to do than soccer in an urban environment.)
Having lived in Oz, I can say that the general opinion of soccer there is only slightly above what it is in the US. They do recognize it as a sport. They will watch it. But they are also nuts about sport in general there, and soccer is toward the bottom of the list. Most would probaly watch swimming there before soccer. So there's at least one other country that ain't big on it.
There's plenty of countries not big on it. Plenty of others sports where a lot of countries aren't big on it.
But the US has big sports where almost no other county is big on it. The three big sports don't have the same international competition that others have.
As far as the World Series not being international: yeah, sorta if you only pay attention to team names. MLB is also the premier baseball league in the world and is full of players from nearly the entire baseball-playing world. Nevermind that 100 years ago when it all started the name really was true considering the international standing of baseball.
National soccer leagues aren't international just because half the players in it are from different countries. Obviously the US teams are the best at attracting foreign talent but that goes for all sports.
The baseball to football preference is an interesting phenomenon because it highlights the culture's shortened attention span and need for flashy flash in entertainment. Baseball is literature and football is twitter. And we all know literature is dead.
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
As far as the World Series not being international: yeah, sorta if you only pay attention to team names. MLB is also the premier baseball league in the world and is full of players from nearly the entire baseball-playing world. Nevermind that 100 years ago when it all started the name really was true considering the international standing of baseball.
There are many considerations at play there.
- In most countries that play baseball, when people reach a certain level of talent, MLB tries to (and usually succeeds in their effort) hire them. Baseball is actually pretty big everywhere except Europe and Africa, and the recruiting of Asians and South/Central Americans into the MLB confirms that.
- MLB doesn't allow its players to compete in non-sanctioned events like the Olympics, unlike the NBA or professional women's leagues. So throw all those old baseball Olympics medals out the window, countries like Taipei and the Netherlands; our AAA kids playing for Toledo and Racine are still medaling, and they (by our own standards) suck.
Soccer / Futbol is fucking terrible. I'm sorry, it just is.
I love the shit out of hockey, and that is a low scoring game, but good god, soccer makes hockey look like fucking basketball. I seriously do not get the appeal of soccer to the rest of the world.
That Tosh.0 sketch is right, though. Soccer is so popular because it's cheap to play. It's not a superior sport, it's just something everyone can play.
But watching soccer isn't any cheaper than watching football, nor is playing it in an actual team cheaper than American sports. Even if it was, basketball is also cheap but it's still way more popular than soccer in the US and the other way around in the rest of the world. (I like a pick-up game of basketball btw, grab a ball, find a court and play a game with others there. It's probably easier to do than soccer in an urban environment.)
A field is easier to find then a basketball court.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
- MLB doesn't allow its players to compete in non-sanctioned events like the Olympics, unlike the NBA or professional women's leagues. So throw all those old baseball Olympics medals out the window, countries like Taipei and the Netherlands; our AAA kids playing for Toledo and Racine are still medaling, and they (by our own standards) suck.
Even if they did I doubt it would matter. As in, due to baseball's main focus within the US there is little reason for players to play for the national team. It's probably why the US isn't the supreme ruler in basketball and american football on international championships either.
Posts
If that WSJ image from the first page is correct, then football players aren't that active. If you had a professional football team go play something like soccer or rugby I'm sure they would collapse before half the game was over.
As for golf, I understand it takes a LOT of skill, but the level of physical exertion just seems to be absolutely pitiful when compared to Tennis, Soccer, or Rugby.
I'm sure it's terribly exciting for the coaches. Just not for me.
And yeah, the next play that lasts a few seconds comes within 25 seconds when the clock isn't stopped or in a commercial break or in a timeout. But I do realize that it like many things could be even more boring with the right modifications. If they cut out the waiting and left in the hilarious slow-motion shots it would be fun to watch.
Football players also get substituted for often enough to get a break on the sideline. But you can't make the blanket judgement that less rest = more physical exertion. Football players don't train to be able to run, nonstop, for 90 minutes. I'm sure they could if they wanted to.
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Football is, to me, one of the better sports to watch on TV instead of live. The replays and commentary fill in the little gaps between plays.
Just watch NFL RedZone. Nonstop football for 7 hours. Cuts from game to game and shows basically only plays that are currently happening from the most interesting game situation and highlights of touchdowns it misses. Cuts out what you don't like
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
I don't know about the frequency of fighting between the 1990s and the 2000s, but as far as I can recall, there hasn't been any major change to the section of the NHL rulebook which covers fighting since the early 1990s (the "instigator" minor/major/misconduct penalty).
On the surface that would seem to make sense. In practice, however, the best scoring golfers these days tend to be the youngest and fittest. Major champions are collectively younger now than they've ever been. In the past, a golfer wasn't "mature" until he hit his thirties; now if you haven't got your first major by your mid 30s, you probably won't ever.
Though I do wonder how much of that has been the "Tiger-proofing" of golf, i.e., making courses longer and more physically demanding. I always thought that was a stupid way to challenge players who started dominating the game with power.
"The studies show that younger, fitter golfers with new technology are scoring better than their more mature or finesse-styled counterparts due to their great length off the tee. To balance the field, we're going to---"
"Shorten the course and craft holes to require a more varied skillset of shots?"
"What? Fuck, no. People want to see dudes ripping shots for 400 yards, not some little shit bending his wedge under a tree for a good chip. No, idiot, what we're going to do is make every hole as long and straight as we can. That'll teach those long-driving fuckers."
Embarrassingly, I'm pretty sure I knew that the rules haven't changed in any meaningful way since then because of the EA Sports NHL series. But I think we're done nerding up this thread on hockey unless anyone wants to know what icing is and how it's different in the IHL.
"damn kids, at least they still don't let women into augusta"
Obviously soccer's problem is that it doesn't have enough big engines and explosions.
It's quite interesting that people would tell huge groups of other people that the sport they're finding exciting isn't actually exciting at all. Not that they just don't find it exciting, but that it is not exciting and that people who think so are obviously wrong.
I mean, it's not a new thing and understandable to some degree even, but when Youessians start flat-out saying that the game that is the biggest thing in the world is unexciting you gotta wonder what the hell is going on.
50 million smokers can't be wrong.
Carry on.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdymze_hilarious-tosh-o-talking-about-socc_fun
Well it's the form of American Exceptionalism that seems to be the broadest-held. And it's maybe the most noticeable and striking example.
Only in America would you have a World Series that is actually just a national competition. While most countries have different sports being the biggest, the US seems to be the only country that has biggest sports that are almost nowhere else the biggest. And they don't seem to consider national competition as competition at all (which probably explains why the US doesn't dominate those competitions in basketball,baseball and football).
Man, I got NFLRZ this year and it is so glorious. It feels like I'm developing an attention disorder as I watch. Then at the very end of the day they show every single touchdown of the day again, in a 3 minute highlight reel. It's a highlight reel to a show that consists of 100% highlights.
i feel like football is no longer games, consisting of two teams playing against each other. it is just me, and touchdowns. each week i become more touchdown, and touchdown more i
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Hey, there's at least a major league baseball team in Toronto. The NFL's about 12 times more self-righteous about their bullshit world championship nonsense.
And videogames are for kids.
Or is feeling superior about yourself over someone else's choice of entertainment only bad if you don't agree with it?
I could spit out a bunch of stuff about how football has really dumb players and half the time is just sitting around doing nothing and all kinds of other nonsense but I don't because I can understand that some games have an appeal without necessarily being interested in it. I don't need to justify my entertainment choices by putting them on the top of some objective entertainment-hierarchy.
's true, just using it as an example because I read something earlier about a world series game.
(also because the Dutch team won the baseball championship earlier and thus baseball currently being the sport where the US isn't the world champion)
Well, the thing is when talking about Baseball, we're right.
Ok, fess up, you're just trolling.
If you honestly believe there's a football team somewhere that would beat whoever wins the Super Bowl this year, present them.
But why is having your own sports a bad thing?
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
MMA is safer than boxing. Sorry, I've done both myself. I've watched both for a long time. I could go into the reasons but I'll spare those for another thread. Not to mention boxing is crooked as hell at this point and is getting more and more difficult to care about.
Having lived in Oz, I can say that the general opinion of soccer there is only slightly above what it is in the US. They do recognize it as a sport. They will watch it. But they are also nuts about sport in general there, and soccer is toward the bottom of the list. Most would probaly watch swimming there before soccer. So there's at least one other country that ain't big on it.
As far as the World Series not being international: yeah, sorta if you only pay attention to team names. MLB is also the premier baseball league in the world and is full of players from nearly the entire baseball-playing world. Nevermind that 100 years ago when it all started the name really was true considering the international standing of baseball.
Edit: got the age of the series wrong...
But explosions would make it better.
You could call it Kicksplosia.
And Soccer is a sport that will kick your ass if you aren't in shape. Basketball too. I find it boring to watch, but I think Basketball and Soccer probably offer the biggest workouts. Tennis too, I guess.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
But watching soccer isn't any cheaper than watching football, nor is playing it in an actual team cheaper than American sports. Even if it was, basketball is also cheap but it's still way more popular than soccer in the US and the other way around in the rest of the world. (I like a pick-up game of basketball btw, grab a ball, find a court and play a game with others there. It's probably easier to do than soccer in an urban environment.)
There's plenty of countries not big on it. Plenty of others sports where a lot of countries aren't big on it.
But the US has big sports where almost no other county is big on it. The three big sports don't have the same international competition that others have.
National soccer leagues aren't international just because half the players in it are from different countries. Obviously the US teams are the best at attracting foreign talent but that goes for all sports.
There are many considerations at play there.
- In most countries that play baseball, when people reach a certain level of talent, MLB tries to (and usually succeeds in their effort) hire them. Baseball is actually pretty big everywhere except Europe and Africa, and the recruiting of Asians and South/Central Americans into the MLB confirms that.
- MLB doesn't allow its players to compete in non-sanctioned events like the Olympics, unlike the NBA or professional women's leagues. So throw all those old baseball Olympics medals out the window, countries like Taipei and the Netherlands; our AAA kids playing for Toledo and Racine are still medaling, and they (by our own standards) suck.
I love the shit out of hockey, and that is a low scoring game, but good god, soccer makes hockey look like fucking basketball. I seriously do not get the appeal of soccer to the rest of the world.
fighting
A field is easier to find then a basketball court.
Even if they did I doubt it would matter. As in, due to baseball's main focus within the US there is little reason for players to play for the national team. It's probably why the US isn't the supreme ruler in basketball and american football on international championships either.
The US is the supreme ruler on basketball.