Boon Mee Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 Fair and balanced eh Boon ?No self respecting American would take soccer over football . Yeah , yeah, there are always a few ....not enough to matter . Just saw the article and thought it would generate some discussion is all! Actually, when I'm overseas I like to watch Soccer for the crowd reactions more than anything. Used to live within walking distance of Maracana Stadium in Rio and every Sunday marveling at the action in the stands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff1 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Just saw the article and thought it would generate some discussion is all! Yeah , I know you GBA My friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 Today, you would be hard pressed to find any American under the age of 40 that did not grow up playing soccer, it is just that when American boys become men, the appeal of basketball, hockey, and American football is much greater. Women have less options, so they tend to stick with soccer. Proof positive that soccer is a girly-sport! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuchok Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 just to further on what jackr has stated, here is a pic of Jonah. 6'5" 260lbs one of the quickest players in the game. About every American football team has at least 10 guys like this. Something else to consider - Rugby star Naas Botha tried out for the Dallas Cowboys at the peak of his career and was knocked out cold the first time he was hit. He tired to make the team as a kicker (about the only position non-Americans ever have - it's non-contact), but failed at that even though he was considered one of the best kickers in rugby at the time. In all honesty, I actually prefered playing rugby to American football, but I would much rather watch American football than rugby. Nass Botha (nasty boota) was a tiny(165lbs) little nerd of a guy that could kick goals.My granny could have dropped him.The only problem with nasty, was that you had enough time smoke a ciggie and have two beers by the time it took him to line up the ball and shoot for goal.A shocking pick for AF i'd say. There have been a few kiws play AF.Mainly as defensive linemen.They are too slow to make it in rugby, and lack the aerobic capacity, even though they have the size.BTW, their rugby counterparts are similar, but they do not have guts like sumo wrestlers. There is no doubt that they hit hard in AF.They hit very hard in rugby too.If you compared your own experience playing rugby in the USA, then I would suggest it is not the same as playing the game in a country where it is professional.The guys playing rugby these days are probably 20-30% bigger than they used to be and hit alot harder.If you watched a European club game or Super 12 game, then you would be amazed at the sounds you hear of big guys smashing each other. Jonah Lomu was perhaps one of the most gifted athletes around.Not only was he quick, with incredible balance, but he was 'hard' as well.To have even 5 guys like Jonah in an AF team would be nothing short of incredible.Did you know about him before, as he is perhaps the best known rugby player in the world. Unless you have lived with AF, it is hard for the average joe hunt to understand.rugby used to be technical enough, but you guys took it to a whole new level. As much as it pains me to say this, soccer players probably have the most skill out of both these sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usatrader Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 No three-Pete for USC!! How about them Longhorns!!! Texas-USC best game ever? Hard to dispute!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted January 7, 2006 Author Share Posted January 7, 2006 Hook 'em horns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markuk Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 just to further on what jackr has stated, here is a pic of Jonah. 6.5" 260lbs one of the quickest players in the game. What team does he play for? Gulliver's Travels? doesnt he play for Cardiff now? too many kiwis going to wales to learn real skills! isnt it also time we stopped these "american" posts? they after all have no relation to thailand!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuchok Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 just to further on what jackr has stated, here is a pic of Jonah. 6.5" 260lbs one of the quickest players in the game. What team does he play for? Gulliver's Travels? doesnt he play for Cardiff now? too many kiwis going to wales to learn real skills! isnt it also time we stopped these "american" posts? they after all have no relation to thailand!! yep old jonah has got a new kidney and has been playing for cardiff. As for being Thai related, this part of TV we can talk about any world sport.If we just had to stick to Thailand, I wouldn't think it would be that popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallalai Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 (edited) A typical "mine is bigger than your's" thread. Edited January 7, 2006 by Wallalai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padkapow Guy Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 A typical "mine is bigger than your's" thread. no no no! mine is bigger than yours. PKG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallalai Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 A typical "mine is bigger than your's" thread. no no no! mine is bigger than yours. PKG Of course. Do you speak about your ego. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markuk Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 A typical "mine is bigger than your's" thread. Well if we are going down that road then it must be us brits who win.......!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fast Eddie Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Fair and balanced eh Boon ? No self respecting American would take soccer over football . Yeah , yeah, there are always a few ....not enough to matter . Just saw the article and thought it would generate some discussion is all! Actually, when I'm overseas I like to watch Soccer for the crowd reactions more than anything. Used to live within walking distance of Maracana Stadium in Rio and every Sunday marveling at the action in the stands! I dream of going to the Maracana, and i will do some day soon. There is no better place to see the explosion of emotion and deification of the game than the home of the nation that takes the sport to an unparalleled level of excellence and art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 Fair and balanced eh Boon ? No self respecting American would take soccer over football . Yeah , yeah, there are always a few ....not enough to matter . Just saw the article and thought it would generate some discussion is all! Actually, when I'm overseas I like to watch Soccer for the crowd reactions more than anything. Used to live within walking distance of Maracana Stadium in Rio and every Sunday marveling at the action in the stands! I dream of going to the Maracana, and i will do some day soon. There is no better place to see the explosion of emotion and deification of the game than the home of the nation that takes the sport to an unparalleled level of excellence and art. It's something else for sure - the largest stadium in the world holding over 200k people. The only time I've ever heard it was completely filled was when the late Pope was there in the 70's. Best place to sit though was back under the overhangs as beer etc could wash down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveDaBlues Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 How about some FACTS to determine which is the rougher sport? I did a little searching on Google and found some stats for Australian football. Although they only show deaths from brain injury I'm reasonably sure these injuries constitute the majority of fatalities. Objectives: To determine the frequency and nature of fatal brain injuries occurring in Australian football. Setting: State of Victoria, January to July 1999. Design: Retrospective case series of football-related deaths identified from the coronial autopsy records of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (1990-1999) and newspaper reports (1968-1989). Main outcome measures: Coronial autopsy findings and circumstances of injury. Results: 25 deaths associated with Australian football were identified, nine due to brain injury. Coronial findings in the brain-injury deaths were intracranial haemorrhage in eight patients and infarct in the territory of the middle cerebral artery in one. In three of four cases of subarachnoid haemorrhage, vertebral artery trauma was noted. In all but one case, injury occurred as an accidental part of play We identified 25 football-related deaths in the period 1968-1999. Fourteen of these occurred in the 10 years 1990-1999 and were found by computerised search of the VIFM database, while 11 occurred in the 22 years 1968-1989 and were found by newspaper searches. Both search strategies were used for the period 1990-1996, and each identified the same nine cases. *********************************************************** Now some stats on Yank football. ANNUAL SURVEY OF FOOTBALL INJURY RESEARCH 1931 - 2003 Frederick O. Mueller, Ph.D. Chairman, American Football Coaches Committee on Football Injuries and Jerry L. Diehl Assistant Director of the National Federation of State High School Associations *** I only included the years to match the above years of 1968-1999 for Aus football. FATALITIES: DIRECTLY DUE TO FOOTBALL YEAR, SANDLOT, PRO AND SEMIPRO, HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE, TOTAL 1968 4 1 26 5 36 1969 3 1 18 1 23 1970 3 0 23 3 29 1971 2 0 15 3 20 1972 3 1 16 2 22 1973 2 0 7 0 9 1974 0 0 10 1 11 1975 1 0 13 1 15 1976 3 0 15 0 18 1977 1 0 8 1 10 1978 0 0 9 0 9 1979 0 0 3 1 4 1980 0 0 9 0 9 1981 2 0 5 2 9 1982 2 0 7 0 9 1983 0 0 4 0 4 1984 1 0 4 1 6 1985 2 0 4 1 7 1986 0 0 11 1 12 1987 0 0 4 0 4 1988 0 0 7 0 7 1989 0 0 4 0 4 1990 0 0 0 0 0 1991 0 0 3 0 3 1992 0 0 2 0 2 1993 0 0 3 1 4 1994 0 0 0 1 1 1995 0 0 4 0 4 1996 0 0 5 0 5 1997 0 0 6 1 7 1998 0 0 6 1 7 1999 1 0 4 1 6 Total deaths 1968-1999: 316 (I added by hand; hopefully no mistake made) Draw your own conclusion from the stats........25 deaths vs. 316..........which is the rougher sport? ***Interesting note: notice how Yank football deaths dropped after the rule change in 1976 outlawing 'helmet-first' tackling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackr Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 How about some FACTS to determine which is the rougher sport? I did a little searching on Google and found some stats for Australian football. Although they only show deaths from brain injury I'm reasonably sure these injuries constitute the majority of fatalities. Objectives: To determine the frequency and nature of fatal brain injuries occurring in Australian football. Setting: State of Victoria, January to July 1999. Design: Retrospective case series of football-related deaths identified from the coronial autopsy records of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (1990-1999) and newspaper reports (1968-1989). Main outcome measures: Coronial autopsy findings and circumstances of injury. Results: 25 deaths associated with Australian football were identified, nine due to brain injury. Coronial findings in the brain-injury deaths were intracranial haemorrhage in eight patients and infarct in the territory of the middle cerebral artery in one. In three of four cases of subarachnoid haemorrhage, vertebral artery trauma was noted. In all but one case, injury occurred as an accidental part of play We identified 25 football-related deaths in the period 1968-1999. Fourteen of these occurred in the 10 years 1990-1999 and were found by computerised search of the VIFM database, while 11 occurred in the 22 years 1968-1989 and were found by newspaper searches. Both search strategies were used for the period 1990-1996, and each identified the same nine cases. *********************************************************** Now some stats on Yank football. ANNUAL SURVEY OF FOOTBALL INJURY RESEARCH 1931 - 2003 Frederick O. Mueller, Ph.D. Chairman, American Football Coaches Committee on Football Injuries and Jerry L. Diehl Assistant Director of the National Federation of State High School Associations *** I only included the years to match the above years of 1968-1999 for Aus football. FATALITIES: DIRECTLY DUE TO FOOTBALL YEAR, SANDLOT, PRO AND SEMIPRO, HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE, TOTAL 1968 4 1 26 5 36 1969 3 1 18 1 23 1970 3 0 23 3 29 1971 2 0 15 3 20 1972 3 1 16 2 22 1973 2 0 7 0 9 1974 0 0 10 1 11 1975 1 0 13 1 15 1976 3 0 15 0 18 1977 1 0 8 1 10 1978 0 0 9 0 9 1979 0 0 3 1 4 1980 0 0 9 0 9 1981 2 0 5 2 9 1982 2 0 7 0 9 1983 0 0 4 0 4 1984 1 0 4 1 6 1985 2 0 4 1 7 1986 0 0 11 1 12 1987 0 0 4 0 4 1988 0 0 7 0 7 1989 0 0 4 0 4 1990 0 0 0 0 0 1991 0 0 3 0 3 1992 0 0 2 0 2 1993 0 0 3 1 4 1994 0 0 0 1 1 1995 0 0 4 0 4 1996 0 0 5 0 5 1997 0 0 6 1 7 1998 0 0 6 1 7 1999 1 0 4 1 6 Total deaths 1968-1999: 316 (I added by hand; hopefully no mistake made) Draw your own conclusion from the stats........25 deaths vs. 316..........which is the rougher sport? I'd say more stupidity than rough - charging into each other head first seems a bit daft. Why don't they send them all back a few more yards and do some dodging and then actually run with the ball? Aussie Rules can't really be compared to Yank football...totally different strategy, although 10 times more entertainment level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuchok Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 How about some FACTS to determine which is the rougher sport? I did a little searching on Google and found some stats for Australian football. Although they only show deaths from brain injury I'm reasonably sure these injuries constitute the majority of fatalities. Objectives: To determine the frequency and nature of fatal brain injuries occurring in Australian football. Setting: State of Victoria, January to July 1999. Design: Retrospective case series of football-related deaths identified from the coronial autopsy records of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (1990-1999) and newspaper reports (1968-1989). Main outcome measures: Coronial autopsy findings and circumstances of injury. Results: 25 deaths associated with Australian football were identified, nine due to brain injury. Coronial findings in the brain-injury deaths were intracranial haemorrhage in eight patients and infarct in the territory of the middle cerebral artery in one. In three of four cases of subarachnoid haemorrhage, vertebral artery trauma was noted. In all but one case, injury occurred as an accidental part of play We identified 25 football-related deaths in the period 1968-1999. Fourteen of these occurred in the 10 years 1990-1999 and were found by computerised search of the VIFM database, while 11 occurred in the 22 years 1968-1989 and were found by newspaper searches. Both search strategies were used for the period 1990-1996, and each identified the same nine cases. *********************************************************** Now some stats on Yank football. ANNUAL SURVEY OF FOOTBALL INJURY RESEARCH 1931 - 2003 Frederick O. Mueller, Ph.D. Chairman, American Football Coaches Committee on Football Injuries and Jerry L. Diehl Assistant Director of the National Federation of State High School Associations *** I only included the years to match the above years of 1968-1999 for Aus football. FATALITIES: DIRECTLY DUE TO FOOTBALL YEAR, SANDLOT, PRO AND SEMIPRO, HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE, TOTAL 1968 4 1 26 5 36 1969 3 1 18 1 23 1970 3 0 23 3 29 1971 2 0 15 3 20 1972 3 1 16 2 22 1973 2 0 7 0 9 1974 0 0 10 1 11 1975 1 0 13 1 15 1976 3 0 15 0 18 1977 1 0 8 1 10 1978 0 0 9 0 9 1979 0 0 3 1 4 1980 0 0 9 0 9 1981 2 0 5 2 9 1982 2 0 7 0 9 1983 0 0 4 0 4 1984 1 0 4 1 6 1985 2 0 4 1 7 1986 0 0 11 1 12 1987 0 0 4 0 4 1988 0 0 7 0 7 1989 0 0 4 0 4 1990 0 0 0 0 0 1991 0 0 3 0 3 1992 0 0 2 0 2 1993 0 0 3 1 4 1994 0 0 0 1 1 1995 0 0 4 0 4 1996 0 0 5 0 5 1997 0 0 6 1 7 1998 0 0 6 1 7 1999 1 0 4 1 6 Total deaths 1968-1999: 316 (I added by hand; hopefully no mistake made) Draw your own conclusion from the stats........25 deaths vs. 316..........which is the rougher sport? ***Interesting note: notice how Yank football deaths dropped after the rule change in 1976 outlawing 'helmet-first' tackling. ye gods and litle fishes, you guys should take up train spotting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Snake Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 As AF is not shown too much in SEA, I've tried to enjoy a soccer game or two on TV. I'd say it ok to watch particularly some of those highly skilled individuals. I cringe at the theatrics - the "I'm dying" flops where suddenly the man makes a miraculous recovery after the penalty is called and the waterboy applys his medical assistance. Watching the weekly goal highlights is pretty exciting. I like to watch NHL Hockey just as much as AF. Those, I thiink, are some of the best athletes based on games played per week and the amount of conditioning that must be needed - and the hits!! Or maybe that was 2 years ago. AF on TV is better than watching live. Why? THe replays, the cheaper beer, not having to drive home after a couple of beers. They also have good commentary/analysis between plays. Going to a AF game is fun if you are rooting for the home team or have decent support from other fans. Just the size of the players qualifies it as a freak show. Although I've sometimes cringed at the amount of time between plays for AF football, I also realize after playing the game, that it takes time to regroup after going full speed and getting the stuffing knocked out fo you. Its amazing tho how faster the game is during the final minutes of the 4th quarter in a tight game. I had back surgery because of my days playing american football (only big and fast enough to play to the High Schoool level) ; but thankfully, my knees are still good. I believe most american football players all have a certain amount of post concussive syndrome. So, take it easy on us. That last point probably explains alot. What does this have to do with getting a thai visa? I can line up at immigration queue then motion to the faster line with a crossbuck maneuver, utilizing a stiff arm to thwart would be queue competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 How about some FACTS to determine which is the rougher sport? I did a little searching on Google and found some stats for Australian football. Although they only show deaths from brain injury I'm reasonably sure these injuries constitute the majority of fatalities. Objectives: To determine the frequency and nature of fatal brain injuries occurring in Australian football. Setting: State of Victoria, January to July 1999. Design: Retrospective case series of football-related deaths identified from the coronial autopsy records of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (1990-1999) and newspaper reports (1968-1989). Main outcome measures: Coronial autopsy findings and circumstances of injury. Results: 25 deaths associated with Australian football were identified, nine due to brain injury. Coronial findings in the brain-injury deaths were intracranial haemorrhage in eight patients and infarct in the territory of the middle cerebral artery in one. In three of four cases of subarachnoid haemorrhage, vertebral artery trauma was noted. In all but one case, injury occurred as an accidental part of play We identified 25 football-related deaths in the period 1968-1999. Fourteen of these occurred in the 10 years 1990-1999 and were found by computerised search of the VIFM database, while 11 occurred in the 22 years 1968-1989 and were found by newspaper searches. Both search strategies were used for the period 1990-1996, and each identified the same nine cases. *********************************************************** Now some stats on Yank football. ANNUAL SURVEY OF FOOTBALL INJURY RESEARCH 1931 - 2003 Frederick O. Mueller, Ph.D. Chairman, American Football Coaches Committee on Football Injuries and Jerry L. Diehl Assistant Director of the National Federation of State High School Associations *** I only included the years to match the above years of 1968-1999 for Aus football. FATALITIES: DIRECTLY DUE TO FOOTBALL YEAR, SANDLOT, PRO AND SEMIPRO, HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE, TOTAL 1968 4 1 26 5 36 1969 3 1 18 1 23 1970 3 0 23 3 29 1971 2 0 15 3 20 1972 3 1 16 2 22 1973 2 0 7 0 9 1974 0 0 10 1 11 1975 1 0 13 1 15 1976 3 0 15 0 18 1977 1 0 8 1 10 1978 0 0 9 0 9 1979 0 0 3 1 4 1980 0 0 9 0 9 1981 2 0 5 2 9 1982 2 0 7 0 9 1983 0 0 4 0 4 1984 1 0 4 1 6 1985 2 0 4 1 7 1986 0 0 11 1 12 1987 0 0 4 0 4 1988 0 0 7 0 7 1989 0 0 4 0 4 1990 0 0 0 0 0 1991 0 0 3 0 3 1992 0 0 2 0 2 1993 0 0 3 1 4 1994 0 0 0 1 1 1995 0 0 4 0 4 1996 0 0 5 0 5 1997 0 0 6 1 7 1998 0 0 6 1 7 1999 1 0 4 1 6 Total deaths 1968-1999: 316 (I added by hand; hopefully no mistake made) Draw your own conclusion from the stats........25 deaths vs. 316..........which is the rougher sport? ***Interesting note: notice how Yank football deaths dropped after the rule change in 1976 outlawing 'helmet-first' tackling. ye gods and litle fishes, you guys should take up train spotting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogoso Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Why would it take scientists to work it out?...simply ask 99% of the global population! I ain't a scientist but I dunno, my math must be wrong, as the US has what 5% of the worlds population. So your supposition of 99% would mean 80% of the US population prefers the little girls game to American football, I don't think so. Watching paint dry has as much attraction to me as watching men play soccer. There are some places where badmitton is preferred by a percentage of the population over soccer ie parts of Pakistan India Im at a loss to understand just how complicated it is to play zone and man to man defenses in soccer compares to the intricacies of offense and defenses of american football. Theres no blitzes, dogs, pulling guards etc etc. No one is trying to cut block, tackle trap etc Just kick the ball and occasionally use your head. Boring simple minded game, real life foosball with less action. NHL is soccer on ice with more scoring and occasionally a fight breaks out. Lots of hard hitting. Theres a large amount of folks who like hockey more than soccer in the scandinavian countries, and I like going to a game every so often. It helps to live in a city where we have an NHL club as well as a minor league team. We do have a soccer club in town, but the minor league hockey team outdraws them in attendance as do most of our high school american football teams. If I had to watch a soccer game I'd prefer to watch the US womens team play the game, as at least theres something to see. Too bad Mia Hamm has retired, to marry a baseball player (Nomar Garciaparra) Well at least he graduated from GA Tech So while soccer maybe the most played sport it ain't the best sport. IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoT Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Well the article IMHO is total bullocks – basically the more upsets the more exciting the sport? <deleted> – As any sports fan knows even if the underdog looses they can still put on a good show and a very exciting game. Using number of viewers or number of people who play the sport not a fair measuring stick either. As one earlier poster pointed out football is kind of like rice – simple, cheap, and available to the masses. Only thing that was left out of this is that it is a non-contact sport. So this makes it more likely to be played and therefore also watch by women/girls. I mean how many parents want their little girl playing American Football, or Rugby? Now ask that same parent if it is OK for their daughter to play football. Since I have been living in Asia I can now actually watch a football match without falling asleep, so I have gained some level of respect for the game. But still nothing compared to Assuie Rules, Rugby, or American Football for me. As for the Rugby vs American Football argument personally I prefer American Football, but I am also a big fan of Rugby (especially Sevens). I consider both of them to be the sport of Men, each sport requiring a little different set of skills. Both full contact and both very physical but physical and demanding in different ways. A lot of comments about American Footballers being bigger, stronger, faster, etc than Rugby players. But each game requires a very different skill set. While they look pretty comparable on the surface (big guys trying to tackle the guy with the ball). Rugby is much more non-stop action, and requires MUCH more stamina. While American Football is a bunch of instantaneous collisions requiring more bursts of power, and more violent. Take for example: A 150 kg NFL defensive lineman – big, strong, and quick. During the course of the game he experiences 50+ very violent collisions with the offensive lineman across from him. These violent collisions consist of two 150+ kg men bursting out of their stance and slamming into each other at the start of each play. With several seconds of rest between each play, and the defense is on the field for only 50% of the time - and many teams rotate linemen so he is probably only on the field for less than 40% of the time. A 120 kg Rugby Union midfielder – strong, fast, durable. During the course of the game he runs several kilometers, carries the ball, pitches the ball, involved in scrums, and tackles. He is a first teamer and therefore on the field pretty much the entire game, and spends most of that time in motion (either directly involved in the play at hand or moving to get into position to be involved). Different skills are required to play these two games – both games of men (unlike football). Any sport where a kick in the shin (most likely a faked kick in the shin at that) is cause for stoppage of play and much commotion is not a mans sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveDaBlues Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 What does this have to do with getting a thai visa? I can line up at immigration queue then motion to the faster line with a crossbuck maneuver, utilizing a stiff arm to thwart would be queue competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackr Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Why would it take scientists to work it out?...simply ask 99% of the global population! I ain't a scientist but I dunno, my math must be wrong, as the US has what 5% of the worlds population. So your supposition of 99% would mean 80% of the US population prefers the little girls game to American football, I don't think so. Ok, 95%. I was just assuming that most people couldn't really stand your game in your country and had it drummed into them As far as the real football goes (the one with the round ball), I think there's far too much of it on in Muang Thai (UBC, just to keep this Thai related). You may detest the game and I'm not the biggest of fans, but the proof's in the pudding, football is played by most countries in the world and as their national game. American football is played by one country in the world who have it as their national game...or is it? As far as entertainment level goes, I'd rather watch the real football, even though I'm not the biggest of fans, where there is some continuity and it can go either way, as opposed to watching a bunch of chaps running into each other and someone bunging the oblong thing towards the touch line every time. What would the game be without the tarts showing their fannies and no jingles? BTW, if you can't enjoy watching the world cup then something must have gone amiss and FYI, you guys will be there again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboygwe Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Soccer? is that even considered a sport?. Women plays that game too don't they . women wrestle too!! is that still a sport!hahahah been play soccoe since 13 still like it better ther getting beat up over a pigskin The younger generation is growing more fond of soccer and it is becoming more popular with boys and girls I think it will be a long time before it becomes more popular than football in the U.S. I would guess worldwide soccer is more popular. But the real question is " ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALLLLL" PKG Can't beat watching Terry Bradshaw -vs- Roger Staubach outgunning each other Soccer? is that even considered a sport?. Women plays that game too don't they . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogoso Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 ( As I've said watching men play soccer just doesn't cut it world cup or not) I do remember a thai man killing his wife for not giving him the remote so he could watch a world cup game. Dang if he didn't watch the game and then go and turn himself in.) Soccer? is that even considered a sport?. Women plays that game too don't they . women wrestle too!! is that still a sport!hahahah been play soccoe since 13 still like it better ther getting beat up over a pigskin (Not sure what this means so I'll not comment on it. ) Ladies mud wrestling is a sport And I might add very watchable. In the US pro wrestling is known as sports entertainment as it isn't a sport because of predetermined outcomes. ) ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladphrao Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 To each his own, but modern professional soccer is so focused on defense, that there are too many 0-0 or 1-0 games for me. If there were more 4-3. or 5-4 games it would be far more exciting. American football, is extremely complex and without gaining an understanding of the finer points (which takes years) one can not appreciate the game. I have tried to get interested in Soccer, and I can see how it can be exciting if one has a wager on the game or has a real intense interest in the outcome, but it is for me easier to get into an American football game with all the strategy and momentem swings and action than a soccer game even when I don't partically care about the outcome. But I am a yank, what do u expect from my reply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opothai Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 to make it more interesting lets have soccertainment, and instead of penalties lets have multy-ball i think the budweiser advert sums up what the americans would do to our beloved soccer and the english would do an indepth study of american footbal and deem it a no contact sport for the health and well being of the participants unless you were gay or lesbian then you can touch a little bit:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibebop Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Why would it take scientists to work it out?...simply ask 99% of the global population! I ain't a scientist but I dunno, my math must be wrong, as the US has what 5% of the worlds population. So your supposition of 99% would mean 80% of the US population prefers the little girls game to American football, I don't think so. Ok, 95%. I was just assuming that most people couldn't really stand your game in your country and had it drummed into them As far as the real football goes (the one with the round ball), I think there's far too much of it on in Muang Thai (UBC, just to keep this Thai related). You may detest the game and I'm not the biggest of fans, but the proof's in the pudding, football is played by most countries in the world and as their national game. American football is played by one country in the world who have it as their national game...or is it? As far as entertainment level goes, I'd rather watch the real football, even though I'm not the biggest of fans, where there is some continuity and it can go either way, as opposed to watching a bunch of chaps running into each other and someone bunging the oblong thing towards the touch line every time. What would the game be without the tarts showing their fannies and no jingles? BTW, if you can't enjoy watching the world cup then something must have gone amiss and FYI, you guys will be there again. I think this was mentioned before, but soccor is played so much around the world because it is cheap. All you have to buy is a ball. So, countries that have kids who can't afford a whole bunch of equiment can play soccor, because it's fun and cheap. I think that is what made it popular, I don't think many countries get to experience other countries sports because of money. People around the world might love hockey or baseball or cricket or any number of games if they were readily avaible to play. So, I don't think it's fair to say other sports don't measure up to soccor because not many other people have really play other sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackr Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Why would it take scientists to work it out?...simply ask 99% of the global population! I ain't a scientist but I dunno, my math must be wrong, as the US has what 5% of the worlds population. So your supposition of 99% would mean 80% of the US population prefers the little girls game to American football, I don't think so. Ok, 95%. I was just assuming that most people couldn't really stand your game in your country and had it drummed into them As far as the real football goes (the one with the round ball), I think there's far too much of it on in Muang Thai (UBC, just to keep this Thai related). You may detest the game and I'm not the biggest of fans, but the proof's in the pudding, football is played by most countries in the world and as their national game. American football is played by one country in the world who have it as their national game...or is it? As far as entertainment level goes, I'd rather watch the real football, even though I'm not the biggest of fans, where there is some continuity and it can go either way, as opposed to watching a bunch of chaps running into each other and someone bunging the oblong thing towards the touch line every time. What would the game be without the tarts showing their fannies and no jingles? BTW, if you can't enjoy watching the world cup then something must have gone amiss and FYI, you guys will be there again. I think this was mentioned before, but soccor is played so much around the world because it is cheap. All you have to buy is a ball. So, countries that have kids who can't afford a whole bunch of equiment can play soccor, because it's fun and cheap. I think that is what made it popular, I don't think many countries get to experience other countries sports because of money. People around the world might love hockey or baseball or cricket or any number of games if they were readily avaible to play. So, I don't think it's fair to say other sports don't measure up to soccor because not many other people have really play other sports. Is it really that expensive to buy an oblong ball as opposed to a round one then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boggers Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Hockey - now that's the sport of the gods. Hockey is similar to soccer, but the players have more skills while also smashing each other into the boards. Plus the players are allowed to square off and throw punches without being stopped by the refs. The new NHL rules have also made it more exciting - much more scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now