Sports chat from profession topic in marine

[Flumpus]

i agree that basketball is a fairly big sport outside the us. however from memory the europeans are good at it at ilympic level.

Which is because the rules are different, and the Olympics are an afterthought for most American players.

lucrative sport? well in the top football leagues in england, italy, germany, france and spain it wouldnt be wrong to think that the average player in a top team earns 5-6 million dollars and the very best up to 20 million dollars a year.

And it also involves them moving overseas, not to mention, when is the last time you saw a top tier American soccer player? There aren't any, because they don't have good competition to play against, and they'd have to move overseas very young to find that.

as for the world series in baseball. well i dont think many countires have top teams because tis just so boring. so thus the only good baseball league in the world is in america and thats where they can only go.

The same argument can be used for Americans and soccer. They find the sport boring, don't have good leagues, therefore don't play. The fact is, the best baseball players in the world play major league baseball, so it can legitimately be called the world series.

 

[andywg]

Finally, American football. The men that play American football are some of the biggest, strongest, fastest, most athletic men in the world. The things they do are amazing. I'm guessing the reason it isn't big outside the US is the same reason soccer isn't big in the US. Because of the time difference and lack of connection with the teams, you wouldn't expect many Europeans to watch.

The reason it isn't big is because Europeans don't like to see a huge dirt bath followed by being told the play will move a whole 5 yards forwards after watching a minute of "play".

I can watch American football, but the players are freaks. Steroid chomping genetic freaks with no need to be genuinely fit.

Look at a 300 pound lineman in american football and the distance he will cover in a game. Maybe 100 to 200 yards on a good day. And that will mostly be in increments of 3-10 yards followed by at least a 30 second break with a number of multi-minute rests thrown in. Hardly fit are they? And has anyone noticed how none of those people seem to live very long, but die arond the 40s and 50s (just like so many WWE stars - possible connections with steroids? Nah!)?

American football players are nowhere near as fit as footy players, and certainly not as fit as rugby back rowers who will weigh 16 to 18 stone; run as far, if not more, than a footy midfielder and still have to hit rucks and players and do all the real energy sapping strength work from rugby.

What is interesting is that America seems to be good at sports where steroid abuse is rife (NFL, base-rounders-ball, olympics).

 

[Flumpus]

It's a little unfair to imply Americans are the only ones using steroids. I tend to approach every sport (with the exception of basketball) with the idea that most players are on steroids. Just look at the most recent Tour de France. Endurance is huge, and the steroids obviously really help, so who's to say athletes in other endurance sports, like soccer, aren't using steroids also? Because of they way you're talking, I'll assume drug policies in leagues throughout the world ate tougher than here in the US, but that doesn't mean athletes aren't one step ahead, using drugs that can't be detected.

I grew up with American football, as did most every American you'll meet, and that's why it's popular here. I'm not going to argue who is more "fit", because obviously soccer players are, but I will contend football players are more athletic, even some of the bigger players. The speed with which some 250+ pounds players can move is astonishing.

Really, I think it comes down to countries being good at the sports that are most popular there. Because soccer isn't popular here, we aren't very good at it.

 

[Darkstar]

Because soccer isn't popular here, we aren't very good at it

Football isn't popular there probably for many reasons but one of them is due to having only one break in a football game. American TV companies don't like that concept because they can't make as much advertising revenue as they do with normal American sports.
If I remember rightly, when America held the football WC they tried to have the rules changed to include more breaks...

 

[cheesy feet]

All I have to say is those videos are the best ...And so is rugby!!!!!

 

[Hobbit]

I know a guy. Hes a wrestler/football player. As are most of the better wreslters over here. But he wrestled heavyweight. He weighed about 265. He ran a 4.6 40 yd dash. And he would push the pace in his matches until the other kid couldnt even get up anymore. Needless to say, he's been offered schaolarships for both sports.

lol just felt like saying that.

 

[Unseen]

http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG1qGzv57f0

happens in every sport..
American Football
http/youtube.com/watch?v=mK6-KljouQU
Some UFC.
http/youtube.com/watch?v=HeniEw1XALI
Hockey
http/youtube.com/watch?v=A2W3Qm1YTFc

http/youtube.com/watch?v=tc0Ut5y-GRc rugby

 

[-germ-]

Thats more like it that 'tackle' on about 58secs was sheer quality.....
Good'un Unseen

 

[Pimp]

i didn't really see any big hits in rugby.?

 

[-germ-]

Video of a big hit?

 

[andywg]

It's a little unfair to imply Americans are the only ones using steroids.

Indeed it would be, which is probably why I didn't make any such allegation.

I tend to approach every sport (with the exception of basketball) with the idea that most players are on steroids.

Such a negative attitude. there are many sports with very effective drugs testing regimes, especially for performance enhancing drugs.

Just look at the most recent Tour de France. Endurance is huge, and the steroids obviously really help, so who's to say athletes in other endurance sports, like soccer, aren't using steroids also?

Because football is the largest sport in the world, so they make sure it is kept as clean as possible. It's also far more skill based than cycling or baseball.

Because of they way you're talking, I'll assume drug policies in leagues throughout the world ate tougher than here in the US, but that doesn't mean athletes aren't one step ahead, using drugs that can't be detected.

Perhaps, but at least we have had a long term deterrant against drug use. Only recently is the ban anything close to a season for steroid abuse in baseball. Was it not too long ago that a first incidence of substance abuse would give you only a short (less than a month) ban?

I grew up with American football, as did most every American you'll meet, and that's why it's popular here. I'm not going to argue who is more "fit", because obviously soccer players are, but I will contend football players are more athletic, even some of the bigger players. The speed with which some 250+ pounds players can move is astonishing.

Yet you have to admit there is a huge cloud over how "clean" they are.

Really, I think it comes down to countries being good at the sports that are most popular there. Because soccer isn't popular here, we aren't very good at it.

You are not that far behind England and must be close to ahead of Scotland in the rankings (and Scotland n=lamost never qualifies for WC finals).

I think it is more that because the US does not win it is not popular. Look at most of the sports that are really big in the US, they are US owned and as such the US can be very good at them. Remember, only around 1 in 4 Americans has a passport, that shows how much a large portion of the population are exposed to the rest of the world.

 

[Flumpus]

I think it's kind of a chicken and egg argument. If soccer was more popular, better American athletes would participate, and the US would get a lot better. If they got better before it got popular, you'd still have to contend with sports that already have a huge media base in the US (football, baseball, basketball).

As far as steroids, it's probably a negative way of looking at it, to consider most athletes "dirty", but it also allows me to enjoy it more. If they're all cheating, the playing field is level. I have no doubt that most of baseball is dirty, and a lot of football is too. I do however think basketball is about as clean as it can get, with performancing enhancing drugs at least (performance degrading drugs on the other hand, are everywhere I'm sure). With soccer, I really have no clue. I do know there are plenty of performance enhancing drugs that they can't test for, and that's what I think people use. Just because a sport has stiff penalties and random testing, doesn't mean the athletes are clean. And even though soccer is largely skills based, it's also an endurance sport, and the atheletes could no doubt benefit from steroids, which would help them recover faster.

Oh, and it's funny you mention the "cloud" over american football players. Here in the US, there really is none. I think it's naive to think they aren't on anything, but baseball takes all the heat here for steroids. Football players will even get caught, and no one really talks about it. They serve their suspension, and are back on the field within four weeks for the first offense.

 

[andywg]

As far as steroids, it's probably a negative way of looking at it, to consider most athletes "dirty", but it also allows me to enjoy it more. If they're all cheating, the playing field is level.

I have often thought on this and how maybe we should run two olympics (and tours de france) side by side. One for "modded" competitors with as many drugs and steroids as they want in their bodies where no testing occurs, and one where testing is almost constant for "natural people".

 

[backley420]

I have often thought on this and how maybe we should run two olympics (and tours de france) side by side. One for "modded" competitors with as many drugs and steroids as they want in their bodies where no testing occurs, and one where testing is almost constant for "natural people".
[/quote]


and how would you be able to keep the steriod users out of the natural?