Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always wondered how fundamentally different our perception of soccer is compared to the rest of humanity. Its almost as if we can't even agree on the basics when it comes to soccer, most foreigners think it takes more skill than our sports and we see it as really easy and simple. Not to mention how they seem to think that a game with a 1-0 scoreline is more exciting than a 28-17 football game.
But more than that there seems to be also a huge "uncool" image that soccer has. When the average american thinks of soccer nothing but lame/uncool images pop into mind: soccer moms, little 5 year old girls kicking a ball, mexican immigrants playing soccer in the park...etc.
Will soccer ever shake off this uncool image?
It's a good question. I think part of it comes from...
1. The fact that America already has several major sports. Between, baseball, football, basketball and hockey, that's how many teams? 124 total? Plus expansion over the last 10-20 years. Plus x games, golf, tennis, tiger woods, williams sisters, nascar, indy 500, kentucky derby, etc. Lots of sports to get involved in, without soccer.
Soccer is bigger overseas, in part, because there are less other sports to compete with. The sports plate in America is pretty full. MMA? Dirt bike racing? Skateboarding? Tony Hawk? Down to monster trucks, or offroading, or whatever it is.
It goes on, and on, and on. Too many faced paced sports to compete with soccer. I dont think it will ever really catch on here.
2. Also, I agree about Americans not being customed to using their feet. I think because of how rural many foreign countries are, vs the US. The US is very structured. You can't just kick a soccer ball around on an open field in many cities. Vs more open space in south america, or africa.
Some of it is similar to running. I.e. why so many Kenyans win marathons. Some of it is the terrain you're born with. Also compared to football, golf, hockey, baseball, it's a cheap sport to play internationally. A very cheap sport to play in poor countries. That's part of it.
Lance Armstrong's stamina is amazing, dexterity is awesome has strength and an amazingly high cadence speed. So yeah, he's pretty good. To win 7 Tour De France's is an unbelievable effort, which in my opinion is one of the hardest sporting events in the world.
I agree with all of the above. But to say that he's the best athlete in the world is a stretch. To claim that title, I think the athlete needs to be good in a number of sports, or at least dominate a sport that most people would agree is a very athletic sport. As tough as cycling is, I don't think it is viewed as an extremely athletic sport (see my criteria for athleticism in earlier post).
Randy Moss, for example, would be one of many good candidates. He was a high school All-American in football, baseball, track, and basketball. And of course, he's the most savage wide receiver the game has ever seen. I would put many soccer and tennis players in that category before Lance Armstrong because they tend to play a number of sports. They say Roger Federer is a good soccer player. They say the same thing about Steve Nash. Paul Robeson was a college All-American in 4 different sports, I think.
I don't think you can answer the question, "Who's the Greatest Athlete of All Time" because there are too many sports. But if we tried, the prize would have to go to someone who's shown success across a wide spectrum of sports. My vote goes to Allen Iverson since he was an All-American in more than one sport. He's also 5'11, 165 lbs, and was at one point the best player in the NBA. That's amazing. He would have been a force on a soccer field.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 06-28-2010 at 07:09 AM..
Football game score is completely bunk because a TD counts as 6 points and a field goal counts as 3. If a TD counted as 1 score as it should, it wouldn't seem so high scoring.
That doesn't make any sense. Touchdowns *can't* be worth only 1 point because there are different methods of scoring in football. If touchdowns were equally valued with field goals and safeties, you'd change the fundamental aspect of the sport. No one would ever try to score a TD, because FGs are so much easier to get.
Being huge doesnt mean you are in physical shape. Let's use the example of professional bodybuilders. Those guys are among some of the most unhealthiest people in the world. Let's also take a look at a 300lb lineman. If football consisted of anything more than 6 seconds of play followed by 40 seconds of rest, they wouldnt be able to play. A good chunk of the players in the NFL are not in good physical shape. They may have a ton of muscle but that is only one small piece of the equation when it comes to physical shape.
Endurance is one of the most difficult physical traits to achieve. There are lots of meat heads at your local gym that are loaded with muscle but couldnt run a single mile if you asked them too. If you think power is more important than endurance then you most still be a virgin!
Who says one is any more "important" than the other? Athletes train their bodies to meet the demands that their sport requires of them. Some need endurance; some need brute force; some need flexibility and agility. The notion that one type of "fitness" is superior to another is silly.
Not an athlete? Ive been playing competitive ice hockey since I was like 8. And, you obviously know nothing about sports if you believe soccer isn't rough. That is just ridiculous.
That's a silly response. I doubt you've played ice hockey competitively because no hockey player would call soccer rough. I've played both sports and it's completely assinine to suggest soccer is rough particularly in comparison to football, wrestling and hockey.
Soccer is not "uncool." Soccer is true international competition in its purest form. No other sport seems to posses the ebb and flow that occur in most well matched competitions.
As many here have already stated, if you don't like the sport. . .don't watch it! Use the channel button and tune in elsewhere. No one is forced to watch.
that's one reason why europeans (like me) love soccer...
show me something like this in us-sports.
i was attending yankees games, knicks games, giant games, lakers games, galaxy games ..... and the atmosphere was just horrible all the time.. maybe except a usc football game, but even there the atmosphere is pretty lame compared to european soccer games.
if you talk about us-sports in europe, the first thing that comes to the people's mind and the first thing they're gonna tell you is: "their fans suck, it's like going to the movie theatre. they sit around being quiet during most time of the game. there is no atmosphere."
however, personally i love us-sports although, as i said, i think it's very sad that the atmosphere is so lame..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
maybe except a usc football game, but even there the atmosphere is pretty lame compared to european soccer games.
although, as i said, i think it's very sad that the atmosphere is so lame..