Hello everyone. I'm pulling this topic from another thread.

The question is: Why to Europeans like Soccer (Football)?

This always perplexes Americans. It really does! Maybe it is due to the fact that we have Ice Hockey - which is simular but far more fast and aggressive. It could also be the result that Soccer is a played only by children in the United States - just like dodgeball and tetherball. Or it can be the result that Soccer (Football) is not considered "manly" in the U.S.

Of course, Europe has Ice Hockey as well, which makes the popularity of Soccer even more perplexing.

Why? Why? why? I haven't a clue.

As an American, I'd just like to say it doesn't perplex me in the slightest. I wouldn't sit down and watch the sport but I used to play it here and there. I would say most Americans I know don't find it perplexing at all because, frankly, they don't care enough to find it perplexing. If someone wants to watch soccer, *shrug*, more power to em.

Well I think the biggest reason is that Americans are in general unable to appreciate a game in which there isn't a lot of scoring. Even ice hockey has limited popularity because of this (granted not here in Minnesota where it is insanely popular). I personally think soccer is an incredibly cool sport.

IF it is any comfort, we don't understand why you americans like american football that much. In our eyes its all about roughing around waiting for the judge to allow someone to throw the ball to the quarterback, so he can throw it to someone on the loose. He runs and gets tackled. And the circle starts over. Thats it. How fun is that to watch, over and over and over. We don't get it. But should we? Basicly, why do russians speak russian? and danes speak danish? culture.


Here goes anyway. Why European Football?)

A) Culture

B) you can pick up a ball and play anywhere without any equipment. Comfort/cozy

C) Culture

D) Its not a rough sport, so everyone can chip into the same game. Kids and adults side by side.
Comfort/cozy

E) Culture

F) No headgear. No beef-up helmet. no nothing. So you can acutally communicate with both people outside and inside all the time, with ease. Comfort/cozy

G) Culture

H) Based on the broad family/friend way of playing this game as a comfortable and cozy sparetime occupations, it always gains a broad national thrill, to see professionals do what, you do as an amateur in the backyard with a sweatshirt as a goal. or what we do at the local sports club each sunday.

I) Culture

[ June 04, 2003, 03:56: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

I think the limited scoring idea might not explain.... baseball. It is true though that the popularity of baseball is declining. However, given that NASCAR has now become the second most popular sport in the US (don't ask me how and whether car racing is a sport is another issue - it's on Sportscenter ipso facto I guess) and given the rise of completely non-scoring sports like the X-games I'm not sure about that reason.

May be right though, I'll admit that baseball scoring is higher now than it was in decades past.

I don't think soccer is popular in the US primarily because other sports are so popular. This is particularly true in the South which produces a disproportionately high number of our athletes and is obsessed by football (junior high football spring practices and year round training anyone?) and still loves baseball (ever take a look at the little league facilities in the south for baseball - temples.) Then you've got a lot of our great athletes are from poor neighborhoods and its cheaper and easier to play basketball than it is soccer imo. And those are the big three - baseball in the spring and summer, football in late summer through the fall and early winter, and then basketball from winter to spring when baseball starts again.

The plate is already pretty full for a sports fan in America and has been for decades and that's why I think soccer would have a difficult time making headway - we're paying attention to other things.

Oh, and hockey is way down the list of things most Americans pay attention to. The rating back this up I think.

EDIT - agree with Nobleman if what he means by culture is that it's just part of the culture and has been for a while (but not if he means it is somehow a "cultured" sport kinda like holding your little finger up while drinking tea is cultured.) That's why I don't think this is something which perplexes Americans at all. Soccer isn't on the map enough for us to be perplexed about it. Like a tree falling in the middle of the forest I guess.

And for the life of me I can't understand how someone can't recognize how clearly college football, particularly in the SEC, is without debate the greatest sport around but people like Nobleman won't understand that because he never grew up with it and probably most who don't grow up with it won't make the effort to learn an insanely complex sport. Likewise, I'm not going to make the effort to learn soccer, too busy. Culture.

Football is a very simple game. For 90 minutes 22 men go running after the ball and at the end the Germans win.

But the kings of footbal are the Latin-Americans. Africans play it too. East-Asians seem to start with it.

I'm under the impression, that in American games nothing ever happens. Baseball and American Football seem to me consisting out of waiting, waiting and waiting, whereas in Football, if it's a good game, there's always something happening.

All what's needed is a goal (if none aviable, two sticks in the grass will do fine), a ball, some players and whoopie. Football's king.

Yes, you put the hammer to the nail Laches. :) We never grew up with it so we really don't make an effort to understand it. And without understanding how can we enjoy. And without joy, when will we ever bother understanding. As Yago says, your american football is all about boring waiting around. Followed by more waiting around... But that is our view. To those dedicated, it is intense silence before the storm, right? The thrill of unknow? The excitement of all tactical possibilites that can happen? Yago, we don't think a penalty kick is boring either, do we? :) But if we don't understand and apreciate all the breaks, pausing and moreso traditions and strategies behind american football, how can we ever enjoy? We live in different cultures, learn different things, play for different reasons and in different games. But we shouldn't strive to change that actively, should we? It would be a shame

I must admit ,that I too can throw down a sixpack with my friends at the Superbowl final. Just for getting a glimse of the culmination of american feelings. But my heart wil always be with soccer.

PS OUT OF TOPIC: Weird Question. Black Hawk are you Sir Bel? The Directory search of sir Bel's Recent posts says you are.

[ June 04, 2003, 04:08: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Blackhawk wrote:

Europeans like Soccer (they call it football) which always perplexes Americans. Maybe it is due to the fact that we have Ice Hockey - which is simular but far more fast and aggressive. Soccer is not seen as a "man's sport". I know, I'm not being nice, but I'm being truthful. Hm, have you ever thaught about the homoerotic implications of American-Football ?

A few months ago a comedian claimed that Americans are so braindead, the only way the brain can be stimulated is by seeing a car going 200mph, more than 100 goals in one game and exploding stuff.
If they watch football, they just fall asleep

Great one Morgoth :lol:

@Blackhawk
The question you asked was Why to Europeans like Soccer (Football)? right?

Well around most of the world people are asking Why do Amaricans like Football?

Football is as has been said both the simplest game imaginable and can be drawn to such heights of skill that it is dazzling. I would say that it is alot easier to play football than baseball, for baseball you need both a ball and a bat, for football you need only the ball. As for those that think that football is a soft game, it isnt. I prefer a well played and fair game but anyone that have ever seen Roy Keane plant the soles of his feet in someones groin cannot say that it is a soft game. Protections are for the weak.

I would like to add that football is really on the rise in the US. As you say, the kids play it and what the kids play the adults will play as well. Football has concquered all the world except North American and I think it is but a matter of time until it takes over there as well. Time as in a bunch of decades but still. The US national team is already very good and can if not win stand up against the best, wont take long until they can beat them too. Alot has happened just in the last decade or two.

I also think that the fact that most World Cups are cramped tight things play in to the fact that the Americans are not very fond of football. The World Cup is the only time football get any real exposure in the US and so much rides on the World Cup and there are so many nerves involved that the football played is often cramped and tight, not daring to make a single mistake and waiting out the opponent. Instead of the fast paced technical wonder it can be when two great teams both agree to dance the dance.

The answer to either Blackhawk's or RotKU's question is simple: money :money:

People like what they know. They know what they see on TV. TV stations show what advertisers will pay more for. Hence, in Europe, soccer is aired; in the US, it's football. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

I've said for many years that if a broadcaster would take the time to explain another sport so people could understand it - and therefore enjoy it - they'd create themselves a audience. But no, they'd much rather spend the time with rehash and cross-anaylsis. Anyone else remember how much airtime was devoted to replays of Joe Theisman breaking his leg back on MNF?

HHH UUU HHH ? I can not believe this. A Swede which passes by on this thread, which includes Ice-Hockey described as a "US-sport", without commenting that ? Is the loss versus Canada still hurting ?

At Rallymama:

Hm, women. :D

Well, there are women playing football too. ;)

I think you hugely overestimate the power of the media and seriously underestimate the power of playing it and loving it and wanting to see it. I don't know about the American sports, but Football is played on a daily basis everywhere, where there is a goal and grass. Hm, to be exact, even on grounds of concrete. It's played in schools in the breaks, after School and then again after the homework. And on Saturday and on Sunday, down by the sea, on the beach, everywhere.

There is no way, that any important match, and there are plenty, is not aired. And everything has to yield the airing-space. Everything. That's why it also called the second most important thing in life.

You will not find any audience for any other sport, if it competes with a football match. And if it's not football or, in my country, Icehockey, it does not exist. Period. It's not a principal distaste for anything else, there is simply no space for anything else.

So, media indoorsment will, on this side of the great pond, have no impact at all.

He, he and by the way, I've heard that the finals of American Football are actually watched by the big part of the people only because of the commercial breaks there, which have some kind of cult-status.

A question, have Americans similar festivals after won-matches, like the next day off and Brazilian girls running naked through the streets ?

I just decided to view myself in the future as northern-south European. It's the southern blood, the southern blood.

All i can say is that everytime i see a football game or play one with my friends i forget everything outside the game. I have seen many sports but none reaches the levels of beauty, technique, strategy that football does :D . I played basketball and i was still feeling stressed by the events of the day, i played football and afterwards i felt like i have just been born. :D
I believed that the USA soccer was rising (i think they have a championship). But if you have never played football you will never understand why football is called by the majority of the planet the king of sports. :cool:

A question, have Americans similar festivals after won-matches, like the next day off and Brazilian girls running naked through the streets ?

Sort of, lately we like to riot and burn stuff. Dunno why, but we do. We don't always have to win to enjoy this either. Just being in the championship game is sometimes enough.

Kinda unrelated -- historically the most difficult thing to do in sports according to the experts in the US is to hit a major league baseball. For comparison saving a penalty kick in soccer most recently was rated #9. Here is the list and an article corresponding with each number as well as the complaints of people reading the article (including the "you're just American soccer is harder" complaint that can be found in the chat along with the reply):
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ten-hardest-splash.htm

While the popularity of the sport has declined drastically, this past year they surveyed some pundits and they still agreed it was the toughest thing to do in sports. The argument is only in baseball is 30% success (.300 batting average) considered a stupendous achievenment and 40% success (a .400 batting average) a virtually unobtainable dream. To me, football (the American kind with 200 + possible play calls) will always be first and foremost but baseball is a highly skilled, highly... strategertized.... game but its really, really subtle.

While soccer has spread in popularity baseball has the same power imo. It doesn't require much money, look at the kids in the Dominican Republic who play with cardboard mitts and sticks. It has become wildly popular in the far east in Japan and is gaining rapid steam in places like Korea. Mexico and South America are ripe markets. If baseball was smart, they'd move some of the struggling franchises out of the north and into Mexico and see what its like to draw 50k fans per game to a baseball game. If managed correctly, baseball could really go neck and neck with soccer in my opinion in many parts of the world. Of course, baseball shows no signs of being managed correctly.

@Yago: What do women playing soccer have to do with anything? :confused: :hmm:

The rest of your post actually supports the point I was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to make - people play/watch what they know best. The question then becomes, do they know it best because it's always on TV, or is it always on TV because of the demand?

Like I said before, it's a self-perpetuating cycle. :roll:

Women actually have nothing special to do with it at all, but I may have misunderstood your post. That's maybe the New England style. I don't know.

Women -> I bet it's more or less the same issue, over on your side of the pond. Lament, lament, lament. First things first. Football is always first.

Yes, then I agree. To play it means wanting to watch it. If you don't play it, you don't get the point, you don't want to watch it.

I thaught you meant stimulating demand for another type of sport on TV through starting to showing it, which then leads to a want to play it. This, misunderstood view, immedietly braught the women issue in my mind. You know, the stereotype. :D :D

I must agree with Laches. American football is an incredible game. I know the same can be said about most sports, but the nuances stagger me. Where else can you see a team use the same play three or four times simply to lull their opponent and then line up in the exact same formation apparently ready to run the same play again and pull off something altogether different and score as a result. In what other sport can you see a team down by three with less than ten seconds to make it seventy-five yards down the field toss the ball up on a wing and a prayer and score on a tipped pass as the opposing teams fans rush the field and stop in stunned silence (Bluegrass miracle anyone?). I also agree that college football is better than pro, and the SEC is preeminent among the conferences. Geaux Tigers!

Nobleman,

Ok, I played soccer in youth leagues, both rec. and premiere, I also played indoor until just recently. Your claim that it is not a rough sport is a little misleading. People can play a friendly game, and not get rough, but then people can play American football with flags and accomplish the same thing. As far as playing competitively, soccer is extremely demanding on your body (as my bad knees and hips can attest), and I personally have, or have seen others, legally break another players (not all at one time) ribs, leg, ankle, arm, and skull (that one I did playing indoor, checked another player into the wall and he hit head first, he never played again, and I have not checked a player into the boards since).

As far as culture, the hooligans are starting to put a damper on that.

That said, I would love to still be able to play (bad wheels prevent it), but watching outdoor soccer on TV is like watching paint dry. I understand the intricacies and strategy of a match, and I recognize them while watching, but I just find myself yawning. :sleep:

The US is the only continent where football (not soccer) never became popular. Maybe it's because Amercans suck at it ? :D

I've heard some pretty stupid reasons about why it never got a foothold in the US. One of them was that the players are sissies, not tough enough, stuff like that.

For those who think that way... football is not about being tough. It's about outsmarting your opponent, being faster when in possession of the ball. Take a look at the greatest players from the past... Pele, Maradonna, Cruyff... they were all featherweights, with a good set of brains. That's why they became the best in their sport.

You have no need for a big fat ass and a belly like a boulder, like the defensive linesmen in the NFL, you won't make it in this sport with muscles. All you need is speed and wits. Oh... and a healthy condition might work as well. There's no option to go sit on the bench for a while and then return to the game like in the big American sports.

Like it or not, football is the king of sports worldwide.

Edit: And Feyenoord owns you all. :D

[ June 04, 2003, 19:35: Message edited by: Pac man ]

Hmm, why do we like soccer..?

It's faster than football (football effectivly is "lawn-chess"; in Europe, an slow and boring soccer match is called the same), slower than hockey and not as complicated (and long) as baseball.

The only american sport really popular in Europe is Basketball (okay, ice hockey too). It's adequatly fast, simple and short.

I like american football, because I like the tactical part in it.

MfG

Hmm I like Soccer and Basketball , nothing else. Maybe it's because they are the most popular games in Europe or maybe I don't know other games really well. It really seems stupid to me that people punch each other to get the ball and a field of lunatics laugh at that!
Soccer is pure tactic and condition.If anyone does think that it's not mannish enough, I want to know what is?(save basketball)
Really, fighting seems stupid to me.

Edit: And Feyenoord owns you all. Right LOL

They lost the national cup with 4-1 against some meager footyclub

Off topic

Geaux Tigers! War Eagle!

Generally, you like what you know, you know what you are exposed to as a child, you are exposed to what your parents decides is good for you, what they did and what your friends do.

Random theories - Most countries have one or two main sports that all of the kids play to some degree or another and are watched by most people who watch sports. Aside from the somewhat recent enhancement of basketball, most of Europe was and is focused on soccer (we'll ignore Cricket as the abomination it is and excuse the English for having invented it and its bastard stepchild, baseball).

Here in the states, most kids are exposed to, at the minimum, three major sports - baseball, football (American) and basketball. In various areas of the country, there are usually at least two other sports that vie for time - hockey where it's cold, lacrosse in the northeast, surfing and beach volleyball where there's an ocean, etc. With so many sports around, soccer doesn't take the center of our sports hearts here as much as it does elsewhere around the world.

That being said, I find baseball, both versions of football and televised hockey to be monstrously boring and do not spend any time on it at all. (Let's not even get into golf -- fine to play, need a frontal lobotomy to watch). I'm watching bits of the Stanley Cup finals now, but I wouldn't turn down Ducks tickets if they came my way -- I love going to hockey games.

Soccer has been around here for decades and there have been leagues set up, kids have played it, etc. It just is not all that popular.

I was exposed to tennis as a child (I've played since I was 4). Thus, I enjoy watching tennis. I do not expect others who did not play it to watch it. Just an example and my two cents.

American football a "man's sport"? Come on, those girls playing it wear body armor and helmets! Afraid they might break a finger nail, perhaps? :D

Play some rugby, now that's a man's sport! ;)

On topic, soccer in Europe is about money, big money, that's why it's omnipresent in the media and in the culture. In America, the big money is in other sports.

@ Morgoth

Thanks for reminding me. :D
I live in that city, remember ? I spent two days among celebrating Utrecht supporters, i was the only one NOT celebrating. :D

why european like soccer better than football? What are you talking about? The whole world prefer soccer over football. (Actually, Philippinos don't like soccer as well, but they are not found of football either.)

i have this litte theory of mine on "Why a particular sport become popular?"
(In priority, the most important one list first)

1 - Simple rules.
When you are expecting everyone to engage in a particular "thing", you must have simple rules. Rules that can be understand easily by any layers, every classes of humanity. Simple rules result in easy understanding. I was lucky enough to witness in TV the last play between New York vs San Francisco post season game earlier this year. When the game finishes, all the TV analyists says that Terry made a stupid mistake, he should throw the ball down and stop the game. But then, the day after, everyone says he made the right choice. Rules so complicated that even expert tv analyists make mistake, this is not good for spreading the game around, not good at all.

2 - Fast pace.
100 meters and Marathon, both have identical rules. Which one will you get more excited watching? One of the reason we watch sport is to seek excitement. Slow pace/no pace = dull, no one wants to watch this.
This can be extend a bit to continuity. While people are watching, they don't want to wait. Play for a few seconds, the clock stops, play another few seconds, clock stops, and so on is not really fasinating and attractive to people, unless when it comes to the final crucial moment. Which entertaining wrestling sounds better, Goldberg and Stone Cold beat the hell out of each other from start till end or Ric Flair gives Hogan a cheap punch, plea for mercy, run around, another cheap punch, mercy, run around and so on?

3 - Easy equipment.
Pele and Marodona both grew up playing football made of waste cloths and later become soccer legends. You have to know, not every country is rich like America. And certainly not every groups of neighbourhood kids can afford a plastic American football, not to mention the helmets and pads for schools. However, anyone can easily find a field, a ball of any meterial and just mark where the goal is and they can engage in a simple soccer game.
Extand this and you can easily understand why no one is Southeast Asia is found of ice hockey.

If you apply these three rules, you can know easily why the top four Americans sports differ in the popularity throughout the world. You can easily know that soccer is really the way to go.

Once in a while a certain topic in the alley attracts my attention and this is it.

I like soccer a lot, and there's actually only two sports I play and like and that's soccer and Tennis.

Soccer for me is tension, excitement and fast paced. I mean look at a baseball match :sleep:

I am amazed though to see this much soccer fans, I know it's Europe's number one sport but not a lot of people who visit this kind of boards like soccer/sports in general.

EDIT: Oh I forgot........AJAX AMSTERDAM OLE OLE :thumb:

I don't wonder at all. Soccer is a sport and the fans who like it like it. Many people can't understand why Americans like baseball (which is one of the sports that I follow).
Many people here have made the very valid point that soccer requires almost no equipment. This makes it playable almost anywhere. You could make a ball out of rags and play. This is why it has caught on in impoverished nations so well. Basketball seems to be following for the same reasons.
That said, I still think it's boring. On about the same level as baseball. I was raised playing and watching baseball, so I like it. If I had been raised playing and watching soccer, I would probably like it.

Eeeerm...Apeman... i just removed you from my christmascard list. :D

Still thinking about last years national cup he Pac Man :D :D

I'll explain it to non dutchies, last years national soccer cup went to ajax who scored the 1-1 in, I don't know, the last minute of the game. But it was like 3 metres off side. They won the game in after-time. That was pretty funny ;)

LOL No, that one didn't bother me at all. Read back what i said earlier in this thread, and you'll find out that the rivalry between MY team and Ajax goes waaaay beyond that petty little cupfinal. :D

Well, I didn't bother to read the other replies, so forgive me.

I am European and I say that I truly think that football is...

*drum roll*

UTTER CRAP.

That goes for hockey as well.

*casts protection from angry males*

Why women don't like soccer:
You should be tactical
You should be sensible
It's hard, walking with your legs spread...
(Ahum, sorry for that)

I don't like football(soccer). Actually, I hate football(soccer).
*mumbles* Well, basically, I hate any sport but this is another matter.

I can't understand why Americans like their football and baseball. Despite hating football, I'd rather play this sport than baseball or American football.

I love soccer (i hate the name soccer - why did americans have to hijack the name football) but I hate watching it. Every time I see a game I just want to go and play it. I can always find out the result later.

I have seen an ice hockey, american football and baseball game live.

The ice hockey was ok (it was a pretty boring match) but i do enjoy watching it on tv when its on (rarely in england).

The cheerleaders at the american football game were more interesting than the match. I'm not an expert on the game but I do know some of the rules and the whole thing was just so slow. Rugby beats american football any day.

The baseball match was even less interesting. I remember meeting the baltimore oriole and also that cal ripkin (is that his name?) was about to beat some record for playing every game in the last 100 years but other than that I havent a clue. Cricket is way better (and harder).

Generally I enjoy playing football but prefer watching other sports. Most american sports have too many breaks to be even remotely interesting.

Perhaps soccer is not popular in america because it does not have enough opportunities for advert breaks.

Come on the Spiders!!! (Queen's Park FC for anyone wondering)

Why is rugby called FOOTball, when all they do is run around with a ball in their arms. The only reason I can see to call it football, is that one single time a player kicks the ball, because he realizes that's the only way to score in a goal at such heights.

Rugby is called football because a guy (I think called Webb Ellis) was playing football at Rugby school (a school in England) when for some reason he decided it would be easier to pick the ball up and run with it and so the resulting game became known as Rugby Football.

*ahem*

Just came across this thread, so I might be a bit late, but I have one thing to say to Blackhawk and his original post:
Maybe it is due to the fact that we have Ice Hockey We invented the sport, punk, so none of this American “we” crap! :flaming:
All you guys have done is watered down the talent so that its nothing more than a freakin’ clutch-and-grab sleep-fest! (At least in the NHL) :mad:

Thank you for your attention.

(As you can see, I’m always looking to make new friends :D )

[ June 10, 2003, 19:14: Message edited by: Splunge ]

We invented the sport, punk, so none of this American “we” crap!
All you guys have done is watered down the talent so that its nothing more than a freakin’ clutch-and-grab sleep-fest! (At least in the NHL)
I didn't mean that "we" Americans alone have the sport - only that we have it. Canada invented it - and it was a great gift to the world.

Canada has some NBA teams too. I assume that Canadians say "we have basketball".

Why does Europe like Soccer (Football) Because kicking the ball is infinitely superior to throwing the ball ;)

But I can't say I like it. My last performance was 1,5 years ago and my lungs were devastated when it finally was over. You know, some evening we were playing with some Argentinians in Rome and there wasn't enough able players on our side :rolleyes:

@Blackhawk
It appears I may have over-reacted just a tad. We Canucks tend to ba a bit protective about our hockey (if not our teams, since the trend seems to be to move them down south :wail: )
Anyway, its time for my meds. :xx:

P.S. Actually, we only have Toronto in the NBA, but I would hardly call the Raptors a basketball team :lol: (As you may have guessed, I'm not from Toronto :D

[ June 11, 2003, 16:02: Message edited by: Splunge ]

Well, I'm from Sacramento - our team, the Kings, unfornuately didn't do all well either.

Of course, we did much better than the L.A. Lakers :D

I think the NBA should create a team in Montreal too. I don't know what they would call it. Of course, team names don't always fit the city they are in. Sacramento has never had a King and L.A. has never had a lake (unless you are speaking of pools of blood). :)

Blackhawk - Didn't the Kings get bounced in the second round, just like the Lakers? Well, at least the team that bounced the Kings beat the one that bounced the Lakers . . . oh, wait, it was the other way around. Your guys got punked by the no-D Mavericks.

Ah, but you'll say that Webber was injured. Well, so was Shaq (slight knee thing), Kobe (major labrum tear), Fox (man did he ever ^&%$ up his foot) and George (major ankle sprain). Oh, but at least you have all-star players like Bibby, Peja and Vlade to step up in the clutch and bail out your team . . . oh, wait, your best player was actually Bobby Jackson, the back-up point guard. :D :D

(Why couldn't Shaq have gotten his damned surgery early in the summer? The Lakers would be stomping the Nets as we speak. Oh well, next year.)


Apologies to all, as this is :yot:

Oh good lord no. I hope the NBA and MLB have learned better than to keep expanding into Canada -- you only end up with problems. If anything, contract don't expand. Now, if we were talking about Mexico I might listen but the Canada experiment hasn't gone so well. Of course, I don't like the NBA so...

That's not meant as an attack, just the facts ma'am.

As far as team names -- names like the Lakers used to make perfect sense prior to their moves. Ditto the Jazz. Ditto....

@Laches
Normally, as a loyal Canadian, I'd be offended (even with the "not meant as an attack" part), but frankly I have to agree with you. We're about to lose the long-time Montreal Expos (so I think an NBA team there would be disastrous), and while the Blue Jays did very well about 10 years ago (great attendance, and won the World Series in '92 + '93), its gone downhill since then. Vancouver had an NBA team but it disappeared pretty quick. Of course, the bulk of our problems stem from the difference in exchage rates between our respective currencies, which means that we have difficulty in being able to afford talented athletes, which in turn makes it difficult to field competitive teams. Same problem with the NHL.

dmc -

The Kings are the Pacific Division Champs - twice now.

The Lakers were hurting, but not that bad. All the players have aches and pains - as long as they perform, they do well. The Kings had quite a few injuries too.

Fox really wasn't the key to the Laker's success. I doubt not having him really changed the Lakers offense or defense.

Sorry about the "pools of blood" reference. That's a stereotype of L.A. in Northern California. The stereotype depicts L.A. as BarterTown from the Mad Max movies. Its not deserved. Of course, L.A. probably doesn't have the warmest of feelings for Sac either! :)

[ June 12, 2003, 12:33: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

Steering the topic back to footie... As to the Americans hijacking the name football, it is one of those unsolved mysteries. Instead of calling American football 'football' why didn't they name it soccer? i mean, in American football, the ball doesn't even touch your foot unless that one guy kicks it through the touchdown-thingees. I suppose it's one of those American tendencies towards needing everything to be completely different than the rest of the world... kinda like the metric system deal. :rolleyes:

Also, in response to some things said on the first page of posts... How footie can be call 'unmanly' I don't know. recently one hot-headed young Ukrainian immigrant broke somebody's leg in a Pro American footie match. It was the second such incident for this particular player. (We love you, Dema!!) One of the chicago fire's players made a trip to the ER with a neckbrace on because he ran into the goalpost during a little scuffle infront of the goal.

women play footie! How can you say we don't?? I'm probably the most footie-crazy person in my town and I'm female. plus, Mia Hamm is one of the most well know footie "stars" in America and guess what... she's female too.

And finally (I'm almost done, I promise) to the original question, 'why to europeans like footie?'
As others have said: culture. when you grow up with something that big all around you, driving many people, you tend to get into it. Also its a wonderful game. It's very easy to play in that you really don't need any equipment.

[ June 13, 2003, 01:16: Message edited by: Valkyrie ]

I watched American Football a couple of times and it sucks, big time. A bunch of souped up jocks, bashing each other? please.

And back to the origional 'manly' comment.
Your right football isn't manly, but Rugby (my sport) is, it's like American Football, except we keep the game going for more thna two seconds between whistles and we are tough enough not to need padding.
I am sorry but if your wearing all that gear in American football, you ain't tough.

I'll always support your argument on that one Sir D. American Football players should try Rugby Union for a propper kicking. No stoppages between plays, no helmets, rucking the ball out. Oh yes, that is a game for men.

Speaking of Rugby football - anyone see the fantastic England performances last weekend and the week before? Truly no 1 in the world at the moment. Can we hold out in the WC though? Tough indeed.

On the topic of soccer:

Enlightenment for you all coming up: Many questions as to why it's called soccer. Well it's because we have two types of football in the UK. Rugby football and Association football (as in the football association or the FA). The term Soccer comes from a short for Association. There you go. An English term though I really hate it. Football it will always be to me, and yes it's the greatest game on earth.

My American friends always said that world football is not as "manly" as American football. All the do are just kick the ball around and if they get rough, they get cards.

The thing i don't understand is, since when did sport become a competition of brutal assault? Sport is a competion of skill, mind and body coordination. You are the winner because you are more skillful not because you are better at pounding others (yeah, i don't like boxing). You know there is a reason why no one play galdiators anymore. "Manly" is an immature concept, "gentleman" is the what we should look for in sports.

edit - wow, my 500th post

I just had to jump into this topic.

A good friend of mine has a theory. His theory is that the U.S. government actively ensures that the U.S. doesn't get good at soccer. He believes that our national policy demands that we steer all of our top athletes away from soccer and that we lure them with obscene amounts of money. His rationale is that if we actually cared about the game, made it worthwhile for our top athletes to play it, we would quickly dominate the sport and the rest of the world just wouldn't be able to handle it. The Ethiopians may not have any food, running water, or technology, but damn they can chase a ball around a field.

As to why we like Football so much, a professor of mine described football as the only sport that in essence was two armies going head to head on every play. Even here in the states the general impression is that athletes are as dumb as the ball they are playing with. The players are like soldiers, they get their orders without having to understand them completely. The intellictual part is with the coaches that design the plays and schemes, and with the general managers that build the team. In Football every team has the same amount of money to spend on their team. It gives the league a tremendous amount of parity, which means that every team can be a championship team. After he described all that he then said "Plus we really like the violence, the people not good enough to play football can always play soccer."

Go Pats

How can you guys say that the US are no good at football?

I think the 1/4 final place in the World Cup proves otherwise. They were bloody robbed against Germany (hand ball on the goal line anyone?) in the quarters, who they outplayed for the entire match.

I take it "no good" means not the world champions? No wonder you stick to sports you only play in the US and then call the winners "World Champs". I'm a damned sight more impressed with the US soccer team reaching the last eight in the world cup than with having the "world champions" of American Football.

Good point Viking. The US was a positive sensation on the last WC. I think they're still not over the loss in Portugal, and against Germany they deserved the victory. Then who knows what might have happened. They have quite a few young talented players now who will only get better.

We haven't heard the last of team USA. :D

I think the point was more that the US doesn't particularly care about soccer so the best athletes don't play it - not that the US is horrible at it.

Let's put it this way. Bo knew football. Bo knew baseball. Bo knew track and field. Hell, Bo even knew hockey and he's from a little town in Alabama. Bo didn't know soccer.

And Bo was one of the best atheletes of the century. Ditto Herschel. Ditto Thorpe. Ditto....

It is probably also telling that making the 1/4 finals won't be considered much to write home about in the US. That's just the way it is.

The days that European national teams dominated international football, fearing only Argentina and the gods from Brazil, are definitley over I think. It will be more and more often, that Eurpean "major" teams be knocked out by African or Asian-teams, not only Latin-American teams. So, the Dutch, English, Italians, French and Germans aren't set for the finals anymore.

Maybe we'll even see the land of Heidi in the finals sometime. Then again..... maybe not. :D

Lol, maybe one day. First we quadruple the population to the size of the Netherlands and then we encourage people from Surinam to immigrate here and then ..... :D ;) :)


It's coming home
To the land of Heidi
It's coming home
To the land of Heidi
It's coming
Football's coming home
To the land of Heidi

Tears for heroes dressed in grey
No plans for final day
Stay in bed, drift away
It could have been all
Songs in the street
It was nearly complete
It was nearly so sweet
And now I'm singing

A white cross on a shirt
Türkilmaz still gleaming
No more years of hurt
No more need for dreaming

A white cross on a shirt
Türkyilmaz still gleaming
No more years of hurt
No more need for dreaming

Wait a second, what do you mean by "best athletes"? How do you know a person is the "best athlete"? You sure Micheal Jordan is the "best athlete"? i am going for Mohamad Ali because he cares more about social issues. Do you take political stands in consideration?

Determining who the best athlete is is a matter of athleticism. A tautology I guess. Politics are irrelevant. If the guy is a neo nazi who runs the 40 in a 4.2 flat with a 42 inch vertical leap, a bench of 450, a squat of 650, unbelievable hand eye coordination, and an ability to simply see a playing field and immediately move into the correct position he is a great athlete. May be a deplorable human being but he is a great athlete.

BTW, MJ is way down the list of great athletes in my book. Great athlete help become a great basketball player but great athlete =!= great player. Case in point: Larry Bird vs Derick Coleman.

If you determined the 100 best athletes in America none of them play soccer. Wouldn't surprise me if you could get up to 500 or a 1000.

It just isn't important here. The most memorable soccer moment for most Americans is when the soccer babe took her shirt off, which I assume was in a championship game of some sort, but I couldn't tell you for certain. Most Americans don't know that much.

[ July 01, 2003, 00:41: Message edited by: Laches ]

In terms of best athletes it is also dependant on the sport you are talking about. I'm guessing that most basketball players would be terrible at soccer. However, I'm sure if you took the wide recievers and defensive backs from some football teams and gave them some training they would probably be able to embarrass our soccer players.

Laches,

I only brought up the WC achievements of the US football team because there is always a tendency for this argument to drift along the lines of "The US don't care about football coz they're no good at it."

The argument about athletes is interesting though. Perhaps a separate topic though otherwise we'll get off topic here for quite a while.

Good athlete equals not to good athlete. Some people are from the phiysical outset more suited for one sport but not for an other sport. A jockey has an advantage in being small, a basketball player has an advantage in being tall. Different sports ask for different abilities and phisical attributes. Zinadine Zidane is a football-genius, but I doubt, that he would be a basketball-genius, even if he played all his life only basketball. It's a different game with ask for different skills and abilities. Zinadine Zidane maybe couldn't have developed similar incredible skills in basketball, because it's a different game which asks for different specific strenghts.

I don't agree with that yago.

Your example discribes basketball, well zidane grew up in france, which isn't too known for their basketball talents because it isn't as popular as soccer. Same goes for americans, there isn't enough popularity for the game too make an influence in the many other sports. When the viewers aren't interested in the game, less money will be spent in training young athletes.

Anyway what I am trying too say is that the more popular the game is the more chance there is for talanted players.

But there is a saying in the netherland called 'balgevoel'. Which exactly translated 'feeling the ball'. It means if you have that you can pretty much play any sport with a ball (except for hockey (not ice) because hockey just plain sucks). I can safely say that Zidane has 'balgevoel' and if he was trained as a basketball player he could be a really good one. That is because the biggest strength of Zidane is when he has the ball, he sees the players, he sees the spaces, and he knows what to do. I know he could do the same as a basketballer when properly trained.

Edit: not all basketball players are really tall, there always will be the guy who has too throw the ball exactly where the tall guy can score easiest.

I agree with you there, that anyone who has "feeling for the ball" and a good physical condition would be a good player in any ball game. But I differ in the point, that that necesserily means that anyone can reach the same results in any sport. Zidane's genius can only come into play in the fast speeding games on a huge game field -> like football. Basketball is fast too, but is played with hands on a small field. I don't think that Zidane's abilities would make the same huge difference in Basketball like in Football. But I agree, that he's probably automaticly a good basketballplayer. But not automaticly a basketball genius.

The same would go with people who rung. Obviously, anyone who runs a lot would be a good runner, but the difference between the muscels of a marathon-runner and a 100-meter sprinter couldn't be more different. 1200-meter is a whole different thing again. Could a exceptional 100 meter sprinter be a exceptional marathon-runner if he wouldn't have concentrated on 100 m ? I doubt that. The "starting-point" of how you body IS in the beginning makes a huge difference. Some people just do not have the possibility to evelop those huge muscels in the legs, which are needed for a sprinter, no matter how hard the train, but they maybe be made for ski, because they have the suiting beginnig-conditions.

But I differ in the point, that that necesserily means that anyone can reach the same results in any sport The best example is Michael Jordan. He was the best basketball player ever, but as a baseball player he was a total failure.

I woudlnt call him a failure. The mere fact that he had enough skill to even try out to be a pro baseball player shows that he was one of the top 1000 or so baseball players in the world. That is no bad achievement. Especially not considernig his age adn that he had focused so much on basketball for the most of his life. I think that is a good example of feeling for the ball. Jordan would have been a great player in any ballgame if he had started with it as a kid.

You see, i am taking philosophy right now. From what i am studying, it encourages me to be an ass and constantly challenge what people take for granted, that's why i asked "what defines the best athlete"

My intention was to point out that it is impossible to clearly and distinctively define "the best athlete" so the arguement of "keeping best athlete out of football" is naturally invalid.

Let's say that one athlete excel in a particular sport (for the moment, let's assume that success = winning an Olympics gold). Now this athlete cross over to another sport and win another gold in Olympics. Does this make him "the best athlete"? Well no, because the other athlete that wins 3 golds in 3 events is better than him, yes? So winning 3 golds is the best? Well no, someone got 4. Eventually we will end up in winning all possible gold in all possible sports events offered in the Olympics. So, does a person who wins all the gold in the Olympics "the best athlete"? Well no, i can find another who not only wins all the Olympics golds but also events that are not covered in Olympics. Surely this person is better than Olympics-win-all. From here, where do we end up? A person who nothing greater can be conceived. Who is such person that you know of? God. Only God, as the perfect being, can be the best athlete. Us human who are subject to imperfectness and flaws will never become anything close to the best ahtlete.

(don't mind me, i am drunk right now)

Perfect =!= best. My undergrad is in philosophy and I don't see any reason we can't say that the best athletes in America don't play soccer. Philosophy ain't got nothin to do with it.

I didn't say that the best athlete in America doesn't play soccer. I said the best athleteS in America don't play soccer.

I can say that. Look above, I just did. : ) Seriously, it may be tough or impossible to pick just one 'best athlete' but you can certainly look at a group and determine overall athleticism. The best athletes in America don't compete in soccer imo. Frankly, and this will fit right in with the rest of the race stuff floating around, I've seen the US team and there aren't enough black guys on it for me to believe the better athletes from America are playing soccer.

America's best athletes are black. I dunno why, but they are. Hey to Carl Lewis, Bo Jackson, Herschel Walker, Takeo Spikes, Barry Bonds etc.

I got my theory for that too. Clearly in sports and soccer the most, minorities are overpresented. My theory: There are to big branches in society were performance really, really counts. Music and sports.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find a talented sportler. It doesn't need no long fuss to decide to support that talent. For more most minority-members, that's the way to go. If you make it in sports, you make it. No insecurities, no problems. The "normal" professional eduction doesn't look too often to promising for those members, like your statistics in the other thread showed. So, take the gamble and focus on the sport-talent. In Switzerland, most gifted with sportive talent chose the save way. Formal and solid education. Medicin or football ? Accountant or Ski ? Which career does look like it surely yields results ? Minorities often have not a sure second choice, so, go for it.

In my opinion (and with my limited knowledge on baseball), if he wasn't the famous Michael Jordan, he would never have the chance to play in a baseball team of this level. After all, I believe that the reason that this team accepted Jordan was the publicity and the advertising contracts, it would earn because of his fame.

Well, i didn't start with perfecttion too but the search for "better" ended up in perfection.

While comparing two athletes, (if you have a method) you can determine which one is better. Thus, this better one is "the best among" the two. If i introduce another player who holds an athletic quality that this "best among two" player don't have, shouldn't this third player be the best among the three? i can just keep on introducing new athletes that holds more athletic qualities to challenge the previous best. While keep adding atheletic qualities, we ended up finding the perfect being.

Well, of course you can say that your are finding, say, 100 best athletes. But now if i introduce a new athlete that has every qualities that these athletes have plus an addition that these athletes don't have, shouldn't this athlete be consider in the 100 best? Now, do we kick out one to keep the list as 100 or do we expand the list to 101 best? Either way, i am going to keep introducing new athletes with addition athletic qualities, we still end up with God.

Yes, you are subjected to feel that "the best American athletes don't compete in football". But this remains purely an emotional feeling. It is impossible to find the best 100, not even the best 1.

(don't mind me, i am high)

[ July 02, 2003, 11:00: Message edited by: teekc ]

Yeah, and i'd like to know exactly what you smoked, and where can i get some ? :D

I feel confident in stating that the best athletes don't play soccer in America.

I probably shouldn't do this, but I just saw it and it is too funny not to, an article about soccer:

AFTER watching the first two soccer games of my six-year-old son, Justin, this spring, I finally understand why Europeans riot at soccer matches. For the same reason inmates riot in prisons: sheer boredom.....

So the issue of the day is whether we Americans will muster the forces to take back our culture from the un-American soccer enthusiasts. We need to channel our kids' energies into more productive activities: baseball, football, tennis, MTV -- even smoking would be an improvement.

http://www.nationalreview.com/04may98/moore050498.html

Laches, I guess you are generally fascinated by the phenomens hooliganism. By the way, Ice-Hockey breeds in my country the biggest clashes of Hooliganism, not footbal. But the roots of Hooliganism have actually nothing to do with soccer. But explanation is complicated and controversial. Mostly it's about groups consisting out of 2 brains, 6 muscels, looking for a fight. One part is hellraising, one part is nationalism. And by the way, never to underestimate is regional natinoalism, like in ethnical different countries like the netherlands and especially the great ehnical divide of Italy.

The most notorious are the Dutch and the English. But it has always very pleasant and nice side-effects when Brazil or Italy wins. At least here. :D :D

Most people just watch the game, get drunk and go home. Others don't care for the game, there are only there for the fight (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/797601.stm) .

Soccer hooliganism has often been called 'the British disease' but this kind of antisocial behaviour characterised by the term occurs almost everywhere the sport is played.

Hooligans in the rest of Europe, by contrast, usually fight their battles at home, often expressing local, regional or subnational rivalries.

But fans from Germany, Holland, Belgium and elsewhere have been prepared to bury internal differences to battle it out with foreign fans and police on the pavements of European cities.

The Englishmen's dour xenophobia contrasts strongly with other famously hard-drinking supporters of national teams. Scotland's Tartan Army and Demark's Roligans...

You don't have to be sociologist to understand that football hooliganism is a reflection of the violence and divisions prevalent in any society.

In countries where there are sectarian divisions, that is often the basis for clashes between fans. In Italy, it is regional divisions

In Spain, echoes of the civil war still reverberate around fixtures between Real Madrid and Athletico Bilbao - the latter drawing support beyond the Basque region among militant anti-Fascists across the country

That was a very appropriate article Laches. I think it caught both what the main prejudices about football are and what the rest of the world think about Americans view of football. Oh and the gag about rioting becasue of boredom was used in a very old Simpson episode so the author wasnt the most original of people.
I would however dispute all of his points, well not all, the one about giving all kids a trophy and letting everyone play while they are kid is sheer decency to do anything else is just plain inhumane.

The authors inability to appreciate the sport speaks more of his lack of intelligence and appreciatetion for anything that isnt more or less a brawl. Which I might think again about since he did appreciate baseball which is a game much slower than football and where evne less happens. Oh well, he did write an amusing rant.

I see Yago found a site about educated people who think they found the root of the problem. What a joke. :D

ok, let's accpet that football fans riot out of boredom. So i suppose chess fans are the most violent fans in the world. They are so violent, i am not surprise that WW2 was started by chess fans.

ummm, it was a joke. carry on.

At Pacman. For me, the solving of the problem is pretty easy. Concerning that a rioting pack of English scum was rioting and looting and burning marching through Zürich, knife-stabbing, the simple solution, don't let any English, Belgians or Dutch come in. Just send them home at the frontier or send them straight to jail. That's the simple and easy solution. And if I had a say, I'd do it.

And the same would be for Ice-Hockey. Just from the train straight to jail. Next day, they can go home again.

[ July 04, 2003, 20:15: Message edited by: Yago ]

Absolutely right Yago, that's the only way to deal with things like that, but it rarely ever happens though. And it still doesn't tell anything about the root of the problem.

Going back a bit, Laches linked to a "Top 10 most difficult things to do in sport" or some such.

Well, I agree that those things are indeed very tricky, but the most difficult thing to do in sport is:

A perfect 9 dart finish in a tournament, on stage. No room for error, no chance of good fortune or luck. Batting averages in Baseball, home runs, etc, sure difficult, but I dare say that if most players swung the bat at every delivery they would connect at some point.

I can only name 3 darts players who have ever done a 9 dart finish on stage. None of them were "great athletes" by any stretch of definition of athletisism, but they all achieved perfection under pressure.

I'm drawing a line. It's my line and my definition so if ya don't like it tough! :D Anything that can be done with a beer and cig in your hand isn't a sport. This rules out darts.

Just saw sports center and for some reason they had some soccer team in red, Manchester I think, on their plays of the day -- right behind the swimming pigs. Really, the soccer play of the day got beat out by the swimming pigs in the US. Reminded me of this thread.

And looking back over this:

got my theory for that too. Clearly in sports and soccer the most, minorities are overpresented. My theory: There are to big branches in society were performance really, really counts. Music and sports.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find a talented sportler. It doesn't need no long fuss to decide to support that talent. For more most minority-members, that's the way to go. If you make it in sports, you make it. No insecurities, no problems. The "normal" professional eduction doesn't look too often to promising for those members, like your statistics in the other thread showed. So, take the gamble and focus on the sport-talent. In Switzerland, most gifted with sportive talent chose the save way. Formal and solid education. Medicin or football ? Accountant or Ski ? Which career does look like it surely yields results ? Minorities often have not a sure second choice, so, go for it. I completely disagree. I have an idea too, and it's the sort to get me branded racist but I suppose since I'm anonymous to a certain extent I can deal with the brand.

See, there are far more little white kids playing basketball in Indiana morning, day, and night than there are little black kids. Still though, the state of Indiana produces more top notch black Division I basketball prospects than it does white Division I basketball prospects. The state of Alabama has far more little white kids who play football their entire life than little black kids yet virtually all of the top notch Division I prospects are black. So, it isn't that black people concentrate or participate more and that white kids don't pursue it.

In my opinion there are just a disproportionately high number of really talented African American athletes. See the 'African American?' See the dangerous waters I'm headed? Now, I spent a bit of time in Alabama and I've spent a bit of time in Africa - Sudan mostly. I've walked the streets of both places and there just don't seem to be as many athletic looking people in Sudan as there were in Alabama. Now, some of this had to do with nutrition I'm sure. And while Africa, for example the Kenyans, does produce some outstanding athletes it seems more in proportion for a huge number of people while the athleticism produced by African Americans is disproportionately high.

So, people are animals -- all people. Growing up working a bit at a horse farm I know that animals can be bred to achieve superior traits. African Americans came to the US as slaves. If you were buying a slave would you want to buy the scrawny weak guy or the strongest most athletic guy? So, they took the most athletic people they could kidnap and brought them to the US as slaves. Then, they proceeded to breed/rape them based on their athleticism which they saw as 'being a strong slave' and all of this had an effect. So, that's my theory. Brand me if you will.

[ July 23, 2003, 18:19: Message edited by: Laches ]

On the boring issue - I love football but I can't stand watching it. Every time I see football on TV or go to watch a match, I alway want to go out and play it. I rarely watch a whole match.

As for English fans being hooligans. They are and they should be banned. It just keeps getting worse. Gangs of hooligans go to matches specifically to cause as much trouble as possible - they have absolutely no interest in football. Our attitude to solving the problem seems to be finding other countries with worse hooligan problems (our current favourite seems to be Turkey) and then saying we are better than them.

I think that's another roadblock. Meaning neither could convince the other, because there isn't too much data around.

A. I am still convinced, that sport and music are those branches, where perfomance counts more then anywhere else and minoritiy-members, if talented, can find success which they can not find anywhere else.

B. In sports, there comes a critical age, where a choice has to be made. Either concentrate and invest a lot of time into sports, or invest in learning a "normal" profession, considering that the "normal" profession looks less risky and will probably yield a decent income and a good life.

C. "Minority members" in European sports are not the same as in US sports. In my country specific mostly Turks and Yugoslavians. In the Netherlands people from Surinam. In France mostly Algerians. A lot of Turks and Yugoslavians in my country are in bad situation. A lot of them (but not all of course) can't speak the language and failed terribly at school. They're outlook for a good job is grim, but that makes them even more ambitious in sport-matters. There they can succeed. And as long in France things happen like:" You're arab, you're not welcome at the lycaeum" but on the other hand the French national team consists to a big part out of immigrants, I still am in favour of my perception.

D. To slavery. They searched at the african coast for specific tribes. They had a "profile". They were looking for tribes which lifed from agriculture. Those tribes mostly had a hierarchic structure which made it more easy to integrate them into life on a plantage and were used to agricultural work. That's was one of the main reasons, why American Natives vanished so fast as they came into slavery. Most of them lived not in an agricultural society, but were "hunters and gatherers" and died very fast, as they were put into the mines and on the fields to a very different kind of work. Therefore the african-slave-replacements were specificly chosen from tribes, which economicaly already lived from such kind of work. Other tribes were completly left alone. But still, the lost in human lives was huge. For one slave which reached the Americas, 9 other peole died. In what kind this "profile" may be described as "athletic", I don't know.

But still, the lost in human lives was huge. For one slave which reached the Americas, 9 other peole died. In what kind this "profile" may be described as "athletic", I don't know. Maybe because the nine that died was from hardships and mistreatment, the one who survived was the fittest and probably the one with the best genes. Imagine that for a number of years these people suffered almost anything so only the best survived and after that it is logical only the fittest to be able to withstand any hardship. In our days this hardships have "purified" their DNA from most malfunctions so they are closer to perfect than most other people
At least this is the conclusion me and my friends have reached for the dominance of black people in sports

Excellent point Yago, France would have never become worldchamps if it wasn't for the immigrants. Some people may not know this, but even Zidane isn't really French. He's an Algerian with a French passport, and France owes him everything.

Btw, same goes for Holland. Without our boys from surinam and our Caribean buddies, we wouldn't have such a good team.

Maybe because the nine that died was from hardships and mistreatment, the one who survived was the fittest and probably the one with the best genes A. Evolution works not so fast.

B. That's "social darwinism" and the Germans have disproved the validity of that thought. Or in the other case, they should have one the war.

C. For one 9 had to die means the whole process form getting them, transporting them to the Americas. That's the forcefull kidnapping (war), which caused victims. Than family-members suddenly left alone or killed out of convience, children and elderly didn't prove to be usefull. Some commited suicide. Others starved. Others were victim of discipline-measures. Some were thrown over board because of space-issues. So, survival hadn't necessarily something to do with "stamina".

On ESPN over the last couple of days they've joked about a couple of couples. One is that Keyshawn Johnson and Serena Williams are dating and the guy said - I have first draft of their kid no matter what sport it plays. The other couple is Mia Hamm and Nomar Garciaparra and a similar idea - we expect their kids to have a good chance of being good athletes.

I mean, we're not talking about evolution at all. That's a misunderstanding of what's being said. What we're talking about is, imo, the common sensical notion that if two beautiful people have a kid we expect there is an increased chance they'll have a beautiful kid. It's no surprise that Kate Hudson's mom was Goldie Hawn or that Liv Tyler's mom was a supermodel. Makes sense doesn't it? Same story here but with athleticism. Walter Payton's kid was a highly recruited football star a couple of years ago - not surprising. Kellen Winslow Sr. was a hall of famer and his son may turn out to be better.

People are animals right? Why is it that the great horses get the highest studding fees? Because we think that there is a higher chance they'll produce great offspring.

Also, the idea that music is more of a meritocracy than other aspects of society is demonstrably false imo. The evidence exists in the form of numerous one hit wonders and manufactured hits like Spears and the boy bands.

If that's true (and from observation there certainly appears to be a fair chance of that), then the Colleges over there have already had the auction for the Marion Jones / Tim Montgommery kid.

Boy that's gonna be a fast one!

Well, yes there I agree. If someones 1.95m, it is highly likely that the kids would be tall. The same if the parents would be both 1.60m, that the kids propably would be small.

If I understand correctly, some people are born with the better capability to consume air (vocabulary lack, vocabulary lack), meaning their blood particles do that naturally better then other peoples. So, they will become good runners. That's something that may be inherited.

But those traits are not given to a whole poulation. One individual in a village can have that, his neighbour or even relatives may have it not.

But those traits are not given to a whole poulation. One individual in a village can have that, his neighbour or even relatives may have it not. I agree, and that's why I noted that in my time in Africa I didn't notice a disproportionately high number of athletic looking people. African Americans are another story though. They were put into a very, very horrific situation where it was difficult to survive. Your chances of surviving improve with you athleticism. Put it into D&D terms - two first level fighters each face an orc. One fighter has 18 str/con/dex and the other has 9 str/con/dex -- who is most likely to survive that encounter?

Then, slave owners would 'reward' the strongest, most athletic slaves by having them have sex with more women. So, the strongest most athletic slave would have sex with lots and lots of women producing lots and lots of offspring while the weaker slaves were not allowed to do this. They perceived slaves like we do horses and bred them accordingly. If we can breed horses to be stronger and faster, I suspect the same could be done for people - as unsavory as that may be.

So, they preferred atheltic slaves in the first place (they brought the higest prices and were less 'expendable'). Then that athleticism gave them a better chance of surviving a brutal and inhumane environment. Then the most athletic slaves were bred in hopes of producing more.

It's kinda like the Dune books -- the bad asses were the guys who grew up in the vicious desert and the bad asses who were sent to the vicious prison planet.

Oh, and Marion Jones' kid has gotta be a Tar Heel.

EDIT - regarding the quoted passage above - we're also not saying 'all African Americans are better athletes than group X' either, just that there is a disproportionately high number of great African American athletes and this may be an explanation for why.

[ July 24, 2003, 20:20: Message edited by: Laches ]

Well, there is something to it. But I do not think that any attempt of "breeding" was successfull. Because the time-period was still to short, to involve enough generations (that sounds horrible). If this plays a factor, I still think then it was the choice made in Africa. They picked certain tribes which they found to be suited for the work they needed done, as said before, tribes which actually had great similarities to the European societies.

But that may influence the potential. But that does not necessarily need to signify that it's exploited. People who do "physical" work, most tend to value physical appearance. Bottom line. It would be interesting to know how many African-Americans are working in physical demanding jobs or how many times the day they do sports compared to others.

Oh, I'm not so sure we're thinking of the same timelines here. Generally it's accepted the first slaves were brought to Virginia in 1619 by a Dutch ship. The American Civil War that abolished slavery lasted until 1865.

That's 246 years during which slaves were brought to the US and forced to breed by slave owners. Now, I think almost a quarter of a century is enough time to have a rather dramatic impact.

I guess you mean quarter of a thousand. My understanding is, that even in the Americas, they didn't live long. So they had to bring more and more. ¨

I don't know when the slave-triangle has been put in place, but I'd involve the Spanish and the Portugese too. It most have started around 1550 or so.

Still, I do not know how many generations are necessary to have an impact in "breeding". I am guessing here, but still I think that there are rather more generations necessary. I still think that the "choises" made in who kidnapping in Africa would have made the biggest impact.

Yeah, I meant quarter of a millenia. Me no count so good.

Still, in 250 years a rather significant impact can occur. Again, horse breeding is a good example of this. The story of how Secretariat came to be, from Bold Ruler, is probably a good example.

Yago i believe you misunderstood me
A. Evolution works not so fast.
I did not speak about evolution i speaked about elimination of the weakest. The slave traders took the people they saw as the fittest and the trip took care of the rest leaving only the ones who were strong enough to survive the process.
Furthermore if i am not mistaken there was another selection by the farmers choosing only the best as they believed they should be the rest...
So as the concequent posts say if you have two parents with a very good selection of genes it is most probably logical that the child will be very good genetically speaking.
B. That's "social darwinism" and the Germans have disproved the validity of that thought. Or in the other case, they should have one the war.
I think they lost the war because they were wrong as to who has the best genes the answer is simple we do :D
But those traits are not given to a whole poulation. One individual in a village can have that, his neighbour or even relatives may have it not. Of course, although i implied it in my previous post now i will say it openly. This applies only to African American since to them was put the pressure and the whole ordeal.
Africans (black or other) are good middle and long distance runners because they are forced to practice in these distances every day since mass transpotation does not exist or is too expensive for most of them in their countries.

I did not speak about evolution i speaked about elimination of the weakest. The slave traders took the people they saw as the fittest and the trip took care of the rest leaving only the ones who were strong enough to survive the process.
Furthermore if i am not mistaken there was another selection by the farmers choosing only the best as they believed they should be the rest...
Well, the problem is that most of the blacks in the Americas are spoiled with "white" blood of their former owners, so the gene stock wasn't kept clean. Following that thought.

here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/dna_detectives/african_roots/results.shtml)

One quarter of British African Caribbean men have a direct European male ancestor
The study reveals that, on average, one in four British African Caribbean men have a Y chromosome that traces back to Europe rather than Africa. As the Y chromosome is passed from father to son, this shows that one quarter of the volunteers' male ancestors were European. So, whether it was through rape, consent or even affection, many white slave owners impregnated their African slaves.

Ancestry and skin colour
Dr Mark Shriver from Penn State University examined the link between ancestry and skin pigmentation. He didn't look at mitochondrial or Y chromosome DNA for this, instead he studied DNA which is mixed up every generation by a process known as recombination.

He concludes that although African ancestry can be a rough guide to how light or dark a person is, appearances can be deceptive. After in-depth research into his own origins, he discovered that although he looks like a white North-American, he is, in fact, 25% African.
Well, actually, if the "social darwinist" theory would be right. African-American would be able to perform way better then the other inhabitants of the Americas. They would be stronger, smarter, would be less likely to get sick, sicknesses like asthma ot that would be very uncommon in that population group. How can anyone else compete with them in anything ? They were bred from the best, right ?

But then, anything I know is that "social darwinism" has nothing to do with biology at all is deemed by biologist usually as humbug.

[ July 26, 2003, 01:33: Message edited by: Yago ]