Soccer Sucks!

[Proper Bo]

busyman, you sir, are an ignorant tit

[DanB]

hear hear. American football is a version of rugby for wimps!

[Busyman]

Bring a rugby player over with pads and all and he'd get smashed to pieces. American Football is too fast, the players too big, and we hit hard.
What the hell is that huddle shit in rugby anyway.
And how the hell are A Football players wimps. Because they wear pads?
They ain't maxi pads

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Proper Bo, I tell thee@23 September 2003 - 18:40
busyman, you sir, are an ignorant tit

an ignorant tit, uhhh thanks, I'm from America and if that's an insult I'm glad to be a tit than a dick
Oh Proper Hoe you must come harder than that.

I did (in your mom)

just joshin'

[masta.z]

Originally posted by Busyman+23 September 2003 - 22:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 23 September 2003 - 22:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Proper Bo@ I tell thee,23 September 2003 - 18:40
busyman, you sir, are an ignorant tit

an ignorant tit, uhhh thanks, I&#39;m from America and if that&#39;s an insult I&#39;m glad to be a tit than a dick
Oh Proper Hoe you must come harder than that.

I did (in your mom)

just joshin&#39; [/b][/quote]
you sire, are what we like to call an uninformed ignoramus, there are many golfers as good, and better than Tiger Woods as it&#39;s takes more than being able to hit the ball over 300yds to be good at golf,
secondly, american "football" (which they use their hands in ) ARE wimps, they wear tons of padding, and run as fast as they can cos their scared of gettin tackled
and lastly, in real football they score goals, not points

[hobbes]

Originally posted by danb@23 September 2003 - 19:48
hear hear. American football is a version of rugby for wimps&#33;

American football without pads and helmets wouldn&#39;t last long. These men are 250 lbs moving at sprinters speed.
Imagine running at full speed across an open field, another player is running right at you full out, usually about 30 pounds heavier. The ball is coming at the midpoint. Your job is to put that guy out of your head and catch the ball. His job is to plant, leap and level you. Those guys are men.
It is the speed which separates the 2 sports. To compare the two as equal in regard to contact is naive.


As for the game itself, football is very complex and unless you have some backround knowledge of this, you will not appreciate it as the camera focuses upon the ball, and does not show you how the play was set up. How come that receiver is wide open?


As for soccer, the score is misleading in regard to the action. I watched the American women&#39;s team win the gold and really enjoyed the artistry. I think it was more apparent there because they were so dominate.
The wide view (as opposed to football) allows you to see the players attempt a certain spacing, cycling the ball to get people in postion to trigger a play. When the play is set, the execution is pinpoint and the window of opportunity small. I love the lob to the center with the breaking offense player having that fraction of a step lead. Goalie too far away to snatch up the ball.


Anyway, the value of a sport is determined by what you grow up watching and what you play. I like them all.

[TheDave]

Originally posted by hobbes+23 September 2003 - 21:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 23 September 2003 - 21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-danb@23 September 2003 - 19:48
hear hear. American football is a version of rugby for wimps&#33;

American football without pads and helmets wouldn&#39;t last long. These men are 250 lbs moving at sprinters speed.
Imagine running at full speed across an open field, another player is running right at you full out, usually about 30 pounds heavier. The ball is coming at the midpoint. Your job is to put that guy out of your head and catch the ball. His job is to plant, leap and level you. Those guys are men.
It is the speed which separates the 2 sports. To compare the two as equal in regard to contact is naive.
[/b][/quote]
so its rugby for wimps then

[4play]

s for soccer, the score is misleading in regard to the action. I watched the American women&#39;s team win the gold and really enjoyed the artistry. I think it was more apparent there because they were so dominate.
The wide view (as opposed to football) allows you to see the players attempt a certain spacing, cycling the ball to get people in postion to trigger a play. When the play is set, the execution is pinpoint and the window of opportunity small. I love the lob to the center with the breaking offense player having that fraction of a step lead. Goalie too far away to snatch up the ball.

lol that is very odd terminolgy but i get ya.

football is more action then the score lines give credit. the ball should never be out of play for more then a few seconds unlike american football where there is lots of waiting and stopping in between plays. this is meant to give more time to show you more adverts. that is why all your sports have quaters as well so more adverts can be shown.

during the world cup in america they wanted the game to have 4 quaters as well but Fifa told them to take a running leap.

basketball is a odd game which i could not play to save my life so i don&#39;t enjoy watching it ether but i can understand why people like it. the 4 quaters and all them time outs would annoy the hell out of me still.

still soccer is the most popular sport in the world for a reason and just because the americans dont like it does not make it suck.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by TheDave+23 September 2003 - 22:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheDave &#064; 23 September 2003 - 22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by hobbes@23 September 2003 - 21:36
<!--QuoteBegin-danb

@23 September 2003 - 19:48
hear hear. American football is a version of rugby for wimps&#33;

American football without pads and helmets wouldn&#39;t last long. These men are 250 lbs moving at sprinters speed.
Imagine running at full speed across an open field, another player is running right at you full out, usually about 30 pounds heavier. The ball is coming at the midpoint. Your job is to put that guy out of your head and catch the ball. His job is to plant, leap and level you. Those guys are men.
It is the speed which separates the 2 sports. To compare the two as equal in regard to contact is naive.

so its rugby for wimps then [/b][/quote]
No, in rubgy the injuries are different, not related to velocity. I hope the players wear a cup because there is a lot of kicking, biting, gnawing, punching and gouging going on.

At my college, a freshman was at the bottom of the scrum, pinned by the weight of the other players. Since he could not move, a senior pulled out his wanker and urinated on him.

I think rugby player were dropped on their heads once too many times when they were kids. Football players, at least have the sense to wear protection.

Next thing you know, baseball players will be called wimps for wearing gloves and batting helmets. Or are they just smart?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by 4play@23 September 2003 - 22:54

s for soccer, the score is misleading in regard to the action. I watched the American women&#39;s team win the gold and really enjoyed the artistry. I think it was more apparent there because they were so dominate.
The wide view (as opposed to football) allows you to see the players attempt a certain spacing, cycling the ball to get people in postion to trigger a play. When the play is set, the execution is pinpoint and the window of opportunity small. I love the lob to the center with the breaking offense player having that fraction of a step lead. Goalie too far away to snatch up the ball.

lol that is very odd terminolgy but i get ya.

football is more action then the score lines give credit. the ball should never be out of play for more then a few seconds unlike american football where there is lots of waiting and stopping in between plays. this is meant to give more time to show you more adverts. that is why all your sports have quaters as well so more adverts can be shown.

during the world cup in america they wanted the game to have 4 quaters as well but Fifa told them to take a running leap.

basketball is a odd game which i could not play to save my life so i don&#39;t enjoy watching it ether but i can understand why people like it. the 4 quaters and all them time outs would annoy the hell out of me still.

still soccer is the most popular sport in the world for a reason and just because the americans dont like it does not make it suck.

I was making up the terminology as I went.