Soccer, What's the Point?

Off Topic
81

[quote]Rico Suave wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Rico Suave wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Rico Suave wrote:
malonetd wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
josh86 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
josh86 wrote:
Football and Hockey > *

What? Hockey is just soccer on ice. It’s basically the same game.

No fucking way, in hockey there is hard board checking and fist fights break out all the time.

I can see the argument that indoor soccer and hockey are similar, but really they are nothing alike.

The basics of the game are the same. Scoring scheme and concepts are the same – non-stop offensive movement to bring the ball/puck into the opposing goal.

Yes, there are different skill sets, different strategies, and different number of players, but the base concept is still the same.

It’s like comparing American Football and 7-on7 touch. Many differences, but it’s still the same root game.

you can’t compare hockey to soccer based on the fact that “they move towards an opponents goal and try to score”…thats the same as almost every god damn sport. Hockey takes a lot more skill/strength than soccer imo.

Don’t use quotes when it’s not what I said. If you can’t see how similar these sports are, then you’re not even trying.

Im not quoting you. I was using it as a basis of what you said. You are comparing the goals of the games. They both score on a net. so you are saying its the same as water polo. I highly doubt that.

Apparently you’re lost. I didn’t say anything about water polo.

Yeah…and Grizzly Adams had a beard.
[/quote]

Yep. You’re lost. And a moron.

82

Why do we have threads like this every 3 monthes?

Seriously?

83

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Rico Suave wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Rico Suave wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Rico Suave wrote:
malonetd wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
josh86 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
josh86 wrote:
Football and Hockey > *

What? Hockey is just soccer on ice. It’s basically the same game.

No fucking way, in hockey there is hard board checking and fist fights break out all the time.

I can see the argument that indoor soccer and hockey are similar, but really they are nothing alike.

The basics of the game are the same. Scoring scheme and concepts are the same – non-stop offensive movement to bring the ball/puck into the opposing goal.

Yes, there are different skill sets, different strategies, and different number of players, but the base concept is still the same.

It’s like comparing American Football and 7-on7 touch. Many differences, but it’s still the same root game.

you can’t compare hockey to soccer based on the fact that “they move towards an opponents goal and try to score”…thats the same as almost every god damn sport. Hockey takes a lot more skill/strength than soccer imo.

Don’t use quotes when it’s not what I said. If you can’t see how similar these sports are, then you’re not even trying.

Im not quoting you. I was using it as a basis of what you said. You are comparing the goals of the games. They both score on a net. so you are saying its the same as water polo. I highly doubt that.

Apparently you’re lost. I didn’t say anything about water polo.

Yeah…and Grizzly Adams had a beard.

Yep. You’re lost. And a moron.[/quote]

Haven’t see Happy Gilmore before? Relax man.

I was merely saying how easy it is to compare two sports when you say the main goals. You said, and quote “The basics of the game are the same… non-stop offensive movement to bring the ball/puck into the opposing goal.”

You can’t do that. I was stating that water polo is the same by your theory, which in reality it isn’t. You have to look at the fine skills of a game, not the overall goal. I was basically dumbfounded when I saw “Hockey is just soccer on ice. It’s basically the same game.” In reality the two are not the same at all, unless you look at the fact that they both go from one end to another to try and score. I’ve played both at a highly competitive level and I know they are nothing alike. I wanted to have a legitimate debate about this and not a “you’re an idiot” response.

84

[quote]
Haven’t see Happy Gilmore before? Relax man. [/quote]
Not in years. Sorry, I missed the reference.

[quote]
I was merely saying how easy it is to compare two sports when you say the main goals. You said, and quote “The basics of the game are the same… non-stop offensive movement to bring the ball/puck into the opposing goal.”

You can’t do that. I was stating that water polo is the same by your theory, which in reality it isn’t. You have to look at the fine skills of a game, not the overall goal. I was basically dumbfounded when I saw “Hockey is just soccer on ice. It’s basically the same game.” In reality the two are not the same at all, unless you look at the fact that they both go from one end to another to try and score. I’ve played both at a highly competitive level and I know they are nothing alike. I wanted to have a legitimate debate about this and not a “you’re an idiot” response. [/quote]

My “Hockey is just soccer on ice” comment was a little exaggerated. I realize they have many differences. And because of these differences, players will need entirely different skill sets to play each game. But both games, and, yes, water polo, too, have the same root. Non stop offensive action towards a protected goal. Basketball comes from this root, too, but increased the point scoring by removing goal protection.

Hell, most team sports are derived from soccer and its roots in some way. But sports like American Football have moved so many degrees apart, they’re almost not even recognized as being similar. Hockey, however, has a much smaller number of differences and has moved only a few degrees away from soccer.

All that being said, just because they are similar doesn’t mean one has to enjoy both. They are different enough for people to like one without liking the other.

85

If you guys lived in Brazil or Argentina, the last thing soccer would be is a pussy game. Besides, calling it a girly sport people would kick your ass. Here some people enjoy A. football and some dont, but our thing is soccer.

Uncle Gabby,

Youve probably never even played a soccer match and you have no idea of what it is about. You are an ignorant patriotic fuck; good luck loving the country that kills 18-year-olds in Iraq and shrinks your wallet with taxes.

PR

86

[quote]Player wrote:
If you guys lived in Brazil or Argentina, the last thing soccer would be is a pussy game. Besides, calling it a girly sport people would kick your ass. Here some people enjoy A. football and some dont, but our thing is soccer.

Uncle Gabby,

Youve probably never even played a soccer match and you have no idea of what it is about. You are an ignorant patriotic fuck; good luck loving the country that kills 18-year-olds in Iraq and shrinks your wallet with taxes.

PR[/quote]

You responded to an obvious tongue-in-cheek post with a rant about Iraq and taxes?

You stay classy PR.

88

I’m not debating the force of tackles and impacts in Football.

my point is that in rugby players are as committed and line up and take hits in much the same way as football. Just without the padding.

I debate with my USA friends every time I visit making the NFL go ‘no-pads’ for a season and see what the result would be. I think it would be as entertaining and lose very little.

89

[quote]bluebear wrote:
I’m not debating the force of tackles and impacts in Football.

my point is that in rugby players are as committed and line up and take hits in much the same way as football. Just without the padding.

I debate with my USA friends every time I visit making the NFL go ‘no-pads’ for a season and see what the result would be. I think it would be as entertaining and lose very little.[/quote]

The rules on hitting are different. There is no hitting in rugby that is comparable to wedge busting on a kickoff in American Football.

91

[quote]malonetd wrote:

Haven’t see Happy Gilmore before? Relax man.
Not in years. Sorry, I missed the reference.

I was merely saying how easy it is to compare two sports when you say the main goals. You said, and quote “The basics of the game are the same… non-stop offensive movement to bring the ball/puck into the opposing goal.”

You can’t do that. I was stating that water polo is the same by your theory, which in reality it isn’t. You have to look at the fine skills of a game, not the overall goal. I was basically dumbfounded when I saw "Hockey is just soccer on ice.

It’s basically the same game." In reality the two are not the same at all, unless you look at the fact that they both go from one end to another to try and score. I’ve played both at a highly competitive level and I know they are nothing alike. I wanted to have a legitimate debate about this and not a “you’re an idiot” response.

My “Hockey is just soccer on ice” comment was a little exaggerated. I realize they have many differences. And because of these differences, players will need entirely different skill sets to play each game.

But both games, and, yes, water polo, too, have the same root. Non stop offensive action towards a protected goal. Basketball comes from this root, too, but increased the point scoring by removing goal protection.

Hell, most team sports are derived from soccer and its roots in some way. But sports like American Football have moved so many degrees apart, they’re almost not even recognized as being similar. Hockey, however, has a much smaller number of differences and has moved only a few degrees away from soccer.

All that being said, just because they are similar doesn’t mean one has to enjoy both. They are different enough for people to like one without liking the other.[/quote]

I agree. I should have taken what you said in context. My bad man.

92

[quote]Player wrote:
If you guys lived in Brazil or Argentina, the last thing soccer would be is a pussy game. Besides, calling it a girly sport people would kick your ass. Here some people enjoy A. football and some dont, but our thing is soccer.

Uncle Gabby,

Youve probably never even played a soccer match and you have no idea of what it is about. You are an ignorant patriotic fuck; good luck loving the country that kills 18-year-olds in Iraq and shrinks your wallet with taxes.

PR[/quote]

Chill out you little Hitler.

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
bluebear wrote:
I’m not debating the force of tackles and impacts in Football.

my point is that in rugby players are as committed and line up and take hits in much the same way as football. Just without the padding.

I debate with my USA friends every time I visit making the NFL go ‘no-pads’ for a season and see what the result would be. I think it would be as entertaining and lose very little.

The rules on hitting are different. There is no hitting in rugby that is comparable to wedge busting on a kickoff in American Football.

There is also no comparison to a 185 lbs. wide receiver coming over the middle reaching for a pass thrown too high and getting hit by a safety such as John Lynch. Pads or no pads, no rugby player has ever felt that kind of impact.[/quote]

I hate to agree with Push, but that’s the truth. American football is a collision sport that would send any rugby player to the ER faster than he could say blimey. All this, they wear pads shit is pathetic. Send your rugby players out on an NFL field without pads and see how fast they don’t ever come back. I like the sound of concussion in an English accent or any other, go on … say it.

I played soccer, yes …SOCCER for years, in fact I was chosen for college teams out of high school. I fucking love soccer. That is, PLAYING IT. Not watching it. I was a right wing forward… fast as the wind and scored more goals than I have beer bottles from my younger days, and probably couldn’t make half the field now if I tried. Soccer is cheap my friends, just a ball and some blokes required. Little wonder why the third world and all else lives and breathes for it.

I love American football and I love baseball. I’m Molotov Coktease and I’m an America bitch that will score a goal on your ass, give you a concussion and laugh all the way home you Euro pansies ;oP

94

These threads always break down to cock-measuring contests between North America and all those other English speaking countries scattered around. “England” and what not. I kid, I kid…:slight_smile:

Some friendly debate is cool but lets give credit where credit is due. Any sport played at its highest level is worthy of respect. You may not like it, but it shouldn’t be badmouthed. Men’s Figure Skating. Not something I’m going to watch. Like, ever. Still though, I have to respect it. Its not that easy to spin 1440 degrees in the air.

My opinions on some of the major sports.

Soccer (football): Insane cardiovascular endurance coupled with foot-eye coordination that is out of this world. I’d rather jerk off to old “Full House” footage of the Tanner sisters in their room than watch a full game, but I have to respect the players. I realize that, looking at the world as a whole, I am in the minority here. Something that captivates billions of people in a positive way can’t be that bad.

American Football: Probably the most strategic professional sport. Each player has to become an expert at his individual function, making them less versatile than a rugger. The “rugby with pads” argument holds no water…if rugby allowed hits like football players would DIE, without exaggeration (do a web search on who made pads required for football and why…very interesting story). In terms of raw power it is hard to contend with football.

Rugby: I consider this in some ways to be a hybrid of soccer and football. Players must be extremely well conditioned, versatile, and strong. Some might consider this the paradigm of athleticism. Had this been offered at my Canadian high school, I would have chosen it over football. Rugby has some genetic freaks with unmatched speed and strength. Andrew Sheridan and the retired Jonah Lomu come to mind.

Ice Hockey: I’ll try to look at this as objectively as possible, being Canadian. Hockey is the hardest hitting professional sport, with arguing rights given to Box Lacrosse. Players tax their energy systems harder than soccer, football or rugby…basically relying on their anaerobic systems until they conk out at around the 2 minute mark (hence the frequent shift changes). There is lots to think about for the hockey player…you’re skating at 110% effort, handling a stick, and monitoring the players around you so you don’t get smashed into the boards or punched in the face. If I needed an ally in a bar fight, I’d choose a hockey enforcer over any other team sport player.

Anyways, lets stop bashing each other here. People like different things.

95

[quote]Rico Suave wrote:
I can take it that you’ve never played a comepitive game of hockey before. [/quote]

Take it that I was goofing around…

96

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
These threads always break down to cock-measuring contests between North America and all those other English speaking countries scattered around. [/quote]

A good natured cock-measuring was my intention from the beginning.

97

with all due respect push and zap, what is the difference between your WC example to that of a rugby player taking a pass (or lateral in your speak) from another player (who maybe is already riding a tackle) which is over head high and being hit at sternum level by an unpadded shoulder connected to a 240 pound or so rugby player coming to meet him.

In my direct experience the only reason the hits are such in football is due to the sense of and to a certain degree the actual security the padding gives.

Suggesting that rugby players line up unpadded against football players is just stupid for obvious reasons and the reasons for pads against rugby was probably done years ago when the average pro rugby player was only 200ibs not 250 at some considerably less fat percentage.

I’m afraid to say that for once all you Americans might just have to suck it up and admit that wearing pads is just not as manly as playing a contact sport without them.

go on - admit it… ok I know you won’t but its fun teasing…

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
bluebear wrote:
I’m not debating the force of tackles and impacts in Football.

my point is that in rugby players are as committed and line up and take hits in much the same way as football. Just without the padding.

I debate with my USA friends every time I visit making the NFL go ‘no-pads’ for a season and see what the result would be. I think it would be as entertaining and lose very little.

The rules on hitting are different. There is no hitting in rugby that is comparable to wedge busting on a kickoff in American Football.

There is also no comparison to a 185 lbs. wide receiver coming over the middle reaching for a pass thrown too high and getting hit by a safety such as John Lynch. Pads or no pads, no rugby player has ever felt that kind of impact.[/quote]

99

[quote]bluebear wrote:
with all due respect push and zap, what is the difference between your WC example to that of a rugby player taking a pass (or lateral in your speak) from another player (who maybe is already riding a tackle) which is over head high and being hit at sternum level by an unpadded shoulder connected to a 240 pound or so rugby player coming to meet him.

In my direct experience the only reason the hits are such in football is due to the sense of and to a certain degree the actual security the padding gives.

Suggesting that rugby players line up unpadded against football players is just stupid for obvious reasons and the reasons for pads against rugby was probably done years ago when the average pro rugby player was only 200ibs not 250 at some considerably less fat percentage.

I’m afraid to say that for once all you Americans might just have to suck it up and admit that wearing pads is just not as manly as playing a contact sport without them.

go on - admit it… ok I know you won’t but its fun teasing…

pushharder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
bluebear wrote:
I’m not debating the force of tackles and impacts in Football.

my point is that in rugby players are as committed and line up and take hits in much the same way as football. Just without the padding.

I debate with my USA friends every time I visit making the NFL go ‘no-pads’ for a season and see what the result would be. I think it would be as entertaining and lose very little.

The rules on hitting are different. There is no hitting in rugby that is comparable to wedge busting on a kickoff in American Football.

There is also no comparison to a 185 lbs. wide receiver coming over the middle reaching for a pass thrown too high and getting hit by a safety such as John Lynch. Pads or no pads, no rugby player has ever felt that kind of impact.
[/quote]

How does it make it any more or less manly? As you and others have said, the pads allow the hits to be more fierce, without the pads football would be a COMPLETELY different game because there would be no such thing as void routs and screen passes. People died regularly playing football before pads were invented, which was also before the invention of the forward pass, which is the cause of the biggest hits in the game(blindsides on a scanning QB, hits on aforementioned vulnerable receivers). The players were also incredibly small then compared to today.

Playing a sport where you risk death on every play doesn’t make you manly it makes you stupid; also lord knows how much some of you foreigners cry about “the long breaks” in football games, imagine how long it takes to cart a dead player off the field a few times a game.

100

Can’t we all just get along?

If you guys like people hitting you extremely hard so much join a good martial arts school.

I did and its one of the best things i’ve done in life.