LOL- Fucking Soccer

No offense to our Euro brethren on here. But this topic is so full of fail. Why do they hate REAL football so much? Probably because they cant play the sport. Us Americans dont hate on soccer that bad ( some like me do ). But the sport is gaining steam in our country with the younger generations. This topic made me laugh.

http://raptorelite.darkbb.com/t1623-reasons-why-real-football-beats-american-football

The best part was when he compares the fans, calling American football fans a bunch of drunk idiots. Well excuse me, but I cant remember a riot in a football game. Much less idiot fans attempting to murder eachother in the stands.

2 words. Raiders games.

D00MSDAY DEVICE wrote:2 words. Raiders games.

Or the old Dawg Pound before the NFL cut us off from alcohol

Good to see you, Sym

Rugby >>> both

yeah, i went there

Le Frog wrote:Rugby >>> both

yeah, i went there

And Hockey >>> every other sport in the world.

And yay! Sym's back.

Le Frog wrote:Rugby >>> both

yeah, i went there

Have to agree there frog. But on topic never got into soccer just doesn't catch my attention like american football does. Hell i used to work at a soccer field and even when it was slow i couldnt stand to watch the game. I will say at least it's more entertaining then Golf.

What the fuck similar topics, what the fuck....

forum motion should really close that down.

American football is my favorite sport. I am from Ohio after all But I also am a massive baseball fan, as it was MY sport. Ive told my story before, so yea...

big fan of both!

I love watching international games and champions league soccer, and am also a huge Chiefs fan during the fall.

When a suspenseful soccer game is on i think its just as exciting as a good football game.

Rugby is soooo boring to watch...

Where at Sym? Anyway. I like Futbal better than Football Americano simply because t's more violent, takes more energy to play (You don't be pansies and stop every two second for a breather), there is more skill involved (You have to learn to juggle the ball with your feet and run with those same feet while contorting your body. And that's everyone that has to learn to do all that, not just one guy), and you actually use your feet in a sport that's called Futbal (Foot ball)

Grey the Traitor wrote:Where at Sym? Anyway. I like Futbal better than Football Americano simply because t's more violent, takes more energy to play (You don't be pansies and stop every two second for a breather), there is more skill involved (You have to learn to juggle the ball with your feet and run with those same feet while contorting your body. And that's everyone that has to learn to do all that, not just one guy), and you actually use your feet in a sport that's called Futbal (Foot ball)

Where what?

Symbolic wrote:No offense to our Euro brethren on here. But this topic is so full of fail. Why do they hate REAL football so much? Probably because they cant play the sport. Us Americans dont hate on soccer that bad ( some like me do ). But the sport is gaining steam in our country with the younger generations. This topic made me laugh.

http://raptorelite.darkbb.com/t1623-reasons-why-real-football-beats-american-football

The best part was when he compares the fans, calling American football fans a bunch of drunk idiots. Well excuse me, but I cant remember a riot in a football game. Much less idiot fans attempting to murder eachother in the stands.

I didn't bother to actually read any responses in the thread, so this might be redundant, but I think the dislike for American football comes from the fact that it's a contact sport. The only contact sports played in Europe are hockey (which is arguably from the other side of the pond) and rugby (which I find much more interesting to watch than football).

I think the dislike also stems from the fact that Europe is basically a soccer continent, thus the change of pace is hard for some. Any European will argue the fact that soccer is much more fluid and graceful, for lack of a better word, than the start-stop, violent tackling that is American football.
Also take into consideration that European countries that embrace rugby, football's ancestor if you might, find the American version, slow and crude (do to similiar reasons as soccer and the fact that rugby doesn't stop clock nearly as often as football) as well as dare I say, a bit pansy (due to the fact players wear much more protective gear than their European counterparts).

Frankly, I couldn't care less about football, or any game for that matter that stops after a few moments play and thus is centered around single plays instead of general setting and strategy (not to say I think it has any less depth because of that). For this same reason I dislike baseball and basketball.

In my opinion, soccer (or football if you're on my end of the pond) and hockey is where it's at with honourable mentions to rugby and tennis.

You know soccer is contact as well Greg? People get kicked in the face all the time. I I kicked in the face a few times when I played.

Grey the Traitor wrote:You know soccer is contact as well Greg? People get kicked in the face all the time. I I kicked in the face a few times when I played.

As a goalkeeper, I know all too well. Still, contact is a foul, which is a big difference and the reason why I don't consider soccer a "contact sport", because essentially body contact before ball contact is illegal.

LOL at calling soccer a contact sport. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Football is more of a collision sport than a contact sport.

its debatable wether soccer is a contact sport... a "real" non-contact sport would be something like tennis or gymnastics.

Awesome video man. That says it all right there. Calling football players pussies is hilarious. Id like someone to say that to my face after shattering my vertebra in high school football. Haters.

Also- Go BUCKEYES! Fuck the haters and ESPN.

Well soccer players have no "armor" on except for the shin guards. And their legs are going at 30+ miles an hour when they swing it for a kick. And the ball is about as hard as a rock and they have to bounce it off their chests, head, etc, while it's moving about 50MPH. Football player are heavily "armored" because they don't want to get hurt. I won't call the football players back in the day that wore leather armor pussies, but today's football player has too much safety in mind and they stop playing when they get a little sprain. HA! Now that's a pussy argument.

LOL not gonna even reply to that.

75 pounds of fail

Grey the Traitor wrote:Well soccer players have no "armor" on except for the shin guards. And their legs are going at 30+ miles an hour when they swing it for a kick. And the ball is about as hard as a rock and they have to bounce it off their chests, head, etc, while it's moving about 50MPH. Football player are heavily "armored" because they don't want to get hurt. I won't call the football players back in the day that wore leather armor pussies, but today's football player has too much safety in mind and they stop playing when they get a little sprain. HA! Now that's a pussy argument.

yeah well you have to remember that football players wear so much protection to actually make the game more interesting. The game could not be played the same way it is now without helmets and shoulder pads (well i guess it could, players would just be dropping dead left and right).

Zillah wrote:

Grey the Traitor wrote:Well soccer players have no "armor" on except for the shin guards. And their legs are going at 30+ miles an hour when they swing it for a kick. And the ball is about as hard as a rock and they have to bounce it off their chests, head, etc, while it's moving about 50MPH. Football player are heavily "armored" because they don't want to get hurt. I won't call the football players back in the day that wore leather armor pussies, but today's football player has too much safety in mind and they stop playing when they get a little sprain. HA! Now that's a pussy argument.

yeah well you have to remember that football players wear so much protection to actually make the game more interesting. The game could not be played the same way it is now without helmets and shoulder pads (well i guess it could, players would just be dropping dead left and right).

That's how it should be. Back in the day they didn't have all that armor and they turned out fine.

I dont think they turned out fine actually... I bet there were actually a lot more injuries back then.

either you sacrifice gameplay qualities by removing helmets and padding to make it "more manly", or keep the helmets and padding, keep the players safe, and keep it more interesting to watch.

rugby players>football players

Soccer is another story. I have to agree it's not remotely as rough as football, rugby and hockey.

I'll agree with that. Rugby beats all. Anyone even know remotely how to play Cricket?

Grey the Traitor wrote:I'll agree with that. Rugby beats all. Anyone even know remotely how to play Cricket?

*remembers watching 5 day cricket match last summer*

now that... is a boring sport

with football padding, you can ram someone full force, over, and over, and over.

its more for the replayability over the protection

1fnbighen wrote:with football padding, you can ram someone full force, over, and over, and over.

its more for the replayability over the protection

yeah well if you get injured you wont be doing it a second time.

I dont think its really not fair to compare "the quality" of players in between 2 different sports, because, well... theyre different sports. It takes a lot of skill and physical ability to be a professional player in any sport.

Umm yea with the size and speed of todays athletes, the padding is totally necessary. People would be getting broken bones and concussions on every single play. I cant believe this is really being debated. Obviously some of you never played football, much less at a high level like I did. Back when they wore leather pads, the average NFL lineman was like 250 pounds. Today its well over 300. Players are immensely stronger in this day and age as well. Comparing soccer to football in that sense is complete fail. No offense intened, its just the truth. How about actually researching the game, and finding out how old time players lives turned out after retirement. The violence of rugby collisions are not close either. Theres hardly any hits, mostly just a bunch of dudes huddled in a circle pushing eachother.

football is the more demanding sport as well. the average football player would out run, lift, push any other sport player

I say it again lol, Hockey>>>every other sport

Soccer- Boring, no legal contact version of hockey

Football- Big guys standing around and occasionally tackling each other

Baseball- *Wakes up* oh, someone hit the ball, would you look at that. *Goes back to sleep*

Basketball- GFQ's if they were a sports team

Golf- Lol why the fuck am I watching this?

Lacross- Yo man im so cool man I play lax man, lax all day man *twirls stick around*


Those are my honest opinions on some of the major sports in the world.(I don't know anything about Rugby or Cricket.)

Im not a hockey fan personally, but I do respect the game. Those dudes are tough, only guys on par with football players. Plus Im from Ohio which you guys know, its a football and baseball state. BIG TIME. In America sports are very regional, and hockey is just not to popular in Ohio. Plus we didnt get an NHL team until recently ( and the Blue Jackets SUCK) so I never grew up with a team to root for. Although I did like the Rangers as a kid when Mark Messier was playing.

hockey.

*squints*

I... think thats the puck


meh, no sports perfect.

Khfan60 wrote:I say it again lol, Hockey>>>every other sport

Soccer- Boring, no legal contact version of hockey

Football- Big guys standing around and occasionally tackling each other

Baseball- *Wakes up* oh, someone hit the ball, would you look at that. *Goes back to sleep*

Basketball- GFQ's if they were a sports team

Golf- Lol why the fuck am I watching this?

Lacross- Yo man im so cool man I play lax man, lax all day man *twirls stick around*


Those are my honest opinions on some of the major sports in the world.(I don't know anything about Rugby or Cricket.)

Think full contact football with no pads and the game does not pause till a goal is scored.

?


hockey used to be cool until it was pussified and theres much less fighting

wtf? basketball demands full sprinting on the court while out there. 100% or you're pulled. then you have to focus and shoot while 2 guys get in your face and then muscle around down low for the ball. ya no.

1fnbighen wrote:football is the more demanding sport as well. the average football player would out run, lift, push any other sport player

I think if you averaged the speed of the 11 players on a football field they would be slower than the average of 11 soccer players, plus likely have less stamina.

1fnbighen wrote:?


hockey used to be cool until it was pussified and theres much less fighting

wtf? basketball demands full sprinting on the court while out there. 100% or you're pulled. then you have to focus and shoot while 2 guys get in your face and then muscle around down low for the ball. ya no.

I know, I was just poking fun at how basketball players complain, hence the GFQ's thing... >_>

Theres very seldom full contact collisions in Rugby. Have you ever actually watched the sport? Its entertaining no doubt, but the collisions are nowhere near as frequent and violent as football.

The NBA is the worst professional sport in America. Hands Down IMO.

Symbolic wrote:Theres very seldom full contact collisions in Rugby. Have you ever actually watched the sport? Its entertaining no doubt, but the collisions are nowhere near as frequent and violent as football.

it's because you basically set up two brick walls across from each other. Rugby has people spread out.

Symbolic wrote:Theres very seldom full contact collisions in Rugby. Have you ever actually watched the sport? Its entertaining no doubt, but the collisions are nowhere near as frequent and violent as football.

thats the great thing about padding in football, you can have big head on collisions and walk away. In rugby all the players are generally moving in the same direction, so you dont get big collisions like in football. Its built around having no padding.

Grey the Traitor wrote:

Symbolic wrote:Theres very seldom full contact collisions in Rugby. Have you ever actually watched the sport? Its entertaining no doubt, but the collisions are nowhere near as frequent and violent as football.

it's because you basically set up two brick walls across from each other. Rugby has people spread out.

But doesnt that contradict your point?

ya, ill admit on the nba level people do act like 5 yr olds alot

and i meant in their respective field

with comparing to soccer you would use wide recievers and running backs only pretty much, but dont count out anyones speed, they would get very close

yeah tbh, i think the average wide reciever and mid fielder would be about the same speed.

now heres an idea that ive always had for some sort of charity event. Take 2 of the hometown sports team and play them in a 3rd sport.

So in KC you could do the Royals vs. The Chiefs in basketball or something. I think that would be really fun.

ya that would be cool


i like playing basketball, but watching it, you have to be in good company