American Football

[Brian Peacock]

I think all sportsmen should compete naked, and oiled.






What did I say?

[Scot Dutchy]

I think all sportspersons should compete naked, and oiled.






What did I say?

FIFY

[pErvinalia]

I think all sportswomen should compete naked, and oiled.






What did I say?

FIFY

FIFY

[Scot Dutchy]

You just have a dirty mind.

[pErvinalia]

[laklak]

It's only dirty if you used old motor oil

[Forty Two]

Now for Hurling and Gaelic Football you have to be fit. The pitch is huge 150 x 100 (rugby 100 x 75). Helmets have been compulsory since 2010 for all levels of the game but apart from that there is no other protection. Hurling is a fast and furious game with few stops.

Here is Comogie the women's hurling:

Indeed, looks like a fun game. However, how does this demonstrate that American football is for pussies? I mean, this hurling game is a lot like LaCrosse, although Lacrosse is a bit rougher.



I think you're mixing up "fitness" with toughness. I mean, American football players are fit as well. You are correct that American football has more stops and starts than in soccer or hurling or some other sports. However, American football requires some fitness and athletic abilities that these other sports do not require. The quickness - the fast twitch start from zero -- is a feature of American football that is not required for soccer or hurling. The toughness to take devastating hits from extremely powerful people - that's something that does not happen in soccer or hurling.

American football is a child of rugby. In the 19th century there was football, and two versions developed: "Association Football" (abbreviated Soc-er football, or soccer football - literally the "soc" from association used to create "soccer" - a word coined in England, not the US) -- and "Rugby Football" (abbreviated rugger). When the sports were exported to the US, the rugby variety was more popular with Americans than the soccer variety. In the 19th century, Americans called rugby "football" because soccer really didn't catch on. In the earliest US football games, the rules were basically rugby. When people refer to the first college football game - a contest between Rutgers University and Princeton University -- it bore no resemblance to present day football in the US - it was rugby.

Over time, the sport evolved on its own and became what we have today. The biggest change catalyst was the institution of the forward pass. Once that happened, a whole waterfall of rule changes occured and the nature of the game was forever altered.

What has evolved is a game of conquest - of power - and a variety of positions are in play with a variety of physical aspects and athletic abilites dominating. You have linemen who are very large people, powerful, immovable, yet also insanely "quick." If you think those "fat guys" are out of shape - you do not know a damn thing about the game. You couldn't get around those guys if you tried, and if one of them hit you, you'ld likely go to the hospital unconscious. And, then there are quarterbacks, receivers, running backs, linebackers, corner backs, tight ends... etc etc. etc. -- a wide receiver is insanely fast -- and running backs tend to be big, powerful, and fast.

Your commentary on the sport, Dutchy, is born completely of ignorance.

Nobody is required to like a sport, or enjoy it, or find it entertaining to watch or play. To each his or her own, of course. And, sports do focus on different abilities. A lineman in an American (or Canadian) football team would not make a great forward on the soccer field. But, then again, a forward on the soccer field is not going to be worth a damn on the line in an American football game. He'd be useless.

In the video you just showed - there - the camogie one -- I mean, there was nothing particularly "tough" about the players. Fit, yes. They run for long periods over long distances - they have to be coordinated - catching, throwing, shooting, etc. All the same qualities that are present in field hockey, lacrosse, etc. They are athletes. But, to suggest that this is an example of a tough sport, demonstrating that American football is a pussy sport - I mean, come on Dutchy. You can't be serious.

[Scot Dutchy]

Still for pussies.

Comogie is women's hurling. Lacrosse wear body armour. Try again sunshine. American sportsmen are pussies.

[pErvinalia]

Scot, do you ever think of taking a nuanced position in your views?

[Scot Dutchy]

Scot, do you ever think of taking a nuanced position in your views?

Why? Why does not America play international team sports? They hate losing.

[Forty Two]

Still for pussies.

Comogie is women's hurling. Lacrosse wear body armour. Try again sunshine. American sportsmen are pussies.

How, though? You say it, but there was nothing rough about Camogie or Hurling. What? Someone dives for the ball? Falls down?

You focused on "fit" - which, indeed, hurling athletes are fit, as are soccer players, cricket players, baseball players and football players. The sports require different kinds of athleticism.

But, your argument that American football is a sport for pussies because they wear what you call "armor," well, that's just your own ignorance of the sport. They wear the pads and helmets because if they didn't they'd be carried off the filed in larger numbers than they already are. The hits in football are bone crushing, and far harder than in hurling, which entails some bumping. The players in American football are bigger, and far more muscular, and the game involves targeted hits, full on and often at full sprint - a 260 pound athlete, solid muscle, impacting you at full speed, is a devastating hit.

So, I mean - I get what you're doing. It's your America bashing - oh, those 'merkins and their silly egg-ball - it's awful and boring and they wear all those pads. But, there is nothing of substance behind your argument except prejudice.

These are all sports - they all in some way test athletic prowess and those that have trained enough to be skilled at them are exceptional. Even a sport like golf, the players are quite impressive. A sport doesn't have to be rough or violent to be a good sport.

But to call a sport a "pussy" sport is to imply that it is wimpy or for the weak and soft. To say that American football is that, and to present as the non-pussy sport a girl's camogie video - I mean - Dutchy - come on. Do you want agreement here or something? Oh, yes, the really rough and tumble sport, that's camogie - those girls - running with a stick, throwing a ball, and occasionally falling - those are the reall tough athletes - far tougher than a football player. LOL

[pErvinalia]

Scot, do you ever think of taking a nuanced position in your views?

Why?

Because you come across as a mental retard.

[Scot Dutchy]

Scot, do you ever think of taking a nuanced position in your views?

Why?

Because you come across as a mental retard.

So? You have to drop down to their level.

[pErvinalia]

[Forty Two]

Scot, do you ever think of taking a nuanced position in your views?

Why? Why does not America play international team sports? They hate losing.

We do. Our men's FIFA world cup teams have fared very well over the last couple of decades. A falter this year, of course. Only 3 or 4 teams ever win the world cup -- England won in 62 or something, and after that it's Germany, Brazil, France and Itally - Argentina once, I think, right? Maradonna? I can't be arsed to look it up. It's always Germany, Brazil, France and Italy - those are the biggies. Six countries have won the world cup in the last 50 years - half a century. That's out of about 192 countries in the world. The US men faltered this year, and are out. But, that's not uncommon - it's not too long ago that England didn't even qualify (1994), and the bastion of soccer - the greatest footballer country in the world - England - have won the world cup a total of once.

Our women's FIFA world cump team is among the best in the world.

The US plays hockey, which is an international sport, and excels.

The US plays baseball, which is an international sport, whether you like it or not. You just consider sports an international sport if western European countries prefer the sport. Baseball is played all over the western hemisphere, with great players coming from the caribbean countries, and also in Asia - baseball is one of Japan's most popular sports. But, you're right - since the Netherlands doesn't like it, it must mean it's not an "international competition."

Basketball is a popular sport worldwide too - with lots of southeastern European countries digging it. South Americans like basketball too.

Even American football is played in other countries - Canada has a Canadian football that is almost the same, except with three downs, and slightly longer and wider field, etc. - a greater reliance on forward passing. And, there are leagues in Europe.

And, the US plays in most global competitions, like the Olympics, and we usually perform quite well.

Now, the sports you've cited - Hurling, for example, far fewer people worldwide play that than American football and baseball, for example. And, far fewer people follow hurling as spectators than football or baseball.

I mean, really, Dutchy, your argument is really very stupid. Hurling? Hurling? It's not a popular sport, by any stretch of the imagination, and it's not even the most popular sport in Ireland, where it originated. It's a niche sport, played by few people, and most people have never heard of it. Oddly, though, I would put money on the fact that the US is one of the countries where the sport is played more often than most other countries, as we have a big Irish immigrant population, and there are GAA club leagues around the country that play the sport. Still a niche sport, but there are people here that play and like it. We have large numbers of club leagues in many, many sports - soccer, hockey, lacrosse, rugby, Gaelic football, field hockey, and, yes, hurling and others.