are the americans just missing the point..?

Originally posted by Red Night
Ping Pong? that is your response? Ping Pong?

Why not Darts? Poker? Tiddlywinks?

Tennis probably deserves a mention, but Ping Pong? And were you trying to make yourself sound even sillier when you threw in Badminton? What about Tetherball?

Volleyball might deserve a mention.

Let's face it there are 2 major world team sports: Soccer and ...[text shortened]... t a game like tetherball or Ping Pong or a quaint tradition like Cricket and tossing the caber.

What defines a "major world sport"? Do you need to have a once-every-four-years World Cup champioship event to qualify? In that case, baseball and yes, even American football would be considered "major" sports.

Originally posted by Natural Science
What defines a "major world sport"? Do you need to have a once-every-four-years World Cup champioship event to qualify? In that case, baseball and yes, even American football would be considered "major" sports.

And so would cricket, which he has dismissed as a 'quaint tradition' in at least two posts now.

Originally posted by Ian68
And so would cricket, which he has dismissed as a 'quaint tradition' in at least two posts now.

Explain the LBW rule again *YAWN*


A major sport is one that is played all over the world. I think almost every country in the world has some sort of basketball league and some sort of soccer league. That should be self-evident.

As for participation sports. Almost every one in the world washes themselves at least once in a while. That doesn't make washing a sport.

One of the clues as to whether a sport is a sport or just a game is the extent to which people are willing to pay to watch it and how much and if someone get's paid to play it.

The best cricket team in the world is Australia. The average player make $440,000 a year for playing and the minimum is a laughable $94,000. Accountants make more than that.

Alex Rodriguez, the Yankee third base man, makes $25,000,000 before endorsements. Sounds like he could buy a very good cricket team with his pocket change.

This year's "World Championship" of Ping Pong is sponsored by VW and will award a TOTAL purse of $240,000??? Why bother.

Originally posted by Red Night
One of the clues as to whether a sport is a sport or just a game is the extent to which people are willing to pay to watch it and how much and if someone get's paid to play it.

Sachin Tendulkar earns over £5 million a year. Not that it's relevant, because it's a rubbish argument.

What you're really saying is that the importance of a sport is determined by the richness of a country that plays it. You can use that definition if you want, but it's a bit daft.

Originally posted by mtthw
Sachin Tendulkar earns over £5 million a year. Not that it's relevant, because it's a rubbish argument.

What you're really saying is that the importance of a sport is determined by the richness of a country that plays it. You can use that definition if you want, but it's a bit daft.

He makes $15,000,000 but most of that comes from endorsements.

And no the importance of a sport is the number of countries that play it and the number of fans that watch it.

That makes Soccer/Football number 1.

Basketball # 2

Baseball # 3

Hockey # 4

Interestingly 3 of those 4 were invented in the Americas.

And let's not forget that this thread started as an attack on americans for playing and watching dumb, boring games. All I did was point out that the attackers were fans of an even dumber, slower, and more boring game.

Originally posted by Red Night
There are a lot of events that describe themselves as "world championships" or world events, like "world's strongest man" Recently, there were two "world champions" of chess.

Calling something a "World's championship" doesn't make it the most important event.

No, it doesn't make it the most important event. It does determine the World Champions, though.


I think the whole argument is an example of the quaint parochialism of our cousin's across the pond.

That's funny. It's not like it's our fault you are a bunch of idiots that don't know how big the world is.

Originally posted by Red Night
He makes $15,000,000 but most of that comes from endorsements.

And why does he make it in endorsements? Because he's very famous and very popular. Through playing cricket.

Originally posted by mtthw
And why does he make it in endorsements? Because he's very famous and very popular. Through playing cricket.

Yes he is. In terms of endorsements, $15,000,000 is a relatively small number. And he is the only cricketer making any where near that number. Beckham makes twice that in endorsements alone and Tiger woods makes 6 times that much in endorsements. LeBron James makes $26 million in endorsements.

Originally posted by Red Night
Yes he is. In terms of endorsements, $15,000,000 is a relatively small number. And he is the only cricketer making any where near that number. Beckham makes twice that in endorsements alone and Tiger woods makes 6 times that much in endorsements. LeBron James makes $26 million in endorsements.

As I said, money isn't a good measure, as it doesn't factor in the richness of the country involved. I'd love to see what Tendulkar would get if India had the same GDP per capita as the US. You'd probably be able to multiply it by 10 at least.

Originally posted by Palynka
No, it doesn't make it the most important event. It does determine the World Champions, though.


[b]I think the whole argument is an example of the quaint parochialism of our cousin's across the pond.

That's funny. It's not like it's our fault you are a bunch of idiots that don't know how big the world is.[/b]

Maybe it determines the world Champion and maybe it doesn't.

Some world championships are generally acknowledged as world championship events and others aren't.

In our own little game, there were recently two "World's Champions" So, before the unificaiton, who was the world's champion Topalov or kramnik.

In 1992 Fischer met Spassky in an event dubbed the "World's Championship." Did anyone take that seriously?

I also expected someone to turn that one around as well. The point was that our English friends were showing their parochialism by bashing a sport that is played in a constantly growing number of countires around the world: baseball. While refusing to acknowledge that they worshipped a "sport" that was largely ignored outside the vestiges of their former empire: cricket.

Originally posted by Natural Science
Phlab, I'm sorry, because you know that for the most part I'm on your side in this argument, but anyone who is a baseball fan has no business calling soccer "slow". I can recall another Simpsons episode in which Homer is trying to go 30 days without drinking beer. He goes to a baseball game, where the announcer is sayig things like, "Here it is, th ...[text shortened]... eo game is its ability to convert non-fans. This game definitely qualifies.

I remember that Simpson, top quality.

Well, like I said baseball and soccer you need to enjoy it to like it... but I still have to think Baseball is better because the ball is small, hard, and moving fast all over the place... and they fight like men.

Also, I did soccer when I was a kid. It was the wave of the future! That was a quarter century ago and US still doesn't 'get into it'.

P-

Originally posted by mtthw
What you're really saying is that the importance of a sport is determined by the richness of a country that plays it. You can use that definition if you want, but it's a bit daft.

No, what I'm saying is that the importance of a sport is how many countries play that sport seriously and how many fans the sport has.

Fans = Money.

Brazil is not the richest country in the world and their soccer players make tons.

What you and your countrymen are saying is that the rest of the world doesn't matter, the only important measure is whether we play it here in england and whether you can watch high lights on Sky Net.

Originally posted by Red Night
One of the clues as to whether a sport is a sport or just a game is the extent to which people are willing to pay to watch it and how much and if someone get's paid to play it.

Sport is getting of your arse and doing something, not sitting on it watching someone else do it.

Originally posted by Red Night
Maybe it determines the world Champion and maybe it doesn't.

Some world championships are generally acknowledged as world championship events and others aren't.

In our own little game, there were recently two "World's Champions" So, before the unificaiton, who was the world's champion Topalov or kramnik.

In 1992 Fischer met Spassky in an event sport" that was largely ignored outside the vestiges of their former empire: cricket.

That's why there was an unification match, wasn't it?

As for Fischer and Spassky, I agree. Much like the NBA Champions, that match had no basis on which to call their champion 'World Champion'. That's exactly my point.

Edit - As for the seemingly anti-American and anti-European rants, I'm sure everyone knows it's all just part of the prodding process. 😉

Originally posted by Phlabibit
I remember that Simpson, top quality.

Well, like I said baseball and soccer you need to enjoy it to like it... but I still have to think Baseball is better because the ball is small, hard, and moving fast all over the place... and they fight like men.

Also, I did soccer when I was a kid. It was the wave of the future! That was a quarter century ago and US still doesn't 'get into it'.

P-

I disagree Phlabs. Baseball is a great game. But so is soccer and it is really catching on here in the states.

We have some excellent teams that have fared well against the best club teams from around the world.

The US has produced a number of world class players, including the best goalkeeper in the FA Premier League.

Man U is now desperately trying to engage the services of another US player, DC United's 17 year-old striker Freddie Adu. Alex Ferguson considers him to be the best young player in the world.

I think soccer will really take off here when the US wins it's first World Cup which probably isn't that far off.