Why do Americans not care about Soccer?

[Anubis]

I agree that soccer sucks. Real Americans watch football, baseball, basketball and hockey. Soccer is not American. It's for poor people from communist countries in Europe and dirt poor third world places in Africa. Remember why we live in the Promise Land ... because of our quality of life. It is our quality of life that makes us excel in real man sports. If you watch soccer, you're anti-American.

sweet im not a real american because i abhor basketball, dont watch football, or hockey and love soccer

 

[WelshBloke]

why are soccer players so skinny and weak

Why are American football players so fat and slow?

Why are Baseball players so fat and lazy?

[/troll]

🙄

 

[Anubis]

i don't think i've ever gone to a state that didn't have high school soccer.

you must have had a piss poor sports program.

hes trying real hard at the trolling

but ill feed him

my HS didn't have a football team and everyone played soccer. both mens and women's teams won and still compete for state titles, many players have gone and played in D1 schools, and a couple have played on the national level. when given the option kids play the sport that the find the most fun and or the one that all their friends play. it has nothing to do with how athletic they are. and FWIW the most athletic people at the school ran Xcountry in the fall, did alpine skiing in the winter and ran track in the spring

 

[skace]

Man, last page of this thread has some seriously trollish and ignorant comments. Bunch of fucking retards who don't even understand the game they are discussing.

 

[AMDZen]

sweet im not a real american because i abhor basketball, dont watch football, or hockey and love soccer

Which means you get to watch the sport you love once every 4 years. Woo Hoo.

You must really love it living in the US

 

[Kirby]

i don't think i've ever gone to a state that didn't have high school soccer.

you must have had a piss poor sports program.

our state has it, but my high school doesn't have a team.

 

[Anubis]

Which means you get to watch the sport you love once every 4 years. Woo Hoo.

You must really love it living in the US

actually i watch 3-4 games a week from late august to may and every 2 years there is a major soccer tournament (World Cup and Euro Champs)

 

[biggestmuff]

 

[Lonbjerg]

Man, last page of this thread has some seriously trollish and ignorant comments. Bunch of fucking retards who don't even understand the game they are discussing.

I have played more soccer than you have eaten beans...dosn't mean that I care jack&shit for watching it on TV...life is to short for waste like that.

 

[eits]

lol

that's some funny shit

 

[bdude]

lol

that's some funny shit

probably italian

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah Jimmy the Greek got in trouble for saying it but the fact is a degenerate slave trader/owner saw no difference between a cow and a human being and breed for size strength and endurance to make most profit. Only 20% on slave ships made it through horrific journey. Many wish to deny history for fear of guilt or can't fathom breeding humans in today's morality or minimalising the athletes work but PC and wanting to forget can't change history. You think smart men like Chris Rock or Jimmy the Greek just made it up? Or does it seem more plausible people discourage interracial comparisons and are inhibited by considerations of political correctness and makes distinctions between people which is unhealthy generally?

Some links.
http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Trading-.../dp/1570031037
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05262000-09340014/unrestricted/Carolinethesis.pdf
http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/liba102/readings/slave_families.pdf
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASbreeding.htm

Hey...I'm not really disagreeing here, it's just that it's still funny and a bit 😱 when people come out and say it.

My major criticism on this argument, after working a couple of years in Evolutionary Genetics with a smattering of Pop Gen, is that nice, statistically significant differences in such effects are probably quite minor considering the rather limited number of generations involved.

If we're starting in the 17 century, (If we want to draw distinctions among specifically African slave generations raised in the Americas vs other African populations), we only have ~5 generations (let's say 1650-1870) of selective breeding to work with. That's not an insignificant number of generations, mind you....but we're not talking about inbreeding. As I said, I wouldn't doubt that we really do have some marked selective differences among populations due to such selective breeding, but with those numbers, I think you really need some single-sibling inbreeding to show a real significant accumulation of highly desirable traits. Of course, this is a bad idea, as you would likewise accumulate an unfavorable chance of lethality within the population.

I only glanced over a few the thesis and a few of those descriptions that you linked. Interesting stuff, but it's all historical accounts. There isn't any hard data, which is quite necessary to support such arguments involving effects of selective breeding across populations. We do this kind of work today, and have for so many years, so we know what such data looks like. The thesis that you linked even suggests that historical records aren't always accurate, and essentially argues for the practice of slave women who engaged in all sorts of acts to prevent births that were not of their choice. Well, this is the type of anti-selective force that if prevalent, would pretty much destroy the argument that selective breeding by slave holders produced a significant effect on the genome of multi-generation African American populations.

Honestly, this surprises me; as I think many of us probably simply assumed that selective breeding was far more widespread amongst slave holders (two of your sources indicate that the historical record for such practice is spotty, at best), and I had never known before that slave women engaged in such abortive practices--or at least in numbers for which the thesis argues.

Again, rather fascinating stuff to me; but it does leave me now with the impression that the accumulation of such traits may have nothing at all to do with selective breeding--or at the most, selective breeding has had a more or less neutral effect on the genome of contemporary African American populations. Far more influential, I think, would be the decision made at purchase--of course a slave holder is going to choose the most virile, healthy individuals--creating a rather isolated population of "superior" slaves. Selecting within such a population is simply selecting certain individuals among a very, very similar set of identical traits.

Besides, to argue that such traits accumulated through selective breeding and very significantly altered that population, one would probably need to argue that naturally-selected traits within the establishing population, now determined unnecessary by new environmental pressures (generations raised in an African climate, now transported and raised in the American east coast region), would have likely been negatively selected through similar generations of selective breeding. Well, in one particular example, that isn't the case: sickle-cell disease. No environmental need to select for malaria resistance (afaik--though I wouldn't doubt that malaria was a serious issue in colonial and early American years).

Of course, I could be blowing smoke out of my ass; but I prefer to make such population-based genetic arguments behind data. :\

We can pretty much make these type of studies today, in fact--and quite easily. The problem is, such an investigation would be deemed as "racially motivated" by many laymen groups, when the fact of the matter is that it's simply a very useful study of "potential" artificial selective pressures on human populations.

 

[zinfamous]

With all the talk of race and country and all that we must not forget athletics is 99% perspiration 1% genetics. USA simply did not try hard enough - too busy banging 2 at time back in their rooms and who knows what else.🙂

yes, but this is not a unique practice among any particular group of Olympic athletes. Such nightly escapades are the absolute norm in the Athletes' village during the Olympics, across all sports, if all the stories are to be believed. 😉

Such being equal with all other teams or individual athletes, I think it was lack of preparedness, overconfidence, and a lack of respect for the competition displayed by those woefully under-performing USA basketball teams.

 

[joebloggs10]

Here's what I don't understand about WC soccer: Why is it that these athletes, purportedly the best in the world at their sport, either are unable to make a decent pass or are unable to comprehend that the ball cannot be kicked THROUGH a defender?

I've watched every ESPN-televised WC game (I think) as well as the broadcast weekend stuff and I've noticed a shockingly large percentage of passes that are kicked directly into a defender.

 

[zinfamous]

but i mean, seriously... do you really think that even if chris johnson was raised to play soccer, he'd be able to do anything close to this once he got older?

😱 that guy is sick! he broke maybe 4 pairs of ankles in that first sequence. reminds me of some of Adrian Peterson's runs the previous 2 years.
:sneaky:

(and let's not forget Ladanian Tomlinson at his peak)

 

[zinfamous]

I agree that soccer sucks. Real Americans watch football, baseball, basketball and hockey. Soccer is not American. It's for poor people from communist countries in Europe and dirt poor third world places in Africa. Remember why we live in the Promise Land ... because of our quality of life. It is our quality of life that makes us excel in real man sports. If you watch soccer, you're anti-American.

lolwut!

and wwybywb?

 

[ccblazer44]

Here's what I don't understand about WC soccer: Why is it that these athletes, purportedly the best in the world at their sport, either are unable to make a decent pass or are unable to comprehend that the ball cannot be kicked THROUGH a defender?

I've watched every ESPN-televised WC game (I think) as well as the broadcast weekend stuff and I've noticed a shockingly large percentage of passes that are kicked directly into a defender.

Because the defenders are also world class athletes.

 

[ccblazer44]

I for one love soccer and am truly ashamed that the horrifically boring sport of baseball has been labeled the American sport.

 

[Zebo]

Hey...I'm not really disagreeing here, it's just that it's still funny and a bit 😱 when people come out and say it.

My major criticism on this argument, after working a couple of years in Evolutionary Genetics with a smattering of Pop Gen, is that nice, statistically significant differences in such effects are probably quite minor considering the rather limited number of generations involved.

If we're starting in the 17 century, (If we want to draw distinctions among specifically African slave generations raised in the Americas vs other African populations), we only have ~5 generations (let's say 1650-1870) of selective breeding to work with. That's not an insignificant number of generations, mind you....but we're not talking about inbreeding. As I said, I wouldn't doubt that we really do have some marked selective differences among populations due to such selective breeding, but with those numbers, I think you really need some single-sibling inbreeding to show a real significant accumulation of highly desirable traits. Of course, this is a bad idea, as you would likewise accumulate an unfavorable chance of lethality within the population.

I only glanced over a few the thesis and a few of those descriptions that you linked. Interesting stuff, but it's all historical accounts. There isn't any hard data, which is quite necessary to support such arguments involving effects of selective breeding across populations. We do this kind of work today, and have for so many years, so we know what such data looks like. The thesis that you linked even suggests that historical records aren't always accurate, and essentially argues for the practice of slave women who engaged in all sorts of acts to prevent births that were not of their choice. Well, this is the type of anti-selective force that if prevalent, would pretty much destroy the argument that selective breeding by slave holders produced a significant effect on the genome of multi-generation African American populations.

Honestly, this surprises me; as I think many of us probably simply assumed that selective breeding was far more widespread amongst slave holders (two of your sources indicate that the historical record for such practice is spotty, at best), and I had never known before that slave women engaged in such abortive practices--or at least in numbers for which the thesis argues.

Again, rather fascinating stuff to me; but it does leave me now with the impression that the accumulation of such traits may have nothing at all to do with selective breeding--or at the most, selective breeding has had a more or less neutral effect on the genome of contemporary African American populations. Far more influential, I think, would be the decision made at purchase--of course a slave holder is going to choose the most virile, healthy individuals--creating a rather isolated population of "superior" slaves. Selecting within such a population is simply selecting certain individuals among a very, very similar set of identical traits.

Besides, to argue that such traits accumulated through selective breeding and very significantly altered that population, one would probably need to argue that naturally-selected traits within the establishing population, now determined unnecessary by new environmental pressures (generations raised in an African climate, now transported and raised in the American east coast region), would have likely been negatively selected through similar generations of selective breeding. Well, in one particular example, that isn't the case: sickle-cell disease. No environmental need to select for malaria resistance (afaik--though I wouldn't doubt that malaria was a serious issue in colonial and early American years).

Of course, I could be blowing smoke out of my ass; but I prefer to make such population-based genetic arguments behind data. :\

We can pretty much make these type of studies today, in fact--and quite easily. The problem is, such an investigation would be deemed as "racially motivated" by many laymen groups, when the fact of the matter is that it's simply a very useful study of "potential" artificial selective pressures on human populations.

Well even then Zin, it was not something you discussed in polite society.
http://books.google.com/books?id=W5gILfiC9yUC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200#v=onepage&q&f=false

For example in the book "Caucuses of 1860: A History of the National Political Conventions of the Current Presidential Campaign" a slave breeder is derided...

"Mr. Gaulden of Georgia made his Charleston slave-trade and slave-breeding speech again. He announced himself a slave-breeder. (...)
He spoke of the slave-trading and slave-breeding State of Virginia, when a delegate of Virginia called him to order for casting an imputation upon the State of Virginia. Gaulden thought he had been paying Virginia a high compliment. He said: Well, I will said the slave-breeding State of Georgia, then. I glory in being a slave-breeder myself. I will face the music myself, and I have got as many negroes as any man from the State of Virginia. And as I invited the gentlemen of this Convention at Charleston to visit my plantation, I will say again that if they will come to see me, I will show them as fine a lot of negroes, and a pure African too, as they can find anywhere. And I will show them as handsome a set of little children there as can be seen, and any quantity of them, too. And I wish that Virginia may be as good a slave-trading and slave-breeding as Georgia".

So sure record is spotty. Even slave trading was not a reputable profession in Antebellum South let alone breeding. Quite a paradox. Seems using slaves like animals did not pose a problem to plantation owners but the facilitator of their warez was indeed scum.

If you're truly interested in this I suggest you read the fugitive slave Charles Ball's: The Life and Adventures of Charles Ball (1837) or Slave Trading in the Old South, by Frederic Bancroft. Both go through details, reproduce advertisements from the time in local papers which use words like "stock and breeding Negroes" "breeding slaves" "child bearing women" etc. It's not pretty.

As far as what factor it played relative, that's equally controversial. I lean on on the side of some but minimal as well compared other factors as you suggest like section at the West African ports which plays some role as well along with other factors. It's the sum of the parts that make AA's/Jamaicans, etc the most gifted athletes on the planet.

 

[joebloggs10]

Because the defenders are also world class athletes.

Which explains why corners, free kicks, etc so often fail but does nothing to explain why players on the offensive so often kick the ball DIRECTLY into the defender.

 

[WelshBloke]

Which explains why corners, free kicks, etc so often fail but does nothing to explain why players on the offensive so often kick the ball DIRECTLY into the defender.

Everything happens a lot quicker on the pitch than it appears on the TV.

Also the player with the ball is trying to keep an eye on the ball, the opposing defenders, his team mates as well as planning ahead.

 

[freegeeks]

Those of you saying that NFL players (corners & receivers) are slow, must not have watched any parts of the NFL combine highlights (or simply don't know anything about the NFL). I'd like to see how many soccer players can run sub 4.4 in the 40...yea right...

I ran track (100 & 200) & played football (receiver) & never lost a foot race to a soccer player.

Soccer players do run fast, but they aren't the fastest. The top 10 fastest soccer players would be left behind in a foot race (100 or 200) against the NFL's to 10.

Don't forget, a lot of NFL athletes ran track in HS & college.

Thierry Henry = 4,82 for the 40m (43 yards)
Theo Walcott = 4,7 for the 40m (43 yards)

 

[pmoa]

Well it's obvious...we're not the best at it...if we won the world cup three straight years and dominated, we would all watch it

 

[dmcowen674]

Why do Americans not care about Soccer?

Get rid of the pansie ties

 

[Chaotic42]

Thierry Henry = 4,82 for the 40m (43 yards)
Theo Walcott = 4,7 for the 40m (43 yards)

Here are some NFL 40 yard combine times.

Just in case anyone is interested.