Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The American Football vs Soccer Debate

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
70 replies to this topic
BRITLAND
  • BRITLAND

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012

#1

Posted 28 September 2013 - 10:38 AM

If you go on the web and join some discussion on either of these sports your almost guarantied to find some stupid wanker bashing the sport in favour of the other.

I'm from the UK and love watching the footy but I like watching the NFL from time to time aswell, my dad lived in New York for almost 10 years before coming back & loved the sport, (which is how I learned about it)

But it always seems to be that you can't escape this war from discussing both sports like Superbowl vs FIFA (even though I think the Superbowl is more comparable to the European Cup (UEFA Champions League Cup) since FIFA to me is more comparable to the Olympics

I honestly can't take it anymore when they bash each other & from mostly what I've seen, it's the "soccer" footy fans being the biggest cry babies over the case.

Australia have their own version of Football, many other countries call football "soccer" it's not just the NFL & US college fans being "idoits"

But it's not just us European footy fans but a lot of the "American" football guys always claim that "soccer" football is "gay" look your entitled to your opinion but don't go in a thread/vid & waste your time pissing others off, it's depressing to think about it, soccer players train hard to get to where they are, do you know how hard it really is to "kick a ball" a lot of technique is needed to make it in the "soccer" leagues plus you can disagree that "soccer" football is officially the most popular sport in the universe no matter how "gay" it is when they use skill, a lot more training goes into "soccer" footy than "American" football

You may think why I'm a arguing with myself above but I always find my self explaining this & I'm beyond sick of it, if you don't like one then don't f*cking join a discussion/vid of it!

What's your take on the debate?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#2

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:52 PM

What's your take on the debate?

my take is that it's not even worth having.

it's a dumb debate, in the end.

 

international football (hereafter referred to as "soccer;") is a very different game than American gridiron (hereafter referred to as "football;" deal with it).

it's not fair to compare soccer to football in any aspect really. trying to pit football against soccer in some kind of competition actually does a disservice to both games.

 

I'm a US citizen. I love football.

but I also enjoy soccer... for very different reasons.

 

football and soccer are played by completely different types of athletes and bear NO similarities other than the fact that they're both played on a field. that's where the comparison ends. now as to whether or not soccer or football is "gay" or "boring" or "stupid" or "weak" or whatever, it's irrelevant because that's just the opinion of the individual person so f*ck them. if you enjoy soccer watch soccer. if you enjoy football watch football. if you enjoy both watch both. if you enjoy neither watch neither.

 

but there's no reason to fight about it...

  • Mister Pink likes this

Eris
  • Eris

    Ghetto Star

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#3

Posted 29 September 2013 - 12:42 AM

This is the stupidest debate I've ever had the misfortune to watch transpire. It always starts with both groups calling each other fags, and ends with a pointless argument of semantics. There is no reason you can't enjoy both. 


BRITLAND
  • BRITLAND

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012

#4

Posted 29 September 2013 - 01:35 AM

This is the stupidest debate I've ever had the misfortune to watch transpire. It always starts with both groups calling each other fags, and ends with a pointless argument of semantics. There is no reason you can't enjoy both. 


Exactly, try tell that on a YT vid without getting 100s of spam messages responding to me talking complete sh*t

Bigs
  • Bigs

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2004

#5

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:07 AM

I've never understood the debate either. Hell, hockey bears more resemblance to international football than American football does...

 

It's ignorance from both sides that drives the hate. Both sports are awesome if you give 'em a shot.

  • El Diablo likes this

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#6

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:32 AM

Both sports are awesome if you give 'em a shot.

quoted for truth.


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#7

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:47 AM

You know I've always wondered that these debates were had because they have the same name. It's pathetic nonetheless.


Snoochie_Boochies
  • Snoochie_Boochies

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 May 2013

#8

Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:27 PM Edited by Snoochie_Boochies, 10 October 2013 - 04:31 PM.

As an American who grew up in a basketball and baseball loving state I don't care for (American) football.  It's too slow-paced, and tickets for professional and even a lot of college games are outrageous.  I can drive out to the closest NFL club and watch a game for around 150 for one ticket in the nosebleeds, but for that price, I can take 3 people to a baseball game and sit behind 3rd base, and have enough left over for hotdogs and drinks.  And baseball may be slow-paced, but at least it's cheap. 

 

As for Soccer, I really love it.  I have always been fascinated by the system that European soccer follows, and I love how a club from England can compete with a club from Spain, and how a small market club in a lesser league can move up to the top flight and compete with the big dogs.  You can't find that kind of stuff in the NFL, even though if it did have a promotion and relegation system maybe we could finally put the Browns out of their misery. 

 

EDIT:  I will say that I don't care for the way most soccer teams have ads on their jerseys, or whatever they're called in Britain.  I want to see ARSENAL or CHELSEA proudly displayed, not a brand name.  Its the name on the front of the jersey that matters, not the name on the back, but that point is moot whenever the name on the front is SAMSUNG.


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#9

Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:57 PM

The name on the back tends to be the name of the player, the sponsor is shown bellow the crest on the belly of the shirt at the front.

 

I love both sports. I'm an avid football fan and I keep an eye on the NFL, watching the Superbowl every year without fail. But as others have pointed out there is absolutely no reason to compare the two, they are literally very different ball games.

 

However, what is everyone's take on Gridiron vs. Rugby? I play rugby as well as football regularly and on my University pitches the other day we (rugby team) were training next to the American football team as they were training. Because this was the UK, I would have backed every single player on my rugby team to tear apart the lads playing American football.

 

In the professional sport I can't help but feel that American football loses something by having a roster of 53. Every position is so specialised that it makes for some fairly one dimensional athletes. The guys are incredibly powerful but in an hour long game may see 3-5 minutes of action. But 80 minutes of full contact Union with no pads or helmet means you have to have endurance to go with your strength. I really wish American took its rugby more seriously because with the size of the guys they produce for the NFL they'd have a great team if you turned some of them to rugby early on.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#10

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:15 AM

In the professional sport I can't help but feel that American football loses something by having a roster of 53. Every position is so specialised that it makes for some fairly one dimensional athletes. The guys are incredibly powerful but in an hour long game may see 3-5 minutes of action. But 80 minutes of full contact Union with no pads or helmet means you have to have endurance to go with your strength. I really wish American took its rugby more seriously because with the size of the guys they produce for the NFL they'd have a great team if you turned some of them to rugby early on.

 

you're doing the same thing to Rugby vs Football that I said we shouldn't do to Soccer vs Football.

you really can't compare them. they're completely different games in spite of their common origin.

 

yes you're right; American football players might be the best Rugby players in the world if they weren't so "specialized" in their individual positions. but that's the point. that's simply how the game is played. in the game of Chess, you might technically be more powerful if you just shoved all your pieces forward at once. but that's not the rules. each piece has its own unique strengths and weaknesses. success and skill comes from understanding how to best combine these pieces and their abilities in order to WIN!

 

Rugby is more blunt and straightforward.

that's fine and all, but I enjoy the nuance and finesse of Football a little more.

  • iBUCKEYE likes this

MoldyDragon
  • MoldyDragon

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2013

#11

Posted 11 December 2013 - 03:37 AM

(American/Real) Football wins.  End of story.


SouthLand
  • SouthLand

    CE SABADELL FC

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2013
  • Spain

#12

Posted 11 December 2013 - 04:46 PM

If Americans put a little more passion to Football (Soccer) in 10-15 years they would have a very good national team.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#13

Posted 19 December 2013 - 07:08 AM

If Americans put a little more passion to Football (Soccer) in 10-15 years they would have a very good national team.

I'm sure that the US could have an amazing soccer team if our best athletes were interested in soccer.

but they're not.

 

all the money, all the celebrity, and all the attention goes to baseball, football, basketball, and hockey.

our best athletes simply don't care about soccer. they know that the greatest opportunities are in the other 4 professional leagues.

 

the US media and US citizens have to start demanding soccer before the money follows along. otherwise we'll NEVER be competitive on the world stage.

in most other countries, soccer is the only high-paying pro sport. there's really no other choice if you want to be a major superstar or become wealthy. but in the US we have too many other choices. soccer just isn't attractive to a young man playing amateur sports. it doesn't get big TV coverage and soccer players don't get huge contracts.


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#14

Posted 20 December 2013 - 10:10 AM

(American/Real) Football wins.  End of story.


Why bump a topic and say something which is basically undiluted bilge? No it isn't 'real' football, not it doesn't 'win' and it is not 'end of story'. Crawl back down the hole you came from you horrific twerp.

@El_Diable: I agree, there is no real point in comparing rugby and American Football, but the point I was more getting at was that with 53 players in a team you wind up having a very limited contest between individual players. It becomes, as you said, a game of chess between the head coaches and defensive/offensive coordinators with each player essentially an individual cog in a machine with little agency.

By contrast in Rugby and football the battle of wits is between both the coaches and the players. The coaches can alter the tactics but the players have to respond and face up to their opposite number time and again over 80/90 minutes dealing with fatigue, learning from mistakes etc.

theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#15

Posted 20 December 2013 - 11:04 AM

American football and baseball are garbage!

MoldyDragon
  • MoldyDragon

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2013

#16

Posted 20 December 2013 - 12:03 PM

Damn that was unnecessarily personal Max what the hell man haha.  American Football is the equivalent of the 100m dash in sprinting, and soccer is like a distance race.  Personally, I think explosive athletes are more exciting.  Football also supports a greater variety of athletes.  Lastly, I think it's stupid how the rest of the world takes soccer when it's not a violent game.  Seriously, there are less fights in football staiums, boxing rinks, and hockey games....what's wrong with soccer fans?  Also slightly on topic, why are international basketball rules different?.. The United States invented basketball... And soccer is just a differrent type of fatigue, you couldn't play football for 90 minutes straight just like you wouldn't run a 100m dash for a mile.

 

Sorry for the rant, it just pisses me off when people who don't understand a sport bash it, and I'm not shocked by the way Max responded....typical butthurt soccer fan, go riot in your city again "twerp"

 

P.S. put a professional soccer player next to a professional football player, have the run, lift, ect. and just try to tell me the soccer player looks like the superior athlete.

 

 

(American/Real) Football wins.  End of story.


Why bump a topic and say something which is basically undiluted bilge? No it isn't 'real' football, not it doesn't 'win' and it is not 'end of story'. Crawl back down the hole you came from you horrific twerp.

@El_Diable: I agree, there is no real point in comparing rugby and American Football, but the point I was more getting at was that with 53 players in a team you wind up having a very limited contest between individual players. It becomes, as you said, a game of chess between the head coaches and defensive/offensive coordinators with each player essentially an individual cog in a machine with little agency.

By contrast in Rugby and football the battle of wits is between both the coaches and the players. The coaches can alter the tactics but the players have to respond and face up to their opposite number time and again over 80/90 minutes dealing with fatigue, learning from mistakes etc.

 


 

If Americans put a little more passion to Football (Soccer) in 10-15 years they would have a very good national team.

I'm sure that the US could have an amazing soccer team if our best athletes were interested in soccer.

but they're not.

 

all the money, all the celebrity, and all the attention goes to baseball, football, basketball, and hockey.

our best athletes simply don't care about soccer. they know that the greatest opportunities are in the other 4 professional leagues.

 

the US media and US citizens have to start demanding soccer before the money follows along. otherwise we'll NEVER be competitive on the world stage.

in most other countries, soccer is the only high-paying pro sport. there's really no other choice if you want to be a major superstar or become wealthy. but in the US we have too many other choices. soccer just isn't attractive to a young man playing amateur sports. it doesn't get big TV coverage and soccer players don't get huge contracts.

 

 

Sorry for the double post GTA forums but I 100% agree, if someone like Lebron or Durant played goalie I bet they'd be UNREAL


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#17

Posted 20 December 2013 - 08:03 PM

If you'd actually read the entire topic, you'd see that I am actually a fan of American Football and understand the sport. I wasn't bashing it. I was simply saying that with such large rosters it becomes a pursuit of perfection in very specialised roles. I think it would be interesting to see how the athletes would change if the roster size was capped at say 40.

It is you who seems to be woefully ignorant of my sport infact. Do some genuine research on football violence, don't regurgitate what you hear.

Personal on the Internet? Grow up, I called you out on your absolutely ludicrous statement of opinion as fact. You prefer American football, and that's fine, I love it as a sport too, however where we differ is that I'm not ignorant enough to steam into a topic and declare that one is objectively better than the other. Actually the entire topic seems to revolve around the fact that we all agree it is pointless to compare the two.

Shou
  • Shou

    y

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2012
  • Jamaica
  • Best Signature 2013
    Best Signature 2012

#18

Posted 20 December 2013 - 08:10 PM

Damn that was unnecessarily personal Max what the hell man haha.  American Football is the equivalent of the 100m dash in sprinting, and soccer is like a distance race.  

Subjectivity at it's best, you're letting your love for a sport determine what it should be called in this case. 

 

As for the debate, it's just a name and I couldn't care less what it is refereed to as. 


iBUCKEYE
  • iBUCKEYE

    Die Hard is a Christmas movie

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • None

#19

Posted 21 December 2013 - 02:40 AM

(American/Real) Football wins.  End of story.


Why bump a topic and say something which is basically undiluted bilge? No it isn't 'real' football, not it doesn't 'win' and it is not 'end of story'. Crawl back down the hole you came from you horrific twerp.
@El_Diable: I agree, there is no real point in comparing rugby and American Football, but the point I was more getting at was that with 53 players in a team you wind up having a very limited contest between individual players. It becomes, as you said, a game of chess between the head coaches and defensive/offensive coordinators with each player essentially an individual cog in a machine with little agency.


Have you ever watched Peyton Manning?

MoldyDragon
  • MoldyDragon

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2013

#20

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:45 PM

If you'd actually read the entire topic, you'd see that I am actually a fan of American Football and understand the sport. I wasn't bashing it. I was simply saying that with such large rosters it becomes a pursuit of perfection in very specialised roles. I think it would be interesting to see how the athletes would change if the roster size was capped at say 40.

It is you who seems to be woefully ignorant of my sport infact. Do some genuine research on football violence, don't regurgitate what you hear.

Personal on the Internet? Grow up, I called you out on your absolutely ludicrous statement of opinion as fact. You prefer American football, and that's fine, I love it as a sport too, however where we differ is that I'm not ignorant enough to steam into a topic and declare that one is objectively better than the other. Actually the entire topic seems to revolve around the fact that we all agree it is pointless to compare the two.

Except it's just a total pussy cop out to say you can't compare the two.  They're both sports and in the grand scheme of things very similar.  Man up and pick a side.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#21

Posted 21 December 2013 - 10:49 PM

Rugby is world wide and American football Is only popular with a particular demographic in the United states. Nuff said


W3BB13
  • W3BB13

    Welcome to the real North Korea

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2007
  • United-States

#22

Posted 22 December 2013 - 01:44 AM

Rugby is world wide and American football Is only popular with a particular demographic in the United states. Nuff said

You win the internet today  :/


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#23

Posted 24 December 2013 - 12:28 AM

Rugby is world wide and American football Is only popular with a particular demographic in the United states. Nuff said

rugy is worldwide for the same reason soccer is worldwide.

it's cheap. any poor kid in any slum can do it. no equipment required. no special field needed.

 

has little to do with actual popularity at the professional level.

in the US we have choices :pp

  • iBUCKEYE likes this

iBUCKEYE
  • iBUCKEYE

    Die Hard is a Christmas movie

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • None

#24

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:43 AM

Rugby is world wide and American football Is only popular with a particular demographic in the United states. Nuff said

You win the internet today  :/

But El Diablo won the war

theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#25

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:56 AM

LOL. Yeah, kids in England, France, and Australia can't afford American football gear, that must be why they don't play it


iBUCKEYE
  • iBUCKEYE

    Die Hard is a Christmas movie

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • None

#26

Posted 24 December 2013 - 06:59 AM Edited by GankThis110, 24 December 2013 - 07:00 AM.

LOL. Yeah, kids in England, France, and Australia can't afford American football gear, that must be why they don't play it


With all the riots and killing over soccer games I'd say they have enough violence as it is. Kinda sad.

randomuser
  • randomuser

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2013

#27

Posted 24 December 2013 - 10:36 AM

American football and baseball are garbage!

Not like that


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#28

Posted 24 December 2013 - 11:46 AM

 

LOL. Yeah, kids in England, France, and Australia can't afford American football gear, that must be why they don't play it


With all the riots and killing over soccer games I'd say they have enough violence as it is. Kinda sad.

 

Ignorance at its finest. The American media likes to push this 'football violence' propaganda as if Europe is awash with dark and backwards barbarians however I've seen enough people beating each other up at NFL games and don't you riot over Hockey with alarming regularity? The bottom line is that the tribal nature of supporting sports teams leads dumb people to do dumb things.

 

Also, El Diablo, learn about rugby, my friend. Not any poor kid can do it, it is actually incredibly dangerous if done incorrectly so coaching and refereeing is necessary to ensure correct tackle technique, scrummaging, line-outs etc. Also, are you trying to suggest that even for a game of street American Football all the kids go and pad up?

 

Everything outside of America isn't the 3rd world, we can afford to play gridiron just fine if we wanted to, the point is that people don't for several reasons:

 

1) It is in unpopular and therefore there is no lucrative and glamorous professional ranks for kids to aspire to.

 

2) Frankly it's closed off. American sports, all of them, are incredibly self-centred and honestly, rather boring for the uninitiated. People winning the World Series or the Superbowl scream down the camera 'We're the world Champions!' or talk about how it is 'The greatest show on earth' and yet they have never played a game against a foreign opposition. I'm not doubting that they're the best team in the world, but they're only the best team because they're the best in the only country which cares.

 

It takes a long time to get into the insular world of American sports, and as we have seen from this topic, it means putting up with a lot of close-minded American bullsh*t regarding foreign sports and foreign fans.

 

3) Finally, call it reckless, but most young boys around the world don't want to wear helmets and bulky pads to play a game. I get that there are fewer rules against high/dangerous tackles in American Football but we rugby players put our bodies through far more relentless punishment over the course of a game than American Football players and we largely come out of it just fine. To an outsider what would you rather play when you're young and worried about what everyone thinks of you? Something about all that padding makes gridiron look pathetic when you set it against rugby. 


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#29

Posted 24 December 2013 - 12:51 PM Edited by El_Diablo, 24 December 2013 - 01:25 PM.

look I don't care what you think, unfortunately.

soccer just bores me. rugby bores me. cheap sports. you'll never change my mind on this. I don't care how much training someone might need in order to play the sport "correctly." it's still a cheap sport by nature; all you need is a ball. that's it. that's why every dirt slum in every poor country on Earth at least has a soccer field.

 

I simply enjoy the variety and depth of US sports. I can't be bothered with soccer or rugby.

those sports tend to be a little too blunt for my tastes and I always lose interest. just the endless back and forth on the pitch. no thanks.


Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#30

Posted 24 December 2013 - 01:53 PM

And surely all you need for Gridiron is a ball?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users