biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 14, 2011 11:05:22 GMT -5
The team that wins the Champions League, which contains the best teams from all the European countries, still doesn't call themselves the World Champions. Exactly. The Champions League teams are better than the teams from the other continents, but the winner of the Champions League don't call themselves "world champions" even if they are the best team in the world. It's not a world competition, hence no world champions. I just don't see how it's not a world competition if the world's best players are competing. If what you say about the champions league is true then by all means it should be called a "world championship."
|
|
|
Post by steve85uk on Aug 14, 2011 11:21:27 GMT -5
tis only for Europe. If your sport is contained within one country, it isnt a world championship, The NBA, NHL and MLB have international counterparts in the EuroLeague, KHL, and Japanese leagues, so all of their champions cannot be world champions unless they beat the other champions. It is pure american arrogance to think otherwise. That being said, Im English and live in the states, i love it, it has its huge flaws, but it aint that bad
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 14, 2011 11:23:58 GMT -5
tis only for Europe. If your sport is contained within one country, it isnt a world championship, The NBA, NHL and MLB have international counterparts in the EuroLeague, KHL, and Japanese leagues, so all of their champions cannot be world champions unless they beat the other champions. It is pure american arrogance to think otherwise. That being said, Im English and live in the states, i love it, it has its huge flaws, but it aint that bad But generally the best players from those leagues play in the american major leagues. Japan's baseball league is like AAA+ at this point.
|
|
|
Post by steve85uk on Aug 14, 2011 11:36:25 GMT -5
purely based on opinion for the most part. Again tis arrogance unless they play. American teams are scared they'll be shown up. It doesnt matter if the Japanese league sucks, they are a legomate league. The Giants are not World Champions, they are American Champions/World Series Champs. Tis pure hurbis to deny having some kind of playoff to determine the world's best. Its moronic to say its a world championship, because all the players play in that league, it isnt true except for NFL which is in the states
|
|
|
Post by steve85uk on Aug 14, 2011 11:38:45 GMT -5
Even the Women's Pro League cant say the same. FIFA have the club world cup to have the 6 regional contintental champs play each other. Even though the North American and Oceania champs arent close, they are still in it. I've seen NBA teams and NHL be beaten by european teams, so whats to say they could beat them in a 1 off or a 7 game series
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 14, 2011 11:40:58 GMT -5
purely based on opinion for the most part. Again tis arrogance unless they play. American teams are scared they'll be shown up. It doesnt matter if the Japanese league sucks, they are a legomate league. The Giants are not World Champions, they are American Champions/World Series Champs. Tis pure hurbis to deny having some kind of playoff to determine the world's best. Its moronic to say its a world championship, because all the players play in that league, it isnt true except for NFL which is in the states Alright, when the personal insults start flying I'm done. I respect the opposing opinion and have stated my argument with respect. It's likely just two legitimate ways of looking at something. But again, when people reduce the argument to questioning others folks intelligence nothing good can come from it so I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by HoganBai on Aug 14, 2011 11:57:58 GMT -5
Also it's a football, dear USA, not soccer I have yet to see the New Orlean Saints or the Philadelphia Eagles play in Europe, so yeah, it's soccer. Hate to be THAT dick but... news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/american_football/7688785.stmyeeeeeah, New Orleans played in England, lol. I think the theory is that even if the Superbowl champions were probably the best team in the world, the best American Football team in England could also say that they are "World Champions" as the 2 teams haven't played yet, so there isn't a true world champion
|
|
Fauxberg
ALF
GUNNA VERSUS CRIMSON! BAH GAWD!
Posts: 1,057
|
Post by Fauxberg on Aug 14, 2011 12:03:45 GMT -5
I was wondering, what if England had an NFL team? They'd think that it would be soccer, then they'd go to the stadium & think "what the hell is this crap?!"
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Aug 14, 2011 12:06:56 GMT -5
I was wondering, what if England had an NFL team? They'd think that it would be soccer, then they'd go to the stadium & think "what the hell is this crap?!" You may have forgotten London had a team in the early 2000's The London Silly Nannies
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 14, 2011 12:39:02 GMT -5
Mr America?
I loved him.
He was the biggest star in wrestling since Hogan, brothas.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 14, 2011 13:06:48 GMT -5
Also it's a football, dear USA, not soccer Hey now, blame that on the UK. That's where we got the name from.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Aug 14, 2011 13:12:51 GMT -5
Also it's a football, dear USA, not soccer Blame it on England. A Brit invented the term to differentiate Association football("soccer") from somewhat similar sports like Rugby
|
|
|
Post by steve85uk on Aug 14, 2011 14:31:07 GMT -5
Rugby = Men American Football = boys i hate the constant stopping and the changing of defence and offence and the helmets dont help. Rugby is awesome
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,280
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 14, 2011 14:32:40 GMT -5
Rugby = Men American Football = boys i hate the constant stopping and the changing of defence and offence and the helmets dont help. Rugby is awesome You know: for little boys.
|
|
Fauxberg
ALF
GUNNA VERSUS CRIMSON! BAH GAWD!
Posts: 1,057
|
Post by Fauxberg on Aug 14, 2011 14:34:24 GMT -5
American Football > whatever you have.
|
|
|
Post by jrcz on Aug 14, 2011 14:36:04 GMT -5
Rugby = Men American Football = boys i hate the constant stopping and the changing of defence and offence and the helmets dont help. Rugby is awesome Rugby was awesome untill they told me that I can't use armbar.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,280
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 14, 2011 14:36:42 GMT -5
I am not saying Rugby isn't tough, but the sheer amount of American Football injuries makes it kind of laughable to pretend it's so much safer. Sure, they do have padding, helmets, all that. It also means they are adding that much more to their sheer mass, and can feel confident hitting harder. It does nothing to cancel risks.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Aug 14, 2011 14:42:33 GMT -5
I am not saying Rugby isn't tough, but the sheer amount of American Football injuries makes it kind of laughable to pretend it's so much safer. Sure, they do have padding, helmets, all that. It also means they are adding that much more to their sheer mass, and can feel confident hitting harder. It does nothing to cancel risks. There's actually been studies on this. The amount of stress on the body during a game of Rugby and American Football is actually pretty much even. Yes, American Football has more high impact hits but far less frequent. Rugby is 80 minutes (with a 10 minute interval) of consistent impact.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 14, 2011 14:46:04 GMT -5
I am not saying Rugby isn't tough, but the sheer amount of American Football injuries makes it kind of laughable to pretend it's so much safer. Sure, they do have padding, helmets, all that. It also means they are adding that much more to their sheer mass, and can feel confident hitting harder. It does nothing to cancel risks. Pads in football had the same effect as gloves in boxing. It actually gave the athletes cause to hit harder, and more mass to do so. When you're not wearing pads, you don't tend to hit as hard as you do when you have pads, which tends to counteract the fact that you actually have pads. So neither sport is more or less dangerous than the other, they just have different kinds of hits.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,280
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 14, 2011 14:51:41 GMT -5
I am not saying Rugby isn't tough, but the sheer amount of American Football injuries makes it kind of laughable to pretend it's so much safer. Sure, they do have padding, helmets, all that. It also means they are adding that much more to their sheer mass, and can feel confident hitting harder. It does nothing to cancel risks. There's actually been studies on this. The amount of stress on the body during a game of Rugby and American Football is actually pretty much even. Yes, American Football has more high impact hits but far less frequent. Rugby is 80 minutes (with a 10 minute interval) of consistent impact. Yeah, that was more or less my point. It's not like either one is easy or risk free. With safety measures comes more of a feeling of invincibility and dangerous risk taking.
|
|