FUTBOL (soccer) vs FOOTBALL

Never agree to 3 points on top of the vig.
User avatar
latinijral
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:27 am
Location: In your heart

FUTBOL (soccer) vs FOOTBALL

Post by latinijral » Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:36 am

In USA everybody love american football, but in the majority of countries people prefer FUTBOL (soccer).

A lot of passion is involved in Soccer, specially you prefer only one team, but in USA people can have some teams as favorites.

Why Americans didn`t follow England`s passion for Futbol?


DO you prefer a team?
I love you all !!!
Pure skeptic

TomStockholm
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:46 am

Post by TomStockholm » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:28 am

Soccer and football are the same thing, surely...
Life is like a sewer

What you get out of it depends on what you put into it...

Hen3ry

TomStockholm
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 6:46 am

Post by TomStockholm » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:32 am

My personal thoughts on this (totally unresearched, admittedly) is that when Americans discovered that they were crap at real sports (football, rugby, cricket) they decided to sod it and invent their own (inferior) games so that they could feel good about themselves...







Ducks for cover... :wink:
Life is like a sewer

What you get out of it depends on what you put into it...

Hen3ry

Rat
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Leicester, UK

Post by Rat » Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:37 pm

Futbol is just the (South American?) Spanish name for football. Football in England generally refers to Association Football. In the US, generally American football. Association football is often abbreviated to soccer.

To rise to the bait of TomStockholm, US football did not, of course, come from soccer, but is more closely related to rugby. To say it derives from rugby would be an exaggeration. The idea of a game where people kick a ball about, the idea of one where people throw a ball about, or carry a ball about, these are all ancient ideas. Just as the idea of hitting a ball with a stick is ancient idea. Baseball has an older recorded history than rounders, I'm told.

Americans may perform poorly in some international sports, but to point out an exception, their athletes, unlike the rest of their Luddite nation, have adapted sufficiently well to the metric system to dominate at most track events.

For the record, I follow the St Louis Rams. I am from the UK. Most other sports bore me.

Cheers,
Rat.
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski

UKLS 1988-?

User avatar
DaveH
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 4:58 am
Location: Under a mountain of REAL work

Post by DaveH » Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:24 pm

Why do most international soccer players try to milk the referee for fouls by overacting?
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus

User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Post by Sundog » Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:47 pm

I could never be a fan of something with such a silly spelling.

User avatar
Nigel
Posts: 7987
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:33 am
Location: Brinsby

Post by Nigel » Thu Jun 10, 2004 2:28 pm

Soccer was popular at my high school, some 25 years ago, but I don't know why it hasn't caught on in America with more fervor. Perhaps Freddie Adu will change that.

Fortunately, NASCAR hasn't escaped the wilds of 'Merica, though I heard they're looking to buy CASCAR (stock car racing in Canada), and might race in Mexico. So look out world! F1 is in trouble, when rednecks like Dale Jr come pitching Foster's in Australia.

Rat - I've been a Rams fan since I was 8 years old. Good to know someone in the UK is a fan as well.

User avatar
Phil
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:52 pm
Location: Houston

Post by Phil » Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:10 pm

Who knows why some sports enjoy more popularity depending on the country?

Culture, tradition, availability of venues. Certainly all of those play a part. I don't think that any single nationality is inherently better at any sport though. A lot just depends on the passion surrounding it. Maybe a sport becomes ingrained into the culture, and kids grow up playing it everyday because their community places a high importance on it. Of course, generally speaking, those kids are going to develop better skills and most likely carry an advantage onto any international stage where their competitors perhaps didn't pick up the sport until later in life, or perhaps were not as passionate about it.

And to touch on some other points mentioned here, I'm a better sports participator than a sports fan. I don't really care to watch when playing is so much more fun. And the rabid football, soccer, rugby, etc. fan just seems to me kind of sad to me. I mean, I enjoy pulling for the hometown team or perhaps the underdog going against the odds, but why does anyone get worked into a lather over a simple diversion?

And in case I haven't pissed everyone off yet: I've found that folks who spend a great deal of time chatting about sports are, in general, big scrubs when it comes to playing.

User avatar
iain
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:55 am
Location: Cheshire, England

Post by iain » Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:44 pm

No idea about football, but baseball was copied from the British game of rounders (the first official US baseball rules were copied pretty much verbatim from a set of rounders rules published in Britiain 5 years previously).

Rat
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:21 pm
Location: Leicester, UK

Post by Rat » Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:56 pm

iain wrote:No idea about football, but baseball was copied from the British game of rounders (the first official US baseball rules were copied pretty much verbatim from a set of rounders rules published in Britiain 5 years previously).
As I said in my earlier post, baseball has, to my knowledge, no relation to rounders. At the very least, it is not derived from it, and possibly the relationship is the reverse. I don't know about how the official rules of baseball came to be codified. They rather obviously share as much with cricket as rounders.

Forms of baseball have been, I believe, played for centuries. The recorded history of rounders is remarkably short, at least as a recognised sport.

The only way to look at it is that a game wherein one hits a ball thrown by the opposition, then runs a course, is very very old. You may call it cricket, rounders, or baseball. But to say that one is copied from the other, in any way other than using the rules of one as a model for codifying one's own, is just wrong.

Of course rugby shares many similarities with American football. They developed over the same time frame. Their rules have developed together, changing due to many of the same pressures. But Rugby, if we believe the Webb Ellis history, goes back to exactly 1823. This is rubbish. There are many sports that date back much further, in the British Isles and beyond, that bear more than a passing similarity. They all developed together, so they share many features. To say that one copied another implies that there was originally a 'first' game that they all came from, which, if true, is not to my knowledge the case.

Cheers,
Rat.

I am happy for anyone to disagree with this if anyone has any evidence one way or the other.
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski

UKLS 1988-?