World Cup - "soccer is boring and stupid" thread

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perception of soccer as a sport, with participants expressing varied opinions on its entertainment value compared to other sports like baseball and basketball. The thread also touches on cultural terminology differences, particularly the use of "soccer" versus "football," and how these terms are perceived in different regions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants find soccer boring, comparing it unfavorably to other sports like baseball.
  • Others argue that sports in general, including soccer, are boring to watch.
  • There is a debate about the appropriateness of the term "soccer," with some asserting it is a legitimate name while others prefer "football."
  • Some participants express frustration over perceived cultural insensitivity regarding the terminology used for the sport.
  • A few participants joke about the seriousness of sports and the nature of the discussion, suggesting a lighthearted approach.
  • One participant mentions a preference for playing sports over watching them, sharing a personal anecdote about cycling.
  • There are references to the origins of the term "soccer" and its historical context, with some asserting it is not an American invention.
  • Concerns are raised about the use of "useless terminology" in language, with examples provided that extend beyond sports.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the entertainment value of soccer and the appropriateness of its terminology. Multiple competing views remain regarding the cultural implications of using "soccer" versus "football."

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about cultural sensitivity and the definitions of terms, which may not be universally agreed upon. The conversation also reflects differing personal preferences for engaging with sports.

  • #61
davenn said:
you can add New Zealand and Australia to the list that term it soccer

perhaps there are more brits living around the parts of auckland I live in, people here look at you funny when you even say the word soccer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
wukunlin said:
perhaps there are more brits living around the parts of auckland I live in, people here look at you funny when you even say the word soccer.

Wouldn't surprise me - those Brits really get around :-p!
 
  • #63
micromass said:
The name football is not ambiguous for about 7 billion people. It only is for americans.

Blame the English... :devil:
1889, socca, later socker (1891), soccer (1895), originally university slang (with jocular formation -er (3)), from a shortened form of Assoc., abbreviation of association in Football Association (as opposed to Rugby football); compare rugger. An unusual method of formation, but those who did it perhaps shied away from making a name out of the first three letters of Assoc.
 
  • #64
It's not exactly new, but I have always enjoyed this picture.

handegg.0_standard_709.0.jpg
 
  • #65
It's called football (the Handegg one) because the ball is about a foot long.
 
  • #66
Fredrik said:
It's not exactly new, but I have always enjoyed this picture.
:biggrin:
 
  • #67
Tobias Funke said:
A small typo, just like when I mistyped "football/fútbol/¿fóüdbáílle" as "soccer" and "French fries" as "freedom fries."

Sorry I over did it; I was trying to impress a hot Colombian lady , so I went along with her campaign and I started doing it without thinking about it.
 
  • #68
AlephZero said:
Nobody seems to have mentioned the obvious reason why the USA doesn't "get" soccer. Play doesn't stop every few seconds for the next TV advertising break.
Could be that we don't like sports where the players cry every game rolling on the ground when they get a little scratch.
 
  • #69
Maylis said:
Could be that we don't like sports where the players cry every game rolling on the ground when they get a little scratch.

Could be you daren't play contact sports if you can't wear body armor.
 
  • #70
AlephZero said:
Could be you daren't play contact sports if you can't wear body armor.

this thread is awesome :biggrin:
 
  • #71
AlephZero said:
Could be you daren't play contact sports if you can't wear body armor.

Sports like soccer and basketball are contact sports. Football is a collision sport.
 
  • #72
Yes, you can volunteer to be 'contacted' by a linebacker without those wussy pads first :D
 
  • #73
AnTiFreeze3 said:
Sports like soccer and basketball are contact sports. Football is a collision sport.

The last I checked rugby was pretty similar to (American) football but the players don't insist on getting up like a medieval knight at the joust.
 
  • #74
Curious3141 said:
The last I checked rugby was pretty similar to (American) football but the players don't insist on getting up like a medieval knight at the joust.

While I agree to a certain extent, the big difference is that in rugby, most of the tackles and hits are from the side, or grabbing legs, etc. In American football, the two teams stop, line up facing one another and then (try to) run directly at each other. Most hits and tackles in American football involve two men running nearly head on at full speed. Given the reset after each play, the defense is able to set themselves up and read the play, giving them an opportunity to be in a prime position for making a hit.

I know that there are some brutal hits in rugby, for sure, and the scrum is a super rough place to be as well, but I would wager that the potential for serious injury is higher in American football, given that the contact is typically direct and head-on.
 
  • #75
Seems like simple physics that playing American football without pads would be a disaster, for rugby players or anyone else. Therefore, rugby must not be too similar to American football in terms of collisions. Basically, what Travis_King said (probably...I've never watched rugby).
 
  • #76
Curious3141 said:
The last I checked rugby was pretty similar to (American) football but the players don't insist on getting up like a medieval knight at the joust.

There are more injuries in American football because of the padding. When no one is wearing a helmet, players will have a natural aversion to smashing skulls, seeing as it's counter-productive and will take both players out of play temporarily. When everyone is wearing a helmet, everyone has the confidence to start bashing heads together, but these helmets aren't omnipotent and can't prevent all sorts of gruesome concussions and spinal injuries.

Not to say that rugby players aren't badasses, because they are.
 
  • #77
AnTiFreeze3 said:
Not to say that rugby players aren't badasses, because they are.

Rugby is more of a gentlemans game. There are explicit rules for how/when to tackle (mostly shoulders and waist). In American football nearly anything goes.
 
  • #78
Greg Bernhardt said:
Rugby is more of a gentlemans game. There are explicit rules for how/when to tackle (mostly shoulders and waist). In American football nearly anything goes.

I was thinking of this when I made that comment :smile:
 

Similar threads

Lost Soccer Fan Finds Way Home After 6 Hours in Hanover
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
What are your thoughts on the 2010 Soccer World Cup Bid?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
8K
What are the strengths and weaknesses of top teams in world football?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
U.S. warns Germany on World Cup sex workers
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K