Conquer Club

borox0 wrote:It's because noone likes Americans basically...

QFT

Titanic wrote:

spurgistan wrote:I would say that the NFL and MLB, and perhaps even the NBA (though I'm unsure on the NBA, and would be willing to change that opinion given evidence) are so far removed talent-wise from club competition in other countries that their champions can deserve to be called World Champions. The reason we don't play other league's club teams in those respective sports would be that it's a long distance for something of a formality. This is not to say that the American players are the best in the world, because that's simply not true (I mean, it's kinda hard - 300 million of us, 6.4 billion of you) but the world dominance of American club teams in American football, baseball, and perhaps basketball should be accepted, given the fact that they are the premier sports leagues in the world. Sort of like the Champion's League champ declaring itself world champion, if that competition wasn't so damned confusing.

The champions league isn confusing..

Champions league is different though. It is a multi-national sporting competition, which represents about 50 different countries who have the best teams in the world. Also, the World Club Cup tried to create an international one with South American and Asian teams as well as European, but that has failed really.

Btw, for the best country in the world, we have the World Cup, something which actually involves the world, not just a country.

The World Series does involve the world. Name one team in major League baseball that doesn't have players from at least five different countries. The World Series just happens to be played in the United States, and sometimes Canada because that's where all the teams are BASED at. If it was played at Neutral sites around the world each year, no one would have a problem calling it the world series, but because the two teams involved host it, everyone complains about the term "World" being used. If the winner had all US players, I would see your point, but when every team has players from all around the world on it, to say that world series, or world champions is not appropriate doesn't hold up.

Americans sometimes use the term world champions for their championship teams in baseball, football, basketball, and hockey because the teams that win it all, have players from around the globe, and because that team is very unlikely to be beaten by any other team. The team that wins the Major League Soccer championship every year is NOT referred to as world champions, because we are not naive to the fact that our MLS champion would likely get destroyed by Europes last place team. Whichever team in whatever sport in whatever country that wins a championship, can call themselves world champions, if no team in any other country can beat them. Could any Soccer team outside of Europe beat Europes Soccer champion. I would highly doubt it. I would have no problem with that team being called world champions.

Jamie wrote:The World Series does involve the world. Name one team in major League baseball that doesn't have players from at least five different countries. The World Series just happens to be played in the United States, and sometimes Canada because that's where all the teams are BASED at. If it was played at Neutral sites around the world each year, no one would have a problem calling it the world series, but because the two teams involved host it, everyone complains about the term "World" being used. If the winner had all US players, I would see your point, but when every team has players from all around the world on it, to say that world series, or world champions is not appropriate doesn't hold up.

Americans sometimes use the term world champions for their championship teams in baseball, football, basketball, and hockey because the teams that win it all, have players from around the globe, and because that team is very unlikely to be beaten by any other team. The team that wins the Major League Soccer championship every year is NOT referred to as world champions, because we are not naive to the fact that our MLS champion would likely get destroyed by Europes last place team. Whichever team in whatever sport in whatever country that wins a championship, can call themselves world champions, if no team in any other country can beat them. Could any Soccer team outside of Europe beat Europes Soccer champion. I would highly doubt it. I would have no problem with that team being called world champions.

The teams are not based anywhere but North America, and that is why it can never be a true 'world' competition. However many international players you have (and Lord knows we have exactly the same thing in the UK in Rugby and Football) the matches are only played in America, watched and attended by American fans, sponsored by American companies and America and Canada are the only countries with anything like a significant infrastructure in terms of young players, youth leagues etc. (perhaps bar basketball). It is NOT an international sport. It does not enjoy international popularity.

And in terms of football, the world champion is the national team who wins the world cup. A team made up of players solely from that country. The champions league is a European league, it has no claims on world titles. That is what the world cup is for.

Should the term "World Champion" be reserved for the only sport (football) that actually has a world presence, and additionally for the winner of a championship that invites the majority of the best players in the world (I actually would say a club championship would be a better determinant of the true World Champion, as clubs tend to include all the best players when, for instance E'too and Giggs almost never get to take part) I would argue that seeing as how it's taken for granted that non-MLB baseball leagues are by definition (with all due respect to Japanese, Cuban, Venezuelan leagues) minor leagues gives the champion of that league the right to call itself "World Champion", even if all the games take place within the North American continent.

Jamie wrote: The World Series does involve the world. Name one team in major League baseball that doesn't have players from at least five different countries.

That's the exact same thing with the teams in the Champions League. (Five different countries is actually not that much there.) But the team that wins the Champions League isn't the world champion. Because they haven't competed with all the teams from around the world.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Jamie wrote: The World Series does involve the world. Name one team in major League baseball that doesn't have players from at least five different countries.

That's the exact same thing with the teams in the Champions League. (Five different countries is actually not that much there.) But the team that wins the Champions League isn't the world champion. Because they haven't competed with all the teams from around the world.

It's pointless. No one has mentioned the most important thing I've said. If the Boston Red Sox played ANY other team outside of Major League baseball, that team would get slaughtered by at least 20 runs if not 40-50 runs. The Boston Red Sox are world champions because there isn't a team outside the majors who could defeat them even if they were to play 100 games. The Red Sox would be 100-0, having won every game by 20 runs or more. Why would they play foreign champions. It would be like A European soccer team playing the MLS champion to be called a world champion. The MLS team would lose by 10 goals or more. And to whoever said the World cup determines the world champion, that's stupid. The European soccer championship team would tear through Italy. Teams assembled by talent rather than nationality are far better.

Jamie wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Jamie wrote: The World Series does involve the world. Name one team in major League baseball that doesn't have players from at least five different countries.

That's the exact same thing with the teams in the Champions League. (Five different countries is actually not that much there.) But the team that wins the Champions League isn't the world champion. Because they haven't competed with all the teams from around the world.

It's pointless. No one has mentioned the most important thing I've said. If the Boston Red Sox played ANY other team outside of Major League baseball, that team would get slaughtered by at least 20 runs if not 40-50 runs. The Boston Red Sox are world champions because there isn't a team outside the majors who could defeat them even if they were to play 100 games. The Red Sox would be 100-0, having won every game by 20 runs or more. Why would they play foreign champions. It would be like A European soccer team playing the MLS champion to be called a world champion. The MLS team would lose by 10 goals or more. And to whoever said the World cup determines the world champion, that's stupid. The European soccer championship team would tear through Italy. Teams assembled by talent rather than nationality are far better.

But have the Boston Red Sox actually played foreign teams? I don't doubt they would win, I'm just saying that you can't actually call yourself worldchampion without having the proof for it.

Teams assembled by talent often have the problem of not being entirely composed of the best players. If Brazil or France (the old teams) played against the Champions league champion, they would probably kick their butts.

And the reason the Champions League winner isn't the World Champion. It's because it's an European championship.

In the spirit of the Red Sox, is there a baseball team anywhere that could hold a candle without needing one of these things to happen?

1) The Central American / Carribean players defecting to play against an all-American Boston team

2) An all-Japan team that would remove Matsuzaka / Okajima from their bullpen

3) A baseball that is actually an RC plane

And as for American football, well, nobody else really cares about it. And our rugby team is a hilarious failure.

Jamie wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Jamie wrote: The World Series does involve the world. Name one team in major League baseball that doesn't have players from at least five different countries.

That's the exact same thing with the teams in the Champions League. (Five different countries is actually not that much there.) But the team that wins the Champions League isn't the world champion. Because they haven't competed with all the teams from around the world.

It's pointless. No one has mentioned the most important thing I've said. If the Boston Red Sox played ANY other team outside of Major League baseball, that team would get slaughtered by at least 20 runs if not 40-50 runs. The Boston Red Sox are world champions because there isn't a team outside the majors who could defeat them even if they were to play 100 games. The Red Sox would be 100-0, having won every game by 20 runs or more. Why would they play foreign champions. It would be like A European soccer team playing the MLS champion to be called a world champion. The MLS team would lose by 10 goals or more. And to whoever said the World cup determines the world champion, that's stupid. The European soccer championship team would tear through Italy. Teams assembled by talent rather than nationality are far better.

I think your missing the point. Baseball is purely a North American sport. You should only be a world champion if the sport is a world sport (ie football, tennis, cycling, rowing etc...). Obviously the exact definition of a "world sport" is a bit flexible, but baseball is not one under any definition.

On this thread no american is saying that we are better than anyone, we do excel at a couple of sports but not alot of other countries play

also Americans arent the cocky ones notice everyone from other countries are tryin to stir up shit saying things about america. Things like we winning "The world series" it doesnt mean that we won against the world its just that our ancestors named it

I dont even know why this topic was started besides GreecePwns's hate for america

Titanic wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Jamie wrote: The World Series does involve the world. Name one team in major League baseball that doesn't have players from at least five different countries.

That's the exact same thing with the teams in the Champions League. (Five different countries is actually not that much there.) But the team that wins the Champions League isn't the world champion. Because they haven't competed with all the teams from around the world.

It's pointless. No one has mentioned the most important thing I've said. If the Boston Red Sox played ANY other team outside of Major League baseball, that team would get slaughtered by at least 20 runs if not 40-50 runs. The Boston Red Sox are world champions because there isn't a team outside the majors who could defeat them even if they were to play 100 games. The Red Sox would be 100-0, having won every game by 20 runs or more. Why would they play foreign champions. It would be like A European soccer team playing the MLS champion to be called a world champion. The MLS team would lose by 10 goals or more. And to whoever said the World cup determines the world champion, that's stupid. The European soccer championship team would tear through Italy. Teams assembled by talent rather than nationality are far better.

I think your missing the point. Baseball is purely a North American sport. You should only be a world champion if the sport is a world sport (ie football, tennis, cycling, rowing etc...). Obviously the exact definition of a "world sport" is a bit flexible, but baseball is not one under any definition.

baseball is not a world sport???? I would say it ranks second only to soccer. There is as I recall a Baseball world cup now. I believe Japan won it. It is the most popular sport overall in North America, especially in Central America. It is the #1 sport in the Caribbean besting even soccer, and is also the #1 sport in Japan. I will admit, it isn't popular on the Asian mainland, Africa, nor Europe, but it is extremely popular in all of the Americas, and surrounding Islands, as well as Japan. Before anyone tries to debate my most popular sport in North America comment, yes I konw that football is #1 in the US, and Hockey is #1 in Canada (funny that most NHL teams are in the US where people don't give a shit. Kinda of like movng Maor League baseball to Europe), and Soccer is #1 in Mexico, but North America as a whole calls baseball it's #1 sport. Baseball is almost as much a world sport as soccer. The western half of the world loves baseball, and the eastern half loves soccer. And to whoever said the old Brazil team could beat the Champions League team, that comment is so just wrong, I can't even fit it in my head. The only comment I can think to that is LOL.

a bit of topic, but if u were to name the most corrupt Olympics ( summer or winter), which one would it be?

I say Salt Lake City, and it was targeted on one group, the Russians.

-ShadySoul- wrote:a bit of topic, but if u were to name the most corrupt Olympics ( summer or winter), which one would it be?

I say Salt Lake City, and it was targeted on one group, the Russians.

I dunno if it was corrupt, but Munich '36 springs to mind because of the propaganda.

Jamie wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Jamie wrote: The World Series does involve the world. Name one team in major League baseball that doesn't have players from at least five different countries.

That's the exact same thing with the teams in the Champions League. (Five different countries is actually not that much there.) But the team that wins the Champions League isn't the world champion. Because they haven't competed with all the teams from around the world.

It's pointless. No one has mentioned the most important thing I've said. If the Boston Red Sox played ANY other team outside of Major League baseball, that team would get slaughtered by at least 20 runs if not 40-50 runs. The Boston Red Sox are world champions because there isn't a team outside the majors who could defeat them even if they were to play 100 games. The Red Sox would be 100-0, having won every game by 20 runs or more. Why would they play foreign champions. It would be like A European soccer team playing the MLS champion to be called a world champion. The MLS team would lose by 10 goals or more. And to whoever said the World cup determines the world champion, that's stupid. The European soccer championship team would tear through Italy. Teams assembled by talent rather than nationality are far better.

I think your missing the point. Baseball is purely a North American sport. You should only be a world champion if the sport is a world sport (ie football, tennis, cycling, rowing etc...). Obviously the exact definition of a "world sport" is a bit flexible, but baseball is not one under any definition.

baseball is not a world sport???? I would say it ranks second only to soccer. There is as I recall a Baseball world cup now. I believe Japan won it. It is the most popular sport overall in North America, especially in Central America. It is the #1 sport in the Caribbean besting even soccer, and is also the #1 sport in Japan. I will admit, it isn't popular on the Asian mainland, Africa, nor Europe, but it is extremely popular in all of the Americas, and surrounding Islands, as well as Japan. Before anyone tries to debate my most popular sport in North America comment, yes I konw that football is #1 in the US, and Hockey is #1 in Canada (funny that most NHL teams are in the US where people don't give a shit. Kinda of like movng Maor League baseball to Europe), and Soccer is #1 in Mexico, but North America as a whole calls baseball it's #1 sport. Baseball is almost as much a world sport as soccer. The western half of the world loves baseball, and the eastern half loves soccer. And to whoever said the old Brazil team could beat the Champions League team, that comment is so just wrong, I can't even fit it in my head. The only comment I can think to that is LOL.

Im not going to post a proper answer to this, because if you are convinced baseball is the #2 sport in the world, there is no point continuing this.

Aesop Jones wrote:In the spirit of the Red Sox, is there a baseball team anywhere that could hold a candle without needing one of these things to happen?

1) The Central American / Carribean players defecting to play against an all-American Boston team

2) An all-Japan team that would remove Matsuzaka / Okajima from their bullpen

3) A baseball that is actually an RC plane

And as for American football, well, nobody else really cares about it. And our rugby team is a hilarious failure.

I think that's kind of what they're asking for. Of course then we could combine all of our teams into one, and that would be just insane. They have a point that we haven't actually played other teams for it, but it just isn't realistic. Only a few other countries are actually interested in baseball and it would be very one-sided.

Frigidus wrote:

Aesop Jones wrote:In the spirit of the Red Sox, is there a baseball team anywhere that could hold a candle without needing one of these things to happen?

1) The Central American / Carribean players defecting to play against an all-American Boston team

2) An all-Japan team that would remove Matsuzaka / Okajima from their bullpen

3) A baseball that is actually an RC plane

And as for American football, well, nobody else really cares about it. And our rugby team is a hilarious failure.

I think that's kind of what they're asking for. Of course then we could combine all of our teams into one, and that would be just insane. They have a point that we haven't actually played other teams for it, but it just isn't realistic. Only a few other countries are actually interested in baseball and it would be very one-sided.

Indeed. Really, the USA is probably the best country out there when it comes to baseball, american football and basketball, but that's more because the rest of the world isn't really into those sports anyway.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Aesop Jones wrote:In the spirit of the Red Sox, is there a baseball team anywhere that could hold a candle without needing one of these things to happen?

1) The Central American / Carribean players defecting to play against an all-American Boston team

2) An all-Japan team that would remove Matsuzaka / Okajima from their bullpen

3) A baseball that is actually an RC plane

And as for American football, well, nobody else really cares about it. And our rugby team is a hilarious failure.

I think that's kind of what they're asking for. Of course then we could combine all of our teams into one, and that would be just insane. They have a point that we haven't actually played other teams for it, but it just isn't realistic. Only a few other countries are actually interested in baseball and it would be very one-sided.

Indeed. Really, the USA is probably the best country out there when it comes to baseball, american football and basketball, but that's more because the rest of the world isn't really into those sports anyway.

Just like soccer and the USA. I guarantee if we'd been playing soccer as long as other countries we would be at or near the top.

dcowboys055 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Aesop Jones wrote:In the spirit of the Red Sox, is there a baseball team anywhere that could hold a candle without needing one of these things to happen?

1) The Central American / Carribean players defecting to play against an all-American Boston team

2) An all-Japan team that would remove Matsuzaka / Okajima from their bullpen

3) A baseball that is actually an RC plane

And as for American football, well, nobody else really cares about it. And our rugby team is a hilarious failure.

I think that's kind of what they're asking for. Of course then we could combine all of our teams into one, and that would be just insane. They have a point that we haven't actually played other teams for it, but it just isn't realistic. Only a few other countries are actually interested in baseball and it would be very one-sided.

Indeed. Really, the USA is probably the best country out there when it comes to baseball, american football and basketball, but that's more because the rest of the world isn't really into those sports anyway.

Just like soccer and the USA. I guarantee if we'd been playing soccer as long as other countries we would be at or near the top.

I bet you would. Americans are the greatest at every sport imaginable.

Jamie wrote:Baseball is almost as much a world sport as soccer.

Where "the world" = "north america", you might be right.

dcowboys055 wrote:Just like soccer and the USA. I guarantee if we'd been playing soccer as long as other countries we would be at or near the top.

The first non-European international was between the USA and Canada in 1855. You lost.

... I read this a few years ago and don't know how true it is, but it somehow makes sense...

... Soccer, though popular among kids in the US, will never be a sport with much popularity among adults. The reason? Lack of televised games. A soccer match has what, 2 halves? No commercial breaks during those halves? ... therefore no televised games .... not profitable.

... How many car and beer commercials do you see during an NFL game?

...

Nobunaga wrote:... I read this a few years ago and don't know how true it is, but it somehow makes sense...

... Soccer, though popular among kids in the US, will never be a sport with much popularity among adults. The reason? Lack of televised games. A soccer match has what, 2 halves? No commercial breaks during those halves? ... therefore no televised games .... not profitable.

... How many car and beer commercials do you see during an NFL game?

...

That really is sad... In Britain we have adverts AT MOST every quarter hour. Sports matches with adverts every 45 mins isn't really too much of a stretch.

You guys really need the BBC, though...

Nobunaga wrote:... I read this a few years ago and don't know how true it is, but it somehow makes sense...

... Soccer, though popular among kids in the US, will never be a sport with much popularity among adults. The reason? Lack of televised games. A soccer match has what, 2 halves? No commercial breaks during those halves? ... therefore no televised games .... not profitable.

... How many car and beer commercials do you see during an NFL game?

...

Never thought of it that way. Yah, honestly everything we do is dictated by money. Greed is a driving factor in our culture.

.... Football, right (US football).... end of 1st quarter you get a block of about 5 commercials. Twice that at half-time (if broken up a bit). Then again at the end of the 3rd.

... Time outs... on-field injuries... Call Challenges... "And we'll be right back after this word from Budweiser - the King of Beers!"

... The game has evolved to become a perfect avenue for big advertising to a huge audience (especially Monday nights).

.... And the stadiums... Now it's Safeco Field, and Bill's Anal Cream Stadium, etc... That's the whole stadium... the entrances to the stadiums have separate sponsors - The Kroger Gate, etc...

... Guess it's the American way. ....?

...

Snorri1234 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Aesop Jones wrote:In the spirit of the Red Sox, is there a baseball team anywhere that could hold a candle without needing one of these things to happen?

1) The Central American / Carribean players defecting to play against an all-American Boston team

2) An all-Japan team that would remove Matsuzaka / Okajima from their bullpen

3) A baseball that is actually an RC plane

And as for American football, well, nobody else really cares about it. And our rugby team is a hilarious failure.

I think that's kind of what they're asking for. Of course then we could combine all of our teams into one, and that would be just insane. They have a point that we haven't actually played other teams for it, but it just isn't realistic. Only a few other countries are actually interested in baseball and it would be very one-sided.

Indeed. Really, the USA is probably the best country out there when it comes to baseball, american football and basketball, but that's more because the rest of the world isn't really into those sports anyway.

I am not really a supporter of america, but basketball is a well known sport, so if americans are that good, great for them.

Guiscard wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... I read this a few years ago and don't know how true it is, but it somehow makes sense...

... Soccer, though popular among kids in the US, will never be a sport with much popularity among adults. The reason? Lack of televised games. A soccer match has what, 2 halves? No commercial breaks during those halves? ... therefore no televised games .... not profitable.

... How many car and beer commercials do you see during an NFL game?

...

That really is sad... In Britain we have adverts AT MOST every quarter hour. Sports matches with adverts every 45 mins isn't really too much of a stretch.

You guys really need the BBC, though...

we would just make times for commercials

the whole game might be 2 hours long but we would make it 2:30 minutes long or even 3 hours