buenosdiaz Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 It's simple really. All our best athletes grew up playing basketball and football. Soccer is the easiest example. Imagine for a second if we were like England, Germany or France, and all our best athletes grew up playing soccer. Lebron, Kobe, Randy Moss...every single "freak" athlete grew up wanting to play soccer for the US team, instead of wanting to make it to the NFL or NBA. We would be amazing at soccer, and frequently competitive at the World Cup, no doubt about it. yay i missed this argument lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 It's simple really. All our best athletes grew up playing basketball and football. Soccer is the easiest example. Imagine for a second if we were like England, Germany or France, and all our best athletes grew up playing soccer. Lebron, Kobe, Randy Moss...every single "freak" athlete grew up wanting to play soccer for the US team, instead of wanting to make it to the NFL or NBA. We would be amazing at soccer, and frequently competitive at the World Cup, no doubt about it. Can you imagine what kind of a striker Lebron could have been? :boggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Can you imagine what kind of a striker Lebron could have been? :boggle: better midfielder IMO do you see his court vision imagine that on the soccer field! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 better midfielder IMOdo you see his court vision imagine that on the soccer field! lol But his height and agility in the box? How would you ever stop him on a corner kick? For midfield, how about Barry Sanders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 lol i cant tell if youre being serious or not i am making a mockery of the argument that i think is nonsense but yeah imagine michael vicks speed as a wing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 lol i cant tell if youre being serious or noti am making a mockery of the argument that i think is nonsense but yeah imagine michael vicks speed as a wing! Which is nonsense? My original suggestion that our best athletes don't grow up playing soccer and if they did we would be competitive at it, or arguing the position Lebron could have played? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 What's wrong with the title? lol... "Things Does"...I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. But im just messing with you, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Access to capital and ability to open a business. We are by far the most creative country, as well as the most tolerant worldwide. A dirty little secret of international travel that you discover rather quickly is how xenophobic/racist most other nations are. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 It's simple really. All our best athletes grew up playing basketball and football. Soccer is the easiest example. Imagine for a second if we were like England, Germany or France, and all our best athletes grew up playing soccer. Lebron, Kobe, Randy Moss...every single "freak" athlete grew up wanting to play soccer for the US team, instead of wanting to make it to the NFL or NBA. We would be amazing at soccer, and frequently competitive at the World Cup, no doubt about it. You make a good point. What sports do our "best" athletes play though? Maybe its because we have more than one sport unlike England, Italy, Brazil, where people grow up dreaming to play soccer. Here people want to play in the NBA, MLB, NFL. Does the US truly have a sport like those countries that everyone dreams to play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 "Things Does"...I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. But im just messing with you, man. Take out the word "things" and the sentence is "What does the united states do better than any other country?"...it would be bad grammar if it were "What do the united states do better than any other country"? lol :yes:...That, plus I checked the grammar in Word first lol ..."Do" came up as bad grammar, and it suggested "does" as a replacement. I'm guessing it's because the word "things" doesn't dictate which word you use after it, but "The United States" dictates what word you use before it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Which is nonsense? My original suggestion that our best athletes don't grow up playing soccer and if they did we would be competitive at it, or arguing the position Lebron could have played? both id say every other country puts most of their sports resources to soccer, just because it is the most valued doesnt mean that we will excel at it. And to think that americans would because we are american seems to be going out on a limb. hell even within the united states having fully funded programs, etc doesnt mean that a group of kids will excel. Programs in the suburbs, coaching, etc are probably all better in more affluent neighborhoods. But you still see college basketball programs finding raw talent in urban areas that arent receiving the same level of funding, coaching, etc. I feel soccer is the same way and given that model the absense of the other major sports would not exactly mean that the US would be on par with the brazils, argentinas, englands, germanys, etc of the world. Given that I don't think soccers best players are being taken away from the sport to pursue other more "popular" sports so i find that argument irrelevent just based on that. And i'm sure a lot of you disagree with that. Altidore didnt leave soccer behind and i hate that so many people think soccer is some kind of castoff sport for players that coulnt make it in other sports. Soccer is VERY competitive when you begin to try out for olympic development programs and even at a collegiate level. With regard to the imagine player x on a soccer field scenario, I think it shows how little people know about a particular sport. If that same argument were used for other sports people would call you in idiot, but I guess soccer is just that easy and purely physical that people use that argument. Manut Bol SHOULD have been a monster on the basketball court given his height. Lineman would be a dime a dozen and anthony mix would be a td machine. Soccer is no different and it takes a very graceful player that understands the game to excel in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Other countries aren't better at soccer simply because that's what their "best athletes" play. They're better because they dedicate more money and resources and have a much better knowledge of the game. Also, you can make the argument that the US would be better at soccer if only our best athletes grew up playing it, but what's to say that those other countries wouldn't dominate in football, basketball, or baseball if that's what THEIR best athletes were raised to play? edit: haha nevermind just read bd's argument bc it's better than mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Take out the word "things" and the sentence is "What does the united states do better than any other country?"...it would be bad grammar if it were "What do the united states do better than any other country"? lol :yes:...That, plus I checked the grammar in Word first lol ..."Do" came up as bad grammar, and it suggested "does" as a replacement. I'm guessing it's because the word "things" doesn't dictate which word you use after it, but "The United States" dictates what word you use before it. Ok, I don't pretend to be an English major or anything, but im pretty certain it shouldn't be "What things does..." It just doesn't sound right. But I could be wrong. At any rate, enough of the hijacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanleys Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Take out the word "things" and the sentence is "What does the united states do better than any other country?"...it would be bad grammar if it were "What do the united states do better than any other country"? lol :yes:...That, plus I checked the grammar in Word first lol ..."Do" came up as bad grammar, and it suggested "does" as a replacement. I'm guessing it's because the word "things" doesn't dictate which word you use after it, but "The United States" dictates what word you use before it. At one point in our history, before the explosion of the federal governments power, our country was referred to as a plural as in the United States of America are.... rather than the United States of America is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhouse Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 It's simple really. All our best athletes grew up playing basketball and football.Soccer is the easiest example. Imagine for a second if we were like England, Germany or France, and all our best athletes grew up playing soccer. Lebron, Kobe, Randy Moss...every single "freak" athlete grew up wanting to play soccer for the US team, instead of wanting to make it to the NFL or NBA. We would be amazing at soccer, and frequently competitive at the World Cup, no doubt about it. Would randy moss be a goal keeper? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 Ok, I don't pretend to be an English major or anything, but im pretty certain it shouldn't be "What things does..." It just doesn't sound right. But I could be wrong. At any rate, enough of the hijacking. I don't know all the grammatical terms or anything lol...but it ends up being whether the thing after "does/do" is singular or plural that dictates it :yes:... Think of it as "What are the things the United States does better than any other country?"... And that concludes today's english lesson :cool: (felt the thread deserved a treat for putting up with my anal-retentive posts lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 ^^^ i would sooo does her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 At one point in our history, before the explosion of the federal governments power, our country was referred to as a plural as in the United States of America are.... rather than the United States of America is. I think it depends on if you're referring to "states" and "america" as two different entities (like "the states within America are"...), or if you're referring to the country as a whole ("U.S.A."). I doubt anyone would have been saying "The U.S.A. are..." lol ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 ^^^i would sooo does her Extra credit lol :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 bothid say every other country puts most of their sports resources to soccer, just because it is the most valued doesnt mean that we will excel at it. And to think that americans would because we are american seems to be going out on a limb. No less of a limb than saying we suck at soccer because we're americans, and we would suck even if it was our most popular and beloved sport. Given that I don't think soccers best players are being taken away from the sport to pursue other more "popular" sports so i find that argument irrelevent just based on that. And i'm sure a lot of you disagree with that. Altidore didnt leave soccer behind and i hate that so many people think soccer is some kind of castoff sport for players that coulnt make it in other sports. Soccer is VERY competitive when you begin to try out for olympic development programs and even at a collegiate level. With regard to the imagine player x on a soccer field scenario, I think it shows how little people know about a particular sport. If that same argument were used for other sports people would call you in idiot, but I guess soccer is just that easy and purely physical that people use that argument. Manut Bol SHOULD have been a monster on the basketball court given his height. Lineman would be a dime a dozen and anthony mix would be a td machine. Soccer is no different and it takes a very graceful player that understands the game to excel in it. I don't mean to say soccer is a castoff sport for people not good enough to play basketball or football. More that many American kids don't play soccer at all. In other words, soccer's best players aren't being taken away from the sport to pursue other things, many of the best potential players were pursuing other things from the get go and never got much of an introduction to soccer in the first place. Imagine player X on a soccer field is just a way to illustrate. I'm not saying our world cup team would be a who's who of football and basketball all-stars. But a superior athlete, a guy who stands out among professional athletes, there's every reason to believe that if he was on a soccer field all day as a kid instead of on the basketball court, he could have been a damn good player. Basketball seems like it would translate well - with the emphasis on quickness, agility, gracefulness, and the ability to move in tight spaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 No less of a limb than saying we suck at soccer because we're americans, and we would suck even if it was our most popular and beloved sport.I don't mean to say soccer is a castoff sport for people not good enough to play basketball or football. More that many American kids don't play soccer at all. In other words, soccer's best players aren't being taken away from the sport to pursue other things, many of the best potential players were pursuing other things from the get go and never got much of an introduction to soccer in the first place. Imagine player X on a soccer field is just a way to illustrate. I'm not saying our world cup team would be a who's who of football and basketball all-stars. But a superior athlete, a guy who stands out among professional athletes, there's every reason to believe that if he was on a soccer field all day as a kid instead of on the basketball court, he could have been a damn good player. Basketball seems like it would translate well - with the emphasis on quickness, agility, gracefulness, and the ability to move in tight spaces. I think it comes down to soccer isn't where the money is in the US. Why wouldn't you want to try and play football, baseball, or basketball when the majority of those players are getting paid millions do to that. I would think the average MLS player makes significantly less money than the average football, baseball, or basketball player. Plus look at what's on TV all the time. Its the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NCAA football and basketball. The MLS season is going on now, how often do you see highlights of those games on ESPN? Hardly ever, so people want to play a sport that gets all the attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buenosdiaz Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 No less of a limb than saying we suck at soccer because we're americans, and we would suck even if it was our most popular and beloved sport. well just to clear things up i dont think thats what i said...we're actually pretty good at soccer. I dont know I just think soccer is a pretty tough sport to make assumptions about. If you saw a lot of the best soccer players on the street you would take them for a joke. I think what currently seperates the US from the rest of the world in soccer is creativity. And I think on that point we can agree that if soccer were the #1 sport and you saw pickup games of soccer and not basketball/football/etc american soccer would be much more creative. However, I dont know that theyd be winning the world cup every four years because of just that. I mean surely wed be just as competitive. Most of the better countries in soccer are pretty developed and invest a lot of $ into soccer. Raw talent cant win it all, thats why you hear every 4 years about a dangerous african team that could make some noise in the world cup. So yeah the US would likely be a competitor but to say they would dominant the world...well...i doubt it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness... I'll never be completely happy until I can take a legal bong hit without having to go to Amsterdam. American are excellent at supporting communism & stabbing their fellow Americans in the back by constantly buying "Made in China" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 What Things Does The United States Do Better Than Any Other Country? Excess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 well just to clear things up i dont think thats what i said...we're actually pretty good at soccer. I dont know I just think soccer is a pretty tough sport to make assumptions about. If you saw a lot of the best soccer players on the street you would take them for a joke. I think what currently seperates the US from the rest of the world in soccer is creativity. And I think on that point we can agree that if soccer were the #1 sport and you saw pickup games of soccer and not basketball/football/etc american soccer would be much more creative. However, I dont know that theyd be winning the world cup every four years because of just that. I mean surely wed be just as competitive. Most of the better countries in soccer are pretty developed and invest a lot of $ into soccer. Raw talent cant win it all, thats why you hear every 4 years about a dangerous african team that could make some noise in the world cup. So yeah the US would likely be a competitor but to say they would dominant the world...well...i doubt it Perhaps. But 300 million people (in a rich country) often produce more great players than 50 million people (in a rich country). That would be our ace in the hole over France, Italy, England, Spain, Germany - even Brazil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.