Do US sports encourage lack of Endurance?

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by gennithmedic, Feb 22, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Having watched the Superbowl, at least until Prince, baseball and basketball, I noticed that US sports seem to rotate the players on and off the pitch a lot. There seem to be a lot of Time Outs, and the coach does much of the thinking for his players. UK sports place an emphasis on the player "sticking it out", especially cricket. Individual decision making and endurance.
    If you agree that sports are a preparation for War, would it be correct to say that US children are not prepared for a long war?

    What would Kipling say? (The poet not the piemaker)
     
  2. In American Footbal, the switching of players has nothing to do with endurance. When one side gets the ball, that team brings out its offenseive line. The opposing team then brings out its defensive line. The switch rotates depending on who has the ball.
     
  3. since when has cricket been an endurance sport? loafing about in flannels wondering where the next beer's coming from.

    rugby, rowing, football are properly knackering sports - but cricket??!!
     
  4. ah, you mean lack of attention span

    sorry, wasn't concentrating
     
  5. oh no I've just been ambushed .. again
     
  6. American football is a bit.... wimpish.

    Wear 6 tons of armour, and specialise in offense or defense.

    Hmmm.

    Rugby on the other hand.... Sport of kings.

    No special Defence or Offence players, just those that can run fast and break the line (cavalry) and those that get smashed up in rucks, mauls and scrums (Infantry).
     
  7. It is a question of tatse. If you like Rugby that's good on you but other folks like American football so i don't think it's right to slag them off. America is such a large place with a diversity to rival anywhere on earth and as such taste differ. There are folks in the States who play Rugby, Cricket, proper football, and other stuff. Different strokes for different folks.
     
  8. Each unit substitutes player in between plays also.

    It just requires a different kind of athelicism, one that requires short bursts of energy rather than endurance. And it's definitely not a game for wimps. If anyone thinks that, I can introduce you to a couple of 20yr old 6'5, 330lb+ (23 Stone) offensive linemen whose job it is to have 260lb guys charge into them at full-pelt and not only stay standing, but to block them and shove them out of the way. Trust me, when they walk up to you, it's like an eclipse.

    The real beauty of American football is in the teamwork, coordination and, for want of a better word, generalship. All 11 players have to be doing exactly the right thing at exactly the right time for a play to work and the level of control the coaches have over play calling leads me to compare it to a high impact game of chess.

    IMHO, rugby snobs (and I'm a big rugby fan too) should sit down and watch a few games of American Football with someone who knows the game, and have some finer points of the game shown to them, before casting aspertions because they're two completely different sports
     
  9. Agreed. Prior to moving to the US, I had a very much 'Del Trotter' view of American sports (Baseball = silly boys rounders). I occasionally watch American football if it's a big game, but am still not much of a fan, as I prefer ice hockey.

    You only need to go to a high school game (often televised locally!) to see that American football is definitely not a game for wimps, and some of these lads are 13!
     
  10. Of course the strange thing about Baseball is that it actually predates rounders and was invented by Brits.
     
  11. Lets face it, we all know why the american sports were invented:

    So that they could be the best in the world at a sport. The sports they play are not world sports (The World Series - who you trying to kid), with the exception of basketball, which they did'nt invent anyway.

    Sports not really a preperation for war, i mean OJ Simpson might be good for a killing or two, but then you would find him deserting the boys and legging it down the MSR.

    Some sports do require constant changing though because it would just grind to a halt and be pointless. Ice Hockey falls into this category, the players swap over frequently, but this does not detract from the game.
     
  12. It also appeals to another US hobbyhorse, namely statistics. Games with short bursts of activity can be measured.

    (The fact that sports with long periods of endurance don't lend themselves to advertising breaks on TV, i.e. where the money comes from, is also significant).

    A lot of things in the US circulate about "measurability" - what is the total yardage gained by quarterback X in a season, what is the batting average of baseball player Y.

    It extends beyond sport - at school it's about what score did someone get on their SAT, or what is someone's grade-point average (GPA).

    Even in business - with a US firm, you stand or fall by the quarterly results, not the annual ones.

    It even gets into their military - evaluation reports get grades, top grades get promotions, bottom grades get fired. There was an interesting article somewhere on the web about how such a system was screwing up the US Army by actively encouraging micromanagement and risk aversion (a US armour type called Vandergriff)
     
  13. That particular one is actually a bad example - it was originally sponsored by a newspaper called the "Daily World", hence "World series"...
     
  14. I'd rather lick my own arrsehole than watch test cricket. My god, it is incredibly boring.

    American Football came about as a result of fecking loads of people getting killed playing rugby in the US. I think in 1905 alone, over 18 people were killed in American uni's due to playing rugby...
     
  15. I was told about a type of American football called, "Ironman". The players stay on the pitch when the ball is lost and swap roles. Rather like rugby league without micro shorts.
    This style is regarded as completely mad.
    Not too sure that "amoured chess" is a good thing. With a coach and quarterback to do the thinking then the majority of player's brains are of as much use as Anne Frank's drumkit.
    Does the "instant fix" culture make long wars unwinnable for the US?