work and play?

[Walker]

Why do you think the two most popular U.S. sports are played mostly by huge people?

Obviously, because of the demands of the sport.

Royce Gracie upset the paradigm for combat sport.

[LuckyR]

Hhmmm... in your first paragraph you imply that NBA stars aren't great athletes but merely tall yet in your second you state that merely being tall won't be enough to be in the NBA (correctly).

In my experience the (ego salvaging) "excuses" you reference are not limited to particular countries or cultures, that is they seem universal in humans.

Obviously, NBA players are good athletes, although one probably need be only in the top 10% of athletic ability to have a chance at the NBA if one is 7 feet tall (as opposed to the top .001% if one is 6 feet tall). I'm just guessing about the excuses, but there must be some reason we admire sports in which gigantic size is a huge advantage. I suppose the Japanese like Sumo wrestling -- but soccer, the most popular sport in the world, is played by normal sized people. Why do you think the two most popular U.S. sports are played mostly by huge people?

Tradition, which started back when both pro football and basketball players were of average stature. That is, the shift to supersized individuals is relatively recent.

Oh and BTW, baseball (consisting of average sized players) has higher attendance than basketball.

[Alexiev]

Why do you think the two most popular U.S. sports are played mostly by huge people?

Obviously, because of the demands of the sport.

Royce Gracie upset the paradigm for combat sport.

Yes -- but why are these particular sports so popular in the U.S? In other countries, soccer (also known as football) is the most popular. Baseball has more games and bigger stadiums, hence bigger crowds. IN my youth it was the most popular sport. It still may be more popular than hoop -- although the sports talk shows ignore it. Also, have you seen the size of modern pitchers? Nary a one is under 6'3". I guess people are getting bigger.

[Alexiev]

Another possibility is that Americans like team sports that are individualistic. Baseball, for example, is a team sport with little actual teamwork. The batter faces the pitcher. True: the fielders have to work together, but it's more individualistic than most team sports.

I'd suggest that basketball is more individualistic than most of the other goal sports (like hockey or soccer). That's because control of the ball is more secure in basketball, and one on one play more effective.

Football is team oriented, but the coach decides on the plays. The players just perform their roles. IN my opinion, if grid iron football is to be played in schools, coaches should never call the plays. If sport has educational value, letting the quarterback (or some other player) call the plays would enhance that value.

Taylor Swift rules (even though I don't much like her music).

[Walker]

Football is team oriented, but the coach decides on the plays. The players just perform their roles. IN my opinion, if grid iron football is to be played in schools, coaches should never call the plays. If sport has educational value, letting the quarterback (or some other player) call the plays would enhance that value.

Taylor Swift rules (even though I don't much like her music).

Swift is quite the business woman. I have yet to hear one of her songs. For some reason, I'm incurious about the phenomenon. Everything she touches turns to gold, and she has touched The Chiefs.

*

This short article focuses on the coaching.

Old-Style Football With A Modern Face
https://www.city-journal.org/article/ol ... odern-face

Summary:
- 49er’s offense uses unexpected offensive formations to cloak their intent of pass or run, and where it will happen.
- Chiefs offense cloaks their intent with occasional no-huddle plays and quick snaps to disorient the defense.

Not mentioned, but significant:
- The Chiefs have a seasoned, star quarterback on a path to eclipse Tom Brady as the GOAT.
- The 49ers quarterback is new and pretty good.

Philosophy of Play
Tactic:
- Instilling ignorance and untruths into the opponent,
- in order to deceive the opponent,
- in order to win.
- (the correlations to politics are enticing, but Kropotkin has forbidden it)

[Walker]

Tradition, which started back when both pro football and basketball players were of average stature. That is, the shift to supersized individuals is relatively recent.

Oh and BTW, baseball (consisting of average sized players) has higher attendance than basketball.

Everyone's bigger now, but for non-pros all that size slows down soccer.

- A long time ago, must be decades now, a TV show set up athletic tests pitting a pro football team’s players against a pro baseball team’s players. I think there were some team events, it did end with a team tug of war. I forget the details except for two things.
- The football team was favoured, size and strength.
- The baseball team was the overall winner, including the tug of war.

- Baseball and basketball … cheap sports for kids who develop the skills early. Basketball is almost as cheap as soccer. However, these days coached baseball has replaced uncoached, sand-lot baseball that never had enough kids for two teams when I was a playing every evening with the other kids in the neighborhood, so batting rules were improvised and the leaders naturally emerged by skill. These days a lot of community baseball fields are used by just uniformed players and the coaches determine what's what. "Sit here, stand there, go there now and hurry up." The game probably plays better in such a tight FSK, but cooperation amongst the players doesn't evolve as organically as in sand lot.

- Of course, we played sand-lot football, too, full tackle and no pads. Grade school stuff, but there were some broken arms.

- Hmmm. Unmoderated forum. Unmoderated (uncoached) baseball. Organic cooperation, or take the ball and go home so no one plays.

[Walker]

(Royce Gracie continued)

- Gracie was about 170 lbs. when he fought a retired summo champion who was about 500 lbs.
- The fight consisted of the summo just falling on Gracie and catching his breath, then Gracie wiggling out from under the tonnage. Eventually, Gracie got a lock on the leg-sized summo arm and fatty tapped out.

- To be fair, he wasn’t just resting. Gracie had his head and one arm tied up with fancy judo holds, things which the big guy obviously needed.

- MMA is a big-time sport now, very popular, a league of its own … and a bit outside the status quo, establishment sports.

- That’s because it’s purely spectator, unless you’re a pro, and does any amateur (play) or pro (work) who chooses that pastime, or doesn’t choose it, really have a choice? It's also quite savage in competition, and requires more fitness than most need.

[LuckyR]

Why do you think the two most popular U.S. sports are played mostly by huge people?

Obviously, because of the demands of the sport.

Royce Gracie upset the paradigm for combat sport.

Yes -- but why are these particular sports so popular in the U.S? In other countries, soccer (also known as football) is the most popular. Baseball has more games and bigger stadiums, hence bigger crowds. IN my youth it was the most popular sport. It still may be more popular than hoop -- although the sports talk shows ignore it. Also, have you seen the size of modern pitchers? Nary a one is under 6'3". I guess people are getting bigger.

Lot's of things.

First of all, soccer is extremely popular in the US. But as a participation (not spectator) sport for girls (and very young boys, say before 4th grade).

The reason soccer is not a popular spectator sport in the US is the same as why pro tennis is also not popular, because US pro men suck at it.

However both soccer and tennis are extremely popular participation sports in the US, soccer for girls and tennis for adults (running, hiking, riding bikes, going to the gym and swimming aren't sports) third to golf and basketball.

[Alexiev]

Obviously, because of the demands of the sport.

Royce Gracie upset the paradigm for combat sport.

Yes -- but why are these particular sports so popular in the U.S? In other countries, soccer (also known as football) is the most popular. Baseball has more games and bigger stadiums, hence bigger crowds. IN my youth it was the most popular sport. It still may be more popular than hoop -- although the sports talk shows ignore it. Also, have you seen the size of modern pitchers? Nary a one is under 6'3". I guess people are getting bigger.

Lot's of things.

First of all, soccer is extremely popular in the US. But as a participation (not spectator) sport for girls (and very young boys, say before 4th grade).

The reason soccer is not a popular spectator sport in the US is the same as why pro tennis is also not popular, because US pro men suck at it.

However both soccer and tennis are extremely popular participation sports in the US, soccer for girls and tennis for adults (running, hiking, riding bikes, going to the gym and swimming aren't sports) third to golf and basketball.

The U.S. men aren't all that bad in soccer. The men's national team is ranked 11th in the world, and #1 in Concacaf. These days, the five best basketball players in the world are all non-Americans (Embiid, Jokic, Antentekoumpo, Doncic and Gileous-Alexander). We don't win the World Baseball classic often either (Japan has won 3 times; U.S. and Dominican Republic once each). Pulisic is having a very good year for AC Milan, and other American men are starring for top European clubs.

Also, the greatest soccer player of all time now plies his trade in Miami (I admit he isn't the greatest right now). Bike racing is certainly a sport (although tarnished in America by Lance Armstrong). Sepp Kuss (The Durango Kid) is the reigning Vuelta de Espana champion.

MLS doesn't create much interest, but many Americans now follow European pro leagues. Soccer is a very good TV sport, since each 45 minute half is commercial-free.

[LuckyR]

Yes -- but why are these particular sports so popular in the U.S? In other countries, soccer (also known as football) is the most popular. Baseball has more games and bigger stadiums, hence bigger crowds. IN my youth it was the most popular sport. It still may be more popular than hoop -- although the sports talk shows ignore it. Also, have you seen the size of modern pitchers? Nary a one is under 6'3". I guess people are getting bigger.

Lot's of things.

First of all, soccer is extremely popular in the US. But as a participation (not spectator) sport for girls (and very young boys, say before 4th grade).

The reason soccer is not a popular spectator sport in the US is the same as why pro tennis is also not popular, because US pro men suck at it.

However both soccer and tennis are extremely popular participation sports in the US, soccer for girls and tennis for adults (running, hiking, riding bikes, going to the gym and swimming aren't sports) third to golf and basketball.

The U.S. men aren't all that bad in soccer. The men's national team is ranked 11th in the world, and #1 in Concacaf. These days, the five best basketball players in the world are all non-Americans (Embiid, Jokic, Antentekoumpo, Doncic and Gileous-Alexander). We don't win the World Baseball classic often either (Japan has won 3 times; U.S. and Dominican Republic once each). Pulisic is having a very good year for AC Milan, and other American men are starring for top European clubs.

Also, the greatest soccer player of all time now plies his trade in Miami (I admit he isn't the greatest right now). Bike racing is certainly a sport (although tarnished in America by Lance Armstrong). Sepp Kuss (The Durango Kid) is the reigning Vuelta de Espana champion.

MLS doesn't create much interest, but many Americans now follow European pro leagues. Soccer is a very good TV sport, since each 45 minute half is commercial-free.

I get what you're trying to say, but let's face it in the US (and perhaps elsewhere) soccer=the World Cup. And in the WC the US women dominate and the men (as stated)... suck. Are individual US men not sucking? Perhaps.

The original comment was why football and basketball are so popular in the US. I pointed out baseball has higher attendance than basketball. Does anyone count the World Baseball classic as a thing? Personally I'd never heard of it. I'm not a rabid baseball fan now, but was as a youth. But the answer to baseball's popularity in the US is tradition. The US could lose every single international competition and be populated by foreign born players, but the Los Angeles Dodgers will forever be a Southern California team.

[Alexiev]

I get what you're trying to say, but let's face it in the US (and perhaps elsewhere) soccer=the World Cup. And in the WC the US women dominate and the men (as stated)... suck. Are individual US men not sucking? Perhaps.

The original comment was why football and basketball are so popular in the US. I pointed out baseball has higher attendance than basketball. Does anyone count the World Baseball classic as a thing? Personally I'd never heard of it. I'm not a rabid baseball fan now, but was as a youth. But the answer to baseball's popularity in the US is tradition. The US could lose every single international competition and be populated by foreign born players, but the Los Angeles Dodgers will forever be a Southern California team.

The World Cup is no longer the premier soccer competition. The Champions League now has better teams and better players. When Spain won a World Cup and 2 European Championships, they fielded 8 Barcelona starters -- and Barcelona also had Leo Messi (the goat) and three or four other world superstars.

Prior to the Bozman ruling (in the 1990s), Club teams could play only 3 foreign players in any given game. This was declared illegal because of freedom of work movement for E.U. citizens. Since then, the top club teams field at least as much talent as the top national teams, as well as playing and training together far more regularly.

The U.S. men don't suck. As I said, they're ranked #11 in the world. They failed to qualify for the WC only once in the last 35 years (Italy failed to qualify last WC, and nobody says they suck). Only Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, France, and England have won WCs post WW2. Does every other nation "suck"?

I'll grant that the very best American athletes play football, basketball and baseball. If Leo Messi were an American, he probably would have been a superstar point guard, quarterback, or center fielder in high school -- but he might not have made the big time in football or basketball. High school kids care about the glory and the fun -- not the future.

[LuckyR]

The U.S. men don't suck. As I said, they're ranked #11 in the world. They failed to qualify for the WC only once in the last 35 years (Italy failed to qualify last WC, and nobody says they suck). Only Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, France, and England have won WCs post WW2. Does every other nation "suck"?

My guess is what you're claiming is mostly accurate. However, in the US the perception (I'm not claiming it's the reality) is, if you're not a champion you're not great and if you've never been to the semifinals (in the last 90 years), you suck. Like I said, perhaps not accurate, but that's the perception. Perception drives popularity.

Same thing in US men's pro tennis. Sure, Fritz and Isner won a Masters and Paul, Tiafoe, Isner and Querry have made it to the semis of a Grand Slam, so in reality they're pretty good (and getting better), but among the US public at large the understanding is, if your countrymen aren't winning Slams, they suck.

[Alexiev]

The U.S. men don't suck. As I said, they're ranked #11 in the world. They failed to qualify for the WC only once in the last 35 years (Italy failed to qualify last WC, and nobody says they suck). Only Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, France, and England have won WCs post WW2. Does every other nation "suck"?

My guess is what you're claiming is mostly accurate. However, in the US the perception (I'm not claiming it's the reality) is, if you're not a champion you're not great and if you've never been to the semifinals (in the last 90 years), you suck. Like I said, perhaps not accurate, but that's the perception. Perception drives popularity.

Same thing in US men's pro tennis. Sure, Fritz and Isner won a Masters and Paul, Tiafoe, Isner and Querry have made it to the semis of a Grand Slam, so in reality they're pretty good (and getting better), but among the US public at large the understanding is, if your countrymen aren't winning Slams, they suck.

I get it. American Men's tennis has not been great in the last 20 years. But neither has any country's -- except Switzerland, Spain and Serbia. Now that the big 3 are aging out, maybe some new blood will come up (although not much of it appears to be American).

For non-soccer fans, the World Cup is like the Olympics. Most of us don't watch skiing, or swimming or figure skating except during the Olympics. But the participants and fans of the sport know that a year long world cup victory (in skiing) is a far better claim to excellence than an Olympic Gold Medal.

[LuckyR]

The U.S. men don't suck. As I said, they're ranked #11 in the world. They failed to qualify for the WC only once in the last 35 years (Italy failed to qualify last WC, and nobody says they suck). Only Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, France, and England have won WCs post WW2. Does every other nation "suck"?

My guess is what you're claiming is mostly accurate. However, in the US the perception (I'm not claiming it's the reality) is, if you're not a champion you're not great and if you've never been to the semifinals (in the last 90 years), you suck. Like I said, perhaps not accurate, but that's the perception. Perception drives popularity.

Same thing in US men's pro tennis. Sure, Fritz and Isner won a Masters and Paul, Tiafoe, Isner and Querry have made it to the semis of a Grand Slam, so in reality they're pretty good (and getting better), but among the US public at large the understanding is, if your countrymen aren't winning Slams, they suck.

I get it. American Men's tennis has not been great in the last 20 years. But neither has any country's -- except Switzerland, Spain and Serbia. Now that the big 3 are aging out, maybe some new blood will come up (although not much of it appears to be American).

For non-soccer fans, the World Cup is like the Olympics. Most of us don't watch skiing, or swimming or figure skating except during the Olympics. But the participants and fans of the sport know that a year long world cup victory (in skiing) is a far better claim to excellence than an Olympic Gold Medal.

Well a little bit of quibbling, but Murray (UK), Medvedev (Russia) and Alcaraz (Spain again) can claim greatness having reached #1 ranking. Wawrenka, Theim, del Porto and Cilic won Slams, Wawrenka multiple times.

Question though, I assume if you live in Barcelona, you feel closer to Barca in the Champions league than Spain in the World Cup. What if you live in rural Spain? Do you feel more allegiance to a club team that's not your city or your country?

[Alexiev]

I looked it up. The big 3 won 82% of the tennis slams from 2004 -2023. That's 66 of 80. Wawrinka and Alcaraz contributed 5 (Spain, Switzerand) The other nationslities: UK. 3 (Murray), Argentina 2, Russia 2, Croatia 1, Austria 1,

So it's not just Americans. Lots of nations have been shut out of the slams for 20 years. The American system of school sports is not as good as the European club system at developing talent (I'm guessing). Wembayama had a triple double with ten blocks yesterday.