DaBronxPats14
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 4,738
- Reaction score
- 2,951
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I try not to watch MLB anymore but I grew up and live a short distance from Fenway. My dad, brother and I were season ticket holders when a box seat in line with 2nd and 1st cost $12.
They actually have had a world championship recently in baseball, and I think the Korean and Japanese teams won the last two.
As for Flutie, an argument could be made that he didn't get a real chance in the NFL. If he did he might have had a decent NFL career and maybe surpassed Warren Moon like he did in Canada.
Even if a sport is played in other parts of the world, which football is not btw, the American champion is still only playing against other teams from America. That makes the World Champion claim a pretentious one.
FWIW, I think it's embarrassing to Americans that your nation refers to domestic league champions as world champions. Sure, you may possess four of the best leagues in the world but that doesn't make it a world championship. It makes your team a national champion and nothing more. Either way, the more winning from Boston teams the better.Why is it labelled "world champion" if this game is only played in America? London doesn't count.
The NFL entertains me like no other. It's still not a world championship.Field a football team and then make the argument. I think a CFL fan or an Aussie rules football team could perhaps make an argument that, well, we just never standardized the rules, and our teams would win on a level playing field. A delusional argument, but an argument none the less. Let's see the challenge. Heck I even suggested a CFL/NFL* exhibition game to address this very issue. Use NFL* rules and it would be a walk. The CFL has acted on multiple occasions for a dumping ground of NFL* washouts, or a stepping stone to an NFL* career.
Are Canadians better or worse at football? I would say the latter - and that nation has embraced the version of the game closest to real football. What does that say of the purported capabilities of the countries that are not even interested?
Of course, it gives you CTE, so I'm sure fans of multi-day cricket matches or endurance tests like soccer will be happy to keep yelling "Howzat!" and giving oscar-winning fake-injury performances, respectively, in those contests of tedious endurance instead.
On the other hand... ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
The NFL entertains me like no other. It's still not a world championship.
Outside the NFL, who do you think could reasonably contest the Patriots for that title?The NFL entertains me like no other. It's still not a world championship.
Believe me, some Aussies aren't aware there's a world outside our borders.that depends on your definition of "world." for us american, USA = world.
Nobody (much the same as the AFL here). We've got a bastardised game of Gaelic Football and Australian Rules Football with the Irish which is as close as it comes for both our codes. It's horrible to watch and pointless.Outside the NFL, who do you think could reasonably contest the Patriots for that title?
FWIW, I think it's embarrassing to Americans that your nation refers to domestic league champions as world champions. Sure, you may possess four of the best leagues in the world but that doesn't make it a world championship. It makes your team a national champion and nothing more. Either way, the more winning from Boston teams the better.
Outside the NFL, who do you think could reasonably contest the Patriots for that title?
I think being the best team in the world is what makes them world champions.I bet there are many countries that could field decent teams after a while. But, they don't care about American football as much as soccer so they don't even play. That doesn't make us World Champions.
You could easily have had a World Cup of Cricket one hundred years ago because former British colonies were all playing it. Australia, NZ, countries in the subcontinent, the West Indies and African nations all played the game. Futhermore, you'll never hear and Australian call Hawthorn (back to back Super Bowl winners [equivalent] and winners of 3 premierships since 2008] as world champions because they're not. They're AFL Premiers and that's it. It's the same with NRL, Super Rugby, NBL, WNBL, ANZ Championship and so on. You're a world champion when you win a world championship.Let's try this another way.
Let's look back say 100 years. Could there be a best airplane in the world, even though there were no airplanes in Togo? (Or most countries)?
Could you have a World War I or a World War II, even if Bolivia sent no fighting forces? (I don't know this for a fact, but we could certainly dredge up the examples of countries which were not touched in either conflict). Are those inflated "titles"? I do know for a fact that Switzerland remained neutral.. so how were they "world wars"?
Can't we debate whether the world's best space program was in Russia or the U.S., even before other countries entered into it -- or even today, can we talk about the best launch platforms in the world, although the vast majority of nations on the Earth don't have any?
I'm not aware of much organized American cricketing. How is there a "World Cup" of cricket?
The counter-argument is that it is the confining of a sport to one country that makes the title of a "world championship" counterfeit.
However, when the sport we're referring to indeed draws from among the world's best athletes - including an enormous sports/training/pipeline "infrastructure" - I have my doubts that we should complain about the title. If we are looking at the relative abilities of nations to compete athletically, I suppose we could turn to medal counts in the Olympics. The U.S. does okay in those; it stands to reason that the disinterest of the benighted multitudes to the importance of real football is not the sole reason that the U.S. dominates.
I have no complaint about someone being a "World champion" of Aussie Rules football.
I think the clearer case is that we should call the MLB championship the MLB championship, instead of the "World Series," since teams outside the U.S. and Canada do not play in it.
I think being the best team in the world is what makes them world champions.
The fact that other countries "could field decent teams after a while" doesn't change the fact the in 2014, the New England Patriots were the best (American-rules) football team in the world.
One thing we know is Tiger Woods would be trying it on with all the wags.Timeout. There's something called soccer/golf?