Defending Soccer
The Ma-jin
it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to defend
my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc? People
just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
~~~~~~~
" I switched my motto -- instead of sayin f*ck tomorrow
That buck that bought a bottle could've struck the lotto " (Nas)
Victoria Barrett
news:20010809224957...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> Help!!! I live in the USA and I have to stomach jabronies like Jim Rome
calling
> it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to
defend
> my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
>
> What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc?
People
> just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
>
> Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
Many, many times. In various languages, to people of every conceivable
socio-economic, intellectual background and nationalities, with statistics
and world percentages, with television ratings, and with an indescribable
feeling of exasperation towards someone who simply (if they don't by now)
"doesn't get it".
Instead of my typical firebrand-don't-you-mess-with-sports oratorio, please
find below just one of the million arguments that one can use to "defend"
soccer. But the real pathos in this statement is, why should one have to?
Certainly not to the likes of "you".
[An extract from an article at
http://www.llamagraphics.com/Meadow/Essays/Soccer.html --
"...Pele, soccer’s Muhammad Ali, called soccer “the beautiful game.” The
ball at his own feet, it certainly was and the beauty that the Brazilian
genius was saluting is the games magical blend of simplicity and complexity.
On the one hand minimal (but logical) rules, an elemental appeal to the
instincts of combatant and juggler, a minimum of paraphernalia. On the other
an almost infinite range of tactical variations, of combinations between set
plays and improvisation, of balances between technical finesse, speed, power
and physical bravery.
Soccer gives us encounters where size — truly — is not important. Players
small enough to ride in the Kentucky Derby can mix it on a level playing
field with those tall enough to cut it with the Celtics. All amid as extreme
a swirl of tactics.
One team will slick the ball across the grass with the one-touch precision
of hockey players. Another will hoof it high and long into the open spaces
its power runners are straining to reach first. Confident in the
ball-winning bite of its tackling, yet another team is a counter-punching
fighter suckering the opponent forward. But this one is an in-your-face
boxing opposite, pressing forward non-stop to smother all technical guile
out of the opposition.The stamina requirement is awesome. Of mind as well as
body. Over the ninety minutes the game usually goes to the fleet of mind
rather than foot.
If football at its best is classic Duke Ellington — sublime soloists soaring
aloft from the ground base of the tightest pre-arrangement — soccer is
be-bop. Charlie Parker and Bud Powell on a day when they were talking to
each other. A brilliant soloist ghosting past defenders may scintillate all
day; a duo, a trio, a quartet may repeatedly wiseacre the ball the length
and breadth of the field; ten outfielders may overlappingly give and go
until they seem like twenty.
Hidden under the fluid interchanges all teams play to the basic shape, the
overall game plan in their heads. But the result will probably hang on the
exploitation of an utterly unplanned split-second moment. Soccer is
existentialism with muscles. [...]".
----
And for the record, Jim Rome is a bloody fudge-packer, ya hear me *clone*?
[There's no way I am going to asterisk my heartfelt profanity].
Colin Morris
"The Ma-jin " <mad...@aol.comVEGETA> wrote in message
news:20010809224957...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
calling
> it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to
defend
> my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
>
> What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc?
People
> just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
>
> Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
Nobody likes us but we don't care.
DC_SK
are the ones that will claim that it takes no skill to make hip-hop records
or electronica for that matter.
I played rugby for most of my life, which as far as sports go is one of the
least likely to be branded a pussy sport.
Despite this, after a game what is it that people usually talk about or
what is the main reason they watch rugby. In essence it is the skill, the
tactical plays the finesse etc. Who are the rugby greats that everyone
remembers?
Are they the fat props that put so and so on a stretcher.....no they are the
innovators. the playmakers, the most skillful. The quarterback in US
football often is the star for the same reasons.
That's also the essence of soccer. Just because there is limited physical
contact in the sport hardly makes it a pussy sport. It actually makes the
game a hell of a lot more skillful.
If physical contact is the measure of a good sport then basketball, tennis,
golf etc must be pussy sports.
Nate505
wrote:
>Help!!! I live in the USA and I have to stomach jabronies like Jim Rome calling
>it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to defend
>my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
>
>What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc? People
>just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
>
>Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
Rome is a brain dead idiot, so defending your interests to him, and
most of his audience, is a hard task indeed, and not worth the effort,
IMHO...
Ron Moskovitz
My personal favorite is people who claim soccer is too slow but love
baseball. I've got nothing against baseball, but c'mon...
People claim soccer is boring because it's low scoring, but it's actually
not as much lower scoring as people think. (If you look at scores per minute
of time the player is on the field it actually compares reasonably well with
American football, believe it or not). But trying to make the intellectual
arguement won't convince anyone.
I think it's better to just shrug it off, know that many people don't get
it, and not worry about it. There will always be philistines.
ne...@veko.mediaspamlessone.net
> Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
Actually I'm usually the aggressor against the other sports, you might try that
to put them on their heels ... anyway:
Q. "Isn't soccer is for pussies?"
A. "You misspelt [baseball,tennis,golf,any racing,running,pole-vaulting,etc.]"
Q. "Their just a bunch of diving sissies, right?"
A. "You ever watch someone take a charge in basketball?"
- or -
A. "No, but their considering taking lessons from the Colorado Avalanche"
Q. "Why isn't there more physical contact?"
A. "Because they're not rigged out in full body armor plus their bodies are
their only instrument. Remember Brashear getting conked on the head? Well, his
relatives would be the ones suing McSorley if he'd gotten kicked there by a
soccer player."
Q. "Isn't soccer for girls?"
A. "No, I'm for girls, you can have all the guys you want."
Ian Motter
The Ma-jin wrote:
>
> Help!!! I live in the USA and I have to stomach jabronies like Jim Rome calling
> it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to defend
> my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
>
> What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc? People
> just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
>
> Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
1 billion soccer fans CAN'T be wrong.
David Tiemroth
wrote:
>Help!!! I live in the USA and I have to stomach jabronies like Jim Rome calling
>it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to defend
>my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
>
>What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc? People
>just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
>
>Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do
not, none will suffice."
That's what I use most of the time. That and pointing out that people
who call it a pantywaist sport for softies wouldn't last an entire
game.
David.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as
you please. -- Mark Twain
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark
A good commentary, but I especially like the analogy of music. One could also
compare soccer to art. It is, by far, the most artistic sport.
As for defending soccer to "non-believers," my usual comeback is "Have you ever
played"? Of course, the answer is always "No." Then I say something like, "If
you've never played, then you woudn't understand." Again, it's kind of like how
many people view classical music or even jazz. They've never really listened to
it or tried to understand it. They think it's boring and/or slow and use
explanations such as "there's no beat" or "there's no singing." The soccer
bashers have the same mentality. Soccer is slow (they haven't played it, so
they can't really know), it's boring (they don't understand/appreciate the
skill, strategy, etc.), it's not physical (if they only knew!), there's not
enough scoring (the mentality of relatively simple-minded individuals, IMO).
Mark
Edmund Esterbauer
"The Ma-jin " <mad...@aol.comVEGETA> wrote in message
news:20010809224957...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
EPK
news:20010809224957...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
calling
> it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to
defend
> my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
>
> What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc?
People
> just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
>
If you are smart enough to enjoy soccer, why would you be stupid enough to
care what Jim Rome says?
Richie
Nobody who knows me would say anything against our game. But there
have been a few times that softball/hardball and pointy players have
said something with in my hearing range. I go up to them look them
square in the face, and then I stick my fingers in their eyes. They
drop like a brick :-)Then all they can think about is whether they
will be blind forever.
Richie
Mhw61
>calling
>> it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies".
I'd just slide tackle the sons-o'-bitches.
Max
"It could have been worse. My parents could have named me Pabst."
--Carling Basset-Seguso
R&K Parrish
soccer. Amazingly here in West Virginia soccer is actually pretty big. They just
built a new soccer complex in my town that hosted the 40+ National Tournament, and
will do so again next year (this tournament featured local clubs with players from
around the world. Some played for clubs, some for national teams. One player was
the former captain of the US womens team. One was a former member of the Brazil
national team, etc.) To me, there seems to be more interest here in soccer than in
little league baseball and football. It is very easy to defend soccer when you
compare it to other sports, like baseball, where guys get paid millions to stand
around. Most players (excluding pitcher, catcher, 1st base) are only involved in a
fraction of the plays. They get 75% of the game off. Points wise, the scores tend
to run the same as soccer (4-2, 2-1, etc.) Don't get me started on golf or
Nascar...
Targetmedi
Is Rome really a fudge-packer???
:)
Tom Jobes
Only *one* billion?!?!?
Tom
Tom Jobes
>
> The Ma-jin <mad...@aol.comvegeta> wrote:
>
> > Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
>
> A. "You ever watch someone take a charge in basketball?"
> - or -
> A. "No, but their considering taking lessons from the Colorado Avalanche"
ROFLMAO
Tom
Mark
> Okay. I live in the USA also...but I have never really had to defend my liking of
> soccer. Amazingly here in West Virginia soccer is actually pretty big. They just
> built a new soccer complex in my town that hosted the 40+ National Tournament, and
> will do so again next year (this tournament featured local clubs with players from
> around the world. Some played for clubs, some for national teams. One player was
> the former captain of the US womens team. One was a former member of the Brazil
> national team, etc.) To me, there seems to be more interest here in soccer than in
> little league baseball and football. It is very easy to defend soccer when you
> compare it to other sports, like baseball, where guys get paid millions to stand
> around. Most players (excluding pitcher, catcher, 1st base) are only involved in a
> fraction of the plays. They get 75% of the game off. Points wise, the scores tend
> to run the same as soccer (4-2, 2-1, etc.) Don't get me started on golf or
> Nascar...
I think you/we can do a little better than this. Using the same approach, one could
say that most soccer players get about 90% of the game off. I would also venture to
say, without checking any statistics, that a typical major league baseball game has
about twice as many runs as a professional soccer game has goals. Belittling other
sports does nothing to promote soccer. It usually shows the same type of ignorance
that is being displayed by the soccer bashers.
How about saying something like: Soccer requires the artistry of a jazz musician, the
fitness of a basketball player, the finesse of a golfer, strategy like football, the
timing and coordination of a baseball player, the explosiveness of a sprinter, the
intelligence of a chess player, the toughness of a rugby player, the poise of a
gymnast, and a repertoire of skill greater than any sport. Soccer does not require
you to be tall or big. In fact, most good players are of normal proportions.
Mark
Brandon Thornburg
"Mark" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3B742B9A...@nowhere.com...
>Soccer does not require
> you to be tall or big. In fact, most good players are of normal
proportions.
Not that it matters, but it's a sign of the idiocy of most American sports
fans that I hvae repeatedly heard this as a negative about soccer. It's part
of the "If I can do it, it can't be a sport" argument...again showing the
ignorance...
Tom Jobes
Weird. I've never heard that said once. *shrug* We
must hang out in different circles.
Tom
Brandon Thornburg
"Tom Jobes" <jo...@aquaterra.com> wrote in message
news:3B742DF7...@aquaterra.com...
> > Not that it matters, but it's a sign of the idiocy of most American
sports
> > fans that I hvae repeatedly heard this as a negative about soccer. It's
part
> > of the "If I can do it, it can't be a sport" argument...again showing
the
> > ignorance...
>
> Weird. I've never heard that said once. *shrug* We
> must hang out in different circles.
>
> Tom
And I could have sworn you were at my last cocktail party. :) I'm not saying
my wife is muttering it in her sleep, but it does seem to come up in
anti-soccer diatribes.
Victoria Barrett
"Targetmedi" <targe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010810125833...@mb-fo.aol.com...
> Is Rome really a fudge-packer???
Well, love, for his sake, I certainly hope so. Woman-like, I find him
grody. :)
Victoria Barrett
<snip my comments on soccer and extract>
> A good commentary, but I especially like the analogy of music. One could
also
> compare soccer to art. It is, by far, the most artistic sport.
You're absolutely right-on about artistic. And I especially liked the
avant-garde jazz analogy. IMNSHO, jazz is the "coolest" thing ever invented
by human talent. Footy, the most gripping.
> As for defending soccer to "non-believers," my usual comeback is "Have you
ever
> played"? Of course, the answer is always "No." Then I say something
like, "If
> you've never played, then you woudn't understand." Again, it's kind of
like how
> many people view classical music or even jazz. They've never really
listened to
Again, the classical music, jazz analogy, spot on. Perhaps, classical a bit
more, as there are especially few Americans (relative to their population)
who enjoy/know/have patience for it.
I always thought -- and mind you, I am normally Sheridan-like in my defense
of all things American -- it is because Americans do not like those things
that they either have (a) not invented (b) have not contributed greatly to
(c) have not flat out dominated in the 20th. Century -- the soi-disant
"American Century". Using my criteria, you can readily see the dilemma of
soccer in the States. Classical music, close second.
> it or tried to understand it. They think it's boring and/or slow and use
> explanations such as "there's no beat" or "there's no singing." The
soccer
> bashers have the same mentality. Soccer is slow (they haven't played it,
so
> they can't really know), it's boring (they don't understand/appreciate the
> skill, strategy, etc.), it's not physical (if they only knew!), there's
not
> enough scoring (the mentality of relatively simple-minded individuals,
IMO).
Just because the rules do not allow people to bash into each other
(football, hockey), or that a fascinatingly tight match is often 1-0, not
63-7 like the Dolphins taking a licking in most playoffs, :( or that
edge-of-your-seat excitement can hinge on the ebbs-and-flows of the
midfield -- unlike basketball -- doesn't mean soccer is "lacking" these
ingredients.
People (Romey-clones and other ars*-wipes), see the game for what it is, and
stop comparing. You sound like country bumpkins seeing the big city for the
first time, and wishing for the familiarity of your haystacks. Freaks.
Victoria Barrett
news:d0Pc7.8010$lr2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
This last is brilliant. The one about those diving pussies the "Lanche"
(what a fairy nickname!...yes, sour grapes, the Panthers lost the Cup to
aforementioned d.p.) the most ingeniously obvious.
Victoria Barrett
> Ian Motter wrote:
> > 1 billion soccer fans CAN'T be wrong.
>
> Only *one* billion?!?!?
Having gotten the biting sarcasm perfectly, I have a question, nevertheless:
Are these figures up-to-date? I think they were probably true in 1998, but a
lot of Chinese, I have it on good authority (a Chinese friend :) became
world soccer-mad after France. And realize, they haven't as much access to
forms of communication which feed this fascination.
Let's sneak India (grandfather her in, I dunno, something) into a World Cup,
and brother, the figure will be at least 3 out of 6 billion.
Victoria Barrett
"EPK" <kv...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:9l0qcv$943$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
(I am all "Defending Soccer" today, aren't I? HELP!! I can't get outta this
thread *a la Marcel Marceau*)
Good point. But listen:
(a) News commentators/anchormen on ESF*ckingPN and similar sports
broadcasters, are raising a new generation of sports fanatics every year.
What damage do you think their adverse opinion -- or blatant disregard -- of
soccer will do to the youth of America? Not to mention the parents of these
who may enjoy the sport TODAY.
(b) People are susceptible. If "Romeys" are said to know sports, their
opinion must count for something about soccer, right?
(c) Inattention to the sport on the big networks and cable programmes just
reinforce the "soccer is boring" mentality. Where are the Romes of this
world going to see quality soccer coverage like we have in England (even
Haiti). No where, in America. Even golf has it's own channel (and no, FSW-E-
doesn't come close).
(d) He portrays himself as "telling it like it is", the "Joe six-pack"
opinion, if you will. If a person like him doesn't like soccer and
discourages (to say the least) the tiniest interest in the sport by calling
its aficionados "pantywaists" -- a slur no man and few women like to hear,
may I add -- then one's love of soccer must make the person a "snob", the
dreaded classical-music and pussy-soccer double whammy.
Yes, ignoring Rome and his radio/TV types is one thing, but they are legion
in the US. (I have one guy here in So. Florida called "Mad Dog" Jim
Mandich, ex-football not-so-great. The man is vile about soccer and golf and
tennis, or any sport where brawny Pennsylvania coal miner's sons don't
shine. Or so he *thinks*).
Tom Jobes
LOL that was my evil twin Skippy...
Tom
SatanJones
wrote:
>Help!!! I live in the USA and I have to stomach jabronies like Jim Rome calling
>it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to defend
>my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
>
>What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc? People
>just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
>
>Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
>
> ~~~~~~~
>" I switched my motto -- instead of sayin f*ck tomorrow
>That buck that bought a bottle could've struck the lotto " (Nas)
This is my point. Every other American team sport has a pretty much
limited amount of ways to score..
Basketball - layups, 3 pointers, 18 foot jumper, dunk , reverse
dunk....less than 20.
Football - Teams playbooks have a limited amount of plays, that for
the people on the team require no creativity.
Baseball - Wow. Single, double, triple, homer.
SOCCER - Unlimited. I mean, compare a PK to a Rivaldo Bicycle outside
the box to a lob from 25 meters to a header to a free kick goal. i
mean, let's get real, NO two goals are really alike. Even PKs have a
large amount of variations. That is why this sport rules.
HB Rating System-
<6 UG
6 Someone that you think is attractive sometimes, but not at others
7 A cute girl who catches your eye
8 The hottest woman who you see in a sample of 50 random women.
9 A girl that, in your AFC days, you'd stare at with your mouth hanging open.
10 The hottest woman at a large university/the hottest stripper at a big club. One in 10000. Your favorite playboy playmate.
Unknown
news:tn8fg4s...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip everything except one-liner vehicle>
> Just because the rules do not allow people to bash into each other
> (football, hockey),
You really didn't see Brondby-Shels, did you?
Victoria Barrett
news:3b74513b...@news.optonline.com...
> On 10 Aug 2001 02:49:57 GMT, mad...@aol.comVEGETA (The Ma-jin )
>
> limited amount of ways to score..
>
> Basketball - layups, 3 pointers, 18 foot jumper, dunk , reverse
> dunk....less than 20.
And my favourite (football too), the Hail-Mary last-gasp buzzer beater. If
that doesn't dump your Nachos on top of the person in front of you, nothing
will.
> Football - Teams playbooks have a limited amount of plays, that for
> the people on the team require no creativity.
What the flying freaking squirrel is "Red dog seven bootleg"? Knute Rockne
has a lot to answer for, boy.
> Baseball - Wow. Single, double, triple, homer.
Okay, why am I weighing in on the side of baseball? Still, sac fly,
in-the-park homer (the most exciting, happened in my first game ever),
sacrifice bunt and that always "boner" play, E-7 (dick). Others possibly.
But yes, you got it otherwise.
> SOCCER - Unlimited. I mean, compare a PK to a Rivaldo Bicycle outside
> the box to a lob from 25 meters to a header to a free kick goal. i
> mean, let's get real, NO two goals are really alike. Even PKs have a
> large amount of variations. That is why this sport rules.
Very good.
> HB Rating System-
>
> <6 UG
> 6 Someone that you think is attractive sometimes, but not at others
> 7 A cute girl who catches your eye
> 8 The hottest woman who you see in a sample of 50 random women.
> 9 A girl that, in your AFC days, you'd stare at with your mouth hanging
open.
> 10 The hottest woman at a large university/the hottest stripper at a big
club. One in 10000. Your favorite playboy playmate.
Err, you read a lot in the bathroom, don't you? :)
Philip Lennox Beineke
Ron Moskovitz <rmos...@usc.edu> wrote:
>I think you have to just have to grin and bear it.
>
>My personal favorite is people who claim soccer is too slow but love
>baseball. I've got nothing against baseball, but c'mon...
>
>People claim soccer is boring because it's low scoring, but it's actually
>not as much lower scoring as people think. (If you look at scores per minute
>of time the player is on the field it actually compares reasonably well with
>American football, believe it or not). But trying to make the intellectual
>arguement won't convince anyone.
Good points. If you go on the defensive, you've already lost, and soccer
is already stigmatized enough in the US as an egghead sport.
In a similar vein to your baseball comment, have you ever been
in a bar where they were showing baseball and soccer at the
same time? Almost invariably, people's eyes gravitate to the screen
showing soccer. I've noticed the same thing happening during football and
NBA basketball, too.
P
--
Phil Beineke bei...@stanford.edu
Modern life is full of breezy generalizations like this one.
S.T. Pickrell
> > HB Rating System-
> >
> > <6 UG
> > 6 Someone that you think is attractive sometimes, but not at others
> > 7 A cute girl who catches your eye
> > 8 The hottest woman who you see in a sample of 50 random women.
> > 9 A girl that, in your AFC days, you'd stare at with your mouth
> > hanging open.
> > 10 The hottest woman at a large university/the hottest stripper at a
> > big club. One in 10000. Your favorite playboy playmate.
>
> Err, you read a lot in the bathroom, don't you? :)
go to alt.seduction.fast
AFC = average fucking chump
UG = ugly girl
i get around the usenet.
shawn
capped for torrld cup 2002 (soc.singles)
DC_SK
Seriously......pads, helmets, towels and earpieces....and those pants.
Rugby, both league and union, have it beat for skill and non-"pussiness".
ps. and yes i have played it,, i went to an american school for three years.
Victoria Barrett
news:rA%c7.57$Ka5....@ozemail.com.au...
> It's funny that american football players front like their hard.
> Seriously......pads, helmets, towels and earpieces....and those pants.
> Rugby, both league and union, have it beat for skill and non-"pussiness".
Why am I not surprised to see "front", "hard", "pads", "beat" and
"pussiness" all in one short paragraph on RSS?
> ps. and yes i have played it,, i went to an american school for three
years.
Hey, did you ever see "Cruel Intentions" (no, not the lesbische kissing
scene, though I have it on good authority -- you-know-who -- that it was
"way hot")? The star quarterback is really a not-so-tight-end.
*yes, I know, stop groaning*
Manuel Benet
> it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to defend
> my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
>
> What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc? People
> just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
>
> Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
Well, no. I usually take more the attacking part than the defending one.
Just for annoying people, you know :)
m2
EPK
the pointer that they have stung you, and their mentality is to do it again,
harder.
The only times I defend soccer are to the people around me when a local
yokel or American football coach (sort of the same) shouts something at us
practicing. Then, I say something to the rest (especially when coaching a
boys or girls team) about how that shows how threatened he feels about how
good they are, and fundamentally recognizes that we are playing the better
game.
I have never found, in any arguement with a semimoron, that even a
brilliant comeback does you any good, unless it is a single shot after they
hve been trying to taunt you for some time. A that point, a good line will
shut them up so they will go away, but it won't change anyone's mind
(although it may engender a small amount of personal admiration from
onlookers, but that isn't the point).
Just keep playing and watching thesport that you know is better.
Eventually the quality will show through, some of the dinosaurs will die
out, and we will be in the majority. (Since I am in my 40s, I'm not sure
whether I will see it...)
Victoria Barrett
<snip sensible comments>
> A that point, a good line will shut them up so they will go away, but it
won't change anyone's mind
> (although it may engender a small amount of personal admiration from
> onlookers, but that isn't the point).
Isn't the point?! It's my life's purpose.
> Just keep playing and watching thesport that you know is better.
> Eventually the quality will show through, some of the dinosaurs will die
> out, and we will be in the majority. (Since I am in my 40s, I'm not sure
> whether I will see it...)
Did I hear forties? :)
thomas
>"Mark" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:3B73E7F8...@nowhere.com...
>
>of all things American -- it is because Americans do not like those things
>that they either have (a) not invented (b) have not contributed greatly to
>(c) have not flat out dominated in the 20th. Century -- the soi-disant
>"American Century". Using my criteria, you can readily see the dilemma of
>soccer in the States. Classical music, close second.
Classical music? What country, aside from Russia, has contributed more in the
20th century? Gershwin, Copeland, and Berstein were Mexicans?
thomas
>Good points. If you go on the defensive, you've already lost, and soccer
>is already stigmatized enough in the US as an egghead sport.
>
Which is about as absurd as it gets.
Victoria Barrett
news:9l5194$85b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
************************************************
Back by popular demand, and feisty as heck, too.
> Classical music? What country, aside from Russia, has contributed more in
the
> 20th century? Gershwin, Copeland, and Berstein were Mexicans?
I am glad someone took up my bait there. No quarrels from me about those
American musical luminaries (considering Samuel Barber's "Adagio for
Strings, op. 81" is one of my favs, those in the dark you might recall
"Platoon" -- the movie's main theme), it's just that many classical music
aficionados -- most of those, snobby Euros again -- would not consider that
prodigious enough an output for a country like the USA even for the 20th
Century. If you posit the above-mentioned musician/composers with the
thousands of rock stars and jazz artists, you can see how people might
consider for once, quantity over quality.
WB, too.
thomas
>On 10 Aug 2001 02:49:57 GMT, mad...@aol.comVEGETA (The Ma-jin )
>wrote:
>
>>Help!!! I live in the USA and I have to stomach jabronies like Jim Rome
> calling
>>it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies". I always have to
> defend
>>my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling and soccer)...
>>
>>What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace, etc? People
>>just don't "get it". Really frustrating.
>>
>>Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
>>
>> ~~~~~~~
>>" I switched my motto -- instead of sayin f*ck tomorrow
>>That buck that bought a bottle could've struck the lotto " (Nas)
>
>This is my point. Every other American team sport has a pretty much
>limited amount of ways to score..
>
>Basketball - layups, 3 pointers, 18 foot jumper, dunk , reverse
>dunk....less than 20.
>
>Football - Teams playbooks have a limited amount of plays, that for
>the people on the team require no creativity.
>
require creativity, but the coaches do.
>Baseball - Wow. Single, double, triple, homer.
>
There are just as many ways to accompilsh these things as to score in soccer.
>SOCCER - Unlimited. I mean, compare a PK to a Rivaldo Bicycle outside
>the box to a lob from 25 meters to a header to a free kick goal. i
>mean, let's get real, NO two goals are really alike. Even PKs have a
>large amount of variations. That is why this sport rules.
I see no way to say that one sport is inherently better than another except
that soccer is the world's most popular sport.
Ron Moskovitz
vbar...@the-beach.net wrote on 8/11/01 9:55 PM:
If you posit the above-mentioned musician/composers with the
> thousands of rock stars and jazz artists, you can see how people might
> consider for once, quantity over quality.
Getting wayyy off topic here, but:
Nothing against classical music, but how, exactly, do Muddy Waters, Howlin
Wolf, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Bob Dylan, Thelonius Monk,
B.B. King, Albert King, Jimi Hendrix, etc. etc. etc., to pick just the cream
of the crop of jazz, blues (perhaps the most American art form there is),
and rock not constitute quality?
If we're so pro-all-things-American when it comes to music, wouldn't we
have dismissed the Beatles as sissy brit rock rather than practically
canonized them?
-Ron
thomas
>in article tnc31sh...@corp.supernews.com, Victoria Barrett at
>vbar...@the-beach.net wrote on 8/11/01 9:55 PM:
> If you posit the above-mentioned musician/composers with the
>> thousands of rock stars and jazz artists, you can see how people might
>> consider for once, quantity over quality.
>
> Getting wayyy off topic here, but:
>
> Nothing against classical music, but how, exactly, do Muddy Waters, Howlin
>Wolf, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Bob Dylan, Thelonius Monk,
>B.B. King, Albert King, Jimi Hendrix, etc. etc. etc., to pick just the cream
>of the crop of jazz, blues (perhaps the most American art form there is),
>and rock not constitute quality?
I agree completely. Most of the great 20th century compositions were not
classical.
>
> If we're so pro-all-things-American when it comes to music, wouldn't we
>have dismissed the Beatles as sissy brit rock rather than practically
>canonized them?
>
Their argument would be that since we invented it, we don't mind if others are
good. In reality, we're pro most things British. We just don't take soccer
very seriously as an adult or professional sport.
Victoria Barrett
sure, to recap:
I. Mark postulated about soccer in America:
"It's kind of like how many people view classical music or even jazz.
They've never really listened to it or tried to understand it."
II. To which I replied:
"I always thought -- and mind you, I am normally Sheridan-like in my defense
of all things American -- it is because Americans do not like those things
that they either have (a) not invented (b) have not contributed greatly to
(c) have not flat out dominated in the 20th. Century -- the soi-disant
"American Century". Using my criteria, you can readily see the dilemma of
soccer in the States. Classical music, close second."
Hoping that my point of soccer/classical music in America of neither not
having been invented in the US, or of a *substantial* number of starring
players coming from it in either field, and therefore not having had
dominated the classical music and/or soccer world, had not been lost in the
miasma that is my cramped prose.
III. Unfortunately, it had, because Captain America Thomas then wrote
(though I grant him that, for my own sneaky ends, I'd left a cliffhanger
opening for anybody to rebut my thesis knowing full well they could make a
good case with the musicians he mentioned below, *whew*):
"Classical music? What country, aside from Russia, has contributed more in
the 20th century? Gershwin, Copeland, and Berstein were Mexicans?"
IV. Then, the heroine of our story, saddened her pro-Americanism had been
willfully ignored, countered with
"I am glad someone took up my bait there. No quarrels from me about those
American musical luminaries (considering Samuel Barber's "Adagio for
Strings, op. 81" is one of my favs, those in the dark you might recall
"Platoon" -- the movie's main theme), it's just that many classical music
aficionados -- most of those, snobby Euros again -- would not consider that
prodigious enough an output for a country like the USA even for the 20th
Century. If you posit the above-mentioned musician/composers with the
thousands of rock stars and jazz artists, you can see how people might
consider for once, quantity over quality."
V. But Ron quizzed me:
"Getting wayyy off topic here, but: Nothing against classical music, but
how, exactly, do Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf, Miles Davis, John Coltrane,
Charlie Parker, Bob Dylan, Thelonius Monk, B.B. King, Albert King, Jimi
Hendrix, etc. etc. etc., to pick just the cream of the crop of jazz, blues
(perhaps the most American art form there is), and rock not constitute
quality?" [snipping the over-the-top reference to the Beatles being sissy
for he obviously never saw "The Yellow Submarine" *throat clearance*]
VI. My point AGAIN, to wind up a rather amusing but unnecesarily obtuse
thread, was that soccer is a tad like classical music in America, seen as a
rather foreign and effete import, to which not a tonka-truckful of Americans
contributed to its formative years in the 20th century, and thereby still
being seen as something "other" and "special" (read elites, immigrants,
pantywaists) people pay attention to in America. As a sidelight, I theorised
that Americans have invented, given ENORMOUS talent, and therefore dominated
in the musical genres of rock-and-roll and jazz.
***Cue Fab-Four's "A LOOOOONG and Winding Road": Conclusion Reached***
VII. What I think got Ron's attention was the last line, where my muddled
syntax (there it goes again) made it seem that I was slurring jazz and its
musicians (did I ever tell you guys that I would love to have a son named
"Trane" one day; 'course I shan't, but I'd love it) by inferring quantity
over quality. That alas, was not my point. What follows is:
"If you place the American classical composers Thomas mentioned [3 + 1 that
I added], however important in their own right, against the thousands of
rock and jazz artists America has given the world, one can forgive folks for
thinking America has contributed more to rock and jazz than to classical
music", and remembering my original thesis, thereto (hooray, back to our
newsgroup's topic!!!) soccer.
Marrona mi! That's what you get for straying into the backwoods of threads.
Is "Blair Witch Soccer Project" far behind?
ne...@veko.mediaspamlessone.net
> Classical music? What country, aside from Russia, has contributed more in the
> 20th century? Gershwin, Copeland, and Berstein were Mexicans?
I'm neither joking nor trolling when I say Poland. But I know that it's an
unorthodox opinion.
EPK
isn't a weight problem, I'm just aging disgracefully).
Doug Karpa-Wilson
Not so unorthodox at all. I believe Gorecki is still the only
contemporary composer to break into the top 10 classical list in the
US. Not that sales always tells you anything, but in this case I
think classical music circles got this one right. Of course, I'd
say that Arvo Päärt puts Estonia firmly on the map by himself... ;-)
Doug
Doug Karpa-Wilson
Victoria Barrett wrote:
> I always thought -- and mind you, I am normally Sheridan-like in my defense
> of all things American -- it is because Americans do not like those things
> that they either have (a) not invented (b) have not contributed greatly to
> (c) have not flat out dominated in the 20th. Century -- the soi-disant
> "American Century". Using my criteria, you can readily see the dilemma of
> soccer in the States. Classical music, close second.
Of course, correlation is not causation. If I were Thomas I think
I'd say that this is because the things that Americans like the have
(b) contributed to greatly or (c) flat out dominated in the
twentieth century.
Still, I like Clint Mathis' take on this: He like soccer in high
school precisely because it wasn't the "cool" thing to do. There's
a good chunk of the US that likes things precisely because they're
so "unAmerican" Take, for example, the world music crowd. Actually,
there's alot of overlap with the soccer fans in the US on that one.
Doug
Victoria Barrett
news:3B76A80B...@BLOCK.indiana.edu...
*gasp* A man conversant with Gorecki and Paart on RSS? My goodness, you're
not forty-to-fifty with a run-down jalopy are you?
Nate505
wrote:
According to a poll by a classic rock station around here, the 5 most
popular bands by their listeners were 1. Led Zepplin, 2. Pink Floyd,
3. Beatles, 4. Rolling Stones, and 5. The Doors. 4 out of 5 from
the UK....and all excellent bands (although I'm not a big Rolling
Stones guy)
gaborzinho
Squar...@aol.com (Richie) wrote:
> "Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?"
>
> Nobody who knows me would say anything against our game. But there
> have been a few times that softball/hardball and pointy players have
> said something with in my hearing range. I go up to them look them
> square in the face, and then I stick my fingers in their eyes. They
> drop like a brick :-)Then all they can think about is whether they
> will be blind forever.
>
> Richie
LOL!
I say nothing. People who don't get it, won't get it!
ne...@veko.mediaspamlessone.net
> *gasp* A man conversant with Gorecki and Paart on RSS? My goodness, you're
> not forty-to-fifty with a run-down jalopy are you?
Mark down 2 (except I detest the both of em). I was referring to
Lutaslawski and Penderecki.
Doug Karpa-Wilson
Nope, just a nudge over thirty in actually a late model ford
(gasp!). Usually, I buy strictly Japanese, but here in the
heartland they're hard to find...
But you thought I was kidding that there a lot of overlap between
folks who like non-mainstream music and folks who like
non-mainstream sports? ;-)
Doug
ne...@veko.mediaspamlessone.net
> "I always thought -- and mind you, I am normally Sheridan-like in my defense
> of all things American -- it is because Americans do not like those things
> that they either have (a) not invented (b) have not contributed greatly to
> (c) have not flat out dominated in the 20th. Century -- the soi-disant
> "American Century". Using my criteria, you can readily see the dilemma of
> soccer in the States. Classical music, close second."
Not that I greatly disagree with this, but Henry Cowell "invented" most of the
avante garde innovations of post-war european composers back in the 10's and
20's. To wit: cluster harmonies, quartal harmony, micro-tones, aleatory,
prepared piano and playing the innards (ew!) of the piano.
> "I am glad someone took up my bait there. No quarrels from me about those
> American musical luminaries (considering Samuel Barber's "Adagio for
> Strings, op. 81" is one of my favs
If you ever get sick of that one (god, it's so over-used) check out the
Adagietto from Mahler's 5th symphony.
, those in the dark you might recall
> "Platoon" -- the movie's main theme), it's just that many classical music
> aficionados -- most of those, snobby Euros again -- would not consider that
> prodigious enough an output for a country like the USA even for the 20th
> Century. If you posit the above-mentioned musician/composers with the
> thousands of rock stars and jazz artists, you can see how people might
> consider for once, quantity over quality."
The word quality is as problematic here as when Thomas uses it. Basically,
either you come down on the elitist side or the popularist side. To me,
there's no freaking way that Michael Jackson's music is great, album sales
notwithstanding. I come down on the "personal" side of the triangle, where
quality is in your own mind and Art is just a man's name. E.g., Charles Ives
and Ruth Crawford Seeger are the greatest musicians ever, and I don't give a
damn what anybody else has to say about it.
> VI. My point AGAIN, to wind up a rather amusing but unnecesarily obtuse
> thread, was that soccer is a tad like classical music in America, seen as a
> rather foreign and effete import, to which not a tonka-truckful of Americans
> contributed to its formative years in the 20th century, and thereby still
> being seen as something "other" and "special" (read elites, immigrants,
> pantywaists) people pay attention to in America. As a sidelight, I theorised
> that Americans have invented, given ENORMOUS talent, and therefore dominated
> in the musical genres of rock-and-roll and jazz.
The problem in every country is that we're most aware of our own culture.
There's tons of incredible jazz musicians all over the world (my favorite
flavor of jazz is Hungarian), but how the hell would Americans know that? Ask
anyone from France who has the greatest musical tradition and they'll say
"France of course". (well, maybe they'll say it in French, but I'll be damned
if I will.)
EPK
news:zXQd7.15186$lr2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Victoria Barrett <vbar...@the-beach.net> wrote:
>
> > "I always thought -- and mind you, I am normally Sheridan-like in my
defense
> > of all things American -- it is because Americans do not like those
things
> > that they either have (a) not invented (b) have not contributed greatly
to
> > (c) have not flat out dominated in the 20th. Century -- the soi-disant
> > "American Century". Using my criteria, you can readily see the dilemma
of
> > soccer in the States. Classical music, close second."
>
> Not that I greatly disagree with this, but Henry Cowell "invented" most of
the
> avante garde innovations of post-war european composers back in the 10's
and
> 20's. To wit: cluster harmonies, quartal harmony, micro-tones, aleatory,
> prepared piano and playing the innards (ew!) of the piano.
>
As I see it, there are two really major problems with discussing 20th
century classical music, especially as the century aged. First, composers
substantially began composing for each other, or at least for a tiny
'gallery' group. Many compositions feel like thay are intentionally
inaccessible. Second, the alternative musical form is jazz & c., which
exploded into tens, if not hundreds, of different branches. How is it
possible to talk about jazz as a whole, given that?
Re. the original thread title: there is none. I guess, with Victoria,
that it would be unsurprising to find eclectic interests among the Americans
in this thread, though.
ne...@veko.mediaspamlessone.net
> As I see it, there are two really major problems with discussing 20th
> century classical music, especially as the century aged. First, composers
> substantially began composing for each other, or at least for a tiny
> 'gallery' group.
I disagree with this being a "new thing". What do you call Gregorian
chant? Mozart wrote for monarchs and other professional musicians hired
by monarchs, Bach wrote for the Lutheran church. There has always been a
"court" music. The thing that changed was that mass production suddenly
allowed popular music to become archiveable and broadly accessible.
Victoria Barrett
news:zXQd7.15186$lr2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>
> > "I always thought -- and mind you, I am normally Sheridan-like in my
defense
> > of all things American -- it is because Americans do not like those
things
> > that they either have (a) not invented (b) have not contributed greatly
to
> > (c) have not flat out dominated in the 20th. Century -- the soi-disant
> > "American Century". Using my criteria, you can readily see the dilemma
of
> > soccer in the States. Classical music, close second."
>
> Not that I greatly disagree with this, but Henry Cowell "invented" most of
the
> avante garde innovations of post-war european composers back in the 10's
and
> 20's. To wit: cluster harmonies, quartal harmony, micro-tones, aleatory,
> prepared piano and playing the innards (ew!) of the piano.
How many Americans right off the subway station on Washington Square in NY
would know who Henry Cowell is? How about B.B. King? And of those by now
sick-to-death-of-being-interviewed commuters, how many would know who Pele
was? Would they be able to pick out Kasey Keller out of a line-up?
That was my only point, really.
Being a Pierre Boulez kinda of gal (his "Le Marteau sans Maitre" is a wonder
of *calculated* spontenaiety), I however appreciate the rare Henry Cowell
reference on RSS.
> > "I am glad someone took up my bait there. No quarrels from me about
those
> > American musical luminaries (considering Samuel Barber's "Adagio for
> > Strings, op. 81" is one of my favs
>
> If you ever get sick of that one (god, it's so over-used) check out the
> Adagietto from Mahler's 5th symphony.
*Ouch* To think I have been called (a) fatuous and (b) pedestrian all in one
off-hand, seemingly helpful remark.
I realize if I mention my love for his "Kindertotenlieder" this makes me (a)
a member of the musical unwashed or (b) it could be worse, she could have
mentioned Mussorgsky's "Night on Bald Mountain".
> The word quality is as problematic here as when Thomas uses it. Basically,
> either you come down on the elitist side or the popularist side. To me,
> there's no freaking way that Michael Jackson's music is great, album sales
> notwithstanding. I come down on the "personal" side of the triangle,
where
> quality is in your own mind and Art is just a man's name. E.g., Charles
Ives
> and Ruth Crawford Seeger are the greatest musicians ever, and I don't give
a
> damn what anybody else has to say about it.
You are barking up the wrong oboe, Newt. I have limited, and as you've
noted, average musical tastes (my greatest embarrassment as a daughter of a
musical mother). These range from "The Smiths" to Funker Vogt to Britney
Spears. *yes, you heard me a-right*
> The problem in every country is that we're most aware of our own culture.
> There's tons of incredible jazz musicians all over the world (my favorite
> flavor of jazz is Hungarian), but how the hell would Americans know that?
Ask
Find thee (as Shawn says) Mexican Julieta Venegas fast. Bossa avante garde
with hints of UB 40. Her "Como se" is a minor blues/fusion masterpiece, IMO.
> anyone from France who has the greatest musical tradition and they'll say
> "France of course". (well, maybe they'll say it in French, but I'll be
damned
> if I will.)
The French, to their *infinite* credit, would say Germany.
Lully, Offenbach, Debussy and others separate or in toto just don't compare
to the 3 B's et cetera et cetera. I am sure Renaud will weigh in at this
juncture.
EPK
news:liRd7.15187$lr2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
wrote for the church or cathedral attendees, which certainly included all of
the middle class. 19th century wrote for a live audience, but nevertheless
a 'popular' audience -- think about how many Italians used to be able to
sing many of the operatic arias. Broad access was not always intended, but
the popularization of the piano made it so, indirectly, through selling
sheet music of arrangements. Even as late as Prokofiev, a general audience
was able to access the music enough to be offended. What classical composer
has offended a general audience in the last half century?
ne...@veko.mediaspamlessone.net
> How many Americans right off the subway station on Washington Square in NY
> would know who Henry Cowell is?
Nowadays he'd be positively infamous, too bad it wouldn't be for his musical
tastes but rather for other .... appetites ...
> How about B.B. King? And of those by now
> sick-to-death-of-being-interviewed commuters, how many would know who Pele
> was? Would they be able to pick out Kasey Keller out of a line-up?
> That was my only point, really.
That popular == Great?
> Being a Pierre Boulez kinda of gal (his "Le Marteau sans Maitre" is a wonder
> of *calculated* spontenaiety), I however appreciate the rare Henry Cowell
> reference on RSS.
The rhythm in that is incredible. On a lark I wrote a program to substitute
beethoven's harmony into it's first movement and it still rocked hard.
>> anyone from France who has the greatest musical tradition and they'll say
>> "France of course". (well, maybe they'll say it in French, but I'll be
>> damned if I will.)
> The French, to their *infinite* credit, would say Germany.
> Lully, Offenbach, Debussy and others separate or in toto just don't compare
> to the 3 B's et cetera et cetera. I am sure Renaud will weigh in at this
> juncture.
Sez you and me, but I'd be amazed if somebody French actually says that.
Victoria Barrett
news:QHSd7.15229$lr2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Victoria Barrett <vbar...@the-beach.net> wrote:
>
> > How many Americans right off the subway station on Washington Square in
NY
> > would know who Henry Cowell is?
>
> Nowadays he'd be positively infamous, too bad it wouldn't be for his
musical
> tastes but rather for other .... appetites ...
Cryptic. I likes...
> > How about B.B. King? And of those by now
> > sick-to-death-of-being-interviewed commuters, how many would know who
Pele
> > was? Would they be able to pick out Kasey Keller out of a line-up?
>
> > That was my only point, really.
>
> That popular == Great?
No. That Americans didn't provide the world with outstanding soccer players
as they have jazz artists, for one. And however midwifish-savants Bernstein
and Cowell are to 20th Century classical music, it doesn't register with
many Americans as the more topical rock-and-roll artists, e.g., do.
And also, that Joe Greenwich-Village-Zinfandel-Crate (presumably a more
well-rounded person, who might know a thing or two about both soccer and
music) still would hem-and-haw as to who Henry Cowell and Kasey Keller are.
What people misconstrue about my statements, I think, is that they perforce
believe that I am making a value judgement of some kind rather than an
observation with no hidden messages of inferiority or bias against American
culture, popular or specialised.
> > Being a Pierre Boulez kinda of gal (his "Le Marteau sans Maitre" is a
wonder
> > of *calculated* spontenaiety), I however appreciate the rare Henry
Cowell
> > reference on RSS.
>
> The rhythm in that is incredible. On a lark I wrote a program to
substitute
> beethoven's harmony into it's first movement and it still rocked hard.
This is as Chinese must be to an Iranian. Clueless as to the sound you mean.
*helas, helas*
> >> anyone from France who has the greatest musical tradition and they'll
say
> >> "France of course". (well, maybe they'll say it in French, but I'll be
> >> damned if I will.)
>
> > The French, to their *infinite* credit, would say Germany.
>
> > Lully, Offenbach, Debussy and others separate or in toto just don't
compare
> > to the 3 B's et cetera et cetera. I am sure Renaud will weigh in at this
> > juncture.
>
> Sez you and me, but I'd be amazed if somebody French actually says that.
On verra.
Say what you want against the French, (and I never do, because I am a tender
Francophile) but they always recognise cultural craftsmanship regardless of
its origins.
Renaud Dreyer
> > anyone from France who has the greatest musical tradition and they'll say
> > "France of course". (well, maybe they'll say it in French, but I'll be
> damned
> > if I will.)
>
> The French, to their *infinite* credit, would say Germany.
> Lully, Offenbach, Debussy and others separate or in toto just don't compare
> to the 3 B's et cetera et cetera. I am sure Renaud will weigh in at this
> juncture.
There are also some quite decent Austrians.
Personally, I like Stockhausen, Xenakis, Berio, Boulez and Penderecki
so my tastes are not very representative. What I can find around San
Francisco in terms of contemporary "classical" music is very poor when
compared to Paris, and I've been told that this is one of the best
area for such music in the US.
But it's fairly obvious that in Europe, our eastern neighbours are
traditionally doing better than anyone else in music, philosophy and
football (to go back on topic). Ciao,
Renaud Dreyer
Tom Jobes
>
> How many Americans right off the subway station on Washington Square in NY
> would know who Henry Cowell is?
I don't know how Henry Cowell is, and I live just down
the road from Henry Cowell State Redwood Park.
Just a philistine, I am...
Tom
Tom Jobes
Before the big youth soccer explosion in the 80's, about
the only soccer boosters I ever heard from, living as I did
in a city with very few immigrants, were Anglophile
intellectual elitists. I'd suspect that my experience
was not unique.
Not that this story makes "soccer=egghead" any more
less absurd. Why they were pushing soccer rather
than rubgy I'll never know. Isn't that supposed
to be the upper class sport in England, with soccer
being the working class sport?
Tom
Victoria Barrett
news:87lmkn2...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Good ole, Renaud! [spell it anyway you like *ahem*]
Sheridan Elliot
news:zXQd7.15186$lr2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> The word quality is as problematic here as when Thomas uses it. Basically,
> either you come down on the elitist side or the popularist side. To me,
> there's no freaking way that Michael Jackson's music is great, album sales
> notwithstanding. I come down on the "personal" side of the triangle,
>where
> quality is in your own mind and Art is just a man's name. E.g., Charles
>Ives and Ruth Crawford Seeger are the greatest musicians ever, and I don't
>give a damn what anybody else has to say about it.
Now that this thread has become so deliciously off-topic, I can no longer
resist it. The issue of artistic "validity" is one to which I have given
some considerable thought, so here, FWIW, are my conclusions.
Firstly, the notion that personal taste should be the only factor taken into
consideration is manifestly false. Certain forms of music, (and indeed, of
art in general) simply lack the capacity to reward the listener with the
same depth of emotional experience as others. For "certain forms of
music", read popular music. While pop can, in the right hands, transcend
its natural limitations to some extent and earn the right to be considered
artistically valid, 99% of what would generally be described as popular
music is simply too basic in structure to achieve this aim. Most pop songs
last about four or five minutes, at least half of which is taken up by
repetition. Furthermore, the genre operates on an entirely superficial
level - creating a catchy tune is the essence of popular music. The goal
of art should be (and Newt disputed this the last time I brought it up) to
communicate intense, complex and profound emotions and atmospheres.
An "art-form" which aspires to anything less than this (i.e., exists merely
to provide a short, sharp aesthetic thrill) should be described as
"entertainment."
And this is why I believe that literature is the purest (and in many ways,
the only true) art-form. Music, visual art, cinema - in all of these
art-forms, the listener/viewer may have his/her attention drawn away from
the substance of a piece by aesthetic considerations. The writer, on the
other hand, has no such hiding-place. Literature is pure concept - very
few people read merely to enjoy the quality of the prose. The writer sinks
or swims by his/her ability to evoke the responses I mentioned earlier.
S/He may also engage more fully with his/her audience since the audience
encounters his/her work more on their own terms. In literature, unlike
music and visual art, meaning is not cloaked by an aesthetic structure.
So there.
Stan Collins
I was just thinking about that a few days back. And actually, I think
you have to say 5 of the top 6, as one should count The Who. And it'd
be 6 of the top 7 if Eric Clapton had been able to stay with one band
for any length of time (and you might want to make a case for the
Yardbirds, anyway).
Stan collins
Nate505
Without a doubt the best music of the late 60's and early 70's, one of
my favorite era's of music, came from the UK, although the US had some
very quality musicians as well (Doors, Jimi, Santana, Grateful Dead to
name a few) from that era.
john Rose
Tom Jobes wrote:
>
> Before the big youth soccer explosion in the 80's, about
> the only soccer boosters I ever heard from, living as I did
> in a city with very few immigrants, were Anglophile
> intellectual elitists. I'd suspect that my experience
> was not unique.
>
> Not that this story makes "soccer=egghead" any more
> less absurd. Why they were pushing soccer rather
> than rubgy I'll never know. Isn't that supposed
> to be the upper class sport in England, with soccer
> being the working class sport?
>
> Tom
That tends to be the case in Scotland, with private schools playing rugby and cricket, and state funded schools
playing football. Not so much in England, where (as with the borders in Scotland) there is strong regional
support for rugby (particularly league in the NE and union in the SW).
John
ne...@veko.mediaspamlessone.net
> Firstly, the notion that personal taste should be the only factor taken into
> consideration is manifestly false. Certain forms of music, (and indeed, of
> art in general) simply lack the capacity to reward the listener with the
> same depth of emotional experience as others.
How in the world can you speak for me? 100% of the people I've tried to
introduce Merzbow to say that it's just a bunch of noise and devoid of any
artistry. I think it's the most incredible thing I've ever heard. By what
criteria can you claim that one side of this is wrong?
> For "certain forms of
> music", read popular music. While pop can, in the right hands, transcend
> its natural limitations to some extent and earn the right to be considered
> artistically valid, 99% of what would generally be described as popular
> music is simply too basic in structure to achieve this aim
You mean like "Violin Phase" or "Drumming" or minimalism? Or (to use
your prejudice) Gertrude Stein?
> repetition. Furthermore, the genre operates on an entirely superficial
> level - creating a catchy tune is the essence of popular music. The goal
> of art should be (and Newt disputed this the last time I brought it up) to
> communicate intense, complex and profound emotions and atmospheres.
There's more pleasure to art than atmosphere and emotion, that's all I meant.
I think the closest thing to a social good that an artist provides is to be an
advocate of creativity.
> An "art-form" which aspires to anything less than this (i.e., exists merely
> to provide a short, sharp aesthetic thrill) should be described as
> "entertainment."
An "art-form" which aspires to anything _else_ than this just might compell you
to enhance your view of the world.
> Literature is pure concept - very
> few people read merely to enjoy the quality of the prose. The writer sinks
> or swims by his/her ability to evoke the responses I mentioned earlier.
And you'd say the quality of prose has nothing to do with that? People may not
read strictly for the quality, but the quality is part of the whole experience,
same as any other art form. De-pedestal thyself.
> S/He may also engage more fully with his/her audience since the audience
> encounters his/her work more on their own terms. In literature, unlike
> music and visual art, meaning is not cloaked by an aesthetic structure.
Maybe reporting isn't, but of course lit. is, or it can be.
What about Robbe-Grillet?
> So there.
Same to you but more of it! ;-P
Sheridan Elliot
> Sheridan Elliot <sherida...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
> > Firstly, the notion that personal taste should be the only factor taken into
> > consideration is manifestly false. Certain forms of music, (and indeed, of
> > art in general) simply lack the capacity to reward the listener with the
> > same depth of emotional experience as others.
>
> How in the world can you speak for me? 100% of the people I've tried to
> introduce Merzbow to say that it's just a bunch of noise and devoid of any
> artistry. I think it's the most incredible thing I've ever heard. By what
> criteria can you claim that one side of this is wrong?
Your sensitivity to such matters has been heightened by your
superior education and knowledge on these matters. Therefore, your
side of that argument is right.
> > For "certain forms of
> > music", read popular music. While pop can, in the right hands, transcend
> > its natural limitations to some extent and earn the right to be considered
> > artistically valid, 99% of what would generally be described as popular
> > music is simply too basic in structure to achieve this aim
>
> You mean like "Violin Phase" or "Drumming" or minimalism? Or (to use
> your prejudice) Gertrude Stein?
The *formal* structure of your examples may be basic, but the
*conceptual* structure is not. There is a considerable difference.
> > repetition. Furthermore, the genre operates on an entirely superficial
> > level - creating a catchy tune is the essence of popular music. The goal
> > of art should be (and Newt disputed this the last time I brought it up) to
> > communicate intense, complex and profound emotions and atmospheres.
>
> There's more pleasure to art than atmosphere and emotion, that's all I meant.
> I think the closest thing to a social good that an artist provides is to be an
> advocate of creativity.
I'll probably get slaughtered for saying this, but pleasure, frankly, has
not place in art. Entertainment exists to provide pleasure. Art can
affect people on a much deeper and much more profound level,
through the means listed above.
> > An "art-form" which aspires to anything less than this (i.e., exists merely
> > to provide a short, sharp aesthetic thrill) should be described as
> > "entertainment."
>
> An "art-form" which aspires to anything _else_ than this just might compell you
> to enhance your view of the world.
In that context, I think "other" would be the mot juste. (I don't really understand
what you're getting at, so I shall content myself with nit-picking until an
explanation is forthcoming.) :-)
> > Literature is pure concept - very
> > few people read merely to enjoy the quality of the prose. The writer sinks
> > or swims by his/her ability to evoke the responses I mentioned earlier.
>
> And you'd say the quality of prose has nothing to do with that? People may not
> read strictly for the quality, but the quality is part of the whole >experience, same as any other art form. De-pedestal thyself.
Let this be our motto. Virtuosity is a curiosity, nothing more.
> > S/He may also engage more fully with his/her audience since the audience
> > encounters his/her work more on their own terms. In literature, unlike
> > music and visual art, meaning is not cloaked by an aesthetic structure.
>
> Maybe reporting isn't, but of course lit. is, or it can be.
> What about Robbe-Grillet?
Again, an *aesthetic* structure is not the same thing as a *conceptual*
structure.
ne...@veko.mediaspamlessone.net
> The *formal* structure of your examples may be basic, but the
> *conceptual* structure is not. There is a considerable difference.
So Jenny Holzer is a more complete artist than Dostoevsky, huh?
> I'll probably get slaughtered for saying this, but pleasure,
> frankly, has not place in art.
Ah, well then this discussion has reached it's conclusion.
Cheers!
Mark
> "SatanJones" <Satan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3b74513b...@news.optonline.com...
> > On 10 Aug 2001 02:49:57 GMT, mad...@aol.comVEGETA (The Ma-jin )
> >
> > This is my point. Every other American team sport has a pretty much
> > limited amount of ways to score..
> >
> > Basketball - layups, 3 pointers, 18 foot jumper, dunk , reverse
> > dunk....less than 20.
>
> And my favourite (football too), the Hail-Mary last-gasp buzzer beater. If
> that doesn't dump your Nachos on top of the person in front of you, nothing
> will.
Yes, the last seconds of a close basketball game can be very exciting. Before
then, it has to be the most monotonous (from a spectator's viewpoint) sport out
there (well, maybe bowling).
>
>
> > Football - Teams playbooks have a limited amount of plays, that for
> > the people on the team require no creativity.
>
> What the flying freaking squirrel is "Red dog seven bootleg"? Knute Rockne
> has a lot to answer for, boy.
The strategy and accompanying tactics in football can be very complex (blocking
schemes, pass route reads, blitzing schemes, etc.). Unfortunately, and this is
a big strike against football, the majority of the strategizing is done by
coaches. For the most part, the only creativity left for players is a runner
making a move or a receiver making a fake. The most common scoring play, other
than a FG, is probably a one yard up-the-middle run.
>
>
> > Baseball - Wow. Single, double, triple, homer.
>
> Okay, why am I weighing in on the side of baseball? Still, sac fly,
> in-the-park homer (the most exciting, happened in my first game ever),
> sacrifice bunt and that always "boner" play, E-7 (dick). Others possibly.
> But yes, you got it otherwise.
Being something of a baseball fan, there are numerous avenues of scoring. It's
hardly ever a simple matter of the right succession of hits. There is much
strategy that goes into getting those hits, advancing runners, avoiding double
plays, etc.
>
>
> > SOCCER - Unlimited. I mean, compare a PK to a Rivaldo Bicycle outside
> > the box to a lob from 25 meters to a header to a free kick goal. i
> > mean, let's get real, NO two goals are really alike. Even PKs have a
> > large amount of variations. That is why this sport rules.
>
> Very good.
Another example of the artistry of soccer. No other sport comes close.
Mark
S.T. Pickrell
> I'll probably get slaughtered for saying this, but pleasure, frankly,
> has not place in art.
this promotes a concept of art existing to please a small and limited
grouping of critics and other "artists".
> Entertainment exists to provide pleasure. Art can affect people on a
> much deeper and much more profound level, through the means listed
> above.
art which is not accessible to the masses is worse than useless.
its beauty, sublimity, and all of it is lost.
shawn
Sheridan Elliot
news:lV9e7.18450$lr2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> Sheridan Elliot <sherida...@ireland.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll probably get slaughtered for saying this, but pleasure,
> > frankly, has no place in art.
>
> Ah, well then this discussion has reached it's conclusion.
>
> Cheers!
Okay, okay, okay - I was trolling just a wee bit there. What I
mean is that the word "pleasure" (and I will resist the usual gimmick
of quoting a dictionary definition at this point) implies an emotional
response altogether weaker and less profound than that which is evoked
by the best type of "serious" art. Indeed, taste, education and
other factors *do* matter to an extent, but there is a lower limit at
which no amount of creativity can make up for the inherent
deficiencies of the medium. Since it may seem to you as if I
am generalising about popular music, let me just say that *indivual*
works of art, whatever form they take, must justify their own
position within the realm of valid art. Perhaps we should find a
new word to replace "art."
Victoria Barrett
news:3B794D15...@nowhere.com...
> Victoria Barrett wrote:
> >
> > And my favourite (football too), the Hail-Mary last-gasp buzzer beater.
If
> > that doesn't dump your Nachos on top of the person in front of you,
nothing
> > will.
>
> Yes, the last seconds of a close basketball game can be very exciting.
Before
> then, it has to be the most monotonous (from a spectator's viewpoint)
sport out
> there (well, maybe bowling).
Snooker for me (on telly especially). But yes, basketball...bored to tears
by it. And unlike many women, I've done it and understand the plays.
> > What the flying freaking squirrel is "Red dog seven bootleg"? Knute
Rockne
> > has a lot to answer for, boy.
[Did I really write squirrel?? LOL! Perhaps that moment I was thinking,
"Mighty Mouse", but not willing to commit there]
> The strategy and accompanying tactics in football can be very complex
(blocking
> schemes, pass route reads, blitzing schemes, etc.). Unfortunately, and
this is
> a big strike against football, the majority of the strategizing is done by
> coaches. For the most part, the only creativity left for players is a
runner
> making a move or a receiver making a fake. The most common scoring play,
other
> than a FG, is probably a one yard up-the-middle run.
This can be, as you said, a combination of all the best elements of A.
football -- blocking, sight-recognition of changing plays by the QB, rushing
into a wall of humanity and somehow finding daylight anyway. Great game.
It's the military in me, I suppose. No, never played it. Like rugby, a
little too rough for *this* lady.
> Being something of a baseball fan, there are numerous avenues of scoring.
It's
> hardly ever a simple matter of the right succession of hits. There is
much
> strategy that goes into getting those hits, advancing runners, avoiding
double
> plays, etc.
Doris Kearns Goodwin said if you don't understand baseball, it's not
baseball's fault.
Doan Nguyen
Victoria Barrett wrote:
>
> "Mark" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3B794D15...@nowhere.com...
> > Victoria Barrett wrote:
> > >
> > > And my favourite (football too), the Hail-Mary last-gasp buzzer beater.
> If
> > > that doesn't dump your Nachos on top of the person in front of you,
> nothing
> > > will.
> >
> > Yes, the last seconds of a close basketball game can be very exciting.
> Before
> > then, it has to be the most monotonous (from a spectator's viewpoint)
> sport out
> > there (well, maybe bowling).
>
> Snooker for me (on telly especially). But yes, basketball...bored to tears
I try and watch a bit of snooker when its on...its fascinating to watch
someone crack under pressure.
Unfortunately whilst I enjoy playing B'Ball, and watching it is
ok...even when the game is close near the end, the endless fouls and
timeouts means the tension gets broken up too often.
Its amazing sometimes watching some B'Ball players who seem to be
entirely clueless unless the coach shouts at them to do something. No
improvisation/initiative at all...although this is not limited to
B'ball.
Doan
EPK
news:3B7A3EEB...@nospam.uk.ibm.com...
<snip>
>
> Its amazing sometimes watching some B'Ball players who seem to be
> entirely clueless unless the coach shouts at them to do something. No
> improvisation/initiative at all...although this is not limited to
> B'ball.
>
Well, running a hit-and-run without a signal, or round third and head
for home without being able to see the play behind you, would be a bit like
having only 3 of the 4 defenders run an offside trap. Most situations need
signals.
Having said that, baseball players, historically, have been particularly
thick, also needing a signal to tell them when not to swing at a pitched
ball.
Mark
These are yet again more unfair assessments of baseball. Only in certain
circumstances does the manager give a batter a "take" sign. It's usually when
the count is 3-0 and the batting team is trailing and needs base runners.
Another factor is whether the pitcher has been having control problems. In most
cases, it is obvious to almost everyone that the batter will take a pitch. On
the other hand, most dangerous hitters rarely get a take sign. They are usually
on their own.
As for baseball players being thick, in general, this is again untrue.
Baseball, being a highly strategic/tactical game, requires players to have a
great deal of knowledge about their opponents. This is especially true with
pitcher/batter match-ups. Pitchers need to know a batter's weaknesses and
batters need to know the pitcher's style, if you will. There is also the matter
of having to make almost at-bat to at-bat adjustments. So, there is quite a bit
of mental exercise going on.
Also, it is quite rare for a coach or the manager to shout anything. Everything
is communicated via a sequence of hand signals. Shouting instruction would
simply tell the opposing team your intentions. While it is true that the
improvisation/artistry in baseball does not compare to that of soccer, it does
exist. Pitching successfully, especially when you do not rely on overpowering
batters, is most definitely an art form.
I stated in an earlier post that condemning other sports is not an especially
good way of defending or propping up soccer. This is especially true when your
condemnation is inaccurate. Let's leave the displays of ignorance to the soccer
bashers.
Mark
Doan Nguyen
> I stated in an earlier post that condemning other sports is not an especially
> good way of defending or propping up soccer. This is especially true when your
> condemnation is inaccurate.
Weren't me guv'
I condemn stupidity whenever I see it....unfortunately the condemned
person never understands.
> Let's leave the displays of ignorance to the soccer
> bashers.
In Britain...its a rare footballer who is semi-literate nevermind
intelligent.
Doan
Christopher Horymski
> Having said that, baseball players, historically, have been particularly
> thick, also needing a signal to tell them when not to swing at a pitched
> ball.
And even that won't stop some of them. This isn't the place to moan
about the decline in common sense of the major league hitter, but the
craft of good hitting; i.e. working the count, not swinging when the
pitcher has control problems, not trying to pull everything, etc, is
left to maybe one or two high average hitters in the lineup. Everyone
else says, it would appear, to hell with it.
It's been claimed in this group, correctly I think, that Baseball is
more a string of tactical endeavors, where the baseball player is more of
a soldier, responsible (though this is often shirked, resulting in
Tim McCarver handwringing) for anticipating all that could possibly happen
in a particular AB. The situation changes, and another calculation is made.
I don't think I need to state the ways soccer differs (I'm also
too lazy at the moment). Baseball:Checkers/Draughts, Soccer:Speed Chess.
Chris
ne...@veko.mediaspamlessone.net
> Baseball:Checkers/Draughts, Soccer:Speed Chess.
You give chess too much credit. Soccer is more like Go. Simple ruleset,
enormous options and immediate event horizons, making calculation
hopelessly useless. Ask anyone who's tried programming chess- and Go-bots.
Christopher Horymski
Perhaps. Not being a Go player, I don't know its history as I
do chess, where one can (imperfectly, again) analogize certain chess
openings and their histories to the football formation counterpart.
For example:
old openings no one plays anymore (Center Counter, 2-3-5)
old reliable (Double King Pawn: 4-4-2)
complex (Nimzo-Indian:Total football)
boring, (Giuoco Piano:Norway Euro 2000)
etc.
Chris
Chris
If I thought that I probably should have dropped the 'speed' part of
the analogy.
EPK
Agreed that baseball is certainly the most cerebral game (in US), and
that the reason most people find it dull is that they don't have any depth
of knowledge about all of what is going on at any time. Even in middle
innings, with no base runner, a knowledgable fan is looking out to the
bullpens to see who is loosening his arm, e.g.. Roger Angel and George Will
both manage to capture the depth in much of their writing.
Having said that, most athletes are not the sharpest tools in the shed,
and turn-of-last-century thugs were often baseball players. To the one
example point: what sort of nit should need to be told when to take a
pitch?! And, they seem to miss this sign more often than not, as CH pointed
out in another reply.
Philip Lennox Beineke
>I stated in an earlier post that condemning other sports is not an especially
>good way of defending or propping up soccer. This is especially true when
>your condemnation is inaccurate. Let's leave the displays of ignorance
>to the soccer bashers.
Afraid this sticks in my craw. A couple of posts ago, Mark describes
basketball as "monotonous." When the subject turns to baseball, he says
soccer fans shouldn't bash other sports ... nothing hypocritical
about that.
P
--
Phil Beineke bei...@stanford.edu
Modern life is full of breezy generalizations like this one.
Brandon Thornburg
"Christopher Horymski" <c...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9ledp3$2ds$1...@news.panix.com...
> old openings no one plays anymore (Center Counter, 2-3-5)
Someone ever played 2-3-5? That must have been interesting to watch.
Mark
> In article <3B7A9D8A...@nowhere.com>, Mark <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >I stated in an earlier post that condemning other sports is not an especially
> >good way of defending or propping up soccer. This is especially true when
> >your condemnation is inaccurate. Let's leave the displays of ignorance
> >to the soccer bashers.
>
> Afraid this sticks in my craw. A couple of posts ago, Mark describes
> basketball as "monotonous." When the subject turns to baseball, he says
> soccer fans shouldn't bash other sports ... nothing hypocritical
> about that.
Read what I said. My complaint is bashing/condemnation using inaccurate
assessments. The examples I complained about were baseball coaches shouting
instruction (almost never happens), lack of improvisation/initiative (definitely
not true, especially for pitchers), and the need to receive a take signal (happens
only in special circumstances and is usually not "needed"). This sort of thing is
similar to the soccer bashers who say the lack of goals makes soccer boring, it's
un-American, or whatever they say. When I say basketball is monotonous, it's
just an opinion. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but that's where I'm coming from.
If someone had said baseball is too slow for them or they find it boring, then I
wouldn't have commented.
I also said condemning other sports is "not an especially good way of defending
soccer." That's a little different from "shouldn't bash other sports." Maybe you
also remember a couple of my posts that offered suggestions about how to defend
soccer without "bashing."
Mark
Dan
> > Yes, the last seconds of a close basketball game can be very exciting.
> Before
> > then, it has to be the most monotonous (from a spectator's viewpoint)
> sport out
> > there (well, maybe bowling).
>
> Snooker for me (on telly especially). But yes, basketball...bored to tears
> by it. And unlike many women, I've done it and understand the plays.
I wonder if the apparently bad image of basketball overseas is due to
the fact taht (at least judging from my experience in Costa Rica) all
you guys get on TV is the NBA, which usually consists of sloppy,
out-of-control play without the slightest hint of defense or offensive
team strategy. I wonder if you got our major college games if that
would change your minds. (Maybe it's just me, but I don't know how
anyone could watch a Duke-North Carolina game, an Indiana-Purdue
contest, or our local uber-rivalry, Xavier-Cincinnati and not fall in
love with the game).
DS
Nate505
I like NBA basketball, but then again, my favorite team is the Jazz,
the most college like team in the NBA execution wise. We're also the
dirtiest!
Jim Goloboy
On 15 Aug 2001, Dan wrote:
> "Victoria Barrett" <vbar...@the-beach.net> wrote in message news:<tnj265g...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > > Yes, the last seconds of a close basketball game can be very exciting.
> > Before
> > > then, it has to be the most monotonous (from a spectator's viewpoint)
> > sport out
> > > there (well, maybe bowling).
> >
> > Snooker for me (on telly especially). But yes, basketball...bored to tears
> > by it. And unlike many women, I've done it and understand the plays.
>
> I wonder if the apparently bad image of basketball overseas is due to
> the fact taht (at least judging from my experience in Costa Rica) all
> you guys get on TV is the NBA, which usually consists of sloppy,
> out-of-control play without the slightest hint of defense or offensive
> team strategy.
I disagree--IMO the exact opposite has happened. NBA basketball started to
go downhill when the coaches decided that they wanted to be NFL coaches
and micromanage every possession.
The other big problem is that they started to let Greco-Roman wrestling
pass for defense (thanks Pistons!)
Victoria Barrett
"Dan" <smit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d498e872.0108...@posting.google.com...
> "Victoria Barrett" <vbar...@the-beach.net> wrote in message
news:<tnj265g...@corp.supernews.com>...
tears
> > by it. And unlike many women, I've done it and understand the plays.
>
> I wonder if the apparently bad image of basketball overseas is due to
> the fact taht (at least judging from my experience in Costa Rica) all
> you guys get on TV is the NBA, which usually consists of sloppy,
Not that bad, come now, Dan.
The Italians love basketball a heck of a lot, e.g. -- just from a different
vantage point of , say, that American dunking in a guy's face (I own that I
have never "gotten" the message implicit in slamming a ball in a basket, and
its resultant humiliation to male huevos -- but this is something I have
shelved under "inscrutable guy stuff"...alongside raised toilet seats :).
> out-of-control play without the slightest hint of defense or offensive
> team strategy. I wonder if you got our major college games if that
> would change your minds. (Maybe it's just me, but I don't know how
> anyone could watch a Duke-North Carolina game, an Indiana-Purdue
> contest, or our local uber-rivalry, Xavier-Cincinnati and not fall in
> love with the game).
My dad always says he prefers college anything to professional nothing when
it comes to sheer effort. Yeah, there could be scouts in the stands, but
it's more than that. It's youth, pride, and "wanting" combined with the
rivalries you mentioned.
Greycat Sharpclaw
There is an allegation that ne...@veko.mediaSPAMLESSone.net wrote:
>You give chess too much credit. Soccer is more like Go. Simple ruleset,
>enormous options and immediate event horizons, making calculation
>hopelessly useless. Ask anyone who's tried programming chess- and Go-bots.
Add to the comparison of go and soccer: catching on slowly in the US
surrounded by people who don't understand the point.
-- Greycat Sharpclaw
I can't be called for handballs,
I don't have hands, only front paws
Remove "nospam" in address to reply
thomas
>
>
>On 15 Aug 2001, Dan wrote:
>
>> "Victoria Barrett" <vbar...@the-beach.net> wrote in message
> news:<tnj265g...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>
>> > > Yes, the last seconds of a close basketball game can be very exciting.
>> > Before
>> > > then, it has to be the most monotonous (from a spectator's viewpoint)
>> > sport out
>> > > there (well, maybe bowling).
>> >
>> > Snooker for me (on telly especially). But yes, basketball...bored to tears
>> > by it. And unlike many women, I've done it and understand the plays.
>>
>> I wonder if the apparently bad image of basketball overseas is due to
>> the fact taht (at least judging from my experience in Costa Rica) all
>> you guys get on TV is the NBA, which usually consists of sloppy,
>> out-of-control play without the slightest hint of defense or offensive
>> team strategy.
>
>I disagree--IMO the exact opposite has happened. NBA basketball started to
>go downhill when the coaches decided that they wanted to be NFL coaches
>and micromanage every possession.
I barely follow NBA, but from what little I do know, coaches have very little
authority. This is in sharp contrast with the NFL (where they are Gods) or
college basketball.
BTW, football (Amer) requires micromanagement.
Bordon
>my favorite era's of music, came from the UK, although the US had some
>very quality musicians as well (Doors, Jimi, Santana, Grateful Dead to
>name a few) from that era.
Isn't Carlos Santana Mexican?
--
Posted from [63.142.254.2] by way of oe45.law14.hotmail.com [64.4.20.17]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Nate505
<bordon_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Without a doubt the best music of the late 60's and early 70's, one of
>>my favorite era's of music, came from the UK, although the US had some
>>very quality musicians as well (Doors, Jimi, Santana, Grateful Dead to
>>name a few) from that era.
>
>Isn't Carlos Santana Mexican?
I stand corrected, he is, although he moved to San Francisco when he
was 16 or so and started his career there.
Bordon
>was 16 or so and started his career there.
Dan
> "Dan" <smit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d498e872.0108...@posting.google.com...
> > "Victoria Barrett" <vbar...@the-beach.net> wrote in message
> news:<tnj265g...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Snooker for me (on telly especially). But yes, basketball...bored to
> tears
> > > by it. And unlike many women, I've done it and understand the plays.
> >
> > I wonder if the apparently bad image of basketball overseas is due to
> > the fact taht (at least judging from my experience in Costa Rica) all
> > you guys get on TV is the NBA, which usually consists of sloppy,
>
> Not that bad, come now, Dan.
I'm dead serious, V., I can't stomach more than three minutes of NBA
hoop but probably watch 7-8 college games a week during the height of
the season. There's just something missing in the pro game, maybe
because more or less everyone makes the play-offs and it's important
to pad one's stats to get that fat contract at the end of the year.
> The Italians love basketball a heck of a lot, e.g. -- just from a different
> vantage point of , say, that American dunking in a guy's face (I own that I
> have never "gotten" the message implicit in slamming a ball in a basket, and
> its resultant humiliation to male huevos -- but this is something I have
> shelved under "inscrutable guy stuff"...alongside raised toilet seats :).
Watching a player slice through the defense, levitate over an
opponent, and slam the ball through has to be one of the most
electrifying plays in sport. GOLAZO!
> My dad always says he prefers college anything to professional nothing when
> it comes to sheer effort. Yeah, there could be scouts in the stands, but
> it's more than that. It's youth, pride, and "wanting" combined with the
> rivalries you mentioned.
Precisely. ALthough oddly enough the NFL retains its charm for me
over the college game (my friends would disagree). This is probably
because I'm from Cincinnati and we have an NFL team but no major
college football nearby.
thomas
>Precisely. ALthough oddly enough the NFL retains its charm for me
>over the college game (my friends would disagree). This is probably
>because I'm from Cincinnati and we have an NFL team but no major
You call that a team?
>college football nearby.
Paul
>Help!!! I live in the USA and I have to stomach jabronies like Jim
Rome >calling it a pussy sport and a pantywaist sport for "softies".
I always
>have to defend my interests (hip-hop, electronica, comics, wrestling
and >soccer)...
Jim Rome is clueless when it comes to anything outside of
American- dominated sports,or it appears that way. The only
way he will become a fan of the game,like many typical sports
fans,if their country (USA in Rome's case) the USA do extremely
well at the world level...like World Cup champions. I mean is
there a sport that is popular worldwide Americans will watch
even when their country isn't faring well in that sport. I can't
think of one. Look at what happened to TV ratings in the USA after
Connors and McEnroe stopped dominating men's tennis. It wasn't
until the next wave of great players from that country that many
American sports fans started watching again. I'm not counting of
course the hardcore tennis fans from that nation who will watch
tennis no matter who is the champion. If you want an example,
look at how popular soccer is around the world. I'm betting most
people who you are defending your interests to are just plain
ignorant or have some sort of bias against things they don't
understand or aren't knowledable about. That explains a lot about
why there is so much hatred. The problem is there are many more
bandwagon sports fans than there are hardcore sports fans it
seems.
>What is an eloquent way to describe soccer? Its history, its pace,
etc?
>People ust don't "get it". Really frustrating.
Screw Jim Rome...he bashed the British Open,golf's oldest
major tournament recently too. There are a lot of people who
think Jim Rome is a pompous arrogant idiot. He does have his
moments occasionally,but not often.
>Have you ever had to defend soccer? what do you say in its defense?
Yes...I just point out the deficiencies in the sport or interests
the detractor is interested in and that usually is good enough to
shut them up. The classic "soccer is boring" can be easily refuted
by looking at any other sport,and saying no sport is exciting 100%
of the time.That's the truth,but conversely,no sport is likely
boring 100% of the time either.
Paul
>If you are smart enough to enjoy soccer, why would you be stupid enough to
>care what Jim Rome says?
Rome is at the summit of sports journalism stupidity.