World champions??

[Prosthetic]

Edit: In closure I'll say this. The rest of the world will never view them as world champions, given the very heavily biased (US) sampling of talent.

The sampling of talent isn't as biased as you make it out to be. In Baseball alone every team sinks millions of dollars every year signing people from all over the world. The leagues around the world are so players can get noticed by scouts and the media so they can get to the major leagues. The league doesn't have to be called "World Baseball League" (which sounds retarded) for them to be considered World Champions. The MLB and NFL are both the top daddy when it comes to quality competition and size of the stage. Until another league can figure out how to beat them in the same game who ever wins the Championship are World Champions.

They don't need the approval of irrelevant people around the world that probably know very little about the sport to whine about what they call the winner of the season. Like I said before any NFL or MLB team would walk all over any currently assembled team around the world. Why else do you think American players go to other countries to play after failing to play well in the states go to these other league to play.

 

[Joel]

So the situation we have is that NFL is the highest level of that kind of sport in the world, played in the only country in the world with a professional version of that sport (though with overseas players too), with that country being the originator and de facto world leader of that sport. There's lots of "world" in there and I'd say that gives the Superbowl winners - the champions of a sport at the highest level in the world - the right to call themselves World Champion of that sport. MLB, no. NHL, no. NBA, no. NFL, yes.

I'll slightly disagree with the NHL point. The NHL is the best hockey league in the world. The next best is probably the Elitserien (Sweden), or the Kontinental Hockey League (Russia). I guess the closest thing to scientific evidence of this would be the most recent Olympics in 2010. Even team Sweden with arguably the 2nd best league in the world only had 3 players from the Swedish league (1 of those being Peter Forsberg, an NHL star for a decade), and one playing in Russia. The other 19 were NHL players. Both finalists, (Canada and the USA) were comprised completely of NHL players. Finland, all but one player was in the NHL. Russia, 4 KHL players, the rest NHLers. Team Czech Republic, all but one player were NHLers (and again, Jaromir Jagr who was an NHL star for years and left for more money in Russia). All of the top tier teams were made up of NHL stars. Admittedly, a scrappy team Switzerland gave Canada a scare, but other than that the teams with mostly NHL players blew the other teams out of the water (and even the Swiss had an All star NHL goalie, as well as two relatively good NHL defensemen)


I won't say that the NHL is far and away the best league, but calling the NHL champs the world champs wouldn't be a stretch. Although any decent international team (http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/Big_Seven) could handily beat the Chicago Blackhawks, I don't think any club team from any other league in the world could beat a top NHL team in a 7 game series. Admittedly, the fully staffed Blackhawks played 2 games against Swiss teams before last season and lost one of them (winning the other 9-2), I can't imagine any European team winning a best of 7 series against them. I think it's likely that top teams from the Elitserien or KHL could beat lower tier NHL teams in a best of 7, but the majority of the NHL would be better than any KHL or SEL team. The thing with the NHL, is the hard salary cap has created parity throughout the league. There's 4 or 5 good teams that would handily beat European league clubs, 20 teams in the middle of the pack that would likely win over a best of 7, and 5 or so teams that just suck and would likely lose.


I don't know if it's 100% justifiable to call the NHL champions the world champs, because unlike with the NFL there are other legitimate top level hockey leagues in the world, but the top tier teams in the NHL (Detroit Red Wings, Vancouver Canucks, and Philadelphia Flyers) are scary good, and would be tough for any NHL team to beat in a best of 7, let alone a European team.




The Toronto Maple Leafs, on the other hand...

 

[DKLion3s]

There are some good viewpoints shared in this thread for both sides of this discussion.

However, we skipped the main and most important question in this debate, which is, " Why, did all other sports proliferate more readily, than the three major sports (ie. football, basketball, baseball) of the US"?

Once trend is tracked, the source will be quite interesting, for alot of folks and shed light on what is accepted for what, it, is or is not, today.



Edit:

And it's not the fault of the Americans that this is the case, but the fault of everyone else.

I strongly disagree with this statement. It is their fault that it is not spread widely, and you only need to look at the history of sports in the US to see it.

It took a high act of darn near congress for any nationality to enter and compete in US sports, during it's infancy. The resulting factor being, it wasn't widely accepted.

The source for all this, is in the very seed that spawned the olympics.

 

[spiker]

However, we skipped the main and most important question in this debate, which is, " Why, did all other sports proliferate more readily, than the three major sports (ie. football, basketball, baseball) of the US"?

Even though this question is worded poorly I think I understand what you are trying to say and I'd counter that you've missed the boat entirely.

The important question here is "How can a team call themselves a 'World Champion' if the sport is only played in one country (or region)?" vs "Why can't a team call themselves a 'World Champion' if the sport isn't played all over the world?"

Although, you could probably argue that the OP was actually questioning "Why is the US so arrogant to assign the title of 'World Champions' to their league champs?" but that's not really a debate.

 

[DKLion3s]

Even though this question is worded poorly I think I understand what you are trying to say and I'd counter that you've missed the boat entirely.

The important question here is "How can a team call themselves a 'World Champion' if the sport is only played in one country (or region)?" vs "Why can't a team call themselves a 'World Champion' if the sport isn't played all over the world?"

Although, you could probably argue that the OP was actually questioning "Why is the US so arrogant to assign the title of 'World Champions' to their league champs?" but that's not really a debate.

The question is worded exactly how it needs to be.

If you have read the entire thread, you will notice that the questions you're putting forth has already been debated, sides drawn and supported by facts and viewpoints from both sides.

The aim of the question is to establish origin. So as to better understand "why" the situation has evolved to what it is today, and possibly garner a better grasp of the viewpoints of both sides of the debate.

 

[spiker]

I read the whole thread. What good is it to "establish origin"?

 

[Joel]

As far as the NFL goes, no non NFL team could beat even the worst NFL team. Bottom line.

 

[Famine]

I strongly disagree with this statement. It is their fault that it is not spread widely, and you only need to look at the history of sports in the US to see it.

It took a high act of darn near congress for any nationality to enter and compete in US sports, during it's infancy. The resulting factor being, it wasn't widely accepted.

The source for all this, is in the very seed that spawned the olympics.

Errr... whut? What does US legislation have to do with sporting uptake elsewhere in the world?

The issue is that American Football - and Baseball and Basketball - is a very "new" game. In Britain, all of our sportsmen play Association football, rugby and (field) hockey in the winter and cricket in the summer. We've had an association with all four sports for longer than the United States has been in existence (though Association football is something of a newer entity - barely even 160 years old at this point) and there's no real infrastructure for any other sports. Almost all villages have a cricket pitch somewhere in them, and where there's a 110 yard by 65 yard patch of grass, someone will put goals for Association football or posts for rugby. Even if they don't, kids will put jumpers down for goalposts. No American Football posts here.

Insert into that a new game from the colonies that needs so many more people and far more equipment that a pair of jumpers, a ball and yourself (yes, you don't need it to play American football casually, but if you're playing rugby or Association football casually, you have exactly the same level of equipment as the professionals do). Kids aren't interested. British adults aren't interested in the professional game either - we don't like ad breaks. A game of football lasts two 45 minute halves with one break in the middle. Same with rugby, but 40 minute halves. We'll watch a full F1 race - budging on 2 hours for a long, rain-affected one. We'll even sit and watch snooker, or cricket which can last FIVE DAYS. American Football has the stigma of 30 seconds' play and 2 minutes break - people simply don't watch a sport that takes 4 hours to last 1 hour.

Of course Britain is responsible for a lot of the world's sporting proclivities. Most of our former colonies - at least those that persisted through to the Commonwealth - play rugby and cricket too. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya... European countries like a bit of rugby too - Ireland, France and Italy notably - as do some of their former colonies. Australia and Ireland have their own sports as well - Aussie Rules, Shinty and Hurling leap to mind. And Association Football is everywhere - there's more members of FIFA than the United Nations!


And into all of this comes American Football. With its peculiar rules, similarity to existing sport (rugby particularly), equipment requirements, excessive ad breaks and an already saturated sports scene across the whole world. It can't be a shock that it has virtually no penetration outside the United States.

And none of this is the fault of the US, American legislators or the sport. It's our fault for not giving it a chance and not having the facilities. Brits call it "rugby for poofs" and "armoured eggchasing" - how is that level of prejudice the fault of the US?

 

[DKLion3s]

^... Have you checked the PM I sent you?

I read the whole thread. What good is it to "establish origin"?

If you don't see any good in it, then so be it. I doubt I'll be able to explain.


Edit: For those who are interested as to why I have taken the stance of this being the US's fault or failure. Check out as an example (one of many) Jack Johnson (boxer, undisputed, undefeated, heavy weight champion of the world).

 

[spiker]

If you don't see any good in it, then so be it. I doubt I'll be able to explain.

More like you can't explain.

How American sports grew up has little bearing within the context of framing a league champion as a "World Champion". We all know where and how sports were formed. There is no need to establish origins because they have already been established.

The argument is and always has been about a professional sports league that operates in one country, has no talent equivalent anywhere else in the world, taking the liberty of giving their league champion the moniker of "World Champion".

Why do you think we have to understand the origins of this sport or league in order to define whether the NFL Champion is actually a "World Champion"?

 

[spiker]

You posted this while I was typing my response.

For those who are interested as to why I have taken the stance of this being the US's fault or failure. Check out as an example (one of many) Jack Johnson (boxer, undisputed, undefeated, heavy weight champion of the world).

Can you please just make your point instead of setting up some cryptic puzzle for us to figure out?

 

[DKLion3s]

More like you can't explain.

How American sports grew up has little bearing within the context of framing a league champion as a "World Champion". We all know where and how sports were formed. There is no need to establish origins because they have already been established.

The argument is and always has been about a professional sports league that operates in one country, has no talent equivalent anywhere else in the world, taking the liberty of giving their league champion the moniker of "World Champion".

Why do you think we have to understand the origins of this sport or league in order to define whether the NFL Champion is actually a "World Champion"?

Why do historians spend so much time & finances going through history, and scientists spend so much time & finances trying to find the origins of the universe?

You posted this while I was typing my response.



Can you please just make your point instead of setting up some cryptic puzzle for us to figure out?

It's a simple google search, however it's a lot of material. Of which I don't want to take out of context, by trying to replicate from memory. Personally, watched an 8 hr documentary on it.


Edit: @Famine; Wasn't the original immigrants to the US, slaves, criminals, etc. from the English? Or am I mistaken?

I am mistaken. First successfull colony established by English pilgrims seeking refuge from religious leaders. That earlier referrence is Australia.

Errr... whut? What does US legislation have to do with sporting uptake elsewhere in the world?

The issue is that American Football - and Baseball and Basketball - is a very "new" game. In Britain, all of our sportsmen play Association football, rugby and (field) hockey in the winter and cricket in the summer. We've had an association with all four sports for longer than the United States has been in existence (though Association football is something of a newer entity - barely even 160 years old at this point) and there's no real infrastructure for any other sports. Almost all villages have a cricket pitch somewhere in them, and where there's a 110 yard by 65 yard patch of grass, someone will put goals for Association football or posts for rugby. Even if they don't, kids will put jumpers down for goalposts. No American Football posts here.

Insert into that a new game from the colonies that needs so many more people and far more equipment that a pair of jumpers, a ball and yourself (yes, you don't need it to play American football casually, but if you're playing rugby or Association football casually, you have exactly the same level of equipment as the professionals do). Kids aren't interested. British adults aren't interested in the professional game either - we don't like ad breaks. A game of football lasts two 45 minute halves with one break in the middle. Same with rugby, but 40 minute halves. We'll watch a full F1 race - budging on 2 hours for a long, rain-affected one. We'll even sit and watch snooker, or cricket which can last FIVE DAYS. American Football has the stigma of 30 seconds' play and 2 minutes break - people simply don't watch a sport that takes 4 hours to last 1 hour.

Of course Britain is responsible for a lot of the world's sporting proclivities. Most of our former colonies - at least those that persisted through to the Commonwealth - play rugby and cricket too. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya... European countries like a bit of rugby too - Ireland, France and Italy notably - as do some of their former colonies. Australia and Ireland have their own sports as well - Aussie Rules, Shinty and Hurling leap to mind. And Association Football is everywhere - there's more members of FIFA than the United Nations!


And into all of this comes American Football. With its peculiar rules, similarity to existing sport (rugby particularly), equipment requirements, excessive ad breaks and an already saturated sports scene across the whole world. It can't be a shock that it has virtually no penetration outside the United States.

And none of this is the fault of the US, American legislators or the sport. It's our fault for not giving it a chance and not having the facilities. Brits call it "rugby for poofs" and "armoured eggchasing" - how is that level of prejudice the fault of the US?

Here's an example for you. It's condensed, however it basically gives the jist.

Link:

Jack Johnson

Arthur John (Jack) Johnson (1878 -1946) was the first black, and first Texan, to win the heavyweight boxing championship of the world.

Born in Galveston on March 31, 1878, he was the second of six children of Henry and Tiny Johnson. Henry was a former slave and his family was poor. After leaving school in the fifth grade, Johnson worked odd jobs around South Texas. He started boxing as a sparring partner and fought in the "battles royal," matches in which young blacks entertained white spectators who threw money to the winner.

Johnson turned professional in 1897 following a period with private clubs in Galveston. His family's home was destroyed by the great hurricane of 1900. A year later he was arrested and jailed because boxing was a criminal profession in Texas. He soon left Galveston for good.

Johnson first became the heavyweight champion of Negro boxing. Jim Jeffries, the white champ at the time, refused to fight Johnson because he was black. Then, in 1908, Johnson knocked out Tommy Burns in Australia to become world champion, although he was not officially given the title until 1910 when he finally fought and beat Jeffries in Reno. Jeffries had come out of retirement to become the first of many so-called "great white hopes."

Race rioting was sparked after the Johnson-Jeffries fight. The Texas Legislature banned films of his victories over whites for fear of more riots. In 1913, Johnson fled because of trumped up charges of violating the Mann Act's stipulations against transporting white women across state lines for prostitution.

During his exile from the U.S., Johnson lost his championship to a white man, Jess Willard, in Cuba in 1915. He returned to the U.S. on July 20, 1920 and was arrested. Sentenced to Leavenworth in Kansas, Johnson was appointed athletic director of the prison. Upon his release, he returned to boxing, but only participated in exhibition fights after 1928.

Although married three times to white women, Johnson never had children. He died in a car crash June 10, 1946, near Raleigh, North Carolina.

Bibliography: Wendy Brabner, Ed., Texas Monthly Texas Characters Datebook 1985 (Austin, Texas: Texas Monthly Press, 1984). Ron Tyler, ed., The New Handbook of Texas, Vol. 3 (Austin, Texas: Texas State Historical Association, 1996) pp. 955-56.

This was widespread to any non-white that challenged whites on US soil, in any of the major sporting events, at the time.

And by the way. The last fight he supposedly lost, was due to his mother being on her death-bed & him being homesick, it was a stipulation in the deal he had to make to come home (US), in otherwards, take the fall to prove that whites were always better.

The riots they mention in this article is also misleading. Blacks were celebrating the victory, while white cops were lighting their rears up with battons for celebrating.

That piece of Texas legislation did not exist until he won the fight against Jeffries and later took his first wife. By the way he lived like a king at the time, had his own train-coach and travelled extensively throughout the world, which brought more wrath down on him.


So in conclusion: the US did not want and ensured they weren't challenged during this period of their sporting history. It was just all out of fear, race fear, fear of tarnishing white supremacy at the time. So yes they were very late to the table. It is their fault!


Okay step forward to present day and you will notice the trend still happening. Except now, instead of battling to limit race from competition, there is a rise in x-games to keep the dominance going. No other country comes out with as much newly invented games & sports as the US, none. Dominance is the order of the day. If they can't dominate existing games and sports, they make up new ones. It's really that simple.

The equipment and expences involved in x-games today, places many nationalities/race out of the competition. Race fears has always been a part of our world, that's what started the olympics, a competition to find the dominant race.

Hence the title "World Champions" is very speculative.

 

[spiker]

Why do historians spend so much time & finances going through history, and scientists spend so much time & finances trying to find the origins of the universe?

Way to dodge my question. 👍

This was widespread to any non-white that challenged whites on US soil, in any of the major sporting events, at the time.

That's cool up until the point where Johnson knocked out Jeffries to become the World Champion. From your post:

Then, in 1908, Johnson knocked out Tommy Burns in Australia to become world champion, although he was not officially given the title until 1910 when he finally fought and beat Jeffries in Reno.

And by the way. The last fight he supposedly lost, was due to his mother being on her death-bed & him being homesick, it was a stipulation in the deal he had to make to come home (US), in otherwards, take the fall to prove that whites were always better.

Don't know why this is relevent to you. Moving on...

The riots they mention in this article is also misleading. Blacks were celebrating the victory, while white cops were lighting their rears up with battons for celebrating.

Good to know. Why is this relevent?

That piece of Texas legislation did not exist until he won the fight against Jeffries and later took his first wife. By the way he lived like a king at the time, had his own train-coach and travelled extensively throughout the world, which brought more wrath down on him.

Ok, so legislature banned movies of his victories. Big deal. Why is this important too?

So in conclusion: the US did not want and ensured they weren't challenged during this period of their sporting history. It was just all out of fear, race fear, fear of tarnishing white supremacy at the time. So yes they were very late to the table. It is their fault!

So this is what you were building up to? Racial discrimination in the US didn't even stop the Johnson-Jeffries fight. Clearly we haven't forgotten who won that fight. Furthermore, racial discrimination has not and can not prevent any other pro football, pro baseball, or pro basketball league from popping up anywhere else in the world.

Okay step forward to present day and you will notice the trend still happening. Except now, instead of battling to limit race from competition, there is a rise in x-games to keep the dominance going. No other country comes out with as much newly invented games & sports as the US, none. Dominance is the order of the day. If they can't dominate existing games and sports, they make up new ones. It's really that simple.

Americans do not create games just so they can dominate them. People create games because they want to have fun playing a game. It's really that simple.

In regards to X-games (I'm guessing you're referring to skateboarding, etc), there is quite a global competition for these sports. Go look up who competes in these types of sports.

The equipment and expences involved in x-games today, places many nationalities/race out of the competition. Race fears has always been a part of our world, that's what started the olympics, a competition to find the dominant race.

Once again, games aren't created with the intention of pre-discriminating other nations. Furthermore, games like basketball and baseball are not even cost prohibitive at all. Both of these sports are played all over the world - even in third world countries. In the Carribean, kids play baseball with rocks and sticks. You're way off base here.

Hence the title "World Champions" is very speculative.

Hence, nothing. You raised no valid points at all to support this conclusion. You just hate Americans don't you?

 

[DKLion3s]

Way to dodge my question. 👍

Hence, nothing. You raised no valid points at all to support this conclusion. You just hate Americans don't you?

Better understanding is why we establish origin. Since you need it to be spoon fed to you.

I have no hatred for anyone, any race, any culture. I've been around the world 3 times, set foot on every continent.

You see, percieve & interpret the information however you choose, that's your prerogative.

I suggest some more depth in your history studies.


Regards.

 

[spiker]

I would dodge all of my points, too.

 

[DKLion3s]

I would dodge all of my points, too.

There is no dodging. Just take the time to digest what's already on the table.


Regards.

 

[Famine]

Here's an example for you. It's condensed, however it basically gives the jist.

This was widespread to any non-white that challenged whites on US soil, in any of the major sporting events, at the time.

I've highlighted the keywords. This is not a response to the question:

Errr... whut? What does US legislation have to do with sporting uptake elsewhere in the world?

Passing a law in Texas, or California, or Wyoming or even federally doesn't affect what occurs in the UK, or Poland, or Myanmar.

US apartheid legislation had no effect in preventing any other country from wanting to play American Football. All the other points I mentioned - lack of facilities, equipment requirements and an already well-developed infrastructure and culture based on other, simpler sports. The US doesn't prevent us developing those facilities, making the equipment readily available and it plays no role in the fact we already have a saturation of sports for all seasons. It isn't the fault of the US that we don't play American Football.


It is the fault of the US that we don't watch more of it though. We hate having 75% of the time spent watching tactical overviews and statistics - and words like "winningest" and "MVP" - and, above all, adverts and it's always on so early in the morning. Can't you move the country closer or something?

 

[spiker]

There is no dodging. Just take the time to digest what's already on the table.


Regards.

At least I'm responding to whatever point you are trying to make. You have made no attempt to respond to mine. By all accounts, that is dodging.

 

[DKLion3s]

I've highlighted the keywords. This is not a response to the question:



Passing a law in Texas, or California, or Wyoming or even federally doesn't affect what occurs in the UK, or Poland, or Myanmar.

US apartheid legislation had no effect in preventing any other country from wanting to play American Football. All the other points I mentioned - lack of facilities, equipment requirements and an already well-developed infrastructure and culture based on other, simpler sports. The US doesn't prevent us developing those facilities, making the equipment readily available and it plays no role in the fact we already have a saturation of sports for all seasons. It isn't the fault of the US that we don't play American Football.


It is the fault of the US that we don't watch more of it though. We hate having 75% of the time spent watching tactical overviews and statistics - and words like "winningest" and "MVP" - and, above all, adverts and it's always on so early in the morning. Can't you move the country closer or something?

It doesn't prevent other countries from establishing their own in the sports mentioned. What does happen is, the familiarity with the sport doesn't get exposure needed to proliferate.

It's almost as if they wrapped it in a "classified" folder, only extending to those qualified by a panel to see. It's not this way today, however it's the cause of the sport not being as widespread.

For example, cricket as we know it, can go on for weeks, for a particular depending on the agreed upon rules of play. It is still pretty spreadout.

Hockey wasn't as strangled, nor a few of the other sports as we know them today.

Just look through the history of the olympics and you'll gather a picture of the gradual deviation from the status quo that it started under.

Sports aren't the same now as they were then, younger generations getting involved in sporting events have broken barriers over the recent decades.

At least I'm responding to whatever point you are trying to make. You have made no attempt to respond to mine. By all accounts, that is dodging.

You have mostly responded with relevancy statements to the comments. That's your perception of the posts, I cannot change that perception, only you can. And I won't attempt to either.

Hence I'm not dodging, I just know what can and cannot be done.


Regards.

 

[spiker]

You have mostly responded with relevancy statements to the comments. That's your perception of the posts, I cannot change that perception, only you can. And I won't attempt to either.

Relevency is not synonomous with perception. When I say that "A" is not relevent to proving "B" because you have not established a causal link, how is that perception?

 

[DKLion3s]

Relevency is not synonomous with perception. When I say that "A" is not relevent to proving "B" because you have not established a causal link, how is that perception?

Okay. Let's see if I can establish relevancy, for you, as respective to perception.

The bits I highlight in the example presented, was to base a general pattern. Now let's expand it.

We who live in the industrialised/developed world have a general idea or understanding of what an exclusive club is. However, it is relatively small, just a fraction of the worlds population.

Now imagine a sport, concieved & presented within, that is strictly controlled or governed by these exclusive clubs and it's members. The awareness of the sport becomes almost none-existent to any and everyone outside of the involved & accessible.

 

[spiker]

We who live in the industrialised/developed world have a general idea or understanding of what an exclusive club is. However, it is relatively small, just a fraction of the worlds population.

Now imagine a sport, concieved & presented within, that is strictly controlled or governed by these exclusive clubs and it's members. The awareness of the sport becomes almost none-existent to any and everyone outside of the involved & accessible.

But that's just not true. The world is aware of baseball, football, and basketball and there is virtually nothing holding these sports out as exclusive to one country or exclusive club, if you will.

So if you've based your argument on the notion that the world is just unaware and prohibited from participating in any of the above mentioned sports, it's just flat out wrong. The world is aware. Nobody is prohibiting anyone from participating. That is indisputable.

 

[DKLion3s]

But that's just not true. The world is aware of baseball, football, and basketball and there is virtually nothing holding these sports out as exclusive to one country or exclusive club, if you will.

So if you've based your argument on the notion that the world is just unaware and prohibited from participating in any of the above mentioned sports, it's just flat out wrong. The world is aware. Nobody is prohibiting anyone from participating. That is indisputable.

They are now, that's where the history comes in to explain why it hasn't spread as widely as other well accepted international sporting events. They will eventually, but for now it's just catchin' on, in otherwards, still an infant in comparison to others.


Regards.

 

[spiker]

They are now, that's where the history comes in to explain why it hasn't spread as widely as other well accepted international sporting events. They will eventually, but for now it's just catchin' on, in otherwards, still an infant in comparison to others.

They may be relatively new in terms of global history but that still does not prevent anyone from using the term World Champions right now or ever in history up to this point.

It sounds like you are assuming that sometime in the future, all countries in the world will be saturated with talented individuals who play all sports and then a "true" World Champion can be crowned because everyone is competing. Am I right?

 

[DKLion3s]

They may be relatively new in terms of global history but that still does not prevent anyone from using the term World Champions right now or ever in history up to this point.

It sounds like you are assuming that sometime in the future, all countries in the world will be saturated with talented individuals who play all sports and then a "true" World Champion can be crowned because everyone is competing. Am I right?

That's not the case. I entered this discussion to reveal the possibillity why the general international community doesn't accept the title, for the involved sports in question.

Once again, it's your perception. I cannot change or alter your perception.


Regards.

 

[spiker]

That's not the case. I entered this discussion to reveal the possibillity why the general international community doesn't accept the title, for the involved sports in question.

Once again, it's your perception. I cannot change or alter your perception.


Regards.

So because American sports are so young within the global community and the rest of the world hasn't had a chance to grow up with and accept the sports into their society, the rest of the world does not accept champions of professional American sports leagues as "World Champions"?

 

[Famine]

It doesn't prevent other countries from establishing their own in the sports mentioned. What does happen is, the familiarity with the sport doesn't get exposure needed to proliferate.

It's almost as if they wrapped it in a "classified" folder, only extending to those qualified by a panel to see. It's not this way today, however it's the cause of the sport not being as widespread.

I'm not seeing how the most-watched sport in the most-watched nation on Earth can qualify as a secret - The sport has been played professionally for, what, 90 years now and televised since 1939? That's three generations and into a fourth. Association football in England has been professional for 130 years - just about one more generation - and televised since 1937.

I simply don't see the racism angle you're playing either. There's been black players since the start and a black coach in 1921. As for Association Football... In the 1920s a black player was called up for England, only to have the call-up cancelled because they didn't realise he was "a man of colour". The first black player for England didn't come until 1978, nearly a century after the sport became professional and there wasn't a black coach of a top flight English football team until - get this - 1996. The first black Englishman to coach a top flight English football team was Paul Ince in 2008. 2008! Eighty-seven years after the supposedly-racist American Football had its first black coach.

 

[DKLion3s]

I'm not seeing how the most-watched sport in the most-watched nation on Earth can qualify as a secret - The sport has been played professionally for, what, 90 years now and televised since 1939? That's three generations and into a fourth. Association football in England has been professional for 130 years - just about one more generation - and televised since 1937.

I simply don't see the racism angle you're playing either. There's been black players since the start and a black coach in 1921. As for Association Football... In the 1920s a black player was called up for England, only to have the call-up cancelled because they didn't realise he was "a man of colour". The first black player for England didn't come until 1978, nearly a century after the sport became professional and there wasn't a black coach of a top flight English football team until - get this - 1996. The first black Englishman to coach a top flight English football team was Paul Ince in 2008. 2008! Eighty-seven years after the supposedly-racist American Football had its first black coach.

So because American sports are so young within the global community and the rest of the world hasn't had a chance to grow up with and accept the sports into their society, the rest of the world does not accept champions of professional American sports leagues as "World Champions"?

Okay! So since all the information and insights I have provided is misleading as to why it isn't widely accepted as an accurate title. What's your reasoning?

It's too young to world? It's the lack of interest? People condemning the title as true and fair? Or just a bunch of hate mongerers towards the US? Any combination thereof?

Which from all the facts you've brought to bare on the subject, would suggest, none-of-the-above?

Your facts through-out this thread infer, it is widely watched, anyone can compete, it is widely accepted, and has not been restricted in any manner.

So why not the title "World Champions"? Clearly this debate didn't just start with me, I'm only one needle in this haystack.

Or did I miss your definitive answer somewhere along this debate?


By the way spiker, I'm not ignoring you.


Regards.

 

[Famine]

Or just a bunch of hate mongerers towards the US?

Pretty much this. All you have to do is look earlier in the thread at the response from the Brit who decided to behave boorishly towards me because he assumed I was American, then backpedalled when he noticed I wasn't.

 

[DKLion3s]

Pretty much this. All you have to do is look earlier in the thread at the response from the Brit who decided to behave boorishly towards me because he assumed I was American, then backpedalled when he noticed I wasn't.

Is this widely the way it is, as in fact, or just perception?


Regards.