Fanatical Fans

[jessiecat]

Side note: I had a recent discussion as to why Boston is the Red Sox, thinking "Green Sox" would better reflect their proud Irish connections.

Trivia guess: Let's see... I'm going to say the easy one is the Reds (probably changed when the AL & NL merged, due to the Red Sox simultaneously existing). The hard ones may include the Royals or Cardinals, since both are also color shades, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Blue Jays were originally the Blue Sox (or stockings) and the Phillies, purely on a hunch.

Excellent trivia question, btw.

As I remember, The name "Blue Jays" came as a result of a radio poll of Toronto listeners who were asked to suggest a name. Nothing to do with "sox" or "stockings". It was a brand new franchise and we had to get a name from somewhere. Why not a nice bird that was native to Ontario?

 

[sourboy]

As I remember, The name "Blue Jays" came as a result of a radio poll of Toronto listeners who were asked to suggest a name. Nothing to do with "sox" or "stockings". It was a brand new franchise and we had to get a name from somewhere. Why not a nice bird that was native to Ontario?

You know, that sounds vaguely familiar. I'll change my answers to Reds, Royals, and Phillies.

 

[Shekwan]

So you're trying to justify the actions of killing someone over a sport, and we - North Americans, just don't understand that?

Well, we have the foolish bible belt folk, you have the foolish soccer hooligans. *shrugs* case closed to me.

I'm not trying to jusitfy anything. I'm just looking at the type of people who are considered die hard fans in each country and coming to a logical conclusion that one set is more likely than another to cause violent trouble.

 

[downtown]

I'd start a riot right now if I had the energy.

 

[downtown]

Side note: I had a recent discussion as to why Boston is the Red Sox, thinking "Green Sox" would better reflect their proud Irish connections.

Trivia guess: Let's see... I'm going to say the easy one is the Reds (probably changed when the AL & NL merged, due to the Red Sox simultaneously existing). The hard ones may include the Royals or Cardinals, since both are also color shades, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Blue Jays were originally the Blue Sox (or stockings) and the Phillies, purely on a hunch.

Excellent trivia question, btw.

Reds are a yes. I'll go ahead and give you a hint and say that another comes from the Royals/Cardinals group (but I won't tell you which one).

The last one is tricky. When I another baseball writer asked me this question in the press box, I also guessed Blue Jays, but I was wrong.

 

[sourboy]

Reds are a yes. I'll go ahead and give you a hint and say that another comes from the Royals/Cardinals group (but I won't tell you which one).

The last one is tricky. When I another baseball writer asked me this question in the press box, I also guessed Blue Jays, but I was wrong.

Well... I'm gonna say it was St Louis, because I think KC had a team before the Royals that moved, so it'd be a different franchise (A's?).

As for the last team. I'm stumped. I wanna say there was a Browns in baseball for a while -- were they the Brown Stockings at one point?

 

[Shaihulud]

Better game, more fanatical fans.

 

[downtown]

Well... I'm gonna say it was St Louis, because I think KC had a team before the Royals that moved, so it'd be a different franchise (A's?).

As for the last team. I'm stumped. I wanna say there was a Browns in baseball for a while -- were they the Brown Stockings at one point?

Yea, Cardinals are another.

I'll give you a hint. Its an animal (that isn't the blue jays).

 

[sourboy]

Yea, Cardinals are another.

I'll give you a hint. Its an animal (that isn't the blue jays).

Well, it's obviously not the Diamondbacks, (Devil) Rays, or Marlins. You denied my Phillies guess, so that only leaves the Orioles -- but they used to be the Brewers, and the Cubs? Did Chicago split into two teams -- that must be it. Or maybe the White Stockings became the Cubs then were reformed later as a second team, the White Sox?

 

[cardgame]

I'm going to go with the Orioles

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Because football is a hooligan sport. It is meant to satisfy the frustrated bloodlust of the public, and hence sometimes it is naturally followed by bloodletting.

And this is the paradox of course. How could such a wimpy sport (where it is accepted strategy to take dives and roll around crying until you get a call from the ref) be the favoured sport of toughs?

Maybe it is the lack of honour in soccer compared to other sports. When talking to a hockey fan about the phenomenon of "diving", they are generally disgusted by it. If you talk to a soccer fan about diving, they give you some BS about "trying to draw the call" as if it is a legitimate tactic. This attitude probably draws scummier fans in Europe compared to more honourable sports like Rugby.

 

[GinandTonic]

And this is the paradox of course. How could such a wimpy sport (where it is accepted strategy to take dives and roll around crying until you get a call from the ref) be the favoured sport of toughs?

Maybe it is the lack of honour in soccer compared to other sports. When talking to a hockey fan about the phenomenon of "diving", they are generally disgusted by it. If you talk to a soccer fan about diving, they give you some BS about "trying to draw the call" as if it is a legitimate tactic. This attitude probably draws scummier fans in Europe compared to more honourable sports like Rugby.

Not really. The only defence you will hear from an English fan is "well since they are a bunch of dirty cheats sod it", "lil micky owen dived against the argies? well after the ""hand of god"" they can suck up some of their own filthy tactics". Generally held in complete contempt.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Do the Italian fans feel the same way? They dove their way to a World Cup Championship. Every time I try to get myself into this sport, which is theoretically very cool, it is completely ruined for me by the players.

 

[aelf]

And this is the paradox of course. How could such a wimpy sport (where it is accepted strategy to take dives and roll around crying until you get a call from the ref) be the favoured sport of toughs?

You mean what Ronaldo and the Italians do? Well, I'm not surprised...

 

[downtown]

The last one is the Tigers by the way. They bought a bunch of old socks from Princeton.

 

[warpus]

And this is the paradox of course. How could such a wimpy sport (where it is accepted strategy to take dives and roll around crying until you get a call from the ref) be the favoured sport of toughs?

Maybe it is the lack of honour in soccer compared to other sports. When talking to a hockey fan about the phenomenon of "diving", they are generally disgusted by it. If you talk to a soccer fan about diving, they give you some BS about "trying to draw the call" as if it is a legitimate tactic. This attitude probably draws scummier fans in Europe compared to more honourable sports like Rugby.

You don't think soccer fans hate diving? Why do you think everyone hates ronaldo so much? He was booed for an entire season, even by his own fans.

Then again in hockey you have fist fights, so I'm not sure you could really speak about honour in that context.

Besides, soccer isn't a wimpy sport. Diving is an issue, but does not define the sport.

 

[jessiecat]

You don't think soccer fans hate diving? Why do you think everyone hates ronaldo so much? He was booed for an entire season, even by his own fans.

Then again in hockey you have fist fights, so I'm not sure you could really speak about honour in that context.

Besides, soccer isn't a wimpy sport. Diving is an issue, but does not define the sport.

I have to agree. As an expat Canadian who's lived in Europe for 30 years I've learned to appreciate the worlds greatest game (yah "soccer") and even began to like cricket. My fellow Canuck is talking out of his rectum unfortunately. He doesn't understand football if he thinks its a "wimpy" sport. No real football fan likes diving. I appreciate Ronaldos skill but not his childish antics. I hope he goes to Madrid where he can primp and pose all he likes. And I'm a Man Utd. fan and proud of it.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I have to agree. As an expat Canadian who's lived in Europe for 30 years I've learned to appreciate the worlds greatest game (yah "soccer") and even began to like cricket. My fellow Canuck is talking out of his rectum unfortunately. He doesn't understand football if he thinks its a "wimpy" sport. No real football fan likes diving. I appreciate Ronaldos skill but not his childish antics. I hope he goes to Madrid where he can primp and pose all he likes. And I'm a Man Utd. fan and proud of it.

Compared to hockey, rugby, (American) football, (Australian) football, and lacrosse, it is an incredible wimpy sport (the players and game, not the supporters, who can be quite terrifying). Being an expat for 30 years, you missed the part where Canadians turn 12 and they switch from soccer to a contact sport.

If fans were REALLY outraged, they would force FIFA's hand to produce far more stringent diving rules. When the Swedes and other Europeans came over en masse to play hockey, they had a tendency towards diving, but referees and fans wouldn't tolerate it so it was largely stamped out. I can understand why it would be hard in soccer though. Players genuinely lay down on the ground and whine for real after very minor physical incidents that would embarrass players in other sports. Captain Canada, Ryan Smyth keeps playing after breaking his foot and comes back into a playoff game after losing his front teeth.

As for fighting in hockey, I would agree that it is quite silly. The excuse of hockey players is that it is intense on the ice and it can turn the momentum of the game. I personally think that is BS, as football and rugby can get by without tolerated fist-fighting. I should point out that the fist-fights are generally "fair" in that both players start on an even footing with no gloves and no teaming up.

 

[Shekwan]

Ah I see the argument now. More pain inflicted = superior sport. I guess we should have no holds barred cage fights to the death to reach the pinnacle of sporting achievement.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Ah I see the argument now. More pain inflicted = superior sport. I guess we should have no holds barred cage fights to the death to reach the pinnacle of sporting achievement.

Who said superior sport? I was talking about how, every time I try to get into a soccer (a beautiful game in theory), I get completely turned off by the lack of sportsmanship and the generally whiney demeanor of the players. If they had a 350 pound lineman pounding them into the ground or a 220 pound Slovak smashing them into the boards, they would have more reason to roll around on the ground with a cringing look on their face.

I actually think baseball is a beautiful sport, and I think I would enjoy cricket too. It doesn't need to be violent at all. I would point out though, that more violent sports like Rugby, football, and hockey, tend to have more sportsmanship than soccer.