I've been noticing that the US and UK watch all kinds of their own sports. USA mainly watches football, baseball, basketball, hockey, college sports, and motorsports such as NASCAR, Indycar, NHRA, ALMS, etc. They also have a special event called the X Games.

UK on the other hand, mainly watches soccer, rugby, cricket, snooker, darts, and motorsports such as Formula 1, touring cars, WRC, MotoGP, etc. They are also more into olympic sports than the US. However, both countries are into sports like tennis, golf, horse racing, boxing, and MMA.

Which country do you think has better taste in sports?

American sports arent very popular outside of America apart from baseball and basketball.

At 8/12/12 10:31 AM, Otto wrote:

At 8/12/12 10:28 AM, Razz wrote:

At 8/12/12 10:25 AM, VGmasters wrote: UK on the other hand, they are also more into olympic sports than the US.

That must explain why we have 40 more medals.

Don't make me whip out the medal:population ratios because you look pretty fucking shitty then.

Also, I don't know anyone who actually watched darts, but I guess it must happen. It's much more particery than spectatory.

Have you seen PDC darts? It's a pretty big league. There's even been video games of it.

At 8/12/12 10:38 AM, Razz wrote:

At 8/12/12 10:31 AM, Otto wrote:

Actually, I've been curious to see this. Although I haven't really been able to find out where I could see this. Either way, this doesn't really sound like much evidence of the UK being "more into Olympic sports than the US."

well, it kinda does?

The difference is the UK likes world sports, along with the rest of the world.

The US seem to confine their sports to their own land, or areas just surrounding their land so they can always win.

At 8/12/12 10:38 AM, Razz wrote:

At 8/12/12 10:31 AM, Otto wrote: Don't make me whip out the medal:population ratios because you look pretty fucking shitty then.

Actually, I've been curious to see this. Although I haven't really been able to find out where I could see this.

The UK has a population around a fifth of the size of the US. There are plenty of places you can find this information from, here are two links for you:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
geos/uk.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
geos/us.html

Click "People & Society" and look under population for both.

Oh, and by the way, I also don't see the correlation between the UK and it being more into Olympic sports. Most of the sports the OP listed aren't even in the Olympics. There are plenty of sports in the Olympics that aren't really competed at any serious level here in the UK that are in the US - such as Basketball, Volleyball, etc.

The UK Team hasn't traditionally done very well in Olympics for many years - It's only since after Atlanta (when there was just one gold medal) that the teams and individuals started getting any significant funding from the National Lottery. Obviously there's a sparked interest in the Olympics this time around here, given that they're ... you know. Being hosted here.

At 8/12/12 11:17 AM, Razz wrote:

At 8/12/12 11:08 AM, Otto wrote:

At 8/12/12 10:55 AM, Razz wrote: ... Not the overall population of countries involved.

That's irrelivant, as even teams with the same numbers, yours would be more advantaged with a larger talent pool to select from.

By this logic China would beat everyone every year

Not really - China is still a developing country. The majority of its population live in poverty out in the sticks. The Chinese only started getting more interested in the games over the past 20 years or so and you can see the result of that if you look at a timeline of all the medals they've earned in that period - they've gone up significantly. Take a look at the medals table for Atlanta 1996 as an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Summer_Olympics_medal_tabl e

Also check out GB - which is in 36th place there.

As for the number of athletes in each team, I'm not sure. I'll write a script to compile the numbers.

I respect the British immensely, but it still baffles me how our sports fail to impress them. WHY WON'T YOU GUYS PLAY AND WATCH BASEBALL AND AMERICAN FOOTBALL. WE'RE TRYING REALLY HARD TO IMPRESS YOU. FUCK.

At 8/12/12 11:34 AM, ZJ wrote: WHY WON'T YOU GUYS PLAY AND WATCH BASEBALL AND AMERICAN FOOTBALL. WE'RE TRYING REALLY HARD TO IMPRESS YOU. FUCK.

Well... I can guess baseball: It's just an incredibly boring and static sport (to watch). Especially live, there's just nothing happening at all 95% of the time.

Lacrosse is a U.S. sport, even though it was adopted by snotty, rich, white people after they raped the Native Americans of it.

At 8/12/12 11:34 AM, ZJ wrote: I respect the British immensely, but it still baffles me how our sports fail to impress them. WHY WON'T YOU GUYS PLAY AND WATCH BASEBALL AND AMERICAN FOOTBALL. WE'RE TRYING REALLY HARD TO IMPRESS YOU. FUCK.

Because people see them as worse versions of cricket and rugby. To be honest id much rather play and watch rugby than american football for instance, and we already have 2 versions of rugby itself. And I hate both cricket and baseball anyway. Basketball is pretty popular though.

American sports are awesome, even if only Americans watch them.

Watching sports has always been boring for me (playing them is far more fun), but I had never actually seen rugby in play before, so I found this Youtube video, and I must say, rugby looks far more interesting than American football. That is of course only judging by that one video as opposed to the many football games I've watched. I don't know the rules of rugby at all.

At 8/12/12 10:25 AM, VGmasters wrote: Which country do you think has better taste in sports?

American sports can be explained with a simple example.

Copy/paste.

At 8/12/12 11:34 AM, ZJ wrote: I respect the British immensely, but it still baffles me how our sports fail to impress them. WHY WON'T YOU GUYS PLAY AND WATCH BASEBALL AND AMERICAN FOOTBALL. WE'RE TRYING REALLY HARD TO IMPRESS YOU. FUCK.

Genuinely, because I prefer rugby. I've never seen the point of playing rugby in body armour, it takes away the fun.

Baseball, I love - almost as much as I love my cricket.

At 8/12/12 07:35 PM, Coop wrote: Genuinely, because I prefer rugby. I've never seen the point of playing rugby in body armour, it takes away the fun.

Yeah, I dont know why but its a lot more fun to play with the pain and inflicting it on others. I must be a sado-masochist.

USA. No offense, but when you have to dress up to play a sport, (cricket) something ain't right.

At 8/12/12 07:39 PM, brokenrecord6299 wrote: USA. No offense, but when you have to dress up to play a sport, (cricket) something ain't right.

You should feel those cricket balls, they weigh a ton and they could easily kill someone or break their bones if you threw it a bit hard and they were unarmoured. Trust me.

At 8/12/12 07:38 PM, e-lord wrote: we don't watch hockey, that's more of a canadian thing

I watch ice hockey and love it. I also love field hockey, or what we English just call hockey. That's violent.

baseball isn't too popular anymore either

Seems popular enough to me. Too much money in it, but that's the way with most sport these days.

and the stereotypical nascar fan is a redneck, white trash if you will- it's popular in the south, but not anywhere else really

I resent that - I'm an atypical NASCAR fan and I'm not a redneck, nor am I white trash.

At 8/12/12 07:41 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 8/12/12 07:39 PM, brokenrecord6299 wrote: USA. No offense, but when you have to dress up to play a sport, (cricket) something ain't right.

You should feel those cricket balls, they weigh a ton and they could easily kill someone or break their bones if you threw it a bit hard and they were unarmoured. Trust me.

You're right, I've never really watched or played, so I got no right to say anything.

At 8/12/12 07:41 PM, BumFodder wrote: You should feel those cricket balls, they weigh a ton and they could easily kill someone or break their bones if you threw it a bit hard and they were unarmoured. Trust me.

Kind of like how tackles in AF are much more likely to cause broken bones or death without the pads. Yet you criticize AF for using pads. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Also, the thing you said earlier where you implied that tackles don't hurt in AF because of the pads is completely false and I can tell you that from first hand experience. The pads are meant to absorb some of the impact which could break bones or cause concussions, but the hits are still painful since the pads are mostly just made of hard plastic.

well America has better taste...AND is better at sports which we learnd in the olympics lol

American sports, I dunno what cricket is but it sounds like something pussies play.

At 8/12/12 09:08 PM, chiefindomer wrote: Kind of like how tackles in AF are much more likely to cause broken bones or death without the pads. Yet you criticize AF for using pads. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Also, the thing you said earlier where you implied that tackles don't hurt in AF

I might of came across like that but thats not what I meant. I just meant its more fun in a kind of raw body to body hitting kinda way. I know the average AF player is bigger than a rugby player though.