Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Donahoe who wrote (66549)	7/6/1999 3:35:00 PM
From: X Y Zebra	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Not the speed positions. Try racing against the wide receivers, running backs and D backs in the NFL. An interesting proposition... But you forget, there are 90 minutes in a soccer game... (plus the possibility of 30 additional minutes in a championship semi-final or final.) The mid-fielders and sweepers must run all 90 minutes, continuous, sometimes even sprint to get the ball, or score a goal. Their total fitness has been tested and it is far superior than the other athletes. (I will look for the source of the study, I saw it on ESPN last year). Soccer is a fast sport, but not a "sprint" sport (with a few exceptions for the strikers), soccer is also a sport of stamina, that must last you the entire 90 minutes... plus. On top of that, you must be extremely agile, brilliant with your imagination to create the opportunities to score, or pass, quick of mind to react for the unexpected, and as far as most Latin American players [and a few Europeans] with great style and flair, on top of the speed and stamina. The one case you mentioned, Bob Hayes, started as a track athlete the gold medal he won was in Tokyo, as correctly you pointed out earlier, they choose Football because of the money. I bet you when soccer becomes viable, there will be tons of great athletes that would choose Soccer, since there is considerable less physical impact, and you do not have to wear a helmet. As for Soccer players being 160 lbs.... you better check your stats...

To: John Donahoe who wrote (66549)	7/6/1999 8:04:00 PM
From: divvie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

OT Sports: I find the differences between US sports and other sports very interesting so please accept my apologies if I am continuing this thread longer than may be necessary. I agree with you on the perception of soccer in US schools. I would have to agree with Gaston about the overall fitness of soccer players though. He is right about having to run for 90 minutes flat out. There are limited substitutions and no time outs or swapping of offensive people for defensive people (time for a nice rest there). I considered myself very fit at one stage a few years ago, I went to the gym at least 5 times a week, etc. but when I played a competitive game of 5 a side soccer I thought I was going to die! The running was so intense and unremitting. This was only one game. Recently I played some basketball in an amateur league and hardly felt tired. Often, we'd only have 6 players. Of course, this does not prove anything except that I do think it is significant that soccer was the game that I have found to be the most physically demanding. Playing rugby, for example, was not as bad. On another note, I wonder if soccer will truly spark the interest of the US sports fan. To me the games invented in the US (basket ball, American football), or adapted in the US from other games (baseball), seem to be very technical in nature. A huge baseball fan at work likened the battle between the pitcher and the batter to a game of chess. People seem to like that a certain play in football or said pitcher/batter battle is like a game in itself. You have a start, some excitement and a resolution in a very short space of time. And this repeats many times so the excitement level is maintained. You do not have this in soccer. I would be interested in your thoughts on this.