Manhattan Buckeye;1003638 wrote:It didn't matter who retrieved the ball (but to answer your question, yes it was usually the opposite team that tried to score that retrieved it). We had a goalkeeper that was a legit 6'5 and was a big time basketball player (walked on to the team our Senior year). And a few guys more athletic than myself that could just keep kicking the ball away.

That didn't happen in basketball. We could honestly beat the soccer players 100-0, especially with 6'5 guy playing.

It does matter because if they're wasting the time to go fetch the ball every time you guys get a foot on it, then it adds up. I'd say kudos to you guys for taking advantage of a dumb situation then. And like I said, you're the exception, as you stated with your 6'5" goalkeeper (because not every team of rag-tag guys is going to have that)

friendfromlowry;1003649 wrote:It does matter because if they're wasting the time to go fetch the ball every time you guys get a foot on it, then it adds up. I'd say kudos to you guys for taking advantage of a dumb situation then. And like I said, you're the exception, as you stated with your 6'5" goalkeeper (because not every team of rag-tag guys is going to have that)

So does dumb situation = dumb sport? If a bunch of basketball players, runners and football players can hold their own against people that claim soccer isn't only the world's best sport, it is a gift from Heaven - doesn't it make that a bit ridiculous?

Manhattan Buckeye;1003658 wrote:So does dumb situation = dumb sport? If a bunch of basketball players, runners and football players can hold their own against people that claim soccer isn't only the world's best sport, it is a gift from Heaven - doesn't it make that a bit ridiculous?

By dumb situation, I meant the rec league was poorly managed. My main point was that in any competitive league, it's not going to be as easy as kicking the ball out of bounds and milking the clock while someone goes and chases it every time. Ask yourself this: Would your team be just as successful in a competitive scenario where there were ballboys, and as soon as you guys kicked it out, the other team had the ball, throwing it into play within seconds? Less importantly, is your team just as successful without the 6'5" goalkeeper (this one isn't as important, but it was still an advantage that 99% of other teams don't have)

Like I mentioned, if you were in a basketball league and no one was paying attention to the 8-second rule, 24 second shotclock, etc. -- then it'd be easy to milk the clock and your team would just be taking advantages of loopholes that normally aren't there.

ccrunner609;1003661 wrote:like I said.....8 year old girls can play soccer at a decent level............

Like I said...there are runners that don't have legs...

"Would your team be just as successful in a competitive scenario where there were ballboys, and as soon as you guys kicked it out, the other team had the ball, throwing it into play within seconds?"

Yes, because I was in better shape than the opposition, faster and would keep kicking the ball out of bounds or down the field....and the 5 to 6 guys in better shape than I was did it more often.

Soccer isn't basketball. There are restrictions in basketball with what you can do with an offensive position.

Manhattan Buckeye;1003673 wrote:"Would your team be just as successful in a competitive scenario where there were ballboys, and as soon as you guys kicked it out, the other team had the ball, throwing it into play within seconds?"

Yes, because I was in better shape than the opposition, faster and would keep kicking the ball out of bounds or down the field....and the 5 to 6 guys in better shape than I was did it more often.

Soccer isn't basketball. There are restrictions in basketball with what you can do with an offensive position.

There are restrictions in soccer with the offensive position too.

One is called "offside." You cannot set picks in soccer. You also don't have the ability to score at ANY place on the field like is more possible in basketball, especially when on the own attacking half. Oh, and you are also using a part of the body that isn't really typical to use to move an object, i.e. the foot as opposed to the hands. Foot-eye coordination is so much harder than hand-eye coordination.

Manhattan Buckeye;1003673 wrote:"Would your team be just as successful in a competitive scenario where there were ballboys, and as soon as you guys kicked it out, the other team had the ball, throwing it into play within seconds?"

Yes, because I was in better shape than the opposition, faster and would keep kicking the ball out of bounds or down the field....and the 5 to 6 guys in better shape than I was did it more often.

Soccer isn't basketball. There are restrictions in basketball with what you can do with an offensive position.

Restrictions or not, you can still just pass the ball around waste a minute for every possession right? (assuming there's no 24 second shot clock)
Sorry, but I don't think you were truly playing soccer stars. You don't become a star when half the guys on the other team are quicker and you can't control the ball from them. But that's enough for tonight - agree to disagree.

ccrunner609;1003495 wrote:lol at soccer being hard to masterbate to????

watching 8 year old girls play soccer......gets me hard.

fify

OSH;1003681 wrote:There are restrictions in soccer with the offensive position too.

One is called "offside." You cannot set picks in soccer. You also don't have the ability to score at ANY place on the field like is more possible in basketball, especially when on the own attacking half. Oh, and you are also using a part of the body that isn't really typical to use to move an object, i.e. the foot as opposed to the hands. Foot-eye coordination is so much harder than hand-eye coordination.

You are making my point. The offset rule hurts the ability to score.

I agree that foot-eye coordination is much harder than hand-eye coordination, which is why I can defend against a supposedly good soccer player without any training or practice, yet when any soccer-nerd tried to defend me in basketball I could do a cross-over dribble and nail a rainbow three in their face.

And again, the worst part of soccer is dealing with the moaning at the bar afterwards about how their sport is so misunderstood.

Manhattan Buckeye;1003691 wrote:You are making my point. The offset rule hurts the ability to score.

I agree that foot-eye coordination is much harder than hand-eye coordination, which is why I can defend against a supposedly good soccer player without any training or practice, yet when any soccer-nerd tried to defend me in basketball I could do a cross-over dribble and nail a rainbow three in their face.

And again, the worst part of soccer is dealing with the moaning at the bar afterwards about how their sport is so misunderstood.

I can understand the moaning at the bar...especially when they deal with people like you acting like they are a halfway decent soccer player because they did "well" in a rec league against "soccer nerds."

I had no idea that Vanderbilt was the haven for athletes who actually aren't athletes. Not only can you play soccer without training, but you can rain threes from a cross-over.

[video=youtube;OjLG92qXfSg][/video]

^^^

And no part of that refutes the position (and ultimately truthful) that a reasonable athlete can play soccer with no training, the point of the thread. It is the easiest sport.

Manhattan Buckeye;1003713 wrote:^^^

And no part of that refutes the position (and ultimately truthful) that a reasonable athlete can play soccer with no training, the point of the thread. It is the easiest sport.

I've done my fair share of putting forth my stance. I think I talking to a wall would've been more educational than what you brought forth.

Continue thinking that way because it's obvious that you think you are right, no matter what anyone else has to say. It doesn't matter what they say anyway, you clearly won't listen or even try to comprehend what they are saying.

Any reasonable athlete can play any rec sport with no training. That's been my stance all along. I have never trained in football, but you should see me be a wide receiver or safety during my friends' annual Turkey Bowl. I am a stud! I've hit 3-4 birdies in my <10 rounds of golf, that doesn't mean that it is easy to play golf. My best friend and I were doubles champs in 7th and 8th grade tennis during gym class...that doesn't mean anyone can compete at Wimbledon. A college teammate of mine walked into the Missouri state table tennis championships and won, and even teamed up with his brother to win the doubles -- they had never had any training OR even played in a tournament before; they beat all these pros and ranked players. Any reasonable athlete can end up excelling or at least competing at a reasonable level in many sports, that doesn't mean the sport is easy...that means the person is a reasonably good athlete.

like_that;1003582 wrote:This pretty much sums up CC.

[video=youtube;De7rbB2bteE][/video]

Nice, I was about to post this. And I can't believe people are comparing running to wreslting, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!?!? In high school we had people quitting the team every year within the first couple weeks because of how hard it was. I wonder how often this happens with other sports?

"Any reasonable athlete can end up excelling or at least competing at a reasonable level in many sports, that doesn't mean the sport is easy...that means the person is a reasonably good athlete. "

Fair enough, but the question posed was the easiest sport, I claimed it was soccer backed with logic and experience. What in your experience is the easiest sport?

BORIStheCrusher;1003727 wrote:Nice, I was about to post this. And I can't believe people are comparing running to wreslting, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!?!? In high school we had people quitting the team every year within the first couple weeks because of how hard it was. I wonder how often this happens with other sports?

I would say it happens regularly.

But I do know that wrestling is extremely tough to compete and excel in. But quitters come in all shapes, sizes, and genders.

"Any reasonable athlete can play any rec sport with no training."

The soccer nerds that got their asses handed to them in intramural basketball would disagree.

Manhattan Buckeye;1003729 wrote:"Any reasonable athlete can end up excelling or at least competing at a reasonable level in many sports, that doesn't mean the sport is easy...that means the person is a reasonably good athlete. "

Fair enough, but the question posed was the easiest sport, I claimed it was soccer backed with logic and experience. What in your experience is the easiest sport?

I stated it earlier -- which proves that your "logic and experience" does not include reading posts. To me, if considered a "sport," it'd be cross country or track.

I'd put my stake in a dude that can hit a 15:30 5K running circles around a soccer player, while the soccer player is bouncing a ball on his knee like a little Lord Faunteloroy.

ccrunner609;1003633 wrote: 6 minutes of wrestling with many breaks over 16 minutes of all out.........yeah sure

How about 3.5 hours all out everyday; thats the prep work for those 6 minutes (with many breaks). There is a reason we would have people quitting every year within the first two weeks. Stuck in a small hot ass room for over 3 hours with a couple 20 second water breaks. People think wrestlers are required to lose weight, but the truth is it's a given when your clothes feel like you just jumped into the pool with them on. I've played pretty much every sport growing up, and nothing else was half as hard.

like_that;1003539 wrote:LMAO, you are kidding right? As Jmog said, you pretty much just showed that you know nothing about Wrestling. I got the biggest laugh at your quotations on off-season, and stating you can do nothing and not dramatically affect your ability to be successful in the sport. That has to be one of the biggest jokes I have read on the OC, and there has been some idiotic posts here.

If you actually wrestled, then shame on.

Please tell me what I said that was incorrect, o' brilliant one. I'm willing to bet I know a f*ck a lot more about the sport then you. Do you really want to go there?

How many times have you attended the state wrestling meet? How many Ironman/ Beast o' the East tournaments have you been to? How many years did you personally wrestle?
How many NCAA or Olympic medalists in wrestling have you met?
How did your HS do at the state meet?

jmog;1003225 wrote:
You don't have 4x state champions in XC because there is only one state champ per division.

What the f*ck are you talking about? I'm talking 4x state champs just like in wrestling. An individual wins a title Freshman, Sophomore, Junior and Senior year.

Many weight classes in wrestling. Only one race in XC per division. All XC runners compete against each other, not divided by how big or small they are.
You can't hide from someone who's better then you, like some wrestlers do and still win a state title.

I also wonder if theirs ever been a female distance runner who was good enough to qualify to the boys state XC meet. I've seen a girl qualify for the state wrestling meet.

jmog;1003225 wrote:
If you believe that ANY of the 4x state champions in history did not wrestle all year long then again, you don't understand the sport. .

I never said 4x state champs didn't wrestle year around. You must of been dropped on your head one too many times. I said you can be a state champ and a national champ, with out giving it your all.
Obviously you didn't know Joe Dennis, who went on to be a national champ, along with a state title. He was extremely lazy in practices. His coaches would even admit it......they have.

Not one weight class in wrestling, like in XC. All XC runners compete against each other, not divided by how big or small they are.
You can't hide from someone who's better then you, like some wrestlers do and still win a state title.

said_aouita;1003834 wrote:Please tell me what I said that was incorrect, o' brilliant one. I'm willing to bet I know a f*ck a lot more about the sport then you. Do you really want to go there?

As I said before, being from Graham does not make you an expert on wrestling, sorry. Have you wrestled before? Like I said, if you have, shame on you. Based off your comments, I am willing to put my life savings you don't know as much about wrestling as I do. Do you REALLY want to go there? Your comments alone made you lose all credibility on the sport to begin with.

If you want to know what your said was incorrect, then just read your whole post, because the whole thing was idiotic, but if you want me to spell it out for you, here you go:

1. You can't be "lazy" at practice and be successful, sorry. You bring up Joe Dennis. First of all, the Jordan's have wrestled at the highest level, and they work with a perennial top 5 national program every year, so they have many guys who work well and beyond harder than most wrestlers in the state. So, yeah I am sure Joe might have looked lazy compared to the numerous blue chip recruits he was wrestling with. Throw him in some d3 crap room, and he will be the poster boy for hard work. Also, during every off season, I saw Dennis almost at every off season tournament i was at. We were both also on team ohio, and he sure as hell didn't seem lazy then. I never heard of a lazy person that sacrifices his free time every saturday to wrestle in an off season tournament. LMAO on winning a state title/national title while being lazy.

2. Which brings me to my next point. If you don't do shit in the off season, your opposition will catch up to you, pretty simple. I have seen some pretty damn good wrestlers succeed one year, and then not do shit in the off season. Those guys end up falling short of what they were capable of, sometimes losing to wrestlers they had previously dominated.

3. Pure talent does not win it all. I have also seen plenty of guys with the talent and athleticism to do big things, however they did not put the work in, and they didn't even come close to their potential.

Like I said earlier, I have encountered, and dealt with many XC runners who also wrestled. Every single one of them said wrestling was the toughest sport they have been through. Use some logic, if XC runners are saying wrestling is the toughest sport they have been through, then I would say wrestling is much tougher than XC. Please stop acting like you know about wrestling, because you are part of the Graham community.

Since you apparently speak to the Jordans, do me a favor and tell them that you think XC is tougher than what Jordan's kids go through in practice. I would love to hear about how Jeff Jordan laughed in your face.

like_that;1003552 wrote:LOL, so because somebody is from Graham they automatically know about the sport of wrestling?

No, the fact that I wrestled since 1st grade at Graham, had the Jordan's as my coach as a youth, my brother was on the Jr. Olympic Greco National wrestling team and represented the USA in foreign countries. Also the fact my father was at one time the President of the Buckeye wrestling club and that Russ Hellickson's wife once was my baby sitter may have merit.

So- You saw Joe Dennis at tournaments and not in the practice room? Thank you for proving my point.

Hope this helps.