The original Greek Olympians were male only and competed completely naked. The first modern international Olympic games were held in Athens in 1896 and were the idea of the French aristocrat the Baron de Coubertin who had been inspired by the Wenlock Olympic games held in Much Wenlock, Dorset in England in 1850. In the 1896 games first prize was awarded a medal made of silver and second place received a copper medal.
Do you want the funny answer or the very long explanation of the complex rules? I can provide either. I can try and give a simplified version of the overall aims of the game but it's not easy to keep it under a thousand words.
I appreciate the heads-up about Canadians' passion, regarding ice hockey; I just hope I'll remember it, after having imbibed a generous sampling of their exceptional beers. I haven't, yet, followed your Britannica link (you don't think your source could be at all biased, do you?) but I will offer this one general observation: just because the same, or similar things, develop at different times & in different places, doesn't necessarily mean that the subsequent one was derived from the preceeding one. It should be added that I'm unsure as to how much goodwill that making this discrimination-- that Canadians didn't steal ice hockey, only "reinvented the puck," so to speak-- will win one, in the midst of a sea of Canadians' fans, watching the game on their home-bar's bigscreen tv. Canadians, like their American cousins, are more inclined to call drinking establishments bars, rather than pubs, aren't they? And the word, "pub," it should be noted, you Brits stole from the Romans, from their word, publicus (no disrespect intended, of course).
Well, since the Canadian federation didn't come into existence until 1867, autonomy from British rule wasn't until 1931 and full independence wasn't formalised until 1982 it's a distinction without a difference for all practical purposes since the game was well established before Canadians themselves even existed. They were British or more accurately British North Americans when the game was developed although the odd French Canadian would dispute this. General Wolfe effectively settled that argument in 1759 though, again before the game became established in Canada. The Britannica link actually favours the invention of the game being in North America rather than the actual roots in Britain and Holland so if it does display a bias it is anti-British.
As I've said before, Canadians are more American than British but I don't hold it against them because they do try hard not to be and on the two occasions America tried to take Canada by force they were roundly defeated. They also recognise Her Majesty as head of state so despite their lack of cricket and rugby I consider them a great nation. No offense intended of course.
Well, your post (combined w/ the previous one) sounds a little more, to my ears, like offense is, if not being openly courted, at least being regarded in a much more nonchalant way than in my, more kidding, reference to the term, "pubs," or to what passes as my idea of a joke, about Britannica being partisan, about Brit sports. But perhaps PUBS are an even more sacred subject, on that side of the pond (as they say). Just to recap, your facts have already won your argument that American football is firmly-rooted in rugby. I must also add, though it should go w/o saying, that there has been a substantial amount of change to rugby, in the process, that would make them appear, to any casual observer, like clearly different games. That is, it is not only the uniforms & equipment which make it impossible for anyone, at all acquainted with either sport, to mistake one for its relative. Is that not fair to say? Actually, I am in accord with your sentiments about the greater test of one's manhood it is, to play the full, or the majority, of the time (offense & defense). Occasionally, you will find an American does this, usually in high school or, less-commonly, at the collegiate-level. One rarely if ever sees this, anymore, in the pros. However, it would be dishonest to ignore the repercussion of this. Just as, if one were to hand-off to the same running back on every offensive play, that back would not be performing at his optimum capacity on a great deal of those carries, to have players "going both ways," must necessarily entail some degree of pacing of their efforts or, at the very least, will result in a greater tiredness in the players, as the game progresses. I am not saying, for the record, that this primely-conditioned state of the players, in football, is evident, much of the time, anymore. That said, I don't know how long a rugby match would hold my attention, either, w/o a rowdy group of mates, & a fine, warm British ale, ever at the ready. I am one who much more enjoys participating, rather than watching. And I think I would still enjoy the opportunity to play either of these (until I was injured). (I've always loved playing football, & played on my high school team.) Most of my high regard for our biggest national game (by audience), comes from my recollection of its past, glory days. In conclusion, it is not the least bit surprising to me that America would have adapted British sports-- we took the tune of for, "America, the Beautiful," from your national anthem, "God save the Queen," and for our own national anthem, after shortly beforehand fighting a revolution against Great Britain, & written during your War of 1812, against us (or, in our war of defense, from your offenses against us, if you prefer), we chose a British drinking song, for the tune-- we share a mutual tradition, & those ties are continually demonstrating to still bind us. Your patriarchal favoritism of Canada, because they, "recognize Her Majesty as head of state," demonstrates, to me, that some Brits still harbor resentment over her American child's independent streak. P.S.-- I was a bit surprised by how reverential you seemed to be towards the Crown. I would be curious to hear more of your perspective on this, if you are amenable to sharing it.
Please don't take anything I say about America to be anything more than attempts at patriotic based humour. They are not intended to do anything other than raise a smile. I have great respect for both American culture and the American people. Vive la différence as the French might say. I have done a little investigation into the relative dangers of playing rugby verses playing football (I shall drop the prefix American in future and use soccer since this is an American site and when in Rome... ). In particular the use of protective equipment in football. While both games cause regular injuries and occasional deaths neither is the most fatal sport. Horse riding is far more lethal. There is some thought that the use of protective equipment can in some ways make it more dangerous in the same way that seatbelts make people drive faster. A tackler in rugby is more conscious of hurting themselves in a tackle and thus holds back a little. Also there are regular rule changes in rugby intended on eliminating the more dangerous aspects of the game where football seems to just improve the safety equipment. The equipment itself can also cause injuries especially to knees and other unprotected parts of the body. Direct comparisons are difficult due to the difference in the games and the higher number of people around the world who play rugby. It does seem that more people die playing football than rugby though despite all the protection. The difference in the size of the players is important here as well though. Due to the stop start nature of football and the fact that most players are only on the field for half of the game (on average) football players tend to be much heavier and less fit than rugby players who have to play almost constantly running around the pitch for a total of 80 mins. This is not to call linemen fat slobs as obviously they have to train hard but they tend to need a body that can handle short explosive bursts of energy rather than the more sustained stamina needed for rugby. As to my reverence of Her Majesty it is limited to a pragmatic preference of a non political and effectively powerless head of state over a politically appointed one unpopular with around half the population. If a way of choosing an equally popular, stable and much loved head of state could be found without resorting to the privilege of birth I would likely approve. If any future monarch were to abandon the convention of not interfering in politics I'd be amongst the first in line to man the guillotines.
I'm sorry to say that, thus far, you are only getting partial support for your positions from me, but this reply will not change that. While it is certainly fair to point out that, "football," is a more logical name for soccer than our own football, that point can be overly harped-on, as well. How many crickets are involved, in the playing of Britain's national sport? It is what it is, when it comes to these names. It seems, to me, of little reward to repeatedly go to this well of criticism. A valid criticism, if I may take a tangential detour, would be the utter stupidity & meaninglessly random way that tennis used to be scored (?)-- I'm not really a fan, but I briefly glimpsed a match recently when they didn't seem to be assigning "15" units for each of one's first two points, then "10" units for subsequent points, anymore. In the past, that alone could keep me from watching it. I hope it wasn't a Brit who came up with that idiotic system. But if it had been, rest assured that I don't blame ALL of you for it. As for your comment about, "hockey," that was another Brit sport I'd not been aware of, but which sounds like something I might enjoy; I am not much of an ice-skater. Still, in all my school years of gym class, one of my two favorite games was floor hockey. This, I guess, is in-between ice-hockey & the British hockey, with, "a proper ball." I like the puck, on a smooth gymnasium floor, & think it is an improvent in control, & so for precision, in the game. Otherwise, it just seems like you are playing polo, without the horses (this is my dry idea of humor, just so there's no confusion, or unintended insult). I do agree that it is much more a test of endurance (one of my stronger assets) to be constantly running back & forth, rather than skating (which is, of course, its own skill). My other favorite, btw, was something we called, "Battle." Many refer to it as Dodgeball, but that is also the name used for the game when it is played in a circle, with one group inside, & the other out on its perimeter. I prefer the version with the center-line, & 2 opposing teams, on either side of it.
I believe the scoring system in tennis was developed by the French with love coming from l'ouef or egg. The derivation of scoring a ''duck'' in cricket also comparing the round shape of an egg to a zero. I'd have to check the origin of the scoring though as tennis itself is derived from the game of ''real'' or ''royal'' tennis played against a wall in a courtyard in Hampton Court Palace which was made popular by Henry VIII. Modern royal tennis courts match the shape of the original courtyard. In dodgeball you may have actually come up with another ball sport originating in America. I'm not aware of any British version of it for sure. That warrants a bit of investigation.
That's funny, I never thought about field hockey. I'm sure that's because, here, it's considered a sport only for girls (& young women).
The origins of field hockey may go back a long way and not be solely British. I know it is popular in India so it may be something that was brought back from the Raj. Polo is an adaptation of a game from Afghanistan originally played with a severed head, often a goats head if a human prisoner's head was not available. Most games like this were first codified in Britain during the height of the British Empire though which is why we lay claim to some sports which actually originated elsewhere. That is the best argument for calling ice hockey a Canadian game as it was first codified in Canada.
Same here really, girls play hockey and in really posh schools lacrosse and boys play football and rugby. International field hockey is played by both sexes though and in many British private schools it is played by boys often instead of the rather looked down upon soccer.
This is something you were discussing with @chris155au , which you included in your reply to me (but did not quote Chris, in order for him to get a notification of your response). Now, taken care of.
BTW, warm British beer is a misnomer. The ideal temperature for the storing and consumption of ale is 51 degrees Fahrenheit, which while not as cold as chilled lagers and other beers is hardly warm. The higher temperature is to bring out the complex flavours in ales while the less flavoursome lager is chilled to make it more palatable. There, that should upset the Germans.
Just posting a correction to my post: the actual title of the song I had in mind-- My country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee I sing...-- is just, "America " The title I listed, is of another song that I, for whatever reason, sometimes confuse with it (with the lyrics: "Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain, For purple mountain majesties Above the fruited plain..."). As long as I'm here, I might as well add that the drinking song, which tune was used for our, "Star-Spangled Banner," was titled, "To Anacreon, in heaven," and was sung to a much more upbeat tempo (& probably a more highly-marked style, i.e., with the words not all so smoothed together and evenly-registered & accented), with more gusto.
Ok, in the spirit of corrections for accuracy, I described my humour as patriotic earlier but on reflection a better description would be nationalistic as it relies on denigrating other countries in order to make my own look better whereas patriotic would just extol the virtues of mine. An unattractive position normally but hopefully more acceptable in the cause of humour. I guess it walks a fine line dependant on the spirit in which it is taken.
I'm pretty sure calling it 'soccer' will get you killed in some parts of England. And no desperate proclamations of 'it's the official name' will save you!
↑moved from another thread... quoted from Chris. You should have read it past the first line. You might have learnt something. The development of the game was interesting. Incidentally, apart from the line you quoted soccer isn't mentioned again and other than originally being played with a round ball I couldn't find any part of the game which came from soccer except the name football. Nice gotcha though, well done.
Most sports have their roots in indigenous people's war games, right? Go figure, one of my favorites is the hammer throw!
Yeah, in some ways they are a way of not fighting with your rivals. The medieval tournaments of jousting and melees comes to mind. There were deaths but not as many as in actual battles.
