03teamdisco said:
Hi All, I am writing a paper for university on how the world views American cyclist/athletes and their need to be #1. Thanks Brian
Interesting question : for an Irish perspective, the US has been responsible for the flourishing of a lot of Irish athletic talent.
Primarily universities like Villanova provided training for Irish athletes who would never have reached the levels that they did, had they stayed here for example.
Runners like Ronnie Delaney, Eamonn Coughlan, John Treacy have all said that they owe their subsequent success to their time on the University Track and Field circuit.
They say that the level of competition in the USA - and the level of discipline to be able to compete at that level - made they what they were, as athletes.
The old saying "the annual US T&F championships were tougher than the Olympics" bears this out.
Having said that the obsession with winning - and winning by any means - seems to be more prevalent in the USA.
Whether this desire is attributable to money/endorsements/fame is an interesting question.
A brief history of how professional sport derived might help.
Up until the Edwardian era in Britain, sport had been viewed (and was regulated) on a purely amateur basis.
"Muscular Christianity" "Healthy Mind leads to a Healthy Body" were the catchphrases of that era.
Young men (women were no encouraged to play sport) were encouraged to play sport "for the love of the game". This was known as the Corinthian Spirit.
Until 1895, the Rugby Union had overseen the spread of the game of rugby throughout Britain.
However, because rugby was played on saturday - and most people worked a full day on saturday - rugby players had to take unpaid leave to play for their team.
Because the players were "out of pocket" - they sought compensation from the Rugby Union.
When the Rugby Union refused to compensate them - a group of players and administrators set up the Rugby League (professional rugby).
Thus you had a schism in the sport - a schism so devicsive that it meant that if a rugby union player, decided to leave and play rugby league, that he was hit with a lifetime ban from playying rugby union.
This conflict spread to games like soccer, cricket (where the amateurs were referred to as "gentlemen" and professionals were known as "players") etc.
With spread of sport throughout the world, games like Baseball became "infected" with professionalism and attitudes about winning became fair game.
The "say it ain't so, Joe" incident in the 1919 when the world series was thrown is an example.
But back to the question - how is US athletes viewed?
I would say that the level of investment in US sports (sports facilities) is the envy of a lot of other nations.
I would also say that the level of competition in the US in international sports (Tennis, Golf, Swimming, T&F) makes the US system more competitive and attracts foreign competitors to "test their mettle" in the US.
But like PP and Tonto say, 0-0 draw in soccer can be one of the best results especially when two greats sides play each other.
I thought Germany V Italy in the 2006 world cup semi-final was a beautful game to watch, for example.
Italy won - but the game, two opposing teams with two different systems would interest any follower of the game.
I'm not sure that US fans would share the same sentiments.