Every sport has their novices and elites. You said it takes less skill to play lineman in football than to play soccer, and which I’ve rebutted you don’t understand what it takes nor will you ever. And yes there are “novice” lineman in college, much like there are “novice” soccer players in college. And no, it’s not easier to play lineman than soccer, just differences that you don’t recognize.
Size is the first determining factor in being a lineman, then quickness and technique. Lineman are the greatest UNSUNG hero of all sports.
Might be a definitional problem in that you have a very broad definition of novice but no…there are no novice soccer plays at any of the d schools on the boys side at least…not one kid coming out of ayso and not one kid that hasn’t done it for years. Yes they are a rarity but as has been established there are novice linesmen going into college. They aren’t comparable and the sport ITSELF draws a distinction between the positions. There is not a single freshman player on the line at my nephew’s top 20 school that has put even a 1/10th of the hours that my freshman kid has in soccer. No comparison. And that’s freshman year with a limited ability of those linesmen to train given the wear and tear on their bodies. It’s not even close.
Two analogies. The singer v guitarist in a band. The guitarist may or may not read music but to play on a professional level will have put years of work on the technique. The singer does not necessarily have to be trained….there are naturally gifted singers who have gone professional with no voice training whatsoever. On the whole, it is harder to learn to play the guitar than to be the singer in a professional band. Yet the singer takes most of the glory and the singer may actually have the harder job given the band rises and falls with them
A. Its in the citations. It used RIGHT THERE. B. It’s a Venn diagram. If one thing is within the other is not C. The article itself sets up the opposite. Says “by contrast”. That’s just reading comprehension. D. It’s the rule of language construction. If one is that which is not within the definition is “non” meaning not. As that which does not make sense is nonsense (which is what you’ve just laid out here)
They do. There are more. Again your position seems to continually be arguing “is not is not” the more which is put up against you.
Not an assumption, just reality that ECNL has better competition and recruitment. Just like how GA has better competition and recruitment than NPL or E64 league. Imagine a parent banging on a drum constantly saying that E64/NPL is just as good as GA.
The reality is they aren't labelled blue or fluffy. They chose a word which has a specific meaning. They could have gone with the "handling" positions....very easy...they didn't. I'm not interpreting anything here. It's just English. I'm sorry but I haven't received my eleventh edition of the Newspeak dictionary.
1. I'm not denigrating football. I'm actually a fan. I like it more than I do soccer. I think it's more suited to the American character.
Again, not my terminology and you have done nothing to rebut the wikipedia article with citations. The only thing your argument amounts to is "I know better" without any proof. I tried to meet you half way, give you the benefit of the doubt, but you wouldn't take it and instead double down on the absurd position. No 2+2 does not equal five and Oceania has not always been at war with East Asia. I can see what I can see with my own eyes, and you wishing it not to be so doesn't change that.
It's not just that. You've been presented with specific instances, theory, and the definitions of people involved in the sports itself. You've done nothing to alter it other than say you were offended by the lack of an "er" which I've granted you, and say you disagree. It's not a question of evidence v. evidence....it's that you've advanced nothing but personal belief, which is fine, but then don't be outraged. Your belief is your belief.
