World champions??

[spiker]

The United States does not recognize the Cricket World Cup Champions as World Champions because cricket hasn't sufficiently penetrated the interest of the world.

 

[DKLion3s]

The United States does not recognize the Cricket World Cup Champions as World Champions because cricket hasn't sufficiently penetrated the interest of the world.

So you basically saying it's a cycle. It is what it is. And I would have to say Cricket has penetrated more than the MLB. True or false?

 

[spiker]

So you basically saying it's a cycle. It is what it is. And I would have to say Cricket has penetrated more than the MLB. True or false?

4 of the 5 most populated countries in the world did not send teams to the Cricket World Cup in 2007. The Chinese team didn't even try to qualify, probably because they were so new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Cricket_World_Cup

Only 3 of the 5 most populated countries did not send a team to the World Baseball Classic in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_World_Baseball_Classic

What do you think? I think the rest of the world should not recognize the Cricket World Cup Champion as the World Champion.

I also think racism has prevented the Chinese from picking up cricket before this past decade.

 

[DKLion3s]

4 of the 5 most populated countries in the world did not send teams to the Cricket World Cup in 2007. The Chinese team didn't even try to qualify, probably because they were so new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Cricket_World_Cup

Only 3 of the 5 most populated countries did not send a team to the World Baseball Classic in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_World_Baseball_Classic

What do you think? I think the rest of the world should not recognize the Cricket World Cup Champion as the World Champion.

I also think racism has prevented the Chinese from picking up cricket before this past decade.

So, now you're dodging questions? I have already stated my personal stance in my response to you here:-

So it is very obvious that if the world's population would accept the fact that if a team/individual is the best at something then the title World Champion applies, it would only stand that there would be no debating the matter, period. And this debate in particular would have never taken place, but this situation is only present in an ideal world. (by the way, this is my position personally)

It applies in all cases, no exceptions!

 

[Ardius]

Pupik's post made me ask myself a good question: Why does it seem the rest of the world gets upset when an American team considers itself a "World Champion" but Americans could care less if any league outside of the US considers itself a "World Champion"?

Quite simply because US sports get far more coverage outside of the US than non-US sports get in the US.

Personally I would go with the definition that a team or persons can be considered World Champions if the competition they are in is open to any nationality. However, I do feel its a little hollow to claim such a title when there aren't many international clubs/teams/whatever competing. However, there are championships out there that are open to any nationality but are purely domestic series and you wouldn't really consider winners as "world champions"..e.g.British F3. So quite a complex term really.

 

[Pupik]

There is a little bit of silliness and aggrandizing when calling anything a World Champion. It just pertains to those open to a specific competition (a series of them); there might be a driver from Indonesia who could blow the doors off a Sebastian Vettel or Sebastian Loeb or Jimmy Johnson, but they are not in the same series of events. Or someone from Russia with the fitness, mental acuity, and natural ability to be a Super Bowl-winning quarterback...but we just haven't "found" them yet. So there has to be a cut-off somewhere.

But on the other hand (as has been pointed out), we're not big on begrudging anyone else's World Championships...I mean, so as long as a competition in the name of sport doesn't specifically include a boycott of a country's competitors (rather than a nation's rulers forbidding international competition), then it is fully open to calling itself World Championship. Sport should transcend politics whenever possible.

 

[Dennisch]

Since this has become a somewhat relevant discussion again thanks to a low bridge, and @Pupik reminding me this thread exists we can go on!

I have a solution for the NFL world champions dilemma.

In football, as in kicking a ball, there is the world championship for clubs. This can also be played for American Football. Take the Superbowl winner, take the Eurobowl winner, throw them onto a pitch surrounded by stands and voila. Winner is World Champion.

 

[daan]

World Champions has nothing to do with countries.

I was going to respond to this whole post, but when I read that sentence, I thought, "What's the point?"

I give up. Have your delusions.

 

[Dennisch]

I was going to respond to this whole post, but when I read that sentence, I thought, "What's the point?"

I give up. Have your delusions.

The point is, that having a multiculti sports competition warrants the winner of said competition the Status of World Champion.

Thus every single football league champion in Europe becomes World Champion.

I think.

 

[Omnis]

I was going to respond to this whole post, but when I read that sentence, I thought, "What's the point?"

I give up. Have your delusions.

Have my delusions? Go raise up a "world" league to compete with the NFL and the NBA. The closest you're going to get to satisfy your silly conditions is in Baseball with the NPB and the Latin American leagues. But, guess what? They're feeder leagues for the Majors. You play championship-caliber baseball there, and maybe you can compete in the MLB.

Sorry to burst your nationalistic bubble. Super Bowl Champions, NBA Champions, and World Series Champions are all de facto world champs. Inter-"national" champions? No, but that isn't even a thing since there is no international play. Get over it.

 

[daan]

de facto world champs.

And I think you'll find that the bit you put in italics (and I've bolded as italics don't show up in quotes) is our point. Would be world champions if there was an actual championship for it, but aren't world champions because there isn't an actual world championship for it.

 

[Omnis]

Your point doesn't make any sense. If there is no question that the champions are the best of a league for which no other competition exists in the world, then by god they're world champions.

Put aside the silly nationalism. The world is made up of people, not nations.