Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> Greg Procter
ihug.co.nz> writes:
> >> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>> Greg Procter
ihug.co.nz> writes:
>>>>>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:21:33 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>>>>
earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:23:42 +1200, Greg Procter
>>>>>>
ihug.co.nz>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why would you use "baseball"? It's a game only yanks or yank
>>>>>>>wannabes play seriously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is "yank wannabes" a type of Japanese sushi?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wannabe is that green stuff that's so hot, isn't it? The stuff
>>>>>>that the Japanese eat at the baseball games they take so
>>>>>>seriously?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't forget all the major leaguers who used to get in trouble
>>>>> with their leagues for playing baseball in Mexico, wehre it is
>>>>> popular.. Baseball is also popular in Cuba, as well as many
>>>>> other Caribbean islands. Not to mention, of course, that teh
>>>>> Candians have a major league baseball team
>>>>
>>>> Yeah yeah, you're still way under the 10%% thresh-hold for any
>>>> sport to be recognised world-wide.
>>>
>>> 10%% of what? The IOC has a set of criteria (a minimum number of
>>> countries with national federations on a minimum number of
>>> continents) for a sport to be included in the olympics. Baseball
>>> meets it. Cricket and rugby (I believe) don't.
>>
>> Sure Pacific:
>> Indonesia - a non-US country that can field a team.
>
>> New Zealand - of 4 million people you'd find a thousand or so who
>> play baseball at any level, enough to field a passable tean, 400,000
>> who play cricket at any level.
>
>> Rugby - I'd guess 50%% of males here have played rugby and probably
>> almost as many have played cricket.
>
> So it sounds about like the US in reverse.
I'm not sure what to make of that?
> Of course, there are 300
> million of us and only about 4 million of you.
>
>> Sure lot's of countries have a few people who follow the yank
>> example but cricket has a smaller number of countries where the
>> national sport is cricket.
>
> A very small number, although a couple of them are quite populous.
> Just as baseball has a smaller number of countries where the national
> sport (or at least one of the primary sports) is baseball.
>
> Cricket is popular in Australia, England/Wales, South Africa, India,
> New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, and "the West
> Indies". Countries dotted here and there throughout the world, but
> not exactly "global". (What do these countries have in common?)
Generally past British colonial influence,
> The
> next tier down includes the US, and knowing the level of interest in
> cricket in the US, I certainly wouldn't include it if you wouldn't
> include New Zealand for baseball.
Sure, that's my point - baseball is basically unrecognised in NZ, even
if the NZ Baseball Society has a nice website.
>
> For baseball, you have a similar world-wide dotting, with the US,
> Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, Taiwan (at least at
> the youth level), and various Caribbean countries, especially Cuba and
> the Dominican Republic. I don't know the level in the PRC.
>
> So what's the "10%% threshold"? 10%% of the population (male
> population?) of a small number of countries on more than one
> continent?
I meant player numbers in proportion to the total population, or the
point where a sport becomes visible in a country.
I know for example that NZ has a fair number of horse polo players and I
imagine the US does also - who cares?
Baseball is in that category here.
Regards,
Greg.P.
