Poll: Football hooligans or bikers in a street fight?
- Thread starter bermyduck
- Start date
I'd say football hooligans. Bikers are mostly tattooed fat guys wearing studded leather and long beards. And nothing more. While football hools are the real shit. I know a couple of them, cause I regularly go to matches (although I'm not a hooligan myself), and they are normally looking dudes (except for the clean shaved head), working as managers, mailmen and cafe employees who turn into savage fuckers when it comes to kicking the shite out of someone.
I mean, blimey, no showing off, just pure brutality. And they're good at it.
I mean, blimey, no showing off, just pure brutality. And they're good at it.
I'm going to have to plump with the hooligans on this one. Reading other people's posts it seems that hooligans are misundertsood, and anyone that follows football in the UK would know that they are not shy about using weapons, whether it be knives, pipes, or bricks.
In a straight fist fight, it'd be the hooligans every time.
With weapons, it'd be a close call.
If however, all bikers were to fight all hooligans, surely the hooligans would win on sheer volume.
EDIT : Special shout out to the Jack Army - the loyal fans of Swansea City F.C, and also to ADO Den Haag, Swansea's sister club in the Netherlands, also a bunch of ultra-loyal nutjobs. Many of them have gone as far as to get Swansea tattoos.
El Salvador and Honduras had a six day military conflict in 1969 dubbed the "Football War", which arose when football hooliganism at three elimination matches for the 1970 FIFA World Cup escalated the already tense diplomatic relations between the two nations. Fights broke out during the first match in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. The situation worsened though at the second match in San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador. Fans from Honduras were attacked and Salvadorans were killed or injured. On 27 June 1969, Honduras broke diplomatic relations with El Salvador, and on 14 July 1969 a six day war broke out.
Hooligans, eh?
In a straight fist fight, it'd be the hooligans every time.
With weapons, it'd be a close call.
If however, all bikers were to fight all hooligans, surely the hooligans would win on sheer volume.
EDIT : Special shout out to the Jack Army - the loyal fans of Swansea City F.C, and also to ADO Den Haag, Swansea's sister club in the Netherlands, also a bunch of ultra-loyal nutjobs. Many of them have gone as far as to get Swansea tattoos.
El Salvador and Honduras had a six day military conflict in 1969 dubbed the "Football War", which arose when football hooliganism at three elimination matches for the 1970 FIFA World Cup escalated the already tense diplomatic relations between the two nations. Fights broke out during the first match in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. The situation worsened though at the second match in San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador. Fans from Honduras were attacked and Salvadorans were killed or injured. On 27 June 1969, Honduras broke diplomatic relations with El Salvador, and on 14 July 1969 a six day war broke out.
Hooligans, eh?
I've been to West Ham vs Roma (the match itself was a picnic, though I've heard some wicked stuff about their hooligans), Crystal Palace , Zenit St. Petersburg (crazy lot!) and a couple of Polish teams. Eastern Europe is still pretty much raw and unruly as opposed to the UK, where the problem has been largely tackled with success.
i'm thinking that it would be somehting like a small group of aarmed to the teeth bikers against a horde of angry chavvies armed with whatever they picked up en route from the stadium, the bikers would fight better but be outnumbered, but might not have to fight all the chavs at the same time, if they can take out a few at a time then its sorted
I think a few people who have commented on this thread are hilariously mistaken and don't know what a football hooligan is.
This is about Bikers vs Football HOOLIGANS not Bikers vs Football PLAYERS.
You're right that Football players are pussies, would just spectate, not throw any punches and would not carry any weapons, but this isn't what the tread is about.
The idea that someone would make a vs thread about Bikers vs football players is hilarious, obviously the over-paid drama queens wouldn't stand a chance.
With the very slight, possible exception of Vinnie Jones, Neil Ruddock, Edmundo and maybe a few others, most footballers would get annihilated by a biker gang. It's such a funny concept that I'd actually pay to see it.
Personally I think the Hooligans [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=42plidAWbhM&feature=related] would win, because even if you discount their numerical superiority I think they've got more aggression.
Bikers are bikers because of their love for the open road, motorbikes and the outlaw lifestyle, but hooligans don't have any of those positive things. Hooligans are what they are because of their love for fighting. They're at war 24/7, are armed and are prepared to die for their firm.
Also because of their nomadic lifestyle, I think bikers lack the territorial aggression and incentive to die for the territory that hooligans have.
I'm not saying bikers aren't prepared to fight, kill or be killed, they just don't solely exist to fight, kill or be killed. Bikers could always ride out of town and leave an area if a conflict was going sour, a firm would die before being forced out of their town.
EDIT: popers also raises a very good point. In a fight between people with long hair and beards vs. clean shaven, short haired people, a big advantage goes to the people without 'convenient melee handles' attached to their face and heads.
This is about Bikers vs Football HOOLIGANS not Bikers vs Football PLAYERS.
You're right that Football players are pussies, would just spectate, not throw any punches and would not carry any weapons, but this isn't what the tread is about.
The idea that someone would make a vs thread about Bikers vs football players is hilarious, obviously the over-paid drama queens wouldn't stand a chance.
With the very slight, possible exception of Vinnie Jones, Neil Ruddock, Edmundo and maybe a few others, most footballers would get annihilated by a biker gang. It's such a funny concept that I'd actually pay to see it.
Personally I think the Hooligans [http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=42plidAWbhM&feature=related] would win, because even if you discount their numerical superiority I think they've got more aggression.
Bikers are bikers because of their love for the open road, motorbikes and the outlaw lifestyle, but hooligans don't have any of those positive things. Hooligans are what they are because of their love for fighting. They're at war 24/7, are armed and are prepared to die for their firm.
Also because of their nomadic lifestyle, I think bikers lack the territorial aggression and incentive to die for the territory that hooligans have.
I'm not saying bikers aren't prepared to fight, kill or be killed, they just don't solely exist to fight, kill or be killed. Bikers could always ride out of town and leave an area if a conflict was going sour, a firm would die before being forced out of their town.
EDIT: popers also raises a very good point. In a fight between people with long hair and beards vs. clean shaven, short haired people, a big advantage goes to the people without 'convenient melee handles' attached to their face and heads.
For the Hooligans, you would need to motivate them into a frenzy. Like for example, say that the biker gang hated the Manchester United Football team, then maybe you would have an interesting fight.
Thanks for the responses people! It seems pretty evenly split. When i was envisioning it i was thinking of proper hard 'Green Street Hooligans' types, against the beefy Hell's Angels / Mongols type of biker gang, relatively equal sized groups and without weapons.
I think it would be close, the bikers would probably be on average bigger, stronger, etc, but the hooligans seem to be able to absorb quite a bit of punishment, fight with more passion and aggression and use their environment to their advantage.
Once again, if i was pressed to choose i'd pick the hooligans purely because of the passion to fight and drunken rage.
Its stupid to claim over and over that the bikers would easily win cuz they have weapons! OF COURSE THEY'D WIN, so would a 12 yr old girl if she had a gun!!! Think of it more as a question of toughness than of equipment...
I think it would be close, the bikers would probably be on average bigger, stronger, etc, but the hooligans seem to be able to absorb quite a bit of punishment, fight with more passion and aggression and use their environment to their advantage.
Once again, if i was pressed to choose i'd pick the hooligans purely because of the passion to fight and drunken rage.
Its stupid to claim over and over that the bikers would easily win cuz they have weapons! OF COURSE THEY'D WIN, so would a 12 yr old girl if she had a gun!!! Think of it more as a question of toughness than of equipment...
That's true, it is stupid, and it's not like hooligans don't have weapons either. When you think of Eastern European or South American firms, then they're more like militias, with their organization and willingness to use firearms.bermyduck said:
This is especially true of the firms from the Balkans, of which some members fought as soldiers in the wars and have taken their training, weapon use and organization with them, into their respective firms.
I'd have to say tie. Bikers can be fairly brutal, but then again there have been a few stories (don't quote me on these, word of mouth, grapevine, etc) of soccer games where one group of fains has jumped out onto the field to kill either a player from the opposing team or a ref who made a call they didn't like. I've only heard of like two of these ever happening, but there are the occasional soccer riots. Though biker gangs are somewhat more consistently violent.